1973 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

SATURDAY, APRIL 14, 1973

Morning Sitting

[ Page 2797 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Distress Area Assistance Act (Bill No.

178). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 2797

An Act to Amend the Constitution Act (Bill No. 180). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2797

Mr. Phillips — 2797

Mr. Chabot — 2798

Mobile Home Tax Act (Bill No. 18 1). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2798

Mrs. Jordan — 2798

Statute Law Amendment Act, 1973 (Bill No. 183). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2798

Mrs. Jordan — 2798

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2798

Mr. Chabot — 2798

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2799

Mr. Phillips — 2799

Mr. Wallace — 2799

Mr. Schroeder — 2799

Mrs. Jordan — 2799

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2800

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2800

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2801

Mr. Phillips — 2801

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2801

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2802

Mr. Phillips — 2802

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2802

Mr. Chabot — 2802

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2802

Mr. Chabot — 2803

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2803

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2803

Mr. Chabot — 2803

Division on

section 55 — 2804

Mr. Fraser — 2804

Mrs. Jordan — 2804

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2804

Mrs. Jordan — 2805

Mr. Wallace — 2805

Mr. Morrison — 2805

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2805

Mr. Wallace — 2806

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2806

Mr. Morrison — 2807

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2807

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2807

Mr. Wallace — 2808

Mr. Phillips — 2808

Division on

section 66 — 2809

Mr. Morrison — 2809

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2809

Mr. Phillips — 2810

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2810

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2811

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2811

Mr. Wallace — 2811

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2811

Mr. Morrison — 2811

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2811

Mr. Morrison — 2811

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2812

Mrs. Jordan — 2812

Mr. Morrison — 2812

Mr. Phillips — 2812

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 2813

Mr. Morrison — 2813

Division on

section 67 — 2813

Mr. Phillips — 2814

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2814

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2814

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2814

Mr. Phillips — 2814

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2815

Mr. Morrison — 2815

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2815

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2815

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2815

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2815

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2815

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2815

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2816

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2816

Mrs. Jordan — 2816

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2817

Mr. Chabot — 2817

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2818

Mr. Nunweiler — 2819

Mr. Schroeder — 2819

Mr. Wallace — 2819

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2819

Mr. Smith — 2820

Mr. Morrison — 2821

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2821

Mr. Chabot — 2821

Mrs. Jordan — 2821

Mr. Phillips — 2821

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2822

Mr. Smith — 2822

Mr. Morrison — 2822

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2822

Mr. Nunweiler — 2822

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2823

Mr. Phillips — 2823

Mr. Chabot — 2823

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2823

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2824

Division on

section 74 — 2824

SATURDAY, APRIL 14, 1973

The House met at 10 a.m.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

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

public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 178, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

DISTRESS AREA ASSISTANCE ACT

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker,

Bill 178 really makes changes in details of the legislation.

For the first time the word "bank" is being defined to include

the credit union so that this organization as well as banks

that are chartered under the Bank Act may be used.

The definition of "farmer" is changed. Where previously it

was just a person, it is now changed so that it can be a

corporation, a cooperative, but they must be resident within

the designated area being dealt with.

The definition for "distressed area" is being added so that

those areas where the province is entering into a shared

programme with the federal government will be defined

differently from those areas where the province is going it

alone — not that it makes a great deal of difference to

the people concerned; but as far as understanding the

legislation it just means that the two areas are being

differently described.

I suppose the main change in the legislation — and

again it's a change in a section, but there's really no way of

discussing this any other way — is that it increases the

amount of money available. Previous Acts allowed a total of $2

million. The change brings it up to a total of $10 million so

that it can indeed deal with a situation where there truly is

distress on a very large scale as there has been in some areas

of the province and as there may very well be at this time.

One other significant change is in an area of the collection

of this amount, if you like, the guarantee for it. Where this

has previously been left entirely to regulation, it's now quite

plain in the legislation itself as to how these funds are going

to be collected in the event that there is default.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second

time.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 178 referred to a committee of the whole House to

be considered at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 180, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

CONSTITUTION ACT

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): A point of order? How

can there be a point of order now?

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): What's funny? Certainly I

want an adjournment on this. We haven't had a chance to look at

this Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It is customary when a bill is

first introduced in the House for second reading that the

Minister opens the debate. If a Member is not prepared to

debate the matter on second reading that day, he asks for an

adjournment.

I call and recognize the Provincial Secretary to open the

debate on second reading of the bill.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker,

An Act to Amend the

Constitution Act is the bill before us. In moving second

reading I would like to point out to the House that this is a well-known Act. It is the Act that

really is our Act. We're all very familiar with it.

The Act seeks to regularize the votes that have already

taken place in committee of supply to make certain amendments

to the salaries paid to the MLAs, Members of the Executive

Council and officials of the House.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, it seeks to remove some

obsolete sections from the Constitution Act . It also

introduces a number of interesting things regarding the rights

of MLAs. There is no particular central theme one could call a

principle in this Act as it amends certain sections.

If indeed the Members want to pour scorn on the

Constitution Act , I would suggest they refer to standing

orders. It makes it completely irregular to do that.

However, Mr. Speaker, I will indeed move second reading of

this Act that everybody should have read the day it was

prepared.

MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace

River.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, maybe in

second reading the Provincial Secretary would go through some

sections of the Act and we could have time to…

[ Page 2798 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: In the committee stage?

MR. CHABOT: It's

an Act which I really haven't had an

opportunity to examine. I've looked at one

section and I find

it to be a regional Act that discriminates against certain

parts of British Columbia. I would like to have a chance to

study it in a little more depth. Consequently I move

adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the

House.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. A Member is entitled to vote

"no." (Laughter).

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 181, Mr.

Speaker.

MOBILE HOME TAX ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr.

Speaker, in moving second reading of this bill, I would point

out that there are basically three principles to the bill.

The first is that the Mobile Home Tax Act is being

repealed. The second point is that it treats mobile homes and

mobile parks as realty and therefore subject to assessment and

taxation in the same way as real property. The third point is

that it allows the mobile homeowner to receive the Homeowner

Grant and the Home Acquisition Grant. It's quite similar to

Bill No. 4, the Smith bill.

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

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): We appreciate the

Minister's full comments. I'm sure he can appreciate that the

time of the MLAs has been rather heavily occupied these days.

Perhaps he would accept an adjournment of the debate.

MR. SPEAKER: A motion to adjourn the debate. Are you ready

for the question?

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 183, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General.

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

moving second reading of this bill, I would point out that this

really is a Mulligan stew in that it combines in one soup

varying and differing ingredients. Therefore it's really a very

suitable matter to be discussed in committee, rather than

jumping from one thing to another.

So I move second reading and trust that the matter can be

referred to committee and dealt with by the House in whatever

detail the House desires at that time. I so move.

MRS. JORDAN: Keeping with the tradition set through this

House for years by the former Leader of the Opposition and now

the Premier, we will accept this and discuss the debate in

committee.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, we agree with the

Attorney General. There's no way this really can be discussed

in principle because there really is no principle to it. We'll

discuss it in committee.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General closes the

debate.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Question, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 183 referred to a committee of the whole House at

the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 148, Mr.

Speaker.

ENERGY ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 148; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

section 4.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia

River.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Yes, we have an amendment

on the order paper, Mr. Chairman. I move the amendment standing

in my name to delete subsection 7 of

section 4, which says that

any two commissioners constitute a quorum.

[ Page 2799 ]

I don't think that two tsars should have that kind of

power.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: No, it would be a regular quorum. A majority of

the commission would constitute a quorum. I don't think that it

should be by two tsars. I think that part should be

deleted.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Industrial

Development, Trade and Commerce.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce):

Mr. Chairman, the commission can be up to seven, but it may be three or four

to begin with. One of them may be sick. We would not want to have no quorum

at all in the bill. Certainly if the commission is enlarged to the point where

there are four, five, six or seven members, we wouldn't want major decisions

to be made by two people.

On the other hand, commissions have major decisions and then

they have a number of perfunctory decisions to make, such as

meeting as a commission and fixing a hearing. That's an

example. For its perfunctory functions, it should be permitted

to have a low quorum. But I can't imagine any commission, even

with the larger numbers of members that I've referred to,

really sitting on a major matter with only two people.

I think we should have the protection that is in here, which

is certainly better than the amendment. At least it requires

that two people be present, even for perfunctory matters. I

think it's a safeguard to leave it in.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace

River.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Chairman, this is

a pretty far-ranging and wide sweeping bill. I don't think that

you should start off with just two or three people. These two

or three people could go in and do severe damage right off the

bat. If you're only planning on having two or three people on

this commission, I think you had better withhold the bill until

you get it straightened out.

You could get a couple of people in there who have a grudge

against some oil company or some other phase of the many areas

of life which this bill will take charge of. It could be very

dangerous indeed. I certainly think that you should start off

the commission with your seven people right away and have a

majority of the members to provide a quorum. The bill is

dangerous enough as it is. But you could make a mistake. You

could even get a couple of kooks on there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Crooks?

MR. PHILLIPS: Kooks, I said. Not "gooks,"

"kooks."

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We don't intend to draw on the

opposition party for any personnel. (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: I was thinking of your own backbench, Mr.

Minister.

Maybe at some time these two gentlemen might be working very

long hours and be very tired and have a grudge against somebody

and do severe damage. I think the Minister of Industrial

Development, Trade and Commerce should not take this matter

lightly and accept our amendment for an ordinary quorum.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, on general

principles I would have to agree that two out of seven seems to

me to be too few to constitute a quorum.

As I mentioned in an earlier debate last night, I feel that

quite reasonably one could expect that you should always have

four out of the seven to make a meeting legal and to get

responsible decisions. I would oppose the idea of only two

people out of seven constituting a quorum.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for

Chilliwack.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Mr. Attorney General, I

would like to suggest that instead of specifying the number of

commissioners who constitute a quorum, why not just simply say

"a majority." That way you could expand the commission to any

number that you wished, notwithstanding

section 1…

HON. MR. MACDONALD: A majority present?

MR. SCHROEDER: A majority of the commissioners. Say the

commission number is seven. Then four would constitute a

quorum. Why not just state it simply? Then you won't…

AN HON. MEMBER: Do that in another Act.

MR. SCHROEDER: That would be my suggestion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North

Okanagan.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I would just like to

support what the Hon. Member for

[ Page 2800 ]

Chilliwack said. I think there should be this provision in

here for the majority of the commission to be present and there

being a quorum. We must accept that if people are going to

accept the responsibility of being on the commission, they have

a responsibility to be at these meetings and to be fully

informed with the commission's activities. I wouldn't think

that the Minister of Industrial Development is suggesting that

appointments to the commission, in what really is a very

controversial and really a very bad Act in many ways, would be

in this responsible position by appointment and not attend all

the meetings and not be fully conversant.

If you, as a government, are to bring in such

an Act and

make people by way of appointment responsible for the actions

of this Act, then the least the Minister can do is assure the

public, which is deeply concerned about this, that those people

are going to be there all the time. Even if perfunctory actions

are taking place, those members must know about it. That's

their responsibility. We would hope that he would accept the

suggestion that a majority make a quorum.

Everybody, from the service station operators on around the

block, is very concerned about the power in the Act itself;

particularly they have mentioned the fact that two people

could, in spite of the Minister's most sincere assurances that

it wouldn't happen, make decisions that even the Minister

himself might regret.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, I'll be glad to bear in mind what

has been said because as I say, for major decisions we'd

certainly want that. But you have the perfunctory decisions,

then you have the matters which are very important to an

individual, such as a service complaint against B.C. Hydro up

in Dawson Creek or Pouce Coupe, where it may be appropriate to

have two commissioners actually go to the place and hold a

hearing at that time.

Not when we get up to seven — I don't suppose we'll be

up to seven for some time, depending on the workload —

not the whole seven. Bearing in mind what has been said, we

appreciate the force of it. We can't accept the amendment at

this time, but we're perfectly prepared to review the Act in

the light of developing circumstances.

I don't think there can be seven right away. I don't think

that's reasonable to the taxpayer, It's going to depend on the

developing workload, and then I suppose commissioners should be

appointed too, in time, so that you've got a specialist in

electrical generation, you've got a specialist in natural gas,

you've got a specialist in some of the other areas.

Therefore, for particular smaller hearings in these specialized fields it may

be appropriate that two sit at times. But not for the major decisions. I fully

agree with that. We can't accept the amendment because I think it will rigidify

the structure too much.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Second Member for Victoria,

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): We will support the amendment, because

we feel that in cases such as this — and we fully appreciate the points made

by the Attorney General — you should err on the side of being more cautious

rather than too liberal, We feel that in this instance you should have the quorum

set at a majority of the members, and if it proves to be necessary to amend

that, then we would be quite willing to accept an amendment in the future.

It's just a reverse of the position of the Minister. We

appreciate the points he has made, however.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment to

section 4 standing in

the name of the Member for Columbia River pass?

Amendment negatived.

Sections 4 to 9 inclusive approved.

section 10.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: On

section 10, we have here a provision

"where the commission is directed or authorized under this Act

to hold a hearing, it shall give notice of the hearing." It

goes on to say that if no notice is given, that cannot affect

the decision of the commission.

We feel that's wrong. We feel that there should be notice

given of hearings and we think that the time-honoured legal

word "reasonable" is all that is necessary there. I would

propose an amendment, Mr. Chairman, to delete all words after

the word "hearing," and add "it shall give reasonable

notice of the hearing." So the amendment

section would read:

"Where the commission is directed or authorized under this Act

to hold a hearing, it shall give reasonable notice of the

hearing."

It's not an onerous provision. It won't occur very often,

but it's up to the courts to determine what is a reasonable

hearing and not up to…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could you have the amendment sent up to the

table?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I've got it here. It's not unreasonable,

and we feel that this is the way we should proceed in cases

where it may be that a person's livelihood the small service

station operator's livelihood could be wiped out. We think it

only fair that he has the opportunity of at least having a

legal right to a hearing.

[ Page 2801 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, even though this is taken

from the older language, I think we could accept that

amendment. But in accepting it, I would ask leave of the House

if this passes that the Law Clerk may be able to tidy up the

legal language if necessary.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Certainly, Mr. Attorney General.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment in the name of the Second

Member for Victoria pass?

Amendment approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall leave be granted that the Clerks may

appropriately clean up the language?

Leave granted.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Clean up my language? It's not that bad,

(Laughter).

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Legalize it!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's what Hansard clerks do…

Section 10 approved with amendment.

section 11.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace

River.

MR. PHILLIPS: This

section looks like fairly normal

legislation, that the commission "may appoint and engage

accountants, engineers, legal counsel, and other persons having

special or technical knowledge necessary for the purpose of

assisting the commission."

However, if you go on to

section 81, the commission "and any

person authorized by it, for that purpose, may…enter upon…any oil refinery, storage plant…" This is bad business.

Of course, this whole bill as far as I am concerned should be

broken down into about three different pieces of legislation,

but I've discussed that before.

This

section here, in essence, Mr. Chairman, would allow the commission to

hire anybody it wants. There could be somebody who wants to find out how somebody

else is running their business — they could get on this commission. I know they're

supposed to keep the information secret, but sometimes in the technical world

— particularly in the petroleum industry — there are secrets about ways of refining,

about ways of doing business, and here under this section, under

section 81,

they can go in and there is nothing secret or sacred any more.

MR. CHAIRMAN: What

section is that Hon. Member?

HON. MR. MACDONALD:

Section 81. Mr. Chairman, this isn't up

yet.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I realize this, but the reason I am

discussing this is because of technical knowledge. If you want

to go in and check out a refinery, you've got to find somebody

who knows how the refinery runs, or something. You've got to

hire somebody with that technical knowledge. Where are you

going to get people like that? Are you going to hire them from

some other oil company, or something? This is the thing that

concerns me about this…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you speaking for or against the

section?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm just asking the Attorney General to

give me some assurance, or to explain to me where he's going to

get these technical people. Because after this bill is passed,

there's nothing sacred any more. Nothing whatsoever.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, I don't think we'll have any

trouble getting the personnel to assist the commission.

Section 11 approved.

section 12.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Two quick questions to the Hon. Minister

on sections 12 and 13 together. It has here a reference to the

Civil Service Act and I gather from this that it is up

to the Energy Commission itself whether it will have people

under the Act or outside it.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well yes, but acting on the advice of the

commission. I would think that it would be desirable for the

Minister, at this stage, to indicate to the House why the need

to exempt people from the Civil Service Commission, why it was

desirable to put in these two sections. I'm not saying they're

wrong, I'm just saying I don't have an explanation for it, and

don't quite understand why people should be exempted from the

Civil Service Commission and the Civil Service Act .

[ Page 2802 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, it's partly like the British

Columbia Development Corporation where the Member made the

point last night that there are some functions of government

that should be out in the community. There will be business

consultants and people, possibly part-time, hired from industry

— some of them possibly for a short period of time. We're

protecting them wherever it's appropriate, in terms of their superannuation benefits. We think this is the kind of function

that, as in the old Public Utilities Commission, could

appropriately be left in this form. It's really a function

that's outside the government, and with as much independence as

we can give it. Otherwise, with the ability to attract the best

staff, as the Member was saying, the technical people, business

consultants, and possibly on a part-time basis, it's not too

appropriate.

Sections 12 to 21 inclusive approved.

section 22.

MR. PHILLIPS: On

section 22, who is going to make the

decision as to whether a service is efficient or not?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The commission.

MR. PHILLIPS: The two commissioners. They are going to

decide. If someone gives a complaint who has a grudge against

this particular company, then the commission goes in and says,

"You're not giving efficient service."

Are there going to be some rules and regulations laid down

so that the company will know whether it is giving efficient

service? What are the regulations going to be here? Just for

somebody to go in, particularly in the service industry, and to

say, "You're not giving efficient service" doesn't seem quite

just to me somehow, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, it is traditional in the public

utilities legislation to have this kind of section. It has been

on our books for a long time and there is a body of precedent

and even legal decisions built up around these things. This

applies to energy utilities. As I say, it is wholly

traditional. It used to be

section 5 of the Public Utilities

Act .

Let me say this about these powers, speaking to

section 22

but speaking to many other sections of the Act, we have not

extended in any way powers that haven't been on the statute

books of the Province of British Columbia before, for long

periods of time. In fact I think, as I said earlier in respect

to the hearing provisions, we have improved on the situation in

terms of open hearings and writing them into the Act.

If there is anything in here in terms of utility enforcement that wasn't heretofore

in our laws, without complaint either from the opposition party, when you were

government, over a long period of time, or the opposition or even the citizens,

we'll take it out. This is a traditional public utility enforcement section,

well understood by the utilities. I'm quite sure you will find similar sections

in California or anywhere else you might want to go. There is a massive body

of public utility regulations precedent built up. I think you will find it is

well understood by those in the utility field.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 22 pass?

Section 22 approved.

Sections 23 to 25 inclusive approved.

section 26.

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

MR. CHABOT: I move the amendment standing in my name for the

deletion of

section 26.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is out of order.

MR. CHABOT: Out of order? How can it be out of order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The correct procedure is to vote against the

amendment.

MR. CHABOT: I'll change it. I'll just delete a few words

here and there out of it. Give me a piece of paper.

I'll speak to the main

section then, Mr. Chairman. The main

section really encompasses an unacceptable principle. It puts

too much power into the hands of two men and at the whim of two

men who can do almost anything. Look at subsection 2:

"It is a question of fact, of which the commission is the

sole judge, whether a rate is unjust or unreasonable, or

whether, in any case, there is undue discrimination,

preference, prejudice, or disadvantage in respect of a rate or

service, or whether a service is offered or furnished under

substantially similar circumstances and conditions."

It puts far too much power of deciding what is right and

what is wrong into the hands of two men. I'm sure you agree

with me that the whole principle of this

section is unreal and

unjustified and unnecessary. I'm sure that after my short talk

you will see the wisdom in the deletion of this

section from

this tragedy of errors that we see in this entire bill.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, just to

[ Page 2803 ]

explain the section, this is the

section whereby the

consumer, throughout the range of these utility services, can

be protected against unjust charges and discrimination. Surely

the Hon. Member favours that principle. Do you think the people

of Columbia River should be discriminated against in terms of

electric rates or natural gas rates for matters within our

jurisdiction? Or water utility rates? This is the thing that

gives the consumer protection.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, but two men.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, you are talking about the quorum

section and we have gone through that. You will find that I

haven't changed, in any respect,

section 8 of the Public

Utilities Act . This is well known public utilities

legislation to protect the consumer, If you vote against this,

Mr. Member, you are leaving the consumer exposed to exorbitant

prices from public utilities in the Province of British

Columbia in a way they are not exposed anywhere else in North

America.

MR. CHABOT: There are ways, Mr. Minister of Industrial

Development, Trade and Commerce. You know there are ways and

means of appeal against unjust rates without the necessity of

putting it in the hands of these two men — sole judge,

that's what you are saying in this particular section. It is

the kind of principle that shouldn't be enshrined in a piece of

legislation like this. There are other ways to appeal unjust

rates by utility companies.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, but the courts don't set the rates.

It isn't up to the courts to say whether somebody's electric

rate is high or low.

MR. CHABOT: No, but the public utilities can do it to see

whether it is just or fair, without giving it into the hands of

two men, two laymen — two friends of the government!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 26 pass?

Section 26 approved.

Section 27 approved.

section 28.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I am just wondering, Mr. Chairman, why there have

been changes between this and

section 10 of the Public Utilities Act . This appears

to be much broader. I am wondering if that was a deliberate intention or whether

it is just simply better wording. What is the reason? Does it grant more power

to the commission than the Public Utilities Act did?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I don't know of any respect in which

this increases the power that was under the old public

utilities commission.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 28 pass?

Section 28 approved.

Sections 29 to 45 inclusive approved.

section 46.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON:

Section 46 has caused considerable

concern in terms of regulation of any service station, in

particular, in the province. I wonder if the Attorney General

might say a word on that. How extensive does he feel these

powers are?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It doesn't apply to service stations

because they are not energy utilities under the Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 46 pass?

Section 46 approved.

Sections 47 and 48 approved.

section 49.

MR. CHABOT: …the ability to set up an agreement between

private and public parties. It is a lot of power given to two

men to decide what the rates shall be. It is another one of

those unacceptable principles.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You are a free enterpriser.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 49 pass?

Section 49 approved.

Sections 50 to 54 inclusive approved.

section 55.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Member for Cariboo.

[ Page 2804 ]

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I move the amendment in my

name.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is out of order. The proper

procedure is to vote against the section.

MR. FRASER: I will, because this

section 55 takes all the

municipal rights away from all municipal jurisdictions.

Section 55 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Nunweiler

Nicolson

Brown

Radford

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Gorst

Lockstead

Young

Lea

Skelly

Calder

Cocke

Lorimer

Levi

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Liden

Webster

Kelly

NAYS — 11

Richter

Chabot

Jordan

Smith

Schroeder

Morrison

Phillips

Fraser

Gardom

Anderson, D.A.

Wallace

PAIRED

Williams, R.A.

Williams, L.A.

Brousson

Hartley

McGeer

King

Curtis

Lewis

Sections 56 and 57 approved.

section 58.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. FRASER: I would like to move the amendment standing in

my name.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is out of order. The proper

procedure is to vote against the section.

MR. FRASER: Fine. This is the same as

section 55 where two

commissioners can overrule elected councils — five, seven

or nine elected people. It is absolutely ridiculous.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I too am disposed to vote against

this

section in view of the fact that it does allow the

commission tremendous powers, in that they can enter into any

municipal or regional district structure.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: To run a water main through for example.

It is necessary.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, but so many municipalities in British

Columbia and regional districts all have their own plans. We

have other Acts before this House freezing land. Is it right

that one commission could have this power to overrule all the

local planning that was done by a professional planner that was

voted on by the people and which is an accepted precedent by

the people? There would be no recourse in other sections of

this bill for these people or the municipality or the regional

district to go to court and appeal the decision of this

commission.

We feel this is a most unacceptable phrase. This is just

giving this commission too much power, Mr. Minister. It is a

bill of absolute power with absolute power given to selected

people by a government. There are no appeal procedures and we

feel this again is an overriding of the responsibilities and

constitutional responsibilities and privileges of

municipalities and regional districts and, of course, the

democratic rights of the people involved.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, just a short explanation

of the section: There are private companies that can create

under, say, the Forest Act mineral legislation, rights

of way across private property. These are the essential

utilities — gas, water, electrical generation. It is very

unlikely that a municipality would object and say, "You go

another 30 miles around this area," or that a regional

district would say, "Go 75 miles around this area," and

increase the cost to some consumers farther down the fine.

I doubt if they would object but private companies have this

power. Maybe they shouldn't have. This is after negotiations

and it has been in the Public Utilities Act of the

Province of British Columbia,

section 44…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, it doesn't, but it has been in the

Public Utilities Act , without complaint in the past from

that little group, and without complaint in the past from the

Union of B.C. Municipalities.

[ Page 2805 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, this is the kind of

section that

is in utilities legislation in order to bring essential

services to people as cheaply as possible. People accept

that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: I think your explanation is very interesting

but what you fail to point out, as I understand it, is that if

a company comes on or anything like that, there is a right of

appeal. But this Act does away with this right of appeal to the

courts. The Minister says that no municipality would be likely

to refuse the request of the public utilities to go through

someone's back yard or through a botanical garden or through a

park because that would bring the line most cheaply. I would

suggest there is case after case in British Columbia. One is in

the Enderby area, where a public utility wants to put in a line

in the most economical way. There is serious municipal,

regional district and public concern.

There is an international situation, right now, to do with

the Mackenzie pipeline and pipelines in Alaska and Canada

which, in fact, are proving the need for the right of appeal.

We are bringing to the fore this very serious question: is the

cheapest way the best way, is the cheapest way what the people

want? We feel you must not give this commission the right to

override, as I mentioned before, properly planned municipal

plans and decisions by municipal councils.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It can't under this section. This is

subject to agreement of the municipalities.

MRS. JORDAN: As I understand it,

section 58 dispenses with

municipal consent.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, the earlier sections give an

emergency power.

section 58 is subject to the

municipalities.

MRS. JORDAN: They do have the right of appeal?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: I would like to pass comment on that, Mr. Chairman. One

thing that worries me a little about the Minister's comments is that all too

frequently the Minister says that some such undesirable power, or some power

which the opposition thinks is too much, exists in some other legislation. I

am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but two wrongs never make a right. What probably is

wrong is that they shouldn't be in the other legislation either.

I know it is rather trite that the price of freedom is

eternal vigilance. The point is that the role of opposition is

to try and check these little bits of erosion of new

legislation, eroding the rights of individuals and the power of

government. It is the function of opposition to try and prevent

this creeping in more and more frequently into successive

pieces of legislation.

The

part I don't like about

section 58 is the words: "after

such hearings as the commission considers advisable." I don't

see that it should be at the discretion of the commission if

there should be a hearing. I think there should be, when you

are giving this kind of power to an energy utility to use a

highway within the municipality. Since the people living in the

municipality are going to be intimately affected, surely it

would be reasonable to suggest that there must be a hearing. To

leave that much discretion to the commission, again, is an

excessive amount of power.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: I'd like to say again that we feel that this

does give the commission too much power, that it does have the

power to enter into any municipal structure or use any

municipal structure without the rights that have been

explained. We certainly will vote against this section.

Sections 58 to 65 inclusive approved.

section 66.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. First Member for

Victoria.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): I wonder — if this

section could be completely explained. It's a little vague and

I'd like to know what they're driving at.

HON. MR. MACDONALD:

Section 66 requires that the petroleum

industry, if ordered by the commission do not carry on any

practice which unduly increases the price of gasoline to the

consumer.

MR. MORRISON: What do you mean by "practice"? That's what

I'm after.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: To give examples, if advertising were

clearly misleading; if all the companies were spending a lot of

money on advertising their particular brands of gasoline and in

fact in the commission's opinion that gasoline was exactly

the

[ Page 2806 ]

same — in other words false and misleading advertising

and putting the cost on the consumer — the commission

might intervene and prohibit that practice.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes. They have other powers too. But

this is the statement of the broad principle. They might find

that duplication of services was such — trucking a small

quantity out to this point by one truck and a small quantity by

another truck — that it unduly foisted a high, exorbitant

cost upon the consumer. That kind of practice could be

curtailed. And, as the Member points out, there are other

sections that enable the commission, after proper hearings, to

regulate what it considers to be wasteful practices that load

an unnecessary cost upon the consumer.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well it could be, you know, but we do

have another

section on the "Three G's." If you look at 76(f),

that more particularly zones in upon the three gimmicks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, the Minister in making these

comments of course has put his finger exactly on the deep

concern that we have about so many of the Sections in this

bill. I'll try not to be repetitive, because what I think I can

say about 66 equally applies to many other sections, including

I think perhaps the Minister chose a rather unfortunate

example when he was trying to interpret the purpose behind

section 66 when he quoted advertising. Surely, Mr. Minister,

that is a very dangerous area for government to start telling a

private sector of the economy how much they should spend on

advertising. I think that's a very serious statement that the

Minister just made.

If we are looking at the whole realm of consumer affairs,

whether it's gasoline, socks, ties, food or anything else, we

all know the enormous amounts of money which every segment of

industry spends on advertising. There's a constant conflict in

the public arena as to the impact of advertising on consumer

costs. I am sure the Minister wasn't particularly emphasizing

that one thing, advertising.

In giving his explanation I think the Minister points out

the dangers inherent in having a commission given what are in

some ways vague terms of reference — "increases unduly"

or "tends to increase unduly." This is a rather diffuse and

vague outline of the terms of reference.

We would all agree, Mr. Chairman, that the goal of the government in trying

to establish fair prices for such an important consumer product as petroleum

and the byproducts of petroleum is well intended. I support what the Minister

is trying to do. But I must again repeat that we're very unhappy at this kind

of

section in the bill and the power that we've already mentioned — and I won't

say it at all after this

section — about the small quorum possible.

We feel that the government really isn't aware itself of the

tremendous dangers that exist when you give a few appointees

these vague and very widespread terms of reference. I hope the

Minister will reconsider — if there is to be any

reconsideration of this bill — this kind of particular

section and his own thoughts on the ways in which the

commission could intervene quite unfairly in such basic parts

of the private sector of the province where they have to

advertise.

If the Minister is so concerned, let us say, about the cost

of advertising, I submit that to be consistent he should tackle

the whole of the consumer field. Surely it is not a function of

government to regulate the whole of the consumer field. Yet

they're picking on one particular segment — this is

another point I might mention in this

section which relates to

our total criticism of the whole bill — that they're

picking on one

section of private business and industry, namely

the petroleum industry and subjecting it to a degree of

scrutiny, regulation and control which, however well-motivated,

sets a serious precedent and sets up a conflict, I think,

between government and this particular sector of industry.

If the way in which this regulation and control is to be

brought about is based on the kind of comment the Minister just

made, then I think the whole of the private sector in this

province is in for a bad time in the years to come.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I've had a look at

section

66 and I've had a look at

section 76.

section 66 is very broad

and sweeping; 76 sets out in great detail — and indeed

that could be amended to put in more detail if the Minister

wished — the type of thing that the Minister talked

about.

He talked about grading and advertising of various grades of

gasoline which may or may not differ. That's the type of thing

that could come under the regulations

section 76, rather than

section 66, which simply says "certain practices prohibited," and then does not list the practices to which the

Minister is obviously referring.

As far as advertising is concerned, there is legislation

dealing with false advertising.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, you bet there is.

[ Page 2807 ]

Even the Americans do it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, that's right. It's quite outside the

scope of this legislation as well. In other words there's

existing legislation to go after the false advertising which

means that this

section is redundant in that respect, because

there is other legislation dealing with that.

There is no question in my mind if you can regulate the

advertising of a noxious or poisonous product such as tobacco,

there's no question in my mind that the government has the

right to do that. But to put all such regulations and all such

prohibitions in the hands of a commission and then go on to say

that every person can be guilty of an offence if they offend

the commission's rulings, is handing over to this commission

too much power to legislate, in my view.

I can accept

section 76 in its entirety. I have no quarrel

with the Minister's spelling out what he intends to do with

this commission in these regards. But to give the old "blank

cheque" power to an appointed commission to decide what is good

and what is bad, and then in turn have those who offend the

commission guilty of an offence, is handing out to the

commission the powers to legislate, which I feel is wrong.

If in the future the Minister would like to have additions

section 76, we in this party would certainly consider them

very sympathetically because we can accept everything that

presently exists in

section 76. But we cannot accept

section 66

which hands over unlimited power to the commission.

We would most seriously urge the government to drop

section

66 now, proceed with the other sections which are of course

from 67 on and which do allow tremendous powers of regulation,

and withdraw this blanket power to the commission. If that is

done I feel that this would be a better bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The First Member for Victoria.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister

if this, as it would appear from his explanation, applies only to wholesalers. Does this also

apply to retailers of petroleum products? Furthermore, does

this

section give them the authority to tell a wholesaler that,

"You have too many service stations in any one location" that

"your bulk plants should be relocated in other areas;" that

"your distribution systems are expensive and should be

changed"?

This appears to me to give them such tremendous powers to

regulate any type of station, either wholesale or retail. I too

believe that there are other areas where this is covered, but

this is so broad and gives such tremendous authority…it's

so vague in its wording and I think it's far too broad.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: This

section was ghost-written for us by

the late and respected Hon. Duff Pattullo.

Now as the Members say, okay, we have to look at it;

notwithstanding that.

He's not of the party that I belonged to at that time, but

he was a pretty great British Columbian.

This puts in the statute the general principle. We don't

know what practices — but it's only those practices that

unduly increase the price of the product to the consumer.

But you want to state your principle in the statute itself,

and not just in regulation — making power under 76, which

some of the Members accept. I prefer to see it stated in the

statute. I think that's the fair way to do it.

In terms of the number of service stations, if the companies

continue to go wild as they have in the past and authorize the

establishment of four service stations at an intersection, and

you've got service station dealers there none of whom can make

a profit and working long hours, then it may be that under this

section, or under the licensing system as in the province of

Alberta, we might want to control that. The commission might

want to control that. Certainly the dealers want it.

AN HON. MEMBER: But this is so broad.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Most of the dealers want it. So I

suggest it is a reasonable power and a necessary one. We have a

philosophical difference, with all respect, with the Hon.

Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), and the Liberal Party too,

and the Social Credit Party. We regard the petroleum industry

as, in effect, a utility service rather than just another

private business. That's probably reflected in this section. My

advice to Hon. Members opposite would be to vote against this

section if that is their philosophical conviction.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, through you to the Attorney

General. Our proposal to the government is that they also vote

against this

section because, as the Hon. Minister has made

clear, it's a

section drafted about 35 years ago.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: If everybody voted against it, it

wouldn't pass.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That is precisely the point that I am

making. I think 66 should not pass. You have enough powers in

67 onward on pages 22 and 23, and I see that there are many

things here that we in this party agree with from 67 onwards.

But this particular one we cannot. I would remind the Hon.

Minister that although this was passed by the Pattullo

government, it was not brought into force. The

[ Page 2808 ]

passing of the legislation was designed as a salutary curb

on the industry, and it was successful. Therefore it was not

necessary to bring it into force.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: This was in force. This was the Coal

and Petroleum Products Control Board Act which was in force

from 1940 to 1952, I think it was — not the Petroleum

Sales Act .

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'm sorry, I have the wrong Act. But the

reference I made a mistake on wasn't clear from what the

Minister had said. Nevertheless, in this

section you are giving

away to a commission the right to decide what unduly tends to

increase the price of petroleum products, which might be the

service of washing the windscreen, for all I know. Obviously

that costs money, to have a man take time to do that.

Then you are going on to make anybody who wishes to give

some service to the public, which the public may wish to have,

guilty of an offence if the commission feels that that practice

raises the price. Well, obviously all services to customers

raise prices.

It could be that the ideal situation would be self-service

gas stations, and no cleaning of windscreens, no checking of

oil, nothing at all. That may be the commission's decision.

It may be that certain gas stations want to have a higher

price so that they can provide services, and the customers are

willing to pay for it. That's really what you are taking away

in this section. You are taking away the right to offer a

better service to the public unless approval is given by this

commission.

Then in addition, to make the person guilty of an offence if

he tries to give better service, is going, I just think, too

far. There are plenty of other regulations. This thing comes

first; there are plenty of others following of which we can

approve, but 66 I ask the government to reconsider, itself.

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

MR. WALLACE: I would like to offer an amendment to

section

66, which would be designed to define somewhat better and limit

the power. I would move that after the word "commission" in

line 3, you insert the word "clearly" and delete the words

"unduly or tends to increase unduly." The

section would then

read, "Any practice which, in the judgment of the commission,

clearly increases the price of petroleum products to the

consumer…"

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, we'll accept that

amendment.

Amendment approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. PHILLIPS: Even with the amendment this

section doesn't

please me, Mr. Chairman. This bill creates a bureaucratic

swamp, and as we're going to struggle through this bureaucratic

swamp, some areas in the swamp are more dangerous than others.

If you have ever been in a swamp, you realize that, you

know.

As far as I am concerned, this

section 66…

AN HON. MEMBER: How are you going to get out ?

MR. PHILLIPS: …is the quicksand in the swamp.

AN HON. MEMBER: The alfalfa cubing plant.

MR. PHILLIPS: It is the quicksand in the swamp. The reason

for this, Mr. Chairman, is because it's open to so many ways of

interpretation. The Attorney General has already proved that

this morning. Anyone engaged in the petroleum industry…that

means every service station, every person in that service

station. That's the way the Act can be interpreted.

Now if the Attorney General wants to do away with what he

calls and what his party calls gimmickry in the retailing of

gasoline, it is very simple to do. Pass a regulation. I think

this is really what this

section is aimed at. But it allows the

Attorney General to do more than that. Much more than that…or this new commission. They can do anything they want to.

As the Second Member for Victoria just pointed out, if you

have a service station and you are doing certain things —

like even washing down the front yard — and you consider

that you have to put an extra ten cents on your grease job,

which is a petroleum product, then this commission can come in

and say "No." That's exactly the way you can interpret this,

Mr. Attorney General.

Now you seem bent on getting after the petroleum industry.

You consider it a utility. You want to control the advertising.

Why don't you go after the bakery industry — you know,

the doughnut industry, the bread industry? Mostly everybody

eats, when they get a chance. We don't around here. But it's

the same thing. Everybody has to eat, so why don't you go after

the food industry?

They do a lot of advertising. Does that increase the cost of

food, Mr. Attorney General? Next year are you going to come up

with

an Act to control the food industry and set up a

commission — and it's the judgment of that commission…?

The Attorney General said that some service station

operators work long hours and don't make any money. Is it the

purpose of this commission to go

[ Page 2809 ]

along and say to them, "You've got to close up because

you're working such long hours; you're not making enough

money?" You're going to close them up? Is that the idea behind

this

interpretation of this

section 66?

If you want to sell petroleum and cut down the price of

petroleum, you could say don't build any more service stations,

you don't need fancy service stations. You could build them out

of the cheapest material that you can, because the way you

build a service station increases the cost. Are we going to

have just straight boxes for service stations? Because the more

expensive a service station is, I guess you could say —

it's the judgment of this commission.

All this is a very dangerous Act, and a very dangerous

section in the Act.

This

section will probably come back to haunt the provincial

government. And I can't support it even in its amended form. As

I say, it's the quicksand in the bureaucratic swamp that this

bill creates. Limitless power to the commission if in their

judgment something is going wrong. Why didn't you take

Part 4

of this Energy Act and set it up as a separate Act?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 66 pass?

Section 66 as amended approved on the following

division:

YEAS — 31

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Nunweiler

Nicolson

Brown

Radford

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Lorimer

Calder

Skelly

Lea

Young

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Liden

Webster

Kelly

Wallace

Curtis

NAYS — 10

Richter

Chabot

Jordan

Smith

Fraser

Phillips

Morrison

Schroeder

Gardom

Anderson, D.A.

PAIRED

Williams, R.A.

Williams, L.A.

Hartley

Brousson

McGeer

King

Bennett

Cocke

McClelland

Lewis

section 67.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the First Member for Victoria.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Chairman, again I would like the Minister

to explain fully the intent in

section 67.

HON. MR. MACDONALD:

Section 67 gives a licensing power after

a certain date. So it's not retroactive to existing

stations.

AN HON. MEMBER: A licence to what?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: A licensing power almost identical with

the fuel oil licensing Act of the Province of Alberta. You

don't buy that? Well, I've got to prove it some other way

then.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Does anybody accept the legislation of

the Province of Alberta under Social Credit and the

Conservative Party? No? O.K., Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: All right, we can't sell that. We'll

have to try to sell it in some other fashion.

The service station dealers of the Province of British

Columbia have been an exploited lot in many respects. They have

been exploited in terms of the three G's. They have been

exploited in terms of their leases with the companies.

MR. PHILLIPS: What are you reading that from?

[ Page 2810 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'm not reading at the moment. They have

been exploited in terms of their non-competitive

position when other commercial outlets get cheaper f.o.b.

refinery gas than they do and they starve as a result. A lot of

them do. So they present a brief to their New Democratic

government dated March 5, 1973, through their own association,

the ARA.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Free enterprise. Little businessmen.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Here's what they say about the Premier:

"Our organization is well aware of the policy statement as

outlined by Premier Barrett to the effect that he proposes to

introduce legislation providing for an overall energy control

board or commission."

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's what the Premier said. "Our

organization has no objection to the policy as outlined by the

Premier and, in fact, we feel that such a progressive step is

long overdue."

HON. MR. BARRETT: Small businessmen. There you are. Stand up

for the small businessman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. First Member for Victoria.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister

if he was referring to the licensing

section in that brief from

the ARA. What exactly did he mean?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Including that.

MR. MORRISON: I'd also like to go on record that I was a

service station operator for 20 years.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, I know. Until you went wrong.

MR. MORRISON: I find that a lot of the things that you say…I didn't go broke in it either, thank you.

I think that it would be better to read all of the brief, if

it's in reference to this section. I don't think that that's

what they were referring to at all in that brief.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 67 pass?

MR. PHILLIPS: Just a moment. I want the Attorney General to

stand on the floor of this Legislature and tell me that this

licence is the licence to open a. service station. Is that what

you're saying?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It could include that.

MR. PHILLIPS: Could include that?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes. Definitely.

MR. PHILLIPS: And it's going to include that.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now listen, Mr. Attorney General, you're

saying here that the commission has the power to grant a

licence. A licence to what? That's all we want to know.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister has agreed to answer the

question.

MR. PHILLIPS: A licence to operate a service station —

is that what the licence is?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, that's right. It could very well be

of immense benefit to the service dealers of the Province of

British Columbia by limiting excessive numbers of service

stations in one locality.

The other day I read from the Alberta report about how a lot

of them are eking out a precarious living and putting in long

hours, never seeing their families, because of a costly,

wasteful duplication of services in one area. That's been a

matter of concern to Alberta and it's a matter of concern to

British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is it better that they be unemployed?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, but better that you have some

control over the numbers so you don't have a lot of people

starving in order to carry this service to the public. That's

about it.

[ Page 2811 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: I don't know who gave you that

impression.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the Minister quoted from a

report and nothing he said there referred specifically to this

section, as far as I could see —

section 67, the one

we're allegedly on. Now maybe there is something else in that

report which does refer to this licensing provision. I haven't

heard it from him yet and I wonder whether he's going to put it

forward.

The other point is I wonder whether he would comment on the

briefs that he has received, if he's now in the process of

reading briefs, from the industry itself concerning the

reduction in the number of service stations in the province.

For example, Gulf Oil sent all Members of the Legislature a

letter. They claim — and I'm not saying they're right or

wrong — that they have substantially reduced the number

of service stations in the province over the last few years so

that the operators can do a little better.

I just wonder whether the Minister will indicate precisely

what type of problem we're now facing. It appears that the

industry itself has done quite a number of things to overcome

this and perhaps it simply isn't as large as he has stated

— and indeed as I stated myself at second reading of this

bill. Could he comment then on these two points?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: On the particular point as to whether

the ARA in this brief have supported licensing, I refer you…

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Number 67.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, that's what we're talking about.

They say in their brief: "We have provided some Members of the

Legislature with a draft of

an Act from the Province of Alberta

known as the Fuel Oil Licensing Act . Additional copies

of this Act are available today."

There's no question that they support the licensing

provisions that are in that Act. They're similar to our

own.

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

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, if the bill really is intending simply in

section 67 to license gas stations, why not have that spelled out clearly in

the section? The phrase that would concern me is the phrase "commence business."

Now there must be other areas of the petroleum industry where you commence business,

but you're not opening a gas station. It seems to me that this phrase "commence

business" could have any kind of

interpretation, almost any kind of job in the

petroleum industry.

If the intent of the section, as the Minister has said, is

to stop the opening of so many gas stations that none of them

can be really productive for the operator, it makes a lot of

sense to try and stop that happening. But the phrase "commence

business" seems to me to be far too wide a definition, of what

you are trying to do. Perhaps you could consider putting in the

words "commence business by opening a retail gasoline station," or some such thing.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, Mr. Chairman, if you turn back to

the definition

section on page 2, we're dealing with the

petroleum industry. It's defined there pretty exactly —

"distillation, refining, manufacture, storage of petroleum

products and wholesale or retail distribution." So it's not

everything, but it's pretty well tied down.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The First Member for Victoria.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Chairman, I would still like to know what

exactly they mean by the "licence" and what the requirements

would be to get a licence. I think that this board should not

have the power to decide whether the area in which a service

station is to be located is going to be productive or whether

it isn't. I'd like to know exactly what a man has to do to get

a licence.

Conceivably, the service station could already be there.

Under this

section he could be refused a licence.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or with change of ownership, the second

owner may not get a licence.

MR. MORRISON: That's right. The second owner may be unable

to get a licence in 1974 or 1975. So, I'd like to know exactly

what they have to do to get a licence and what is involved in

it. I don't believe that that's what ARA meant or the service

station operators meant in this section.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I can't say much more about that except

that the commission will hear representations in open hearings.

If they find there's a factor that where a licence should be

refused — say the undue exploitation of some other

operator — then they'll consider that. But that's the main

purpose of it. They'll listen to the ARA and other people. I

can't anticipate all the factors. They'll have to guide

themselves by the Act and the purposes of the Act.

MR. MORRISON: What you're saying, Mr. Chairman, is that at

this moment you don't know

[ Page 2812 ]

what is involved in getting a licence? What a man will have

to do?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Maybe somebody is deliberately selling

substandard products over a period of time. They might refuse a

licence on a ground like that, as they could under the Alberta

thing. It could be a ground.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, when one examines this Act one

becomes deeply concerned about previous statements that have

been made by Members of the government at other times. The

first thing that I would like to refer to is when the Minister

was reading from the ARA report…I think he has to accept

that the ARA in many ways is a very fine organization, but

there are many principles that they've been asking for that do

not have the support of the majority of the dealers in British

Columbia.

What so many have said so clearly is that the f.o.b. tank

wagon price is the real core of their problem. I don't think

the Attorney General should confuse the issue on this

section

with something that we all agree with.

What concerns us in part, and some of the operators, Mr.

Minister, is that on repeated occasions and on committees held

by this House in, past years, the government Members have

stated very clearly that they felt the government should go

into the petroleum industry. There have been expressions of

concern about the role of private operators in this industry.

This section, as I understand it, could lead to the time when

the government is in the petroleum industry — when they

have their own government outlets — that this commission

would have the right, through this section, to give

preferential treatment to government outlets as far as

licensing is concerned, This would be just one more way of

seeing independent operators who are successful, who maybe are

not members of the ARA ' who want to be competitive, who are

willing to work long hours — and some of them are making

big money — they would be just left to wither and die

away as has happened to the insurance industry in other areas.

It's a very dangerous section.

I'm sure the present Minister would not let anything like

this happen, but we must be concerned for the future, Mr.

Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman.

HON-MR. MACDONALD: There's no power in this legislation for

the government to go into the gasoline business.

MRS. JORDAN: No, no. But there are these statements on the record that

this is the government's intention or wish. But, to have that wish on the record

and this type of licensing power in the legislation could lead to a highly complex

and undesirable situation in British Columbia. While Mr. Pattullo's embalmed

in his grave, bless his heart he was a great Premier — you'd be embalming the

independent operators in the future through selective licensing because the

government would want, in essence, a strong position in the retail and wholesale

distribution of petroleum products in British Columbia. We can't support this

possibility.

MR.CHAIRMAN: The First Member for Victoria.

MR. MORRISON: Just one more question, Mr. Chairman. Does this give them

in the licensing authority the ability to require that any service station operator,

in order to get a licence, must also be unionized?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's not in this bill. No, there would

have to be factors in the bill. The licensing would be governed

mostly by

section 76.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for South Peace River.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Attorney General has said that there are a

lot of service station operators working long hours and they

have been put on by the oil company. What, in essence, you are

attacking is not necessarily the service station operator, but

you're attacking the franchise system, period. Because you can

pick any franchised dealer anywhere where there is pressure

from the company whose products he is selling. So is this just

the beginning? Are you going to go around and say to people who

operate A & W hamburger joints that they're working too

long hours? They are a franchise dealer. Are you going to

control where they are going to go? Are they going to be

next?

You're involved in a principle here. Although you say that

many of the service station operators have been put upon, I

know the majority of service station operators in this province

have been by and large successful. Many of them have gone on

from starting out as service station operators to become

automobile dealers…

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Politicians. There's one over there.

MR. PHILLIPS: …politicians.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Going from bad to worse.

MR. PHILLIPS: We're involved in a principle of

[ Page 2813 ]

the whole franchise system. Because a minority of service

station operators have complained to their organization, it's

mainly because of…What you're going to give this commission

the right to do is to go into what has previously been a free

enterprise system and now you're going to regulate it. You're

going to say whether you're going to go into a community…and you don't know in what community — and this

commission's going to be pretty busy.

Supposing there are plans to put a subdivision out here. The

commission is going to be able to say to the oil company, "No,

you can't build a service station there." And a few years

later, when there's no space left and the land price has gone

sky-high and there's a need for that utility in that particular

area, then what you could eventually do by all your regulations

here — if your commission doesn't have the proper

foresight — you could actually increase the cost of

gasoline to the retail customer. That's exactly what could

happen.

If you're going to regulate whether these service stations

can have a licence or not — you might not like the looks

of the outside of one and you want to close it down. This is a

far, far, far, too, too, too broad a power so far as I'm

concerned. The only thing I can do I guess, is vote against the

section because there's no way to amend it. It just gives too

much power. It's more sand; only this time it's sand in the

gears of individual enterprise.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Kamloops.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): I thought I'd have a few words

to say on service station licensing and service station leases

granted.

I've worked in the refinery in Kamloops for 16 years and

I've had three employers without ever leaving the plant that I

first started to work in. They were faced with a rather

embarrassing situation when British-American bought out

Royalite, with service stations on opposite corners and a B/A

truck making the haul for the delivery. (Laughter). So one

station had to go.

This was compounded a few years later when Gulf bought out

B/A and you would have three service stations on three

different corners with the same line hauler dumping off the

product. So I can see why Gulf closed down service stations as

stated in the brief they submitted. Of course they did. They

were faced with a problem of distinctively built service

stations that tied into the company marketing programme. It was

impossible to put the Gulf signs on the Royalite stations which

were distinctively built for the Royalite company. Where these

dealers went, I don't know. Maybe the company offered them new

jobs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the First Member for Victoria.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Chairman, before we leave this section,

the Minister referred to

section 76 as being the answer to a

question that I asked on 67. I fail to see where the reference

is there. I would like to have it on the record for sure that

the Minister did say that under this licensing

section there

was no way that any service station would be required to have a

union contract in order to get a licence. I want that, without

question, on the record for this point.

I would also like to add one further point which was an

aside to something he said, stating that service station

operators sometimes end up in the Legislature. I'll be honest

with you. I'm not sure that that's a step forward.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There's nothing about that in the Act.

That's all I can say.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 67 pass?

Section 67 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Nunweiler

Nicolson

Brown

Radford

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Lorimer

Calder

Skelly

Lea

Young

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Liden

NAYS — 12

Richter

Chabot

Jordan

Smith

Fraser

Phillips

Morrison

Schroeder

Gardom

Anderson, D.A.

Curtis

Wallace

PAIRED

Williams, R.A.

Williams, L.A.

Hartley

Brousson

McGeer

King

Bennett

Cocke

Lewis

McClelland

section 68.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace

River.

[ Page 2814 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: I would like the Attorney General to tell me

— I know he can't tell me exactly — but in what

price range is this tax on individual enterprise going to be?

How much are we talking about? $400? $1,000? All it is is a

tax on individual enterprise that you're setting up here. More

taxes. You go ahead and say you're not increasing taxes. Every

piece of legislation; all it does is increase taxes. More

taxes. Taxes, taxes, taxes.

Would you give me an idea, Mr. Attorney General?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There's nothing in here about a charge

for the licence.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, I see. Are you assuring me that it isn't

going to cost anything? Is that what you're telling me?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We're just dealing with the section.

There's nothing in here that gives the commission power to

charge for the licence, in this section.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: In

section 68, the commission here, with

the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, may require

any person to obtain a licence. This is presumably a person

still engaged in the business at the moment. I would like to

know why this

section was written in the way it was and not

similar to the

section above for those who are presently in the

business. And why is this discretionary?

The problem I see arising — and it may be hypothetical

but nevertheless it's a fear of some people — is that

they won't be able to get a licence even though they're in

business. They'll continue in business and yet there's no way

that they can get hold of a licence and put their business

operations on a regular footing. They can apply to the

commission but there's no requirement of the commission to give

them a licence or even to consider their application.

We have a situation here where the commission has complete

discretionary power to say, "This particular service station

must apply for a licence; that one need not." They may leave

many years in between before they straighten out the whole

situation. I would like to know why the Minister did not simply

say that from this date, no person shall continue to be in

business in the petroleum industry without getting a licence

from the commission. Then you could deal with all the people at

once and put them all on a regular footing.

The uncertainty that exists here and the discretion to require some but not

others is not in keeping with the principles of law being fair and honest and

equal to all.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The

section is worded legally in terms

of eliminating discrimination between equal classes. The

commission would be upset in court the next day if it attempted

to discriminate within classes of occupation, within classes of

business or area. They must be fair and not discriminate.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I can see this.

Section (

b) and

thereafter talks about establishing classes of occupation and

rearranging the classes from time to time. But

section (

a) talks about people engaged in the petroleum industry

registering with the commission to obtain a licence. That's the

area where I'm worried about discrimination.

The fact of the matter is that some may want to get a

licence and the commission will say, "No, the only way you can

get a licence is when we ask you to apply." They have no right

to apply and get a licence and then put their minds at rest

about the future of their business, if that's the problem that

they're facing.

I really haven't had an adequate explanation from the

Attorney General as to why this discretionary power is there.

It would seem necessary and useful to put things on a regular

footing for all business in the province, whether new or

existing.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: In my opinion, they couldn't pick or

choose. They would have to apply standards that were well known

to all people fairly and equally. They couldn't discriminate,

even under (a).

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Right. If the commission requests any

service station operator, all other service station operators

in the same category could then apply for a licence at the same

time and they would have a legal right to have their

application considered.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's my opinion.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I trust it's right, Mr. Attorney

General.

Section 68 approved.

section 69.

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

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, we still don't know what rules

and regulations you're going to have before you're going to

issue one of these licences. As

[ Page 2815 ]

this

section says, it's in addition to all other licences

required; so it's a complete new licence. Is the licence going

to spell out certain requirements of that operator? Are there

going to be certain requirements before he can get the licence?

What are going to be the requirements? Is it going to be just

at the option of the two-man commission?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There's only one licence that could be

established under this Act. All this is saying is that if you

also have to be licensed by a municipality under the

Municipal Act . Well of course one doesn't affect the

other. That's all.

MR. PHILLIPS: That isn't what I said. You said the licence

required under this Act…oh, I'm sorry.

Section 69 approved.

section 70.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. First Member for Victoria.

MR. MORRISON: I'd like some

definitions in

section 70 in (

a) concerning the form and manner as to what type of information

they're going to required; in (

b) as to what type of fee we can

anticipate; and in (

f) the returns and statements to be made by

the licensee for information to the commission. I'd like to

have some more detail on these if I may, please.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's impossible for me to outline the

kinds of forms that will be required, but they will have to be

consistent with what are standards set in this Act. You can't

ask some unreasonable questions.

You mentioned one thing about trade union organization. Well

that couldn't be in here because it's not part of the Act.

On the other points, I can't read the minds of the Executive

Council in the future, say, as to the amount of a fee. The

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council will fix that.

I don't think this is intended to be a revenue-raising Act

— put it that way.

Sections 70 and 71 approved.

section 72.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Second Member for

Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Is this to prevent the sale of licences, or at least

the market in licences which exists in such things as the egg board or milk

marketing in other areas? When licences are established, when you restrict entry

into an industry, which I believe is one of the intentions of this Act, you

do create a market in licences. That has happened in just about every area where

governments have tried to regulate industries by this method. What I want to

know is whether this is deliberately designed to cut out, for example, the milk

licences which are now of considerable value to those people who had herds at

the beginning of the system. I think we mentioned the other day that they now

run $37 a pound for milk per day, which is a substantial amount of money for

a licence. Is this the objective of this particular section?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It would give that power. It's similar

to the Alberta Act. It would also give the power to refuse to

transfer to somebody who had a long experience, say, of

breaking the standards in

section 76. It would give that

power.

Generally, the philosophy of this government is that people

should not have to lay out large capital sums in order to

engage in an occupation.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: But the fact of the matter is, Mr.

Attorney General, that the inevitable effect of this Act is

precisely that. If you restrict entry to the people who want to

come in, there has to be some regulatory agency to sort them

out; to say only one out of two can come in. Now is it to be,

as is happening in the agricultural industry with eggs,

poultry, milk and other things, by way of a very heavy entry

fee to purchase existing licences? That's the point I'm

after.

This commission has far more powers in terms of overseeing

the individuals in the industry than I expected.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: This would give the commission power to

receive a submission that licences should not be up for sale at

prices which make it difficult for young people coming up in

the world to, say, become service station dealers.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: But how do you do that?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That will be a hearing before the

commission. I can't prescribe the terms on which they might

consent to a transfer at this time. They'd listen to argument.

If we're creating, as you say, a high price for licences in the

service station industry, I think the commission would want to

look at that in terms of opening it up to new people who want

to go to work.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well this is just critical, I think, to

this whole question of restricted entry to an industry. The

fact of the matter is that — and we'll

[ Page 2816 ]

take a hypothetical example. A man wishes to sell his

service station upon reaching retirement age; he puts it up for

sale; someone comes and says, "Ah, thanks to the government

closing down those on the other three corners, you've got the

only one." It's a valuable bit of property — a lot more

valuable than it would be if you had three others. Therefore,

he thinks the value of the property is $250,000 — a

quarter of a million dollars — because the government has

given him a little monopoly on the crossroads. Okay?

Now he decides to sell it. He's been working there five to

10 years after this Act came into force and he knows it's worth

a quarter of a million. He's got a couple of people who come

up, one of whom has been a lessee in another area and who can

put up the money required with a bank loan and a loan perhaps

under the Industrial Development Corporation or anything else.

Another fellow is a young chap of say 23, 24, a good mechanic,

good guy who wants to get, into business — but really

and truly what you are going to do is cut him out because he

won't have the ability to attract capital that the fellow of 50

will have.

If you set up restricted entry you have set up a situation

in which you must address yourself to the problem of dealing

with purchasing the licence, because it's the restriction which

really makes this a valuable corner; it's not everything else.

Sure, the buildings are worth something. Sure, the goodwill is

worth something. But it's the monopoly situation that you have

created which really creates the wealth or value of that

property.

I would like to know whether at that stage in my hypothetical situation the

commission is going to say, "Gee, this older chap looks as though he can hack

it; but on the other hand the age structure of the industry is such that there

are very few young people who own service stations. We're going to give it to

him." If that's the case — if you give it to the younger guy — what about the

guy retiring? Is he going to have the value of the property reduced to $150,000

because the young chap can't afford to put up the full value or can't attract

the capital or the credit to put up the full value of that corner? In that case

is the retiring person to be cut out of the true value of the property and licence?

Alternatively, if you sell it for $250,000 to the highest bidder, are you going

to come in with your commission and say, "Look, $100,000 of that $250,000 is

the value of the licence. We gave you the licence; therefore we own the $100,000

value of your property." Now this is the area we're in. It's really quite interesting.

It has just bedevilled the agricultural industry wherever there are marketing

schemes and production licences. We are in a similar area here, in my opinion.

And I would like to know exactly how they're going to go about it, because the

question of philosophy here could be very critical to how effective your regulation

of the petroleum industry is to be.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The commission will have to consider

that, including the remarks of the Hon. Member. It's a new area

in this field but not in, say, liquor or in many other fields.

We don't want to create any inequities.

Of course the person transferring should have the full value

of his business when he retires. But to create a special added

equity in a licence just because there's been a public

franchise — no, we don't want to do that.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The government will take that back?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The great thing is to know now that

people who get licences under this scheme cannot sell them in

the future, cannot take advantage of their extra value. If they

don't know that now you're simply in deep, deep trouble in the

future. Because people will acquire service stations on the

assumption that they've got a licence, on the assumption that

they can continue to make the profits that the previous chap

did. Unless you establish now that the licence worth and the

licence value and the licence price is to be recovered by the

government and is not something which the service station

operator has a right to deal in, you're simply causing a lot of

grief in the industry.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Good remarks. Question on the

section.

Section 72 approved.

section 73.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: I think a lot of the remarks that were made on

section 2 by the Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A.

Anderson) apply here. The Attorney General must be aware that

it's the legitimate small dealer today who is deeply concerned

about this

section of the Act along with other sections. He's

got his capital invested. He's got his equity position. He's

put his years of work in. It's all very well for us to want to

provide opportunities for young people to get into independent

business. I think we all agree. But, Mr. Minister, we cannot do

that at the price and over the body of this generation.

[ Page 2817 ]

They have a right to achieve their equity when they sell,

and if the government is going to increase their equity value

on the basis of this licence…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, would the Hon. Member please obey the

Chair?

MRS. JORDAN: What did you say, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Member to tell me what

section she is speaking on.

MRS. JORDAN: Oh, 73 — the section…

MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe we're one

section behind that.

MRS. JORDAN: …that no licence shall be sold, assigned,

leased, transferred, mortgaged or hypothecated, devised or

disposed of in any manner whatsoever except with the prior

approval of the commission…"

AN HON. MEMBER: Right section, wrong bill!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Continue.

MRS. JORDAN: A lot of these licences have been done through

the municipalities in coordination with zoning and with other

municipal regulations and with town planning. They're concerned

that when the government gets into the licensing business,

although their licence complies now and their business was

built up on the basis of their ability to select a site and to

build that site up — and their personal reputation the

government will come in and do away with their business because

they wouldn't allow a transfer of licence.

Just on the basis that the Minister has said, they are going

to control…it will be possible to control how many gas

stations with be on each corner. They want to know what's going

to happen to them. They're glad to have their sons or their

neighbours' sons in the business if they want to go, but they

want their fair share of the pie that they've worked for.

There are really hundreds of thousands, millions of dollars

in British Columbia today that belong to small business people

in an equity position that are threatened by this

section of

the Act. I just wonder if the Hon. Attorney General realizes

that if he starts tampering in this area, he's almost bringing

on British Columbia, if it's carried out, a situation where to

be in the service station business in British Columbia will

simply be a matter of being an employee of the government.

There will be set salaries. There will be no incentives. There

will be no opportunity to build your own buildings.

There's legislation before this House now which indicates the right of the

Minister of Highways to purchase land at crucial corners, and this has much

merit. But with actions within this Act and the stated intentions of the government,

there's no question — we can see the government going in the retail service

station business, either as a branded or as an unbranded dealer.

This is what they're concerned about. While the Hon. Member

for Victoria has pointed out the danger of inflation in the

transfer of licences as has happened in the milk industry,

nonetheless, I submit that society and people today want to

have the opportunity for capital gain. It's a legitimate

acceptance in our society. There is a capital gains tax in

Canada. They pay their fair share of the tax load.

If you haven't got a licence of any value, if the government

owns the land and the buildings, after 20 years in the service

station industry what does a man have to sell when he

retires?

These are the questions, Mr. Minister, that they want to,

know, plus the fact that we cannot have a repetition of the

Land Commission Act in this Act, Mr. Minister, where

people who have equity, who have years of work, who are

independent, who want to be in the service station business

whether they are making money or not, must have the right to

sell that business on the basis of the equity, the goodwill

that they have built up.

The potential for that business, as the community or the

province expands, that's part of business. It's a part of the

business that government would enjoy if it was in the business.

The Minister can't convince me that they would say "No, no,

we're a charity" if they were in business. You'd want these

same benefits yourselves. You must be prepared, Mr. Minister,

to give these people the same benefits and assume

responsibility for losses that they suffer as a result of the

change and introduction of a new licensing structure.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Both remarks will be borne in mind, The

commission has to decide these things. Nobody wants to give an

artificial marketable value to a public licence, but everybody

wants the transfer of a business, of course. Question.

Section 73 approved.

section 74.

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

MR. CHABOT: Seventy-four is the

section which the government

is going to use to fix prices at the wholesale and the retail

level in the petroleum industry in British Columbia.

I don't like that terminology "price fixing" as you

[ Page 2818 ]

use in your section. I don't know, it might be in

contravention of the Combines Act — the federal

Combines Act .

This price fixing, you know, is illegal under the laws of

this country. How can you enshrine in legislation right here in

section 74 something that is in contravention of a federal

statute? That's what you're doing — suggesting that

prices should be fixed. You're going to destroy competition

between small service station operators in British

Columbia.

You might not believe, and some of your backbenchers might

not believe there is competition. But there is competition. The

markup is different in many areas. I know little service

station operators that give you for cash or credit card a 10

per cent discount for coming to their service station. That's

competition, and that's why the little service station that I

just referred to has the volume he has, because he's willing to

bargain in the free competitive society in which we live.

But this

section is going to destroy the competitiveness

which presently exists, even though it might be in a limited

way in certain places. The government here says that they're

going to fix the prices at the retail level. Are they going to

make it in such a way that it will no longer be economic for

the small operator to operate his service station?

Is it the intention of the government to remove the markup

on a gallon of gasoline from the 10 to 13 cent level down to

the 6 cents per gallon level? Is that the intention of the

government?

Is it the intention of the government to break the small

service station operators in British Columbia?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No!

MR. CHABOT: Because this legislation or this

section gives

you the power to break every little service station operator in

British Columbia. Is it your intention…?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No!

MR. CHABOT: …by reducing the commission which a service

station operator can charge, to make it no longer economic? Is

it your intention then to make…

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No!

MR. CHABOT: You don't even know what question I'm going to

ask before you start saying no. Is it the intention of the

government…

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No! (Laughter).

MR.CHABOT: …to make every service station operator an employee…?

MRS. JORDAN: Don't confuse the Minister with the facts.

MR. CHABOT: Is this your intention, to have everyone who's

dispensing petroleum products in British Columbia become an

employee? And if it is, is it your intention to force them all

into trade unions, as the Minister of Labour has indicated is

his prime objective — to organize all the workers in

British Columbia into trade unions? Is that your intention, to

make all these people, by the enforcement of

section 74, become

employees so that you can bring them into trade unions?

There are a lot of people out there that don't want to

belong to trade unions. They should have that right. This

legislation makes it possible for you to force people into

trade unions by destroying the competitiveness that exists

between service stations. You can force them into an

employee/employer relationship. It's a terrible section. The

whole principle of the bill is unacceptable.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You don't mean that, surely?

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the

section is unacceptable

to us in its present form. Also, I find many areas in it where

the wording doesn't seem to make a great deal of sense. I'm not

going to try to repeat a speech that was made on second

reading. We passed the question of principle. The government

has accepted this as principle so we're now at this stage

trying to doctor up the words of various sections, and trying

to make it a bill which is slightly better than it otherwise

would be.

In the second line, it goes: "With the approval of the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council fix prices or maximum or minimum

prices…" Now would it not be better simply to have "maximum

and minimum prices" to allow the private sector the certain

area in which they can operate instead of putting down and

fixing specific prices and then as well fixing maximum and

minimum? Would it not be possible simply to give them some range in which they can work rather

than going ahead and saying fixed prices here, but in other

places it's going to be…?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's probably what they're going to

do.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, that may be probably what they'll

do, but our problem is that we don't like the principle of

this, and we would like to have more certainty, so that at

least we can tell the

[ Page 2819 ]

people who are concerned what we've passed in the

Legislature, and how it will affect them.

The second point that I would like to make is on 2 (b): "fix

different prices for licensees, notwithstanding that they are

in the same class of occupation." I questioned this type of

clause earlier in

section 68, and I got the statement from the

Attorney General that you can't treat people differently. When

it comes to handing out licences they all, if they are in the

same category, must be treated the same, according to legal

principles which he did not enunciate at the time.

Here we are apparently making a specific legal exception

from the rule that he mentioned earlier, which was equal

treatment for all categories of citizens in the same class. I

would think that (

b) is very dangerous if ever misused, and it

is the type of power which we should not permit a commission to

have because if you don't give powers that can be misused, they

can't be misused. So we in this Legislature, in my view, should

not have 2(

b) in the Act. I wonder if the Attorney General

would comment on these two points.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Fort George.

MR. A.A. NUNWEILER (Fort George): Yes, Mr. Chairman, it

would seem to me that when we have a situation in our part of

the province where petroleum products such as natural gas,

which comes from the northern part of the province and goes by

our doorstep — the consumers for natural gas pay more in

Prince George than consumers in Seattle pay for the same gas

— yet it travels another 600 miles. Also, at the same

time we have the transmission line of crude oil going by our

doorstep to Vancouver. You can buy gasoline in Vancouver for

about 10 or 20 per cent less than we in Prince George pay, and

yet we have an oil refinery on our doorstep.

It seems to me that prices are being fixed by the private

sector, and we do not need some price setting to establish fair

rates for consumers throughout the province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Chilliwack.

MR. SCHROEDER: My question has to do with the fixing of prices, both

maximum and minimum. You know, Mr. Minister through the Chair, that we have

in existence in the Province of British Columbia several different kinds of

discount gasoline distributors at the retail level. Is the intention of this

section to fix the price so that they are allowed to operate within a range?

Or is the price fixing so severe that they are forced to sell at only one price,

so that every vendor will be selling at the same price throughout the province?

Or will they be allowed a range in which, just not more than…?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SCHROEDER: I see, and you have no forecast on that.

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

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I think that part of the intent

of this bill is good. The point raised by the Member for Fort

George is something that we would like to see made more just

and fair.

But the language in this

section "fix prices," and

without limiting the generality of the same, we don't like this

very widespread definition and the tremendous scope which the

section gives. We feel that it could be better worded to more

accurately define exactly this kind of problem which the Member

for Fort George has just described.

Again, I suppose we come back to a differing philosophy. We

don't believe that there is a necessity for government, through

its commission, to gain this all-encompassing and rigid control

of prices.

As I said earlier in the House, a gallon of gas has gone up

by 11 cents since 1959. O.K., we've had technological

improvements, and we've had more efficient ways of producing

and distributing and refining and so on, but the fact is that

in real terms, the degree to which the price of gasoline has

gone up in the last 14 years is a great deal less than almost

all the commodities that are so essential to our daily

activities.

We believe that there is competition. We don't believe that

everything is well in the industry, and some measure of

regulation is required. But, as I said on second reading, this

bill goes much too far, in the power it gives to the

commission. And

section 74 really sums up, or best exemplifies

in specifics, what we oppose in general about this bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Attorney General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: …the Pacific Petroleum refinery at

Taylor, and I think about half the people are in one riding,

and half are in another.

Now if you ever had a profitable operation that has been

exploiting the people of the north, just look at Pacific Pete

(Petroleum). It's not only — you try and get a financial

statement to begin with. I've seen one, and I think the Hon.

Member for Fort George (Mr. Nunweiler) saw one. We read not

only about the extent of the profits of that refinery, which

are very extensive — my recollection is $30 million a

year — but they…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

[ Page 2820 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Taxes — that's the point I'm

making. On the bottom of their balance sheet they have a little

footnote, and it says: "We have built up tax credit reserves in

spite of these profits so that there will be no danger,"

they are telling their shareholders, "of paying any federal

income tax for the next five or six years." They pay no income

tax at all. And what do they do to you constituents? They are

situated right there in the area and they charge your

constituents more for the gasoline than is charged to the

people of Vancouver.

You're being discriminated against. And if you don't fight

for this section, you're not fighting for the people of the

north. Now let's transfer this debate up into your riding

— with a copy of that annual report of Pacific Petroleum:

and a copy of the records of this Legislature when we see how

you people vote on

section 74. And I say it is up to you now to

think about this carefully and protect your own

constituents.

We do believe in equalizing that price of gasoline

throughout the Province of British Columbia. I am not speaking

for Vancouver East when I say that, I am speaking for the

hinterland of British Columbia. Yes, and so should you be

speaking for the hinterland of British Columbia.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: And if you draw our teeth by not

supporting this section…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No. If we emasculated that

section we

would not be able to equalize that price of gasoline throughout

British Columbia. Just as the price has already been equalized

for a bottle of Scotch whisky, so should it be equalized for

that essential utility service, that gallon of gasoline.

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

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Chairman, now the

Attorney General is going to water the gasoline.

(Laughter).

I'd like to begin my comments by replying to what the

Attorney General has just said in this debate and on this

section.

The committee of this House studied the f.o.b. refinery price of gasoline throughout

the Province of British Columbia not too long ago, at a previous session. At

that time the committee found out that the tank wagon price of gasoline f.o.b.

at the refinery wherever the refinery may be located in the Province of British

Columbia. In the f.o.b. price there was less than 2 cents a gallon difference

in the price of gasoline between the furthest north refinery in the Province

of British Columbia, which happens to be the Pacific refinery at Taylor, and

the refinery or refineries in the Vancouver area.

A few years ago that statement would not have been true,

because there was a great discrepancy at that time in the

f.o.b. refinery price of gasoline in the Province of British

Columbia. But that discrepancy was removed by the petroleum

industry and there was a leveling out of the wholesale price of

gasoline throughout the whole Province of British Columbia to

the extent that less than 2 cents per gallon difference exists

at the refinery level anywhere in British Columbia.

If you enact this section, what you are saying is that you

have the power to dictate to every individual dealer the retail

price for gasoline. And this is a decision the dealer himself

should make.

I could take you into many parts of northern British

Columbia and go throughout those particular areas and

communities and show you anywhere from 2 to 8 cents a gallon

difference in the price of gasoline at the pump. That is up to

the retail dealer as to what he does.

There is a problem as I see it in operating a retail

gasoline outlet or service station in the north as compared to

the southern part of the province. I feel that the people who

do operate in the climatic conditions that they have to face in

the north and operate not only in the area of selling gasoline

but servicing vehicles, do require a larger markup.

The reason they require a larger markup is that in the

winter months to even do an oil change on a car they have to

take that car in and thaw it out. They have to put it in

storage — they have to put the car in a warm, enclosed

area for an hour before they can work on it. Now that costs

money and they should be entitled to reflect some of that cost,

not only in the price that they charge for the use of their

premises but also in the price that they charge for the sale of

gasoline or oil products. They're doing that and they make no

bones about that fact, that it costs them more to service

vehicles in those parts of the country.

They charge more, certainly, and they should be entitled to.

Because a man in Vancouver, unless the conditions are extreme,

can drive his car into a service bay, have the oil changed, a

grease job, gasoline service, and have it out within half an

hour. But you can't do that in the north under climatic

conditions that we have from the end of October right through

to the end of March.

This is why the price at the retail level fluctuates. It

also fluctuates at the wholesale level.

The f.o.b. refinery price, the last time it was investigated

by a committee of this House — and it

[ Page 2821 ]

was investigated thoroughly — the f.o.b. refinery

price of gasoline varied less than 2 cents between the

refineries in the southern part of British Columbia, the

refinery in Prince George and the refinery in the North Peace

at Taylor. That's right. That's right, Mr. Attorney

General.

So that is a fact that the f.o.b. refinery price of gasoline

at the wholesale level varied less than 2 cents a gallon. So.

what you are doing with this

section is forcing the retail

dealer into a situation where the government through the

commission will dictate to that dealer the markup on gasoline.

We don't support that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: First Member for Victoria.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to also add that

you can find those kind of price fluctuations right here in the

City of Victoria. There are service stations not too far from

this building in which gas is 7 to 8 cents, and one in

particular that I can think of where it is 9 cents a gallon

less than the service station within a block of it.

The customer has the right at that point to choose whether

he wants his car washed for nothing or if he wishes to pay for

it; and if he doesn't want his car washed at all he can have it

at the lower price.

Personally I can't see if this is legal and I'd like to have

the Minister assure us that this does not contravene any

federal Act for price fixing. Secondly, I frankly think it is a

mistake to require an independent operator to fix his price at

the retail level because he gives the service; if the customer

doesn't want it, he doesn't need to go there.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, it's perfectly legal, I'd like to

say that we're primarily concerned with the f.o.b. refinery

price in the Province of British Columbia. This is the social evil. The dealer's

markup is not a social evil. The power is there to correct

abuses in either field. Make no mistake about that. But our

major concern is with the refineries. Let's be plain about

that.

MR. CHABOT: You have no intention of tampering with the

rights of the small service station operator to establish the

markup he feels is necessary to look after his own overhead and

facilities?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's up to the commission.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, you're suggesting the commission might start tampering

with a markup of a small service station in British Columbia. You're suggesting

they might be forced out of business, no longer economic to operate the service

station and become employees of the commission. Is this what you're suggesting?

I'll tell you that's the kind of legislation I won't support. The Minister saying

they are going to start tampering with the markup on gasoline in service stations

in British Columbia is despicable. It's despicable, rotten, socialist, left-wing

government action. That's all it is. Takeover legislation. Takeover legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Minister, your plea for many years in this

House was that the independent operator, the branded dealer,

the service station operator in British Columbia was under the

thumb of a gargantuan master, the oil companies. In this

legislation all you are doing is taking him from one master and

putting him under the thumb of another master — the

energy commission.

You're not standing up for the little guy at all. You say

well, we're primarily interested in the wholesale price at this

time and this is a legitimate concern. But it's at this time,

Mr. Minister.

What's going to preoccupy your mind and this commission's

mind next time? That's going to be the prices of the retail

operator. There are going to be people on there who don't know

boom-all about the problems involved in small business. You are

just changing one master from another.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 74 pass?

Section 74 approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for South Peace River.

MR. PHILLIPS: I have to agree with what the Attorney General

said when he says that he would like to see the retail price of

gasoline everywhere in the province equalized. Is that what you

said? Maybe this is as it should be, but before you start

involving him let me tell you what you're going to be

facing.

Your constituents in Vancouver East, Mr. Attorney General,

are going to pay more for their gasoline. You're against your

constituents. I'm going to go in Vancouver East I'm going to

tell about how you're shoving the price of gasoline up in your

constituency.

I'll tell you why. I can take you, Mr. Attorney General, to

places 500 miles up the Alaska Highway where the price of

gasoline is 15 to 20 cents higher than it is at Taylor,

B.C.

Now, your constituents, Mr. Attorney General, in Vancouver

East are going to be paying the price of trucking that gasoline

from Taylor to Fort Nelson, Mile 408, Watson Lake — your

constituents are going

[ Page 2822 ]

to be paying that, Mr. Attorney General. Your constituents,

Mr. Attorney General, are going to have to pay for those heavy

trucking costs on the Alaska Highway, that graveled highway

that the federal government won't even pave for us after the

U.S. government built it.

I'm trying to point out the dangerous ground the Attorney

General is on, very dangerous ground. We would have the City of

Vancouver subsidizing the retail price of gasoline for the

members of the north. I couldn't really be against that, could

I? However, the way you're doing this is giving your commission

power to set these prices and I don't think that they will take

all of these things into consideration. This commission is

going to be so busy. So we're going to be slugging it out in

the swamp again, and I'm going to have to vote against it.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I'm not worried about the

people of Vancouver East because there can be a general

reduction of the price of gasoline. Those people will back us

up in terms of a general restraint on price increases and

reasonable profits — not exorbitant profits —

throughout that oil company system.

You bet! Let's have it for Vancouver East and let's have it

for the Peace River. You fellows should support this section.

Let's see how you do it.

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

MR. SMITH: Yes, Mr. Chairman. If I had confidence in the

fact that really the only people that you were trying to get at

are the people who refine the gasoline and wholesale it out,

I'd be inclined to support this section.

But this section, Mr. Chairman, covers not only the

wholesale level of gasoline distribution but the retail level as well. In other words, you can set the price

at the retail level as well as the wholesale.

I agree with the Attorney General that there are different

wholesale prices for different customers in different areas.

That's been established. But the fact remains that the tank

wagon price f.o.b. the refinery to the retail trade varies less

than 2 cents a gallon between the northern and southern parts

of the province. That's been established.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Why shouldn't you have the cheapest gas

in the province when you've got that Taylor refinery and it's

making big profits? It's paying no taxes. Why shouldn't you

have the cheapest gas?

MR. SMITH: There's less than 2 cents difference between the

f.o.b. refinery price at Taylor and the f.o.b. price in Prince George or in Vancouver.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You should have the cheapest gas in the

Province of British Columbia.

MR. SMITH: What makes you think that it's 2 cents

higher, Mr. Attorney General, than it is in Prince George or

Vancouver?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you satisfied with the price in your

area?

MR. SMITH: I am suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that everyone

wants to get the product at the best price possible, regardless

of what that product might be, I'm suggesting that the retail

dealer should have the opportunity to set his markup himself,

not by legislation or by

an Act of the government. If you want

to help the retail dealer then look at the position and the

actual cost of manufacturing or producing gas and the markup

that the wholesaler takes at the refinery level.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We can't do it unless we pass this

section.

MR. SMITH: This

section is aimed at both wholesale and retail level.

As such, we cannot support it because it's aimed at the retail level, the little

dealer who has the right to set his markup.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The First Member for Victoria.

MR. MORRISON: I'd like to ask, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister

would give me a definition of the phrase he just used —

"a reasonable profit." I'd like it referred to the retail

market, not the wholesale market. I'd like to know what this

definition of "reasonable profit" is.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I would say that there are no

"reasonable prophets" on the other side of the House, because

they seem to think their political fortunes are on the rise and

their prophesy is hardly accurate.

MR. PHILLIPS: You don't know one profit from another

prophet.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We'd have to go back to

section 26 which

gives the commission the power to protect people against unjust

rates or discrimination within rates. That's up to the

commission.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Fort George.

MR. NUNWEILER: Mr. Chairman, I was just going

[ Page 2823 ]

to point out that there are many service stations that have

explained to many of us that they find themselves boxed-in in

situations where they find the oil company is retailing gas for

less than what they pay for it themselves. If there is ever a

vehicle required to protect the retailer and the consumer

against this type of abuse, it's time that we had one. This is

the only way it can be done.

We hear complaints about the word "fix," the definition of

"fix" is "to repair, to adjust, to revise, to fix thereon." So

therefore, Mr. Chairman, this is exactly what we're trying to

do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, during the election campaign

and prior to it I toured through the north a great deal. The

north was commonly known as the "seven safe Socred seats." When

I went through the area I was asked time and time again about

whether or not I agreed with Mr. Shelford in terms of

equalizing gasoline prices. Mr. Shelford campaigned through the

north, as some of you recall, for equalized gasoline prices. We

had a royal commission here in this House and we had

recommendations from that royal commission.

I said that if we were elected to government we would do

everything we could to give the people in the north an equal

break with the people in the south. The north, with the

refinery right up there at Taylor Flats, shouldn't subsidize

the south, but there should be equal opportunity and equal

access to gasoline at a fair price. Now, we made that statement

during the campaign. I campaigned through the north on that

pledge and that's what this

section is all about.

The northern people will have to see who voted for the

section an