1975 Legislative Session: 5th 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)

TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 1975

Night Sitting

[ Page

999 ]

CONTENTS

Committee of Supply: Department of Finance estimates.

On vote 60

Mr. Smith — 999

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 999

Mr. Morrison — 1000

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1000

Mr. Smith — 1000

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1000

Mr. Morrison — 1000

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1000

Mr. Smith — 1000

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1001

Mr. Schroeder — 1001

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1001

Mr. Curtis — 1002

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1002

Mr. Morrison — 1002

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1002

Mr. Smith — 1002

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1002

Mr. Smith — 1002

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1003

Mr. Morrison — 1003

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1003

Mr. Schroeder — 1003

Mr. Smith — 1003

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1004

Mr. Wallace — 1004

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1004

Mr. Bennett — 1005

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1005

Mr. Curtis — 1005

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1005

Mr. Chabot — 1006

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1006

Mr. Morrison — 1006

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1006

Mr. Wallace — 1006

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1007

Mr. Gardom — 1007

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1007

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1007

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1007

Mr. Chabot — 1008

Mr. Phillips — 1009

Mr. Smith — 1010

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1010

On vote 62.

Mrs. Jordan — 1011

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1011

Mrs. Jordan — 1011

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1012

Mrs. Jordan — 1012

Mr. Phillips — 1013

Mrs. Jordan — 1015

Division on motion that committee rise and report progress — 1015

Mrs. Jordan — 1015

Mr. Fraser — 1016

Mr. Phillips — 1016

Mrs. Jordan — 1020

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1020

Mrs. Jordan — 1020

Department of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 3.

Mrs. Jordan — 1021

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the day.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Dent in the chair.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

(continued)

On vote 60: incidentals, $4,119,076

Mr. D.E. Smith (North Peace River): Mr. Chairman, as

I mentioned before the supper hour adjournment, there are a

couple of things in this vote which I find very interesting.

Before it goes through I think that we should have an

explanation from the Hon. Premier as to what it's all

about.

While I don't wish to dwell on it at any great length, I'd

like to reflect back on a previous vote in which we looked at

an increase in salaries from $800,000 to $1,600,000, doubling

the amount of money appropriated for that purpose. The

explanation given by the Minister at that time on vote 54 was

the fact that this was to catch up. So, really, it wasn't a 59

or 60 per cent increase overall in the salary vote; it was

really a matter of catching up on salary increases that would

be payable for existing employees plus the fact that the new

employees who came into the particular control and audit

branch, which would increase it from 76 to 121 persons, would

have to be paid, so that part of the increase or the doubling,

really, of the salary in that vote would go towards catch-up

salary for those people presently employed, as I understood it,

by the government, as well as those new people coming on to the

payroll. And we accepted the Premier's explanation.

Now we get down to vote 60 and we find there is a salary

contingency in the vote of $3,354,076. We've been told that

this salary contingency — as it's now shown as a new vote in

every department — is for the exact purpose that the Premier

told us this afternoon: it was involved by increasing the

salary vote under vote 54 from $800,000 to $1,698,000.

It seems to me that we're entitled to a reasonable

explanation as to why the Department of Finance or any other

department requires a salary contingency of that amount of

money when we've already been told that in previous votes,

under the same Minister's estimates, we've provided for

catch-up salaries for those people presently employed, and in

some cases we've provided for additional salaries for new

employees within the civil service.

I think we have to question the type of accounting taking place not only under

the Minister of Finance — and we'll deal with that because we are on his estimates

— but also in many departments of government.

While I am not permitted to reflect upon other votes at this

time because we are not at that particular stage of the debate,

I think it's fair to observe that in many, many departments the

salary contingency varies anywhere from 5 per cent to as high

as 15 per cent of the total vote in some cases. In past years

we had one lump sum in the Minister of Finance's estimates to

take care of this particular situation. This year it's been

split up and placed in each department, and we agree with that.

If you are going to do that, fine; you take the collective

total and you know how much the salary contingencies will be

for the total government operation.

But, Mr. Chairman, we were told in an earlier vote that a

substantial amount of the increase in that vote was due to two

things: salary catch-up and increased civil service. Now we

have a contingency fund of $3,354,000 in that one area. I think

we are entitled to an explanation from the Premier as to what

this money is for. If he already provided in earlier votes for

catch-up salaries and increased civil service, what is this

figure all about? Is it a padding? Or do we have to believe

that mush of the budget and many of the figures that are

contained therein are nothing but guesstimates — that they

are not even accurate estimates?

Hon. D. Barrett (Premier): Mr. Member, you are

correct in your observation. I am advised that this is a figure

based on whether there are any staff approved or any approvals

needed during the year.

As you understand, we are going on global figures this year.

We're going to have to change our policy, and if there are new

staff approved, depending on the pressures that we receive

during the year.... So it's not an entire commitment for that

amount.

The other thing is salary increments, overtime and salary

adjustments.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: For the 1975-76 bargaining year —

that's correct. The reason why we split it out is so that we

could have a closer look ourselves at each department's

projection.

Now the projections are not necessarily for that total

amount. It depends on whether or not Treasury Board does give

approval during the year. We've asked them to look to maximum

figures so that we avoid the position of having overruns or

unjustified demands on areas that we might not have projected

in terms of the kind of pressures that we get. I'm hopeful, for

example, that we won't have a duplication of the same problem

brought to our attention by the Member for Saanich (Mr. H.A.

Curtis), but if we do I want some flexibility in the

[ Page 1000 ]

department to respond quickly, and the process would be, of

course, to get approval from the Public Service Commission and

then, through there, the approval of the job descriptions of

the staff, if necessary. Then, once approved, the money's in

the budget. But the salary increments, the overtime and the

salary adjustments, I am advised, are also covered in this

figure.

We have gone into collective bargaining and it's a brand new

process. But we have not finished the collective bargaining, so

it's very difficult for us to give total definitive

figures.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, hopefully, in terms of fiscal

year. So that covers the explanation, Mr. Member. It's our

first year at it and we'll see within one year's time where

we're at in terms of our projections.

Mr. N.R. Morrison (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, does that

mean, then, that if there are any increases in salaries or any

additional staff this year you'll not need the order-in-council

method of handling it this year?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: The order-in-council will only be

for the permanent staff, not for additional funds — just for

staff. If they're approved, they go through the Public Service

Commission and Treasury Board, and if they're approved, the

funds are here already. That's the idea. All we need is the

order-in-council to appoint, but not an order-in-council for

further money.

Mr. Smith: Before the vote passes, Mr. Chairman, I

still find trouble reconciling the remarks of the Premier with

what I was referring to earlier, and that is the fact that if

you're going to break the anticipated increases in salary and

staff down on each departmental vote as a salary contingency,

fine — I don't disagree with that. That's one figure you have

to have in each department, then, instead of a lump sum under

your particular estimates. But we see in many departments —

yours and other departments — as you look through the estimates

that the salary figure included for each department is

substantially increased.

Now if that was to take care only of salary increments and catch-up pay, how

much catch-up pay would be involved, then, in your department if you go up from

$800,000 to $1.6 million? That's a 100 per cent increase. You've doubled the

figure in your department. Are you going to pick up the new staff and their

salaries under this final vote or one of the final votes in every department

which is labelled "salary contingencies," or not? If you are, why have you

provided for these extra funds back in earlier votes, not only within your own

department but in other departments?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, I am advised that the

old system was always a year behind. What we've done is to put

the year behind (that's the catch-up) plus the projections and

global figures. The old system was criticized by us, when we

were in opposition, and by yourselves because the old system

was one total figure for the whole civil service. That figure

could be anything, and what you ended up with was something

remote. You never knew, department by department, how that

figure affected each department.

So what we're dealing with is the old system, and we're

eliminating that by being a year behind; and we're putting the

one year plus the next year's projections in that figure for

each department. It's the first time, and we'll have an idea

then, after a year, as to how accurate we are in those

projections. We frankly don't know exactly at this point. But I

think we're going to be closer to accuracy than the old system

of the lump figure.

Mr. Morrison: I don't want to belabour the point

because I think I know what you're driving at, and I don't want

to include other votes, but I find in this particular one that

we're talking about $3.5 million, and that's strictly for the

Finance department as such. I notice the salary contingency for

Human Resources is $13 million and the salary contingency for

Labour is $1.8 million.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You're absolutely right, Mr.

Member. Of course, it would have been easier for the government

to just say: "Okay, we'll put X lump in there and, whatever it

is, it doesn't have to be close to it." This is a better system

of accounting. We'll know in a year's time, when we come back

to the estimates, just how close we are.

Mr. Morrison: Well, I can't help but pass the point,

but I wonder where your reserves were. I guess this is where

you were going to try and save some money.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, Mr. Member, you can be darn

sure that I don't intend to go into any deficit. I don't intend

to. You are talking about margins of operations — certainly if

we are forced to paring, and if revenue doesn't keep up with

our projection, zap! — that's one area.

Mr. Smith: I appreciate the Hon. Premier's explanation, but what it

really boils down to is this: prior to this year we had a lump-sum figure...

[ Page

1001 ]

Hon. Mr. Barrett: That's right.

Mr. Smith: ...to reflect the salary increases, the

increments and possible increases of staff in every department

of government. So the Department of Finance, collectively, got

together and looked over all the departments and they put one

figure into the budget.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: It was always a year behind.

Mr. Smith: As you say, perhaps a year behind. But on

the basis you have now there is no reason for us to believe

that this will be any more accurate than in previous methods of

budgeting, because in each case the figure included for each

department, apparently — from what I understand and from what I

hear — is a ballpark figure. It could be well above any

increments or well below, depending upon who pulled the figures

out of the air. Is that the type of budgeting we are faced

with?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No, Mr. Member. It's quite true,

without any negativism, that the system we inherited was a

pulling of the figure out of the air and always a year

behind.

What we've done is said: "Okay, take care of that year

behind plus the present year's projections." Now if they don't

meet that, what we are faced with is a maximum figure here, and

I don't anticipate we will meet that figure, perhaps, in every

department. I hope not. But it is a more open method of

accounting by each department being responsible directly,

rather than going into the lump-sum figure.

Now the lump-sum figure would avoid all of this debate. It

would leave the opposition handicapped, as we were. But we

listened to the opposition last year. They said, "Break it out

into each department so it can be more adequately discussed."

We followed the opposition's advice.

This is the first year. Now how it works, we'll know after

one year. From a government point of view, we hope it works

well. From an opposition point of view, perhaps you hope it

doesn't. We have changed the system. It is far more open and

honest. We'll see how it works in a year's time.

Mr. H.W. Schroeder (Chilliwack): Mr. Chairman, with

all respect to the Minister of Finance, how did the figure

$3,354,076 come to be? It must be a percentage of something.

There must be some way you can arrive at that particular

number.

Let's compare it, for instance, with vote 56, which has already passed, Mr.

Chairman, but which total vote for the entire taxation administration is $3,355,324

— again an odd number — but here, a contingency. If it were just a provision,

as the Premier and Minister of Finance would have us believe, it should more

aptly be determined as $3,350,000 even. How did we come to the $076? Is it

a percentage of something?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No, this department is more

precise, Mr. Member, than others, Mr. Schroeder: Precise on what, though?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: The projections were based on what

they anticipated they might ask for as a maximum.

Mr. Schroeder: You must have had a formula.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, the formula is based on each

department estimating in terms of maximum pressure what they

would be faced with, plus a rounded out figure of a guess in

terms of collective bargaining. We don't know the results of

bargaining.

Mr. Schroeder: And the $76?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Ah, well, $75, $74, you know....

Look, we had no basis in the past. None. This time....

Mr. Schroeder: You must have some basis — they are all

the same.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes, I'm trying to explain it to

you. The basis this time is what.... We don't know the results

of bargaining. We can make some projections, but I don't want

to start throwing figures out because we are going to be into

bargaining, and that would be bad for us to start throwing

figures out on what we consider to be the bargaining results

when we haven't even started bargaining. We might do better. I

hope we do. But I don't want to reveal that figure. That would

be pretty foolish.

So what I am saying is that it depends on what the

department itself estimated plus our own guideline of what we

hope for in bargaining.

Mr. Schroeder: In your bargaining process, to you,

Mr. Minister of Finance, through the Chair, can you not

determine by the percentage of bargaining over the past year

what the approximate figure could be? Has that led you to the

percentage figure that would lead you to the eventual figure of

$3 million? It's an odd number. It's a very, very strange

number. It doesn't look like a guesstimate to me, sir.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: It's a very odd department.

(Laughter.)

[ Page 1002 ]

Mr. H.A. Curtis (Saanich and the Islands): The

Minister of Finance indicated just a few moments ago that — I

believe he said — "This department is more precise than

others." But if, with your indulgence, we look ahead to

Highways, we see a similarly odd figure — salary contingencies

of $7,834,200. Even in a relatively small department such as

Housing, $690,240.

So I think the point made by the Member for Chilliwack and

the First Member for Victoria is valid. What formula has been

brought into play to produce these rather odd figures?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I am advised that the formula was

to estimate on actual salaries plus a rounded figure on what

was agreed would be the bargaining target. The actual salaries

that exist now are based on their projects if they were to add

staff, and that would be governed by Treasury Board. So that's

the two bases of the formula.

Mr. Morrison: Obviously, then, you're looking for

considerable staff increase in all the departments.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No.

Mr. Morrison: Well, look at the Department of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources just for one second. The increases

in there are salary contingency of $1,401,169; $7,917,269;

$1,720,936 — and that's just the first three departments.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I'm sorry that we went to this new

system. I think it would have been much better to have given

you a lump sum and forgot about it. We've tried to establish a

formula for the first year with no experience and a new system

to give more responsibility to each department. We're trying to

come close to the figure.

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): Did Mr.

Eliesen work out the formula?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No, Mr. Eliesen did not work out

the formula. That was worked out before he arrived.

Interjections.

Mr. Smith: Mr. Chairman, this is incredible. We're

told that this was worked out according to some formula, but we

can't find out from the Minister what the formula was.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I just told you.

Mr. Smith: In his department we have 60, incidentals, which is mainly

salary, for $4 million out of a total of $53 million. Now that is about 8 per

cent of the total figure for the Department of Finance.

Flip over to the Department of Municipal Affairs and you see

$ 500,000 out of $ 100 million, a half of 1 per cent,

apparently to cover off the same salary contingencies. One

department: a half of 1 per cent. The Department of Finance: 8

per cent. The Attorney-General's department, if I can recall

correctly: about $13 million, wasn't it, out of $110 million?

That percentage is 10-plus or 12.

Now are you suggesting to us that this is a more fit way of

budgeting than in the past and that we can look forward to no

more orders-in-council for substantial amounts of money as we

have seen in the past year? I suggest to the Minister of

Finance that it's fiscally incompetent. You're not doing

anything except changing the figures around, and you're

probably not within the ball park as to what will really happen

before the year is over.

If you want to compare your performance to past governments,

let's take a look at the orders-in-council and see how many you

passed in the last year as compared to the Social Credit Party

when it was in power. I think it's a valid point. Regardless,

you broke it down; you said it's now by department rather than

in one lump figure. Mr. Premier, it doesn't matter how you cut

it or slice it; the way that money is provided in this budget

is still baloney.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No, you can't use that word. That's

unparliamentary. I tried it once myself and I was ruled

out.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, I said sausage, and I got

away with that.

Look, we've tried the formula as I've outlined. In theory,

there should be no special warrants for money — that was the

idea of global budgeting. We'll have a year to find out. I'm

not going to say that the brand new approach is going to be

perfect. I'm saying that this approach has the potential of

giving a lot more honest information than the global figure of

the salaries in the past. So we'll see in a year's time. You

may be right. I don't think you are, but you'll have to wait

for one year of experience before we know for sure.

Mr. Smith: I would hate, Mr. Premier, to have to get

up a year from now and tell you how wrong you were. But it

would just seem to me — just sit down for half a shake — that

if one department, such as the Department of Municipal Affairs,

uses a figure that is roughly a half of 1 per cent of the total

budget and other departments go as high as 10 and 12 per cent

of the total budget, an explanation is due to this House

[ Page 1003 ]

as to why that happened.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, the labour content of each

vote is different, of course, Mr. Member. I appreciate if it's

wrong that next year you'll be embarrassed in pointing that

out. But if it's right, I won't be embarrassed in pointing out

that it's right.

Mr. Morrison: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to say that

a year from now I hope we don't have to say we told you so.

We'd just like to remind you that you heard it here first.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: A year from now I'll have to tell

you I told you so.

Mr. Schroeder: I have the question here to the

Minister of Finance to the other departments. For instance, my

favourite department, the Department of Education, lets it all

hang out and they just call it salary contingencies, vote 50,

and they set it out at $1,900,000. But look, here is the

Department of Finance which tries to cover up this contingency

fund in a fund called incidentals, and still would like us to

believe that they can come so accurately close to the actual

figure that they would call it $076 in the final digits, rather

than rounded numbers.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: With due respect, I am advised that

you are mixing up the two figures incorrectly. You don't put

incidentals and contingencies in salary contingencies.

Mr. Schroeder: That's where you've got them; that's

not where I....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No, no. Code 030 and 031 are two

separate votes.

Mr. Schroeder: Code 031 is salary contingencies and

the general price of incidentals.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes. And code 030 is incidentals

and contingencies.

Mr. Schroeder: Vote 60 is called "incidentals."

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes, but it's not salary. It breaks

out into salary incidentals and other incidentals.

Mr. Schroeder: That's what my question is: why is

salary under incidentals?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Because that is the category

instead of the global figure. That is what we get for becoming

more honest as a government.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Hon. Premier has the

floor.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, I have given you the

outline of the formula.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please, The Hon. Premier has the

floor. Will the Hon. Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) be

seated?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I have outlined the formula that is

the target figure after we've taken the actual salaries of the

staff projections plus a figure which we will not discuss in

terms of the target — what we want to do in bargaining. We can't

discuss the bargaining target figure here. We have to make some

guess ourselves instead of being a year behind. We've made that

guess on top of the actual salary figures. That is why they are

not evened-out or rounded figures. We are trying to be as

accurate as we can.

Mr. Schroeder: Would it not be more accurate to say,

Mr. Minister of Finance, that in these salary contingencies

which we find strewn out through the entire estimates that's

not a fund which is actually covering the fund which would

normally be represented by the number of dollars that you say

we are a year behind on?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: That's part of it.

Mr. Schroeder: That's part of it. That's what I

wanted to hear you say.

Mr. Smith: Mr. Chairman, it's amazing. We have in the

Minister of Finance's vote the Minister who is responsible for

the fiscal integrity of the government using a vote which he

calls incidentals, and down at the bottom of the vote he buries

$3,354,000. I'll take that back. He doesn't bury it; it's

there.

An Hon. Member: He buries it!

Mr. Smith: It is certainly buried in relation to what

we would ordinarily consider incidentals to be. Yet in every

other department they say in bold language, loud and clear,

that the figure there is salary contingencies, not buried down

in the middle of incidentals. I think that we need an

explanation from the Minister of Finance as to why, in the

Finance portfolio, you bury $3.5 million of salary

[ Page 1004 ]

contingencies in a vote called "incidentals" when in every

other department you required your cabinet Ministers to show

the salary contingencies loud and clear as a separate vote,

independent from any other matter that will be covered or that

is covered within the budget. Is there one method of

calculation for the Department of Finance and another method of

calculation for every other department of government? What

purpose was served by changing the format for the Department of

Finance as compared to every other department of

government?

I think it is hodge-podge budgeting, myself, and that we are

probably faced with just as many orders-in-council as we have

been in the past years because of the fact that it is not a

budget at all. It's not even a good guesstimate, Mr. Premier.

The amount that you project in the way of revenue and the

expenditures that are shown are probably so far out with

respect to what will actually happen in the year that we're

supposed to be discussing under this matter of estimates for

the province for this year that it is really a waste of time.

There is nothing that is going to balance.

We are discussing matters of fiscal integrity on the part of

the government.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Smith: They say they've changed their method.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member

confine his remarks to vote 60, please?

Mr. Smith: I am.

Mr. Chairman, you must agree that to those of us in the

opposition and to the public at large there should be no

difference between the method of accounting by the Department

of Finance for salary contingencies and every other department

of government. So why, under this vote, do they call it by a

different name? Is the Minister embarrassed with the amount of

money that is provided for salary contingencies, or what is the

explanation?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, you are quite right. It

would have been more aptly titled "incidentals and

contingencies." We will make that change. But there is a

difference in terms of commitment for every other

department.

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I also was puzzled by these

various figures. I took the trouble to add them and they come to $91.37 million

when you go through each department and add it all up. The Minister has already

explained that this was a different approach. He spoke to me earlier in the

debate and said that it was to be scattered more responsibly through the different

departments.

When you look at some of the figures, it's rather amazing

that the sums could be so large. He may already have answered

this and, if so, I apologize for being late in arriving. But I

take this to mean that this is a ball-park figure in each

department for the estimated kind of percentage increase in

salaries which the department expects to pay the employees

after bargaining is completed. If he's already answered that

question, I'd appreciate him answering it again.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes, I've already answered that.

That is part of it, not all of it.

Mr. Wallace: Could I ask what the other

part is?

We've already covered the argument this afternoon that the

Premier believes more in taking on permanent staff or making

permanent those people who are on temporary staff. Yet even

then, in the budget for the department we've talked about

temporary assistance being increased by $150,000. I'm just

trying to pin down just how many different ways the figures in

the Minister's department are covering the costs of increased

staff.

As I said earlier in the debate, if there's one thing that's

concerning the people of British Columbia it seems to be the

number of additional people in government employment. We've had

the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) make the statement that

unquestionably the Government of British Columbia is the

largest single employer in the province. Now we have in the

total budget $91 million set aside as salary contingency. I

just think it's causing a lot of people concern and

uncertainty.

I would also wonder if this is purposely made a large figure

so that it's a kind of cushion which the Minister can use to

minimize government expenditure if, in fact, revenues are

disappointing. This $91 million may not all be spent if

revenues are less than anticipated; then it will be simple not

to involve the government in employing all the people under the

figure of expected salary contingencies. Does the Minister have

that in mind — that all these people may not, in fact, be

employed in the coming year?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, I'm sorry that you

missed the earlier debate; we covered all of that.

The formula, as I said, was the actual salaries of the staff

they wanted plus a percentage figure that we're not prepared to

discuss because we're going into bargaining, but one that we

have to calculate. It would be foolish for us to give the

percentage figure.

The old system would have meant that whole lump sum, and

there would have been no way that the opposition would have

been able to discuss who's getting what out of that figure.

What we're trying to

[ Page

1005 ]

do is to break it out. We catch up on the year and then

break it out so that they've got more accurate figures related

to each department. The accuracy of it will be reflected after

one year's experience.

I've already said, too, that this is the idealized goal the

departments are aiming for. If the revenues do not match, then

that's the area that will be zapped. That's what I said earlier

before you came in. That, of course, is the prerogative and the

responsibility of the Department of Finance — to tell every

Minister to operate on that basis.

Mr. W.R. Bennett (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.

Chairman, I think what we are trying to do is find out from the

Premier if there is a formula. It doesn't seem to be consistent

all the way through.

We find in the Minister Without Portfolio, the Hon. Alf

Nunweiler.... While we've got new financial advisers....

We've heard of the gnomes of Zurich; now we've got the "elfs"

of B.C. (Laughter.)

We have a contingency of $25,000 for this Minister. While he

doesn't really have a large staff, it seems to be an expensive

staff, but it doesn't seem to be in relation with the

contingencies contained within the other departments. So we

don't seem to have a consistent formula going from department

to department. Because here's a department that has no specific

duty, and we have departments like Health, which everybody

understands....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: That's why we broke it down — so we

can discuss each department.

Mr. Bennett: But we're trying to find out how the

formula for the contingencies works. It doesn't seem to be

consistent.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: If we had gone the old formula, the

very evasion that you're suggesting would have taken place

because I would have come in with a lump figure; then that

would have been the end of it. Now you have the opportunity, as

each Minister comes up, to discuss this item under this

department. If you read Hansard , we had two years of

criticism...

Mr. Bennett: But $91 million?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: ...from the official opposition —

criticism from us when we were in opposition — for the lump-sum

figure. Now we've broken it down. We're giving you the

opportunity to approach each Minister for the information, and

now you want it all answered in the lump-sum figure. You can't

have it both ways.

I think one of you over there understands what I'm

saying.

Interjections.

Mr. Curtis: Mr. Chairman, we've listened to the

Minister of Finance on this point for quite some time but...

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Right.

Mr. Curtis: ...once more with feeling, perhaps,

would be the request. (Laughter.) He told us repeatedly last

week of his superior intelligence.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No, no, I said I was modest.

Mr. Curtis: Then he told us about his superior intelligence.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes, after I said I was modest.

Mr. Curtis: However, we still have lump-sum figures.

If I could.... Without discussing the estimates for the

Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley), if I could just

gently refer the Minister of Finance to that particular vote,

we see a very round figure, $2,500,000 — not $076, not $214 or

other odd sums but a round, very round, $2,500,000.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Now I don't want to answer for all

the Members; I don't want to embarrass you.

Mr. Curtis: Where's the consistency?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I'll give you the consistency to

help you. He uses day labour and we don't use day labour. Okay?

So I'm telling you that some of the departments are in round

figures. Ours is more precise. Now look, Mr. Member, I don't

know, perhaps we'll go back to the old system. That saves a lot

of problems because it's one big lump sum. You have a go at

that lump without knowing what's involved and you get it over

with. When you're given the opportunity to go into detail you

avoid recognizing that each department has different needs.

The formula, essentially, is this. Each group such as

Highways and Public Works, of course, have day labour, so they

are more prone to rounded figures. Each Minister was asked,

first of all, on a base of actual salary projections within the

existing agreements to come up with a figure and add on to that

a percentage that we agreed upon, which was the target

percentage for bargaining. That's how we got the figures for

each department. You have not, thankfully, asked me for that

percentage figure, which would be foolish for us to discuss. I

wouldn't

[ Page 1006 ]

give it to you. It would be foolish for us to discuss.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: The bargaining that's coming up. So

there is the formula. Okay.

Mr. J.R. Chabot (Columbia River): Just a few

questions on incidentals — $4,119,000. It reminds me of a few

years ago when C.D. Howe said: "What's a million?" Now we find

incidentals of $4 million. What's $4 million? It appears that

it's all lumped in under this incidentals. And under the

incidentals we find contingencies. It's pretty wishy-washy as

to what the government intends to do here.

I would like to know what portion of this $3,354,000 the

government intends using for salary increases. We find in the

estimates of the Minister of Finance fairly lucrative increases

in salaries. We find that the one who fared the least or didn't

do as well was Peter McNelly. He has about a 10.2 per cent

increase, while we find one clerk-typist 11's salary increased

by 50 per cent. So we see the salary increase projections

versus last year here, and now we are asked to vote

contingencies.

One has to ask under these circumstances: is this enough?

What does this cover? Does it cover the negotiations and

increased staff in his department for which there are no

provisions under the various segments of his department? Is

this enough? The old slogan in the last election was "Enough is

enough." There's a possibility that enough is too much.

I think that the Premier has had some very logical questions

asked of him. I think he should give us some information as to

how he possibly can give projections of salary increases and

then, in turn, put a lump sum under the government's department

of $88 million. Just how does he get at these figures? How does

he make up this? Give a little projection as to just how you

make up this $3,354,000 for salary contingencies.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, I have already gone

over it. There's a one-year catch-up. You pointed out the

difference between the catch-up of Mr. McNelly and the

clerk-typist 11. Now the clerk-typists are under a bargaining

unit. The order-in-council and all the others got a 10.2

increase.

Mr. Curtis: Did McNelly get another raise today?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No, McNelly did not get another

raise today. The 10.2 was what we granted to those outside of

the bargaining unit.

Mr. Chabot: Those way up there.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes, some that are well outside the

bargaining unit. The bargaining unit reflects last year's

agreement as it stands now. This year in the salary

contingencies we've taken the formula, as I've explained four

times.... I think you were listening but you got confused.

An Hon. Member: I've just arrived.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I'm sorry if you've just arrived.

We've taken the actual salaries of the year, including the

bargaining of a year ago plus the projections, if they get the

staff that they want, which is not necessarily automatic — I

agreed with the Member for Victoria that that's the area to

hold the line on — plus the target percentage that we have used

as our figure....

Mr. Chabot: What's that?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I can't tell you that. We've got to

go into bargaining. It would be unfair; it would be wrong. So

that's the formula where we're at, Mr. Member. And your figure

of 10.2 is quite correct. It reflects the already stated 10.2

increase for the non-bargaining group. So that covers it.

Mr. Chabot: I hope — and I've expounded my views on

this — that when you do give salary increases in your

particular department, because that's what we're talking about,

you'll give consideration to those people in the lower echelon

of your department.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Thank you, Mr. Member. You're

causing dissension in my staff.

Mr. Morrison: I'm reluctant to leave that point but

I'd like to move on to another, if I may.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Okay.

Mr. Morrison: I notice in "motor vehicle and

accessories (all departments)" that that vote 029 is now

eliminated completely.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: It's all in each department

now.

Mr. Morrison: In each department. But you're not

allowing for any contingencies on that score because that's

obviously what they were there for before.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No.

Mr. Wallace: Could I ask the Minister, in regard to

salary contingencies...? After all, it's about six times the

figure that was stated for last

[ Page 1007 ]

year. The Minister has given a vague or a less than precise

breakdown. Could at least the Minister tell us, out of that $92

million, is approximately half for new staff and half for

salary increases, or is it 70/30 or 20/80?

We are still trying to find out how many more civil servants

are going to be taken into government employment. It's a very

central issue in the province. The government is taking an

increasingly large number of people into government employment,

and a sum of $92 million is not peanuts. Although I accept the

Minister's statement that he would not be wise to reveal the

approximate percentage wage increases that remain unsettled,

are we not entitled to ask, out of that $92 million, how many

would likely represent new, further employees?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, that would depend on

what Treasury Board decides on requests after the applications

to Public Service Commission. It might be none. And that's

right, and then we won't need it. That's the point I made

earlier in the debate: I'm asking each department to be

responsible so that we don't go into the warrant system

again.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, we're going to try! We're

going to try and stay within that global figure, so I can't

give you the precise figure — but it won't go above that. Each

department will have to justify its own moves to Treasury

Board. That's the whole approach.

Mr. G.B. Gardom (Vancouver–Point Grey): In this kind

of contingent vote, Mr. Minister of Finance, would it cover the

situation of people like Mr. Adams for ICBC who was paid for a

good year and a half for not doing anything, or Mr. Bremer of

the Department of Education?

Interjections.

Mr. Gardom: So the ICBC thing would not fall under.... What about the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly)

for Mr. Bremer? That's under her vote, too, is it? Do you have

any analogies in your vote, any similar situations to Mr. Adams

and Mr. Bremer?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, I think you're being

facetious.

Mr. Gardom: No, I just wondered whether you might

have. We haven't found out too much about Mr. Bremer and Mr.

Adams from the other two Ministers. I just asked you if you

have similar situations in your place. Have you?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: That's why we broke it out of a

global figure. In the case of ICBC, that's the corporation's

own. But in the case of Education you can certainly ask those

questions in....

Interjections.

Mr. L.A. Williams (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to see whether I can clarify the situation

in my own mind that the Minister has just raised. With regard

to increases in staff in numbers; we have in our estimate book

for each department an indication of the number of staff that

they budgeted for last year and an indication of the number of

staff you're budgeting for next year. So I have to assume, Mr.

Minister, that each of the Ministers has told your department

how many staff they want for the following year.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Those are approved

establishments.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Approved establishments, and

you've increased them. In order to cover additional, unapproved

establishment, you've had to allow contingencies. Then on top

of that you've had to allow for anticipated wage increases as

the result of negotiations. That's the two figures — the

target. Now last year, when you budgeted on a global basis, you

allowed for $15 million in contingencies.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: We knew it would be more.

Mr. L.A. Williams: For the nine months ending

December 31 you had spent $35 million. For the fiscal year

1975-76 you are now going up to something like $91 or $92

million to cover additional staff as yet unapproved, plus

salary increases as yet undetermined. And that's where the

figure comes from. It's six times what we budgeted for a year

ago and something like 2.7 times our experience to the end of

December.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I am advised, Mr. Member, that for

the past number of years, if you'll examine the books, you'll

find that that figure was always incorrectly projected.

Mr. L.A. Williams: I appreciate that.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: What we're trying to do is more

honestly project the figure. Now we may not go up to that $91

million. I doubt it; I hope we don't. But I'm trying to more

honestly project rather than come in with that one figure and

know very well that

[ Page 1008 ]

the pattern has been entirely different over those years.

Your analysis is correct.

Mr. Chabot: Under salary contingencies, Mr. Chairman,

maybe this would be an appropriate time, because I don't think

we will ever get there under the severe limitations which we

have in questioning Ministers of the Crown with 135 hours....

I wonder if I can ask a few questions about the Minister

Without Portfolio (Hon. Mr. Nunweiler) and the 14 positions he

is creating under...

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Chabot: ...his portfolio of $402,000.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please!

Mr. Chabot: It strikes me as being a bit of a

boondoggle, Mr. Chairman.

[Mt. Chairman rises.]

Mr. Chairman: Will the Hon. Member be seated?

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member be

seated?

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: I repeat once more, would the Hon.

Member be seated?

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Is the Hon. Member intending to follow

the rules of the House or not?

Would the Hon. Member remain seated, please.

I would draw to the attention of the Hon. Member for

Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) a very well known standing order,

standing order 61(2): "Speeches in Committee of the Whole House

must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under

consideration."

We are considering only vote 60. The Hon. Member may speak,

but he should address himself only to vote 60.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

Mr. Chabot: Mr. Chairman, we are talking about salary

contingencies of a variety....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. We are dealing with

salary contingencies for the Minister of Finance's department

under vote 60. It was obvious that the Hon. Member was beginning to ask questions about

another vote, or another department.

Mr. Chabot: You're guessing now. You're guessing

now.

Mr. Smith: I'll yield to the Member for Columbia

River who was trying to make a point when he was ruled out by

the Chairman.

Mr. Chabot: We're talking about salary contingencies,

you know....

Mr. Chairman: Under vote 60.

Mr. Chabot: Yes, vote 60, and we're talking about $4

million — $3 million-and-something — for contingencies, and

incidentals of over $4 million — $4,119,000. I'm wondering

whether, incorporated within this incidental vote — the "you

know, what's $4 million?" attitude — if there are some

contingencies that might apply to the Minister of nothing,

because there is a possibility that the 14 positions he has

now, in the Prince George office and in the Victoria office,

won't be sufficient. I want to know if there are provisions

within this $3,354,000 of contingencies for the possibility of

hiring more economic planning consultants, more social policy

coordinators, more public liaison officers, more resource

planning consultants, more administrative assistants, more

executive assistants, more....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Is the Hon. Member

addressing himself to the Minister of Finance's vote?

Mr. Chabot: Yes, I am. I am wondering whether there

are provisions within this incidental vote for the Minister of

nothing from Prince George....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I would point out to the

Hon. Member that the....

Mr. Chabot: This is an incidental catch-all under the

Minister of Finance, and I'm wondering if there are provisions

for dollars for the Minister without from Prince George.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. First of all, I would

just like to say to the Hon. Member that it is the opinion of

the Chair that you are abusing the authority of the Chair, and

I would ask you to respect the Chair.

Mr. Chabot: Oh, I have the utmost respect.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Would the Hon.

[ Page 1009 ]

Member be seated for a moment?

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: I think the Hon. Member....

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: I think the Hon. Member understands

that this particular vote, and the

section in it, 031, salary

contingencies, means the salary contingencies for the

Department of Finance, no other department. Therefore he should

limit his questioning to the Department of Finance

contingencies, not to any other department.

Would the Hon. Member continue?

Mr. Chabot: Will we have an opportunity under salary

contingencies and incidentals to debate the expenditures, at a

later date, of the Minister Without Portfolio (Hon. Mr.

Nunweiler), the social policy consultants...?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Chabot: Is the Minister of Finance prepared to

give a commitment that we will have an opportunity to discuss

this boondoggle...?

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

Mr. Phillips: I'm certainly glad to see that the

Premier is more relaxed this evening and in a much better mood

since he got his vote, and I'm just wondering if it's maybe

this $4 million contingency that's making him that relaxed. But

I have to look at this....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: It's $5 million.

Mr. Phillips: No, it's $4,119,076. I think if the

Premier would get up and explain....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: It was explained.

Mr. Phillips: Yes, Mr. Premier, but the one thing you

didn't explain.... I understand that the contingency and day

labour vote is certainly going to be much greater than a

contingency, because you don't know what it's going to cost

you.

But there in the department of northern affairs we have practically the whole

salary as a contingency, and the percentage.... If you want to take the percentage,

you are looking at 402,000 per cent, because $402,000 as a percentage of nothing

is 402,000 per cent.

Mr. Chairman, I can understand partially the contingency to

allow for increased salaries in many of the departments. I was

noticing in the A-G's department some $13 million and I'm not

sure what percentage it is. But the formula, taking into

consideration the differences in the Department of Highways and

the day-labour vote, is not consistent. I can't understand, Mr.

Chairman — and I see your hand reaching for that gavel — and I

know that the department....

Somebody is whispering in your ear, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Don't worry. Continue. (Laughter.)

Mr. Phillips: Oh, thank you. But when you look at

some departments, the formula is not consistent.

An Hon. Member: Right on.

Mr. Phillips: If we were going to have a look at an

overall wage increase, then we could say that you take the

total sum of the salaries in a department, multiply it by a

figure which would be your increase — 10 per cent, 20 per cent,

or whatever that figure may be — and you would come up with a

contingency increase in all of the salary votes, with the

exception of the day-labour vote, which the Premier and

Minister of Finance brought up, which is in the Department of

Highways. But in the other departments you would take a

constant figure of increase. I realize there may be a few more

higher-priced people in some departments than in others, but

you would still base it out on an average increase. But then

when we get to the department for northern affairs, the whole

department, practically, is a contingency increase over last

year.

Mr. Chairman: Orde r, please. The Hon. Member is

clearly abusing the rules of the House. Standing order 43 says

clearly that there should not be tedious repetition of the

arguments of others.

An Hon. Member: He made a point.

Mr. Chairman: The point has been made a number of

times.

An Hon. Member: Not by him.

Mr. Chairman: Furthermore, the reference to other

votes is actually irrelevant to this vote. The question should

be directly related to the contingencies for this particular

department. I would

[ Page 1010 ]

ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to this

department.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to agree

with you and with the Premier because I understand what he is

trying to do. He is trying to put the contingency increase in

each department so that we can have a look at it

department-by-department. That's what really concerns me about

it. I appreciate his doing it. But had he probably put that

contingency in the Department of Nothing — northern affairs —

into this deal, we wouldn't have noticed it. But now it sort

of stands out as.... Do you know what northern lights are like?

It sort of stands out as the northern lights do, on the

horizon, in this budget.

Mr. Chairman: Order! Again, I would ask the Hon.

Member either to confine his remarks to this department or take

his seat.

Mr. Phillips: Thank you. I'll certainly ask the

Minister, because I'm afraid these northern lights keep

changing — you know how they do; on some days they disappear?

I'm afraid that the department of northern affairs will just

fade into the wilderness like the northern lights as soon as

the sun comes up, and there will be no northern lights....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member be

seated?

Mr. Phillips: Well, certainly. Do you understand now...?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! Will the Hon. Member be

seated!

Mr. Smith: It has been interesting to listen to the

explanation of the Minister of Finance concerning global

budgeting. Wow! You know, sitting here trying to analyse what

he has had to say about salary contingencies and how they

arrived at the figure, I think I have a clue to what really

happened.

You know, Mr. Chairman, what happened? I think the Minister

of Finance invited all the other cabinet Ministers into the

office one day behind the green door and around the great big

table. He said: "Fellows, we are going to have a poker game. We

are going to determine salary contingencies for each

department." Do you know what happened when the game was over?

When the game was over, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Macdonald) got a new suit, a new hat...

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Smith: ...a new tie, a new collar and new gloves...

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Smith: ...and the Minister of Municipal Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Lorimer) went home in a barrel. That's what

happened.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Will the Hon. Member be

seated and remain seated for a moment?

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Hon. Member

obviously has more to say, but I would ask the Hon. Member to

weigh the arguments that have been provided from the other side

of the House, the remarks that have been made, and I would ask

him to raise a new matter in relation to this department and

this vote and not to discuss other matters.

Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do believe that

we are entitled to a reasonable explanation as to how it is

calculated. I listened quite intently to what the Hon. Premier

had to say. Instead of one large figure he has divided it into

departments, but it doesn't reconcile, Mr. Chairman, when you

compare one department to the other.

It would seem to me that the method outlined here was just a

pie-in-the-sky figure for the Department of Finance and every

other department we are going to debate as long as the

estimates continue. It's pulled right out of the air unless the

Minister can tell, even for his own department if not for all

the others, what rule of thumb, what percentage and in what

manner he calculated the requirement for over $3 million for

the Department of Finance. Surely to goodness the Minister can

tell us, at least for his own department, what is really

contained in that figure. How was it arrived at?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, I find difficulty in

dealing with different levels of awareness. The Member for West

Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) understood the formula

exactly and relayed very clearly. Now I can't go over it again

and hope that you understand, because certainly he understood

what I was....

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No, he understood exactly and he

gave it back exactly. Now if he understands, and we've gone

through it twice, and you don't understand, I can't deal with

different levels of

interpretation. Obviously he understood and

I've gone through it two or three times. There's not much point

in going over it again.

[ Page 1011 ]

Vote 60 approved.

Vote 61: interest on trust funds and deposits, $2,500,000 —

approved.

On vote 62: rural power subsidy, $3 million.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I'm addressing myself to

vote 62, Mr. Chairman, rural power subsidy. I notice, through

you, to the Minister of Finance, that you've only budgeted $3

million this year. You budgeted $3 million in 1974 and if one

looks up the public accounts of 1974, the department spent all

of that $3 million. My first question is: why is there not an

increase? I'd also like to know how many farm units were

serviced by that $3 million in 1974-75.

It appears to me that there should be an increase in this

budget at this time, because while a majority of farm units in

the province are electrified through Hydro power, we have to

face the fact that those that are not are getting further and

further away from the source of supply. Also they are further

apart in their relationship to each other. Instead of one mile

between a farm, there are frequently 15 or 20 miles,

whereas in

the earlier instances this wasn't so often the case.

It seems to me, in thinking about this, that those producers

who are in the more remote areas have a greater need than ever

for power. They are having to compete frequently with producers

who are under the income assurance programme. One of the side

effects of the income assurance programme which is not

beneficial is that those producers who are not under the

programme are facing higher costs in their production because

the bargaining for bailing twine or fertilizer is not quite as

sharp as it used to be and there's not quite the pressure to

keep that retail price down. So if a producer is in a remote

area, he has a problem of distance and he also has this problem

of not having as much companionship in trying to keep the

prices of his needs down.

Also he's facing greatly increased costs this year. Gasoline

is up — all his products that he needs for production are up,

just the same as anyone else. You have a 48 per cent increase

in your budgetary expenses, and I assume that the producer

would find himself in a very similar position, so he's going to

need more attention.

The other point I would like to make is that the producer

living in a more remote area not only has to compete, perhaps,

against those who are on income assurance; but also it's very

unlikely if he or she came into the income assurance programme

that they would be able to compete on as sound a basis as a

producer in a closer area and under power. As the Premier and

Minister of Finance knows, the income assurance programme is

based on a modular unit, a model unit of production. If the producer is in a remote

area, doesn't have power, then it's very unlikely he is ever

going to be able to come up anywhere near that model unit,

which is all the more reason why we should make a special

effort to make funds available — perhaps on a more generous

formula for those in the more remote areas to help these

producers get on a more even footing with other producers, let

alone with other sectors of industry.

You always suggest we should tell you where to cut down in

order to increase a vote. I would suggest you cut down some of

the boards and commissions and take another million or two from

there and put it into this vote and increase it to $4 million

or $5 million.

The other point I would like to make is the tremendous

increase in the cost of putting in power lines. Over even last

year I understand there's nearly a 40 per cent increase.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Madam Member, I do not have the

specific number of units that were put in. We'll try and get

that information for you. I have taken that as notice. I can't

get it tonight. You know it's impossible to get it tonight, but

I'll try to get it tomorrow.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I don't know. I'll try to find out

what the waiting list and what the pressure is.

Mr. A.V. Fraser (Cariboo): Lots, lots.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: It's my understanding that $3

million for this year is programme that Hydro can and will

handle. I'll try and find out for you how many they serviced

new last year and what the waiting is, and I'll let you know

tomorrow.

Mrs. Jordan: I appreciate your interest, Mr. Minister

of Finance, but I don't think you quite appreciate the problem

that there is in this area for the producers.

You say that there's $3 million here and that's what Hydro

is prepared to deal with. I don't think it's a matter of what

Hydro is prepared to deal with; it's a matter of what the

producers need. Mr. Premier, this is three years in a row that

there's been no increase in this programme.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I can't accurately comment on your

comments unless I know exactly what the waiting list is.

Perhaps we're both speculating. I'd like some hard facts before

I respond.

[ Page 1012 ]

Mrs. Jordan: Mr. Premier, I know there's a waiting

list and this is your vote.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: How many are on the waiting

list?

Mrs. Jordan: I know in the area of North Okanagan that

there's a minimum of 20 families right now waiting in one area

to get on to rural electrification.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: What area?

Mrs. Jordan: This is your vote and I'm telling you....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: What area in your riding?

Mrs. Jordan: In the North Okanagan.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: What area specifically?

Interjections.

Mrs. Jordan: Yes, why did you not increase it?

Mr. Fraser: Quiet! You should be up there hollering

about this too, instead of sitting there like a chipmunk.

Mrs. Jordan: You've made no allowance here for a

period of two or three years for inflation. How did you arrive

at the figure of $3 million?

Interjections.

Mrs. Jordan: Where? Vote 62.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, Madam....

Mrs. Jordan: Mr. Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon.

Mr. Lorimer), it's not up to me to tell you how you came to

your figures; it's up to the Minister of Finance to tell us why

for three years in a row you have arrived at the figure of $3

million for rural electrification.

If Hydro can't handle it, Hydro can subcontract it out.

Gosh, we've got subcontractors in Vernon; they'll do the job.

How did you arrive...?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes, I'll give you the answer

then.

Mrs. Jordan: Okay, you tell me how you reached $3

million.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes, please, I'll tell you....

Mrs. Jordan: How did you get the $3 million?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: When you sit down, I'll tell

you.

Mrs. Jordan: Okay, tell me how you got the $3

million.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Okay, I'm going to tell you. Take

it easy. Sit tight. Here it comes.

Mrs. Jordan: It's not me who is uptight.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Look, I've got the floor.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: At no time have I heard....

Perhaps you've contacted Hydro for people in your area. I

haven't heard and I don't know the need in your area, North

Okanagan. I'm advised that this is an annual grant....

Interjection.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Order!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I am advised that this is an annual

grant to help subsidize Hydro's programmes.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Okay, that's good.

Hydro spends its own money as well. That is not the maximum

amount spent on rural electrification. This is a standard grant

that's renewable every year.

What I'll find out for you is the total that Hydro spent

along with this grant last year and the preceding years, and

also I'll find out what the waiting list is. Until I get that

information I can't adequately answer the question in terms of

the pressure of demand. I don't know. I don't know at this very

moment.

Mrs. Jordan: Mr. Premier, when you look at your figure

of $3 million and you relate it to the other figures in the

budget, this is a decrease in what you as Minister of Finance

are making available for rural electrification. You, I know,

are a city boy and don't know much about the problems of the

non-metropolitan areas. But every Member who has written to

Hydro on this problem knows that Hydro says: "We can't do any

more this year because there is only $3 million in the budget."

They predicate — to the best of my knowledge, and I believe

other Members will substantiate this — their spending on what

the Minister of Finance allots in his budget. But this is

supposed to be what you call a balanced budget and an accurate

budget. You've gone to this

[ Page 1013 ]

new form of global financing....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member

confine her remarks to vote 62, please?

Mrs. Jordan: I'm on the vote. I want to know how you

arrived at the figure of $3 million, which, according to

inflation, is at least a 30 per cent decrease over the last two

years.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: The figure is what Hydro has

requested.

Mrs. Jordan: Mr. Minister of Finance, do you mean to

tell this House that you sit in your little chair and in comes

a note from Hydro — $3 million for rural electrification — and

you say: "Okay"? You don't even ask where it's going, why, what

the need is. Are you a rubber-stamp Minister of Finance? Is

that why you have all these highly paid executive assistants

and advisers? Who's making the decisions?

Mr. Bennett: Alfie Nunweiler, Minister for rural

electrification.

Mrs. Jordan: I mean, really! Peter McNelly might have

been able to write but I'm not sure he could count. If you look

at this figure, as your financial adviser he's given you a bum

steer — if you'll pardon the expression, because a lot of those

people in the rural areas are cattle ranchers.

How did you arrive at the figure of $3 million? Could you

please tell us?

Interjections.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, I was a little bit

shocked, if you'll pardon the pun, at some of the answers of

the Minister of Finance.

I want to tell you, Mr. Minister, the problem with this vote

is that it's actually a decrease, and a tremendous decrease

from that vote of previous years, because $3 million today

would be the equivalent of $1.5 million four years ago due to

depreciation, There is another problem with this vote of $3 million, Mr.

Chairman. You being a northern riding Member would understand,

and I'm sure the Minister without would understand. There are

many areas that have rural electrification on 110 volt. A lot

of those farmers are in the cattle business; their pumps

actually require 220 volt. So we've got to....

Interjection.

Mr. Chairman: Would the Hon. Member proceed,

please?

Mr. Phillips: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I heard the

conscientious Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) throw

that bribe over to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett),

and I'm surprised at him making fun of the very subject that,

if he were conscientious, he would be standing on the floor of

this Legislature and speaking about it for himself.

An Hon. Member: He's been asked plenty of times.

Mr. Phillips: Because he's well aware, that Minister

of Agriculture, of the subject on which I speak.

Mr. Fraser: Laugh about it! Go ahead and laugh.

Mr. Phillips: Many of the areas that are presently on

110 volt need that extra phase. The Member for Cariboo (Mr.

Fraser) is well aware of this problem. They need three-phase

power so that farmers will not have to buy more expensive

motors. Large-horsepower motors are much more expensive in

single-phase than in double-phase.

Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver-Capilano): Which

phase are you in?

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Just for the guidance of

the Hon. Member, the Premier has indicated that this money was

requested by B.C. Hydro. So therefore it would seem to me that

the relevance....

Interjections.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, I'll tell you what the

Premier has indicated to me. The Premier has indicated to me

that (1) he doesn't know how much money was spent last year. He

has indicated that (2) he is not aware of the need for rural

electrification in this province. He has indicated (3)....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Before the Hon. Member

proceeds, I would like to finish the point I was about to make.

Inasmuch as the $3 million figure was requested by B.C. Hydro,

and normally we consider B.C. Hydro under the estimates of the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A.

Williams), I think it would be more appropriate for the Hon.

Member to ask these questions at that time. However, this is

for the guidance of the Hon. Member. Will the Hon. Member

continue?

Mr. Phillips: Thank you very much, Mr.

[ Page 1014 ]

Chairman. Now that you've finished your no-point, I'll go

back on to my point.

The Minister of Finance has indicated to me that he has

brought this figure in in his budget, not really realizing the

need in the province. He has accepted the figure without any

justification from B.C. Hydro. He is not aware of the increased

cost of putting in power lines in the rural areas, and he is

not aware of the need.

Mr. Chairman, we're sick and tired of seeing the Minister of

Finance bring figures into this Legislature that he cannot

justify, nor does he know exactly what the entire situation is.

We've witnessed this in his estimate of revenue from the

British Columbia Petroleum Corp. We've witnessed this in his

bungling on showing the revenue from the gas tax without an

expenditure of an equal amount to the Insurance Corp. of

British Columbia. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that the

people in the northern and the rural parts of this province

full well realize that for every gallon of gasoline they buy

this year, 2 cents of that is for tax to subsidize urban

transportation. I haven't worked it out but I'll venture to

tell you that that figure will be several times the piddly

little $3 million that this Premier is putting back into those

areas for much-needed rural electrification.

Mr. Gibson: About seven times, Don.

Mr. Phillips: Seven times? And I don't think it's

fair. I know you realize it's not fair that people in this

province, when we can waste money on commissions and inquiries

and trips to Japan, and China, when the people, the pioneers

who opened up this country, are still reading in the dark. They

are the people who have made the life that we enjoy today in

this province possible by going out and being the pioneers.

Many of them now have rural electrification, but what we need

is a change in the formula, because the areas that need that

electrification today, the farm houses, are farther apart.

We just had a case in our own area. You remember Lone

Prairie? You've heard me speak of it in this House many times.

Lone Prairie.

Mr. Wallace: Sing us a song. Sing us a song.

Mr. Phillips: It was an area set aside. We had to

fight and fight and fight to get rural electrification in that

area, while they looked overhead at those silver sentinels —

those lone silver sentinels.

But whether the winds in the wintertime and the cold breezes and the heat of

the summertime carried the power from the great Peace River area down to the

rest of the lower mainland so that these people down here can enjoy the benefits

of that great northern development, those people realize that the natural resources

of that area are being bled off by this government with nothing in return —

nothing in return!

An Hon. Member: Hallelujah!

Mr. Phillips: And now, to add insult to injury, 2

cents a gallon...and not only do those people live farther

out so the power has to be brought a greater distance but also

for those people to go to town, Mr. Chairman — and you know as

it's in your riding — they can't jump on a transit bus or drive

a measly little five miles into the city; they have to travel

40 or 50 miles. Probably because they are out on a farm they

have older model cars, with big families, and use more gas than

anybody in the city. Those people are being penalized by that

government over there — penalized by what they used to call

themselves "the little people's government." They're being

penalized!

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Phillips: I want the Minister of Finance to

assure me tonight, before this vote is passed, that first of

all, Mr. Chairman, he will do two things: he will work with

B.C. Hydro to see that the formula for rural electrification is

changed to help those people who live farther out, those people

who are still reading in the dark...

Mr. G.H. Anderson (Kamloops): In Grande Prairie?

Mr. Phillips: ...to have light, because he's bleeding

them on 2 cents a gallon for urban transportation.

Mr. Wallace: Let the light shine forth!

Mr. Phillips: I want the Premier to assure me that

the producers that the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan)

has talked about will be put on the same basis as the producers

in the rest of the province, that he will bring in a new

formula to see that two-phase power is put into those areas

where power presently exists but it needed for those

producers.

The Premier has said that this government listens. I heard

him say it earlier this evening. He said: "We will listen." But

the problem with rural electrification is that we need a change

in the formula. Those people are paying and paying and paying

dearly now. They have to pay more than the original people who

got rural electrification in this province. And they are less

adapted to pay; they have less ability to pay because of

increased costs — increased costs levied on them by this

government, increased costs of gasoline, increased property

taxes, increased insurance premiums — all of

[ Page 1015 ]

these levied on them by this government. I would like to

have the Premier assure me that he will work with Hydro on

behalf of these people to see that a new formula is worked out

so that those people — those pioneering families — will be able

to read by the light of Hydro.

Mrs. Jordan: The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald)

always says: "Let the light shine in."

Hon. A.B. MacDonald (Attorney-General): Open up your

heart.

Mrs. Jordan: That's what we're asking you, Mr.

Minister of Finance: let the light shine in to these rural

producers and these rural people. It's not only producers —

there are lumbering operations and small hand operations out

there — but essentially it's the producer. Why don't you let

the light shine in? You don't seem to understand, Mr. Minister

of Finance, that inflation has taken its toll everywhere, but

inflation under this government has taken a double toll.

I mentioned to you before that you had $3 million in this

budget last year and $3 million this year and that this was a

natural decrease. It should be in the record. If we accept that

10 per cent was the rate of interest in inflation in 1973 and

12 per cent was the rate of inflation in 1974, that's a total

inflationary rate, basic, of 22 per cent. Just on that basis

alone, it means that rural electrification in this province is

down by $75 million.

Mr. Minister of Finance, don't run out and have your tea.

Come back and talk about this decrease of $75 million, the

minimum in this vote.

Mr. Bennett: Move that the committee rise and report

progress.

Mrs. Jordan: Well, I had hoped to point out to the

Minister of Finance what this decrease in rural electrification

of $75 million was going to do to people, but seeing as how he

has walked out I have no alternative but to move, Mr. Chairman,

that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit

again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

Jordan

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

Chabot

Fraser

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Wallace

Gibson

Gardom

Schroeder

Morrison

Curtis

McClelland

NAYS — 35

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Gorst

Lockstead

Gabelmann

Skelly

Nunweiler

Nicolson

Lauk

Radford

Lea

King

Cocke

Williams, R.A.

Lorimer

Levi

Steves

Barnes

Anderson, G.H.

Rolston

Liden

Lewis

Webster

Kelly

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the

House.

Mrs. Jordan: Mr. Chairman, I am just amazed at the

vote that just took place when we have pointed out that this

rural electrification vote, which could bring power to people

in remote areas of this province, is reduced by a minimum of

$750,000.

When we take inflation for this year into consideration —

and we can't anticipate, but it is thought to be a double-digit

number — this $3 million will be down to $2 million. Yet we see

the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis), who has people in his area

who desperately need power; we see the Member for Omineca (Mr.

Kelly), who has people in his area who are desperately in need

of power; we see the Member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), who has

people in his area who are definitely in need of power.... And

we see the $400,000 gnome of the north, that expensive luxury

we can't afford in British Columbia...

Mr. Bennett: The "Alf" of the north.

Mrs. Jordan: ...voting against an opportunity to

increase rural electrification. In fact, he's condoning a

decrease. Maybe he's going to hire an expensive executive

assistant to tell him that they need more money for rural

electrification in the north.

Mr. Bennett: A social consultant.

Mrs. Jordan: Yes, a social consultant, except the

people in the rural areas don't have much social life when they

don't have any power.

The comfortable Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley)

enjoys the luxuries of office and enjoys jet travel, and yet is

representing the Yale-Lillooet area, a remote area that

desperately needs rural electrification.

Mr. Bennett: He can't see the need.

Mrs. Jordan: He needs the light on. He can't

[ Page 1016 ]

see the need for this type of assistance — down $1 million

this year.

We ask the Minister of Finance: how many installations were

put in last year? How many installations were requested and not

met? How many installations are requested for this year?

This Minister, who has since left the House again, obviously

from his action and from his vote, simply doesn't care.

Interjections.

Mrs. Jordan: Well, anything would be an improvement.

At least that Member's in a taxicab rather than a jet. He must

know something is going on on this ground.

But one has to ask if Hydro is the spoiled child of this

Minister of Finance. It indulges in secret borrowings, and it

indulges in requests for money without any justification. Or is

it just that the Minister of Finance, the people's Minister,

doesn't care anymore? He doesn't care enough to ask how many

people in the rural parts of this province need power and how

much money is needed to meet that commitment, let alone change

the formula and increase assistance.

Worst of all, he pleads ignorance. The Minister of Finance

has pleaded ignorance to the needs of rural electrification in

this province, and yet he has the audacity to stand in this

chamber for a week and tell us what a clever negotiator he is.

He tells us not to worry if he goes to the market for the

highest interest rate in the history since the war — almost in

the history of British Columbia. He tries to defend these

actions on the basis of trust him, he knows what he is doing,

and yet he is ignorant of the needs of rural electrification in

this province.

This Minister simply doesn't care, and this government

doesn't care, and we believe that there must be an increase in

the formula, and this means an increase in the amount of money

that is budgeted. We challenge this Minister of Finance to

never come into this House again with a vote under his

direction about which he knows nothing and has proved that he

cares nothing.

Mr. Fraser: I'd like to say a few words about this

vote 62 for $3 million. It's been the same for three or four

years, and from inflation alone the value of it has probably

decreased at least in half because of the cost of construction

and so on, and the extension of rural power lines. Now the

programme is coming practically to a halt.

I don't necessarily blame the Minister of Finance for this, Mr. Chairman, but

I spoke on this issue last year and one of the Hydro directors of that time,

the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), said

they were going to look into this and do something about this formula. But obviously

if they have, they haven't transmitted the information on to the Minister of

Finance. He just accepts what Hydro tells him to do, and the thing slides back

each year.

In the riding of Cariboo, that I have the honour to

represent, we have all kinds of people waiting for power. They

can't afford the amount that Hydro is asking them for their own

participation in the programmes, so everything comes to a halt.

The Hydro people go out and estimate the job and, sure, they

give the amount that Hydro will contribute and the government

contributes, but because of the inflation on construction costs

it is just impossible for the extensions to go ahead.

Now that the Minister of Finance is back I'll repeat that I

don't necessarily blame him for the standstill of this vote. I

blame the Minister of Lands and Forests as a Hydro director,

because this subject came up last year. He said they would look

into a new formula, and it's obvious that they haven't done it

and advised the Minister of Finance. The rural power extensions

in this province are coming to a standstill because of the lack

of finances from the government and the B.C. Hydro.

The Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) mentioned

the fact about the 2 cents a gallon tax that's been put on all

the motorists in the province. I think the Premier said today

that it was to get extra revenue from the tourist people. I

point out to him that he'll get more revenue from the residents

that are waiting for rural power than he will from any tourist

contribution. They, of course, have no access, as you know, Mr.

Chairman, to transit; it all comes back to the lower mainland.

Then, of course, on the other side, we see this strong support

of rural electrification.

I think that the Premier should tell us what he is going to

do about this. Actually, we're talking here about $1 million

related to the vote as it was three years ago, as compared to

today — $3 million has stood static. There are people out there — and all the fat cats in the lower mainland can laugh — but

there are people out in the rural areas of this province who

are relying on candlelight right tonight. They would love to

have power but they can't get it. I think the cause is right in

this vote and the non-support of this government. I'd like to

hear from the Premier what he is going to do about it. Is he

just going to continue to rely on a message from Hydro about

this or is he going to ask the electric people what is wrong

with this subsidy?

Mr. Phillips: I'm certainly glad to see the Premier

coming back into the House. I'm very disappointed in the

Premier this evening. Yes, I'm very disappointed in the Premier

this evening, Mr. Chairman. The Premier has proven to me,

beyond any

[ Page 1017 ]

word of a doubt, his complete ignorance of the need of the

rural population in this province and the need for money to

assist in rural electrification. The Minister of Finance has

said here in this House: "I accept this figure without question

— without question — from the British Columbia Hydro Power and

Authority." He is ignorant of what was spent last year.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! The Hon. Member is

becoming tediously repetitious. Would the Hon. Member continue

his tedious and repetitious speech?

Mr. Phillips: You know, Mr. Chairman, I'm

disappointed in you. I'm very disappointed in you because you,

of all the Members in this House, should....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! If the Hon. Member is

speaking to the MLA for Skeena, would he refer to the MLA for

Skeena (Mr. Dent), rather than addressing me as "you."

Mr. Phillips: Yes. The MLA for Skeena should remove

himself from the chair...

Hon. Mr. Barrett: They're not his estimates; they're

mine.

Mr. Phillips: ...take his place and stand up and

fight in this debate, fight for those people who still need

power, who still wait to see the light in this province. You

should remove yourself from the chair, because, Mr. Chairman,

the Minister of Finance accepted this figure without question

from B.C. Hydro.

B.C. Hydro is trying to make a profit. The less money that

Hydro will spend on rural electrification, the greater profit

they will be able to show to the Minister of Finance, who is

also fiscal agent for B.C. Hydro. So what I'm telling you, Mr.

Chairman, is that the executive of B.C. Hydro are scared of the

Minister of Finance. They're not interested in rural

electrification, because they're not elected. They're trying to

run a corporation and show a profit for the Minister of

Finance. They're not interested in poor farmers. They don't

have to go out there and be elected. They don't have to worry

about developing farmland. They don't have to worry about the

problems of getting their children into the hospital. They

don't have to worry about providing eyeglasses for their

children when they have to read in the dark — not the echelon

in Hydro.

But, Mr. Chairman, thank goodness there are people in this House who care about

those people. It would appear to me that all of those people who care are sitting

right here in the opposition benches. I haven't heard one word from the Minister

of northern affairs (Hon. Mr. Nunweiler), who is supposed to look after the

needs of the northern ridings and who is supposed to look after the constituents.

The Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder), the Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly), the Member

for Skeena (Mr. Dent)...

Mr. Lewis: Shuswap!

Mr. Phillips: ...and the Member for Prince George....Shuswap.

Mr. Lewis: Give me a chance.

Mr. Phillips: That Minister of northern affairs, Mr.

Chairman, if he doesn't stand up and fight for rural

electrification, is abdicating his responsibilities to those

great ridings in the north country. All that Minister of

northern affairs is interested in is that big, fat salary of

his — and salaries of all those executive assistants.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member

return the vote, please?

Mr. Phillips: Why, yes, Mr. Chairman. I'm just merely

telling you that Minister of northern affairs doesn't need any

executive assistants to realize the need for more money for

rural electrification in this province. I don't care if he

hires 20, 30, 40, 50 executive assistants...

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Phillips: ...he doesn't need any of them...

Mr. Chairman: Order!

Mr. Phillips: ...to go to the Premier...

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Phillips: ...and point out to him the need...

Mr. Chairman: Order!

Mr. Phillips: ...for money in this vote, Mr.

Chairman.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Mr. Chairman: There will be a few moments of silence.

I just want to point out to the Hon. Member that he should be

presenting his own arguments and his own actions in regard to

this vote, rather than speaking about what other Members ought

to be

[ Page 1018 ]

doing. I would ask the Hon. Member to speak to the vote.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, I will accept your

reprimand. But I hope that the Minister of northern affairs

accepts your reprimand equally, because he is the man in the

cabinet. He is the man who should be going to the cabinet. He

is the man who should be talking to the Minister of Finance. He

is the man who should be fighting for those great northern

ridings.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, he is the man who is

supposed to represent...

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Phillips: ...all of those people in need in

Atlin and Omineca and Skeena.

Mr. Chairman: I just made the point with the Hon.

Member that the Hon. Member should present his own arguments in

regard to this matter, rather than counseling Ministers or

other Members as to what their responsibilities are. Would the

Hon. Member present his own arguments in regard to this

matter?

Mr. Phillips: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You

know, something just hit me and it shocked me. If you go

through these pages of estimates, all $3.2 billion of them,

there's an increase of 25 per cent over last year and an

increase of 48 per cent over the estimates of one year ago...

An Hon. Member: How much for rural electricity?

Mr. Phillips: ...but how much increase in the rural

electrification vote? Not one little, single percentage point.

Not one little, single, solitary dollar. Not one little ounce

of worry about those pioneers...

Mr. R. H. McClelland (Langley): No concern.

Mr. Phillips: ...who went into the hinterland to

open up that great country to provide agricultural land to feed

the starving millions of the world. Not one little, single,

solitary dollar increase for them, those great pioneers. I want

to tell you, Mr. Chairman, and you know it as well as I know

it, that those types of individuals are shrinking from our

society, and no wonder. No wonder.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: They're not plugged in.

Mr. Phillips: We should be working to help these

individuals. We should be working to provide rural

electrification to all the farmers of this great northern

British Columbia of ours — to assist them, to encourage them to

go and open up the farmland which will provide food for the

hungry people of this world.

We should be putting these power lines in before they go out

there. We should be putting the power lines in and saying:

"Here it is. Come out. You have to suffer enough. You shall

have power." That is what we should be doing.

But of all the estimates of expenditures in this $3.2

billion there is a measly little pittance of $3 million. The

Premier doesn't even know the need — just accepts it.

We had an overrun of $ 100 million last year in the

Department of Human Resources. Did we have any concern in the

expenditures of this government for rural electrification?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Phillips: Did we have one cent overrun? Did we

have one cent spent? No, Mr. Chairman, not one single, solitary

cent did we over spend to help the poor farmers who are living

in the dark of this province. Not one little, single cent. Yet

we have a $103 million overrun in the Department of Human

Resources.

I want to tell you something else, Mr. Chairman. We can buy

jet planes and build jet planes; they are clogging up the

runways of the airport here in Victoria so that the

international planes hardly have room to land because the

government planes are in the way. Oh, yes. Oh, I remember the

days in this House when they used to complain about one single,

solitary jet.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Phillips: Now the runways of the Victoria

International Airport....

Mr. Chairman: Order!

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Interjection.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

Mr. Chairman: Before the Hon. Member takes his place

again I just want to remind him of standing order 61(2)

requesting that each Member be strictly relevant to the matter

under consideration in

[ Page 1019 ]

committee. I would ask the Hon. Member to try hard.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, I am just comparing

expenditures of this Minister. Not even the cost of one plane

to provide service for hundreds and hundreds of farmers, poor

people who live in the rural parts of this province. Not even

the cost of one jet plane.

I want to tell you something else — and I predicted this

would happen. Here our Minister of Finance goes out and borrows

hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars, the interest of

which — even the interest on $50 million — would not equal this

piddly little tuppence.

This great government is supposed to be concerned for the

people of this province. Oh, yes, we're a people's government.

We're a people's government, flying around in jet aircraft;

that's how we're a people's government. We're a people's

government going to the Arabs to borrow hundreds of millions of

dollars; that's how we're a people's government.

Oh, yes, it makes my heart weep when I think of those poor

children of those pioneering families out there trying to learn

their As and their Bs and their Cs in the dark. I would have

thought that that Premier, who was at one time a social worker would have had more social conscience for those great

pioneering families, instead of depriving those children of

their basic education.

In the north, Mr. Chairman, as you full well know, the sun goes down at 4:30

and the sun doesn't come up until 9:30 in the morning. Now if you live here

in Victoria you don't have to put up with that many hours of darkness. But those

people, those people in the north, those people in the northern ridings — and

the back bench know it; they realize it — have a greater need for electrification,

for lights, than any other areas in this province. The Premier is letting those

poor children go without their education. He said at one time that he was going

to be concerned for all areas of this province. But there they are, sometimes

taking their education by correspondence and having to study and read in the

dark because that Premier hasn't even made himself aware of the need for money

for rural electrification. This government is supposed to be interested in agriculture.

If they're truly interested in agriculture, they will realize that one of the

basic needs of agriculture today in this modern world is Hydro power. If the

Minister of Agriculture was truly concerned about developing raw land and increasing

food production, he would be standing up in this Legislature this evening and

he would be speaking out on behalf of those family farmers who are greatly in

need of Hydro. If that Minister of Agriculture was as conscientious as he's

supposed to be, he would be changing his ARDA plan so that farmers could borrow

money through the ARDA plan for rural electrification.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Hon. Member is

departing from this particular vote to advising other

Ministers. I would ask the Hon. Member to stick within the

vote, this $3 million.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry if I get

carried away....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Hon. Members don't

seem to understand that what we are considering is the

expenditure of this $3 million — not any other $3 million, this

$3 million. So you must confine your remarks to this money

contained in this vote.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please!

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I'm just waiting for

quiet.

An Hon. Member: One minute's silence.

Mr. Chairman: Now under standing order 61(2),

requiring strict relevance, what we are considering is the

expenditure of this particular $3 million. The Hon. Member is

proposing to other Ministers other expenditures which are not

contained in this vote. He must confine his remarks to this $3

million. Will the Hon. Member continue?

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry. I'm sorry if I

got carried away in my great concern for the farmers in British

Columbia. I see the Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly) is over

already talking to the Premier, asking for more money. I

suggest he stand on the floor of this House and let the people

know.

Interjections.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

Mr. Phillips: Now I think that I've presented the

case for more money for rural electrification. I know the

Premier's going to stand on the floor of this Legislature this

evening and he's going to talk to all of those people who are

out there in need of light. He's going to tell us that there

will be more money in this vote. He's going to tell us that he

will allow an overrun, an over-expenditure next year as the

need arises. He's going to tell us that he's going to talk to

Hydro, that he's going to change the formula.

I have outlined to him this evening the great need

[ Page 1020 ]

because of hundreds and hundreds of families, because of

hundreds of children who were in the dark tonight because of

the penny-pinching of this government, because of the lack of

knowledge of the Minister of Finance who doesn't even recognize

the need or the plight and who accepted the figure of $3

million without even one word of question to B.C. Hydro as to

what the need was.

He didn't care, Mr. Chairman. He's not concerned about those

who are in the dark tonight. He's not concerned about those

children, who may be ruining their eyes trying to read in the

dark.

I know that the Premier's going to stand up and he's going

to make an announcement. He's going to tell me that he's going

to say to Hydro: "Go ahead and help those poor people out."

What's a little overrun? Every other department overruns. Bring

in a new budget. Let's go for broke this evening. Let's help

those people who have pioneered this country.

Above all, the Premier's going to say this evening "let

there be light in those farm homes" that tonight are in

darkness because of his policies.

Mrs. Jordan: If the Premier or Minister of Finance

would like to stand up and answer the questions and announce

the increase in the budget or a new budget....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I have difficulty in dealing with

people who are suffering delusions of adequacy. I'm trying to

piece together some logic from the last 45 minutes of debate. I

have taken the Member's speech with the sincerity with which it

has been delivered, and I will give it the greatest

consideration because I know that no one would question the

Member's right to speak and present the case. Therefore I will

take your comments under advisement and speak to the Minister.

I thank you for eloquently putting the case....

An Hon. Member: Which Minister?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: The Minister who's on Hydro.

Some Hon. Members: It's your vote.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I will have to have the advice of

the Minister and get the exact information on the case that

you've presented.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You have lost control of the group

tonight, Mr. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett).

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Please don't interrupt. I've

listened....

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: We're dealing with vote 62.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Don't destroy the sincerity with

which your speech was presented by rude interruptions.

I'm telling you that I will take under consideration your

sincerely held request. When I have more information, I'll be

more able to judge the validity of your request. But there's no

way I can announce anything other than that tonight, Mr.

Member. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I need further

information. I respect you for raising it. I respect your point

of view and I will check into it. There's nothing more that I

can say.

Mrs. Jordan: I'm absolutely astonished that the

Minister of Finance would stand up in this House and say: "I'll

have to talk to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) — the Minister who's on Hydro."

Mr. Minister, that's the worst possible confession you've made

in this House yet. You should have that information when you

come into this House. It's your vote.

The Minister of Finance has gone again. Obviously this man

needs a urologist as well as an Agriculture Minister.

It's incredible to believe that a man who stands as the

Minister of Finance in this province, who is making deals

behind closed doors, who is playing on the stock market with

the people's tax dollars when he wouldn't dare invest any of

his own dollars, then says that we should trust him, we should

trust his financial ability and we should trust his political

judgment and we should trust his judgment in international

affairs, comes in here with a vote and doesn't even know what

it's about and then admits it.

Then he has the audacity to stand up and say: "I'll talk to

the Minister on Hydro" — Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

Why doesn't he try talking to the Minister of Agriculture?

That leads me to my next question: don't those two ever talk

except when they're on the way to a chicken-and-egg war? The

Minister of Agriculture...and I hope he won't leave now

because I want to know under this Premier's vote why the

Minister of Agriculture didn't tell the Minister of Finance

that not only is there a need for an expanded formula for rural

electrification in this province and that there are a great

number of people in this province that need this assistance,

but that the cabinet committee received a brief from the

executive of the B.C. agricultural industry submitted by

the

[ Page 1021 ]

B.C. Federation of Agriculture on December 19, 1974, in

which they reaffirmed again after again after again the need

for more money in rural electrification....

Mr. Bennett: He hasn't read it, Mrs. Jordan. He hasn't read it. Obviously the Minister

of Agriculture hasn't read it.

Mr. Bennett: He doesn't care.

Mrs. Jordan: They don't care. They don't even talk to

each other, yet they talk about administering this province.

The B.C. Federation of Agriculture even suggested on that day

that they move the formula from one mile per house to three

miles per house.

Well, the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) is laughing.

If we had some of those mining revenues that you shot down the

drain, we would be able to afford to put more money into rural

electrification. We get welfare in the woods — $103 million

welfare-in-the-woods overruns in this province — but no lights

on the farms. That's the type of socialistic stateism we've got

here.

Interjection.

Mrs. Jordan: Dim bulbs for dim wits. Mr. Chairman, I

realize that when you're earning $72,000, like the Premier of

this province, you can buy your wife a washing machine and all

the comforts of home. You can stand up in this Legislature and

say how she suffers living with him. But it's very difficult to

forget that in this province today there are many women who do

not only not have $72,000 a year incomes in their families but

barely have a living income. And they do their washing by hand.

They don't have vacuum cleaners. They sweep with a broom and

they scrub with a mop. They don't have indoor plumbing, Madam

Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford).

Interjection.

Mrs. Jordan: When you talk about denying them their

right to own their land and when you vote against our efforts

to increase the rural electrification, you're denying the same

women that you always pretended you're fighting for the right

to have electricity, the right to wash their dishes at least

with hot water, let alone a dishwasher, and the right to have

indoor plumbing, which they don't have because there's no

power.

The Premier talks about his trip to China, the great philosophy that he learned

there and the new avenues of life. You look at this vote 62 and its decrease

in money for rural power subsidies and rural electrification, and quite obviously

he thinks that the life in China is good enough for the rural people of this

province. They shouldn't have power. Farmers shouldn't have milking machines

for their cows because of no power. There's no power to operate their haylifts.

There's no power for light in their barns. There's no power for the women to

carry on their household responsibilities, and there's no opportunity for indoor

plumbing, Mr. Minister of Finance.

Now that you're back, I would advise you to talk not to your

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, who has proven

how little he cares about people and who has proven that he

believes land is more important than people, that people power

in the hands of the few is more important than power to the

people of the province, but talk to your Minister of

Agriculture. He'll tell you how badly needed rural

electrification is in this province — and an increase in that

formula. I wonder if the Minister will advise the House now

that he'll talk with the Minister of Agriculture and that he,

as Minister of Finance, after he's discussed it with the

Minister of Agriculture, will make the decisions and will make

more money available for this programme and increase the

formula.

Vote 62 approved.

Vote 63: statutory appropriations, $31,457,010 approved.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

On vote 3: Minister's office, $116,894.

Mrs. Jordan: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that

the Minister of Agriculture is not here when his vote is called....

Mr. Chairman: Order! I haven't recognized the Member

for North Okanagan. Shall vote 3 pass?

Some Hon. Members: Aye.

Mr. Chairman: So ordered.

lnterjections.

Mr. Chairman: I'm always prepared to recognize if

someone was on their feet, but I saw no one on their feet. I

called twice.

An Hon. Member: She goofed!

Mr. Chairman: Order! If you want the vote

reconsidered we'll.... Shall vote 3 pass? I recognize

[ Page 1022 ]

the Member for North Okanagan on vote 3.

Mrs. Jordan: Mr. Chairman, it has become very evident

through the debate on the budget of this session of this

parliament.... Well, I think it's very evident that even the

Chair is under considerable question at this time.

Mr. Chairman: Order!

Mrs. Jordan: We have seen Minister after....

Mr. Chairman: Order! The Member for North Okanagan,

the vote that you're supposed to be discussing is vote 3.

Mrs. Jordan: I'm discussing it, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Please make your remarks with regard to

vote 3.

Mrs. Jordan: Mr. Chairman, if you're ready, it's

clearly evident in the debate of the budget, the Premier's

estimates, and now vote 3, that there is a major thread of

concern being expressed by the Members of this House and being

expressed by the public of B.C., and that is the matter of

integrity in government — integrity on the part of

Ministers.

This question revolves itself in the tragic situation of the

Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi), in the incredible

behaviour of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

(Hon. R.A. Williams)....

Mr. Chairman: Order. I don't know what that has to do

with vote 3. We are dealing with vote 3, which is the

administrative responsibilities of the Minister of Agriculture.

Keep your remarks to that vote or you are out of order.

Interjection.

Mrs. Jordan: Indeed, Mr. Member, this is the problem.

We've seen the Premier and his integrity brought into question

and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) and the

Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. Chairman: Order! You are dealing with the vote of

the Department of Agriculture, the Minister's office, and you

will keep your remarks to that vote.

Mrs. Jordan: Or what, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: Or you are out of order.

Mrs. Jordan: I just mentioned....

Mr. Chairman: You must know the rules of order of

this House.

Mrs. Jordan: I just mentioned the Minister of

Agriculture. If you weren't in such a hurry to rule Members out

of order, you would have heard, Mr. Chairman. The Minister of

Agriculture....

Mr. Wallace: She's a new girl.

Mr. Chairman: Order! I can't be concerned whether

it's a new person in the House or whether it's someone who has

been here for some time. The order here is vote 3, and the

Member is well aware of what's on the floor.

Mrs. Jordan: Are you not well tonight, Mr.

Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: Order! Please refer to vote 3.

Mrs. Jordan: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the tragedy of all

tragedies in the question of integrity in this government at

this time is that the Minister of Agriculture is under this

cloud, in terms of the administration of his portfolio and in

terms of his conduct both in this House and outside this House.

He's been accused of selective amnesia before a court of law in

the matter of his responsibilities to a particular commodity

group in this province. He's been accused of using the heavy

hand in the income assurance programme, and it is becoming

increasingly clear in that area that his integrity that he

likes to wear as a badge of honour in fact is a cover-up to

secure the confidence of the producers while luring them into

his means of control and then changing the ground rules under

them and abusing his power which he has as a Minister, abusing

a mutual agreement and abusing — and this is the worst of all —

the trust and the confidence that the producers of this

province and the public of this province put in his hands.

This is not a court of law in this Legislature, but it has

been called the highest court of responsibility for each and

every Member who serves here. We are put here not by

appointment; we are put here by people and their trust in us.

We are not subject as Members or Ministers to the type of court

questions and the legal procedures that we see in a court of

law, but we are subject, as Members of this Legislature and as

Ministers of the Crown, to the most severe law and the most

severe lawyer and the most severe judge of all, and that is our

own conscience.

The conduct in this Legislature is dictated by the oath of

office that every Member takes when they enter and is dictated

by our own conscience between ourselves and God. We are

answerable to the people.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

[ Page 1023 ]

The Minister of Agriculture, I am quite sure, believes that

he is an honourable man. I suggest to him that this is the time

when he must answer to his conscience, to this Legislature and

to the people of this province. He knows this code of honour as

well as anyone because he's served a number of years in

here.

The Minister of Agriculture know that the debate surrounding

his involvement in court amnesia, chicken-and-egg wars and all

the surrounding areas is not only hurting him as a Minister and

the integrity of this government but also is hurting

agriculture itself. This is causing unnecessary and bad,

unjustly bad, publicity to this industry, and it's been

manipulated by vested interests to hurt the industry itself and

the producers.

Tonight I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture just

one question, because he and he alone can lay the concerns of

the people of this province and the concerns of the producers

of this province and the concerns of this Legislature to rest

so that agriculture and the programmes for agriculture can

proceed in an orderly manner to the benefit of the

producers.

I would ask the Minister if he would assure this House that the recollection

of the defendants in the court case in which he appeared as a witness and which

the judge found to be believable are, in fact, the events which took place in

the Premier's office.

It is a simple question, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr.

Chairman. It requires but a simple answer. It can lay to rest

this dreadful cloud that is surrounding his portfolio, his

Ministry and the whole agricultural industry in the province at

this time.

Vote 3 approved.

Hon. E.E. Dailly (Minister of Education): Mr.

Chairman, I move that the committee report resolution and ask

leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports

resolution and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:53 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1975, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada