[ Page 1193 ]

CONTENTS

Night sitting Routine proceedings Department of Housing Act (Bill 49). Committee stage. On section 7.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1193

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 1194

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1194

Mrs. Jordan — 1194

Mr. Smith — 1195

Mr. Phillips — 1195

Mr. McGeer — 1195

Mr. Williams — 1198

Mr. Phillips — 1201

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 1201

Mr. McGeer — 1202

Mrs. Jordan — 1203

Hon. Mr. King — 1207

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 1208

Mr. Smith — 1209

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the day.

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

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 49, Mr. Speaker.

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING ACT
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 49; Mr. Dent in the chair.

On section 7.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are considering the amendment standing in the name of the Hon. Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith).

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, this amendment is to bring Part XII, Division 4, of the Municipal Act into effect. I'll read it, perhaps, to refresh people's memory:

"Notwithstanding any of the purposes and functions contained in section 4 and of the powers contained in sections 5 and 6 no land, improvements, or personal property can be acquired for the purposes of this Act except under the provisions of Part XII, Division 4, of the Municipal Act. "

It extends for many sections, Mr. Speaker, starting on page 164 of the revised statutes. Basically it simply provides that for land which may be expropriated — or it may be entered upon, taken, or used by and not necessarily just expropriation — there shall be due compensation. If there's any doubt, there are procedures here for appointing arbitrators or, indeed, a single arbitrator or judge.

In other words, it's a fairly modest proposal to make sure that someone who has his land expropriated in certain circumstances, or entered upon, taken, or used by the municipality, will get a fair shake. That's the basic provision of section 12.

The thing that is very curious is that the Minister, on the advice of legal counsel outside the House, doesn't want to put that into effect here in the Department of Housing Act.

I have heard what he said. Essentially what he said was that for reasons given to him outside the House this particular amendment is unacceptable to him — not because of any virtue or lack of virtue of the amendment, but because he's been advised against it by legal counsel outside the House.

He informed us of this advice of this legal counsel outside the House after he had the unfortunate experience of getting legal counsel inside the House from his neighbour to his left, the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk). Apparently feeling that that man had not given adequate explanation, he then referred to these nameless people outside the House.

Mr. Chairman, if Part XII Division 4, of the Municipal Act, which is simply to give a fair shake to a member of the public who might feel that he's aggrieved by a municipality entering or taking or coming onto his property or expropriating…. If that type of fair play provision is unacceptable in the Department of Housing Act, I wonder how long it's going to remain in the Municipal Act. Surely the principles are identical.

In other words, if in the Municipal Act you need such a provision and this Legislature in its wisdom has seen fit to put such a provision in to protect the ordinary citizen against the municipalities, why in this section and in this Act and in this bill can we not have the same protection, the same assistance, provided to the individual that the person in a municipality can receive?

We know full well that most of the housing provisions of the department of housing will undoubtedly be within the municipalities. Most of our population lives there; that's where the most acute housing problems occur. And that's where the housing problems of the last year have become much more acute, thanks to the inaction of this government. This amendment would give the same protection to the individual, when dealing with the department of housing, that he now has when dealing with his municipality. Under the circumstances it would appear to me a modest and appropriate amendment.

It has been rejected; but since that time the Minister's had a chance to consult with those outside experts that we know nothing of…we don't know their names, we don't know who they are. He may even have had a chance to consult with his neighbour, the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk). We trust that in the two-and-a-half hours that have passed since this was last discussed he will have changed his mind and seen the virtue of the amendment.

It's not an amendment which seriously affects the bill in terms of changing his powers. It's strictly an amendment to give anyone who feels aggrieved a fair shake. It establishes procedures; it talks about naming the three people who are to be arbitrators of any dispute. It simply sets up the machinery so that if a man is aggrieved he thinks he can at least get some semblance of justice from the machinery under Part

[ Page 1194 ]

XII.

So I trust that the Minister, who apparently did not understand the limitations of the amendment previous to the dinner hour, has had a chance to re-examine it. Because it appears to me that if this makes sense in the Municipal Act, it certainly makes sense in the Department of Housing Act.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister Without Portfolio): Mr. Chairman, the Members of the opposition seem to be missing the point. They are trying to prescribe the cure for which there is no disease. It's very clear that where rights to expropriation are intended, they shall be spelled out specifically and, I would expect, by using the word "expropriation."

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): What remedies are there against it?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: When we seek further powers of expropriation, we will allow for a process of arbitration as we find elsewhere in legislation. But the inclusion of this amendment would mislead the public of this province to think that we have included a power that does not exist in this Act.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the Minister hasn't understood. The fact is that if he's right….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Would the Hon. Member wait until I recognize somebody, please?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There were two people that stood, and I wanted….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I would just quickly like to add, Mr. Chairman, that if the Minister is right, and therefore this amendment is inapplicable because his interpretation of the bill is correct, then obviously it can do him no harm whatsoever. If it applies to something which he thinks doesn't exist, it can do no damage at all to his bill. But the problem that we face with this Minister is his having put forward an argument which is obviously fallacious, because it cannot harm your bill if you're correct in your assessment.

But if we're right, it could give some protection to the individual. And let's face it, it's not you or I, Mr. Minister, or you, Mr. Chairman, who determines these factors. There are judges who do this. And if you are right, it can do no harm at all to your bill. If we're right, it protects the individual.

I fail to see why you're so adamant in opposing it. The only reason that you've given is that it might mislead the public into thinking. Well, that's no problem. After all, as I said, it's judges who will determine the law, not the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce and not anybody on this side of the House.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I'll be brief, Mr. Chairman. I think that the Minister got up and said we're missing the point, we're missing the point. I think he is missing the point. He doesn't understand that what is happening right here, right now, is what is going to be one of the problems and one of the questions in the public's mind.

We've had some considerable debate from lawyers on both sides of the House — all excellent lawyers, I'm sure. But they can't agree, you can't agree, your advisers can't agree. I ask, through you, Mr. Chairman, what is to be the plight of the public? All we're asking in this amendment is simple protection for fair play that the public knows about and that the public understands.

Surely the Minister can appreciate that if we have this confusion among himself, as a most knowledgeable Minister in his department, and the Hon. Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce and the Hon. Members from the Liberal Party, one shouldn't have to say more. It must be evident. For the Minister to keep protesting on some technicality that isn't there just isn't realistic thinking in terms of dealing with the public of British Columbia who are not lawyers.

If the Minister and the lawyers in this House cannot agree as to whether this amendment is necessary or not on technicalities, what is to happen to the public — Mr., Mrs. or Ms. John Public — when they get into a situation where they wish to appeal for a fair decision, and everyone says there's nothing in the Act; you'll have to go and get a lawyer? Is he or she or Ms. to hire two lawyers or is, in fact, the repetition of this evening's debate to go on between the lawyers in or out of court at the expense of the public?

Surely that sort of a situation is simple enough and is enough of a concern to the public to cause the Minister to realize and to accept the fact that such an amendment like this, that the public can understand, that does assure fair play, that won't leave the public in the position where they will have to hire lawyers for something that should be rightfully theirs in the first place, is necessary and just. I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister and his colleagues in the cabinet would wish to see this type of clean, clear-cut, understandable fair play.

There's nothing to be lost by the government. I'm sure the Attorney General, who's listening most intently, would agree that nobody has anything to lose except possibly a few lawyers out there in fees, and I'm sure they would be glad to give up this sort of case. They don't want to take up their time with

[ Page 1195 ]

this. They want to see the public have their rightful avenues of appeal.

Through you, Mr. Chairman, I would again ask the Minister: would you not accept this simple amendment? If you won't, then we would want a much more legitimate or logical reason than what we're getting now. Would you consider this?

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Chairman, I've listened with interest to the debate this afternoon when it started and as it progressed through to the supper-hour adjournment, and now I've listened also intently to the remarks of the Minister, however terse they were, when he replied to the hon. leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson).

What I have heard does not in any way convince me that the opposition should in any way depart from the amendment that I have proposed. He suggested that obviously we're looking for a cure for which there is no disease, because there's no power against expropriation. Well, for the benefit of the Minister and the Attorney General, as a lay person in law, let me read to you the powers that you have in the Act that we're so concerned with in sections 4, 5 and 6. I'm not going to quote verbatim the extent of everything that's included in those four sections, but to refresh your memory, Mr. Minister, let me read to you section 4:

"Purposes and functions of the department.

"The purposes and functions of the department are, under the direction of the minister, to supervise, acquire, develop, maintain, improve, and dispose of housing in the Province, or to perform such other duties and functions as may be assigned to it by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council." Acquire, develop, supervise, maintain, dispose of or perform such other duties as may be assigned by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

Then again in section 5 (4): "The minister may, in such manner, and subject to such terms and conditions, as he may prescribe, advance from the fund moneys" to improve housing, et cetera, et cetera.

And in section 6: "…approve any corporation and authorize it to exercise such powers as the minister considers necessary."

I suggest to the Minister one more time that if he wishes to be fair and honest with the people in the Province of British Columbia he will accept the amendment, one which is not based on some theory or some point of law which has not been clearly thought out and on the legislative books of this province for some time. It is a provision for redress for those poor people who may feel they are aggrieved in any action that the Minister takes, and a position that they do not have to accept an arbitrary decision by the Minister or any of his staff and that there is one further step that they can take, and it's outlined very clearly and very concisely under this particular section of the Municipal Act.

For that reason, I cannot accept the limp excuses that we have heard this afternoon and this evening from the Minister as the reasons why he will not accept this amendment. It's unacceptable. It's unacceptable to the opposition, Mr. Minister, because there is no reason why you could not submit those particular all-embracing sections of the Act if someone felt they were aggrieved — and that's the only time you would become involved in it — if someone felt they were aggrieved to the provisions in the Municipal Act which prescribe and lay down a method of redress and a method of someone who is not part and parcel of the development housing Act of British Columbia to make a decision — a panel of three people.

There's nothing more fair than that, and if this government is as concerned as they say they are, surely they will accept this amendment.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Chairman, I certainly think that the Minister, although he's new in his portfolio, owes the House an explanation. All he's done is make glib excuses. Before this amendment passes, or is defeated, or whatever's going to happen to it, the Minister should get up and tell us why he can't accept it. So far he hasn't explained anything.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, he did.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, he hasn't! He's explained nothing. He sounds like the rest of you cabinet Ministers. You've been in office too long, you get up and make glib excuses, you sort of flick your hand like knocking a fly off — you know? That's what you think we are over here — flies. You can't flick us off on this one! You know that? We want some reasonable explanation from the Minister, and if he can't handle his portfolio, if he can't explain the reasons why he shouldn't accept this amendment, he should resign.

Now, let's have some explanation from the Minister, Mr. Chairman, I ask him, I implore him to get up and tell us why he can't accept this amendment.

After all, we're just here trying to protect the poor taxpayers of British Columbia, trying to protect the rights of the individual. That's what we're here for, Mr. Chairman. Surely the Minister can give us a little explanation.

Interjection.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Well,

[ Page 1196 ]

Mr. Chairman, I think it's unfortunate that the Premier imputes his own motives to the Member for South Peace River, because the last thing that would be on the minds of any of the Members of the opposition would be what the Premier suggests.

AN HON. MEMBER: He should apologize.

MR. McGEER: Well, I think the Premier should apologize, Mr. Chairman. When we're up here, as we are, trying to help out the government, give them good advice — and they need it — I think that the least that the Premier could be is just a little bit charitable and understanding.

We're trying to help the Minister out. Mr. Chairman, what this says, and if the Minister doesn't understand the bill that's been placed in his hands…. We're not in a position to know who wrote the bill. We know that the Minister is doing his best to present it, but it does say, Mr. Chairman, under section 6 (b) that "the minister may…approve any corporation and authorize it to exercise such powers as the minister considers necessary." Well, what kind of powers does the Minister consider necessary? Who's this unnamed person whom we heard about before we had our dinner break, who is apparently manipulating the Minister like a puppet on a string?

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Well, it was the Minister who admitted that; it wasn't us who made the accusation. All we asked for was an explanation, and when the Minister was incapable of giving it, he told us that someone who he consulted outside had told him what to say. We don't know what Machiavellian schemes that particular individual might have. All that we know is that he's manipulating the Minister and the Minister doesn't understand that. What we're going to be left with….

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: Could we have some order, please, Mr. Chairman? (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, we're having a difficult enough time making this point to the Minister, without this levity on both sides of the House. What we're discussing here is likely to be argued by some lawyer in a court.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ooh!

MR. McGEER: I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, if lay Members can get up and read the kind of things into it that some of the Members have, you can imagine what a lawyer can read into this, particularly one who operates for the Minister. That's why it's essential when legislation comes before this House that it be explicit, particularly in respect of limiting Ministers of the Crown from taking the land of helpless citizens of British Columbia.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. McGEER: I hear the groans and the denials and so on, but the Minister has stated in interviews what his intention is. It's to capture the land of private citizens of British Columbia and turn it into leases. He doesn't like the idea of people owning. He wants the government to own and people to lease. That happens to be something which we disagree with, and we suspect that 99 per cent of the people of British Columbia disagree with it.

Mr. Chairman, it's all very well for this government with its apparent majority in this House, and arrogance to match….

AN HON. MEMBER: Yah! Right!

AN HON. MEMBER: There's the arrogance.

MR. McGEER: The people of British Columbia, make no mistake about it, Mr. Minister, are against the New Democratic Party government. Sixty-two per cent of the people in this province said "no" to you in the last provincial election. Remember that — 62 per cent said "no" to you.

We're not the ones who are bringing in dictatorial legislation to take people's property away. You are the ones who are doing it.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Only 84 — only 84.

We're not bringing in the legislation. You're bringing in the legislation and the people of British Columbia overwhelmingly said "no" to you and your socialist programme. Sixty-two per cent said "no" to you and that's plenty to be humble about if you don't have other reasons for being humble.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. McGEER: But to come along with this kind of open-ended legislation where the Minister can undertake such powers as he thinks fit, and then to stand up and say, "Why, we'd never expropriate anybody's property," you put it in black and white that you're going to do it.

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't understand at all.

[ Page 1197 ]

MR. McGEER: Then I don't know whether he should be pitied or censured for the statements that he's made. That's pitied if he really doesn't understand what he's brought before the House; censured if he does understand.

But whether it's pity or censure we should cast upon that Minister, it's our job as Members of the opposition to defend the innocent public at large that has rejected this government by 62 per cent. They do not want their land expropriated, to put it in very simple language, and they do not want the Minister given such powers as he thinks advisable to do so. It's all very well to say that that man can have his day in court, but when the best he has to rely upon when he has that day in court is this kind of language which very clearly gives the advantage to the Crown, his day is going to be a short one, Now, what this legislation states is plain for everyone to read and, I would hope, understand. Look at it in 6 (b) "…approve any corporation and authorize it…" — listen to this, Mr. Chairman — "…to exercise such powers as the minister considers necessary." Now Mr. Chairman, can you describe to me what sort of powers he thinks are necessary? I read the interview in The Vancouver Sun — I could read it again, the whole 1,600 words — from one of the friends of the government.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: Oh, and they have some friends. Yes, even in The Vancouver Sun — more friends than we have, Mr. Chairman, I can tell you that. But what did that interviewer say? He quoted the Minister as saying it was their intention to take over lands in private ownership at this time and convert it into leased lands.

AN HON. MEMBER: Poppycock!

MR. McGEER: That's what their intention is: to take away people's land. And it's our job…. I've been handed this — I'll read it again because I'm not sure the Minister remembers what he said.

"While we talk about the myth of pride of ownership which is accepted without question in North America, I think a lot of the value in having equity in a home and land is merely because you're not subject to the whim of a change in landlords."

I could tell you that there were some people who were unhappy about a change of landlords when that Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) started to buy up property in Vancouver.

AN HON. MEMBER: What he did — rip-off.

MR. McGEER: Sure, they had to put up funds from their own pockets to pay grannies' salaries or they were out on the street. (Laughter.) Oh, that's a fact. That's exactly what happened; they were put out on the street. And that's what can happen when you have a change of landlord.

Ask those people on whatever avenue it was in Vancouver what it's like to have a change of landlord, and it doesn't matter whether it's the government or whether it's the Minister of condominiums. The point is the only protection a man has is to have his own, to own his own and not to have it expropriated by any. There are 28 different ways — or there used to be 28 different ways. I think by the time the government gets through with a couple of sessions like this there may be 100 ways they can take your property away. But the fact remains this is going to be one of them.

All that the Members of the opposition are doing is to lay forward in simple black and white language what the limitations shall be on that acquisitive Minister using the tax money of the public presumably to buy up private land, whether or not the people want to sell.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: Illustrate? "Illustrate," he said. Well all right, I will illustrate. Now listen….

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: Let me read section 6 (b): "approve any corporation and authorize it to exercise such powers as the minister considers necessary."

AN HON. MEMBER: The unprepared professor.

MR. McGEER: Well, the Minister might consider it as necessary to take over a group of houses on Pine Street as the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources once did.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: That becomes the necessary power — take over my property or your property. That's what 6 (b) says — he would consider it necessary to do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: There are extra factors, what would you do?

MR. McGEER: Then where would we be…

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): You're making the good-deeder look good.

[ Page 1198 ]

MR. McGEER: …putting granny on the payroll and then being out on the street? (Laughter.) I'd like to think that the provincial government was prepared to play by the same rules as municipal governments are required to do. What's wrong with that?

MRS, D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): Plenty.

MR. McGEER: Why shouldn't the provincial government be prepared to play by the same rules as the municipal government? Is that unfair? Are the municipal governments given too little in the way of powers? Are they not interested in housing? I see no reason why the provincial government shouldn't consider what it requires of a municipal government good enough for it to require for itself.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): The parts are together, even though we got the Socreds. Keep it up. (Laughter.)

MR. McGEER: You know, Mr. Chairman….

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: You know what I'm going to do, Mr. Chairman, despite the Premier and the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Read the note.

MR. McGEER: I'm not going to read it. (Laughter.) That'll teach them when they don't keep order, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: But there is time yet this evening. We want to hear from the Minister of housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson); we want to hear what kind of powers he considers it necessary for himself to have under section 6 (b). Awesome powers?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Awesome, sweeping, vague and socialist heavy hand.

MR. McGEER: That's only what you've thought of so far; that's not limited by what's written in this particular section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Member if he would….

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's only called one person to order, for goodness' sake.

MR. McGEER: I wasn't saying anything. (Laughter.) I'm going to say something now, Mr. Chairman, if you will let me.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Member if he would mind keeping his remarks strictly relevant to the amendment.

MR. McGEER: I would be satisfied, Mr. Chairman, if there was something in this bill written that the Minister would be limited to awesome, overwhelming and all the other powers that the Premier described, but there's nothing — no indication in section 6 (b) that they would be limited even to this extent. That's why we need some statements from the Minister of housing and why we need to know what limitations are going to be placed on a corporation set up under his direction — not just by statements in this House but by statements that are written into legislation that will protect individual homeowners in this province from expropriation by the provincial government and conversion of their private property into leased land under the charge of the Crown.

MR. LA. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Chairman, on the amendment: I must first say, Mr. Chairman, I believe I owe an apology to the Hon. Minister Without Portfolio (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) who will soon become the Minister of housing. I called him "incompetent" several days ago and I want to apologize, not because he's competent, only because his incompetence is due to the advice that he gets from the Member who sits on his left.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: This is no place for professional disputes.

MR. WILLIAMS: No professional dispute; complete agreement. I remember a couple of years ago the Hon. Attorney General, when he was honest and sat on this side of the House, referred to the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce as "useless as a rubber duck" (Laughter) and I disagreed with the Hon. Attorney General at that time.

AN HON. MEMBER: The bathtub duck.

MR. WILLIAMS: I disagreed with the Minister at that time. 1 just didn't recognize that he was being clairvoyant, that's all, because the appellation certainly fits. (Laughter.)

Mr. Chairman, we're dealing with a great deal of levity tonight on a subject which is of very great

[ Page 1199 ]

concern and I'm surprised at the response, the chitter-chatter, that I've heard from the backbenchers of the NDP during the course of this debate.

How many of the NDP, I wonder, are prepared to have the government of this province take the lands of a private citizen without fair competition. Put up your hands.

Interjections.

MR. WILLIAMS: I am just asking, Mr. Chairman, how many of the backbenchers are prepared to have the government of this province take the lands of a private citizen without fair compensation. Any sign? No hands.

AN HON. MEMBER: They won't admit it.

MR. WILLIAMS: They won't admit it. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, one of the greatest speeches made by an NDP Member in this House was by the then Member, Mr. Justice Berger, when he was a Member of this House, speaking about the unfortunate, tragic situation of expropriation law in this province.

I remind you, Mr. Chairman, that subsequent to that speech, he became the leader of the NDP. He beat the present Premier. Now he beat the present Premier with the assistance of Mrs. Dailly and Mr. Lorimer and Mr. Strachan — and how many others assisted Mr. Berger to defeat the man who is now the Premier?

Mr. Berger knew what he was talking about in those days. He knew that we needed to have protection for the individual citizen of the Province of British Columbia against the powers of government with regard to the expropriation of their property. What do we have now under this new government? We have them bringing forward this kind of legislation to establish a corporation with powers as that Minister deems necessary.

Now if this Minister deems it necessary that that corporation have the power to acquire property by expropriation, is he prepared to provide for fair and proper compensation?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): There's no such power there.

MR. WILLIAMS: If he deems it necessary, Mr. Attorney General. If he deems it necessary.

Oh, yes, you say that — the same government that passed an order-in-council bringing in a message bill, getting it signed by the Lieutenant-Governor, giving a man "war measure" powers with respect to the control of natural gas…

Interjections.

MR. WILLIAMS: …and then not bringing that message bill before this House, is capable of doing exactly the same thing again and again — and again.

HON. MR. BARRETT: And again and again and again.

MR. WILLIAMS: All that we are asking, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the people of British Columbia is that, if the Minister ever deems it necessary to give the corporation power to acquire land by expropriation, we as a Legislature write in this bill, as protection now for the citizen, that there will be compensation for land so taken.

Why do you resist it? Why do you resist it, Mr. Chairman, I say to the Hon. Premier, the Attorney General, the Provincial Secretary? Why do you resist this protection now? I can only conclude that you resist it now because you want to hold that club over the people of the Province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's a phony issue.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's the problem, Mr. Chairman. If he won't provide the safeguard now, it is because you intend in the backs of your minds to clothe this corporation with that kind of power of expropriation. It's another step from the 28th to the 128th technique of expropriation in this province.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Iron-heeled socialism.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Crunch! (Laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I can only assume, from the levity with which the Members of the cabinet benches treat this matter, that the citizens of this province can recognize exactly the kind of consideration that they will get from this government. The silence of the Minister with respect to this matter is deafening.

As a matter of fact, if the Members on the government side have taken the care to read the bill, they will find that the Housing Act of British Columbia has been amended in a couple of minor and rather insignificant ways. If you read that Act, you will find that the Legislature of this province has already decreed that if municipal governments or other public bodies under the Housing Act acquire land by expropriation, this very protection of Division 4 of Part XII of the Municipal Act is already written in.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I read that to you this afternoon.

MR. WILLIAMS: All right.

[ Page 1200 ]

Interjections.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, we have finally heard from the Minister very briefly. The Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce is chirping again from his seat. As a matter of fact, the exciting thing about this debate tonight is that we have finally got the Minister on his feet. It's the very first time in this session that he has stood up on his feet and spoken during a debate in this House.

Interjections.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's the very first time he's ever spoken in this House. And no wonder he's been so quiet. With so little to say, I should think that the government has told him to be quiet.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Garde isn't on your side; even Garde knows it's phony.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member please return to the point of the….

MR. WILLIAMS: Phony argument. That's all the Hon. Premier can say. That Premier over there has always stood up for the little person against the power of government, until it's his government. Then all the power is available. You are looking pretty sick tonight, Mr. Premier.

You tell this on the hustings, Mr. Premier: how you stood up for the little people of the Province of British Columbia against the power of government.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, the Housing Act does specifically give this protection. Now all I say, Mr. Chairman, is that if the legislation that this government is prepared to adopt as a companion to this particular bill provides the safeguard contained in Part XII, Division 4, of the Municipal Act, why won't you put it in here with respect to the powers of the corporation that you are going to establish?

Why not give us those assurances now? Why do we have to wait until you bring in the corporation Acts to consider whether or not you have given the powers — particularly when those corporations are not going to be formed in this House, Mr. Chairman? They're going to be formed in this House, Mr. Chairman. They're going to be formed by the cabinet. All done by the cabinet. Let's hear it from you backbenchers. Let's hear it…

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Speak up.

MR. WILLIAMS: …. from all you people who are prepared to stand by and allow this cabinet to establish corporations without the safeguards that you and your constituents expect from you from the power of government. Let's hear it from you.

MR. CHABOT: What about the Columbia River expropriation?

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, yes, great. You know it's all very well to say that in the…. I agree with the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce: if you put expropriating powers in legislation, it's got to be clearly spelled out.

But consider the expropriating powers of the Highways department. Aren't they beautiful? Aren't they lovely? The citizen has so many rights spelled out there. We are asking for the same kind of protection from these housing corporations as the citizen is entitled to expect — in fact, by law is entitled to have from his municipality. Why don't you offer it to them?

Why don't you erase any doubt as to your good intentions by simply accepting this amendment and putting it in this bill? Then the citizens need have no concern about what your corporations may be empowered to do — about what you or some other government may do with those corporations. That makes it certain.

The Hon. Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) would suggest that there are no clear words here, but the Hon. Attorney General knows perfectly well that when this legislation comes before the courts for consideration, the courts will look at section 6 and say, "Well, the Legislature, in its wisdom, passed this section so they must have intended what it says."

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Absolutely. Of course there's the power. It's involved in the clear words of section 6.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Oh, you can't read. You've been debating for four hours.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I'll debate it for 40 hours, Mr. Attorney General, if that's your problem, because you have the very simple solution of telling that Minister to accept this amendment; then there's no question any more. Why leave it to be decided? Let's decide it right now. If you and I have a difference of opinion, let's resolve it right now by accepting the amendment and putting the safeguard in the legislation. Then, no matter whether you are wrong or I am wrong, the people will be right.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'd certainly give the floor to the silent Minister over there if he would care to get up and say something.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member please speak to the amendment or else be seated?

[ Page 1201 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Certainly, Mr. Chairman, I would be very happy to speak to the amendment. I hope that I can talk the Minister of housing into accepting the amendment.

What we are doing, in essence, in this amendment is saying to the government, "You know, we want you to tell the people that they can trust you." I remember when this government first came to power, Mr. Chairman; that's what they used to say all the time. The Premier used to get up and say "Trust us. Trust us."

AN HON. MEMBER: One more bill.

MR. PHILLIPS: You know, Mr. Chairman, we've been down here practically two months. I've been listening with both my big ears, and I haven't heard them once this fall say, "Trust us." Why?

AN HON. MEMBER: They don't need to be trusted.

MR. PHILLIPS: Why?

AN HON. MEMBER: They don't dare!

MR. PHILLIPS: Because they know that the people no longer trust them.

They said, "Trust us," to the mining industry. What happened? The mining industry is being slowly gobbled up.

Mr. Chairman, they said, "Trust us," to the petroleum industry. And what's happening, Mr. Chairman? The petroleum industry is gradually being gobbled up.

They said, "Trust us," to the insurance industry….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to the amendment or else be seated.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'll be quite happy to confine my remarks to the amendment, because that's what the amendment is all about. That's what the amendment is all about: the trust of the people of British Columbia in the new Minister of housing; the trust of the people of British Columbia in this Act; and the faith that the people of British Columbia have in this opposition. That's what this whole amendment is about. If that government now would stand and make those pious speeches they used to make about "Trust us," they'd accept this amendment.

I wonder, and you must wonder, Mr. Chairman, what the government is trying to hide. What sinister, ulterior motive is in this Act that they won't accept this minor amendment and let the light of day shine in? Mr. Chairman, I'd like to know why.

You know, there were powers of expropriation, Mr. Chairman, but those powers of expropriation were for a specific purpose — for a highway or for a specific purpose. Now this government wants to do away with the powers of expropriation; they want to just take the land away. Why? Not for a purpose, Mr. Chairman. Do you know why, Mr. Chairman? For their philosophy — the philosophy that wants them to own all the land in British Columbia. Confiscation by persuasion and taxation.

They said, "Trust us," to the lumber industry, Mr. Chairman. What's happening to the lumber industry? It's slowly being gobbled up.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister Without Portfolio): Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: There's the Minister of consumer affairs crying "order." She'll probably go around the province and find some spikes that weren't driven into the proper posts and she'll say, "Don't buy those houses!" One look.

No, Mr. Chairman, the reason this amendment is here, and the reason it is so very, very important is because this government has to stop and realize that the people of British Columbia no longer trust them. They want the legislation written in the statutes! They no longer buy this "give me the powers — I may need them. Trust us."

It's a very serious matter, Mr. Chairman, and I am certainly glad that the Premier of this province has stopped laughing and is starting to take this matter seriously. I hope that the Premier will stand in this Legislature and tell the Minister of housing to accept this little amendment for the good of all the people of British Columbia, so that once again, after accepting this amendment, the Premier can stand on the floor of this Legislature and once again say to the people of British Columbia, "Trust us."

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, the debate has taken on a similar vein to something we heard in the last session. I listened to them in the last session when they talked and whipped up hysteria about Bill 42 and what the meaning of "or otherwise acquire land" was. If they hadn't failed so miserably and hadn't misled the public, I would perhaps be listening to them very carefully tonight.

MRS. JORDAN: But you're not.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I'm listening carefully. I haven't heard anything that wasn't mentioned earlier today. I cannot give to a Crown corporation a power that I do not have.

Further, you talk about going to court. If we were to go to court on the powers that I would be given

[ Page 1202 ]

under sections 4, 5 or 6 of this Act, I'd say we would be in trouble. We are not going to go to court because we are not going to expropriate property under those sections of this Act. It's as simple as that.

MR. CHABOT: Confiscation by persuasion.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I was pleased that the Minister unbuckled his safety belt and got to his feet, but I think he should have kept it buckled up until he thought of some good reasons for not accepting this amendment.

It's all very well for the Minister to stand up and declare his Simon-pure motivation but we don't know how long he is going to be in that post. By his performance today it's probably not very long at all.

We are left with reading this particular Act at its face value as, indeed, any poor, individual citizen would be left reading this Act at face value, with his counsel, appearing before the former leader of the New Democratic Party, Mr. Justice Berger. I wouldn't take a case before him that was worded like this. There wouldn't be a leg to stand on. Much as he might want to follow through with the fine principles that he enunciated as leader of that group over there — and he was the undisputed leader over the present Premier, and the Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Strachan), and the Minister of Lands and Forests (Hon. Mr. Williams), and all the others who are concocting this legislation, the clear leader over them — there would be no way that he could rule in favour of the private citizen. Not the way this legislation is written.

Mr. Chairman, what I would like to hear from the Minister is simply this: what harm does he deem accepting the amendment would do to this particular bill? In what way would he be limited in developing housing? That's what we really need to know, because this is what the Minister seems to be hiding from us.

I think the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) is to be congratulated, He's flushed the government out. He's displayed the government's real colours.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: Well, sometimes it does take more than one mind to read the Machiavellian legislation.

We can't touch, Mr. Chairman, the collective mind of that group across the way. It's all very well to protest innocence while you pass the kind of legislation that any simpleton can read and interpret as giving you the power to take away a man's home under this Act and not give him the kind of compensation that is his due.

How many times did we hear, not just from the former Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Justice Berger, but from the others who were in the opposition and now sit on the cabinet benches, of the need to bring in standard expropriation laws in British Columbia and of the evils of the legislation as it then stood on the books? And here we are, in the third session called by that government that was so keen to do justice to the little man, and where is the bill codifying expropriation? Why, it isn't here at all, is it? They've forgotten all about it. Instead of that, we bring in this kind of an offensive Act which, despite the protestations of the Minister, quite clearly makes it possible to abuse helpless citizens who have taken enough abuse in the last 20 years.

Some people have mentioned the Columbia River, and we've had the same sort of thing with the B.C. Hydro. Mr. Chairman, just the other day we were asking the Minister of environmental control whether there would be public hearings about this new hydro line that is to go up Vancouver Island — right up the middle of it, 400 feet wide. And, Mr. Chairman, what was the answer of the Minister, who was the severest critic of the B.C. Hydro in his days of opposition? "I'm going to take it under advisement." The Minister of pollution control.

Nothing has changed — well, yes, it has. It's worse, because the former government rode fairly roughshod, and certainly encouraged the Crown corporations to do so over the rights of the parties. They never brought in legislation like this. Never once. We are sliding backwards — conspicuously sliding backwards, Mr. Chairman.

I haven't heard in this debate one single word from all these backbenchers…

MR. CHABOT: Shocking!

MR. McGEER: …about where they stand on this.

MR. CHABOT: Shocking!

MR. McGEER: Are you in favour of the little man?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. McGEER: The day has passed when the great speech by the backbenchers would make cabinet. Those fellows got in then.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to give his own….

MR. McGEER: No, the fight is over to get into the cabinet. You might as well fight for the individual…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to return to the debate at hand.

[ Page 1203 ]

MR. McGEER: …and this is an opportunity to do so. I'm encouraging some of the other Members to speak their minds, Mr. Chairman, because we haven't heard from them, and I know they have thoughts on this — and, I suspect, some pretty good ones. The Minister doesn't have any thoughts. His mind seems to have gone blank.

What we are asking is what the harm would be were the amendment of the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) accepted. I'd like to know in what way it is going to hurt the individual citizen. I've certainly racked my brain and I can't think of any way it is going to hurt the individual. I can't think of one way it's going to make the average person who owns a small plot of land in British Columbia worse off. I just can't think of any way that the particular amendment will hurt him.

I can think of lots of ways in which it might hurt the government — the Minister of Lands and Forests (Hon. Mr. Williams) and the Premier. I can see ways that the amendment might hurt them — not, Mr. Chairman, if they do what they say they are going to do, but only if they do what we say they are going to do. That's when it would hurt them.

But, Mr. Chairman, as we go through this legislation, isn't the most important thing for us to do to think about the average British Columbian, the man who has worked his life to own just a little piece of land? We should be thinking of him, and not the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, not these big, powerful men who have suddenly inherited all the prerequisites, prerogatives of government the big offices, double indemnity and all that but the average man who has worked hard for his property. These are the people we should be concerned about.

I would like the Minister to say, before this amendment passes, how it is going to hurt the little man. If he can tell me, Mr. Chairman, how the little man is going to be worse off by accepting this amendment and convince me that it is going to do him damage, then of course I would be ready to speak against the amendment and vote against the amendment. But if the problem with this amendment is that it might make it a little more difficult for the government to enhance its powers and take land, then of course I will continue to support the amendment.

Now all we have had from the Minister so far is the pooh-poohing that really it's nothing, that this is a straw man, and let's just forget all about it, sweep it under the desks. The Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) has given all kinds of encouragement to that before he left the chamber. But none of them really dealt with the wording of this legislation at face value, which is what we must do because that is what any lawyer would do appearing in court and what any citizen who is aggrieved would be forced to do in seeking redress. He's got to read this legislation at face value. And that's why it becomes so important for the Minister to read it in that way, and tell us how that man is going to be harmed by the amendment and will be helped by its rejection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before I recognize the….

AN HON. MEMBER: Hey, let the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) speak.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before I recognize the next speaker….

AN HON. MEMBER: C'mon, let's hear the Minister of Highways.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No! No!

AN HON. MEMBER: We got him trapped!

MRS. JORDAN: I think we have just witnessed an interesting situation when the Minister of Highways could hardly wait to get on his feet, and as soon as the floor was given over to him, he could hardly wait to sit down again.

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: A man who has had much to say across the floor in this issue…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would the Hon. Member please address herself to the amendment?

MRS. JORDAN: …had nothing to say on his feet. Would he like to get on his feet? Yes, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member please address herself to the amendment!

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The amendment we are debating is put forth by the Hon. Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith). It asks merely for the inclusion of Part XII, Division 4, of the Municipal Act into this bill, in order to ensure that fair play is given to the average people of British Columbia.

Would the Minister of housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) whom we are addressing like to listen, or should I wait until he sits down?

Various speakers before myself, Mr. Chairman, have listed reason after reason why this amendment should be accepted in the interests of the average family home, the average person in British Columbia, and the Minister has given us no valid reasons why he can't. I think some things have happened during this debate that cause us even more reason for concern.

During part of this debate, as the Hon. Second

[ Page 1204 ]

Member for Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) was pointing out some very logical reasons for the need for this amendment, the Premier called it a "phony issue," While the Premier is very fond of using this political term in serious debate, what we are concerned with is not the frequent use of it, but the fact that repeatedly he has been aware and we have been aware and the people of British Columbia have been aware of the type of legislation that this government is drafting. He laughs when we call it awesome powers or monolithic power; even the media has lost the significance of this and tries to make a joke out of it. And that's fine, but what is wrong….

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: I'm voting for the amendment, Mr. Premier….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: …and maybe you should wake up and find out what the debate is all about. Maybe if the Premier settled down and gave some serious thought to his responsibilities to the people of British Columbia then he would know what the debate is all about.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You've voted for the bill once already.

MRS. JORDAN: The most difficult thing to accept is that the Premier laughs about these unbelievable powers that have been taken by his government and which we are trying to amend in this bill — powers that have been usurped by no other government in Canada, not the federal government and no other provincial government. And yet the Premier doesn't even seem to recognize this, and it is because he has shown no evidence of recognizing the powers that he is taking and the seriousness of the use of these powers, and the seriousness of the abuse of these powers, as has happened since his term in office, that we must insist that this amendment be accepted, in order that the average person and the average home in British Columbia is protected — protected in the way that could be no more democratic, just the right to appeal under this section of the Municipal Act to an independent body.

The Premier has said in the past, when we were under another bill relating to labour and in other areas, "the people of British Columbia have got to learn that there is a price to be paid to society." This concerns, Mr. Chairman, the people of British Columbia, and it concerns us. Because what is the price? Time and time and time again the legislation brought into this session and the past sessions by this government, the laws that this government is bringing into British Columbia, have only described the powers, but never the price to the public of British Columbia for those powers, for those so-called social advancements that these powers are supposed to bring about in British Columbia.

We ask this Minister: what price are the people of British Columbia going to have to pay if you don't accept this amendment? What price are they going to have to pay for the ideas that you have been advised to outline as your housing programme in British Columbia? Never a tag on that price. All we want, Mr. Chairman, is the right of the people to have appeal to what that Minister says. He's admitted in this debate that he doesn't always say what he thinks; he often says what he's advised. And who are his advisers? And what price are the little people, or the average people, or anybody in British Columbia in relation to this amendment, going to have to pay for the advice of that hidden person, that shadow Minister of housing? And who is the shadow Minister of housing?

AN HON. MEMBER: Ray Haynes.

MRS. JORDAN: It could be Ray Haynes. He's out of a job.

MR. CHABOT: He's from Ontario.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: Is it a 19-year-old executive assistant?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would draw the attention of the Hon. Member to standing order 61 (2), which requires strict relevance to the amendment, and I would ask that she confine her remarks to the amendment.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I may need your help because I felt that I was talking to the amendment. We are trying to give the people of British Columbia the right to appeal and fair play from the decision of the shadow Minister of housing, and we would address him by name, the shadow Minister, if we knew who he was.

We ask: what price are these people going to have to pay? It was the Premier himself who brought up this question.

I think in speaking to this amendment that is a question that can be answered to this amendment on the basis of philosophy. There are two fundamentally different philosophies between that side of the floor and on this side of the floor.

AN HON. MEMBER: There had better be.

MRS. JORDAN: We on this side of the floor

[ Page 1205 ]

believe that people are supreme. You on that side of the floor believe that the state is supreme, that the land is supreme, that the forests are supreme — not in terms of people but in terms of supremacy and power.

AN HON. MEMBER: Take it and turn backwards.

MRS. JORDAN: We believe that it is the people who are supreme. And if I'm wrong then I'll be pleased to withdraw that statement when the Minister of housing, or the Minister Without Portfolio (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) who will be the Minister of housing, proves that I am wrong by accepting this amendment and showing that it is the concern of people that counts and is going to count in his portfolio.

You know, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, this is an extremely important and an extremely sensitive portfolio because for all the now-generation thinking and all the gyrations of society today — and we are a rapidly gyrating society — one thing has been proven paramount by the people of British Columbia in their minds and that is their right to their own home, to their families and to their family home.

MR. PHILLIPS: Even if they want premium ones — waterfront property.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, that's quite true, Mr. Member and…

MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like to see you give that up.

MRS. JORDAN: …the Hon. Minister of telecommunications and whatever else he is Minister of likes his riverfront property. And the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) likes his lovely home near Government House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: This is their right, and the little man wants the right to his home. Other people want the rights to their homes. They don't want the state coming in and saying, "State is supreme; we want this."

Mr. Minister, you are receiving a lot of advice and you've not stated what you're going to do with it. There is a report on housing that we all have a copy of — a report which has caused a lot of dissension among the people who prepared it. I'm sure he's aware of this. Some of that report was left out and not included in the report that we received. Now supposing one of the people who backed those radical ideas is the person who the Minister should appoint for any form of appeal. But it says in this report, Mr. Minister: "Within one month the Minister should compile an inventory of publicly owned lands in the provinces. And within 90 days" — within 90 days — "an inventory of all privately-owned parcels of land over one acre in the Province of British Columbia."

Now, this is what your advisers are telling you, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman. You haven't told us or the public what you're going to do with this advice, You've only told us that you follow the advice that you're given. That's your criteria for your policies. What are you going to do with this advice? This is what the people of British Columbia want to know and this is what the opposition want to know.

You may have every good intention — I'm sure you have — but there may be disagreement as to whether your intention is good for the people of British Columbia or for the state of British Columbia. If you had faith in your own intentions, Mr. Minister, you would accept this amendment because you have nothing to fear if your intentions are good. Just in relation to this particular recommendation, what are you going to do with all those acres that are to be inventoried within 90 days?

We've talked in the past, in relation to other Ministers' statements, about the gentle persuasion of taxation to confiscate land from people. And what is in this recommendation to the Minister of housing — on page 12 (5)? "Raise taxation levels to 100 per cent of vacant lands in urban areas."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: There is justification…

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Member…. I would just read again….

MRS. JORDAN: …for needing amendments like this so that people can appeal.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Order please! I would just draw to the attention of the Hon. Member what the point of the amendment is so that she may remember what to say.

MRS. JORDAN: The right of appeal.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And that is the right to use…that is the land…. Well, I'll read the amendment….

MRS. JORDAN: May I help, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. "Notwithstanding any of the purposes and functions contained in section 4 and of the powers contained in section 5 and 6 no land, improvements or personal property can be acquired for the purposes of this Act

[ Page 1206 ]

except under the provisions of Part XII, Division 4, of the Municipal Act."

Now, I would hope that the Hon. Member would confine her remarks to the main point of that amendment from this point on.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your advice. I didn't mean to stray, if I did stray. But I'm trying to reach that Minister, who is a very young and a very idealistic young man…

AN HON. MEMBER: Order.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order!

MRS. JORDAN: …for the need for the right of an avenue of appeal.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, if I'm insulting him by calling him idealistic…

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: …I will withdraw the comment immediately. I'm terribly sorry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw, withdraw.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, I withdraw.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is not young and he's not idealistic.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think that the age of the Minister or the family or the housing of anyone in this room is of concern or relevance to this particular amendment. I would ask the Hon. Member to confine her remarks to the amendment.

MRS. JORDAN: Well I'll withdraw, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister is young and idealistic. I didn't realize that offended him. At my age, you know, you like to be called young.

But, Mr. Chairman, there is another Act before this House which deals with the rights of people — and the government is going to be very proud — and this is the right — human right. Will this apply?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: Will the human rights Act apply if you're not going to accept this amendment? Where if a person is offended, just offended, by another person they can claim the right to compensation. This in itself may not be bad. All we're asking is that a person who is offended by the taking of their home by the state, or by an infringement on their home rights by the state, have the right to utilize Part XII, Division 4 of the Municipal Act to appeal.

Now, Mr. Chairman, what could be fairer than that? What could be more consistent with what the government says it wants to do? What could be more consistent in the terms of its own now proposed human rights Act?

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Member, you keep calling the question. I assure you that this side gets some answers from that Minister…. This is not a question period, this is an answer period that we're waiting for. I realize that we should probably change the question periods in this House to answer periods.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: Maybe they're going to like to lead on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member confine her remarks to the amendment and not respond to comments, please?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh! oh!

MRS. JORDAN: Oh! yes, Mr. Chairman, who rules? Mr. Chairman, who rules in the House?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, I won't take any more of the House's time. There are other Members who want to speak. But we will ask again and again, and I've pointed out reasons why there's need for concern on the basis of the Premier's statements and other Minister's statements and actions by this government since taking office. Surely they would want to do nothing more in this very sensitive and needy area of housing, of homes that are the unit for the core of every society — the family —

[ Page 1207 ]

than to just be fair. That's all we ask, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Labour, on the amendment.

MRS. JORDAN: The Member from North Peace was up first.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the Minister of Highways?

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the Liberal people on the other side suggest that the bill has to be amended to provide and prevent against expropriation. It is very clear that there is indeed no power of expropriation in the bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, no!

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on, now.

HON. MR. KING: This is the same straw man, Mr. Chairman, that the Liberal Party, aided by various other relics in the House, attempted to develop in Bill 42. It just didn't jell. It just didn't jell, Mr. Chairman, it became very clear that no such power existed in the bill.

Interjections.

HON. MR. KING: To suggest now that….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, I would ask the Hon. Minister to confine his remarks to the amendment, please.

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, if I understand the amendment correctly, it's to provide that there be an appeal against a presumed expropriation which is not contained in the bill. So I am speaking to the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Now, we sat here and we listened to the Liberals build a straw man on this power which is not contained in this bill. I can abide that; I don't think they really believe it themselves. But one thing, Mr. Chairman, I do find difficult to abide is the kind of speech that was made by the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan).

MRS. JORDAN: Here it comes.

HON. MR. KING: Yes, indeed, here it comes, madam. Because I can tell you this, that I happen to come from the riding where expropriation took place all up and down the Columbia Valley, all up and down the Arrow Lakes…

Interjections.

HON. MR. KING: …through an agreement, Mr. Chairman…

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. KING: …through an agreement that was signed by the federal Liberals and the provincial Socreds to provide for the flooding of the…

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. KING: …of all the lands. I want to talk, Mr. Chairman, about the concern for the little people that was manifested at that time.

Interjections.

HON. MR. KING: The Member for North Okanagan….

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. KING: How about that? How about that? How about that rabble, Mr. Chairman, and I'm referring to the noise…?

Interjections.

HON. MR. KING: Yes, I certainly am a rebel to the kind of hypocrisy that I've heard put forward here tonight. I'm speaking, Mr. Chairman, of hypocrisy of policy, hypocrisy of inconsistency that I have seen in this House displayed by the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan).

There were people, Mr. Chairman, who were expropriated by Hydro, by the Department of Highways and by a variety of other departments under that old, ancient Social Credit regime, and if they didn't knuckle under to the offers that were made by that arbitrary, autocratic administration, Mr. Chairman, they were burned out. They had their buildings bulldozed to the ground. Where was that freedom-fighter then? — sitting home on a fat cushion, Mr. Chairman — sitting here on a fat cushion voting with that previous autocratic regime against the rights of the little people of the province.

I can recall, Mr. Chairman, this issue of expropriation. I visited residents south of Revelstoke

[ Page 1208 ]

who met me at the door with a shotgun because they thought it was the Hydro expropriator calling again. They were literally defending their rights to remain in their domicile with weapons because they had witnessed their neighbours' buildings being burned to the ground when they failed to….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Minister — would the Hon. Minister be seated? What is your point of order?

MRS. JORDAN: I would just like to ask, on behalf of all Members of this House, that you exercise fairness in….

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will state to the Minister what I stated to the Hon. Member for North Okanagan: will you please be relevant to this particular amendment?

HON. MR. KING: I'll certainly try to be fair too, Mr. Chairman. I just wish that that concern or fairness had been manifested for the people for whom she now presumes to show concern through her lip service to an amendment which in my view, Mr. Chairman, is meaningless. It seeks to amend an alleged provision in this bill which does not exist.

I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that this government would certainly not under any circumstances extend the abusive powers of expropriation that were practised by the former administration. No way!

I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, with respect to this whole question of expropriation, that there will be changes coming forward under appropriate legislation. This is a straw man that's built in here. I think there's a way to deal with expropriation. It must be dealt with, because the abuses that were manifested by the old regime haven't been forgotten; they're fresh in our mind. It's obvious, Mr. Chairman, that provision has to be made to make sure those abuses and those assaults on private ownership are never encountered again in this province.

I just wanted to point out, Mr. Chairman, that the concern displayed by the Member for North Okanagan is new-found. I never heard her rise in her place in 1969 when I raised this question….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to the amendment.

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, we're talking about expropriation. The question at issue here is whether or not it's contained in the. Housing Act and whether or not an amendment should be accepted which seeks to prohibit something that does not exist in the first instance. When those Members attempt to justify an amendment through their concern — and they've wandered all over the ballpark in doing so — then I think I should be at liberty to point out the inconsistency of their position as it was with their policy when they were the government of this province.

So I just wanted to say, Mr. Chairman, once again, that it rings pretty hollow to hear that kind of concern enunciated by the Member for North Okanagan.

There's no such power of expropriation in this bill. I can assure the Hon. Member for North Okanagan that under no circumstances would I sit idly by and watch people of this province forced out of their homes either by burning or by bulldozing them down or any other such brutal device.

MR. CHAIRMAN, Order. Before I recognize any further Members, I will read section 43 just to refresh your memory:

"Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, after having called attention of the House, or of the committee, to the conduct of a Member, who persists in irrelevance, or tedious repetition, either of his own arguments, or of the arguments used by other Members in the debate, may direct him to discontinue his speech, and if the Member still continues to speak, Mr. Speaker shall name him" — and so forth.

Now I would just request that…. The idea of this debate is to try to have a spirit of good will and fairness. I would request that Members keep their arguments strictly relevant to the amendment before us and not repeat the arguments of those that have already spoken.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: If this bill did have it spelled out that the right of expropriation was given, I'd still vote against this amendment for the reason that this refers to the Municipal Act. It spells out procedures for creating arbitration…the aggrieved party would nominate an arbitrator, the council would….

Interjection.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, I suppose the third party could be agreed upon mutually or under the Arbitration Act. I suppose that even in a provincial matter such as this it would maybe be right, it might be acceptable, that the municipality appoint one of the arbitrators. But what's really curious, especially curious when this afternoon there was talk about the funds and the lack of funds for municipalities and such, is that it would be the municipality under section 492, part 3, that would be held liable for the compensation determined.

[ Page 1209 ]

It says,

" Notwithstanding abandonment or reinvesting, compensation to be determined in the matter provided by this division shall be made by the municipality to the owners, or occupiers, or other persons interested in the land or real property for any loss, cost, damage suffered…" — et cetera, ending on the note of expropriation.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, as I say, you people have argued for this particular thing all night. I read this thing weeks ago when the amendment was on the order paper and, really, I'm not surprised; I shouldn't say I'm surprised.

MRS. JORDAN: You're not even in office yet and you're intolerant.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, really, you should have done some homework. If you wanted to come up with an amendment that would have had that particular provision, then included would have been necessary…. I still don't agree that the right of expropriation is in this thing. I say it's still a cure for which there is no disease. If the disease were there, this would not be the remedy. When we have the right of expropriation, when we spell it out, we will provide for arbitration.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In a spirit of good will and fairness, as you have suggested from the chair, I'll try one more time to get through to the Minister with respect to the areas where I feel there is going to be a conflict when he tries to assimilate land for the housing developments that he envisions, You know, in the interpretation section of the Act it says that " 'housing corporation' means a corporation constituted or approved by the Minister under section 6." It says just below that: " 'land' means any real property within the Province and includes any estate, right, title or interest in any real property."

Now when you take the interpretation section of the Act as it spells out what it means by land, and you tie that in with the provisions of section 4, section 5 under the special powers, and section 6 — particularly section 6 (a) and 6 (b) — there's no question in my mind, Mr. Minister, that you have within your power the power of expropriation. You may call it by another name in this Act, and it may say "such powers as you deem you wish to exercise," but it means one and the same thing when it comes down to the property that belongs to individual people in the Province of British Columbia.

I'd just like to quote some of your own words and some of your own thoughts back to you with regard to the assimilation of land and why I feel, in moving this amendment, that all we're doing is protecting the interests of individuals and people in the Province of British Columbia.

In an inter-view that was conducted on September 22 by a Mr. Neil Adams of The Vancouver Sun — quite an extensive interview — it gave a great deal of insight into your thoughts and your hopes for housing in British Columbia.

There are quite a few interesting comments and I'm going to read a few of them: "If the government does what it says it's going to do, according to Housing Minister Nicolson's pronouncements, it will open up thousands of acres for housing to take off the pressure due to the lack of land." Now I ask you, Mr. Minister, where you're going to get these thousands of acres of land if you don't involve somewhere along the line land that is presently owned in fee simple by individuals who have title to that land.

AN HON. MEMBER: Agricultural reserves.

MR. SMITH: Are you going to take it out of the agricultural reserves of the province for housing? If you do, you're a better man than any of the rest of the Members of this House, because even in small acreages and in small lots, if it's declared agricultural reserve right now you have one devil of a time trying to convince anybody in the Land Commission that that land should be released for some other use.

You're going to speed up municipal procedures which hold up subdivisions. Well, I can tell you of subdivisions right now in municipalities and on their boundaries that are being held up because of Bill 42 which will probably never be used for housing. Most important in the long run, it changed the whole nature of the market for residential land by leasing land rather than selling it. Before you can lease land, Mr. Minister, you must acquire a title to it, and to do that you must in all likelihood take individuals out of the area where they now reside and assimilate their land along with other land in order to fulfill your desired objectives. "I see a role for the mass builders, and I don't intend to start a government Crown corporation," said Nicolson in an interview last week, "but it looks like much, if not all, land assembly will become government's job."

By what means, Mr. Minister, do you intend to acquire this land? Do you intend to acquire this land? Do you intend to acquire it under the provisions of sections 4, 5 and 6? If people are aggrieved because of the fact that their private property has become part of your land acquisition scheme, who do they appeal to? It's interesting also to note that when he was asked when and how much land is to be assembled, Nicolson stirred up a ruckus in July when he announced three areas were being considered for large-scale development — 1,700 acres of the University of B.C.'s endowment land on Vancouver's

[ Page 1210 ]

western boundary…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

MR. SMITH: …650 acres of the former Blair Rifle Range in the District of North Vancouver…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

MR. SMITH: …and 200 acres of Burnaby Mountain in Burnaby.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's Simon Fraser.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. SMITH: Reaction was swift. In Vancouver the Point Grey neighbourhood area council, made up of about 30 organizations, Mr. Minister, wanted an immediate meeting with the Minister, which was held. Even members of the NDP's Point Grey constituency association were upset. A year earlier they had sponsored a resolution at a party convention calling for University Endowment Lands to be designed as a park.

I MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): When's the next convention?

MR. SMITH: When is the next convention, Mr. Minister?

This is why we have said, purely and simply and as straightforward as we can on this amendment, that when you run into a situation — which you are bound to run into if you assemble land for housing, whether it be public housing or an assembly of land which individuals will eventually lease from the government to build their homes — if you do that you're going to run into a conflict between yourself as government and individuals who have every right to the land that they presently own. If that happens, and only when that happens…

MR. CHABOT: Got your seat belts on?

MR. SMITH: …and the price that is offered is not acceptable…

MR. CHABOT: Get your seat belts on.

MR. SMITH: …and you come into conflict, then we suggest that there is a provision which is better than anything that is outlined in this Act, and that is the provisions that are contained in the Municipal Act for setting up a board of three people to arbitrate on an independent and a fair basis the price that will be paid for the land which is expropriated, because that, Mr. Minister, is exactly what happens.

I don't care, Mr. Chairman, how you call it or what name you give it, it amounts to the same thing: when land that belongs to individuals is assimilated with other land to become part of public housing, or any other projects sponsored under this bill, you have taken the right of ownership away and if people object there's no appeal under this.

All we want is a small measure of satisfaction to protect the public in this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: From democracy.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:11 p.m.