[ Page 2543 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

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

Possible power brownouts. Mr. Curtis — 2545 

Purchase of Glenshiel Hotel, Mr. Gardom — 2545  

Retroactive compensation for Court of Appeal litigants. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2546 

Ferry bakery operations. Mrs. Jordan — 2546

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

Mr. Phillips — 2547

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

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2547

Mrs. Jordan — 2550

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2550

Mr. Williams — 2553

Mr. Smith — 2555

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2559

Mr. Phillips — 2559

Mrs. Jordan — 2562

Mr. Gardom — 2564

Ms. Young — 2564

Mr. Chabot — 2565

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2565

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2566

Mr. McClelland — 2567

Mr. Williams — 2568

Division on amendment to postpone second reading — 2569

Mr. Wallace — 2569

Mr. Steves — 2572

Mr. Richter — 2573

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2574

Division on second reading — 2575

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

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2575

Telecommunication Utilities Act (Bill No. 147). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2575

Mrs. Jordan — 2575

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2576

Mrs. Jordan — 2576

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2577

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

Oral questions.

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

DISCRIMINATION CHARGED BY
MAX'S DO-NUTS LTD.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we could ask the Minister of Highways if he has any statement to make regarding the publicity being given by Max's Do-Nuts Ltd. due to the fact they consider that they are being unfairly discriminated against by government because of the particular union which his bakers choose to be a member of. Would the Minister care to comment? It's rather a serious charge.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): First of all, as far as I know we had been buying doughnuts for the ferry system through someone called Murray Sales, not Max's Do-Nuts. We bought through Murray Sales.

The contract with that Murray Sales expired on March 31. The contract just wasn't renewed.

MR. SPEAKER: This is a very important question I'm sure. The Hon. Member for North Okanagan. We've got down to doughnuts now. An urgent and important question?

MR. WALLACE: Just a supplementary question on that. No, Mr. Speaker, I was …

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): If doughnuts are good business for the government, could the Minister advise the House as to the plans that he might have for pie crust or bread?

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

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

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

MR. WALLACE: The matter carries a potential much more important than the subject of doughnuts. I just wonder if the Minister could give a reason why the contract was not renewed. Does one just not renew without any explanation?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The previous administration had installed a doughnut-making machine at Swartz Bay. It had been in use for many years supplying part of the doughnuts to the ferries. I simply extended that previous policy to provide all of the doughnuts for the ferries.

MR. SPEAKER: Now, the Hon. Member for Columbia River. Is it on the same subject or a different subject.

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

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

MR. CHABOT: It's on the attempt of that government to destroy Max's Do-Nuts in Vancouver, that's what the question's about. Does the Minister have a policy on the ferry operation that only labour unions that are affiliated with the B.C. Federation of Labour will be able to sell products to the B.C. Ferry Authority? Is that a government policy?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The answer is "no." I simply told you I only extended the previous government's policy of supplying doughnuts. I'm using exactly the same equipment and the same crew and we're supplying all of the doughnuts instead of part of them.

MR. CHABOT: Supplementary question: it's quite well known that you don't have sufficient…

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

MR. CHABOT: The Minister has stated that because of anticipated labour trouble it was necessary to cancel the contract between…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. CHABOT: …Max's Do-Nuts and the B.C. ferries through Murray Sales. Now I wonder what kind of anticipated labour trouble the Minister of Highways is anticipating. Is he threatening Max's Do-Nuts with reprisal by the B.C. Federation of Labour because they're a Christian union — are you against that?

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Will the Member be seated? I would point out to the Hon. Member that the purpose of question period is to ask a question, not to make a speech and not to enter into a debate.

[ Page 2544 ]

Would the Hon. Member please adhere to the rules.

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

MR. CHABOT: I did so.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You asked me if I was against Christian unions and I said "no." I'm not against Christian unions. I'm interested in expanding the….

First of all, I cancelled no contract. At no time did I cancel a contract. The contract expired and I decided that the policy initiated by the previous administration in this case was a good policy. We're now supplying all of the doughnuts to the ferries. No one phoned me. No one contacted me, and that's the truth. There you have it.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: So there it is.

MR. SPEAKER: Now may we enter into the question period with important and urgent questions? The Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands.

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

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

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

MRS. JORDAN: When the first question was asked by the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) and answered by the Minister, I was then on my feet and recognized by you, Sir. At that time the Member for Oak Bay wished to ask a supplementary and I gave my position to him.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think it's urgent and important. I think it's been answered. There are other Members who have questions to ask on other subjects.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I don't know what your question is, but if it's on the same subject, it's not urgent and it isn't important.

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

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

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you very much. My question, Mr. Speaker, is addressed to the Minister of Highways. I would like to preface it by saying that if doughnuts are good business for the government, could the Minister advise the House as to plans that he might have for pie crusts, bread, pastries, southern fried chicken? And, Mr. Speaker, was Mr. Metlowski or Murray Sales or Max's Do-Nuts…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The question is ironical and it really is not urgent or important. Would the Hon. Member be seated?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Would the Member be seated? I recognize the Member for Saanich and the Islands.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: I've already ruled on your question. It's ironical and it is not urgent or important.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If you want to put a question on the order paper, by all means do so. I recognize the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order. You have no challenge on the ruling by standing orders on this question.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Minister has no right to answer a question that's been ruled out of order as ironical, rhetorical and completely not important to the House. Now I ask the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands to ask his question.

[ Page 2545 ]

POSSIBLE POWER BROWNOUTS
AND WATER SHORTAGES

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, would the Premier comment on a matter raised in this House two days ago with respect to low snow pack and low rainfall experienced in many parts of British Columbia, particularly the coastal section, and the likelihood of power brownouts or water shortages as a result?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I don't have any knowledge relating to that question. However, if you care to, I'll pass it on to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams).

MR. SPEAKER: I believe that question was asked and answered with regard to snow pack in British Columbia this year, if that's what your question is about.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm sorry, I don't know the answer to that question. I'll get it for him.

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

PURCHASE OF GLENSHIEL HOTEL

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, it's a question to the Minister of Public Works because he was determined today to provide answers to the House. It deals with the government purchase of the Glenshiel Hotel. A very serious inference has been clearly raised, and raised on more than one occasion by the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) that the government has paid an amount for that hotel that is greatly in excess of it's fair market value and the advertised price.

As I said, earlier today the Minister was grappling to give an answer. He was also prompted by the Premier to sit down. I would now ask the Minister why this hotel was sold for a price well in excess of its advertised price and its apparent fair market selling value.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): The information that was being handed out across the way was misinformation. The advertisement that was displayed was approximately four years old.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: In looking into this matter, we find that Mr. John A. Relling, realtor, on behalf of National Trust offered the building to the Department of Public Works on July 15, 1969.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Here is the reply…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

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

"July 15, 1969.

"Re: Glenshiel Hotel, 606 Douglas Street.

"I would like to confirm our telephone conversation of last week with regard to the above property. Our company is acting on behalf of the registered owners of Penn Holdings Ltd. They have instructed us to sell the above property, which is zoned light transient accommodation, for $470,000.

"If the Department of Public Works is interested in obtaining the valuable property for the provincial government and would like further information, please feel free to contact the writer."

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Minister, order.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order. On the point of order that has been raised by one Member, I draw to your attention that documents can be filed with the consent of the House. If you have any answer beyond the documents, by all means give it in accordance. The Hon. Second Member for…

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

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted.

Leave granted.

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

MR. GARDOM: I would like to ask the Hon. Minister as a supplemental: if the Government received appraisals prior to purchase and if so would he please table those appraisals in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister.

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

[ Page 2546 ]

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

MR. GARDOM: I am afraid the Minister didn't get my question, I asked him if he would table the appraisals in the House.

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

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

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

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

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

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I simply want to state that the property was still…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, no statements please. It is question period. Have you a question?

MR. MORRISON: Is it not true that that property was still available for sale in July of 1972 at the asking price?

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, we checked with National Trust and they no longer listed that particular property beyond 1969.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

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

RETROACTIVE COMPENSATION FOR
COURT OF APPEAL LITIGANTS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. In the light of his decision to introduce retroactive legislation in this House getting around a decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, may I ask him whether he will take steps to pay compensation or to have compensation paid to, first of all, those people who acted in good faith under the previous legislation, and secondly, those people who were involved in litigation under the previous legislation and who happened to be upheld by the courts.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Commercial Transport): Mr. Speaker, we are not using retroactive legislation to circumvent anything of the courts. I am merely following out the statement I made last December. As a result, I think that probably answers your question.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the supplementary to that question is the same question: are you going to pay compensation to people who acted in good faith under existing legislation and who have suffered loss as a result, because of the fact you have introduced retroactive legislation in this House?

HON. MR. LORIMER: If you have any names of people acting in good faith and as a result have been caused injury you might let me know their names.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker. A final question. I would be delighted to get a list of names. What I want to know is whether the list will be worth anything when I give it to the Minister. Would you agree now to accept…?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. You can't ask the Minister what the future policy of the Crown is going to be. The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no present policy as you obviously indicated by your own question. How can there be?

The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

FERRY BAKERY OPERATION

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to address my question to the Hon. Minister of Highways. Where does the ferry authority plan to establish its bakery operation? What is the estimated cost of plant and equipment? What will be the total number of people employed in this operation?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The bakery is already established. It was established by the previous administration at Swartz Bay. There are two people employed.

MRS. JORDAN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the Hon. Minister of Highways advise the House as to whether or not he is putting in additional equipment to take care of the production of glazed doughnuts and other varieties that will be served on the ferries? What is the estimated cost of this equipment? Where will it be established and what are the number of employees who will be employed?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I am considering — considering — considering referring for consideration that whole matter to some committee of the Legislative Assembly. (Laughter).

[ Page 2547 ]

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Oak Bay. I hope it's on something else…

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

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

Orders of the day.

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

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No. 141.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE CREDIT UNIONS ACT, 1961

(continued)

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

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): …the last four things they asked for and I will certainly support the bill, Mr. Speaker. I will be happy to support the bill. Now you realize, Mr. Speaker, that when good legislation comes into this House, we do support it. And we would like the people to know that when there is good legislation we are certainly always behind it, Mr. Speaker.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, in reply to that very good Member that I would like the question to be put.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 141 referred to a committee of the whole House at the next sitting after today.

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

ENERGY ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to move second reading of Bill No. 148 intituled the Energy Act. A very simple little…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, it's a noncontentious piece of legislation. Just a little bit of housekeeping — a little spring cleaning in the petroleum industry. A bill of impeccable genealogy when you look at the different sections and from whence they came. And were I to invoke the shades of the past — the Hon. Duff Pattullo, G.G. McGeer, M.A. Macdonald — they would all be here, giving plaudits to this bill.

The bill can be described fairly briefly, but there are one or two problem areas I would like to bring up in a little more detail. A new body is established — the British Columbia Energy Commission. And in that connection, may I quote the words of that well-known Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) to this Legislature. Very sage words, on February 8, 1973 — where he is reported as saying: "B.C. needs a full-time energy board to determine the province's future energy needs and the extent of existing resources. No detailed facts are available on energy resources, therefore, the government cannot establish policy for conserving resources on a sound basis."

It is true. It is terribly true that we have suffered acutely in this province in the dissipation of our energy resources, particularly by way of export, since 1954. You know, one of the really great tragedies for the people of British Columbia was that contract of West Copst Transmission which sold our natural gas to the United States at 22 cents per 1,000 cubic feet, when the old B.C. Electric — as it was called at that time — was paying about 30 cents per 1,000 cubic feet for our own gas.

Still, there is a situation which has to be rectified. This bill will, in creating the Energy Commission, give motor-carriers to the Department of Commercial Transport with provisions for hearings in that department of those residual functions. Cemeteries — probably to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) who already has some jurisdiction in that field. Pre-arranged funeral services will go to the Securities Commission. Water systems — to the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams).

The Act provides for a commission of up to seven people, and may I say that it provides for hearings before that commission. I shouldn't refer to section numbers unless Hon. Members want, but for convenience, that's 102.

The hearings, incidentally, are new in relation to the old Coal and Petroleum Products Act that was administered by a very distinguished British Columbian in former days — A.W. Carrothers — who was, of course, our first Mr. PUC (Public Utilities Commission) and he administered the old Petroleum Regulations Act. There were no provisions for hearings in there, but we added them in because we thought they would be of interest, particularly to the

[ Page 2548 ]

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

We also provided, in a new way, that the new Energy Commission shall give reasons for its decisions at the behest of one of the parties who may wish those reasons. I think that is a valuable advance which is not to be found in the old legislation.

The Act is divided into several parts. Of course, the first and very vital one is the survey of the energy resources of the province, and how best the people of British Columbia can receive adequate compensation from those resources at a fair price in their use.

Then we have a section dealing with the public utilities affairs as such. We have another part dealing with the petroleum industry.

In connection with natural gas, I'd like to say that the Province of British Columbia is at a very crucial stage, in this respect. We're coming in as a new government into this problem, almost at the eleventh hour. Since this bill was first drafted, events have been overtaking us, and that's why it becomes a bill of urgent public importance. I stress "urgent."

We're trying to make up for the neglect in this field for 20 years, and we're entering these negotiations at a time when, for example, the El Paso Company, which is related through Phillips Petroleum to West Coast Transmission, has announced its big new contract with West Coast Transmission.

There are very important stakes or prizes involved. The game that is being played has to be very carefully watched by the people of British Columbia. We're going to require the cooperation of the National Energy Board. It's a very fast poker game that Mr. B.C. Public is sitting down in — sitting there in his undershirt holding a pair of deuces so far, with one more draw to go.

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

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, we're very much at the eleventh hour. He has one draw to go and will be lucky if he doesn't go home in a barrel — an oil barrel. (Laughter).

If you look at the contract that has been drawn up between West Coast and El Paso, and which West Coast is now, on an urgent basis, trying to sell to the National Energy Board, there are two prizes that are apparent in that contract that the oil industry seeks to gain. When I talk about the oil industry, I'm taking about the international oil industry, because it's always been that way. They want, of course, to gain — and they're doing this all over the North American continent — enhanced prices from the consumer's pocket.

In my opinion, there has been an artificial energy crisis created. The end play on that artificial energy crisis is the withdrawing of exploration funds, not just in British Columbia — I don't know whether it's really happened here — but over the whole period, pulling back on exploration and the development in order to create an energy crisis and get a higher price for those products. That's one of the plays.

The other play which is apparent and which is of more importance to us in British Columbia is the question of the export of our natural gas. We're now sending over the border 800 million cubic feet per day. The energy shortage that is developing in the United States in terms of cheap energy is such that they propose to increase our exports out of this province by no less than an additional 450 million cubic feet per day by 1975, I think it is. No regard and no research has been conducted as to whether or not that will enable British Columbia to conserve enough resources for its own use into a reasonable future. I wouldn't think that it would be possible, with exports of that magnitude, that we would not run ourselves short as a province.

The crunch that is built into this contract in order to accomplish this export of our natural gas to what, in effect, are parent companies of West Coast Transmission is that they offer over a two-year period in this agreement, as a sop to the B.C. consumers, an additional 1.5 cents per 1,000 cubic feet. So that instead of our consumers being faced with the increased prices that are now being generated because of the increase in prices at the wellhead to the full extent, they're offering a sop of 1.5 cents for a period of two years. But at the end of that two years it's to be withdrawn on the basis that this charge would continue — I should say this sop or advantage would continue — if additional export permits are granted by November, 1975.

It's not the biggest gun in the world, but it's a gun pointed at the people of British Columbia saying, "You give these huge parent companies outside your borders the natural gas we need, or we will soak it to your consumers. In the meantime, we're giving them a little sop of 1.5 cents for this two-year period, though even that goes if we do not get the export permits we need at the end of that two year period." So these are very big stakes.

We're at a disadvantage, Mr. Speaker, in relation to, say, the Province of Alberta, which began a study in the early part of 1972 into this question. It went until about October, 1972. But they have the advantage that their main gas pipeline is a carrier — Alberta Gas Trunk Lines. It doesn't own the gas and it's not intra-provincial or international — they have constitutional authority over it. They're moving into the very logical area of a two-price system with advantages that we don't possess. They have of course, in the case of Alberta, a little bit of a dispute with Ontario which seems to be at the point of being resolved.

We don't have that problem of two prices within

[ Page 2549 ]

Canada at all, but we do face the problem of getting a proper return on our export of natural gas, which is abysmally low in terms of competitive market fuels at the present time, and at the same time protecting our industry and consumers here in the Province of British Columbia.

This energy board which we're setting up will play a leading role in making representations on behalf of all the people of British Columbia at the National Energy Board level in Ottawa. I don't think these representations will fail, because I think that the federal government will recognize that the Canadian public interest and the British Columbia public interest are one, in protecting these resources for people and seeing that we get a fair return for them. But should these representations fall on deaf ears, we certainly intend as a government to consider other means whereby we can protect our people and our energy resources.

Now, we also have in this little bill a few sections dealing with the petroleum industry as such. I know that the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) has been reported in the Press as saying that we have bitten off more than we can constitutionally chew. Of all the various bits of criticism I read, I worried about that more because the Hon. Member is a doctor and he should know what he is talking about in that respect. (Laughter).

Actually, Mr. Speaker, the provisions we seek to invoke in regard to the petroleum industry we have upheld in 1940 in the Supreme Court of Canada in different forms. So we feel we're on good constitutional ground. There is ample precedent in this province whereby we should have a watchdog role in terms of the petroleum industry.

I could go back to 1938 and the report of M.A Macdonald. Here's what he said in volume 1: "We found that gasoline could be sold at a fair profit at 18 cents a gallon" — it was then about 30 cents — "or, if the public wanted to tolerate the present system of retail distribution designed to maintain prices and prevent competition." — and that was said in a royal commission report in 1938 — "it could be sold for 23 cents." It was then on the streets at about 30 cents, We have the report in Alberta, called the Mackenzie Report of 1968, which shows that the people of that province, too, want to have a very close look at the real cost of gasoline and whether or not the consumer is being exploited, not only in the cost of gasoline, but in the kind of wasteful practices in which the industry engages in terms of the exploitation of service station operators, all of which we seek to have the power to curb in this bill.

In that report, and I'll read it very quickly and summarize it, they broke down the cost of a gallon of gasoline which was then selling in Edmonton or Calgary at 39.9 cents — say, 40 cents per gallon: amount spent on exploration and production of crude — 3 cents; refineries and processing plants — 3 cents; marketing — 5 cents, retailing — 7 cents. The total is 18 cents.

This is by Mackenzie, Q.C., and two eminent commissioners, and they go on to break down the costs: for the millions spent on exploration and production of crude — 3 cents; for the millions spent on refineries and processing plants — 3 cents per gallon; for the oil marketing departments which build excessive numbers of unnecessary service stations and subsidize lessees to occupy them and conduct expensive advertising programmes, each trying to outdo the other in giveaways and prizes.

Five cents for retailing by the service station operator who, because of the excessive numbers of unnecessary stations doesn't have the opportunity to sell enough gallons to economically utilize his facilities and to keep his capital and labour costs per gallon at minimum levels, and who accordingly ekes out a precarious marginal existence. Seven cents. And the whole thing, leaving out taxes, adds up to 18 cents at a time when the companies were charging 26.

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

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The tax in Alberta at that time was 13 cents — 13.9. But these are the figures apart, in each case, from tax.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Royal commission in Alberta?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: 1968.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Under Social Credit.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Then you have the last report of His Honour Judge Morrow in British Columbia, and that was filed in 1966. The judge concluded his report with these words: "If these changes are not implemented within a reasonable time, I would recommend that section 3 of the Petroleum Sales Act be enlarged and the Act proclaimed." Now that Act is Duff Pattullo's atom bomb, which enables the total takeover of the petroleum and refining facilities of the province.

But this was suggested by the learned judge in that report. Otherwise, he said, regulations could be promulgated under the Public Utilities Act.

So I say that it stands to reason that in terms of price and service and protection of the people in the industry, it is absolutely necessary that we have the regulatory power under a new B.C. energies commission in the field of petroleum.

How those powers will be exercised will be up to careful hearings, representations and, I would hope,

[ Page 2550 ]

full research before decisions are made. But we should not have those powers which, incidentally, are to some extent already in the hands of the public in Alberta under the Motor Fuel Licensing Act — not to have those powers in a time of energy crisis, in a time of growing shortage of energy resources, in a time when nobody can say whether or not the consumer without that proper research is not being grossly exploited, in a time when we like to think in this province that we may be able to move toward equalization of gasoline prices from the north to the south to the east and the west of British Columbia.

All of these argue that we cannot leave to the blind, non-competitive whims of the international oil industry such an essential energy resource as petroleum.

So I think, Mr. Speaker, that I have summed up the main features of the Act with which we are concerned, and I'll be glad to discuss the sections. But generally speaking, the powers are from the old legislation which has been allowed to lapse. I therefore, with confidence that this is the kind of commission that should get quickly to work in the interests of the people of this province, move second reading.

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

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, through you to the Attorney General: in his statements he's pointed out that this is a very wide, sweeping Act. It involves a number of transfers to different departments and requires considerable research on our part to offer constructive criticism. I wonder if he would accept an adjournment of the debate for a few days.

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

MRS. JORDAN: Will the Minister accept an adjournment?

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

MRS. JORDAN: I appreciate this, but I'm sure that the Hon. Minister is aware that the Members have been very busy and such an Act requires a good deal of detailed study before we can give intelligent analysis of the Act.

MR. SPEAKER: I warned the Hon. Member that she would lose her place in the debate if she makes the motion. It would be preferable for her to carry on if she can. Unless they accept a motion at this time.

MRS. JORDAN: Not if it's accepted, Mr. Speaker. And I would think that in all consideration and fairness it would be accepted by the Minister.

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

MRS. JORDAN: Well then, Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of the debate, second reading of the debate, until the next sitting of the House.

Motion negatived.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry. I have to recognize the next Member who wishes to speak on it. Is there any further debate?

The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, this is very wide-sweeping legislation. The points that the Attorney General made, or I should say, I guess, that the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce made, are good ones. In point of fact there is a need for some sort of government commission which has the responsibility for research and investigation and acquiring of knowledge which he has listed.

He referred to the need, to the fact that we were unaware of the position that this province is in vis-a-vis our exports and also, I presume, vis-a-vis the other provinces.

He pointed out that in the Province of Alberta they are moving towards a two-price system, or at least I believe they have moved towards it. I think that the Hon. Minister in fact was incorrect when he went on to say that there is no problem in Canada with the two-price system. I don't think Ontario and Alberta…

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, perhaps, Mr. Premier, what he did say was that there was no problem in this area. I think the problems in this area are increasing.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: But B.C. gas doesn't go eastward. It isn't a problem for us. All ours goes south.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Not, Mr. Attorney General, for us. Thanks for the clarification. But the inference was that there was none in Canada and there actually is a substantial one.

One reason for the establishment of such a board and the fact that we cannot continue to rely entirely upon the National Energy Board, is the fact that Alberta has entered this area, and Alberta is acting in

[ Page 2551 ]

a way which — I have no wish to criticize it — but which nevertheless makes it imperative for other provinces nearby to pay particular attention to what they are doing.

The representations that this board will make to the National Energy Board are again something which I think is desirable. For many years, three to be exact, I have regarded the National Energy Board with acute suspicion and distrust. It is not a body which I feel is properly constituted for this day and age. It is not a body which, in my mind, is doing as good a job for this nation as could be done. My remarks on this are recorded in the various debates of the committee on natural resources of the House of Commons.

But with respect to other aspects of the commission itself, we have a great deal more in the way of reservations. The trouble with this government's legislation, if I may digress for one moment, Mr. Speaker, is that so often they come up with an idea which may be good, and then they ruin it by putting it in a context which simply makes it very, very questionable.

We approve of the idea of an energy board carrying out some of the functions that the Minister has talked about, an energy commission carrying out some of the functions that the Minister has talked about, and we approve of the fact that they're going to be the government body which is going to assist the government in its deliberations on whether oil or gas or any other product — coal I presume as well, and others — will be exported or otherwise. We like that because we think there is this need.

But when you get into the other areas, in particular the area of granting of powers, we're into what we consider to be the fatal weakness of this administration — namely broad, sweeping powers which are excessive and unnecessary under the Act.

Now the Minister shakes his head. He has quoted to us the 1938 Royal Commission Report for the former Pattullo regime in particular; he's quoted to us the Report of the Royal Commission in Alberta; and he's made it perfectly clear that in those two areas it was the regulations which the government had at that time were used effectively…and it was not necessary to bring in as radical and as sweeping powers as Duff Pattullo, for example, had in mind when that Act he mentioned first came up.

It wasn't necessary because it was possible to regulate. It was possible for the government to remain in its traditional role and to handle the problems that had been developed in a realistic governmental way instead of entering into the whole area which the original Pattullo legislation would have permitted them to do, and which this legislation does.

In other words, it was the threat of the Pattullo legislation, and I think the Attorney General will agree, which led to regulations governing the industry which turned out to be relatively effective.

I don't know whether we are in the same situation now. The Attorney General hasn't commented upon this. Why is it necessary now? Has there been big changes now which lead the government to decide that regulation is an ineffectual way of handling this problem. I'm not talking about the obtaining of information or doing future studies, I'm talking about regulations.

This was the area that the Minister covered very quickly. In a bill which gives the commission authority to forcibly or otherwise take over the whole part of the business and real or personal property, we begin to wonder whether or not this commission is being given too broad powers.

We wonder again at granting this commission the power to regulate prices in the way that it can. The commission can set different prices for different parts of the province. This is not in itself objectionable or undesirable, I guess. There are obviously factors which might lead the commission to try and reduce the price in the north, for example, or indeed to increase it in the south. If we decided we had too much smog in Vancouver, it may be a necessary and useful thing to boost the price of gasoline in Vancouver to a figure of say $2 or $3. It may be necessary to do that simply to make the rapid transit proposals of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) work effectively.

I'm not saying that this is necessarily wrong but what I would like to point out at this time is that it's subject to enormous abuse. I'm not recommending it. I'm simply saying this type of regulation could be used in this way to achieve other social objectives. In addition, however, it could be used in a political way and we're very suspicious of this.

In our minds, the boards and the commissions that have been set up by this government have been political boards or boards which could be used for political objectives. Say, for example, that the ruling party — I have no wish to insult the NDP and suggest that they would do this — but say some other party takes over from them and they use these powers through this commission to lower the price of gasoline in an area where they find their popularity sinking.

The Attorney General frowns and looks unhappy about this. But it's a perfectly realistic thing for this commission to do.

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

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

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

[ Page 2552 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'm glad the Attorney General makes the assumption that we're taking over from him in the future. I trust it's the near future. I imagine this party would not do that.

But I can visualize the day when perhaps a party led by that dynamic preacher from Kamloops might return, sweep us all underground and do precisely what I'm talking about. I don't say that that is likely. I trust it's not. But we have to envisage the worst when we're trying to examine legislation from the point of view of seeing whether some future administration could abuse it.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, you've done a very good job of defending him in the past.

What we are worried about in this legislation and what we find really unacceptable in it is this virtually total power to regulate; this unfettered power which is given to the commission in a very, very large area of our economic life in the province.

When it comes to establishing the service station outlets of the oil companies, there may be reasons to have doubts. There's no doubt in my mind that the major money made by the oil companies in this area is simply in land speculation. They're able to put a service station on a particular bit of property. They get a certain revenue from it. But what they're really after is not putting a service station there. What they're after is holding that property at a certain tax rate for certain future development which may come up.

We find that the provisions for appeal in this bill are inadequate. We find that this could be a very fundamental error in it. In our mind, the fact that the entire area of distributing, petroleum right from beginning to end can be controlled by a government commission, is simply another step along the government control of private enterprise. As we have stated before in debates today and yesterday and many days before in this session and the previous session, this is unacceptable to us.

We don't mind legislation which sets up — and we would approve legislation which set up — an energy board which was an energy board under the laws of the land. But when you have an energy board which is set up in this way, when you have a government body able to act in a capricious manner and get away with it, then we feel that that legislation is inadequate. As I said, the great shame is that there's no question that an energy board could be useful in this province. It could be a useful vehicle for much that we would like to see done.

The problem with this legislation, as with so much other legislation of this government, is that the wording is unclear in the bill, the provisions for appeal are unclear — in fact they've been described by my Hon. friend from West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) as gobbledegook. They are simply inadequate. The powers granted are excessive and therefore, in principle, we feel that this particular bit of legislation cannot be accepted by us.

The fact that this comes up at a time when we have had legislation dealing with the mining industry, the forest industry — or we have legislation soon to come before us on the forest industry — when we've had legislation dealing with many aspects of economic affairs and financial affairs in the province, all of which put power and control in the hands of small bodies of people appointed entirely by the government, is another obvious reason for alarm on our part.

We have no wish to see the oil industry or any other — and I above all have no wish to see the oil industry or any other act irresponsibly and as it wishes. We wish to see it controlled by law and we would like to see it controlled in the public interest. I have spent many thousands of my own dollars in attempting to force the oil companies to obey the law and, ironically, to obey the laws of another country.

But we cannot accept blank cheque legislation to government corporations, boards or commissions whose purposes may or may not be as described by the Ministers when they introduce the legislation in this House.

No one, I think, has better credentials in opposing illegal actions by oil companies than I have. Despite this, we cannot allow any feelings that we have along that line to colour the real principle of this type of legislation, which is simply handing out powers which could be misused beyond the control of this Legislature and of the courts.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, the Hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley), having made a number of unfortunate interventions in debate today, says that I like the oil companies. That's not correct and you know it. It's not a question of protecting the oil companies. It's an attempt to protect the people of British Columbia from having legislation rammed down their throats which can, in the future, have serious effects on their lives and their freedoms.

It's simple to say, as the Minister has said now, and as the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) has said, and as indeed other Ministers including the Premier have said, "Fine, if you're not for this, then you're supporting some other interest." That's easy enough. But, Mr. Minister of Public Works, my credentials in this are pretty good. I would like to suggest to you that in areas such as this, I cannot allow my own personal objections or feelings toward those people in the oil industry who oppose me, to get around the fact that this is legislation which doesn't only affect

[ Page 2553 ]

the oil industry or the gas industry or any other industry. It's the type of legislation which affects just about everybody in the province.

Most people in the province, in case you're unaware of it, Mr. Minister, in some way or another use petroleum products or energy sources. I think virtually everybody does. I cannot think of one person in the province who could not be affected by this Act in some way or another. When that is the case and when unlimited powers are granted, when the powers of appeal are inadequate, when this type of thing occurs, when the courts are virtually ruled completely to one side over a very major aspect of the life of the citizens of the province, we in this party simply cannot accept this legislation in principle.

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

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to help the Attorney General out.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's a Liberal filibuster. (Laughter).

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce was so kind in his remarks as to refer to remarks which I had made that I didn't want him to think that I was unappreciative of his contribution in the debate.

Yes, we do need a competent board to concern itself with the supply and future uses of energy in this province. I think that the remarks of the Attorney General in opening the debate made clear how much we need that kind of advice. He saw fit to fall into the trap which so many are falling into today; to suggest that there is a very grave shortage of energy resources, particularly in the petroleum and natural gas fields. That's been suggested but not proven. It will never be proven until we have an energy board of the kind that this legislation, hopefully, will produce.

It will never occur to us in this province to have this kind of information unless another step is taken. I think it's an unfortunate shortcoming in legislation unless the cabinet — Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council allows the energy board to make the studies.

Mr. Speaker, we have an energy board in British Columbia which has sat on a number of occasions on a number of specific matters. But that energy board was only allowed to discharge its function when the cabinet passed an order. It is with some regret that I find that a similar situation has been allowed to come forward into this bill. I hope that the Minister will indicate when he closes this debate why it is that we are not establishing an energy board in British Columbia truly independent but with terms of reference which clearly spell out the kind of continuing research activity that it should carry on in this province with the obligation to report periodically to the cabinet and to this House on their findings.

It is a continuing study that is required, not one which occurs from time to time, depending upon problems that arise, whether they're of crisis proportions or not. If we've had one difficulty in the province with regard to our energy resources, it's because of the government's lax, from time to time, in having a steady flow of information.

The changes that have taken place year by year in energy demands have always been forecast heretofore by British Columbia Hydro. It is that kind of forecast which has directed the policies of government. Yet there has always been reason to suspect whether or not the projections from British Columbia Hydro were ones upon which policy should be based and whether they weren't themselves intended to serve the growth and enhancement of B.C. Hydro and the empire that it has become.

For too many years now significant government policy in the field of finance has been the result of decisions made in the boardroom of British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority and communicated secretly, without any public disclosure, to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Bennett) of the former government.

When this bill was first introduced and when I spoke in advance of the bill's coming in as to the need for such a board, I was thinking of a board which would function on a continuing basis independent of the control of government, so that we would always have an opportunity of knowing whether or not the policies that the government was following were truly in line with the recommendations of an independent energy card.

Maybe the Hon. Attorney General can indicate why this is not to be the case now, because research in this field may have very serious consequences for the people of British Columbia. Failure on the part of government to have ready at its fingertips at all times the most up-to-date and current information about energy can result in serious lapses in its policy-making function.

I think it's unfortunate that the Hon. Attorney General has seen fit to draw into this bill this question of regulation and control of the petroleum industry, because it makes it impossible for me to accept the bill as it stands, even though it has so many good features. Admitting that the petroleum industry requires some examination and perhaps some control based upon that examination, I still cannot, however, accept the granting to this board the breadth of powers which the Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) has mentioned.

[ Page 2554 ]

It is of particular concern to me that I find included in this bill powers for this board to overrule the laws of this province.

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

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

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I read the first…

MR. WILLIAMS: I'll take the same liberty, Mr. Speaker, as the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), who had copious notes and referred to sections. Maybe the Hon. Attorney General would like to refer to section 136. I apologize for being out of order, but there it is.

The board is given the power — this is one that I find to be unacceptable — to overrule and set aside existing agreements which have been made.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's right. That's section 118 of the existing Public Utilities Act.

MR. WILLIAMS: I know. But I don't see why we're carrying that into this bill.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

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

Of course it has the right to overrule existing agreements. But when it is given the power as well to overrule existing statutes by its own order, it seems to me that the commission is taking unto itself a power over and above government and this assembly, which should be foreign to even the Attorney General's way of thinking.

When we consider those broad powers, we wonder what the reason for them might be. I come to the conclusion that all of the fine words that were said by the Hon. Attorney General about energy sources and their desire for knowledge and so on is really not the case. What we're finding here is the construction of a weapon against the petroleum industry because of…

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

MR. WILLIAMS: You can't?

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Just the subject matter.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It can be dealt with even though it's covered by another statute. You can't repeal the statute.

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

At any rate, Mr. Speaker, the board is really going to be set loose on the petroleum industry to whip it into line. If you need regulations, then there should be that kind of authority. But they should be regulations which are very carefully exercised, those powers. It's all very well to quote figures as to what it costs in the various segments of the petroleum industry so far as the operating expenses might be. But I would remind the Hon. Attorney General that the construction of refining plants is one requiring large capital expenditures. The transportation facilities that go with the functioning of the petroleum industry require large capital expenditures.

One of the difficulties that is facing our American friends to the south arises not only because of increasing world costs of crude petroleum but also because of an inability to meet the ever-increasing needs for refining capacity. We are approaching that situation in Canada we well. If action is taken of this kind which may in any way deter that capital investment in Canada or in British Columbia, then I think the government should concern itself with whether or not actions of this board might themselves have counter-productive effects upon the economy of British Columbia.

The Attorney General suggested that there was a provision for hearings. When I look at the section which deals with the ability of the board to fix wholesale and retail prices of petroleum products, I fail to recognize any obligation on the part of this board to hold hearings in advance of that decision-making process.

AN HON. MEMBER: They can if they want.

MR. WILLIAMS: They can if they want, but it would seem to me that the obligation to hold hearings before rendering any decisions or fixing any prices as they may apply in one part of British Columbia as opposed to another or the entire province, should be a mandatory obligation on the part of the board.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Section 102.

MR. WILLIAMS: There is obviously disagreement between the Attorney General and some of us as to what his bill means. The Attorney General reads it in a way which gives the most favourable construction that he wants to place on it. I think I am entitled to place the opposite construction. It's this difference of opinion that causes the problem so far as the industry is concerned.

[ Page 2555 ]

I would have thought that accompanying legislation such as this we would have legislation which would for all administrative tribunals in this province define the limits of the powers that they can exercise and the way in which they would have to conduct them. To sprinkle them throughout a bill such as this may perhaps satisfy some but it doesn't satisfy me.

Mr. Speaker, what we have here is a bill which starts off with the highest purpose and one which I think all Members in this House can applaud. But as you read on through the bill you come to its true purpose which is the control of one particular industry and the fixing of prices of the products of that industry. Yet they don't go the rest of the way and interfere in any way with the fixing of any of the prices that go into the making of that product. This includes the prices of crude and all of the other materials that go into the refining processes.

It also doesn't deal with the fixing of wages, which must be taken into account. I trust that we are not seeing from this government at this stage a slow easing into a wage and price-fixing board which is contrary to all of the policies of the New Democratic Party, which I gather to be completely and utterly opposed to wage and price controls.

It would be startling to me to find that the Government of British Columbia was drifting further and further away from the admirable tenets and dictates of that once great party.

But unless you are prepared to clothe this board with the complete powers to deal with all aspects that go into the costing of a product before fixing its prices, then quite obviously you are using this board and its powers merely as a club against one segment of the industry and not all aspects of it.

To single out one aspect of it, the wholesale and retail sale, and say: "O.K. That's where we're going to fix the prices — there," without having controls over any of the other variables that go into costing is short-sightedness to say the very least.

The implications of such activity for the petroleum industry are far beyond what we may see at the moment. They have such far-reaching effects. We are witnessing them in other jurisdictions in Canada — all governments are concerned with this particular problem and all governments are attempting to bring their special brand of remedy. Yet we are, I'm sure, following a path which is only going to bring us to greater uncertainty and greater difficulty.

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

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

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Speaking to the principle of this Act, the Energy Act, it is apparent that the Act is clothed in, in some respects, with a suggestion that we needed control of the petroleum industry in this province.

It is all-powerful and all-reaching and actually covers and controls all classes of energy within the Province of British Columbia.

Now it is one thing to bring into this House a bill which is designed specifically to promote the NDP philosophy and party line with respect to the control of the petroleum industry in the province. But it's something entirely different, I submit, Mr. Speaker, to bring in an Act which covers every source of energy within the Province of British Columbia.

It would seem to me that while the government has indicated we need an Energy Act — and I don't think anyone will quarrel with that idea — what has been said publicly and what is really controlled in the sections of this Act are something altogether different.

There are many deficiencies in the proposed Energy Act and I think these came about chiefly by including the petroleum industry in legislation which deals essentially with public utilities. Now I know the fact that most public utilities have a monopoly in their respective fields and that their rate structure is controlled assures earnings without risk or competitive pressures. But no industry in the Province of British Columbia, including the petroleum industry, enjoys that same position, so why should they be included in such an all-encompassing Energy Act? The provisions of the Energy Act will apply to any form of energy including the petroleum-based energies that we use in the province.

The organization representing the retail segment of the petroleum business has brought to the attention of the past government and the present government some areas where they feel they would like some legislative help, When the Automotive Retailers Association spoke about the marketing of petroleum products, they indicated four areas of concern.

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

Most of the dealers felt that they were forced into a position of participating in the 3-G's, as the Attorney General fondly calls them — the gimmicks, giveaways and games proposition — against their will sometimes, but they felt they had to be part of it.

They wanted some sort of legislative reform with regard to guidelines for leasing premises from the major oil companies.

They wanted less influence upon their retail level of business by the companies themselves, particularly when they operated in company-owned service stations. It's very, very clear that the Energy Act before us this afternoon goes far beyond those objectives.

I really feel, Mr. Speaker, that it was unfortunate that when we had such an important Act before us, the Attorney General would not see fit to allow an adjournment of the debate. However that motion was put in good faith, not because we wanted to delay the

[ Page 2556 ]

process of this House, but because we have a very important document before us. I think even the Attorney General will agree that during the past few weeks we have been sitting from early in the morning until late in the evening and the time that we have had available to study some of the legislation has been very limited.

We've had to take our place in debate on the floor of this House many times, in my case at the same time a forestry committee meeting was going on next door. Certainly I would have liked to have been in both places at once, but that was impossible. When the House rises at 11 o'clock at night and reconvenes at 10 o'clock in the morning, there's very little time for a complete and exhaustive study of the bills. I'm not going to prolong that argument but I think it's an important one and one of the very good reasons why the Attorney General could have accepted an adjournment to allow us time to concentrate more fully upon the full ramifications of this bill at the time that it was proposed.

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

MR. SMITH: The Attorney General says it's a very simple bill. Even that, Mr. Attorney General, is a tongue-in-cheek expression because you know as well as I know that the ramifications of this bill are far from simple. When you deal with each and every form of energy in the Province of British Columbia, even the Attorney General must realize that the total impact this bill can have and will have on the economy of this province even he himself cannot predict at this particular moment. It certainly is the type of bill that the NDP in former days would have been hammering and screaming to refer to committee because of the fact that it does have far-reaching ramifications.

I can see the Attorney General of former days, when he was a Member of the opposition, would have been the first man to be on his feet debating the fact that any bill of this type where we should be listening to the total impact that it will have from the people that it will affect should be listened to, that we should hold committee meetings…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: I doubt that very much. As a matter of fact I think, Mr. Attorney General, if we look at the record of this session and the fall session, we've convinced the new government of very little. We've even had difficulty explaining to them our position on some very minor points, let alone a major one such as this. But I'll continue with the matters that are before me.

There are many sections of the bill that we feel are repugnant that place within the realm of the elected cabinet far too great a power; and they in turn place this power in the hands of an appointed commission again. It's just one further bill — and probably the most crucial bill of all that's come before the House this session — indicating the desire of the NDP to have complete control and takeover powers within the hands of the cabinet.

I am sure that even if the backbench Members of your party understood fully the ramifications of this Act there would be many of them that would not support it.

One man says it doesn't go far enough. Well, I'll tell you, there are extreme positions taken by people in public life but that is about the most extreme that I have ever had the misfortune to hear; that this Act, as it's set up, does not go far enough and give enough power to the cabinet.

Mr. Attorney General, how much more power do you want? Is it a complete takeover of every phase of development in the province? Is that what the government is after? Do they wish to control every phase of an individual's life down to the last degree? Is that what you're after? Because this type of bill, when you take all the energy sources that it covers, certainly gives you power far beyond anything that you really need to exercise.

With this bill you've closed the normal door to the courtroom process; excluded yourselves from that position. The bill is, in my opinion, ready-made for the exercise of political patronage, particularly by those persons who will be appointed to the commission.

Furthermore, there's a provision within the bill that while you will appoint seven or more commissioners, the entire power of this Act can be exercised by two or more people on behalf of the Executive Council — not even a quorum, Mr. Attorney General. If it's considered prudent to appoint seven people to that board, then surely it's prudent to require at least a quorum of those people to be present at a meeting before any major decision can be made. That is at least one of the fundamentals of a democratic society.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

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

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: I say two, Mr. Attorney General, unless you can prove me wrong. My colleague behind me says I say two correctly. So two-sevenths of the appointed commissioners can make decisions binding upon every citizen in the Province of British Columbia.

The Attorney General says, "Well, only the best

[ Page 2557 ]

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

One of the things the Act requires is the filing of an annual report, But once again the report will be filed with the Executive Council and not with the Legislature.

The duties of the commission are all encompassing. The commission may exercise a measure of control over revenues of the province and do, in the language of the section, "any other matter whatsoever." Now, is that not broad, all encompassing power? "Exercise a measure of control over the revenues of the province and do any other matter whatsoever."

The commission may exercise regulatory powers over the activities of any department of government. Here again in my estimation this is an interference with the duties of the appointed civil servants in this province; that you are by this Act riding roughshod over the senior civil servants, because even they will not have to be listened to with respect to the operation of their department. This commission of two people — if it happens that only two show up for the board meeting — can exercise control and powers over every other department of the government, including your own department, Mr. Attorney General. That surprises me a little bit.

The commission has the power in this Act to declare rates either just or unreasonable or unjust according to their decision and their decision alone. When you stop to contemplate the potential misuse of that particular section, it's really a chilling situation, Mr. Attorney General.

[Ms. Young in the chair.]

The Act confers a wide range of supervision activities which involve everything from the installation to the keeping of accounts. The extent to which this commission may regulate can be exemplified by the fact that the commission may direct an energy utility with respect to the kind of equipment it uses, the appliances it uses, or even the safety devices that it might approve or use. The commission has absolute discretion — and I repeat absolute discretion — with respect to the joint use of facilities.

The Act also provides that the commission may use any thoroughfare in any municipality in the province, including parks, squares, public places, for the purposes of installing energy lines. Does this mean that you by the powers given unto the commission in this Act have eliminated any recourse by the municipalities if they object to the installation of energy lines or the location of energy lines? Can you override them? I say you can. And you can go in and do whatever you like. The commission has the power under this Act to override any municipal jurisdiction whatsoever.

Furthermore, the commission may enter onto any municipal structure, again without municipal consent. When we get to the provisions in the Act that provide for the regulation of the petroleum industry it's the language of compulsion Mr. Attorney General. For example, the commission may compel any person engaged in the petroleum industry…

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, you appear to be dealing in a clause-by-clause analysis of the Act. Would you please remain to the principle of the Act?

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Then kindly stop quoting clauses.

MR. SMITH: I'm quoting from my notes, not from a verbatim transcript of the bill, Madam Speaker. But when we are dealing with the principles of a bill such as the Energy Act, in which the principle of the Act is to control all forms of energy in the Province of British Columbia, certainly I am not out of order by drawing to the attention of the Attorney General the way in which energy will be controlled as a principle of this bill, I think you'd agree with me there.

I am not referring directly to the actual sections of the Act and I don't intend to. But I do intend to reflect generally upon the principles of the Act as it applies to not only the petroleum industry but other areas of energy generation within the province.

One of the principles of the Act is to establish price controls at both wholesale and retail levels for all petroleum products, Here again a principle is to deal with the petroleum industry under one Act but provide imposts upon them and regulations which are levied directly at the petroleum industry, but not necessarily on any other form of energy or any other public utility.

In looking over the Act and the principles that are contained in it, it would seem to me that some of the regulations will provide a bookkeeping nightmare for not only the people who have to five by the Act but the commission that has to enforce it. I think that some of the provisions and principles of the Act are repugnant in a free society. It's much more damning for the reason that it establishes the reversal of the principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty. You only have to read the provisions of the Act to see that this is the case.

Even any petty complaint could be the subject of investigation by the appointed commission. For example, they might take it upon themselves to investigate the conditions of restrooms within service stations. This is permissible under the Act. They might appoint a commission to go around checking on

[ Page 2558 ]

the service station operators.

The commission has all the rights, powers and privileges vested in the superannuation Act. This is something that really is not required or necessary in an energy Act. There are many powers within the Act that, in my opinion, are excessive.

Mr. Attorney General, through you Madam Speaker, we believe that most of the people in British Columbia would support the idea of an energy Act or an energy commission. I think most people support the idea of conservation and prudent use of all our provincial energy resources. It's our business to see that these energy resources provide an adequate and reasonable return to the province. But in providing what we have in this Act, I see that we could have controlled the petroleum business by a simple petroleum regulations Act, if that was the intent of the government.

But where you have combined petroleum resources, which seem to be your main target in this Act, with all other forms of energy, in my opinion, Hon. Minister, we have a most unworkable situation. I've indicated that this deals with all forms of energy in the province and with all public utility companies. Certainly, in my opinion, it is not necessary to include the petroleum industry in the same type of regulations and in the same type of a monopoly situation that we presently find with respect to most public utilities that are supplied in the province.

I know that the Attorney General has indicated in speeches he has made that he considers the petroleum business a public utility. I presume that the reason he has indicated that to the public, Madam Speaker, is so that the provisions of the Energy Act, as he sees them, fall in line with his thinking. In other words, it must be as apparent to the public as it is to me that in the last few months since the NDP came to power in this province, there has been a consistent attempt on the part of not only all the cabinet Ministers but backbenchers who have been assigned particular assignments to build a case for either the takeover or the control of one form of enterprise or another.

The government has done it by systematic contributions to the Press and the radio stations. They have succeeded in doing this by involving some of the civil servants in making statements concerning one problem or another and then immediately jumping on that as a reason that the government must step into that field — because they've been requested, so-called, to step into the field. They build a case, build a straw man, and then at the opportune time they bring into this House the type of legislation that we see before us this afternoon in this Energy Act.

Well, the petroleum industry as one form of energy does not enjoy the immunity that other forms of public utilities do. They are subject to competition and risk. They are dependent upon risk capital to a great extent for the operations of the exploration end of the business and the building of refineries. I submit to the Attorney General, Madam Speaker, that it will be the position of the elected government to set up rules and regulations which the petroleum industry will find very hard to live with; that there will be regulations imposed upon them which are not compatible to developing a prosperous industry. At that point it will be a simple matter for the socialist government to move into the field and say, "We're taking this industry over in the best interests of the public."

I submit that that is what this legislative session has been all about, not only with this bill but with the companion bills which have been before this House and which have been debated. That is why, Madam Speaker, we feel most strongly that this is not the type of legislation that we can support.

If the Hon. Attorney General was really interested not only in the impact that this particular bill will have but in the views and ideas generally of the public that will be affected by this, then he would certainly have put this bill in the hands of a committee for them to look at and study. There's been very little in the way of publicity surrounding this bill in the papers so far. We've seen the odd article and some of the comments by the Attorney General himself. But I am as sure as I'm standing here, Madam Speaker, that most of the public of British Columbia are unaware of the ramifications of this bill, and it's the hope of the government that it will be through second reading and through committee and be passed before the public wakes up to the fact of what is really contained in this Energy Act.

You have the power not only to control the petroleum industry; you have the power to dictate to them the prices that they will sell at or the commissions that they will take, You can either increase or decrease the price according to the wishes of as few as two commissioners appointed by order-in-council. You have the power to regulate them to the last detail, I presume. There's even a provision that you'll hold public hearings at the sole discretion of the commission. Having made an order, the commission is not required to recite or show any reason for a commission order. As a matter of fact, it's not even required to give any notice of an order.

There's a provision in one of the principles of the bill for ex parte orders — you know, that word that has been so repugnant to the NDP for so long and which they opposed so much in opposition.

In many respects the commission has a power unto itself. It's not only above the courts but under this they can enlist the help and recruit their own police force if they so desire. They have the power of entry under some of the provisions of the bill. They have the right to hire and fire employees and there's no mention whatsoever of the existence of an individual's rights with respect to their own security

[ Page 2559 ]

or tenure, and there is no appeal.

There's no true provision for appeal. It's at the sole cost of the appellant even if they do get a right to appeal. Then you get to the point where no act or decision of the commission shall be questioned or restrained by an injunction.

It would seem to me, Mr. Attorney General, that if you are truly desirous of being fair to the people of the Province of British Columbia you will admit that with such far reaching ramifications, such broad powers as this, should not be enacted until you have had an opportunity to allow the public to thoroughly scrutinize the details of that Act. As a matter of fact, it's your duty to bring to their attention the provisions that are included in this Act before you pass it into law.

It's the duty of the government to do this because it is, I agree, a very major step on the part of any government. Many jurisdictions are looking at the whole question of energy sources, of energy uses, of energy requirements today. Certainly the best brains and the people who will be most affected should be encouraged to have their point of view known, to "have their day in court" — if the Attorney-General will accept that phrase because I know he likes to use it. That he would be most concerned that we let a little sunshine shine in, as he has often said — that he would realize that the only way to get public participation in this is not only to adequately advertise the intent of the Act and the provisions of it but also to allow us time for the public to openly debate it in front of a committee of this House.

Hold hearings, get some public input, Mr. Attorney General. Then come back after having satisfied yourself and the people of the province that the Act you end up with is one that will have the support of the majority of the people in the province, not just part of it; one that the government can look at with pleasure and pride because it is an accomplishment not only for the government of the day but also for the people of the Province of British Columbia.

I am sorry that the Attorney General did not see fit to accept an adjournment on this debate to give us more time to prepare some of the information that we would have liked to have brought before you. At least it would have been nice to have had an indication from the House Leader that it was the intention of the government to debate the Energy Bill today. It would have been common courtesy of the House Leader to do that.

We have worked through a number of important bills in the last two and a half days of debate; we have worked hard to prepare our cases on many of them. I have covered in the best manner that I can the things that I see in the bill without having as much time as I would like. Other Members of our caucus would have liked to have had more time and I'm sure the public-at-large would have appreciated more time to study all the effects and all the sections of this bill.

Therefore, Madam Speaker, I move that the motion be amended by deleting the word "now" and substituting the words, "in six months hence." I refer to the motion that the bill be read a second time now.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The amendment to the motion is that the bill shall be read in six months hence. All those…

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

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I just wonder, Madam Speaker, if that motion is in order on second reading. Can you give us your assurance on that? What was your law school? (Laughter).

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

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

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We went through that, did we? You give me your assurance it is in order.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

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

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

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

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: All right, start speaking.

MR. PHILLIPS: This bill we have before us, Madam Speaker, Bill No. 148, the Energy Act, has so many ramifications that I am positive not even the Attorney General in all his wisdom can read into this Act. That's one reason, Madam Speaker, that I have to support this amendment.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. PHILLIPS: We are actually encompassing about eight Acts in one. We are doing away with existing statutes. I am sure the practising lawyers here in the Legislature have taken some time to study it, but still there are so many ramifications to it. When you start, Mr. Speaker, to review the number of

[ Page 2560 ]

far-reaching pieces of legislation that we have tried to pass in this session of the Legislature…We have changed the entire insurance industry.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I am referring to the number of Acts, and that's why I have to support this amendment, Mr. Attorney General.

We have had the land Act and we have changed the complete Mineral Act. It is just too much, Mr. Speaker, for one session. Just by way of comparison, Mr. Speaker, there are 177 pieces of legislation before the Legislature right now. We are maybe at the most 10 days before we wish to prorogue. We have a couple of these very controversial Acts to complete second reading. The Energy Act is fairly controversial. The setting up of your department of…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, you don't consider that contentious? Oh, I see. Well I do, Mr. Speaker.

What I am trying to point out to the Legislature and to you, Mr. Speaker, is that of 177 Acts, one of the most contentious ones is in second reading now, another one hasn't had second reading. None of the Acts, except the supply bill, has gone to committee.

If we are to discuss this legislation intelligently — and you know, Mr. Speaker, that we have to debate it intelligently because it is just not ordinary legislation. This legislation is changing the life-style of British Columbia. And everybody who says it isn't is naive, Mr. Speaker. It is changing the entire life-style of our province.

As a comparison, Mr. Speaker, in 1971 there were some 69 public Acts versus 177 acts in total this year. In 1972, Mr. Speaker, there were 64 public Acts.

I realize that we have a research staff but we're only human, Mr. Speaker. I think if we are going to be conscientious MLAs — and I am sure that all of the government MLAs are not thoroughly conversant with all of the Acts that have gone through this Legislature, because it's a physical impossibility — this bill, I would suggest, should be completely and thoroughly studied. The bill should at the very least go to a committee of the Legislature to study all of the ramifications of the bill.

There is every right and every justification, Mr. Speaker, for this bill to be put to committee, because the Premier himself said that more legislation was going to be referred to committees and that the committee stage of the House was going to have more say in what happens.

We're looking at a bill that controls everything below the ground, everything on the ground and everything in the air above the ground. It controls it, whether it's solid, liquid or gas. If it has anything to do with energy, it controls it.

This Act controls the searching and finding of these energy sources. It can regulate who can search for it, where it can be searched for, what the royalties for search fees will be. It controls how it shall be produced, right down to the size of the well hole — and that includes oil wells as well as gas wells, how many holes there shall be per acre, everything.

The Act also controls the refining of the product once it is found and produced from a complete refinery to a gas processing plant, every nut, every bolt, what shall happen to the waste materials. This bill controls the moving of this energy once it is refined, how it shall be stored and even to the thickness of the steel.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: If you know all about it why don't you make up your mind about it?

MR. PHILLIPS: Just a minute, now. You know yourself, Mr. Attorney General, that it controls the moving of it, how it shall be moved — through a pipeline or a tanker or a tank truck; this energy bill controls it. It also controls every retail outlet as to how it shall be sold. It controls regulations for the retail utility gas companies.

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, anybody who doesn't realize the far-reaching effects of all these areas of control doesn't really know much about the business world. If this government wants to move in a rational way — which I am sure it does then I caution it and urge it to go slow on this bill.

That's why I support the amendment. The Attorney General said that the timing was right and that it was urgent because of an impending deal. The Attorney General knows as well as all the MLAs know that these gas deals are controlled by the national energy Act and there is certainly no rush by the national energy Act to move on the export of any energy. Sometimes hearings take years.

As the Attorney General said, there is no real shortage of energy. Certainly, as I pointed out in the debate yesterday morning when we were debating another Act in this House, there is no shortage of

[ Page 2561 ]

energy in the north-eastern portion of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I noted in May that a motion of this kind is seldom debated, but when it is debated or when the Speaker permits debate, he restricts the debate very closely upon the reason that second reading should take place in six months' time. Now the Hon. Member is not permitted thereby to discuss the bill and what, in effect, he would have been debating in second reading. He should confine himself more strictly to his amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't know how I can ask the House, Mr. Speaker, to postpone reading of the bill for six months justifiably if I can't talk about some of the ramifications. How am I going to justify supporting the amendment, for instance, if I can't say that the bill has far-reaching effects?

MR. SPEAKER: As I understand the Hon. Member's argument, it was that the bill was so complicated it would take six months to learn what it was about, and then he proceeded to explain what the bill was about. Consequently, I ask the Hon. Member to try to confine his debate to the question whether it should be in effect postponed for six months.

MR. PHILLIPS: As a matter of fact I was quite proud of myself, Mr. Speaker. I thought I was doing an excellent job of adhering to the amendment.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It proves that you're wrong again.

MR. PHILLIPS: I thought I was doing an excellent job, really. However, I haven't too many remarks left, Mr. Speaker.

The urgency of this bill may be to whip the oil companies into shape. I don't know. I cannot understand the urgency of this bill. I think, Mr. Speaker, you'll have to agree that I don't dispute the bill when it sets up an energy resource management team, but there are seven other sections to the bill.

Another reason for asking for postponement of the bill is the anticipated judicial dispute that's going to take place between this energy Act as it is now and the national energy Act. I think that before we pass this bill there is time to study how it's going to relate to the national energy Act and to have a committee set up of the House.

If the Act is going to be ruled ultra vires by the Supreme Court of Canada, then we've lost all that time anyway. If the people who are exporting our gas know that there is a committee of the House sitting and discussing this bill, then they'll go slowly, Mr. Speaker.

I don't know how in a bill as far-reaching as this Energy Act we could be expected to do the proper research when we're confined to Victoria. It's impossible. We are confined to Victoria because we have to sit here in this Legislature.

The ramifications of this bill take us far afield. I know there are people in other parts of the province with whom I would like to sit down and discuss some of the clauses in this bill — a number of them in my own riding. That, Mr. Speaker, is impossible to do, There are many lawyers in the province who say that they need at least a month to study all the ramifications of this bill.

If second reading of this bill is postponed for six months, that will give the House…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't agree with the Premier, Mr. Speaker, that we'll lose millions of dollars.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: You can put input into the National Energy Board and ask them…yes, you can. This bill doesn't give you the power, You don't know. You have a present Public Utilities Commission and an Energy Board. All you have to do is pass an order-in-council and give the present Energy Board the right to deal with…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I wish I had as much faith in this bill, Mr. Speaker, as the Premier seems to have.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well I have.

MR. PHILLIPS: You really have? Well, unfortunately I cannot share that with you. That's why I have to support the amendment and urge the Premier and the Attorney General to be rational. In all sincerity there's no way they can ram a bill like this down our throats in this session of the Legislature — and that's exactly what they're trying to do. A 47-page bill that holds the future of our province in the many sections that it's got.

There's no way that any intelligent person, Mr. Speaker, would ask you to vote on this bill. Therefore, if we vote on it, I'll have to vote against it when

[ Page 2562 ]

there are a lot of good things in it that I'd like to vote for. But in its present form, Mr. Speaker, I have no alternative and there's a lot of good things in it. Therefore I have to support the amendment. Set it over for six months.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, on the amendment, I think we have lost 20 years — in protecting the vital energy needs of the Province of British Columbia under the former administration, and this government is not prepared to lose another six months. The bill has been in your hands since March 22. The Hon. Member who has just taken his seat could have been reading the legislation at the same time as he was making some of those speeches.

MR. PHILLIPS: Sure, sure!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: But in a serious vein, you've been provided with research assistants, two research assistants, and you've had the bill for a long period of time. It is a crisis situation that we're facing, particularly in terms of natural gas, and we just can't afford to lose six months. We oppose the motion.

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

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Before I start, I look at the Premier, through you, and say "Peace."

HON. MR. BARRETT: Peace, sister.

MRS. JORDAN: O.K., now on with the debate. I'm supporting the motion — the amendment. I rise to support the amendment, Mr. Speaker, and to ask that this bill do be laid over for six months and do be brought before a committee of the House. Some of the points have been made by other speakers but, Mr. Speaker, just to go back to the beginning of the debate this afternoon; we found when we were in government and the Hon. Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) was in the opposition that he was a very entertaining gentleman and an entertaining Member.

He had a sharp wit and sharp humour. We enjoyed it then and we found that at that time he used it very often to camouflage the points of his remark. Now that he's in government and he is in a position of responsibility we find even more evidence, some very enjoyable, of that humour and his ability to use wit.

But it's more important now, Mr. Speaker, because we find continually that he's using that wit to try and throw the public off guard and to throw the opposition off guard and to camouflage through wit.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Speak to the amendment.

MRS. JORDAN: There is very good reason why it should be hoisted for six months and laid over. The Minister uses this wit and charm to camouflage the true intents of his bills and the legislation that he's responsible for being allowed through this House, and bringing into this House…

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I point out that it's not right here to discuss the merits of the bill — I am quoting from May — upon this motion and that debate must be strictly confined to the object of the motion which is, in effect, to hoist the bill for six months.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker, and that is my point. It's the way that the bill was presented — not only upon reading the bill — which enhances our opinion that the bill should be laid over for six months, because the Minister for Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce did not explain the bill fully when he introduced it to the House.

He has not explained it fully to the public. He has not explained to the service station operators and the branded dealers in this province. He has certainly not explained it to other areas of the industry that are involved and particularly as it reverts back to the taxpayers in this province.

When, in introducing an Act like this which we believe should be held over for six months so it can be fully examined, the Minister uses this charm and wit, up goes our political antenna. Our political antenna tells us that this bill is one of the most potent and dangerous bills to the democratic process of the people in British Columbia.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I want to get that down — my charm and wit.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, this bill is being presented to the public again through a veil of camouflage and charm and wit as being a simple little document that's going to remove the giveaways and the gimmicks from the service stations.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well I would have said that we smelled something in the woodpile, but I didn't want to be accused of being unkind.

So, Mr. Speaker, the service station people, branded dealers and others, when they first heard of this Act, said, "It's a great Act. It means that we're no longer going to be troubled with having to knuckle down to the procedure of giving away gimmicks and glasses and place mats and gifts in order to attract

[ Page 2563 ]

business."

The public reacted the same way, Mr. Speaker. They thought this simple little document of 47 pages was, in fact, a simple little document which meant they wouldn't be troubled with these same procedures which puts an added cost on the service stations in time and, in fact, for buying the giveaways — and also is very annoying to many of the consumers. They'd rather have less of an expense.

In asking to have it laid over for six months, Mr. Speaker, I speak on behalf of these people. Let them. What can be wrong with them having the opportunity to examine this bill in its entirety, and to realize that it isn't a giveaway gimmick bill as far as the service station operators are concerned; it's a takeover gimmick bill as far as the NDP government is concerned.

They may well be paying a very high price by way of their freedoms, by way of their tax dollars and their cost of living in giving up the giveaway gimmicks from the oil companies. That is one reason, Mr. Speaker, that I support this amendment and ask the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce to set this bill over for six months.

He talks about a crisis. Everybody in the world knows that there's an energy crisis and everybody in the world knows that there's going to be an upset of balance because of the middle-east situation. Six months in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, is not going to change that situation.

The Minister has the authority now, under legislation that is within the jurisdiction of this government, to withhold any unnecessary or too-rapid moves by the industry. He should use that. If he claims there's been a mistake made in the past, and I don't agree with him completely on that, why compound that mistake by making another one so quickly?

The Minister says that the bill has been lying here for a month and a half. Mr. Minister, a month and a half is very little time when one studies the ramifications of this bill. In fact it hasn't been here that long.

We have to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this is another effort of this government to ram through very potent legislation, that it goes hand in hand with the procedures that are developing in this House where we have legislation not only by exhaustion, but by starvation and probably in the end by stupidity.

The human body cannot function consistently concentrating from 10 in the morning until midnight and then be expected to do research after midnight, to serve constituencies, to tend to phone calls, to write letters and at times to sit down and think out their thoughts, Mr. Speaker.

I suggest that the intent behind this is that the government and this Minister and the Premier don't really want the public to know what's in this legislation. Even the poor, overworked Press gallery can't keep up.

They say with a sigh now, Mr. Speaker, "Enough is enough, Mr. Minister." That's what they're saying to you.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: …and you too, and I'm proud to speak for them on behalf of them, to lay this bill over for six months. Let the media sit down and have an opportunity to examine this bill and its ramifications and inform themselves and the public.

Mr. Speaker, the media has had a little heart-to heart talk from the Provincial Secretary that they are perhaps not quite understanding the legislation that's before this House. We suggest that perhaps it might be the case in this Energy Act that we are asking to be left open for study.

We wouldn't want to see the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce — and I'm sure he wouldn't want to — make unkind statements to the media about not understanding the legislation and perhaps not informing the public properly. He wouldn't. have to, Mr. Speaker, if he would lay this bill over for six months and allow the media the opportunity to examine it.

Why not, Mr. Speaker, ask the media — because the party, the government, seems to like to ask the media to do things — to print this bill in its entirety in the papers of British Columbia and an explanatory note beside each section telling the public exactly what all 194 sections mean? Surely, Mr. Speaker, that is democracy at its best, and that's what the Premier of this province wants.

I see the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce is leaving the House just for a moment. I hope that he has gone to make arrangements, Mr. Speaker, that this bill should be left to public study for six months.

The Premier of this province, when he was in opposition, used to stand very close to where I'm standing now, wave his arms and say, "If I were Premier of this province, the democratic process would be at its best. We would utilize our committees. We would take them out into the province and let them listen to the people. We would bring in our legislation and let it lie over for six months and let the people affected examine it."

Mr. Speaker, I don't think we have one piece of legislation that is being put to committee and going around the province. He always talked about a "curative process" to cure problems of ill-thought-out legislation, to rapidly introduce legislation. What, in fact, he's practising is not a curative process, Mr. Speaker. This Premier and this government are practising an embalming process, the embalming of legislation in British Columbia.

They bring it in. They hustle it. They hustle it as hustlers can do at their best through this House. The

[ Page 2564 ]

legislation is enshrined on the statute books of British Columbia and then they ask for input. That's fixing the body up after death.

Don't embalm the people of British Columbia in this bill, Mr. Premier, through you Mr. Speaker. Use the curative process. Do what you said you'd do before you were made Premier of this province. You must be proud of this legislation. You have no reason to hide it or be ashamed of it or embarrassed about it. Stand up with your pride.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Because by saying, "Why should I hoist it?" you make this opposition and the public feel that you've got something you want to hide or that you're insecure, through you Mr. Speaker, in your conviction that this is in fact good legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the telephone people in British Columbia want to know how this bill may well affect them. Give them six months to examine it.

Well, there's another bill that goes footy-footy with this bill that may well give this government more powers, or the effort to gain more powers, than is evident in this bill. They'll probably run into constitutional problems. Nonetheless, they are setting a stage that should be made obvious to the public and to the people involved before it's part of the legislation of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, this even brings in such people as the Minister of Health and Welfare. It brings in the opportunity to control prices, not only of the source of supply but in the retail outlet sector, at a time when the government is allowing cut-rate operations to develop in British Columbia. In asking to have this bill put over for six months, I must mention that I spoke to the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) suggesting that there be a moratorium on cut-rate operations until such time as this commission was established and we could look at this whole situation objectively. But he makes a conflict then. He's not so interested in the public and he's not so interested in the little outlets on that basis. He's more interested in gaining power, rapid-fire power.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister, through you, to recognize the commitments made and honour the commitments made by this government before their election to recognize the rights of those involved — the citizens of British Columbia — and their interest in this bill. Accept this amendment and lay the bill over for six months and establish it with a committee and hear what people have to say. Don't make a mistake that can't be rectified, Mr. Minister. Don't wrap the people of British Columbia up in embalming legislation. Assist them with advanced legislation.

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

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, when the Hon. Minister made statements concerning this bill, he indicated to the general public in B.C. that his government was going to move slowly. They were going to listen to people. They weren't going to be stampeded into any kind of unpropitious decisions. And the Minister says, "Absolutely."

He said that they wanted information, that they wanted input and inputters. So, the very vehicle that you need to provide these things is the one that's proposed by this motion. Let it sit for six months.

It's an extremely complex and complicated bill. Its consequence and its interpretation will be terrifically interrelated to trade and commerce and intra- and ultra-provincial operations. In fact, it's extremely interrelated to the economic and energy values which are international in effect and international in result.

The powers proposed under the bill are enormous, extremely far-reaching. It includes pretty well every energy resource, every energy save and except natural lightning. I don't know how you missed that one. You'd better write that down and see if you can include it. As some Members have indicated, its constitutionality could well be open to question.

As I've said, it will have provincial, federal and international complications and effects. I would very much urge the Minister, in all seriousness, and reiterate to an extent the remarks of one of the earlier speakers. There's a lot in this bill that is good. There's no question of a doubt about it. But it's certainly not one that should be pushed through in a hurry.

I'm given to believe that people in the energy fields have not really been given the welcome mat insofar as your cabinet is concerned and that they've had a lot of difficulty in approaching you concerning their attitudes and views on the bill. So I would very much urge that a reasonable hoist and a reasoned hoist would do the bill, would do yourselves, would do the people who are involved in the energy values in the Province of British Columbia, and would do the public, justice.

I certainly intend to support the motion.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain,

MS. P.F. YOUNG (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It was said by one of the Members of the opposition that the backbenchers don't understand this bill. That's not true.

I've spent a great deal of time studying this bill and I understand it thoroughly. The Member for South Okanagan (Hon. Mr. Bennett) said that the

[ Page 2565 ]

media had not done their job in explaining the bill to the general public. Well, I don't know what this is, from the front page of the Vancouver Province. And I don't know what this is, from the Victoria Daily Colonist, discussing the very bill. I think the media have done a good job. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps the opposition, official and otherwise, has not done a good job in studying this bill at all.

There are things going on at the present time that require action now. We are in a situation where federally we have no energy policy. Premier Davis of Ontario has stated this. Premier Lougheed of Alberta has stated this. And we're finding ourselves in the same position — the federal government is without a policy. Knowing the way the federal government reacts to situations, it may be some time before we have a federal energy policy. By that time it may be too late for British Columbia and for the other provinces.

That's why, Mr. Speaker, I think we need this commission. I think we need it now because they would be able to form; they would be able to investigate — they would be able to research. We would be in a position to negotiate from a position of strength in the event that there is a national energy Act and at least at the National Energy Board when dealing with such situations as the West Coast Transmission.

Therefore I oppose this amendment.

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

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, I want to disassociate myself from the remarks of the former Member relative to the urgency of this legislation. I want to say that I sincerely believe that it's necessary that the legislation be held over for a short period of time. We're not attempting to delay the legislation indefinitely so that it's never passed.

We just want to delay it slightly so certain ramifications and certain developments can be taken into consideration and so that the people of British Columbia will have an opportunity to assess the legislation as it presently stands. Also, there are certain developments on the horizon that there should be more research in.

I picked up an article in the Vancouver Sun just this afternoon. It talks about the conversion of cow manure to natural gas. That hasn't been studied. There's been no research on that. It says, "There may be gold in those cow chips." I don't think you've researched that, have you, Mr. Attorney General? I don't think you've researched anything.

There is a very definite lack of understanding of the Act on the part of the Minister who is introducing it in the House. This slight delay will give him an opportunity to come back and tell us what the Act is all about and give us his interpretation of the Act.

It's an Act that has wide ramifications and one that involves a considerable amount of examination due to the fact that there are 194 sections in it.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: I'm debating the amendment. I'm trying to convince the Minister, through you Mr. Speaker, of the wisdom of the postponement of the implementation of this Act. I think there is a need for a slight delay. Six months. Is that being unreasonable? Mr. Speaker, is it unreasonable to ask for a slight delay? Even the Speaker agrees with me. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: I didn't say a word.

MR. CHABOT: The Minister, in introducing this Act, has just brought in a bunch of diversionary arguments for the reason for the implementation of this Act without giving us the real justification for the immediate implementation of this Act. I think that if we are really interested in people, as your government has attempted to lead British Columbians to believe that you are, then give them an opportunity to participate in understanding and the possible formulation of new ideas towards this wide-ramification piece of legislation.

I don't think there's anything drastically wrong with asking British Columbians to examine this new direction and a delay of six months. Through the committee structure, which we have so lavishly established in British Columbia, here is a real opportunity for the people of British Columbia to give us ideas as to whether the legislation should be enacted as it presently stands or whether there is a need for amendments and changes; and if there is a need for change, what the changes should be.

We're asking the government by this amendment to be reasonable, be fair, be open, be cautious. Hold over this piece of legislation so that there can be a more objective and rational assessment by the people of British Columbia. Have the legislation referred to committee so that the people will have an opportunity to express their acceptance or their rejection of the direction in which this legislation is leading British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, we have had ample opportunity to discuss this matter. As for the argument that it should be delayed because the opposition hasn't had the time to review the…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

[ Page 2566 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: That was one of the arguments given. In terms of not being prepared for the debate, we've provided 100 per cent increase in research staff to the opposition because when we were in opposition we realized how handicapped we were by the former administration who did none of the things that the present opposition is asking — absolutely none of the things.

We are faced with the situation in this province group in this House condone the present sale price and that we're prepared to let it go National Energy Board and make a case for a better return to the people of this province of natural gas. It is a crisis situation. But, Mr. Speaker, it is not a crisis situation of our making. It's a crisis situation which we inherited from the former administration. If we don't arm the people of British Columbia with the kind of research and technical material that the government needs to protect their interests, then we would be failing the people of British Columbia. That's why this bill must go through.

Twenty years of neglect of the natural gas resources of this province have allowed the natural gas resources to slip away into the United States at a terribly low price — an unfair low price. The delay in passing this bill would mean that we as a group in this House condone the present scale price and that we're prepared to let it go on for another six months.

This is the first opportunity we've had after seven months in office, having an outside team properly prepare and assess this material, giving the opposition research people, to take some positive action to protect the natural gas resources of the people of this province. I say of all the debates that you want to delay and filibuster and throw sand in the gears, this is the least one that the official opposition should even speak on. Because it's their fault that this bill is here in front of us today.

We went for years without sufficient funds or drive to provide the services needed to the people of this province. Services come from taxation and from royalties and from revenues generated from the resources of this province that were God-given — not by any political party. The opposition can stall, delay, do whatever it wants; but it is the intention of this government to see that this bill gets on and gets passed so that we can bring a decent return to the people of British Columbia, just as the new government in Alberta is attempting to bring a decent return to that province after a lengthy Social Credit administration. We've got the similar kind of mess that they left in the area of technological knowledge and research. I say let's get on with the job right now.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, few things could do more to persuade us of the wisdom of a hoist than the speech of the Premier. We have had a statement in terms of our not being prepared for debate. Well, we feel we've debated fairly successfully. This of course has been turned immediately to an attack on the former administration and how much better things are now with 100 per cent increase in research staff. We appreciate it, Mr. Premier, but this doesn't mean a thing in terms of whether or not all the aspects and ramifications of this bill have been looked at by all the interested parties of this province. It simply isn't a good enough excuse to continue the old line of saying, "Well, things may be terrible but they're better than they used to be." That's precisely what you said in your first point in your speech this afternoon.

As far as going to the National Energy Board and the need for research and the need for information, first of all you've never told us when you're going to the National Energy Board. I assume it's in the near future.

Again the criticism of the former administration came up. But surely that is the very reason for going ahead and getting some research done which does not depend on this bill. You know it and everybody else knows it.

You know, because you've already done it, that you can hire outside researchers. Resources for the Future is one outfit you've hired. The UBC economists are another. The Paish company dealing with research in the environmental field is another. Time after time after time you've demonstrated your ability — and I think it's a good thing — to get out and hire researchers when you need the research done. You don't need this bill to get that research done. You know that full well.

To blame the previous administration and the unfair low prices and the 20 years of neglect really does nothing whatsoever in terms of the true point that you're trying to make which allegedly was to get more research done.

Nobody's condoning the present sale price, if that's your worry. We're simply saying that this type of bill, which can control from beginning to end every aspect of an industry, which allows tremendous powers to a commission, is not necessary to get the research done that you talk about. Once again, you simply cannot blame it on the previous administration. People in this party have criticized them enough over the years. But at least we realize that there has been a change on August 30, something the Premier apparently forgets whenever he gets to his feet and starts attacking Social Credit.

We have the question of opposition stalling and delaying. Well, this is a pretty important bill. It came on this afternoon without warning and not in order. You, Mr. Premier, know it because you brought it on

[ Page 2567 ]

that way. The fact of the matter is that the discussion started not so very long ago as far as time goes. The argument that we are stalling and delaying and preventing a decent return to people is absolute nonsense because the only debate that's been going on this afternoon has probably taken up not more than three hours. Therefore, I think the argument that somehow or another this is delaying the whole problem is just obviously wrong.

What we would like the amendment to serve is this: first, split this bill, There are many good aspects of this bill as I outlined when I spoke earlier this afternoon. There is no need to go over them all again. I agreed with most of what the Attorney General said because he only stressed the positive, the constructive; he only stressed the information-gathering, the need for research. He did not go into the other aspects which as Attorney General, wearing his other Ministerial hat, I thought he should have spent more time on, namely the infringement upon the rights of citizens of the province.

So there is an aspect of this bill which can be separated out quite clearly, neatly, and can go ahead and can result in all the research that we need to prepare briefs for the National Energy Board. That's what this type of delay would permit. It would permit the two aspects of this bill — one good and one bad — to be separated out.

On behalf of this party, we will support in second reading and probably in. third reading as well, provided it is well drafted, a bill which deals specifically with an energy commission which allows you to go in and have a body to do the research, to do the work that we approve of. We will support that type of thing if you will exclude from that bill the tremendous powers of control — the tremendous powers over the rights of citizens which is the other and bad aspect of this bill, which leads us at this stage to have to reject the thing in total.

This amendment which has come forward — perhaps it should never have come forward had the government handled this legislation in the right way. But, it has come forward. It does offer an opportunity to get rid of the sweeping powers, to get rid of the total control of people's lives which this bill involves. It offers an opportunity to get on with the things that both you, Mr. Attorney General, through you Mr. Speaker, and the Premier devoted all your attention to — namely the energy board functions dealing with research, dealing with studies, dealing with overall knowledge for pricing and other things.

This amendment allows time for that splitting of the bill to take place. It allows for reconsideration of the bad aspects of the bill, and therefore we support the amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I must agree with the Hon. Liberal Leader's comments about splitting this bill because that certainly could be the best thing that would happen to it. So, take some of the most objectionable features out of the bill and then we might support it, Mr. Speaker, not take all the teeth out of it.

We know the bill has been in our hands for some weeks, that's not the complaint. The complaint is that the people haven't had a chance to see it. No committee has had a chance to look at the bill ahead of the debate in the House, which is the way we thought this government was going to operate. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, there has been no input from anybody who knows anything about the industry. The bill is in a mess at the moment and that is why we are asking for this six month hoist so you can put the bill in order.

Talk about input on that side of the House. All we hear is input. But, you don't allow any input from anybody who has anything to say about bills like this — a wide-ranging and far-reaching bill. You are developing government by isolation over there. You don't listen to anybody. We have said this over and over again about so many bills, that nobody will listen on the government side of the House, particularly the Ministers responsible.

Interjection by an Hon. Member,

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, there has been no amendment to this bill. The companies have had no opportunity to present their case to the government, and the excuse given by the government is that "we are too busy." "We are too busy to talk with you."

I understand that some of the industry executives met with Mr. Nimsick yesterday morning, but that is too late and not satisfactory, They haven't had a chance, Mr. Speaker, to talk about this bill, specifically the effect of this bill on them. The service station dealers have never had a chance to talk about this bill.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, sure they have talked about it but nobody listens to them. It is the same as with every other bill that comes before this House. You say you will allow the people to talk, but your ears are closed. You don't listen.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, perhaps that's right, Mr. Speaker, their ears are open, but their minds are closed. The Premier's comments have pointed that out more clearly than anything else. The minds of the

[ Page 2568 ]

government are closed — what is the point of the poor people coming here and talking themselves hoarse? The members of the other industries said they "waste their breath." The farmers wasted their breath, the mining people wasted their breath and now the people in the petroleum industry are wasting their breath as well, Mr. Speaker.

All we want to do is make sure these people are heard; make sure the community has a chance to put something into bills like this. What is wrong with sending committees around for six months to talk to the people and find out what the people want? That is what you said you wanted to do. There are so many excessive powers in this bill — you have an obligation to hold it over for six months. You are setting up, not only excessive powers to control, but excessive powers to seize, and unnecessary duplication, and double bookkeeping for the people who are involved and everything else.

Besides that, you talk about the urgency of this bill. The Attorney General himself has admitted that the most objectionable features of the bill were lifted almost totally from an Act in 1930. Where is the urgency in that? Even that Act, as I understand it, was requested to be withdrawn by the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Union. I say that the best possible thing that could be done with this is withdraw it for six months; send it to the people; let the industry have some input; let the people have some input and then bring it back and let us debate it in this House at that time.

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, having spoken in the main motion, I may say that when the bill was called out of order I was a bit surprised. Surprised because, although the bill was brought in on March 22, I took it upon myself to send copies of the bill to people who by reason of their position in industry should have been very interested in it. I received no response and I wondered why. So, after having spoken earlier this afternoon, I called one of the senior officials in the petroleum industry who was startled to find that the bill was being debated today, saying that they had just completed the compilation of their comments with regard to the bill. They had been trying to get an appointment with the Hon. Premier, but had been told he was too busy.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The open government.

MR. WILLIAMS: Nonetheless, officials of senior oil companies in British Columbia are coming to Victoria.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: They met with the Premier last January.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's right. They met the Premier last January. The Premier told the industry last January that he was prepared to receive submissions from the industry. He wanted input from all of the industry; he wanted input from all of the industry in British Columbia in order to assist them with the programmes and put them together. When he brings this kind of bill in, and they have a specific submission to make with regard to this specific piece of legislation — it's on the floor of the House today and the Premier is too busy to see them.

Mr. Speaker, these representatives are coming to Victoria tonight again to try to see the Premier. I asked a constituent of mine who happens to be in this position, if he would let me see the brief, and he said, "Certainly, we will let opposition Members see the brief, but not until we have extended the protocol and courtesy of giving it to the government first." They're prepared to play the game.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We've got it already. Tell the truth. We've got the brief.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Premier is suggesting that I am not telling the truth. I would like him to withdraw it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. On a point of order. The Hon. Premier surely didn't mean to say that the Hon. Member was not telling the truth.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Perhaps through his information, he was misinformed. He is leaving the impression with the House that we have not had the brief. We do have the brief.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: What's the date of it?

HON. MR. BARRETT: April 9 is the date.

MR. WILLIAMS: I was not leaving any impression whatsoever. I merely informed the House, Mr. Speaker, that my informant, today, said they had just completed the compilation of their submission on the Energy Act and it was being brought to Victoria by them tonight.

Now, if that is wrong, then I have been misinformed. But they wished to come and meet with the Premier and with the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) and discuss their submission on the Energy Act following which this industry would make the same submission available to Members of the opposition. Not until they have given the government this prior opportunity would they come to the Members of the opposition and let us know what their position on the

[ Page 2569 ]

bill was.

To suggest that this bill could not be delayed until all Members of the House have the same opportunity of knowing what the impact of this is upon the industry is just ludicrous. For the Premier to suggest that somehow or other there is an urgent crisis that has arisen over the last 24 or 48 hours and this bill has to pass so that he can go down to the National Energy Board, is misleading this House.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, come on!

MR. WILLIAMS: You can hire all the expert consultants right now that you will ever hire once this commission is in existence. You can make all the submissions to the National Energy Board that must be made. We accept that proposition. But, don't try to tell this House, Mr. Premier, through you Mr. Speaker, that you must have the powers in this bill before you can discharge that responsibility.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: The amendment is that the words in the motion "that Bill No. 148 be read now" be amended to read "six months hence."

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 14

NAYS — 35

PAIRED

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay on the main motion that Bill No. 148 be read a second time now.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill must surely rank as one of the most important of this session. One of the reasons that I didn't speak on the amendment was that we have had enough repetition in this House for the last several weeks, without saying the same thing in two separate speeches.

It has always been our attempt as an opposition party to be constructive, and to offer what we hope will be positive suggestions to make the legislation better. There are certainly many aspects to the Energy Act which we can support. Unfortunately there are many aspects we cannot support, and would not support in any bill. In other words the degree of power given to a commission in this bill we cannot support. But some of the positive areas for which we give the government credit are the awareness and foresight of trying to take a long look at the total energy picture.

One cannot open any newspaper or any responsible journal on public and world affairs these days without realizing the rising concern of all countries as to the dwindling amount of resources upon which our very economy and business world survive. As someone has said already, this bill and its ramifications extend far beyond the boundaries of British Columbia.

Therefore the early part of the Act that we are debating today sums up very well the need to measure what our resources are, to look ahead in the face of a rising population and see that the demand is an ever-increasing one, to try and use these resources in a judicious way and to try and preserve the environment in which we live. To answer all these requirements is quite some demand of humans in a world where the complexity of dealing with resources, particularly such areas as nuclear energy to produce electricity, is in itself very contentious and not well understood by the population in general.

So that this party very much supports the wisdom shown by the government in seeking to catalogue and review the total picture of resources in this province, and the way in which they shall be used, and that is not to overlook the whole vital subject of exporting of resources such as the Premier has mentioned, with particular reference to natural gas.

As an aside, Mr. Speaker, I might say that our party also has been told by members of the petroleum industry in particular of the difficulty that they have had since this bill was introduced in having a chance to present their point of view to the Premier.

Now, the Attorney General shakes his head. All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that I spoke on the telephone today to the senior member of the industry, who

[ Page 2570 ]

assures me that this has been the problem, that they are not asking any favours and are not trying to pull any tricks. They are simply saying that since this bill has such vast ramifications in the petroleum industry, and has a tremendous effect on the rights and freedoms of individuals in many ways, as I shall mention later in my comments, they feel that it should not be unreasonable that they should have had access to the Premier to discuss Bill 148.

This is the cry that immediately goes up from the government side, that this party is standing here to defend the oil industry. This is not the case. I have never met with these people concerned; I have merely been approached. It is their right in a democratic society to find any way they can to have their point of view placed before government and to meet with the leader of the government.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, the Premier has said that they have been in his office twice prior to Bill 148, but according to the information I have, the kind of content in this bill was not discussed when they visited with the Premier. The Premier has already said that he has met with them twice. Perhaps he would like to tell the House whether or not the kind of content in this bill was discussed when he met with the leaders of the industry.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Don't give him that excuse.

MR. WALLACE: The Member says, "Don't give him that excuse." I'm not looking for excuses on either side of the House; we just want to get the record straight. As a party on this opposition side of the House we feel that if there has not been this kind of consultation then this is regrettable. In much the same way, any bill produced by this government which gives such tremendous power to an appointed commission really has to be carefully thought out well ahead of time and with complete consultation with all the parties who are intimately affected by the bill.

As I said, I don't want to overlook the fact that one or two other parts of the bill are good. The whole question of trying to outlaw gimmickry in the sale of gasoline in gas stations I think is an excellent idea. I'll support anything that wipes out this stupid business of tumblers and other kinds of gimmickry which you're really not interested in and is just a nuisance as far as most people are concerned. It is a particular practice of the industry which we would certainly like to see eliminated. The bill tries to do that.

Giving the care of cemeteries and funerals to the Minister of Health seems to me a responsibility which he would be well-equipped and well-experienced to discharge. Certainly with some of the scandalous situations which have arisen in this area regarding cemeteries there's nowhere for that situation to go but up. If the Minister of Health takes over this responsibility I look forward to a more efficient and a more satisfactory handling of that area of public business.

The reason we oppose this bill — and we would agree with the point that's been raised already — is that it seems regrettable, Mr. Speaker, that the part to do with the attempt to regulate and control the petroleum industry is included with the other part of the bill dealing mainly with electricity and electrical utilities. The production of electricity is very much a monopoly whereas the petroleum industry is anything but.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: Well, this is the point of view that you believe and you express. I'm saying that in our opinion there is competition in the petroleum industry.

The fact is that part of the bill — and this is exactly what the bill says — is to regulate and control. The word "control" is used several times. The main reason we oppose this bill is that we do not believe that the power vested in the commission is one that we can accept in a democratic society. It's the same kind of fear of power we had in another bill which was debated at great length in this House.

It would seem to us that the socialist government delights very much in appointing commissions and giving them unrestrained power. The kind of examples of unrestrained power are those, for example, where the bill allows the commission to dispense with municipal agreement. The commission can use municipal highways. The commission in one part of the bill is described as being the sole judge as to what is an unjust rate.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: Well, that's fine. As I've said many times in this House, debate consists of both sides of the House expressing their opinions.

We don't believe that is fair and we don't think that is necessary. Why should the commission be the sole judge? It doesn't outline the basis on which it would become the sole judge. It just says it will be the sole judge.

One of the other examples of power is that no one can begin business in the industry without the permission of the commission. Does that seem fair? Does that apply to any other sector of business and industry in this whole province?

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): What about agriculture?

MR. WALLACE: Are you telling me that you, can be prevented entering agriculture? If I want to buy a farm, am I stopped and is that what you want? Is this the kind of philosophy — maybe we're coming out…

[ Page 2571 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: There's no commission that I'm aware of that has to decide whether or not someone can be a farmer. Or if you go into the food business…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

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

MR. WALLACE: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Our opinion, based on this bill and on other bills that we've had before and on which I've spoken in similar terms, is that this government feels that its total function seems to be to control the business sector in British Columbia. And "control" is the word.

As I've said many times, not only do you believe this, but this government gives undue and unrestrained power to appointed officials — not even elected officials — to exercise that kind of control and regulation: the power to fix prices, the power to break existing contracts. I wonder if the Attorney General feels that this is a noble purpose for a law officer to propagate in legislation — that the commission has the power to advise people to break existing contracts.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: Well, this is your decision as a government. This is why I'm getting on the record the fact that we disagree with this.

Actually, all this business about price-fixing, as far as I can determine…You have the complete right to disagree as to whether or not there is competition in the industry, but the price of gasoline over the last 30 years in a time of inflation hasn't done so badly compared with any other product that we all use daily. A question I think we could fairly ask is, if the price of gasoline has only kept pace with inflation, why is there such a tremendous concern by the government that it is out of line?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Because productivity has gone way up.

MR. WALLACE: This applies to many other businesses and industries, Mr. Attorney General. Still, prices have soared in many other fields and products because of the rising wages, the rising cost of doing business and employing people who have a higher standard of living.

Another point that I think is so often overlooked is that two-thirds of the retail outlets are privately owned in this province. The image that's always propagated around here is that the retail outlets are completely and totally in the clutch of the oil companies and that the oil companies can control and regulate the retail dealers completely. Yet two-thirds of them are privately-owned.

Again we will agree to differ perhaps. For example, the bill makes sheriffs ex officio members of the commission and the phraseology used is that, "They shall obey the commission in carrying out duties." There again the Attorney General nods his head as though this is something quite pleasant and not at all to be worried about. But I think the man in the street will be a little concerned to learn that sheriffs and similar officers are ex officio members of the commission and shall obey the commission.

Another part of the bill gives the commission the power to employ persons. They use the words "…for enforcement of commission decisions and orders." Of course we've already had it mentioned that they may forcibly enter upon and otherwise enter property with no question of any search warrant. Does the Attorney General think that this is reasonable — to appoint members of a commission who can give orders that property shall be entered upon and forcibly searched without even the protection of a search warrant?

Is this the kind of concern for the little man that the Premier of British Columbia is always talking about? I don't think the little man who is running the gas station has much protection or much concern by his government when that same government brings in this kind of legislation.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: It doesn't exclude, Mr. Attorney General. No it doesn't.

Of course we are back on the other old point that has come up in several pieces of legislation from this government. The only appeal is on a point of law; there is no appeal on a point of fact. This whole combination of this bill with several others this session, and this tremendous delegation of power through the vehicle of an appointed commission…It was a little disturbing to hear the Attorney General admit this afternoon that he didn't know that the legislation said that two members out of the seven constitute a quorum.

We're facing tremendous power in the hands of two individuals at any one time. We always get the answer from the government, "Well, of course it wouldn't happen. There would always be more." But the point is that law as written gives this much power to that small a number of individuals: two people.

[ Page 2572 ]

This is all so repetitive and tedious to your ears, I'm sure, but it is a fact, Mr. Speaker, that this is a clear-cut and unbending stand of this party, not only regarding this bill but any bill in the future!

We see many of the worthwhile goals of this government. As I said to start with, the whole question of wise development and use of resources must be second only to the unemployment problem. Through the wise use of resources we can both preserve our environment and come up with the dollars to give the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) the kind of money that I am always asking him to spend on orthodonture and many other worthwhile social services.

I wouldn't want to leave the House under any misunderstanding that I am in strong support of this broad view of the resource problem as being one of the primary problems facing all governments in our modern, highly developed and highly industrial society. But I don't accept, and this party does not accept, that in order to achieve these goals you have to put the individual in society at the danger of unrestrained power in the hands of appointed commissioners.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Richmond.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Mr. Speaker, a lot has been said about this particular bill. The Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) couldn't understand the urgency for this bill. The Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) who just sat down said that he couldn't see why there was concern about prices, that prices have not gone up that much over the years.

  Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Attorney General mentioned the urgency in dealing with West Coast Transmission in the present transaction. I would like to pass on, for the information of the previous speaker and other Members here, some of the problems with regard to the gasoline price boost that we have been witnessing in recent months.

I would like to remind the opposition Members of the headlines in the Vancouver Sun of January 10, 1973, which stated, "Dealers Will Pass On Gasoline Price Boost." It said, "Imperial Increased 1 Cent a Gallon." The item says:

"B.C. service station operators said today they expect to pass on a 1-cent-a-gallon increase in gasoline prices announced Tuesday by the Imperial Oil Co. Ltd., the leader of Canada's oil industry.

"A 2-cent-a-gallon increase was applied to the a wholesale cost of diesel, heating and turbo fuel and the price of industrial gasoline in the four western provinces."

Further in the article it says:

"Imperial Oil Chairman W.O. Twaits said in Toronto that the higher prices for the company's petroleum products reflect an increase of 20 cents a barrel in the price (Imperial Oil) pays for Western Canadian crude oil."

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Twaits is the chairman of the board, and the chief executive officer of Imperial Oil Ltd. I might add that the company is 69.9 per cent owned by Standard Oil of New Jersey. Imperial Oil is undeniably the leader in the Canadian oil and gas industry and, as such, it befalls this gentleman to put forward whatever price manipulation is currently in vogue.

Mr. Twaits says that the price increase is due to an increase of 20 cents a barrel in the price that Imperial Oil pays for western Canadian crude, in the January 10 Vancouver Sun. The Hon. Member for Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) apparently agrees. In criticising he Act he said that the Act doesn't go all the way into other variables, like fixing the prices that go into he making of that product, such as the price of crude oil. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that in this Act we don't have to fix the price of crude oil, because he companies already do that themselves.

In the same month, on January 15, Oil Week, put out by the oil industry themselves, states in a headline: "Imperial Oil Boosts Its Crude Oil Price by 20 Cents; Gulf and Shell Follow."

"Imperial Oil has boosted its price for western Canadian crude oils by 20 cents per barrel, effective January 9, marking the third increase since 1962. At Press time both Shell Canada and Gulf Oil Canada have matched Imperial's move, with other major purchasers expected to follow within a few days."

Now what Mr. Twaits has not told us in the Sun story was told by their own industry magazine, that he cost of crude oil was boosted by Imperial itself. Of course, it was noted in there as well, contrary to what the Hon. Member for Oak Bay has stated, that he other companies followed suit, and so, in effect, were keeping the same price levels as Imperial had set.

The Hon. Member for Oak Bay mentioned that the as prices could have increased a lot over the last number of years. In their report to shareholders, Imperial Oil Ltd. 1971 — the last journal they have out — indicated that their profit in 1971 had been $136 million. In 1970 they had $105 million. In 1972, I might add, they are $151 million.

So in effect, Mr. Speaker, there has been no need or a gas price increase. The profits have been going considerably, and it is the same for the other companies as well. I have the figures here for Shell Oil and Gulf Oil. Shell in 1970, $51.2 million; in 1971, $61.5 million. Gulf Oil, $39.2 million in 1970; $53.8 million in 1971. The profits have been rising — there has been no need for price increases.

[ Page 2573 ]

There is an interesting note, however, in the report hat Mr. Twaits put out. He states the reason for the increase in profits: "Firmer product prices and increased operating efficiencies resulted in improved realization from sales of petroleum products." Now, in translating what he says here, "firmer product prices" means higher prices, "increased operating efficiency" means costs didn't go up, and "improved realization from sales of petroleum products" means that the profits did go up. And this has been borne out by their statements of 1971.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I think that this Act will help us to regain some control of our oil and gas resources in British Columbia, ensuring that we are not exporting our future reserves and that what reserves we do export will bring us a decent return. It does not, as one Member has suggested, allow us to nationalize the oil and gas reserves.

Interjections by Some Hon. Members.

MR. STEVES: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) says, "not yet," and somebody else mentions that the Act would bring in controls that the industry would not be able to meet. Well, I think that if the industry is really interested in cooperating with the people of British Columbia, they will work to meet the controls instituted by this Act, and that this will be of benefit to the citizens of this province.

Now, there is one aspect on which I would like to question the Attorney General, and that is one part of the Act which deals with the terms of reference that the Energy Commission has in exploring new energy resources. It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Energy Commission will be able to look into energy resources such as thermal power from underground power and alternative sources such as solar power in the manufacture of natural gas for energy production in the future. We only have enough natural gas to last us for another 18 years, according to Imperial Oil's own report.

I think that it is important that we start looking for future reserves and future sources of energy power, and I would like to see the Energy Commission looking at this very seriously.

Mr. Speaker, I don't wish to prolong this debate. I would like to say that there is one backbencher that has certainly studied the Act very thoroughly. I have read it very carefully.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STEVES: Yes, I have studied nuclear power. I am not too happy with nuclear power and I am hoping that the commission will take a very careful look at nuclear power before we act in that direction.

In conclusion, I have looked this over very carefully, and I think a number of other backbenchers on our side of the House have looked it over very carefully. Contrary to what the Hon. Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) says — that if we had understood the bill we would oppose it — I think all the backbenchers from this party support this bill unanimously and are very happy to see it introduced at this session of the Legislature.

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

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the principle of this bill, it really should be intituled a Government Energy Bill, because it has got an awful wallop. It has got an awful wallop. That is pretty much where the government wants to have its power. It's a bill which could have been considered more as an omnibus bill rather than a bill that has been put together primarily for the single purpose of eliminating the Public Utilities Commission, for whatever reason an individual can assure himself.

Aspects of the bill other than in relation to the petroleum industry certainly could have been handled if necessary through the present utilities commission. Even as far as the petroleum is concerned the Public Utilities Act could have been amended accordingly, if necessary — and I don't think, it would be necessary.

I can see through the principle of this bill that we're going to have a very substantial disruption of the equilibrium of administration in many areas. It's a conglomerate and not a bill that's conducive to good, administration.

I think probably with the little input that the government has been prepared to accept, certainly the benefits that are going to accrue from it are little or nothing. As far as the price of energy, whether it's petroleum or natural gas, there are already the authorities available through the National Energy Board in which to control the prices of gas or the export of quantities of gas. This must have been so, because when the original contracts were drawn up certainly the legislation that authorized that is still available to renegotiate. The interests of the people and the interest of the government and the circumstances at the time can all be taken into consideration and the prices borne out accordingly.

Because of the nature of the natural gas and the National Energy Board I assume that the government feel that they must have power within the province to set this. I don't see that that is necessarily so. The Act as it is set up is one in which the government again wants to assume greater powers, even over the decisions of courts.

I don't see that we have in British Columbia any longer the need for courts, because the government is going to have such power that the courts will no longer be required. There are many, many pieces of legislation which obviously bear this out and Bill 148 is no exception. I can't possibly subscribe to this type of legislation. I don't know where the draftsmanship came from, where the ideas

[ Page 2574 ]

came from except based on a philosophy, That philosophy is the well-known socialist philosophy.

I am thankful that the Attorney General agreed that this is what this is. Now anybody who wants to live under that sort of philosophy has got the opportunity. If they don't want to they know the other course, and I am sure it will be taken.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General closes the debate.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I won't be long — not that I want to be disrespectful to those of the opposition who have contributed to this debate.

The Member who has just taken his seat gave a very interesting talk. I remember an occasion in this House, though, when there was a change in ownership of Home Oil. The Hon. Member for Boundary Similkameen (Mr. Richter) made that great headline about how he was "looking into taking over Home Oil Company." Well, we're not going that far. There's no takeover in this bill. When we need help in a takeover we'll consult that Hon. Member, because you were thinking about it at that time.

MR. RICHTER: Oh, no.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) made some points — and I am working in reverse here in answering some of these — let me say the Hon. Member for Richmond's (Mr. Steves') comments are well received. Of course, we must explore future sources of energy, including steam energy from the bowels of the earth and other forms of energy.

I'd just say to the Hon. Member for Oak Bay for the sake of the record that these are normal public utility powers. Some of them sound drastic, like "You must obey the commission." Incidentally, that applies to the utility portion of the Act, not to the petroleum industry. That power was in the old legislation.

If you're in the utility business you're engaged in providing something essential for the health and security of the community. You simply can't stop that provision of services without endangering the life and health of the community. So there are drastic — and normal — public utility powers involved in this kind of legislation which are absolutely essential.

Now whether you say an appeal to the courts on a point of law only…I'd like to make this point, because it crops up in other legislation, including the Land Commission Act: courts can oversee the fairness of the procedure but they do not set the public policy. For example, if we set the price of gasoline in a certain area, that would not be a decision for the court to make; it would be a decision for the public utility energy commission to make — subject to a supervisory control as to the fairness of that adjudication by the courts. We preserved that.

I cannot agree for one minute that the petroleum industry is not a monopoly. I have seen through all of the years and I have quoted from the reports which say how they prevent competition, how they have always followed price leadership. By an odd coincidence the posted tank wagon price at any given point in the province by company A, which is usually Imperial Oil which sets the price leadership, is inevitably followed within a few days by all of the other companies.

Now that's more than a coincidence. That is price leadership. It's not spelled out in any kind of contract, no, because it's a gentlemen's agreement. As the old song goes, (singing), "A gentlemen's agreement is the best of all devices," for stabilizing our markets, our dividends and our prices.

We have to be honest about it and admit that this should be a public utility field in petroleum and that it has been monopolistic in the past.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Hear, hear! It certainly has.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: And it is as monopolistic today…

HON. MR. BARRETT: Even Shelford agreed with that.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: …and when last January Imperial Oil raised its price by one cent per gallon, by that same odd coincidence every other company followed suit.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Just a freak.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: This is not accidental. We cannot pretend that it's accidental after 40 or 50 years of history in this province. So I say that we are giving to the board normal regulatory utility powers.

The Liberal Party says that the board should be independent. Basically they're independent within their own jurisdiction but there's an area of policy for which we the government must be responsible. We are elected by the people; we must set the tone and the policy. We're not afraid of that responsibility. We're perfectly willing to take that responsibility on ourselves, confident that in matters of this kind the people of British Columbia will back us up 100 per cent.

So I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the question be called on second reading.

Motion approved on the following division.

[ Page 2575 ]

YEAS — 35

NAYS — 15

PAIRED

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 148 referred to a committee of the whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 146, Mr. Speaker.

WATER UTILITIES ACT

HON. MR. MACDONALD: This is an ancillary bill which simply provides that water utilities will henceforth not be under the old PUC or the new Energy Commission, but under the comptroller of water rights in the Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. Of course, already many of the water functions of government are carried out in that department. I move second reading.

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

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I just wish to advise you that we support the bill.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 146 referred to a committee of the whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 147, Mr. Speaker.

TELECOMMUNICATION
UTILITIES ACT

HON. MR. MACDONALD: This is another ancillary bill to the Energy Act. It provides that telecommunications will be under the new B.C. Energy Commission. The telecommunications referred to are simply those already regulated by the old PUC which would be Okanagan Telephone Company, which although it is a subsidiary of B.C. Tel. Is provincial in jurisdiction, and I believe the extensions of the Prince Rupert Telephone Company outside the boundaries of that particular city are included. Otherwise, except for the matter of research and studying in the fields of cablevision and other matters of that kind that involve telecommunications, there will be no regulatory aspects at this time because we feel that we haven't got the constitutional jurisdiction. So basically, it is the leftover telephone functions of the PUC transferred to the new Energy Commission. I move second reading.

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

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, in some ways we should welcome this Act, but again it is another schizophrenic Act as I see it. Because there is the venue provided within this Act, when the jurisdiction is handed over to the province by the federal government, for the government to go into some aspects of cablevision television. It always interests me that the Attorney General doesn't bring these points out when he is describing the bill. I'd like to talk about that after.

But the part that does concern us in this Act at this time is the part that the Attorney General mentioned himself — that it will put the residual powers of the PUC under the Energy Act, and this will have some effect for the Okanagan Telephone Company and the Prince Rupert Telephone Company. We suggest that there is every possibility that this will lead to the takeover by the government, under the auspices of this Act and its transfer and the Act we previously debated…

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No power of takeover.

MRS. JORDAN: …of the Okanagan Telephone Company and Prince Rupert Telephone Company.

When the jurisdiction comes from the federal government… As I understand it, as far as the

[ Page 2576 ]

Okanagan Telephone Company is concerned, it could come under the government's purview because it does not have its own independent board. It works by a reciprocal arrangement in relation to its interCanadian connections in that strictly inter-provincial in its own activities except by this reciprocal arrangement. Therefore it could come under the purview of this Act when some changes are made by the federal government.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Then I am correct in understanding the Premier that there is no way, regardless of any changes that were made in the federal Act that would allow Okanagan Telephone to be taken over under this bill. It would require a second bill.

Thank you for clarifying that point, Mr. Speaker. I'll move on then to the other matter of concern, and that is the powers that are going to be given to the province and utilized under this Act…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, I'm accepting his word. I hope it is a good word…for the province to enter into the television business and cablevision. There has long been talk, and I think a need and interest in having an educational channel in British Columbia. It is something that could provide great benefit to the people of British Columbia.

But it concerns us, Mr. Speaker, at this time, because of the actions of this government. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) has already said on a previous occasion, in fact many previous occasions, and this has been backed up by the Premier of the province, that they are going to put politics into the schools. One would hesitate to see this government, in the light of its actions since taking office this last six months, of having a political programme, or a programme on politics through educational television. I suggest that it would be anything but impartial, and would in fact be very biased.

You know, when one thinks of this government entering into the area of mass communications with the power that there is in the visual media, one stops and pauses with great concern. And I would bring your attention to the conduct of the government since taking office where there has been a falling back, and an excuse for the non-acceptance of this bill before this Legislature, and the reason was that it wasn't properly public-related.

We have an article in the Vancouver Sun of Thursday, April 5…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. Member, you have already obtained the assurance, which I think is clear in the bill, that the question of telecommunications does not include the embarking upon any programme that you are now suggesting, which would therefore be outside the terms of the general debate on this bill.

MRS. JORDAN: If I understand correctly, Mr. Speaker, that was in the relation of a takeover of Okanagan Telephone Company and Prince Rupert Telephone Company. What I am talking about now is the avenue through this bill and the Energy Act and the change in the federal government which will allow this government to go into cablevision and television. I believe I am correct in saying that.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't know whether you are correct on that, but it seems to me that this is a regulatory bill by a commission which is appointed to regulate telecommunications, not take them over or operate them. Consequently, any debate beyond that would be, I think, irrelevant to this bill.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm not talking about them taking over telecommunications. I am talking about their bringing in regulations under the purview of this Act which would allow them to enter into educational television on a channel which may well be allotted to them by the federal government within the next few months. These are the regulations through which the operation would be devised, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I must say, with respect, that the bill appears to regulate and not with the purpose of participation. I would ask the Hon. Member to try to deal with the question of regulation if she wishes to speak on it.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, if the regulations toward cable, telephone, or telegraph are not part of this Act, why does it say so?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BARRETT: …the transfer of the existing regulations under the PUC of this new Act. We are not taking anything over. We can't do it under this bill. This is a companion bill, if I may, by way of point of order. Just as we quickly passed the water utilities — it was a transfer of regulations from the PUC to the new one — we are now transferring the regulations.

MRS. JORDAN: I recognize that, Mr. Premier, but I think the Water Utilities Act was a little different because this already is a matter of control and it is under the provincial purview. Do you, through you Mr. Speaker, suggest that when the province is given

[ Page 2577 ]

the authority to undertake educational TV through a channel, that it will not come under the purview of this Act and the Energy Act?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It would be a government service, not a…

HON. MR. BARRETT: It would have to be a separate Act. This Act is just transferring existing powers of one commission to another. That's all. It's a companion bill.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, I must accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker. We will support the bill. Nonetheless wherever the powers are, wherever the regulations are, I assure you the people of British Columbia don't want to see an NDP-sponsored programme called "All in the Family, by Archie Haynes."

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General closes the debate.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Call the question, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 147 referred to a committee of the whole House at the next sitting after today.

Hon. Mr. Strachan files answers to questions.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer files answers to questions.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.