1973 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 2543 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Discrimination charged

by Max's Do-Nuts Ltd. Mr. Wallace — 2543

Possible power brownouts. Mr. Curtis — 2545

Purchase of Glenshiel Hotel, Mr. Gardom — 2545

Retroactive compensation for Court of Appeal litigants. Mr.

D.A. Anderson — 2546

Ferry bakery operations. Mrs. Jordan — 2546

An Act to Amend the Credit Unions Act, 1961 (Bill No. 141).

Second reading.

Mr. Phillips — 2547

Energy Act (Bill No. 148). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2547

Mrs. Jordan — 2550

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2550

Mr. Williams — 2553

Mr. Smith — 2555

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2559

Mr. Phillips — 2559

Mrs. Jordan — 2562

Mr. Gardom — 2564

Ms. Young — 2564

Mr. Chabot — 2565

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2565

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2566

Mr. McClelland — 2567

Mr. Williams — 2568

Division on amendment to postpone second reading — 2569

Mr. Wallace — 2569

Mr. Steves — 2572

Mr. Richter — 2573

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2574

Division on second reading — 2575

Water Utilities Act (Bill No. 146). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2575

Telecommunication Utilities Act (Bill No. 147). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2575

Mrs. Jordan — 2575

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2576

Mrs. Jordan — 2576

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2577

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

Oral questions.

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

DISCRIMINATION CHARGED BY

MAX'S DO-NUTS LTD.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we

could ask the Minister of Highways if he has any statement to

make regarding the publicity being given by Max's Do-Nuts Ltd.

due to the fact they consider that they are being unfairly

discriminated against by government because of the particular

union which his bakers choose to be a member of. Would the

Minister care to comment? It's rather a serious charge.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): First of all, as

far as I know we had been buying doughnuts for the ferry system

through someone called Murray Sales, not Max's Do-Nuts. We

bought through Murray Sales.

The contract with that Murray Sales expired on March 31.

The contract just wasn't renewed.

MR. SPEAKER: This is a very important question I'm sure. The

Hon. Member for North Okanagan. We've got down to doughnuts

now. An urgent and important question?

MR. WALLACE: Just a supplementary question on that. No, Mr.

Speaker, I was …

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): If doughnuts are good

business for the government, could the Minister advise the

House as to the plans that he might have for pie crust or

bread?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I'm sorry. I think the

Hon….

MR. WALLACE: I wish to ask a supplementary question.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. Would the Hon. Member continue.

MR. WALLACE: The matter carries a potential much more

important than the subject of doughnuts. I just wonder if the

Minister could give a reason why the contract was not renewed.

Does one just not renew without any explanation?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The previous administration had installed

a doughnut-making machine at Swartz Bay. It had been in use for

many years supplying part of the doughnuts to the ferries. I

simply extended that previous policy to provide all of the

doughnuts for the ferries.

MR. SPEAKER: Now, the Hon. Member for Columbia River. Is it

on the same subject or a different subject.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Yes, a supplementary

question.

MR. SPEAKER: Is this on the doughnut or the hole?

(Laughter).

MR. CHABOT: It's on the attempt of that government to

destroy Max's Do-Nuts in Vancouver, that's what the question's

about. Does the Minister have a policy on the ferry operation

that only labour unions that are affiliated with the B.C.

Federation of Labour will be able to sell products to the B.C.

Ferry Authority? Is that a government policy?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The answer is "no." I simply told you I

only extended the previous government's policy of supplying

doughnuts. I'm using exactly the same equipment and the same

crew and we're supplying all of the doughnuts instead of part

of them.

MR. CHABOT: Supplementary question: it's quite well known

that you don't have sufficient…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. No speeches. What's your

question?

MR. CHABOT: The Minister has stated that because of

anticipated labour trouble it was necessary to cancel the

contract between…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. CHABOT: …Max's Do-Nuts and the B.C. ferries through

Murray Sales. Now I wonder what kind of anticipated labour

trouble the Minister of Highways is anticipating. Is he

threatening Max's Do-Nuts with reprisal by the B.C. Federation

of Labour because they're a Christian union — are you

against that?

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Will the Member be seated? I would point

out to the Hon. Member that the purpose of question period is

to ask a question, not to make a speech and not to enter into a

debate.

[ Page 2544 ]

Would the Hon. Member please adhere to the rules.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The Member didn't really ask a

question.

MR. CHABOT: I did so.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You asked me if I was against Christian

unions and I said "no." I'm not against Christian unions. I'm

interested in expanding the….

First of all, I cancelled no contract. At no time did I

cancel a contract. The contract expired and I decided that the

policy initiated by the previous administration in this case

was a good policy. We're now supplying all of the doughnuts to

the ferries. No one phoned me. No one contacted me, and that's

the truth. There you have it.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: So there it is.

MR. SPEAKER: Now may we enter into the question period with

important and urgent questions? The Hon. Member for Saanich and

the Islands.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, in

the absence of the….

MRS. JORDAN: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MRS. JORDAN: When the first question was asked by the Hon.

Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) and answered by the Minister,

I was then on my feet and recognized by you, Sir. At that time

the Member for Oak Bay wished to ask a supplementary and I gave

my position to him.

MR. SPEAKER: That was on the same subject. Was yours on the

same subject?

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, this is the same subject, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think it's urgent and important. I

think it's been answered. There are other Members who have

questions to ask on other subjects.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, my questions haven't been

asked.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I don't know what your question is, but

if it's on the same subject, it's not urgent and it isn't

important.

MRS. JORDAN: Would you like to hear the question, Mr.

Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: By all means. I'll rule on it if you like.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you very much. My question, Mr. Speaker,

is addressed to the Minister of Highways. I would like to

preface it by saying that if doughnuts are good business for

the government, could the Minister advise the House as to plans

that he might have for pie crusts, bread, pastries, southern

fried chicken? And, Mr. Speaker, was Mr. Metlowski or Murray

Sales or Max's Do-Nuts…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The question is ironical and it

really is not urgent or important. Would the Hon. Member be

seated?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Would the Member be seated? I recognize

the Member for Saanich and the Islands.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: I've already ruled on your question. It's

ironical and it is not urgent or important.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If you want to put a question on

the order paper, by all means do so. I recognize the Hon.

Member for Saanich and the Islands.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MRS. JORDAN: I have no option but to challenge your ruling,

Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. You have no challenge on the ruling by

standing orders on this question.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Minister has no right to

answer a question that's been ruled out of order as ironical,

rhetorical and completely not important to the House. Now I ask

the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands to ask his

question.

[ Page 2545 ]

POSSIBLE POWER BROWNOUTS

AND WATER SHORTAGES

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, would the Premier comment on a

matter raised in this House two days ago with respect to low

snow pack and low rainfall experienced in many parts of British

Columbia, particularly the coastal section, and the likelihood

of power brownouts or water shortages as a result?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I don't have any

knowledge relating to that question. However, if you care to,

I'll pass it on to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams).

MR. SPEAKER: I believe that question was asked and answered

with regard to snow pack in British Columbia this year, if

that's what your question is about.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm sorry, I don't know the answer to that

question. I'll get it for him.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

PURCHASE OF GLENSHIEL HOTEL

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker,

it's a question to the Minister of Public Works because he was

determined today to provide answers to the House. It deals with

the government purchase of the Glenshiel Hotel. A very serious

inference has been clearly raised, and raised on more than one

occasion by the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) that the

government has paid an amount for that hotel that is greatly in

excess of it's fair market value and the advertised price.

As I said, earlier today the Minister was grappling to give

an answer. He was also prompted by the Premier to sit down. I

would now ask the Minister why this hotel was sold for a price

well in excess of its advertised price and its apparent fair

market selling value.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): The

information that was being handed out across the way was

misinformation. The advertisement that was displayed was

approximately four years old.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: In looking into this matter, we find that

Mr. John A. Relling, realtor, on behalf of National Trust

offered the building to the Department of Public Works on July

15, 1969.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Here is the reply…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: A letter from the Deputy Minister:

"July 15, 1969.

"Re: Glenshiel Hotel, 606 Douglas Street.

"I would like to confirm our telephone conversation of last

week with regard to the above property. Our company is acting

on behalf of the registered owners of Penn Holdings Ltd. They

have instructed us to sell the above property, which is zoned

light transient accommodation, for $470,000.

"If the Department of Public Works is interested in

obtaining the valuable property for the provincial government

and would like further information, please feel free to contact

the writer."

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Minister, order.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: This is signed by John A. Relling.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. On the point of order that has been

raised by one Member, I draw to your attention that documents

can be filed with the consent of the House. If you have any

answer beyond the documents, by all means give it in

accordance. The Hon. Second Member for…

HON. MR. HARTLEY: May I have leave to table this document,

Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: I would like to ask the Hon. Minister as a

supplemental: if the Government received appraisals prior to

purchase and if so would he please table those appraisals in

the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes, we have two appraisals. We would be pleased to

give the price paid

[ Page

2546 ]

and all that information at a later date. We feel there is no public interest

in this.

MR. GARDOM: I am afraid the Minister didn't get my question,

I asked him if he would table the appraisals in the House.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes, we can do that.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Order, please. Would the Hon. Member be

seated?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. First Member for

Victoria.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I simply want to

state that the property was still…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, no statements please. It is question

period. Have you a question?

MR. MORRISON: Is it not true that that property was still

available for sale in July of 1972 at the asking price?

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, we checked with National

Trust and they no longer listed that particular property beyond

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

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

RETROACTIVE COMPENSATION FOR

COURT OF APPEAL LITIGANTS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, a question to the

Minister of Municipal Affairs. In the light of his decision to

introduce retroactive legislation in this House getting around

a decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, may I ask

him whether he will take steps to pay compensation or to have

compensation paid to, first of all, those people who acted in

good faith under the previous legislation, and secondly, those

people who were involved in litigation under the previous

legislation and who happened to be upheld by the courts.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Commercial Transport):

Mr. Speaker, we are not using retroactive legislation to circumvent anything

of the courts. I am merely following out the statement I made last December.

As a result, I think that probably answers your question.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the supplementary to that

question is the same question: are you going to pay

compensation to people who acted in good faith under existing

legislation and who have suffered loss as a result, because of

the fact you have introduced retroactive legislation in this

House?

HON. MR. LORIMER: If you have any names of people acting in

good faith and as a result have been caused injury you might

let me know their names.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker. A final question. I would be

delighted to get a list of names. What I want to know is

whether the list will be worth anything when I give it to the

Minister. Would you agree now to accept…?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. You can't ask the Minister what

the future policy of the Crown is going to be. The Hon. Member

for North Okanagan.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no present policy as you obviously

indicated by your own question. How can there be?

The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

FERRY BAKERY OPERATION

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to address

my question to the Hon. Minister of Highways. Where does the

ferry authority plan to establish its bakery operation? What is

the estimated cost of plant and equipment? What will be the

total number of people employed in this operation?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The bakery is already established. It was

established by the previous administration at Swartz Bay. There

are two people employed.

MRS. JORDAN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the Hon.

Minister of Highways advise the House as to whether or not he

is putting in additional equipment to take care of the

production of glazed doughnuts and other varieties that will be

served on the ferries? What is the estimated cost of this

equipment? Where will it be established and what are the number

of employees who will be employed?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I am considering — considering

— considering referring for consideration that whole

matter to some committee of the Legislative Assembly.

(Laughter).

[ Page 2547 ]

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Oak Bay. I

hope it's on something else…

MR. WALLACE: And it wasn't doughnuts, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, this was the doughnut session today.

Orders of the day.

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

public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on second

reading of Bill No. 141.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE CREDIT UNIONS ACT, 1961

(continued)

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

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): …the last four

things they asked for and I will certainly support the bill,

Mr. Speaker. I will be happy to support the bill. Now you

realize, Mr. Speaker, that when good legislation comes into

this House, we do support it. And we would like the people to

know that when there is good legislation we are certainly

always behind it, Mr. Speaker.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, in

reply to that very good Member that I would like the question

to be put.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 141 referred to a committee of the whole House at

the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 148, Mr.

Speaker.

ENERGY ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to move second

reading of Bill No. 148 intituled the Energy Act . A very

simple little…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, it's a noncontentious piece of

legislation. Just a little bit of housekeeping — a little

spring cleaning in the petroleum industry. A bill of impeccable

genealogy when you look at the different sections and from

whence they came. And were I to invoke the shades of the past

— the Hon. Duff Pattullo, G.G. McGeer, M.A. Macdonald

— they would all be here, giving plaudits to this

bill.

The bill can be described fairly briefly, but there are one

or two problem areas I would like to bring up in a little more

detail. A new body is established — the British Columbia

Energy Commission. And in that connection, may I quote the

words of that well-known Member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) to this Legislature. Very sage words,

on February 8, 1973 — where he is reported as saying:

"B.C. needs a full-time energy board to determine the

province's future energy needs and the extent of existing

resources. No detailed facts are available on energy resources,

therefore, the government cannot establish policy for

conserving resources on a sound basis."

It is true. It is terribly true that we have suffered

acutely in this province in the dissipation of our energy

resources, particularly by way of export, since 1954. You know,

one of the really great tragedies for the people of British

Columbia was that contract of West Copst Transmission which

sold our natural gas to the United States at 22 cents per 1,000

cubic feet, when the old B.C. Electric — as it was called

at that time — was paying about 30 cents per 1,000 cubic

feet for our own gas.

Still, there is a situation which has to be rectified. This

bill will, in creating the Energy Commission, give

motor-carriers to the Department of Commercial Transport with

provisions for hearings in that department of those residual

functions. Cemeteries — probably to the Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) who already has some jurisdiction in

that field. Pre-arranged funeral services will go to the

Securities Commission. Water systems — to the Hon.

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr.

Williams).

The Act provides for a commission of up to seven people, and

may I say that it provides for hearings before that commission.

I shouldn't refer to

section numbers unless Hon. Members want,

but for convenience, that's 102.

The hearings, incidentally, are new in relation to the old Coal and Petroleum

Products Act that was administered by a very distinguished British Columbian

in former days — A.W. Carrothers — who was, of course, our first Mr. PUC (Public

Utilities Commission) and he administered the old Petroleum Regulations Act.

There were no provisions for hearings in there, but we added them in because

we thought they would be of interest, particularly to the

[ Page

2548 ]

Liberal Party, the Social Credit Party and to the Conservative Party.

We also provided, in a new way, that the new Energy

Commission shall give reasons for its decisions at the behest

of one of the parties who may wish those reasons. I think that

is a valuable advance which is not to be found in the old

legislation.

The Act is divided into several parts. Of course, the first

and very vital one is the survey of the energy resources of the

province, and how best the people of British Columbia can

receive adequate compensation from those resources at a fair

price in their use.

Then we have a

section dealing with the public utilities

affairs as such. We have another part dealing with the

petroleum industry.

In connection with natural gas, I'd like to say that the

Province of British Columbia is at a very crucial stage, in

this respect. We're coming in as a new government into this

problem, almost at the eleventh hour. Since this bill was first

drafted, events have been overtaking us, and that's why it

becomes a bill of urgent public importance. I stress

"urgent."

We're trying to make up for the neglect in this field for 20

years, and we're entering these negotiations at a time when,

for example, the El Paso Company, which is related through

Phillips Petroleum to West Coast Transmission, has announced

its big new contract with West Coast Transmission.

There are very important stakes or prizes involved. The game

that is being played has to be very carefully watched by the

people of British Columbia. We're going to require the

cooperation of the National Energy Board. It's a very fast

poker game that Mr. B.C. Public is sitting down in —

sitting there in his undershirt holding a pair of deuces so

far, with one more draw to go.

MR. PHILLIPS: There's more than one draw to go.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, we're very much at the eleventh

hour. He has one draw to go and will be lucky if he doesn't go

home in a barrel — an oil barrel. (Laughter).

If you look at the contract that has been drawn up between

West Coast and El Paso, and which West Coast is now, on an

urgent basis, trying to sell to the National Energy Board,

there are two prizes that are apparent in that contract that

the oil industry seeks to gain. When I talk about the oil

industry, I'm taking about the international oil industry,

because it's always been that way. They want, of course, to

gain — and they're doing this all over the North American

continent — enhanced prices from the consumer's

pocket.

In my opinion, there has been an artificial energy crisis

created. The end play on that artificial energy crisis is the

withdrawing of exploration funds, not just in British Columbia

— I don't know whether it's really happened here —

but over the whole period, pulling back on exploration and the

development in order to create an energy crisis and get a

higher price for those products. That's one of the plays.

The other play which is apparent and which is of more

importance to us in British Columbia is the question of the

export of our natural gas. We're now sending over the border

800 million cubic feet per day. The energy shortage that is

developing in the United States in terms of cheap energy is

such that they propose to increase our exports out of this

province by no less than an additional 450 million cubic feet

per day by 1975, I think it is. No regard and no research has

been conducted as to whether or not that will enable British

Columbia to conserve enough resources for its own use into a

reasonable future. I wouldn't think that it would be possible,

with exports of that magnitude, that we would not run ourselves

short as a province.

The crunch that is built into this contract in order to

accomplish this export of our natural gas to what, in effect,

are parent companies of West Coast Transmission is that they

offer over a two-year period in this agreement, as a sop to the

B.C. consumers, an additional 1.5 cents per 1,000 cubic feet.

So that instead of our consumers being faced with the increased

prices that are now being generated because of the increase in

prices at the wellhead to the full extent, they're offering a

sop of 1.5 cents for a period of two years. But at the end of

that two years it's to be withdrawn on the basis that this

charge would continue — I should say this sop or

advantage would continue — if additional export permits

are granted by November, 1975.

It's not the biggest gun in the world, but it's a gun

pointed at the people of British Columbia saying, "You give

these huge parent companies outside your borders the natural

gas we need, or we will soak it to your consumers. In the

meantime, we're giving them a little sop of 1.5 cents for this

two-year period, though even that goes if we do not get the

export permits we need at the end of that two year period." So

these are very big stakes.

We're at a disadvantage, Mr. Speaker, in relation to, say,

the Province of Alberta, which began a study in the early part

of 1972 into this question. It went until about October, 1972.

But they have the advantage that their main gas pipeline is a

carrier — Alberta Gas Trunk Lines. It doesn't own the gas

and it's not intra-provincial or international — they

have constitutional authority over it. They're moving into the

very logical area of a two-price system with advantages that we

don't possess. They have of course, in the case of Alberta, a

little bit of a dispute with Ontario which seems to be at the

point of being resolved.

We don't have that problem of two prices within

[ Page

2549 ]

Canada at all, but we do face the problem of getting a proper return on our

export of natural gas, which is abysmally low in terms of competitive market

fuels at the present time, and at the same time protecting our industry and

consumers here in the Province of British Columbia.

This energy board which we're setting up will play a leading

role in making representations on behalf of all the people of

British Columbia at the National Energy Board level in Ottawa.

I don't think these representations will fail, because I think

that the federal government will recognize that the Canadian

public interest and the British Columbia public interest are

one, in protecting these resources for people and seeing that

we get a fair return for them. But should these representations

fall on deaf ears, we certainly intend as a government to

consider other means whereby we can protect our people and our

energy resources.

Now, we also have in this little bill a few sections dealing

with the petroleum industry as such. I know that the Hon.

Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) has been reported in the Press

as saying that we have bitten off more than we can

constitutionally chew. Of all the various bits of criticism I

read, I worried about that more because the Hon. Member is a

doctor and he should know what he is talking about in that

respect. (Laughter).

Actually, Mr. Speaker, the provisions we seek to invoke in

regard to the petroleum industry we have upheld in 1940 in the

Supreme Court of Canada in different forms. So we feel we're on

good constitutional ground. There is ample precedent in this

province whereby we should have a watchdog role in terms of the

petroleum industry.

I could go back to 1938 and the report of M.A Macdonald.

Here's what he said in volume 1: "We found that gasoline could

be sold at a fair profit at 18 cents a gallon" — it was

then about 30 cents — "or, if the public wanted to

tolerate the present system of retail distribution designed to

maintain prices and prevent competition." — and that was

said in a royal commission report in 1938 — "it could be

sold for 23 cents." It was then on the streets at about 30

cents, We have the report in Alberta, called the Mackenzie Report

of 1968, which shows that the people of that province, too,

want to have a very close look at the real cost of gasoline and

whether or not the consumer is being exploited, not only in the

cost of gasoline, but in the kind of wasteful practices in

which the industry engages in terms of the exploitation of

service station operators, all of which we seek to have the

power to curb in this bill.

In that report, and I'll read it very quickly and summarize

it, they broke down the cost of a gallon of gasoline which was

then selling in Edmonton or Calgary at 39.9 cents — say,

40 cents per gallon: amount spent on exploration and production

of crude — 3 cents; refineries and processing plants

— 3 cents; marketing — 5 cents, retailing — 7

cents. The total is 18 cents.

This is by Mackenzie, Q.C., and two eminent commissioners,

and they go on to break down the costs: for the millions spent

on exploration and production of crude — 3 cents; for the

millions spent on refineries and processing plants — 3

cents per gallon; for the oil marketing departments which build

excessive numbers of unnecessary service stations and subsidize

lessees to occupy them and conduct expensive advertising

programmes, each trying to outdo the other in giveaways and

prizes.

Five cents for retailing by the service station operator

who, because of the excessive numbers of unnecessary stations

doesn't have the opportunity to sell enough gallons to

economically utilize his facilities and to keep his capital and

labour costs per gallon at minimum levels, and who accordingly

ekes out a precarious marginal existence. Seven cents. And the

whole thing, leaving out taxes, adds up to 18 cents at a time

when the companies were charging 26.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Look who they were fighting for.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The tax in Alberta at that time was 13

cents — 13.9. But these are the figures apart, in each

case, from tax.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Royal commission in Alberta?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: 1968.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Under Social Credit.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Then you have the last report of His

Honour Judge Morrow in British Columbia, and that was filed in

1966. The judge concluded his report with these words: "If

these changes are not implemented within a reasonable time, I

would recommend that

section 3 of the Petroleum Sales

Act be enlarged and the Act proclaimed." Now that Act is

Duff Pattullo's atom bomb, which enables the total takeover of

the petroleum and refining facilities of the province.

But this was suggested by the learned judge in that report.

Otherwise, he said, regulations could be promulgated under the

Public Utilities Act .

So I say that it stands to reason that in terms of price and

service and protection of the people in the industry, it is

absolutely necessary that we have the regulatory power under a

new B.C. energies commission in the field of petroleum.

How those powers will be exercised will be up to careful hearings, representations

and, I would hope,

[ Page

2550 ]

full research before decisions are made. But we should not have those powers

which, incidentally, are to some extent already in the hands of the public in

Alberta under the Motor Fuel Licensing Act — not to have those powers in a time

of energy crisis, in a time of growing shortage of energy resources, in a time

when nobody can say whether or not the consumer without that proper research

is not being grossly exploited, in a time when we like to think in this province

that we may be able to move toward equalization of gasoline prices from the

north to the south to the east and the west of British Columbia.

All of these argue that we cannot leave to the blind,

non-competitive whims of the international oil industry such an

essential energy resource as petroleum.

So I think, Mr. Speaker, that I have summed up the main

features of the Act with which we are concerned, and I'll be

glad to discuss the sections. But generally speaking, the

powers are from the old legislation which has been allowed to

lapse. I therefore, with confidence that this is the kind of

commission that should get quickly to work in the interests of

the people of this province, move second reading.

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

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, through you

to the Attorney General: in his statements he's pointed out

that this is a very wide, sweeping Act. It involves a number of

transfers to different departments and requires considerable

research on our part to offer constructive criticism. I wonder

if he would accept an adjournment of the debate for a few

days.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What nonsense. It's been on the order

paper for weeks.

MRS. JORDAN: Will the Minister accept an adjournment?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No. It has been available for some

time.

MRS. JORDAN: I appreciate this, but I'm sure that the Hon.

Minister is aware that the Members have been very busy and such

an Act requires a good deal of detailed study before we can

give intelligent analysis of the Act.

MR. SPEAKER: I warned the Hon. Member that she would lose

her place in the debate if she makes the motion. It would be

preferable for her to carry on if she can. Unless they accept a

motion at this time.

MRS. JORDAN: Not if it's accepted, Mr. Speaker. And I would

think that in all consideration and fairness it would be

accepted by the Minister.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The request is in committee stage,

too.

MRS. JORDAN: Well then, Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of

the debate, second reading of the debate, until the next

sitting of the House.

Motion negatived.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry. I have to recognize the next Member

who wishes to speak on it. Is there any further debate?

The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, this is very

wide-sweeping legislation. The points that the Attorney General

made, or I should say, I guess, that the Minister of Industrial

Development, Trade and Commerce made, are good ones. In point

of fact there is a need for some sort of government commission

which has the responsibility for research and investigation and

acquiring of knowledge which he has listed.

He referred to the need, to the fact that we were unaware of

the position that this province is in vis-a-vis our exports and

also, I presume, vis-a-vis the other provinces.

He pointed out that in the Province of Alberta they are

moving towards a two-price system, or at least I believe they

have moved towards it. I think that the Hon. Minister in fact

was incorrect when he went on to say that there is no problem

in Canada with the two-price system. I don't think Ontario and

Alberta…

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, he didn't say that.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, perhaps, Mr. Premier, what he did

say was that there was no problem in this area. I think the

problems in this area are increasing.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: But B.C. gas doesn't go eastward. It

isn't a problem for us. All ours goes south.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Not, Mr. Attorney General, for us. Thanks

for the clarification. But the inference was that there was

none in Canada and there actually is a substantial one.

One reason for the establishment of such a board and the fact that we cannot

continue to rely entirely upon the National Energy Board, is the fact that Alberta

has entered this area, and Alberta is acting in

[ Page

2551 ]

a way which — I have no wish to criticize it — but which nevertheless makes

it imperative for other provinces nearby to pay particular attention to what

they are doing.

The representations that this board will make to the

National Energy Board are again something which I think is

desirable. For many years, three to be exact, I have regarded

the National Energy Board with acute suspicion and distrust. It

is not a body which I feel is properly constituted for this day

and age. It is not a body which, in my mind, is doing as good a

job for this nation as could be done. My remarks on this are

recorded in the various debates of the committee on natural

resources of the House of Commons.

But with respect to other aspects of the commission itself,

we have a great deal more in the way of reservations. The

trouble with this government's legislation, if I may digress

for one moment, Mr. Speaker, is that so often they come up with

an idea which may be good, and then they ruin it by putting it

in a context which simply makes it very, very questionable.

We approve of the idea of an energy board carrying out some

of the functions that the Minister has talked about, an energy

commission carrying out some of the functions that the Minister

has talked about, and we approve of the fact that they're going

to be the government body which is going to assist the

government in its deliberations on whether oil or gas or any

other product — coal I presume as well, and others

— will be exported or otherwise. We like that because we

think there is this need.

But when you get into the other areas, in particular the

area of granting of powers, we're into what we consider to be

the fatal weakness of this administration — namely broad,

sweeping powers which are excessive and unnecessary under the

Act.

Now the Minister shakes his head. He has quoted to us the

1938 Royal Commission Report for the former Pattullo regime in

particular; he's quoted to us the Report of the Royal

Commission in Alberta; and he's made it perfectly clear that in

those two areas it was the regulations which the government had

at that time were used effectively…and it was not necessary

to bring in as radical and as sweeping powers as Duff Pattullo,

for example, had in mind when that Act he mentioned first came

up.

It wasn't necessary because it was possible to regulate. It

was possible for the government to remain in its traditional

role and to handle the problems that had been developed in a

realistic governmental way instead of entering into the whole

area which the original Pattullo legislation would have

permitted them to do, and which this legislation does.

In other words, it was the threat of the Pattullo

legislation, and I think the Attorney General will agree, which

led to regulations governing the industry which turned out to

be relatively effective.

I don't know whether we are in the same situation now. The

Attorney General hasn't commented upon this. Why is it

necessary now? Has there been big changes now which lead the

government to decide that regulation is an ineffectual way of

handling this problem. I'm not talking about the obtaining of

information or doing future studies, I'm talking about

regulations.

This was the area that the Minister covered very quickly. In

a bill which gives the commission authority to forcibly or

otherwise take over the whole part of the business and real or

personal property, we begin to wonder whether or not this

commission is being given too broad powers.

We wonder again at granting this commission the power to

regulate prices in the way that it can. The commission can set

different prices for different parts of the province. This is

not in itself objectionable or undesirable, I guess. There are

obviously factors which might lead the commission to try and

reduce the price in the north, for example, or indeed to

increase it in the south. If we decided we had too much smog in

Vancouver, it may be a necessary and useful thing to boost the

price of gasoline in Vancouver to a figure of say $2 or $3. It

may be necessary to do that simply to make the rapid transit

proposals of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Lorimer) work effectively.

I'm not saying that this is necessarily wrong but what I

would like to point out at this time is that it's subject to

enormous abuse. I'm not recommending it. I'm simply saying this

type of regulation could be used in this way to achieve other

social objectives. In addition, however, it could be used in a

political way and we're very suspicious of this.

In our minds, the boards and the commissions that have been

set up by this government have been political boards or boards

which could be used for political objectives. Say, for example,

that the ruling party — I have no wish to insult the NDP

and suggest that they would do this — but say some other

party takes over from them and they use these powers through

this commission to lower the price of gasoline in an area where

they find their popularity sinking.

The Attorney General frowns and looks unhappy about this.

But it's a perfectly realistic thing for this commission to

do.

HON. MR. MACDONALD : You wouldn't do that.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: He says he wouldn't do that.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I said you wouldn't do that.

[ Page 2552 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'm glad the Attorney General makes the

assumption that we're taking over from him in the future. I

trust it's the near future. I imagine this party would not do

that.

But I can visualize the day when perhaps a party led by that

dynamic preacher from Kamloops might return, sweep us all

underground and do precisely what I'm talking about. I don't

say that that is likely. I trust it's not. But we have to

envisage the worst when we're trying to examine legislation

from the point of view of seeing whether some future

administration could abuse it.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, you've done a very good job of

defending him in the past.

What we are worried about in this legislation and what we

find really unacceptable in it is this virtually total power to

regulate; this unfettered power which is given to the

commission in a very, very large area of our economic life in

the province.

When it comes to establishing the service station outlets of

the oil companies, there may be reasons to have doubts. There's

no doubt in my mind that the major money made by the oil

companies in this area is simply in land speculation. They're

able to put a service station on a particular bit of property.

They get a certain revenue from it. But what they're really

after is not putting a service station there. What they're

after is holding that property at a certain tax rate for

certain future development which may come up.

We find that the provisions for appeal in this bill are

inadequate. We find that this could be a very fundamental error

in it. In our mind, the fact that the entire area of

distributing, petroleum right from beginning to end can be

controlled by a government commission, is simply another step

along the government control of private enterprise. As we have

stated before in debates today and yesterday and many days

before in this session and the previous session, this is

unacceptable to us.

We don't mind legislation which sets up — and we would

approve legislation which set up — an energy board which

was an energy board under the laws of the land. But when you

have an energy board which is set up in this way, when you have

a government body able to act in a capricious manner and get

away with it, then we feel that that legislation is inadequate.

As I said, the great shame is that there's no question that an

energy board could be useful in this province. It could be a

useful vehicle for much that we would like to see done.

The problem with this legislation, as with so much other

legislation of this government, is that the wording is unclear

in the bill, the provisions for appeal are unclear — in

fact they've been described by my Hon. friend from West

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) as gobbledegook. They

are simply inadequate. The powers granted are excessive and

therefore, in principle, we feel that this particular bit of

legislation cannot be accepted by us.

The fact that this comes up at a time when we have had

legislation dealing with the mining industry, the forest

industry — or we have legislation soon to come before us

on the forest industry — when we've had legislation

dealing with many aspects of economic affairs and financial

affairs in the province, all of which put power and control in

the hands of small bodies of people appointed entirely by the

government, is another obvious reason for alarm on our

part.

We have no wish to see the oil industry or any other —

and I above all have no wish to see the oil industry or any

other act irresponsibly and as it wishes. We wish to see it

controlled by law and we would like to see it controlled in the

public interest. I have spent many thousands of my own dollars

in attempting to force the oil companies to obey the law and,

ironically, to obey the laws of another country.

But we cannot accept blank cheque legislation to government

corporations, boards or commissions whose purposes may or may

not be as described by the Ministers when they introduce the

legislation in this House.

No one, I think, has better credentials in opposing illegal

actions by oil companies than I have. Despite this, we cannot

allow any feelings that we have along that line to colour the

real principle of this type of legislation, which is simply

handing out powers which could be misused beyond the control of

this Legislature and of the courts.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, the Hon. Minister of Public Works

(Hon. Mr. Hartley), having made a number of unfortunate

interventions in debate today, says that I like the oil

companies. That's not correct and you know it. It's not a

question of protecting the oil companies. It's an attempt to

protect the people of British Columbia from having legislation

rammed down their throats which can, in the future, have

serious effects on their lives and their freedoms.

It's simple to say, as the Minister has said now, and as the Minister of Labour

(Hon. Mr. King) has said, and as indeed other Ministers including the Premier

have said, "Fine, if you're not for this, then you're supporting some other

interest." That's easy enough. But, Mr. Minister of Public Works, my credentials

in this are pretty good. I would like to suggest to you that in areas such as

this, I cannot allow my own personal objections or feelings toward those people

in the oil industry who oppose me, to get around the fact that this is legislation

which doesn't only affect

[ Page

2553 ]

the oil industry or the gas industry or any other industry. It's the type of

legislation which affects just about everybody in the province.

Most people in the province, in case you're unaware of it,

Mr. Minister, in some way or another use petroleum products or

energy sources. I think virtually everybody does. I cannot

think of one person in the province who could not be affected

by this Act in some way or another. When that is the case and

when unlimited powers are granted, when the powers of appeal

are inadequate, when this type of thing occurs, when the courts

are virtually ruled completely to one side over a very major

aspect of the life of the citizens of the province, we in this

party simply cannot accept this legislation in principle.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound.

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

you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to help the Attorney General

out.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's a Liberal filibuster.

(Laughter).

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister of Industrial

Development, Trade and Commerce was so kind in his remarks as

to refer to remarks which I had made that I didn't want him to

think that I was unappreciative of his contribution in the

debate.

Yes, we do need a competent board to concern itself with the

supply and future uses of energy in this province. I think that

the remarks of the Attorney General in opening the debate made

clear how much we need that kind of advice. He saw fit to fall

into the trap which so many are falling into today; to suggest

that there is a very grave shortage of energy resources,

particularly in the petroleum and natural gas fields. That's

been suggested but not proven. It will never be proven until we

have an energy board of the kind that this legislation,

hopefully, will produce.

It will never occur to us in this province to have this kind

of information unless another step is taken. I think it's an

unfortunate shortcoming in legislation unless the cabinet

— Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council allows the energy board

to make the studies.

Mr. Speaker, we have an energy board in British Columbia

which has sat on a number of occasions on a number of specific

matters. But that energy board was only allowed to discharge

its function when the cabinet passed an order. It is with some

regret that I find that a similar situation has been allowed to

come forward into this bill. I hope that the Minister will

indicate when he closes this debate why it is that we are not

establishing an energy board in British Columbia truly

independent but with terms of reference which clearly spell out

the kind of continuing research activity that it should carry

on in this province with the obligation to report periodically

to the cabinet and to this House on their findings.

It is a continuing study that is required, not one which

occurs from time to time, depending upon problems that arise,

whether they're of crisis proportions or not. If we've had one

difficulty in the province with regard to our energy resources,

it's because of the government's lax, from time to time, in

having a steady flow of information.

The changes that have taken place year by year in energy

demands have always been forecast heretofore by British

Columbia Hydro. It is that kind of forecast which has directed

the policies of government. Yet there has always been reason to

suspect whether or not the projections from British Columbia

Hydro were ones upon which policy should be based and whether

they weren't themselves intended to serve the growth and

enhancement of B.C. Hydro and the empire that it has

become.

For too many years now significant government policy in the

field of finance has been the result of decisions made in the

boardroom of British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority and

communicated secretly, without any public disclosure, to the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Bennett) of the former

government.

When this bill was first introduced and when I spoke in

advance of the bill's coming in as to the need for such a

board, I was thinking of a board which would function on a

continuing basis independent of the control of government, so

that we would always have an opportunity of knowing whether or

not the policies that the government was following were truly

in line with the recommendations of an independent energy

card.

Maybe the Hon. Attorney General can indicate why this is not

to be the case now, because research in this field may have

very serious consequences for the people of British Columbia.

Failure on the part of government to have ready at its

fingertips at all times the most up-to-date and current

information about energy can result in serious lapses in its

policy-making function.

I think it's unfortunate that the Hon. Attorney General has

seen fit to draw into this bill this question of regulation and

control of the petroleum industry, because it makes it

impossible for me to accept the bill as it stands, even though

it has so many good features. Admitting that the petroleum

industry requires some examination and perhaps some control

based upon that examination, I still cannot, however, accept

the granting to this board the breadth of powers which the Hon.

Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) has

mentioned.

[ Page 2554 ]

It is of particular concern to me that I find included in

this bill powers for this board to overrule the laws of this

province.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Where do you find that?

MR. WILLIAMS: Haven't you read the bill?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I read the first…

MR. WILLIAMS: I'll take the same liberty, Mr. Speaker, as

the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), who had copious

notes and referred to sections. Maybe the Hon. Attorney General

would like to refer to

section 136. I apologize for being out

of order, but there it is.

The board is given the power — this is one that I find

to be unacceptable — to overrule and set aside existing

agreements which have been made.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's right. That's

section 118 of the

existing Public Utilities Act .

MR. WILLIAMS: I know. But I don't see why we're carrying

that into this bill.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. WILLIAMS: If you'd let me develop the argument, maybe

you will understand.

Of course it has the right to overrule existing agreements.

But when it is given the power as well to overrule existing

statutes by its own order, it seems to me that the commission

is taking unto itself a power over and above government and

this assembly, which should be foreign to even the Attorney

General's way of thinking.

When we consider those broad powers, we wonder what the

reason for them might be. I come to the conclusion that all of

the fine words that were said by the Hon. Attorney General

about energy sources and their desire for knowledge and so on

is really not the case. What we're finding here is the

construction of a weapon against the petroleum industry because

of…

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It can't overrule the statute in that

section.

MR. WILLIAMS: You can't?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No. It just says the subject matter.

MR. WILLIAMS: Just the subject matter.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It can be dealt with even though it's

covered by another statute. You can't repeal the statute.

MR. WILLIAMS: But it can deal with it in another way.

At any rate, Mr. Speaker, the board is really going to be

set loose on the petroleum industry to whip it into line. If

you need regulations, then there should be that kind of

authority. But they should be regulations which are very

carefully exercised, those powers. It's all very well to quote

figures as to what it costs in the various segments of the

petroleum industry so far as the operating expenses might be.

But I would remind the Hon. Attorney General that the

construction of refining plants is one requiring large capital

expenditures. The transportation facilities that go with the

functioning of the petroleum industry require large capital

expenditures.

One of the difficulties that is facing our American friends

to the south arises not only because of increasing world costs

of crude petroleum but also because of an inability to meet the

ever-increasing needs for refining capacity. We are approaching

that situation in Canada we well. If action is taken of this

kind which may in any way deter that capital investment in

Canada or in British Columbia, then I think the government

should concern itself with whether or not actions of this board

might themselves have counter-productive effects upon the

economy of British Columbia.

The Attorney General suggested that there was a provision

for hearings. When I look at the

section which deals with the

ability of the board to fix wholesale and retail prices of

petroleum products, I fail to recognize any obligation on the

part of this board to hold hearings in advance of that

decision-making process.

AN HON. MEMBER: They can if they want.

MR. WILLIAMS: They can if they want, but it would seem to me

that the obligation to hold hearings before rendering any

decisions or fixing any prices as they may apply in one part of

British Columbia as opposed to another or the entire province,

should be a mandatory obligation on the part of the board.

HON. MR. MACDONALD:

Section 102.

MR. WILLIAMS: There is obviously disagreement between the

Attorney General and some of us as to what his bill means. The

Attorney General reads it in a way which gives the most

favourable construction that he wants to place on it. I think I

am entitled to place the opposite construction. It's this

difference of opinion that causes the problem so far as the

industry is concerned.

[ Page 2555 ]

I would have thought that accompanying legislation such as

this we would have legislation which would for all

administrative tribunals in this province define the limits of

the powers that they can exercise and the way in which they

would have to conduct them. To sprinkle them throughout a bill

such as this may perhaps satisfy some but it doesn't satisfy

me.

Mr. Speaker, what we have here is a bill which starts off

with the highest purpose and one which I think all Members in

this House can applaud. But as you read on through the bill you

come to its true purpose which is the control of one particular

industry and the fixing of prices of the products of that

industry. Yet they don't go the rest of the way and interfere

in any way with the fixing of any of the prices that go into

the making of that product. This includes the prices of crude

and all of the other materials that go into the refining

processes.

It also doesn't deal with the fixing of wages, which must be

taken into account. I trust that we are not seeing from this

government at this stage a slow easing into a wage and

price-fixing board which is contrary to all of the policies of

the New Democratic Party, which I gather to be completely and

utterly opposed to wage and price controls.

It would be startling to me to find that the Government of

British Columbia was drifting further and further away from the

admirable tenets and dictates of that once great party.

But unless you are prepared to clothe this board with the

complete powers to deal with all aspects that go into the

costing of a product before fixing its prices, then quite

obviously you are using this board and its powers merely as a

club against one segment of the industry and not all aspects of

it.

To single out one aspect of it, the wholesale and retail

sale, and say: "O.K. That's where we're going to fix the prices

— there," without having controls over any of the

other variables that go into costing is short-sightedness to

say the very least.

The implications of such activity for the petroleum industry

are far beyond what we may see at the moment. They have such

far-reaching effects. We are witnessing them in other

jurisdictions in Canada — all governments are concerned

with this particular problem and all governments are attempting

to bring their special brand of remedy. Yet we are, I'm sure,

following a path which is only going to bring us to greater

uncertainty and greater difficulty.

This bill is not going to help and I oppose it.

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

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

Speaking to the principle of this Act, the Energy Act ,

it is apparent that the Act is clothed in, in some respects,

with a suggestion that we needed control of the petroleum

industry in this province.

It is all-powerful and all-reaching and actually covers and

controls all classes of energy within the Province of British

Columbia.

Now it is one thing to bring into this House a bill which is

designed specifically to promote the NDP philosophy and party

line with respect to the control of the petroleum industry in

the province. But it's something entirely different, I submit,

Mr. Speaker, to bring in

an Act which covers every source of

energy within the Province of British Columbia.

It would seem to me that while the government has indicated

we need an Energy Act — and I don't think anyone

will quarrel with that idea — what has been said publicly

and what is really controlled in the sections of this Act are

something altogether different.

There are many deficiencies in the proposed Energy

Act and I think these came about chiefly by including the

petroleum industry in legislation which deals essentially with

public utilities. Now I know the fact that most public

utilities have a monopoly in their respective fields and that

their rate structure is controlled assures earnings without

risk or competitive pressures. But no industry in the Province

of British Columbia, including the petroleum industry, enjoys

that same position, so why should they be included in such an

all-encompassing Energy Act ? The provisions of the

Energy Act will apply to any form of energy including

the petroleum-based energies that we use in the province.

The organization representing the retail segment of the

petroleum business has brought to the attention of the past

government and the present government some areas where they

feel they would like some legislative help, When the Automotive

Retailers Association spoke about the marketing of petroleum

products, they indicated four areas of concern.

One area was F.O.B. pricing of gasoline at the refinery

level.

Most of the dealers felt that they were forced into a

position of participating in the 3-G's, as the Attorney General

fondly calls them — the gimmicks, giveaways and games

proposition — against their will sometimes, but they felt

they had to be part of it.

They wanted some sort of legislative reform with regard to

guidelines for leasing premises from the major oil

companies.

They wanted less influence upon their retail level of

business by the companies themselves, particularly when they

operated in company-owned service stations. It's very, very

clear that the Energy Act before us this afternoon goes

far beyond those objectives.

I really feel, Mr. Speaker, that it was unfortunate that

when we had such an important Act before us, the Attorney

General would not see fit to allow an adjournment of the

debate. However that motion was put in good faith, not because

we wanted to delay the

[ Page 2556 ]

process of this House, but because we have a very important

document before us. I think even the Attorney General will

agree that during the past few weeks we have been sitting from

early in the morning until late in the evening and the time

that we have had available to study some of the legislation has

been very limited.

We've had to take our place in debate on the floor of this

House many times, in my case at the same time a forestry

committee meeting was going on next door. Certainly I would

have liked to have been in both places at once, but that was

impossible. When the House rises at 11 o'clock at night and

reconvenes at 10 o'clock in the morning, there's very little

time for a complete and exhaustive study of the bills. I'm not

going to prolong that argument but I think it's an important

one and one of the very good reasons why the Attorney General

could have accepted an adjournment to allow us time to

concentrate more fully upon the full ramifications of this bill

at the time that it was proposed.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's a very simple bill.

MR. SMITH: The Attorney General says it's a very simple

bill. Even that, Mr. Attorney General, is a tongue-in-cheek

expression because you know as well as I know that the

ramifications of this bill are far from simple. When you deal

with each and every form of energy in the Province of British

Columbia, even the Attorney General must realize that the total

impact this bill can have and will have on the economy of this

province even he himself cannot predict at this particular

moment. It certainly is the type of bill that the NDP in former

days would have been hammering and screaming to refer to

committee because of the fact that it does have far-reaching

ramifications.

I can see the Attorney General of former days, when he was a

Member of the opposition, would have been the first man to be

on his feet debating the fact that any bill of this type where

we should be listening to the total impact that it will have

from the people that it will affect should be listened to, that

we should hold committee meetings…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: I doubt that very much. As a matter of fact I

think, Mr. Attorney General, if we look at the record of this

session and the fall session, we've convinced the new

government of very little. We've even had difficulty explaining

to them our position on some very minor points, let alone a

major one such as this. But I'll continue with the matters that

are before me.

There are many sections of the bill that we feel are

repugnant that place within the realm of the elected cabinet

far too great a power; and they in turn place this power in the

hands of an appointed commission again. It's just one further

bill — and probably the most crucial bill of all that's

come before the House this session — indicating the

desire of the NDP to have complete control and takeover powers

within the hands of the cabinet.

I am sure that even if the backbench Members of your party

understood fully the ramifications of this Act there would be

many of them that would not support it.

One man says it doesn't go far enough. Well, I'll tell you,

there are extreme positions taken by people in public life but

that is about the most extreme that I have ever had the

misfortune to hear; that this Act, as it's set up, does not go

far enough and give enough power to the cabinet.

Mr. Attorney General, how much more power do you want? Is it

a complete takeover of every phase of development in the

province? Is that what the government is after? Do they wish to

control every phase of an individual's life down to the last

degree? Is that what you're after? Because this type of bill,

when you take all the energy sources that it covers, certainly

gives you power far beyond anything that you really need to exercise.

With this bill you've closed the normal door to the

courtroom process; excluded yourselves from that position. The

bill is, in my opinion, ready-made for the exercise of

political patronage, particularly by those persons who will be

appointed to the commission.

Furthermore, there's a provision within the bill that while

you will appoint seven or more commissioners, the entire power

of this Act can be exercised by two or more people on behalf of

the Executive Council — not even a quorum, Mr. Attorney

General. If it's considered prudent to appoint seven people to

that board, then surely it's prudent to require at least a

quorum of those people to be present at a meeting before any

major decision can be made. That is at least one of the

fundamentals of a democratic society.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: If I am mistaken in that I have said that there

should be…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: I say two, Mr. Attorney General, unless you can

prove me wrong. My colleague behind me says I say two

correctly. So two-sevenths of the appointed commissioners can

make decisions binding upon every citizen in the Province of

British Columbia.

The Attorney General says, "Well, only the best

[ Page

2557 ]

two would make that type of decision," but I think we can question that.

One of the things the Act requires is the filing of an

annual report, But once again the report will be filed with the

Executive Council and not with the Legislature.

The duties of the commission are all encompassing. The

commission may exercise a measure of control over revenues of

the province and do, in the language of the section, "any other

matter whatsoever." Now, is that not broad, all encompassing

power? "Exercise a measure of control over the revenues of the

province and do any other matter whatsoever."

The commission may exercise regulatory powers over the

activities of any department of government. Here again in my

estimation this is an interference with the duties of the

appointed civil servants in this province; that you are by this

Act riding roughshod over the senior civil servants, because

even they will not have to be listened to with respect to the

operation of their department. This commission of two people

— if it happens that only two show up for the board

meeting — can exercise control and powers over every

other department of the government, including your own

department, Mr. Attorney General. That surprises me a little

bit.

The commission has the power in this Act to declare rates

either just or unreasonable or unjust according to their

decision and their decision alone. When you stop to contemplate

the potential misuse of that particular section, it's really a

chilling situation, Mr. Attorney General.

[Ms. Young in the chair.]

The Act confers a wide range of supervision activities which

involve everything from the installation to the keeping of

accounts. The extent to which this commission may regulate can

be exemplified by the fact that the commission may direct an

energy utility with respect to the kind of equipment it uses,

the appliances it uses, or even the safety devices that it

might approve or use. The commission has absolute discretion

— and I repeat absolute discretion — with respect

to the joint use of facilities.

The Act also provides that the commission may use any

thoroughfare in any municipality in the province, including

parks, squares, public places, for the purposes of installing

energy lines. Does this mean that you by the powers given

unto the commission in this Act have eliminated any recourse by

the municipalities if they object to the installation of energy

lines or the location of energy lines? Can you override them? I

say you can. And you can go in and do whatever you like. The

commission has the power under this Act to override any

municipal jurisdiction whatsoever.

Furthermore, the commission may enter onto any municipal

structure, again without municipal consent. When we get to the

provisions in the Act that provide for the regulation of the

petroleum industry it's the language of compulsion Mr. Attorney

General. For example, the commission may compel any person

engaged in the petroleum industry…

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, you appear to be dealing in a

clause-by-clause analysis of the Act. Would you please remain

to the principle of the Act?

MR. SMITH: Oh, I am. I really am, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Then kindly stop quoting clauses.

MR. SMITH: I'm quoting from my notes, not from a verbatim

transcript of the bill, Madam Speaker. But when we are dealing

with the principles of a bill such as the Energy Act , in

which the principle of the Act is to control all forms of

energy in the Province of British Columbia, certainly I am not

out of order by drawing to the attention of the Attorney

General the way in which energy will be controlled as a

principle of this bill, I think you'd agree with me there.

I am not referring directly to the actual sections of the

Act and I don't intend to. But I do intend to reflect generally

upon the principles of the Act as it applies to not only the

petroleum industry but other areas of energy generation within

the province.

One of the principles of the Act is to establish price

controls at both wholesale and retail levels for all petroleum

products, Here again a principle is to deal with the petroleum

industry under one Act but provide imposts upon them and

regulations which are levied directly at the petroleum

industry, but not necessarily on any other form of energy or

any other public utility.

In looking over the Act and the principles that are

contained in it, it would seem to me that some of the

regulations will provide a bookkeeping nightmare for not only

the people who have to five by the Act but the commission that

has to enforce it. I think that some of the provisions and

principles of the Act are repugnant in a free society. It's

much more damning for the reason that it establishes the

reversal of the principle that a person is innocent until

proven guilty. You only have to read the provisions of the Act

to see that this is the case.

Even any petty complaint could be the subject of investigation by the appointed

commission. For example, they might take it upon themselves to investigate the

conditions of restrooms within service stations. This is permissible under the

Act. They might appoint a commission to go around checking on

[ Page

2558 ]

the service station operators.

The commission has all the rights, powers and privileges

vested in the superannuation Act. This is something that really

is not required or necessary in an energy Act. There are many

powers within the Act that, in my opinion, are excessive.

Mr. Attorney General, through you Madam Speaker, we believe

that most of the people in British Columbia would support the

idea of an energy Act or an energy commission. I think most

people support the idea of conservation and prudent use of all

our provincial energy resources. It's our business to see that

these energy resources provide an adequate and reasonable

return to the province. But in providing what we have in this

Act, I see that we could have controlled the petroleum business

by a simple petroleum regulations Act, if that was the intent

of the government.

But where you have combined petroleum resources, which

seem to be your main target in this Act, with all other forms

of energy, in my opinion, Hon. Minister, we have a most

unworkable situation. I've indicated that this deals with all

forms of energy in the province and with all public utility

companies. Certainly, in my opinion, it is not necessary to

include the petroleum industry in the same type of regulations

and in the same type of a monopoly situation that we presently

find with respect to most public utilities that are supplied in

the province.

I know that the Attorney General has indicated in speeches

he has made that he considers the petroleum business a public

utility. I presume that the reason he has indicated that to the

public, Madam Speaker, is so that the provisions of the

Energy Act , as he sees them, fall in line with his

thinking. In other words, it must be as apparent to the public

as it is to me that in the last few months since the NDP came

to power in this province, there has been a consistent attempt

on the part of not only all the cabinet Ministers but

backbenchers who have been assigned particular assignments to

build a case for either the takeover or the control of one form

of enterprise or another.

The government has done it by systematic contributions to

the Press and the radio stations. They have succeeded in doing

this by involving some of the civil servants in making

statements concerning one problem or another and then

immediately jumping on that as a reason that the government must

step into that field — because they've been requested,

so-called, to step into the field. They build a case, build a

straw man, and then at the opportune time they bring into this

House the type of legislation that we see before us this

afternoon in this Energy Act .

Well, the petroleum industry as one form of energy does not

enjoy the immunity that other forms of public utilities do.

They are subject to competition and risk. They are dependent

upon risk capital to a great extent for the operations of the

exploration end of the business and the building of refineries.

I submit to the Attorney General, Madam Speaker, that it will

be the position of the elected government to set up rules and

regulations which the petroleum industry will find very hard to

live with; that there will be regulations imposed upon them

which are not compatible to developing a prosperous industry.

At that point it will be a simple matter for the socialist

government to move into the field and say, "We're taking this

industry over in the best interests of the public."

I submit that that is what this legislative session has been

all about, not only with this bill but with the companion bills

which have been before this House and which have been debated.

That is why, Madam Speaker, we feel most strongly that this is

not the type of legislation that we can support.

If the Hon. Attorney General was really interested not only

in the impact that this particular bill will have but in the

views and ideas generally of the public that will be affected

by this, then he would certainly have put this bill in the

hands of a committee for them to look at and study. There's

been very little in the way of publicity surrounding this bill

in the papers so far. We've seen the odd

article and some of

the comments by the Attorney General himself. But I am as sure

as I'm standing here, Madam Speaker, that most of the public of

British Columbia are unaware of the ramifications of this bill,

and it's the hope of the government that it will be through

second reading and through committee and be passed before the

public wakes up to the fact of what is really contained in this

Energy Act .

You have the power not only to control the petroleum

industry; you have the power to dictate to them the prices that

they will sell at or the commissions that they will take, You

can either increase or decrease the price according to the

wishes of as few as two commissioners appointed by

order-in-council. You have the power to regulate them to the

last detail, I presume. There's even a provision that you'll

hold public hearings at the sole discretion of the commission.

Having made an order, the commission is not required to recite

or show any reason for a commission order. As a matter of fact,

it's not even required to give any notice of an order.

There's a provision in one of the principles of the bill for

ex parte orders — you know, that word that has

been so repugnant to the NDP for so long and which they opposed

so much in opposition.

In many respects the commission has a power unto itself. It's not only above

the courts but under this they can enlist the help and recruit their own police

force if they so desire. They have the power of entry under some of the provisions

of the bill. They have the right to hire and fire employees and there's no mention

whatsoever of the existence of an individual's rights with respect to their

own security

[ Page

2559 ]

or tenure, and there is no appeal.

There's no true provision for appeal. It's at the sole cost

of the appellant even if they do get a right to appeal. Then

you get to the point where no act or decision of the commission

shall be questioned or restrained by an injunction.

It would seem to me, Mr. Attorney General, that if you are

truly desirous of being fair to the people of the Province of

British Columbia you will admit that with such far reaching

ramifications, such broad powers as this, should not be enacted

until you have had an opportunity to allow the public to

thoroughly scrutinize the details of that Act. As a matter of

fact, it's your duty to bring to their attention the provisions

that are included in this Act before you pass it into law.

It's the duty of the government to do this because it is, I

agree, a very major step on the part of any government. Many

jurisdictions are looking at the whole question of energy

sources, of energy uses, of energy requirements today.

Certainly the best brains and the people who will be most

affected should be encouraged to have their point of view

known, to "have their day in court" — if the

Attorney-General will accept that phrase because I know he

likes to use it. That he would be most concerned that we let a

little sunshine shine in, as he has often said — that he

would realize that the only way to get public participation in

this is not only to adequately advertise the intent of the Act

and the provisions of it but also to allow us time for the

public to openly debate it in front of a committee of this

House.

Hold hearings, get some public input, Mr. Attorney General.

Then come back after having satisfied yourself and the people

of the province that the Act you end up with is one that will

have the support of the majority of the people in the province,

not just part of it; one that the government can look at with

pleasure and pride because it is an accomplishment not only for

the government of the day but also for the people of the

Province of British Columbia.

I am sorry that the Attorney General did not see fit to

accept an adjournment on this debate to give us more time to

prepare some of the information that we would have liked to

have brought before you. At least it would have been nice to

have had an indication from the House Leader that it was the

intention of the government to debate the Energy Bill

today. It would have been common courtesy of the House Leader

to do that.

We have worked through a number of important bills in the

last two and a half days of debate; we have worked hard to

prepare our cases on many of them. I have covered in the best

manner that I can the things that I see in the bill without

having as much time as I would like. Other Members of our

caucus would have liked to have had more time and I'm sure the

public-at-large would have appreciated more time to study all

the effects and all the sections of this bill.

Therefore, Madam Speaker, I move that the motion be amended

by deleting the word "now" and substituting the words, "in six

months hence." I refer to the motion that the bill be read a

second time now.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The amendment to the motion is that the bill

shall be read in six months hence. All those…

MR. SMITH: Wait a minute, it's a debatable motion.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I just wonder, Madam Speaker, if that

motion is in order on second reading. Can you give us your

assurance on that? What was your law school? (Laughter).

This is a traditional motion on third reading of a bill, but…

MR. SMITH: Second reading on Bill 42 as well as this

one.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We went through that, did we? You give

me your assurance it is in order.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, we'll have to vote against it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Oh, would you wait a moment, please.

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

MR. PHILLIPS: I am speaking on the amendment, Madam

Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: All right, start speaking.

MR. PHILLIPS: This bill we have before us, Madam Speaker,

Bill No. 148, the Energy Act , has so many ramifications

that I am positive not even the Attorney General in all his

wisdom can read into this Act. That's one reason, Madam

Speaker, that I have to support this amendment.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. PHILLIPS: We are actually encompassing about eight Acts in one.

We are doing away with existing statutes. I am sure the practising lawyers here

in the Legislature have taken some time to study it, but still there are so

many ramifications to it. When you start, Mr. Speaker, to review the number

[ Page

2560 ]

far-reaching pieces of legislation that we have tried to pass in this session

of the Legislature…We have changed the entire insurance industry.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I am referring to the number of Acts, and

that's why I have to support this amendment, Mr. Attorney

General.

We have had the land Act and we have changed the complete

Mineral Act. It is just too much, Mr. Speaker, for one

session. Just by way of comparison, Mr. Speaker, there are 177

pieces of legislation before the Legislature right now. We are

maybe at the most 10 days before we wish to prorogue. We have a

couple of these very controversial Acts to complete second

reading. The Energy Act is fairly controversial. The

setting up of your department of…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, you don't consider that contentious? Oh, I

see. Well I do, Mr. Speaker.

What I am trying to point out to the Legislature and to you,

Mr. Speaker, is that of 177 Acts, one of the most contentious

ones is in second reading now, another one hasn't had second

reading. None of the Acts, except the supply bill, has gone to

committee.

If we are to discuss this legislation intelligently —

and you know, Mr. Speaker, that we have to debate it

intelligently because it is just not ordinary legislation. This

legislation is changing the life-style of British Columbia. And

everybody who says it isn't is naive, Mr. Speaker. It is

changing the entire life-style of our province.

As a comparison, Mr. Speaker, in 1971 there were some 69

public Acts versus 177 acts in total this year. In 1972, Mr.

Speaker, there were 64 public Acts.

I realize that we have a research staff but we're only

human, Mr. Speaker. I think if we are going to be conscientious

MLAs — and I am sure that all of the government MLAs are

not thoroughly conversant with all of the Acts that have gone

through this Legislature, because it's a physical impossibility

— this bill, I would suggest, should be completely and

thoroughly studied. The bill should at the very least go to a

committee of the Legislature to study all of the ramifications

of the bill.

There is every right and every justification, Mr. Speaker,

for this bill to be put to committee, because the Premier

himself said that more legislation was going to be referred to

committees and that the committee stage of the House was going

to have more say in what happens.

We're looking at a bill that controls everything below the

ground, everything on the ground and everything in the air

above the ground. It controls it, whether it's solid, liquid or

gas. If it has anything to do with energy, it controls it.

This Act controls the searching and finding of these energy

sources. It can regulate who can search for it, where it can be

searched for, what the royalties for search fees will be. It

controls how it shall be produced, right down to the size of

the well hole — and that includes oil wells as well as gas

wells, how many holes there shall be per acre, everything.

The Act also controls the refining of the product once it is

found and produced from a complete refinery to a gas processing

plant, every nut, every bolt, what shall happen to the waste

materials. This bill controls the moving of this energy once it

is refined, how it shall be stored and even to the thickness of

the steel.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: If you know all about it why don't you

make up your mind about it?

MR. PHILLIPS: Just a minute, now. You know yourself, Mr.

Attorney General, that it controls the moving of it, how it

shall be moved — through a pipeline or a tanker or a tank

truck; this energy bill controls it. It also controls every

retail outlet as to how it shall be sold. It controls

regulations for the retail utility gas companies.

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, anybody who doesn't realize

the far-reaching effects of all these areas of control doesn't

really know much about the business world. If this government

wants to move in a rational way — which I am sure it does

then I caution it and urge it to go slow on this bill.

That's why I support the amendment. The Attorney General

said that the timing was right and that it was urgent because

of an impending deal. The Attorney General knows as well as all

the MLAs know that these gas deals are controlled by the

national energy Act and there is certainly no rush by the

national energy Act to move on the export of any energy.

Sometimes hearings take years.

As the Attorney General said, there is no real shortage of energy. Certainly,

as I pointed out in the debate yesterday morning when we were debating another

Act in this House, there is no shortage of

[ Page

2561 ]

energy in the north-eastern portion of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I noted in May that a motion of

this kind is seldom debated, but when it is debated or when the

Speaker permits debate, he restricts the debate very closely

upon the reason that second reading should take place in six

months' time. Now the Hon. Member is not permitted thereby to

discuss the bill and what, in effect, he would have been

debating in second reading. He should confine himself more

strictly to his amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't know how I can ask the House, Mr.

Speaker, to postpone reading of the bill for six months

justifiably if I can't talk about some of the ramifications.

How am I going to justify supporting the amendment, for

instance, if I can't say that the bill has far-reaching

effects?

MR. SPEAKER: As I understand the Hon. Member's argument, it

was that the bill was so complicated it would take six months

to learn what it was about, and then he proceeded to explain

what the bill was about. Consequently, I ask the Hon. Member to

try to confine his debate to the question whether it should be

in effect postponed for six months.

MR. PHILLIPS: As a matter of fact I was quite proud of

myself, Mr. Speaker. I thought I was doing an excellent job of

adhering to the amendment.

HON. MR. BARRETT : It proves that you're wrong again.

MR. PHILLIPS: I thought I was doing an excellent job,

really. However, I haven't too many remarks left, Mr.

Speaker.

The urgency of this bill may be to whip the oil companies

into shape. I don't know. I cannot understand the urgency of

this bill. I think, Mr. Speaker, you'll have to agree that I

don't dispute the bill when it sets up an energy resource

management team, but there are seven other sections to the

bill.

Another reason for asking for postponement of the bill is

the anticipated judicial dispute that's going to take place

between this energy Act as it is now and the national energy

Act. I think that before we pass this bill there is time to

study how it's going to relate to the national energy Act and

to have a committee set up of the House.

If the Act is going to be ruled ultra vires by the Supreme

Court of Canada, then we've lost all that time anyway. If the

people who are exporting our gas know that there is a committee

of the House sitting and discussing this bill, then they'll go

slowly, Mr. Speaker.

I don't know how in a bill as far-reaching as this Energy

Act we could be expected to do the proper research when

we're confined to Victoria. It's impossible. We are confined to

Victoria because we have to sit here in this Legislature.

The ramifications of this bill take us far afield. I know

there are people in other parts of the province with whom I

would like to sit down and discuss some of the clauses in this

bill — a number of them in my own riding. That, Mr.

Speaker, is impossible to do, There are many lawyers in the province who say that they

need at least a month to study all the ramifications of this

bill.

If second reading of this bill is postponed for six months,

that will give the House…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't agree with the Premier, Mr. Speaker,

that we'll lose millions of dollars.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: You can put input into the National Energy

Board and ask them…yes, you can. This bill doesn't give you

the power, You don't know. You have a present Public Utilities

Commission and an Energy Board. All you have to do is pass an

order-in-council and give the present Energy Board the right to

deal with…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I wish I had as much faith in this bill, Mr.

Speaker, as the Premier seems to have.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well I have.

MR. PHILLIPS: You really have? Well, unfortunately I cannot

share that with you. That's why I have to support the amendment

and urge the Premier and the Attorney General to be rational.

In all sincerity there's no way they can ram a bill like this

down our throats in this session of the Legislature — and

that's exactly what they're trying to do. A 47-page bill that

holds the future of our province in the many sections that it's

got.

There's no way that any intelligent person, Mr. Speaker, would ask you to vote

on this bill. Therefore, if we vote on it, I'll have to vote against it when

[ Page

2562 ]

there are a lot of good things in it that I'd like to vote for. But in its

present form, Mr. Speaker, I have no alternative and there's a lot of good things

in it. Therefore I have to support the amendment. Set it over for six months.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, on the amendment, I think

we have lost 20 years — in protecting the vital energy

needs of the Province of British Columbia under the former

administration, and this government is not prepared to lose

another six months. The bill has been in your hands since March

22. The Hon. Member who has just taken his seat could have been

reading the legislation at the same time as he was making some

of those speeches.

MR. PHILLIPS: Sure, sure!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: But in a serious vein, you've been

provided with research assistants, two research assistants, and

you've had the bill for a long period of time. It is a crisis

situation that we're facing, particularly in terms of natural

gas, and we just can't afford to lose six months. We oppose the

motion.

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

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before I start, I look at the Premier, through you, and say

"Peace."

HON. MR. BARRETT: Peace, sister.

MRS. JORDAN: O.K., now on with the debate. I'm supporting

the motion — the amendment. I rise to support the

amendment, Mr. Speaker, and to ask that this bill do be laid

over for six months and do be brought before a committee of the

House. Some of the points have been made by other speakers but,

Mr. Speaker, just to go back to the beginning of the debate

this afternoon; we found when we were in government and the

Hon. Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce

(Hon. Mr. Macdonald) was in the opposition that he was a very

entertaining gentleman and an entertaining Member.

He had a sharp wit and sharp humour. We enjoyed it then and

we found that at that time he used it very often to camouflage

the points of his remark. Now that he's in government and he is

in a position of responsibility we find even more evidence,

some very enjoyable, of that humour and his ability to use

wit.

But it's more important now, Mr. Speaker, because we find

continually that he's using that wit to try and throw the

public off guard and to throw the opposition off guard and to

camouflage through wit.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Speak to the amendment.

MRS. JORDAN: There is very good reason why it should be

hoisted for six months and laid over. The Minister uses this

wit and charm to camouflage the true intents of his bills and

the legislation that he's responsible for being allowed through

this House, and bringing into this House…

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I point out that it's not right

here to discuss the merits of the bill — I am quoting

from May — upon this motion and that debate must be

strictly confined to the object of the motion which is, in

effect, to hoist the bill for six months.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker, and that is my

point. It's the way that the bill was presented — not

only upon reading the bill — which enhances our opinion

that the bill should be laid over for six months, because the

Minister for Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce did not

explain the bill fully when he introduced it to the House.

He has not explained it fully to the public. He has not

explained to the service station operators and the branded

dealers in this province. He has certainly not explained it to

other areas of the industry that are involved and particularly

as it reverts back to the taxpayers in this province.

When, in introducing

an Act like this which we believe

should be held over for six months so it can be fully examined,

the Minister uses this charm and wit, up goes our political

antenna. Our political antenna tells us that this bill is one

of the most potent and dangerous bills to the democratic

process of the people in British Columbia.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I want to get that down — my charm

and wit.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, this bill is being presented to

the public again through a veil of camouflage and charm and wit

as being a simple little document that's going to remove the

giveaways and the gimmicks from the service stations.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well I would have said that we smelled

something in the woodpile, but I didn't want to be accused of

being unkind.

So, Mr. Speaker, the service station people, branded dealers and others, when

they first heard of this Act, said, "It's a great Act. It means that we're no

longer going to be troubled with having to knuckle down to the procedure of

giving away gimmicks and glasses and place mats and gifts in order to attract

[ Page

2563 ]

b usiness."

The public reacted the same way, Mr. Speaker. They thought

this simple little document of 47 pages was, in fact, a simple

little document which meant they wouldn't be troubled with

these same procedures which puts an added cost on the service

stations in time and, in fact, for buying the giveaways —

and also is very annoying to many of the consumers. They'd

rather have less of an expense.

In asking to have it laid over for six months, Mr. Speaker,

I speak on behalf of these people. Let them. What can be wrong

with them having the opportunity to examine this bill in its

entirety, and to realize that it isn't a giveaway gimmick bill

as far as the service station operators are concerned; it's a

takeover gimmick bill as far as the NDP government is

concerned.

They may well be paying a very high price by way of their

freedoms, by way of their tax dollars and their cost of living

in giving up the giveaway gimmicks from the oil companies. That

is one reason, Mr. Speaker, that I support this amendment and

ask the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce

to set this bill over for six months.

He talks about a crisis. Everybody in the world knows that

there's an energy crisis and everybody in the world knows that

there's going to be an upset of balance because of the

middle-east situation. Six months in British Columbia, Mr.

Speaker, is not going to change that situation.

The Minister has the authority now, under legislation that

is within the jurisdiction of this government, to withhold any

unnecessary or too-rapid moves by the industry. He should use

that. If he claims there's been a mistake made in the past, and

I don't agree with him completely on that, why compound that

mistake by making another one so quickly?

The Minister says that the bill has been lying here for a

month and a half. Mr. Minister, a month and a half is very

little time when one studies the ramifications of this bill. In

fact it hasn't been here that long.

We have to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this is another effort

of this government to ram through very potent legislation, that

it goes hand in hand with the procedures that are developing in

this House where we have legislation not only by exhaustion,

but by starvation and probably in the end by stupidity.

The human body cannot function consistently concentrating

from 10 in the morning until midnight and then be expected to

do research after midnight, to serve constituencies, to tend to

phone calls, to write letters and at times to sit down and

think out their thoughts, Mr. Speaker.

I suggest that the intent behind this is that the government

and this Minister and the Premier don't really want the public

to know what's in this legislation. Even the poor, overworked

Press gallery can't keep up.

They say with a sigh now, Mr. Speaker, "Enough is enough,

Mr. Minister." That's what they're saying to you.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: …and you too, and I'm proud to speak for

them on behalf of them, to lay this bill over for six months.

Let the media sit down and have an opportunity to examine this

bill and its ramifications and inform themselves and the

public.

Mr. Speaker, the media has had a little heart-to heart talk

from the Provincial Secretary that they are perhaps not quite

understanding the legislation that's before this House. We

suggest that perhaps it might be the case in this Energy Act

that we are asking to be left open for study.

We wouldn't want to see the Minister of Industrial

Development, Trade and Commerce — and I'm sure he

wouldn't want to — make unkind statements to the media

about not understanding the legislation and perhaps not

informing the public properly. He wouldn't. have to, Mr.

Speaker, if he would lay this bill over for six months and

allow the media the opportunity to examine it.

Why not, Mr. Speaker, ask the media — because the

party, the government, seems to like to ask the media to do

things — to print this bill in its entirety in the papers

of British Columbia and an explanatory note beside each

section

telling the public exactly what all 194 sections mean? Surely,

Mr. Speaker, that is democracy at its best, and that's what the

Premier of this province wants.

I see the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and

Commerce is leaving the House just for a moment. I hope that he

has gone to make arrangements, Mr. Speaker, that this bill

should be left to public study for six months.

The Premier of this province, when he was in opposition,

used to stand very close to where I'm standing now, wave his

arms and say, "If I were Premier of this province, the

democratic process would be at its best. We would utilize our

committees. We would take them out into the province and let

them listen to the people. We would bring in our legislation

and let it lie over for six months and let the people affected

examine it."

Mr. Speaker, I don't think we have one piece of legislation

that is being put to committee and going around the province.

He always talked about a "curative process" to cure problems of

ill-thought-out legislation, to rapidly introduce legislation.

What, in fact, he's practising is not a curative process, Mr.

Speaker. This Premier and this government are practising an

embalming process, the embalming of legislation in British

Columbia.

They bring it in. They hustle it. They hustle it as hustlers can do at their

best through this House. The

[ Page

2564 ]

legislation is enshrined on the statute books of British Columbia and then

they ask for input. That's fixing the body up after death.

Don't embalm the people of British Columbia in this bill,

Mr. Premier, through you Mr. Speaker. Use the curative process.

Do what you said you'd do before you were made Premier of this

province. You must be proud of this legislation. You have no

reason to hide it or be ashamed of it or embarrassed about it.

Stand up with your pride.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Because by saying, "Why should I hoist it?" you

make this opposition and the public feel that you've got

something you want to hide or that you're insecure, through you

Mr. Speaker, in your conviction that this is in fact good

legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the telephone people in British Columbia want

to know how this bill may well affect them. Give them six

months to examine it.

Well, there's another bill that goes footy-footy with this

bill that may well give this government more powers, or the

effort to gain more powers, than is evident in this bill.

They'll probably run into constitutional problems. Nonetheless,

they are setting a stage that should be made obvious to the

public and to the people involved before it's part of the

legislation of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, this even brings in such people as the Minister

of Health and Welfare. It brings in the opportunity to control

prices, not only of the source of supply but in the retail

outlet sector, at a time when the government is allowing

cut-rate operations to develop in British Columbia. In asking

to have this bill put over for six months, I must mention that

I spoke to the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and

Commerce (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) suggesting that there be a

moratorium on cut-rate operations until such time as this

commission was established and we could look at this whole

situation objectively. But he makes a conflict then. He's not

so interested in the public and he's not so interested in the

little outlets on that basis. He's more interested in gaining

power, rapid-fire power.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister, through you,

to recognize the commitments made and honour the commitments

made by this government before their election to recognize the

rights of those involved — the citizens of British

Columbia — and their interest in this bill. Accept this

amendment and lay the bill over for six months and establish it

with a committee and hear what people have to say. Don't make a

mistake that can't be rectified, Mr. Minister. Don't wrap the

people of British Columbia up in embalming legislation. Assist

them with advanced legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker,

when the Hon. Minister made statements concerning this bill, he

indicated to the general public in B.C. that his government was

going to move slowly. They were going to listen to people. They

weren't going to be stampeded into any kind of unpropitious

decisions. And the Minister says, "Absolutely."

He said that they wanted information, that they wanted input

and inputters. So, the very vehicle that you need to provide

these things is the one that's proposed by this motion. Let it

sit for six months.

It's an extremely complex and complicated bill. Its

consequence and its

interpretation will be terrifically

interrelated to trade and commerce and intra- and

ultra-provincial operations. In fact, it's extremely

interrelated to the economic and energy values which are

international in effect and international in result.

The powers proposed under the bill are enormous, extremely

far-reaching. It includes pretty well every energy resource,

every energy save and except natural lightning. I don't know

how you missed that one. You'd better write that down and see

if you can include it. As some Members have indicated, its

constitutionality could well be open to question.

As I've said, it will have provincial, federal and

international complications and effects. I would very much urge

the Minister, in all seriousness, and reiterate to an extent

the remarks of one of the earlier speakers. There's a lot in

this bill that is good. There's no question of a doubt about

it. But it's certainly not one that should be pushed through in

a hurry.

I'm given to believe that people in the energy fields have

not really been given the welcome mat insofar as your cabinet

is concerned and that they've had a lot of difficulty in

approaching you concerning their attitudes and views on the

bill. So I would very much urge that a reasonable hoist and a

reasoned hoist would do the bill, would do yourselves, would do

the people who are involved in the energy values in the

Province of British Columbia, and would do the public,

justice.

I certainly intend to support the motion.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain,

MS. P.F. YOUNG (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It was said by one of the Members of the opposition that the backbenchers don't

understand this bill. That's not true.

I've spent a great deal of time studying this bill and I understand it thoroughly.

The Member for South Okanagan (Hon. Mr. Bennett) said that the

[ Page

2565 ]

media had not done their job in explaining the bill to the general public.

Well, I don't know what this is, from the front page of the Vancouver Province .

And I don't know what this is, from the Victoria Daily Colonist , discussing

the very bill. I think the media have done a good job. I suggest to you, Mr.

Speaker, that perhaps the opposition, official and otherwise, has not done a

good job in studying this bill at all.

There are things going on at the present time that require

action now. We are in a situation where federally we have no

energy policy. Premier Davis of Ontario has stated this.

Premier Lougheed of Alberta has stated this. And we're finding

ourselves in the same position — the federal government

is without a policy. Knowing the way the federal government

reacts to situations, it may be some time before we have a

federal energy policy. By that time it may be too late for

British Columbia and for the other provinces.

That's why, Mr. Speaker, I think we need this commission. I

think we need it now because they would be able to form; they

would be able to investigate — they would be able to

research. We would be in a position to negotiate from a

position of strength in the event that there is a national

energy Act and at least at the National Energy Board when

dealing with such situations as the West Coast

Transmission.

Therefore I oppose this amendment.

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

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, I want to

disassociate myself from the remarks of the former Member

relative to the urgency of this legislation. I want to say that

I sincerely believe that it's necessary that the legislation be

held over for a short period of time. We're not attempting to

delay the legislation indefinitely so that it's never

passed.

We just want to delay it slightly so certain ramifications

and certain developments can be taken into consideration and so

that the people of British Columbia will have an opportunity to

assess the legislation as it presently stands. Also, there are

certain developments on the horizon that there should be more

research in.

I picked up an

article in the Vancouver Sun just this

afternoon. It talks about the conversion of cow manure to

natural gas. That hasn't been studied. There's been no research

on that. It says, "There may be gold in those cow chips." I

don't think you've researched that, have you, Mr. Attorney

General? I don't think you've researched anything.

There is a very definite lack of understanding of the Act on

the part of the Minister who is introducing it in the House.

This slight delay will give him an opportunity to come back and

tell us what the Act is all about and give us his

interpretation of the Act.

It's

an Act that has wide ramifications and one that

involves a considerable amount of examination due to the fact

that there are 194 sections in it.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: I'm debating the amendment. I'm trying to

convince the Minister, through you Mr. Speaker, of the wisdom

of the postponement of the implementation of this Act. I think

there is a need for a slight delay. Six months. Is that being

unreasonable? Mr. Speaker, is it unreasonable to ask for a

slight delay? Even the Speaker agrees with me. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: I didn't say a word.

MR. CHABOT: The Minister, in introducing this Act, has just

brought in a bunch of diversionary arguments for the reason for

the implementation of this Act without giving us the real

justification for the immediate implementation of this Act. I

think that if we are really interested in people, as your

government has attempted to lead British Columbians to believe

that you are, then give them an opportunity to participate in

understanding and the possible formulation of new ideas towards

this wide-ramification piece of legislation.

I don't think there's anything drastically wrong with asking

British Columbians to examine this new direction and a delay of

six months. Through the committee structure, which we have so

lavishly established in British Columbia, here is a real

opportunity for the people of British Columbia to give us ideas

as to whether the legislation should be enacted as it presently

stands or whether there is a need for amendments and changes;

and if there is a need for change, what the changes should

be.

We're asking the government by this amendment to be

reasonable, be fair, be open, be cautious. Hold over this piece

of legislation so that there can be a more objective and

rational assessment by the people of British Columbia. Have the

legislation referred to committee so that the people will have

an opportunity to express their acceptance or their rejection

of the direction in which this legislation is leading British

Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, we have had ample opportunity

to discuss this matter. As for the argument that it should be

delayed because the opposition hasn't had the time to review

the…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

[ Page 2566 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: That was one of the arguments given. In

terms of not being prepared for the debate, we've provided 100

per cent increase in research staff to the opposition because

when we were in opposition we realized how handicapped we were

by the former administration who did none of the things that

the present opposition is asking — absolutely none of the

things.

We are faced with the situation in this province group in

this House condone the present sale price and that we're

prepared to let it go National Energy Board and make a case for

a better return to the people of this province of natural gas.

It is a crisis situation. But, Mr. Speaker, it is not a crisis

situation of our making. It's a crisis situation which we

inherited from the former administration. If we don't arm the

people of British Columbia with the kind of research and

technical material that the government needs to protect their

interests, then we would be failing the people of British

Columbia. That's why this bill must go through.

Twenty years of neglect of the natural gas resources of this

province have allowed the natural gas resources to slip away

into the United States at a terribly low price — an

unfair low price. The delay in passing this bill would mean

that we as a group in this House condone the present scale

price and that we're prepared to let it go on for another six

months.

This is the first opportunity we've had after seven months

in office, having an outside team properly prepare and assess

this material, giving the opposition research people, to take

some positive action to protect the natural gas resources of

the people of this province. I say of all the debates that you

want to delay and filibuster and throw sand in the gears, this

is the least one that the official opposition should even speak

on. Because it's their fault that this bill is here in front of

us today.

We went for years without sufficient funds or drive to

provide the services needed to the people of this province.

Services come from taxation and from royalties and from

revenues generated from the resources of this province that

were God-given — not by any political party. The

opposition can stall, delay, do whatever it wants; but it is

the intention of this government to see that this bill gets on

and gets passed so that we can bring a decent return to the

people of British Columbia, just as the new government in

Alberta is attempting to bring a decent return to that province

after a lengthy Social Credit administration. We've got the

similar kind of mess that they left in the area of

technological knowledge and research. I say let's get on with

the job right now.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, few things could do more to persuade us of the

wisdom of a hoist than the speech of the Premier. We have had a

statement in terms of our not being prepared for debate. Well,

we feel we've debated fairly successfully. This of course has

been turned immediately to an attack on the former

administration and how much better things are now with 100 per

cent increase in research staff. We appreciate it, Mr. Premier,

but this doesn't mean a thing in terms of whether or not all

the aspects and ramifications of this bill have been looked at

by all the interested parties of this province. It simply isn't

a good enough excuse to continue the old line of saying, "Well,

things may be terrible but they're better than they used to

be." That's precisely what you said in your first point in your

speech this afternoon.

As far as going to the National Energy Board and the need

for research and the need for information, first of all you've

never told us when you're going to the National Energy Board. I

assume it's in the near future.

Again the criticism of the former administration came up.

But surely that is the very reason for going ahead and getting

some research done which does not depend on this bill. You know

it and everybody else knows it.

You know, because you've already done it, that you can hire

outside researchers. Resources for the Future is one outfit

you've hired. The UBC economists are another. The Paish company

dealing with research in the environmental field is another.

Time after time after time you've demonstrated your ability

— and I think it's a good thing — to get out and

hire researchers when you need the research done. You don't

need this bill to get that research done. You know that full

well.

To blame the previous administration and the unfair low

prices and the 20 years of neglect really does nothing

whatsoever in terms of the true point that you're trying to

make which allegedly was to get more research done.

Nobody's condoning the present sale price, if that's your

worry. We're simply saying that this type of bill, which can

control from beginning to end every aspect of an industry,

which allows tremendous powers to a commission, is not

necessary to get the research done that you talk about. Once

again, you simply cannot blame it on the previous

administration. People in this party have criticized them

enough over the years. But at least we realize that there has

been a change on August 30, something the Premier apparently

forgets whenever he gets to his feet and starts attacking

Social Credit.

We have the question of opposition stalling and delaying. Well, this is a pretty

important bill. It came on this afternoon without warning and not in order.

You, Mr. Premier, know it because you brought it on

[ Page

2567 ]

that way. The fact of the matter is that the discussion started not so very

long ago as far as time goes. The argument that we are stalling and delaying

and preventing a decent return to people is absolute nonsense because the only

debate that's been going on this afternoon has probably taken up not more than

three hours. Therefore, I think the argument that somehow or another this is

delaying the whole problem is just obviously wrong.

What we would like the amendment to serve is this: first,

split this bill, There are many good aspects of this bill as I

outlined when I spoke earlier this afternoon. There is no