1974 Legislative Session: 4th 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)

MONDAY, JUNE 10, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3859 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Funds for student summer

jobs. Mr. Fraser — 3859

Construction contracts let to non-union firms. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3860

Disposition of request from Marie Mills. Mr. Wallace — 3860

Motor carrier rate increases. Mr. Smith — 3861

Date of takeover of ambulance services. Mr. McClelland — 3861

RCMP questioning of 15-year-old student. Mr. Curtis — 3862

Discussion of Firenza case sub judice. Mr. Morrison — 3862

Assistance for autistic children. Mr. D.A. Anderson 3862

Public Works Fair Employment Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill

87).

Report and third reading — 3862

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 102).

Committee, report and third reading — 3863

Community Care Facilities Licensing Amendment Act, 1974

(Bill 109).

Committee, report and third reading — 3863

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 102).

Third reading discharged — 3863

Committee stage Amendment to

section 5.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3863

Report and third reading — 3863

Tuberculosis Institutions Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill

113).

Committee, report and third reading — 3864

Police Act (Bill 91). Committee stage.

Amendment to

section 4. Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3864

Amendment to

section 7. Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3864

Amendment to

section 13. Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3864

Amendment to

section 14. Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3864

Amendment to

section 15. Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3864

section 16.

Mr. McClelland — 3864

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3864

Amendment to

section 19. Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3864

Amendment to

section 22. Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3865

Amendment to

section 23. Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3865

Amendment to

section 24. Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3865

Amendment to

section 25. Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3865

Amendment to

section 28. Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3865

section 28 as amended.

Mr. Smith — 3865

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3865

Amendment to

section 30. Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3865

Amendment to

section 32. Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3865

Amendment to

section 37. Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3865

Amendment to

section 40. Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3865

Amendment to

section 58. Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3865

Report stage p. 3865

Accelerated Park Development Fund Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill

114). Committee stage.

section 1.

Mr. McClelland — 3866

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3866

Report and third reading — 3866

Real Estate Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 124). Committee

stage.

Amendment to

section 6. Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3866

Amendment to

section 8. Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3866

Amendment to

section 14. Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3866

Report stage — 3866

Assessment Authority of British Columbia Act (Bill 147). Committee stage.

Amendment to

section 10. Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3866

Amendment to

section 12. Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3866

Amendment to

section 14. Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3867

Report stage — 3867

Logging Tax Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 149). Committee, report and third reading — 3867

Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 138). Committee

stage.

Amendment to

section 7. Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3867

section 12.

Mr. McClelland — 3867

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3867

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3868

Mr. Phillips — 3868

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3868

Report stage — 3869

Leaseholds and Conversion Mortgage Loan Act (Bill 133). Committee, report and third reading — 3869

Provincial Home Acquisition Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill

140). Committee, report and third reading — 3869

An Act to Ratify an Agreement Bearing Date the 16th Day of

November, 1964, Between the City of Prince Rupert, Canadian

National Railway Company, and Her Majesty the Queen in Her

Right of Her Province of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1974

(Bill 145). Committee, report and third reading — 3869

Energy Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 18). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3869

Mr. Smith — 3870

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3873

Mr. Wallace — 3876

Mr. Richter — 3881

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3881

Mr. Gibson — 3883

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3884

Division on second reading — 3884

Protection of Children Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 154).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Levi — 3884

Mr. Schroeder — 3885

Mr. Wallace — 3885

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3885

Hon. Mr. Levi — 3886

Mineral Royalties Act (Bill 3 I ). Second reading. Mrs. Jordan — 3887

Universities Act (Bill 157). Hon. Mrs. Dailly. Introduction and first reading — 3893

Interpretation Act (Bill 110). Discharge of second reading — 3893

Interpretation Act (Bill 153). Hon. Mr. Macdonald. Introduction and first reading — 3893

MONDAY, JUNE 10, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, it is with great sense of welcome

that I ask you to acknowledge the presence here today of

Members of the Quebec National Assembly who are guests here for

two days of visit and discussion on various subjects of

procedure and other matters of interest to

parliamentarians.

On the floor of the House are: the vice-president of their

assembly, Mr. Harry Blank; Mr. Samson, who is the

representative of the opposition; and Mr. LaCroix, the

government Whip. I would ask the Members to acknowledge their

presence.

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

voudrais dire à nos amis de la belle province avec nous ce

jour: "Bienvenu et bonne chance." (Laughter.)

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Pour le Parti Crédit

Social, ce me fait beaucoup de plaisir cet après-midi de

souhaiter le bienvenu aux Députés du Québec et leurs femmes

dans notre province ici aujourd'hui. Nous avons avec nous en

haut: M. Blank et Mme Blank; M. LaCroix et Mme LaCroix; M.

Vincent Chagnon et Mme Chagnon, de Lévis; M. Prudent Carpentier

et Mme Carpentier, de Laviolette; M. Page et Mme Page, de

Portneuf; M. Guy Bacon et Mme Bacon, de Trois-Rivières; M.

Marc-Yvon Coté, Député de Matane, et Mme Coté; M. Camil

Samson et Mme. Samson — M. Samson est membre du parti Créditist

Social de la Province de Québec; M. Gilles Bellemare et Mme

Bellemare, de Rosemont; M. Jacques Tremblay, Député

d'Iberville, et Mme Tremblay; M. Jean Boudreault et Mme

Boudreault; M. Roberto Wilson, Director, Interparliamentary and

Public Relations office du Québec.

J'espère que votre voyage et votre conférence ici serout

agréables et couronnés avec succès.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Messieurs, comme vous avez

écoutés l'aspirant au "leadership" du Crédit Social national, M.

Chabot, (Laughter) il faut que j'ajoute quelques mots de la part du

Parti Libéral. Je souhaite bien que vous êtes ici àVictoria pour le

beau temps et pour le plaisir. J'espère bien que pendant ces deux jours

que vousêtes ici nous aurons du temps d'avoir des conversations,

surtout avec mon ancien ami, M. Blank.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker…. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: You'll hear it in Gaelic. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, after the French roll call I

thought it was the Member's first campaign speech for a while

there, but as a Scotsman who doesn't profess to even try to

speak French but would like to, let me welcome you to this

House on behalf of the Conservative Party and say that nothing

but good can come of this kind of exchange. We hope you will

come again soon.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all of

us as MLAs I want to thank the Members from the Quebec National

Assembly for joining us. There are regional problems in this

country, but the differences between Quebec are so little that

my solution is that we carve the country down the middle and

call the western part British Columbia and the eastern part

Quebec, and all the problems would be solved. (Laughter.)

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I know

that the House read with sorrow and concern the news from our

nation's capital this weekend regarding the grievous illness of

our Governor-General, Mme. Léger. I want to advise the House

that on all your behalfs I have sent a communication to Mme

Leger and the Governor-General expressing our hopes for a

recovery and a return to duty just as soon as possible.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, last year I had the

opportunity of embarking on a programme of spending some time

doing real work with other people of this province. I had the

great honour of spending some time on the fish boat, Western

Warrior. It is a purse seine boat, and today the crew of the

Western Warrior are with us: Captain Johnny Watson and his

wife; John Sponza; Eldon Mickelchuk; Dan Ralph; Olav Olafson;

George Olafson; and their wives. I ask the House to welcome

them.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, seated in the

gallery are 80 students from the Greek community of

Vancouver-Burrard, accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Pappas.

I'd like the House to join me in saying "yassou" to those

students.

Introduction of bills.

Oral questions.

FUNDS FOR STUDENT SUMMER JOBS

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, a

[ Page 3860 ]

question to the Minister of Labour: with reference to Bill

101, Special Provincial Employment Programmes Act ,

providing an amount not exceeding $30 million to stimulate and

promote employment for students, why were students who applied

on May 23, 1974, advised that there were no further funds when,

in fact, Bill 101 only provided the funds by law on May 30,

1974?

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, of course

the development of the programme and the selection of the

different areas of the province which would be mounting the

programmes had to be done much prior to the time that the bill

was passed in the House. Accordingly, the employment

requirements in terms of the numbers of people that could be

employed was designated and, in fact, fully subscribed up to

that point in time.

It's not a question of when the money was allocated; it's a

question of when the programmes were fully subscribed to and

endorsed by the various branches by the department.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Supplemental to the

Minister of Labour: in view of the fact that there are 1,257

job vacancies in greater Victoria alone, and there seems to be

nobody available to fill these jobs, and a large number of

these jobs happen to be in the tourist industry, where is the

Member finding the students and the persons to fill these job

vacancies this summer?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to hear that

employment is so good in the province, that we do, in fact,

have a shortage of manpower. That's a distinctive departure

from the old days of Social Credit.

There were some 12,000 jobs created under the various

programmes of the student summer employment programme. There is

a variation in the programmes put forward. There was STEP and

SWEEP and Initiative '74 — these were all programmes based on

different concepts. Some were to develop expertise in their

chosen professions for university students; some of the

programmes were to provide employment experience, job

experience, for those people in high school so that they may

later obtain references and so on. Some were, in fact,

assistance to private enterprise to assist them in securing

students for the summer.

Now, although the bill was not passed through the Legislature prior to the

end of May, in effect the advertising for all these programmes — so the community

could be aware of the assistance available to them — started much, much before

that, as I think the House is aware. Of course, we now have the authority of

the House to make the expenditures, once the programmes are initiated.

MR. PHILLIPS: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker: in view

of the fact that the Minister does recognize that there is a

shortage of persons to fill jobs in British Columbia, how can

he then justify spending public moneys on many programmes which

will be make-work programmes?

HON. MR. KING: I think that justification is very, very

easy, Mr. Speaker. I think what we are providing in the way of

positive employment with good remuneration to students enables

them to further their education with a minimum of grants from

the government directly, which was the case in the past. I

think that it's preferential from a social point of view, as

far as this government is concerned, to have people involved in

gainful employment, worthwhile job experiences rather than have

them on the dole of grants and so on to ensure that they

receive a good education in our society.

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS

LET TO NON-UNION FIRMS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister

of Labour: Has the Minister investigated complaints by the B.C.

Construction Association that a government contract has been

given to a non-union firm to build 150 condominium units, town

house units, at Champlain Heights?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, this is the first I've heard of

the incident. If the Member has some communication on it, I'd

be pleased to look at it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I further ask in a supplementary

whether it will be government policy for houses constructed

under the Department of Housing to go to union contractors?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, that involves an

interpretation

of the laws that exist on the statute books. There are many

varying circumstances that I wouldn't want to give a carte

blanche answer on a hypothetical question. That could well be

the case, but it depends on the circumstances involved.

MR. SPEAKER: I would point out that it appears to be a

solution to the legal proposition that is already on the

statute books.

DISPOSITION OF A REQUEST

FROM MRS. MARIE MILLS

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, this seems to be the

[ Page 3861 ]

Minister of Labour's big day. I'd also like to ask him

whether he intends to reply to the request of Mrs. Marie Mills,

who is an admitting officer at the Gorge Road Hospital, for a

meeting to discuss her personal situation in regard to the

first agreement at Gorge Road Hospital. I might say she wrote

to the Minister on May 8.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I make a habit of answering all

my correspondence and arranging meetings with everyone who

requests a meeting wherever possible. I'm not familiar with

this particular request, but I'll certainly investigate it and

report back to the House if the Member wishes.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask the

Minister if any consideration is being given to allowing

employees of long standing to have exemption from compulsory

union membership when a first collective agreement is being

considered — members of long-standing, people employed 11 years

prior to the first agreement.

HON. MR. KING: Well, there is no statutory requirement that

anyone belong to a trade union in the province. That is a

condition of their collective agreement between the employer

and the bargaining agent, so there's no statutory requirement

as far as the Department of Labour is concerned, either now or

was there ever in the past.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member has

taken off on a different tack in questions, has he not?

MR. WALLACE: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I'm simply trying to

ask if the Minister was giving any consideration to people of

long standing who have been employees for, say, 11 years prior

to the first collective agreement, being excused either union

membership or the paying of union dues, if this is their

choice. That's the question.

MR. SPEAKER: I think that is a matter of law, really, and

not for

interpretation by a Minister.

MOTOR CARRIER

RATE INCREASES

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the

Minister of Transportation and Communications. Mr. Minister, there's a great

deal of concern among all the licensed motor carriers in this province over,

first of all, the phasing out of the PUC, then the inaction of the new commission

that has been appointed to investigate rate increases. They've put the problem

to you in the form of a brief on April 18 and to date they've had no reply and

no action. Would the Minister indicate how soon there will be some action taken

on this very important matter?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): I want

to let the Member know that applications to the Motor Carrier Commission are

being processed much more expeditiously than at any time in history. So you

were wrong in point No. 1.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: 2. I have applied for and been given

permission to, as I told you during estimates, add eight or

nine more people into that department.

3. You said "no reply and no action." I did reply to the

telegram sent to me. The Motor Carrier Commission met with the

representative of the ATA. Every application that has been put

forward to the commission for an increase has been met.

Further, as I say, we're going to try and get some extra

staff. Indeed, I expect a flood of them now. We cannot at the

present time…. Now, let me say that next Friday the chairman

of the Motor Carrier Commission is meeting with the new

president of the ATA. But there is a process and a procedure

laid down. What they were asking for was a blanket increase

across the way.

Now, they have differing cost increases and the Motor

Carrier Commission was set up to bring some equity into it, and

it's been handling it in that way. But the chairman of the

Motor Carrier Commission is meeting with the new president of

the ATA on Friday.

MR. SMITH: This coming Friday?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes.

DATE FOR TAKE-OVER

OF AMBULANCE SERVICES

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): A question to the Minister of

Health, Mr. Speaker. During debate on the Emergency Health

Services Act, the Minister indicated at that time that the

target date for take-over of the ambulance services was still

July 1. In view of the fact that some municipalities have been

told that date can't be reached, is there a new date for

take-over of the services in the province?

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I

indicated at that time, during the debate, that we wanted to be

into the ambulance service on

[ Page 3862 ]

July 1. Now to be able to implement every aspect of our

direction by July I would be impossible. As far as taking over

individual ambulance services throughout the province, that

will take a little time and I can't give you the exact date for

a specific area. Although I could do, if I was asked the

question direct or at least if we corresponded on it or by

phone call — then I could get in touch with our ambulance

people and find out exactly how quickly they are prepared to

move into a particular area.

MR. McCLELLAND: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Will there be

any retroactive aspect to this take-over up to July 1 or back

to July 1 for those municipalities which are paying grants in

assistance to ambulance services now?

HON. MR. COCKE: I will have to take that as notice. I

suspect that that's precisely what we will do — try to take the

responsibility between July 1 and whatever time the actual

take-over has occurred.

RCMP QUESTIONING OF

15-YEAR OLD STUDENT

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

the Minister of Education: Is the Minister aware of an incident

earlier this year in North Vancouver School District 44 where

apparently a student, 15 years of age, was removed from school

and interrogated by RCMP officers with respect to an alleged

offence, and that the questioning included the parents' place

of employment, nature of their employment and other

matters?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): I was not aware of

that specific case, but I would like to make it clear that we

have very stringent regulations that no child or student should

be interviewed without the parents being called in.

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. That has been made

apparent to this particular case. To assist the Minister, I

would refer her to a letter dated February 7, from Mr. Elrod.

But have these instructions been repeated for all school

districts and all district superintendents? Apparently as

recently as February-March, the matter was not being strictly

adhered to.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I don't remember the date that I asked

those instructions be sent out again. It could have been just

following February. I'll check on it for you, Mr. Member, but

they have gone out.

FIRENZA CASE SUB JUDICE

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): My question is addressed to the Minister

of Consumer Services. Did the Minister in discussion with the B.C. auto dealers

on Friday afternoon discuss the Firenza subject, a subject which is before the

courts now?

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr.

Speaker, I alluded to the case in that there was a case.

MR. MORRISON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the

fact then that this subject is sub judice and that it was

rather a lengthy discussion, does the Minister feel that she

has prejudiced the case by discussing this subject with the

dealers at that time?

HON. MS. YOUNG: No, I don't, Mr. Speaker. I merely repeated

the charges that had been made by the federal Department of

Consumer Affairs.

ASSISTANCE FOR AUTISTIC CHILDREN

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the Minister of Human Resources, Mr.

Speaker: may I ask the Minister whether he's rejected the

request for provincial government support for a residential

treatment centre for autistic children here in Victoria?

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): Yes, we have. We

met with them, I think, two weeks ago today and there were to

be some continuing discussions between the board of the

Autistic Society, Mr. John Noble of my department and Mr. John

Walsh of the Education department.

The House might be interested to know that we are providing,

at the moment, continuing assistance to some of those children

within the school system.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask the Minister a supplementary,

then? Are the continuing discussions dealing with the possible

establishment of a residential centre or are they simply

dealing with other methods and ways of helping the students

concerned?

HON. MR. LEVI: They are dealing with alternative methods of

use of existing facilities and that kind of thing. Those

discussions were agreed to when I was present, and they are

continuing.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Public bills and orders, Mr.

Speaker. I have been informed by the Clerks that a report on

Bill 87 would be in order today. Although it is noted in the

orders of the day that it is not printed I have been informed

that it has been printed. So I call report on Bill 87.

[ Page 3863 ]

PUBLIC WORKS FAIR EMPLOYMENT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Bill 87 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 102, Mr.

Speaker.

The House in committee on Bill 102; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 102, Income Tax Amendment Act, 1974, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 109, Mr. Speaker.

COMMUNITY CARE FACILITIES

LICENSING AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 109; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 11 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Chairman, I move

the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 109, Community Care Facilities Licensing Amendment

Act, 1974, reported complete without amendment, read a

third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to

discharge third reading of Bill 102 to permit me to move

amendments in my name on the order paper. (Laughter.) (See

appendix.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 102, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Committee on Bill 102 — it would happen when the Quebec

assembly is here. (Laughter.)

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 102; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Amendment to

section 1 approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

section 5.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment

standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Section 5 as amended approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 102, Income Tax Amendment Act, 1974, reported

complete with amendments.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): On a point of

order, so that we don't have a third run-through may I ask, Mr.

Speaker, if the Minister of Finance intends to move the

section

6 amendment standing in his name on the order paper?

MR. SPEAKER: Is there another amendment? Good heavens!

MR. CURTIS: Oh, I see —

section 5. We're all human.

(Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: I believe that two of us out of 55 made a

mistake today. (Laughter.)

Bill 102, Income Tax Amendment Act, 1974, reported

complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting

of the House after today.

[ Page 3864 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 113, Mr. Speaker.

TUBERCULOSIS INSTITUTIONS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 113; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and

report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 113, Tuberculosis Institutions Amendment Act,

1974, reported complete without amendment, read a third

time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 91, Mr. Speaker.

POLICE ACT

The House in committee on Bill 91; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

section 4.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): I move the amendment

standing in my name on page 23 of the order paper. (See

appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 4 as amended approved.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

section 7.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendments standing in my

name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendments approved.

Section 7 as amended approved.

Sections 8 to 12 inclusive approved.

section 13.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendment, Mr. Chairman. (See

appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 13 as amended approved.

section 14.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendment, Mr. Chairman. (See

appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 14 as amended approved.

section 15.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendment, Mr. Chairman. (See

appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 15 as amended approved.

section 16.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I would just like to ask the

Attorney-General whether or not any consultation was done with

the RCMP before this

section was put in, what their opinion is

of it and whether they can live with it, in fact, under the

terms of that section.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the answer is yes, there

was consultation, of course, at the local level in that the

assistant commissioner was part of our deliberations leading up

to the Act. Further to that there was a meeting with the top

staff of the RCMP in Ottawa in Solicitor-General

Allmand's office. As a result of that there were

amendments not to this

section but to another

section dealing

with the disciplinary code within the RCMP. So they were

fully aware of the Act and I think they are happy

with it.

MR. McCLELLAND: All right, they were fully aware. But were

there any reservations expressed by the RCMP with this

section?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Not with this section.

Sections 16 to 18 inclusive approved.

section 19.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendment to

section 19. (See appendix.)

[ Page

3865 ]

Amendment approved.

Section 19 as amended approved.

Sections 20 and 21 approved.

section 22.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendment to

section 22. (See

appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 22 as amended approved.

section 23.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendment to

section 23. (See

appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 23 as amended approved.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendment to

section 24. (See

appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 24 as amended approved.

section 25.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendments to

section 25.

(See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 25 as amended approved.

Sections 26 and 27 approved.

section 28.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendments to

section 28.

(See appendix.)

Amendments approved.

section 28 as amended.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River):

Section 28 says: "Where

a board is of the opinion that its municipal force requires

assistance in the performance of one or more of its duties and

functions, the board may appoint such persons as it considers

necessary as special municipal constables."

Would the Minister indicate to the House where he thinks

this special provision of the Act would be required, and under

what circumstances?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, the special constables for the most part are

game wardens and peace officers who are not full-time policemen. In this respect

the municipality might be in difficulty and the board can make recommendations

to supplement the existing force.

Section 28 as amended approved.

Section 29 approved. On

section 30.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendments to

section 30. (See appendix.)

Amendments approved.

Section 30 as amended approved.

section 31 approved. On

section 32.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendment to

section 32. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 32 as amended approved.

Sections 33 to 36 inclusive approved. On

section 37;

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendments to

section 37. (See appendix.)

Amendments approved.

Section 37 as amended approved.

Sections 38 and 39 approved. On

section 40.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendments to

section 40. (See appendix.)

Amendments approved.

Section 40 as amended approved.

Sections 41 to 57 inclusive approved. On

section 58.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendment to

section 58. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 58 as amended approved.

Sections 59 and 60 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

[ Page 3866 ]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 91, Police Act, reported complete with

amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House

after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 114, Mr. Speaker.

ACCF.LERATED PARK DEVELOPMENT

FUND AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 114; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

section 1.

MR. McCLELLAND: Can I just ask the Minister, Mr. Chairman,

whether or not any of this money will be spent in any of the

regional parks to develop some regional park facilities?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, Mr. Member.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 114, Accelerated Park Development Fund Amendment

Act, 1974, reported complete without amendment, read a

third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 124, Mr. Speaker.

REAL ESTATE AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 124; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved. On

section 6.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendments to

section 6. (See

appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 6 as amended approved.

section 7 approved. On

section 8.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendment to

section 8. (See

appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 8 as amended approved.

Sections 9 to 13 inclusive approved. On

section 14.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendment to

section 14. (See

appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 14 as amended approved.

Schedules 2 and 3 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 124, Real Estate Amendment Act, 1974, reported

complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting

of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 147, Mr. Speaker.

ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY OF

BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

The House in committee on Bill 147; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 9 inclusive approved. On

section 10.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I move the amendments to

section 10. (See

appendix.)

Amendments approved.

Section 10 as amended approved.

Section 11 approved. On

section 12.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I move the amendments to

section 12. (See

appendix.)

Amendments approved.

Section 12 as amended approved.

[ Page

3867 ]

Section 13 approved.

section 14.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I move the amendments to

section 14. (See

appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 14 as amended approved.

Sections 15 to 22 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 147, Assessment Authority of British Columbia

Act, reported complete with amendments to be considered at

the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 149, Mr. Speaker.

LOGGING TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 149; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete without amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 149, Logging Tax Amendment Act, 1974, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 138, Mr. Speaker.

MOTOR-VEHICLE

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 138; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

section 7.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr. Chairman,

I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper creating

section

7 (a). (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 7 as amended approved.

Sections 8 to 11 inclusive approved.

section 12.

MR. McCLELLAND: When I first noticed that this

section was

being repealed, I thought somebody had taken some action about

a problem I raised in his House some time ago with regard to an

Aldergrove resident whose driver's licence was cancelled

because of an indebtedness he had with the Traffic Victims

Indemnity Fund.

This

section of the Motor-vehicle Act, of course,

allows the Motor Vehicle Branch to suspend licences if there is

a debt owed by the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund. It is no

longer in operation, I guess, so that's the reason for the

appeal of this subsection of the section.

But once I read the Act again, Mr. Chairman, I see that

nothing really has been done in this case. It's really not fair

to a person who can have his one means of going into bankruptcy

proceedings effectively stymied because of this

section 1n the

Act. It means that while bankruptcy proceedings, for instance,

are open to almost everybody else in the province, a person who

is in trouble with the Motor Vehicle Branch doesn't have that

same road open to him because the branch has the opportunity to

cancel his licence. That person then cannot pursue a normal

livelihood.

I would suggest the proper thing to have done would have

been to have cancelled this whole

section 1n consultation with

the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), who promised to look

into this problem. I assume he is still looking into it because

I have never heard any more from him. There has to be a better

way of handling these things.

If a person owes a debt, he has normal ways in which he

fulfils that obligation. But for the Motor Vehicle Branch to be

able to hold a further hammer over the head of a person who is

in indebtedness just isn't fair. In my opinion, it kind of cuts

across the legal rights of an individual.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As the Member says, for many years the

private insurance companies have

[ Page 3868 ]

been able to request the cancellation of a licence if any

individual was failing to meet his regular payments to the….

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, but it's more than the private

insurance companies; it's the superintendent of motor vehicles

too.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, that's right. As I recollect the

wording, he "may." But it was a matter of fact that this was

done.

We're repealing

section 84. Added to that, as a matter of

policy within the department, is the fact that we will not — I

emphasize the word "not" — allow the cancellation of any

driver's licence upon the request of an insurance company

because of anything that happened with regard to the Traffic

Victims Indemnity Fund.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, all right. This has already been done.

I'd suggest maybe you could look at a case that has already

been handled that way. You could perhaps go back and look at

that one over again.

Section 84 isn't being repealed; only

section 84(3) is

being repealed. So the superintendent of motor vehicles still

has the legal right under this Act to cancel a person's licence

if he has a judgment against him with regard to any kind of an

accident or proceedings from an accident for damages resulting

from bodily injury to or the death of another or damage to

property in an amount exceeding $250.

So you still have that legislation there, regardless of what

you say. If it's going to be policy, what's the point of having

that legislation?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, this repeals

section 84 (3).

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, but not

section 84, which gives the

superintendent of motor vehicles the same right as the private

insurance companies had under the Traffic Victims Indemnity

Fund.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The superintendent of motor vehicles does

have the right to cancel a driver's licence for cause.

MR. McCLELLAND: Why don't you sit down and read this

section

for a moment? It says that it gives exactly the same right to

the superintendent of motor vehicles as the private insurance

companies had in the past.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No.

MR. McCLELLAND: It does, Mr. Minister. It allows the superintendent

to cancel a driver's licence if that driver is in default of any kind of judgment

anywhere in Canada or the United States.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the

section that enabled

the superintendent specifically to cancel a licence because

somebody was not paying back to the Traffic Victims Indemnity

Fund what that fund had paid out to some other party was

section 84 (3). This Legislature is, hopefully, about to repeal

section 84 (3). That will eliminate the underpinnings for any

kind of a cancellation that now exists.

MR. McCLELLAND: There's no reason for a Traffic Victims

Indemnity Fund any more. It's meaningless.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, the fund is still there. Of course

it is still there. The fund is the creditor of a great many

people in the Province of British Columbia. It is still owned

by the private companies. But there will be no official backing

up of their requests to cancel a licence from here on.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): We have a situation

now which refers to this. Because of certain laws in the United

States, a motor vehicle insured under ICBC, travelling in the

United States, where they are in collision with an uninsured

vehicle in certain states in the United States…. That

indemnity fund could come back on the individual. In a case

like this the superintendent has the right to cancel a motor

vehicle licence because of a claim like that.

Maybe the Minister would like to tell the House this

afternoon whether he's going on an advertising campaign with

ICBC to tell people that this type of insurance is now

available for an additional cost of $5 — or included in his

normal ICBC policy.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I read Wasserman's column too, the one

that drew attention to that particular instance. I intend to

discuss it with the other directors in a meeting that we're

having this week.

Section 12 approved.

Sections 13 to 18 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I move that the committee rise and report

the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

[ Page 3869 ]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 138, Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, 1974 , reported

complete with amendment to be considered at the next sitting of

the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 133, Mr. Speaker.

LEASEHOLD AND CONVERSION

MORTGAGE LOAN ACT

The House in committee on Bill 133; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 16 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Mr. Chairman, I move

the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 133, Leasehold and Conversion Mortgage Loan Act ,

reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 140, Mr. Speaker.

PROVINCIAL HOME ACQUISITION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 140; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete without amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 140, Provincial Home Acquisition Amendment Act,

1974 , reported complete without amendment, read a third

time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 145, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO RATIFY AN AGREEMENT

BEARING DATE THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER,

1964, BETWEEN THE CITY OF PRINCE RUPERT,

CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY, AND

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN HER RIGHT OF

HER PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 145; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Schedule 2 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 145,

An Act to Ratify An Agreement Bearing Date the

I 6th Day of November, 1964, between the City of Prince Rupert,

Canadian National Railway Company and Her Majesty the Queen in

Her Right of Her Province of British Columbia Amendment Act,

1974 , reported complete without amendment, read a third

time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 18.

ENERGY AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, we're improving in this

little bill the powers of the public represented by the

Legislature with respect to energy prices and supplies in the

province.

Part IV has existed on the books, but the previous

licensing system would prove to be cumbersome and bureaucratic

and the price restraint provision in

Part IV can be better

implemented in terms of the kinds of amendments that are now

envisaged in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, in this field, we must have these back-stop

powers. I have also today filed an amendment to this Act, which

will be discussed in committee, which will enable us as a

government subject to resource revenue to make consumer grants

to energy companies and petroleum companies, provided they are

Cooperating with the price guidelines that will be enunciated

from time to time by the Energy Commission.

There are certain fuel areas — and I think immediately, of

course, of propane — where the

[ Page

3870 ]

average home that has to employ propane is hardest hit in

terms of the cost per BTU to heat that home, and many people

depend on propane because of their location — Squamish, Port

Alice and many other parts of the province. That price has been

very, very high and very difficult to control because half of

it, at least, comes from the Province of Alberta.

I'm thinking too in terms of home-heating oil which again

compared to our natural gas is an expensive home-heating energy

source. I have the figures, but I don't see any point in going

into them. I think all the Members understand that home-heating

oil per BTU is more expensive and some people, of course,

cannot take advantage of the natural gas which is piped into

many of the communities of British Columbia, but not all.

Vancouver Island is a good example of where that kind of cheap

energy source cannot be used.

So we think that we should be free, if we do assist those

who really need the assistance most in terms of any kind of a

consumer energy grant, to insist at the same time, to give us

that additional clout if you will, that the petroleum companies

meet provincial guidelines in that they are as fair as can be

with respect to what they charge for their products to the

people of the province.

We're also concerned in this field that if we're going to

have guidelines in any fairness, we have to be concerned about

refining capacity in the Province of British Columbia. We as a

government are concerned about that. We have now a short-fall,

in terms of crude refining capacity, of about 20,000 barrels per day. And it would be unfortunate if we had to sit back and

watch the big oil companies go ahead with their plans, which

they've had for a long time, to build refineries and

petrochemical industries in Alberta and ship the product out to

the Province of B.C. at a higher price instead of doing the

refining ourselves.

I think to get control of this situation so we're not in a

situation of total disarmament in the face of the

multi-national international oil companies, that we should have

greater refining capacity in the Province of British Columbia,

and that's something to which earnest attention is being given

at the present time.

The product will not be a problem because we have the

Trans-Mountain going through us to Cherry Point.

We will be speaking, and have been speaking, in terms of

export permits with the federal government, and we are on good

terms, relatively speaking, not with the government but with

the National Energy Board in that respect.

You know, when the Alaska oil comes in and comes down the Pacific coast, it

might amount within about four years to as much as two million barrels per day.

So I don't think we're facing oil shortages after the immediate hump by any

means, but we are facing a shortage of refining capacity in the Province of

British Columbia which is going to accelerate through the years. It's 20,000

now; it's going to be much more in a few years time.

What we're asking from the Legislature at this time is the

back-stop powers and the ability to become, as part of the

programme of this government, masters in our own house in

British Columbia as far as we reasonable may, so we think we

should have

Part IV of the Energy Act in a spruced-up,

modern form and we think we should have these additional powers

which will be the subject of amendments that are now filed on

the order paper. I move second reading.

MR. SMITH: I listened intently to the remarks of the

Attorney-General, and it follows what I would consider to be a

traditional pattern that the Attorney-General has certainly

developed over a period of time when introducing matters of

legislative actions that may be a little controversial. He

looks around and finds, somewhere in the course of his remarks,

a straw man, builds it up, then completely flattens it and

says, "This is the reason that we had to introduce or re-enact

Part IV of the Energy Act, because we're concerned about

the supply of energy, particularly propane and this type of

produce, to the people in the Province of British Columbia, and

unless we re-enact this section, of course, we won't have the

control or the power that is needed to protect those people of

the province."

So it's become a very familiar technique and a very familiar

pattern, Mr. Attorney-General.

AN HON. MEMBER: A charade.

MR. SMITH: It is, Mr. Member, a charade in many respects. I

would like to know, in re-enacting

Part IV of the Energy

Act, which is the provision for the regulation of the

petroleum industry, why did the A-G delete requirements that

the Energy Commission seek the consent of the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council before implementing the powers

under sections 66, 67, 68, 70 and 71?

Mr. Speaker, it was bad enough when we passed legislation in

this House, or at least the government majority passed

legislation in this House, providing for the variation of the

provisions of certain Acts and the implementation of those Acts

by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. But now it's completely

unacceptable when you erode still further the responsibilities

that you as a member of cabinet took an office to assume, and

as a Minister of the Crown, while deleting any authority or

responsibility and delegating that to a politically appointed

commission — completely removed even the jurisdictional powers

or the powers of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, which is

the cabinet — and you put that total responsibility in the

hands

[ Page 3871 ]

of a non-elected body, appointed on a political basis…

AN HON. MEMBER: Just like Alberta.

MR. SMITH: …and they will henceforth become the real

power in the control and distribution of the energy sources in

the Province of British Columbia.

From the day

Part IV of the Energy Act is proclaimed

it will be Mr. Rose who will call the tune for the petroleum

industry and they're going to have to march to whatever tune

that happens to be.

One principle that is paramount in my mind, and I think of

great importance to any industry in this province, whether it

be free or regulated, is that competitors would compete under

the same rules and regulations and under the same operating and

taxation regulations if we are to be able to determine

accurately and fairly how a Crown corporation or any other

corporation under the jurisdiction of the Crown or in which the

Crown has an interest compares with industries and corporations

financed by private capital.

During the last two years all Members of the opposition have

witnessed enough punitive legislation and heard enough

statements by Ministers and government backbenchers, really

flying trial balloons for Ministers, to know you have no

intention of fair and equitable treatment, particularly when

you decide, at the discretion of the cabinet, to enter into the

petroleum refining business in the Province of British

Columbia. I predict that that's the direction you are going,

Mr. Attorney-General, and that you have full intentions of

setting up some sort of a refining facility in the Province of

British Columbia through a Crown corporation controlled under

the Energy Act. It's there and I think this is the

direction in which you are proceeding.

The day that happens will be the day that you will use the

provisions of this Act to create what I would consider and call

a favourite nations treatment on behalf of your own Crown

corporation as between it and other competing companies. You'll

give them preferential treatment on a preferential basis.

If the Attorney-General or any other person doesn't agree

with that statement I would like those people to look at the

provisions and anomalies of

section 66(2) (

b) and (c), and

section 70(

b) and (c).

I submit that these sections provide the vehicle to allow

favourite concessions to one or more competing companies,

including a new competitor such as a government sponsored

cooperative petroleum marketing corporation or a

Government-controlled and — managed corporation. One way or

another, that's what the direction is, as I see it.

The powers to abuse and strangle legitimate competition should be removed instead

of re-enacted in this legislation. It is desirable in any industry, including

the petroleum industry, to follow the principle of obtaining the lowest net

cost possible, thereby providing products and services to the consumers at the

best price possible. This was the intent of the Insurance Corporation of British

Columbia, and look what's happening there. We're subsidizing it out of general

revenue now in order to give the corporation a favourable balance sheet at the

end of the year so that they can deceive the people who buy insurance and tell

them that they are operating for less cost than they really are.

Because of vague and unclear terms the implementation of

this bill, particularly as it refers to price in sections 68,

69 and 71, will become a bureaucratic and unworkable nightmare.

There are available in the province about 400 different

petroleum products including gasoline, kerosene, diesel fuel,

jet fuel, oils and greases, just to name a few of them — 400

different categories of products available in the Province of

British Columbia.

Just what does this bill mean when it refers to the price of

petroleum products? I'd like the Attorney-General to verify

what he thinks it means when he closes debate, on second

reading. Will each separate petroleum product be subject to

control by this amendment? If that is the intention, how many

inspectors have you hired or will you have to hire, or how many

people are waiting in the wings for a job which will be created

by the implementation of this particular section?

One point I must raise with respect to lowest cost control.

Sections 67 to 73 of the old

Part IV were eliminated. This was

done, as the Attorney-General said at that time, in recognition

of the bureaucracy and red tape which would be involved in

administering the licensing activities of the individuals not

licensed under the previous Act. The Attorney-General himself

admitted at that time that it would be an impossibility to set

up the machinery and enforce it without costing the people and

the taxpayers of this province a tremendous amount of

money.

However, Mr. Attorney-General,

section 72(

k) in Bill 18

reintroduces the same potential in a generally worded style.

Why? Who are you trying to fool? Did you think you could remove

it from prominent exposure and then slip in the provisions by a

backdoor method? Is this the reason for

section 72(k)?

I submit, through you, Mr. Speaker, that the potential for a

bureaucracy controlled by the government to withhold approval

of a licence, or grant it, under the sole powers assigned to

the commission is still there. They'll be the ones to decide

who needs a licence and who does not receive one. It's not as

prevalent or as noticeable as it was before, but it's still

there. I say to the Attorney-General that if he wishes to play

fair with

[ Page 3872 ]

the public of this province that provision should be deleted

forthwith.

Several sections refer to sellers of petroleum products.

Under the Act you are giving the commission the exclusive right

to establish a system of registration and licensing of sellers.

They can grant approval for different prices for different

areas of the province, and they can grant approval for

schedules of pricing different qualities, quantities,

standards, grades and kinds of petroleum products. It's a very

interesting point.

I would like the Attorney-General to tell me: will

individual service station operators be classified as sellers?

Will they? If so, does this mean that the commission will

determine the retail pump price between dealers and their

customers? Is that what you intend?

Also, if you intend to license the retail sellers of

petroleum products in the Province of British Columbia, will

this commission give certain preferential treatment to one

company, or a seller representing one company as compared to

another, particularly if it happens to be a question of

location and preferential treatment to a Crown-sponsored

corporation as compared to the other companies who are

presently in the business of serving the public in the Province

of British Columbia?

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: There's not? If so, how do you propose to

rationally and fairly establish the retail pump price for, say,

Prince George as opposed to Vanderhoof, where sales volume and

unit cost show demonstrable differences and deficiencies?

Certainly if you are going to get into that area, which I

believe is your intent, you are going to have to determine the

actual costs of operation in one part of the province as

compared to another.

Now if retail dealers are to be classified as sellers, do

you intend to use a licensing requirement to restrict the

number of retail outlets, or to give preferential treatment to

one brand operator as opposed to another? The impact this

legislation will have on the petroleum industry in this

province I would like to comment on for a few minutes.

Certainly there's a feeling in the industry of uncertainty

because legislation which is purposely vague, purposely

indefinite and subject to

interpretation by an appointed

commission creates a great uncertainty throughout the industry

with respect to their future. They've talked to every Member of

this House, I believe, about feeling uncertainty with respect

to their future, and certainly I know that they've made their

views known to the Attorney-General.

The only conclusion we can come to is that the Attorney-General has already

chartered his course and he has no intention of listening to the valid objections

and complaints of a large industry in this province — no more so than the Minister

of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) is prepared to listen

to some of the legitimate complaints of people who are operating in the forest

industry of this province.

You know, if there's uncertainty among the people who

operate in this particular industry in this province, then

there will be uncertainty in the minds of the people who supply

them with finance for expansion and moderation.

Certainly the Attorney-General must realize that when those

conditions exist capital dries up, particularly loan capital.

Bankers and other financial institutions suddenly decide the

risk is too great, particularly in view of a very unpredictable

return.

I can imagine a representative of industry going to a large

banking concern after this becomes law, asking for substantial

capital in the form of a loan to finance expansion of their

operations or modernization, and being asked by the bank

manager to interpret what really will' happen to them under

this

section of the Act. They're going to have to turn and say,

"We really don't know." It's all left in the discretionary hand

and to the exclusive power of an appointed commission appointed

by the Act itself with no further recourse through the members

of cabinet or this Legislative Assembly.

It will be interesting to find out, in view of this, what

happens to the life blood of the petroleum industry which is

new exploration in the province.

We have to compare ourselves with those people who have the

availability of petroleum to them in their particular province.

Of course, the closest comparison we can make is with the

Province of Alberta. It is a matter of record that the reserves

proved up in Alberta last year amounted to some 370 million

barrels of potential product. The exploration expenditure to

find those reserves amounted to $75 million. It doesn't take

any great mathematician, Mr. Attorney-General, to realize that

the potential cost of production from those reserves per barrel

amounts to $5 a barrel.

Certainly we can no longer look for cheap petroleum

products, either in Canada or any other part of the world. The

highly-producing, low-cost reserves have been pretty well

developed. The step outs today are into areas of extremely high

drilling costs and, quite often, very minimum potential return.

The only exception to that as far as potential return is the

Athabasca tar sands which have a tremendous potential in terms

of recoverable hydrocarbons. But it's a very expensive area to

develop. The cost will be well in excess of the $5 per barrel

that the Province of Alberta knows it costs them to locate the

370 million barrels of reserve product they did locate last

year. There's going to be

[ Page 3873 ]

a great increase in the price of petroleum products. There

has to be if you consider the fact that those reserves will be

very expensive to develop.

We look at the Arctic and its potential. It's staggering

when you consider the cost of drilling wells and then, in some

way, figure out methods of financing a pipeline to transport

the reserves to the parts of Canada that can use them and

refine them.

The Attorney-General has referred to the present shortfall

in the petroleum refining industry in the Province of British

Columbia. The figures I have differ slightly from the

Attorney-General because the figures I've received indicate a

shortfall presently of 25,000 barrels a day. The projection is

that this shortfall will increase yearly by 5,000 to 8,000

barrels a day.

It's also an economic fact of life that the minimum size of

a refinery to be economic is 150,000 barrels of production a

day and that it should fall in the area between 150,000 and a

maximum of 250,000 barrels a day to be economic.

It's very apparent that at the present time, with only a

shortfall of 25,000 barrels a day, a new refinery for the

Province of British Columbia is going to be a very expensive

venture regardless of who gets involved, whether it be the

provincial government or one of the other corporations.

Probably the most economic answer to that problem is an

increase in the refining capacity of some of our present

facilities to put in additional, expanded facilities — a couple

of cat crackers and a high tower and possibly some

modernization of the present refining capacity to increase

their production potential from whatever it is presently to

accommodate the increased shortfall of 25,000 barrels a

day.

It is also obvious that regardless of how we increase our

refining capacity in this province, we don't have the product

to supply it. If, as a result of uncertainty in the exploration

field, the companies divert their exploration capital from the

Province of British Columbia to the high Arctic or to the

Mackenzie delta or to the Province of Alberta, we will never

produce enough product in the Province of British Columbia to

accommodate our demand for that product on a refined basis.

It is possible, I suppose, that we can look to Alberta to

supply that shortfall as they're presently doing. But when you

look at the increased costs of potential production in the

Province of Alberta we realize that the cost to ourselves is

going to be fairly substantially increased regardless of what

happens and who produces the additional product or refines

it.

One of the conclusions, I suppose — and perhaps the conclusion the Attorney-General

has already got in mind with re-enacting

section 4 of the Energy Act — is that,

because of these problems of increased refining capacity and of higher costs,

the Attorney-General will decide that it will be an opportune time to move in

and take over the petroleum industry in the Province of British Columbia. He

will do it on the basis that the government will be able to supply the product

to the people of the province cheaper than the industry itself can do.

I say that you have a right, if you so desire, to control

the petroleum industry. But along with that right you have an

obligation to spell out your policy to the industry in clear

definitive terms. You have an obligation when you present

legislation to this House to have that legislation clearly

indicate to the industry what part they will be allowed to play

in British Columbia's future.

If you are pursuing a course of takeover, why don't you say

so? If you intend to enter into the production and sale of

petroleum products through a Crown corporation, say so. To date

your policy has been lukewarm; it has not been very well

defined. In some cases it's non-existent. Too much

discretionary power is left in the hands of the commission.

It creates an uneasy climate and precipitates action by

these companies in areas other than in the Province of British

Columbia when it comes to increasing their exploration for

hydrocarbon energy.

Mr. Attorney-General, regardless of what you may have said

in opening second reading of this bill, this legislation does

nothing to improve the situation. It's not going to help, in my

opinion, to create any further petroleum products in this

province or provide it to the people of this province at any

less cost. The deliberate use of vague terms and granting of

extreme arbitrary powers to the Energy Commission, which you

have done by the provisions this Act, leaves us no alternative.

We will have to oppose the bill, Mr. Attorney — General, because

of those reasons which I have outlined.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): The debate on this is more or

less two-fold. First, we have the bill itself and, secondly,

the statements of the Attorney-General. If I could start at the

statement of the Attorney-General and the comments he made,

perhaps I could raise a few queries which come to mind and

which he could, I trust, clear up when he comes back into the

debate and SUMS UP for the government.

First, the Attorney-General mentioned increasing refining

capacity in British Columbia. I can agree that the reasons he

gave are excellent on the face of it; we need more refining

capacity and he wishes to have refining capacity carried out in

the province. But it seems totally contradictory to the

position taken by the Premier with respect to his conversations

with Premier Lougheed of Alberta, namely the control a province

exercises in terms of processing of their own

[ Page 3874 ]

raw materials.

Lougheed in Alberta, as is well known to all Canadians, has

the desire, Mr. Speaker, of establishing a petrochemical

industry in Alberta. Unless the Attorney-General comes up with

a more convincing comment than the very, very off-hand remark

that, "We're going to increase refining capacity" — and

presumably that means importing crude from Alberta at least

initially…. I'll go on to the other reference he made in a

moment.

But as far as I can gather from everything that Lougheed

said and, indeed, everything that the other leaders in Alberta

have said, we're going to find out that we're not going to get

Albertan crude because they want to refine it. Obviously they

want to have the petrochemical complex just as far as possible

within the confines of Alberta.

If I am wrong on this, I have missed the point of the

discussions by Premier Lougheed which I heard both at the

Western Economic Opportunities Conference, which I attended as

an observer, and the federal-provincial energy conference.

We are now, I think, coming up to one of the areas where the

government's — and the Premier's in particular — statements,

conflicting statements, are going to have to be reconciled. He

has cast scorn upon federal efforts to regulate the

price across the country, reduce the price, and insulate Canada

and B.C. In particular, I would say, as far as we are

concerned, from world price effects. Yet at the same time he

has taken a position of supporting publicly the Premier of

Alberta in his efforts to have total provincial control

over products such as oil and natural gas.

I don't understand this dilemma. I cannot see how we in B.C.

can argue in favour of greater processing of our own raw

materials, of maximum processing for ourselves, and at the same

time attempt to get maximum processing of an Alberta product

when we know full well that the Premier of Alberta wants to

process that just as far as he can.

There seems to be a real conflict with respect to any oil we

would receive through Trans Mountain Pipe or any other system

from Alberta. I raise this simply for clarification It's not a

point of debate really. What does the Attorney-General mean by

that reference? What has been the extent of our discussions

with Alberta? Are we to build new refineries and then find out

we're not to get Canadian crude? If we don't get Canadian crude

and we turn to the second source of crude the Attorney-General

mentioned, which is American crude, we are getting into some

very sticky areas indeed.

First, it is totally contrary to both Canadian national

policy….

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, the Attorney-General adds — which

is not being picked up by Hansard…. If I'm wrong

perhaps he'll correct me, but I believe he stated that we are

not going to American crude but there will be a surplus on the

coast because of the Alaska delivered American crude. Am I

right on that, Mr. Attorney-General?

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, but then we go back to the first

point, Mr. Attorney-General: using this excess that comes down

through Trans Mountain just doesn't seem feasible in the

political sense. It may be technically feasible. It may be

economically feasible. But surely, given the public stand of

our Premier and the Premier of Alberta, it's not politically

feasible.

It just doesn't make sense to argue that because American

crude will replace Canadian crude in the Pacific northwest and

because Trans Mountain will stop delivering crude to the south

at some foreseeable time in the future — this, I think, will be

news to Trans Mountain as well as some of their suppliers in

Alberta…. Assuming all this takes place, the assumption that

we in our turn can pick up all that other crude is yet to be

proven or yet even to be hinted at by the people who probably

count a lot more than we do; namely, the suppliers — which

essentially means the Government of Alberta.

Now I don't know how the government intends to get around

that, because we might have great refineries built in British

Columbia which would rival for stupidity the great heavy water

plants put up in Nova Scotia by the leader of the Conservative

Party nationally. They are useless edifices, rusting, because

it just doesn't work.

Now if we can't get the crude for that, we might well wind

up in exactly the same position — a massive capital investment

with little return.

Sure, the Attorney-General will no doubt suggest that there

will be other sources. But other sources are very unreliable,

as recent events have proven. We need the protection offered by

the Canadian federalism — the umbrella that was provided by

essentially the federal government and the two producing

provinces, Alberta and Saskatchewan — which was hammered out

over the last few months. We need that. Indeed, it would be

most unwise for us to go into offshore purchases of any sort in

light of the possible disruption.

If you add into that the fact that offshore deliveries are

quite contrary to both provincial policy as well as national

policy on the west coast at the present time — for a number of

reasons, not the only one of which is environmental — you get

yourself into a very interesting box as far as I can see. I

just don't see a way out of it.

I think that the suggestion you made, Mr.

[ Page 3875 ]

Attorney-General, may be on the face of it interesting. But

it's going to have to be looked into very closely. You simply

haven't been at all convincing in your statement that this

greater refining capacity will be a good thing for B.C. or a

feasible thing for B.C. You cannot get around, as I said, the

dilemma posed by the statements made by the Premier of this

province with respect to raw materials. Obviously if it applies

to our raw materials it must also apply to the raw materials

provided by the Province of Alberta. So that's one point.

The second one was the question of consumer grants to

companies. I think you used the term "playing ball with the

government" or "cooperating with the government" and with the

Energy Commission. I can see the need to subsidize perhaps

certain areas. You suggested one or two communities on

Vancouver Island with respect to natural gas; and that may well

be desirable.

But we are departing totally from the concept of pricing

based upon cost just as we've done that now with automobile

insurance in the most recent few days. I wonder precisely where

you are going to stop — or I should say where you are starting

and where you are stopping — in this particular area. If it's a

few communities on Vancouver Island or the west coast or the

Interior which are isolated and do rely upon either sea

shipments or trucking to get natural gas or propane, fine. But

are you going to extend that further to, for example, deal with

people who might be serviced in the regular way by regular gas

mains? I don't know and I'd like a little more on that.

The bill itself — and you know this, I'm sure, Mr.

Attorney-General — is simply loaded with those things which we

object to so often — namely, government powers. You've got the

power here to vary an existing contract, no matter how a

company deals with his customer; no matter….

The government may decide the deal is too favourable to the

customer and vary it so that the government's mistakes are

covered up — or the Energy Commission's mistakes — by boosting

the price. You've got the power to name just about any price

you like for just about any product you like. Indeed, this will

take a fantastic amount of regulation. If you multiply the

number of products by the number of outlets, you get a minimum

of 400,000 potential transactions in any category. It might

take an army of bureaucrats to organize that.

We do feel that this bill in principle — and we've got a lot

of detailed amendments which we trust will be coming up later — just gives over totally to the commission the entire question

of pricing. It departs totally from the idea of pricing based

on cost. We just fail to understand how you intend to implement

this type of legislation.

I ask you this question in all seriousness: where the legislation is specific,

if we could see specific areas in here where subsidies would be paid, where

these consumer grants to either buyers or sellers would be paid, we might be

a little happier with it. But we're groping here simply with a bill which gives

total power which might be used for the one or two communities for one or two

products or might be used throughout for reasons of public policy which we just

have no idea on at the present time.

Mr. Attorney-General, may I remind you of the question of

automobile insurance? We were told constantly that there would

be no tax money going into Autoplan. We were told constantly

that the insurance aspects of Autoplan would be paid for by

premiums. Then the government reversed itself. The legislation,

I believe, permits this. I differ here with the Minister of

Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan). Things have

totally changed.

Now with this legislation the same thing could happen. I

plead with you to offer the House some more explanation of

precisely how you intend to use the powers. We're going to vote

against this in second reading because the power is too

extensive. No question about that. But even despite that

particular statement of mine, I do urge you to explain, perhaps

to the backbenchers sitting here as well as ourselves, what you

have in mind.

The industries could be completely dominated and will be

completely dominated by an aggressive, energetic group heading

up your Energy Commission. It could totally take over the

pricing mechanism. It's going to spend a large amount of time,

presumably under

section 68 and thereafter, finding out the

cost and insisting upon price changes based upon their

findings. It's going to simply have a government agency which

is going to totally direct.

Surely we should know exactly how far YOU expect to extend

this particular Act. Is it going to go to the local gas

station? Obviously it can go to the local gas station, no

question about that. Furthermore, under this Act there is no

way another gas station could set up in competition because you

might well think that his advertising, for example, which is

going to cost money, was wasteful.

You know a lot about expensive advertising, having done all

those ICBC ads, and you may prevent him from even having a

crack at the existing competition for that reason alone. The

possibility of a new company breaking in with this particular

legislation, as I see it, is next to nil because of your total

control over pricing, your total control over variation of

contracts, your total control over licensing.

Now, Mr. Attorney-General, at this stage in discussing this

in principle, I won't go into the details of course, the clause

by clause. But the basic objection to the Act is it is totally

unclear as to what it is going to do. We know what it can do;

it can totally take over this industry, drive out any

[ Page 3876 ]

company, make sweetheart deals with any cooperative which

might be in competition with a private company or anything of

that nature.

It can prevent new entry into the industry. It can totally

control pricing for political reasons or any other reasons. I'm

not saying you'd do it for political reasons — but it could.

And you know that. On the grounds of these wide, sweeping

powers, we find it impossible to accept unless you come up with

a remarkably convincing performance in your summing up.

On the other two points, on the question of refining

capacity and these consumer grants, we need again a great deal

more information. I cannot get over, as I wrestle with this

after hearing your words, the dilemma posed by your desire for

increased refining capacity. We're simply not going to get the

crude as far as I can see.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: National allocation. I talked to

Macdonald.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's great that you have the faith that "Thumper" Macdonald will be the Minister one month hence. I

might question that. (Laughter.) I've had my battles with the

fellow frequently and I would think another Liberal minister

might be a great deal better. But nevertheless you're clearly

basing your entire bill upon Cousin Thumper.

You're basing your assumptions behind this bill upon facts

which may change. The national allocation may run into the

problem of provincial autonomy in these areas. Your own Premier

has argued frequently in favour of the Alberta position which

is contrary to the national one. He's got a joker clause about

"if you nationalize everything, okay." But until that day

occurs, he's supported essentially the reverse of the federal

position. He's in support of the Alberta position, while at the

same time taking advantage of the federal effort to keep prices

at a reasonable level in this province.

I wonder, Mr. Minister, when you sum up, whether you'd spend

some time dealing with that particular aspect of it.

On one final point, I have amendments in the orders of the

day on this. I have amendments in my hand which I understand

have been introduced today and they extend for two full

foolscap pages.

The bill itself is not all that long, running to

two-and-a-half sides, and you've virtually rewritten the bill.

I really wonder whether it's the best type of approach to

introduce a bill which is obviously imperfect, clearly

defective in many respects, which you recognize yourself is

defective in many respects because you've amended it by

substantial alterations introduced one by order paper, and two

by amendments today.

It's a difficult bill to grasp the concepts of because it goes into other legislation

as well. When it is amended the very day it comes up for second reading, the

difficulties are compounded.

I would suggest that you cease our discussions on this, have

this withdrawn at least temporarily to be re-written,

incorporating your amendments so that we could at least have a

bill before us, a single document before us which illustrates

what you want to do, rather than going to three different

documents and realizing that one or the second one may cancel

out the third and having to go back and forward leafing through

it. It's just a bad way, I feel in a very technical sense, of

handling this type of legislation or indeed any other.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I've listened very closely to

the comments of the opposition and this party will certainly

oppose this bill.

I'm rather surprised that there's been a sense of

questioning as to why there is so much power in this bill.

Really this puzzles me when I think of the repeated statements

we've had in this House by the Premier that the answer to all

our problems in the energy field is public ownership. Public

ownership means complete and total control by the government of

energy sources, production, distribution, the whole field of

energy resources.

So when we start from that basic, clear definition which the

Premier's given in this House on many occasions, he admits that

it will not be accepted as a national policy and therefore one

has to deal with second-best alternatives.

I would think that this is just one of these second-best

alternatives — that the Premier would love to see the oil

industry and other natural resource industries completely and

totally under public control, public ownership. In the meantime

at least we have this bill which certainly goes some distance

towards gaining the same kind of power and control. Certainly,

the government has often scorned the opposition for being

concerned about power to Ministers in bills, but certainly if

you look through this bill, practically every heading of each

section has the word "power" or "control" in it — power to

regulate the petroleum industry, as it starts off, number one….

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: That's what it's about, all right. You know,

Mr. Speaker, this aspect is very interesting. We have such a

sanctimonious attitude by the federal NDP, how bitterly opposed

they are to price control and wage control and income control

and so on. They're talking out of one side of their mouth about

controls, yet here we have in this bill complete and clear and

total control of prices, of a certain commodity. We've already

had this

[ Page

3877 ]

government set a freeze on rents. It's now going to give

itself the power to control the price of gasoline and fuel oil

and so on. So how is it we can have them talking out of one

side of their mouth about how such a bad thing is wage and

price control when out of the other side of their mouth,

they're busy in effect bringing in legislation which is

control? The Attorney-General needn't shake his head. We've got

control on rents….

AN HON. MEMBER: Quit making foolish remarks. Quit the

campaigning.

MR. WALLACE: I'm not campaigning. I'm trying to point out

the contradictory nature of statements by this government.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: The Minister agreed that the heading on section

(65) says "Power to regulate the petroleum industry" and he

says that's what it's all about. You're absolutely right. Right

through each paragraph of the bill it just gives this

government complete and total power to do anything it wants

with the petroleum industry, short of outright

nationalization.

I don't know why the government just doesn't try and take

the industry over and go the whole route. This sort of

in-between method where you try to pretend the oil companies

are still independent companies, free to run their own show and

you throw a bill like this at them, it's just farcical. You

might as well go the whole road and nationalize the

industry.

But no, that's not the way this government works. This

government wants the best of both worlds. They don't want to

have any of the risks and problems of ownership, but they want

to have the control of prices.

That's a delightful situation to seek and it's much the same

with the mining industry. They want to hammer the mining

industry with royalties, but they don't want to take any of the

risks of exploration by getting right in there and taking over

the industry. Only when they're losing, as the Minister said,

when they can't sell it, they'll stockpile the ore and then

they might take it over.

So that there should be no misunderstanding about the

central thrust and force of this bill — and that is that this

government seeks to gain complete and total control of the

actions and just about anything you can imagine that relates to

the petroleum industry.

It uses delightful phraseology, Mr. Speaker. I think it's only right without

quoting any particular

section to say that "no person shall take any action

which unduly increases the price" of the product. "Unduly increases," what

a delightful phrase, "unduly increases." I can think of 50 different aspects

of human endeavour where you do something "unduly."

I notice the Deputy Attorney-General smiling because he

knows full well, and it must be very difficult if we ran our

laws in this province by what is a price increase that is

undue.

It goes on right through other headings — "power to vary

approval," "power to vary contracts…. power to make

regulations." And of course it always finishes up with the

power of entry and seizure. When we complain about that the

Attorney-General always says : "Oh, that's been in those bills

for a long time." Well, remember how you used to talk about the

PUC. When we complained about any bill where there was power to

enter and seize documents, the Attorney-General always said:

"We've got that power in lots of bills." It doesn't make it any

more necessary or valid or desirable just because we've got it

in other pieces of legislation.

I know this government gets very sensitive when they hear us

using words like "dictatorial" and "erosion of freedoms" and so

on, but in this bill we have that same kind of power given to

the Minister. It mentions in

section 80, the last

section of

this bill, that it can be considered an offence under

section

114 if a seller of a product refuses to comply in certain ways. I think that the repetitive nature in which we are presented

with this kind of power in repetitive legislation is bound to

make the opposition very concerned that in effect the

Attorney-General is taking this measure of control.

When I talked about the delightful phrase "anything that

unduly increases" I hear the Minister made a statement when he

introduced second reading where he said that they would

consider consumer grants where companies "cooperate" — I think

that was the word that the Minister used. That word,

"cooperate," is another delightful word, Mr. Speaker. Cooperation is such a relative thing. Sometimes you can

cooperate by just doing what you are told. Of course, other

times if you show a little bit of independence and speak up you

might be considered as not cooperating. So the Minister's

introduction of second reading, I thought, was phrased in the

equally delightful language as occurs in some of these sections

about "increasing the price unduly" and consumer grants "in

response to cooperation" by oil companies.

I think the former speaker, the Liberal leader, talked about

the vague language in the bill. I, with respect, don't think

the language is vague; I think that it's just that its meaning

is endless. There's nothing vague about the language; it's just

that there's words used to give the Minister the massive extent

of power that he wants. There's no mystery there — it's right

When talking about grants I must say also that the

government should not be the least bit surprised if

[ Page 3878 ]

the opposition is a little apprehensive when you start

talking about grants and subsidies in the recent light of the

Premier's proposition to subsidize Autoplan with money that

he's already taken from the taxpayer in the form of increased

gasoline prices.

We have legislation before the House that enables the

Minister of Finance to extract higher royalties. A large part

of the 8-cent increase is going to the provincial government

and, lo and behold, the big Santa Claus Minister of Finance is

going to give Autoplan subscribers a subsidy on their premium.

This is presented as some kind of consumer grant, when all it's

doing is bailing out Autoplan, which has fallen so short of the

commitment that was made that the Premier had no alternative

but to work out some kind of political gimmickry.

As I've said before, this mention by the Attorney-General

today that there are going to be consumer grants to whatever

companies chose to cooperate…. I suppose cooperate means

in the NDP terms. Do what the NDP government wants, and

cooperation that meets their approval might just lead to some

kind of financial grant. Well, I think that's coming pretty

close to bribery, Mr. Speaker. It's a carrot-and-stick

approach.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: I'm glad that the Attorney-General is

confirming the fact that this is a carrot-and-stick approach.

If they are good and cooperate, to use the Minister's words,

then they might just get along fine with the government. But

they just have the great big club of this NDP government

hanging over them if they don't cooperate.

Not only does this government wield clubs and give its

Ministers tremendous power….

HON. MR. COCKE: Sweeping!

MR. WALLACE: Yes, that's right sweeping powers. The only

sweeping that will be done at the next election is that you'll

be swept right out of office because of what you've done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: The government laughs and mocks us because we talk about

sweeping powers, but I'm really not the least bit joking when I say the reason

that government over there is going to fall, Mr. Speaker, is exactly because

of the kind of powers that this government is taking to itself in this kind

of bill. They can laugh and joke and mock us on this side of the House, but

that prediction in my view is one of the ones that will very clearly come true,

and that is that that government will be defeated because of this very kind

of legislation.

I am meeting people in many places who voted NDP last time.

Don't kid yourself that it's just the opposition party

supporters that are taking this point of view in relation to

this kind of legislation. It's many people who were so sick and

tired of the Socreds that they would do anything to get rid of

the Socreds. So they voted NDP, but they didn't vote for this

kind of bill — no, sir! That's a fact. It's the clearest fact

in conclusion out of the last election that is becoming more

and more obvious as every day goes by.

The trend that I sense is that many people are becoming very

alarmed. I'm not talking about the extreme right-wing

reactionary, either; I am talking about many people who read

this kind of legislation and listen to the press reaction, the

media reaction, the commentators who interpret this kind of

legislation.

I'm really doing the government a good turn when I tell you

just how much this reaction is occurring in the community,

because if you put the brakes on and stop bringing in this kind

of legislation, you just might be in power for quite a long

time. But as long as you keep presenting us with this kind of

bill, then that makes the future more rosier for the other 61

per cent of the voters.

To get back to the bill, Mr. Speaker…. You've been most

tolerant.

The government, in addition to this kind of power which it

is taking to itself, has already told the oil companies "Well,

you can forget about the federal guidelines do what we say."

We've had this hassle in the last week or two where the

provincial government asked the oil companies who exceeded the

8-cent raise to juggle the prices around a little bit and

charge a little bit more for heavy oil for industry. What you

make up on the swings, you'll lose in the roundabouts. If we

have this kind of horse trading going on in an informal way

without regulations in effect, goodness only knows with what

force the Energy Commission will come down on the heads of the

oil industry once we pass this bill. I think that again is just

confirmation of the Attorney-General's statement that this

indeed is a carrot-and-stick approach to the control of the oil

industry.

The Attorney-General, in introducing second reading, also

trotted out this phrase that seems to be getting more popular

every day in British Columbia — "Masters in our own home." I

forget the other bill he quoted the other day…or one of

the Ministers raised this phrase also, and I begin to wonder if we're getting more and more separatist in our approach in this

province, or at least if the NDP government is becoming this

way. If there is to be a Crown corporation which will go into

the petroleum industry, are we to have the same kind of

competition that we have with Plateau Mills where

[ Page 3879 ]

they take the necessary legislative steps that they don't

pay for income tax?

Here again, that's the kind of competition that the NDP

believes in — not equal competition. "We'll compete with you

guys," they say. "We'll compete with the private sector.

The private sector companies will pay income tax, but we'll

cook the books, or we'll draw up the legislation in such a way

that we don't pay income tax." Now that kind of competition is

very clever for the government because it gives them a

tremendous advantage, but I think it's just another device

which enables them to make the private sector of the economy in

this province more and more difficult to survive. It will lead

inevitably to public ownership.

When the Minister closes the debate maybe he would tell us

why this government doesn't just go the whole way and

nationalize these ogres who are considered to be these

companies that are alleged to rake in fantastic, excessive

profits and windfalls and God-knows-what. Maybe the Minister

would tell us why he wants this measure of control without

going the whole way.

I'm also interested in another contradiction or apparent

contradiction which maybe the Minister can clarify. We've had

frequent statements in the House that people in the north

country in British Columbia are not treated fairly — that many

of the resources are derived from the north country but the

citizens living in that part of the province are taxed or

penalized in various ways which this government, and I think

the opposition parties, consider to be somewhat unfair. Yet

we've got a

section in this bill which allows for all kinds of

"power to vary" — I think is the headline — different prices

for different parts of the province, different prices for

sellers, schedules for different qualities, et cetera.

I thought it was the aim of this government…it certainly

has been said to be the aim in regard to automobile insurance

that there should be one premium price for the same car whether

you drive it in Prince Rupert or Vancouver Island, and it just

surprises me that we've got some clear power in this bill

whereby there could be any kind of variation that the Minister

or the commission desires. I wonder if the Minister could touch

on that when he winds up second reading.

I think finally that the same kind of argument which I know will fall on dumb

ears, or deaf ears, or whatever kind of ears that won't listen — there are none

so deaf as those who will not listen — can be applied to this debate as we've

applied to Bill 31. Exploration is the first part of this whole vital complicated

industry. As soon as you bring in legislation or take measures which act as

a disincentive, if that's the word, to exploration, then at a time when this

province and this nation and in fact the whole industrialized part of the globe

is desperately seeking to locate and develop greater amounts of oil and coal

and all forms of resources, minerals, here we have another bill which in effect

says to the industry: "We will control and regulate you from the word go until

the product is finally sold." On that basis can the Minister tell us whether

or not he considers that this will result in investment capital being placed

elsewhere or in another industry, or at least diverted from the kind of amounts

of capital which obviously are required to find new sources of oil?

If there's one subject that any citizen can read any and

every day in the week in any newspaper, it is the whole

question of resources — proven reserves, those reserves which

are not yet proven, the exploration in all corners of the

globe, in the furthest arctic or offshore. It is such a vital

subject. Surely it starts with exploration and encouragement to

companies and to investors to put up both the necessary money

and expertise and technology to try and find new sources of

oil.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Do you support Stanfield's freeze?

MR. WALLACE: I do.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: We're talking about a temporary freeze which,

in the course of time…. Now I didn't ask to get into this

debate. I was accused of campaigning a minute ago. I'm trying

to answer the Attorney-General. We're talking about a 90-day

freeze which will….

HON. MR. COCKE: What happens when it thaws?

MR. WALLACE: Well, we certainly wouldn't do what the

Americans did, where you just take the lid off and let the

whole thing run free. There's no purpose in controls….

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I think that at least there is some logic

and consistency in the argument that you try at least even on a

temporary basis to control the whole situation and not pick off

rents or oil in isolation to all the other aspects of increment

prices. At least we have that measure of consistency and logic,

which is more than can be said about this piecemeal approach

that we do in this House where one week we're talking about

rent freeze, and this week it's petroleum products and

gasoline. What will it be next week? Are you getting to the

food industry next week, to control the price of bread and

butter? You might as well. But to do it on this haphazard,

[ Page 3880 ]

piecemeal basis to me seems really unrealistic in the total

picture.

You may laugh and scorn the Conservatives and their incomes

and prices control policy, but there's some very substantial

logic and consistency in the argument. Just because that

approach has failed elsewhere or has been less successful,

shall we say, it hasn't failed everywhere. The Americans did a

better job of controlling inflation than most other countries.

The reason their inflation is now….

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: They have now, and the reason they have is that

all of a sudden they stopped all controls. Now that doesn't

make sense. You can't just hold things in line for a very short

period of time and then just suddenly remove them all.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce):

You just said a temporary freeze.

MR. WALLACE: Yes. A total freeze is temporary — for 90 days.

After 90 days there will be programmes to allow guidelines to

be produced in the same way the Minister or the

Attorney-General is talking about guidelines that your

government gave to the oil industry in this province in the

last few weeks.

The federal government gave guidelines as to how much the

gasoline might reasonably be increased. That's all the

Stanfield policy is about, but the 90-day idea is to try and at

least hold everything still and at least break this idea that

prices inevitably go on and on and on without any reasonable

control.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! Could we return to the bill,

Hon. Members?

MR. WALLACE: I was merely responding to the

Attorney-General's comments.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: I'm sure glad that I've convinced everybody

about the Stanfield policy.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: I really appreciated the interruption.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Stanfield isn't going anywhere,

anyway.

MR. WALLACE: Well, we'll see. I feel that regardless of how the House

may or may not disagree with controls of the kind that are the substance of

the federal election, I do feel that here this bill certainly is a measure of

control far beyond what is necessary or desirable and it's written in the same

expansive language which really, to us on this party and on this side of the

House, is something which is most undesirable, and yet is so reminiscent of

many other bills that we've seen through this House. We just feel that the effects

on exploration will be bad because this is no temporary control. This bill is

here to stay, and as I say, we probably can look forward to an extension of

it in the form of a Crown corporation competing in the way the NDP looks upon

competition with private enterprise. And it is more than likely that….

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): We're all for

competition.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, yes, you're all for competition. I agree.

You want to be competing in the game and you want to be the

referee and you want to make the rules as well. That's a great

way to compete. I think anybody would win a ball game under

those terms.

HON. MR. LEA: That's the IT&T way.

MR. WALLACE: No, that's not the IT&T way. The IT&T

haven't the kind of power you guys have, or any government has…. Did you want a rerun on that statement I just made?

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: The difference, Mr. Minister, to try and answer

your question is that this is control for as long as you are

government. The kind of control I'm talking about is temporary

control followed by attempts in cooperation with industry and

business and employers and employees to develop guidelines,

mutually agreeable to all concerned — not enforced from the top

by this kind of legislation.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Well, maybe so. We just happen to think it's

got a lot more potential than this kind of legislation where

you beat private enterprise over the head until it does what

you want it to do. For an open government, as you profess to

be, this kind of legislation to me is just a complete, total

contradiction. You're not going into consultation or discussion

with the industry. You're bringing this bill in and it just

beats the you-know-what out of it if they just don't fall in

line. Although the Minister's

[ Page 3881 ]

promised some kind of a deal if they cooperate, and what

that word "cooperate"….maybe the Minister could give us

some sort of wider explanation of "cooperation." I think

really the Minister means that if they cooperate in bringing

down prices to the degree that seems acceptable to the

Minister, then that's what he means by cooperation.

I think that is like a husband and a wife getting into a

fight, and the husband hits his wife and she doesn't complain

to the police. That's the kind of definition of cooperation I

think the Minister's trying to bring in in this bill.

He spells it out and says what's to happen, and the

companies go along with it, and that's cooperation. Well, Mr.

Speaker, that isn't our concept. We feel there's a host of

reasons why we would oppose this bill, but perhaps the last one

is the depressing effect on exploration and the search for new

oil sources, and the diversion of risk capital. I think this,

as much as any other of the reasons, is why it's pretty

important that the bill should be reconsidered.

The last point that is perhaps also worth mentioning is that

if the Minister wants to have this measure of control and

considers that the companies have not cooperated, could he

comment on the meetings which — I am not sure, is it today or

tomorrow that the Energy Commission is meeting with the two

companies who have adhered to the 8 cent increase?

I would like to know if the Minister could bring us up to

date on what kind of, shall I say, cooperation the Energy

Commission is receiving from these companies.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): It seems, with the

number of amendments that have come in today, and in light of

the fact that his bill has been on the order paper for some

time now, that this must have been an afterthought; or else

it's in conformity with policy that was outlined in Toronto on

the weekend by the Premier of British Columbia.

I'm rather amazed at the measures that are contained within

this bill, particularly in light of the fact that it's well

known that British Columbia doesn't produce the amount of

petroleum it requires, and certainly imports the biggest

percentage of raw products for our present refineries.

Certainly the importation from Alberta is not going to get

greater; it's going to get less. When the Premier states quite

emphatically over the news media that he is opposed to bringing

oil from the Arctic by way of pipelines down to British

Columbia — that would not be interfered with by Alberta as far

as their requirements are concerned…. Certainly it is a very

substantial supply which could warrant then the additional

expansion of the refineries through this bill for the refining

of a product in British Columbia.

Now it's all very well to say that you're opposed to the transmission of petroleum

products by pipeline because of the ecology and other factors stated by the

Premier, and then on the other hand say that you are opposed also to bringing

the same products by way of the west coast. To me that is a far more dangerous

situation ecologically and environmentally than to bring it by way of pipeline.

If the product is available in the north in the Mackenzie delta, or even from

the various islands in which oil has been discovered, it would appear to me

that to make the objectives work that are contained within this bill, you're

going to have to have an initial supply.

Now we know very well that because of other legislation we

have less activity in the oil patch to date by way of our own

exploration in British Columbia. I think there is a very, very

large amount of petroleum products still undiscovered. It would

be my thinking that if you are intending to process your own

products along with what products you might be able to get from

Alberta either you have to give some impetus to the further

exploration and development of our own products in the Province

or else you have to think in terms of bringing the products

from the Arctic.

I can't see, with the amendments that have come in at this

time, how we can intelligently discuss the contents of this

bill. The amendments are going to change it very drastically.

So when we come into committee stage we're going to be moving

all kinds of amendments in which we have to go through the

process of redebating.

This idea of bringing in legislation and then bringing in an

abundance of amendments, I think, is very, very poor thinking

and poor policy on the part of the government. I know that

unless the legislative counsel are given directions along the

line that the government anticipates this legislation to follow…. Then you turned around again, just because the Premier

went to Toronto, and came up with a new policy. Well, I can't

quite follow the sense of the time that's spent in this

Legislature debating "have-not" legislation that hasn't got all

the facts and figures in it. I would have to oppose this

legislation on that basis.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker,

I don't think these amendments that have come in the last few

days make it difficult to debate this bill. The

government is famous for its second looks and third looks and

fourth looks. We had this with the daylight saving time, and it

doesn't surprise me.

I don't know why the government even bothered to introduce

legislation as lengthy as this particular bill. In effect, what

the government is asking us to enact is a bill which, so far as

the control of the petroleum industry is concerned, simply says

that the Energy Commission can do anything it wants.

[ Page 3882 ]

I don't know why we couldn't have just had a nice one-line

bill saying that the Energy Commission is hereby empowered to

do anything it wants, and to the extent that regulation may be

required by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can pass such regulation. Then

we wouldn't be bothered with all the concern that has been

expressed today about all these amendments. That's, in effect,

what the government is doing with the statement of this

responsibility. It's giving it to the Energy Commission and

saying: "Whatever needs to be done, in your opinion, go ahead

and do."

If you look at the words that are in the amendment, Mr.

Speaker, the only reason they're there is because the

government gets some political satisfaction out of offering in

its legislation what the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace)

called a carrot. I think there is a better description. They

talk about rolling the pork barrel. Now we're rolling the

furnace oil barrel around the Province of British Columbia. The

Hon. Attorney-General admitted as much when he opened the

debate. If there are certain areas where certain fuel supplies

make it difficult, then we'll give a little grant here and a

little grant there.

This government has got delusions of "gran"-eur, Mr. Speaker.

I don't think that we should assist them in carrying out that

particular design.

There's no question that what we see in the amendments today

emanated from some brilliant shaft of intelligence that the

Premier got from his advisers before he went to Toronto and

made his speech. There's no question about that.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, either that or he found that his

proposal for using ICBC was meeting so much resistance that he

had to find some other way of passing on to the motorists of

this province the assistance that he promised them some several

weeks ago and tried to indicate would be done through ICBC. Now

we're going to be able to separate certain classes of consumers

who are going to get certain benefits out of this legislation.

Therefore, it will work in that way.

I was surprised that the Attorney-General raised the matter

of refinery capacity in the Province of British Columbia and

our need for expanded refinery capacity. One of the reasons we

don't have refineries being built today is this very

legislation which is being amended and the concern of those

companies who are in the refining field as to whether or not

they should invest further capital in the Province of British

Columbia.

The Minister says that we've got to process as much of the crude oil as we

possibly can in the Province of British Columbia. I was startled to hear that,

because the chairman of the Energy Commission just a few weeks ago took it upon

himself to be highly critical of the fact that refining companies in the Province

of British Columbia were indeed taking the crude oil and refining it and shipping

the refined product to the States. I thought this was what we were in favour

of.

But the energy tsar didn't think so. He found that to be

completely repugnant. He thought that the oil companies were

somehow or other getting around somebody by doing it this way.

Now the Attorney-General is suggesting that that's exactly what

we should be doing. At a time when, by reason of the

availability of crude and other products, we in British

Columbia were in a surplus position so far as gasoline was

concerned and found a market for it, the energy tsar saw that

it should be criticized.

It seems to me that we're going from pillar to post and from

side to side on this whole matter of energy as between the

government and its commission, and between the brilliance of

the Premier and his advisers. We're not taking hold of the

energy problem as a whole, and as a petroleum problem in

particular, and doing something about it within the area of

government responsibility.

We are not self-sufficient in British Columbia with respect

to our petroleum supply and our demands. We never will be

unless there is significant work done in the field of

exploration. Other Members speaking in this debate have

indicated quite clearly the impact of this kind of legislation

on the decisions to invest in exploration by those companies

who know what to do and who have the funds to put into

exploration. It turns it off. No question about that.

What the government should be doing is directing itself to

two areas: (1) the discovery of additional supply; and (2) the

conservation of the energy resource. Those are two areas of

proper responsibility for the government. Yet this government

seems bent on ignoring the second, namely conservation, and

destroying the first, and fiddling around in the middle, which

is the retail-wholesale area so far as petroleum products use

and distribution is concerned.

The recent decisions by the national government and the

provinces of Canada with respect to the utilization of crude

oil and its various products in this country and the

construction of an oil pipeline, which is going to take western

Canadian crude into the heart of the eastern market as was

never before the case, thereby providing an alternative source

of crude when the price of foreign oil is too high, will have

the result of shortening to a very significant degree our

abilities in Canada to use our own Canadian crude for our own

requirements.

It has been suggested that perhaps 10 or 15 years is about

the limit of the proven resources of petroleum crude in this

country. Mr. Speaker, those limits were predicated upon the

availability at

[ Page

3883 ]

acceptable prices of crude from the world market. By

depending entirely upon our own known resource, it is now

responsibly suggested that five years is the limit of time that

we can expect to depend upon crude oil from Canada to meet our

own needs.

That only indicates to you, Mr. Speaker, how important it is

that this government do everything they can to encourage

exploration and discovery in order to enhance supply, but

equally if not more importantly to turn its attention to

conservation. Instead of making grants to consumers, we should

be encouraging people with grants, if need be, to cut back on

consumption. Until we adopt these attitudes, we are going to

carry on moving headlong at ever-increasing speed to the day

when we will not be able to exist in our society, as we have

learned to enjoy it over past years, because the petroleum

resource is not going to be there.

That's the direction we should be going. We shouldn't be

dealing with this kind of legislation which, if anything, is

only a punitive attempt to deal with a bogeyman that this

government has raised, namely the multi-national corporations.

It's a very popular bogeyman that the NDP has in this regard.

If you haven't got multi-national corporations then you can

start attacking the national corporations. You always find one.

Mr. Speaker, we're soon going to come to the day if this

government keeps on going the way it is where the only

corporations they'll have to attack are the ones they created

themselves. But you know, the country can't wait until the NDP

has gobbled up all of the bogeymen until it finally comes down

to its own, namely the corporations and the commissions which

they have established with powers that a multi-national

corporation never dreamed of having.

Mr. Speaker, when I look at this legislation it occurs to me

that if somehow or other the government could harness the power

that they're giving to the Energy Commission, they could

heat every building, they could air-condition every building,

they could operate all the. lights, and if they could convert

it into electric power for automobile use they could operate

every vehicle in the Province of British Columbia just with the

power given to this commission. But the fact of the matter is,

Mr. Speaker, that the government doesn't realize that by

putting these kinds of powers onto paper and vesting them into

a commission, they don't create energy, they just waste it.

That will be the consequence of this amendment in Bill 18.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, the

government has received a lot of good advice this afternoon. I

hope it pays attention to some of it and I don't propose to

repeat any of it except that portion which relates to power and

to the unbridled power that's contained in this bill.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: I'm talking about the power of this bill,

because as the Attorney-General knows, it has absolute power if

it chooses to exercise it, and that's when the public has to

watch out. It doesn't matter who they're attacking; when

they're exercising their absolute power in that way, the public

has to watch out.

AN HON. MEMBER: Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

MR. GIBSON: Somewhere down the road, Mr. Attorney-General,

the absolute powers that are conferred in this bill are going

to corrupt absolutely. You know the sections that are in it.

They've been referred to this afternoon — the power to set

prices, to give rewards to this company and that, to do

differential things, to vary contracts at discretion and then

require that the new orders be carried out.

The Attorney-General knows that energy is a big money

industry. There are going to be persons seeking to make deals.

I don't care if at the moment you have a saint in every

political and civil service position that's dealing with this

Act — the powers are so unrestrained that somewhere down the

line there is going to be corruption as a result of deals being

made because of the discretion that's been conferred in this

bill, as surely as night follows day.

The Attorney-General has introduced in this House, Mr.

Speaker, a Public Officials Disclosure Act. That's

chicken feed compared to the kind of disclosure that ought to

be required under this bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Of private oil companies?

MR. GIBSON: I mean of the details of the orders of the

commission and exactly why they're made and exactly who's

benefiting. That's absolutely essential. The only even partial

defence against the arbitrary powers conferred in this bill is

disclosure. As the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound

has just said, will the Attorney-General put on the record with

precision exactly what disclosure the commission is going to

have to make in the actions it takes under the amended

Part IV

of this Act? Is it going to have to make public every order it

makes?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes.

MR. GIBSON: Is it going to have to make public the reasons

for making that order?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes.

MR. GIBSON: Is it going to make public the factual

background that has gone into all of those

[ Page 3884 ]

determinations?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, public hearings.

MR. GIBSON: The Attorney-General says public hearings, but

more than public hearings. As the Attorney-General knows, in

decisions of this kind there's an enormous amount of background

staff work and there's a lot of opinion that goe