[ Page 1011 ]

CONTENTS

Night sitting Routine proceedings Committee of Supply: Department of Finance estimates Mrs. Jordan — 1011

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1012

Mrs. Jordan — 1013

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1015

Mr. Phillips — 1015

Mr. Gibson — 1015

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1015

Mr. McClelland — 1015

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1016

Mr. Fraser — 1016

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1016

Mr. Cummings — 1016

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1017

Mr. Gardom — 1017

Mr. Cummings — 1018

Mr. Gardom — 1018

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1018

Mr. Chabot — 1018

Mr. Phillips — 1019

Mr. Gardom — 1019

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1019

Mr. McClelland — 1020

Mr. Gardom — 1020

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1020

Mr. Phillips — 1020

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1021

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1021

Mr. Chabot — 1021

Mr. Phillips — 1021

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1021

Mr. Morrison — 1022

Mr. Gardom — 1022

Mr. Phillips — 1022

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1022

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1022

Mr. Fraser — 1022

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1022

Mrs. Jordan — 1022

Mr. Phillips — 1023

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1023

Mr. McClelland — 1023

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1024

Mr. Gibson — 1024

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1024

Mr. Chabot — 1024

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1025

Mr. Chabot — 1025

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1025

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1026

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1026

Mr. Chabot — 1026

Mr. Fraser — 1026

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1026

Mrs. Jordan — 1026

Mr. Phillips — 1026

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1026

Mr. Fraser — 1027

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1027

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1027

Mrs. Jordan — 1027

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1027

MONDAY, MARCH 11, 1974

The House met at 6:15 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

(continued)

On vote 57: Income Taxation Branch, $508,958.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the Premier would like us to recess the debate until his Members get here.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier and Minister of Finance): I'm here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: We're here.

MRS. JORDAN: I'm glad the Premier's here and the Minister of Finance because under this vote — and I believe it's the correct vote — I'd like, through you, Mr. Chairman, to draw to his attention the real growing problem there is about succession duties, particularly with reference to husband and wife.

The situation has changed considerably in British Columbia and Canada in the last few years with the introduction of a capital gains tax by the federal government which, in turn, means that basically no family today is receiving any major income without paying a fair share of tax on it. Before, there was always the opportunity to garner a fairly large estate without paying taxes through capital gains. But this can't be done any more.

We're seeing a situation where widows and widowers are, through succession duties, being forced into an actual state of government-contrived poverty. When we have a situation where women are working and, in many instances, gaining the same salary, if not more salary, as their husband, then we're seeing a change in the role between men and women in the social context. It would appear only wise and prudent that the government should remove all succession duties in British Columbia between husband and wife, and all gift taxes between husband and wife.

Widows today are faced with the problem of rising costs of living in terms of purchasing power for their needs, rising taxes on their homes, rising costs in terms of repairs to their homes and in maintaining their homes, and rising costs in terms of just general utilization of modern day conveniences.

I think in terms of operating a car, which is considered to be almost a necessity in today's life in British Columbia, where not only the cost has increased but the cost of fuel is going to increase and the cost of insurance under ICBC has generally increased.

It's no secret that one can live little less expensively than two. You have your fixed costs in terms of home upkeep, in maintenance and, as I mentioned, taxes. You basically have the same cost in food, because if you buy in smaller quantities, the cost is up on a relatively equal basis.

There are the same costs basically in entertainment because people who live alone tend to want the company of other people and perhaps go out to paid entertainment more than when you have two people together.

The chances of amassing great fortunes today are relatively rare and for anyone who does amass a fair estate, I think it is generally conceded he has worked very hard for it. This is an output by both husband and wife. It's an output that should be recognized. In taking succession duties in British Columbia today we're actually double-taxing assets, because those assets have been built up not by tax evasion, but with the residue of money that's left after legitimate taxes have been paid.

One of the other problems is the lack of increased opportunity for older people, people in their late 40s and 50s, to find jobs. Many of today's widows are women who have been left widows through the years, who have raised families, and who are now in a position that they're in their 50s and they're tired and they're facing all these increasing costs and they do not have the same opportunity on the labour force that younger women today have — partly because of their lack of training, partly because at the age of 50 they are considered too old to train under Canada Manpower and any other programmes, and partially because companies and government are just not keen to hire people who are in their 50s, and particularly women. Still in British Columbia and in Canada there are limited opportunities for the women in the work force.

I think the imposition of succession duties with the change in the federal tax structure is such today that people spend a great deal of money and time consulting lawyers and accountants through their life trying to figure out their legitimate rights in their estate preservation. I have no objection to everyone making a fair living, but in the long run this means that hard-earned money is being spent on lawyers' fees and accountants' fees, which really isn't justified. Frequently the benefits are not there in terms of the estate planning.

The ground rules are consistently being changed at the federal level — and I recognize the Minister of Finance has no control over that — but also the inflationary factor is such that when people get into

[ Page 1012 ]

their 50s they're not generally of an acquisitive nature and their assets are being taxed heavily. And when a death takes place within the partnership, the succession duty often reduces the standard of living to the surviving spouse below what they have both enjoyed.

I think we can all recite case after case after case where women have had to sell their homes, their modest homes, simply because while their assets add up, their actual cash value and the cash flow within their hands is not adequate to meet their living needs and to meet the cost of the succession duty.

I think also, Mr. Minister of Finance, through you, Mr. Chairman, we have to recognize the fact that one can amass a sizeable estate in British Columbia today — perhaps almost double today what it was a year ago — if we look at the market of homes. They have doubled; the cost of land has doubled. It's very easy for a hard-working average family to have an estate well in the area of $500,000 — and perhaps more dollars — in terms of assets. But when one examines those assets in terms of income, the income is just not there to meet the needs of the family.

Often there are children, but if you examine the benefits to the under aged child in relation to what the cost of that child is to the surviving spouse, you'll recognize that through government taxation — and as I mentioned before, actually double taxation — the children of those families face a more difficult role. The pressure on them to work to help support the mother or the father is much greater than it is in an ordinary family. The pressure to do more work in gaining their education and to pay for their education is there, which isn't present in other families. So we not only place a disadvantage through double taxation on the surviving spouse, we do the same with the children.

I recognize that the Minister of Finance is concerned that there may be a few people that will slip through the noose with massive fortunes. But I would suggest to him, through you, Mr. Chairman, in all fairness, that we'd rather see a few sneak away than we would see the majority of widows — and I think, in many instances, widowers and children in this province — forced into a reduced standard of living through government philosophy and through the tragedy of a death in the family.

If you relate this to the younger family, I think you'll find that this applies ever the same, if not more so, and I'd like the Minister of Finance to comment on that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I don't know if that speech is given with all knowledge of the facts. The lawyers who are in the room would kind of shrink down in their seats a bit if they had to tell their clients what you're saying are the facts. The facts are that there is a basic $125,000 exemption.

MRS. JORDAN: I know that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I know a lot of widows that would like $125,000 even if they had to pay tax on it. We're talking about the very rich. Let's leave the rest of the exemptions. You talk about houses; your home is exempt on top of the $125,000.

MRS. JORDAN: I know that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They get $125,000. They are allowed $250-a-month pension that's exempt plus another $25,000 cash from an insurance benefit. Ninety-nine per cent of the people out there in this province would love the opportunity to have that kind of shelter. The basic deduction is $150,000. We've raised the exemption; we'll consider raising it again. But don't come in here pleading poverty as if this was affecting the ordinary people of this province. This affects the rich and the super-rich and so be it.

I remember the speeches of the former Premier and my applause of those speeches, and every single point that he made while he sat here: why it should be in, why it should be done, why the little people should be protected — good old Social Credit stuff. In the foundations of that party and in the foundations of this party there are many similarities.

On this issue we applauded the Premier; we voted for the bill. We still think he was right. The only time he changed his mind was when he had the Kelowna "Garter" — that was that pronouncement to help hold his party up. I would have expected this speech from the Liberals or the Tories, but not from Social Credit.

I don't want to have to go into the rural areas and tell Social Credit Party members about this kind of speech — about the party that is supposed to fight for the little people. I'm going to have to go in there and tell them this, and it embarrasses me that I have to go out and report this kind of speech.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver-Point Grey): If you keep this up we're going to get an adjournment.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now if the Member wishes to withdraw her statements, I'll acknowledge the fact that she's really, just for a moment, reneged Social Credit philosophy. But if she doesn't recant, think of the onerous burden on me now.

Little did I think, when I came back at 6:15 this evening, that I would have to carry this message. Little did I think that the tough day that I've had would have to go further with the shame of bearing this particular speech out to the little people in North Okanagan, Columbia River, South Peace River, North Peace River, Penticton, Langley — not so much Victoria — Chilliwack, Cariboo...boo-boo.

[ Page 1013 ]

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Don't worry about Cariboo-boo.

HON. MR. BARRETT: There it is: $150,000 basic exemption or $125,000, your home, $250 a month, plus $25,000. Oh, how I weep for the poor widow. Cornball speech!

That speech was made to protect the millionaire, and as long as we are in office this tax will stay.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, if my speech was cornball, then that speech from the Minister of Finance was utter garbage. That Minister won't have to go into Fort St. John or North Okanagan or Victoria and tell the widows how he wants to squeeze the widows — not with love, Mr. Chairman. He wants to squeeze them with greed for his coffers. He wants to squeeze them with double taxation. He shows, in what he said today, how completely insensitive and, if I may say, ignorant he is of what is going on in this province.

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Withdraw.

MRS. JORDAN: To suggest that $125,000 is a massive fortune is, as I say, Mr. Chairman, garbage. It isn't even recycled garbage.

HON. MR. BARRETT: And a home?

MRS. JORDAN: A home? You find me a home in Vancouver today that is of modest circumstance and costs less than $50,000, Mr. Minister of Finance, and you'll be a wizard in the real estate business.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's exempt too. The home is exempt.

MRS. JORDAN: Of course it is, but what is the taxation of a $50,000 home, Mr. Premier? You talk about $250 a month and $25,000 cash. Certainly if you have nothing this is a lot but if you've worked hard and you've paid your taxes through the years on that money, you have a right to have it.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): And you're a millionaire.

MRS. JORDAN: You're embracing not the widows; you're embracing double taxation.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's your party's programme?

MRS. JORDAN: I would repeat.... This is my policy, Mr. Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh.

MRS. JORDAN: ...and I feel my party would support this and do support this.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Do you agree with that?

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Which meeting did that come from?

MRS. JORDAN: We're on record. It shows how little, Mr. Chairman, the Premier even knows about what goes on in this House. We have consistently had a bill before this House to completely remove succession duties, estate taxes and gift taxes between husband and wife. We stand on that record.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Not McClelland.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Premier, you don't know the cost of living when you're sitting over there in your mansion. But, by George, when some irate chicken producer shoots you, your widow is going to know the cost of inflation. I don't wish this on her but I do wish that this Minister of Finance would wake up to the realities of life and to what is going on out in this province.

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

MRS. JORDAN: You can go anywhere in this province.... You bet I'll be violent to defend the widows in this province, and you should be violent, Mr. Minister; you should be concerned. You might have a jet crash, and then you're going to be in real trouble and you'll wish that your government had honoured this.

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: I would like to hear this Minister of Finance stand up and defend double taxation in British Columbia.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You bet your life.

MRS. JORDAN: You're on record, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You bet your life. The rich will pay their share, madam.

MRS. JORDAN: The rich widows in North Vancouver?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The rich will pay their share, madam.

[ Page 1014 ]

MRS. JORDAN: The rich widows in Fort St. James? The rich widows in Hope?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The rich will pay their share no matter where they are in British Columbia. No one gets a free ride.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Premier, you've unleashed a terrible psychology in this province and that is a lack of confidence in money. You just have to go around to every retailer in this province and they will tell you that people have lost confidence in your financial ability, and they are spending money because they know their money is being devalued.

MR. LIDEN: Which secret meeting did that come from?

MRS. JORDAN: Why do you want to sit on this philosophical hang-up of creaming the widow when all you've done is unleash inflationary forces in 18 months which, at the rate you're going, are going to be doubled in another 18 months?

Mr. Premier, or Mr. Minister of Finance, through you, Mr. Chairman, a retirement income for a couple of $500 a month three years ago was considered a very fair income. They could not only live, but they could do some of the things that they wanted to do. But that is worth nothing today under your administration.

I suggest to you that at the rate you are going $1,000 a month in two years is going to be worth nothing in British Columbia. Many of these widows, as I mentioned, are in their early 50s. According to statistics they will live to about 72. What are you going to do then, Mr. Minister of Finance?

HON. MR. BARRETT: We can always raise the exemptions.

MRS. JORDAN: You'll be long gone in your house or your yacht or whatever it is you want to spend your money on, but those widows will be living in British Columbia and they will be on Mincome.

You've said before,"Spend your money and live on the government." There are thousands and thousands and thousands of people in this province who find that a very foreign philosophy. Widows are no different. They don't want to be wards of the government; they don't want your pity.

You're so far removed from the people in 18 months from what you were when you sat over here that it is unbelievable. Come down out of the sky and find out what these widows are facing in this province.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I don't fight for the millionaires.

MRS. JORDAN: The millionaires! You've got millionaires on the brain.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, I haven't.

MRS. JORDAN: How many millionaires are there in British Columbia?

HON. MR. BARRETT: They'll support your party after this display.

MRS. JORDAN: How many millionaires are there in British Columbia?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I don't know but they are going to get taxed.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I think it is a tragedy that we have a Premier and a Minister of Finance in this province who can only make light and joke about a policy that is wrong and a policy that is hurting poor people and hard-working people in this province.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Poor people? It's hurting poor people?

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Minister, I was in the Interior this weekend and I was talking to small, independent contractors. In our area, they tell me, you can't buy a building lot for less than $16,000.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The home is exempt, madam.

MRS. JORDAN: But your taxation, Bill 71, and your approach to taxation has already had an effect on these people. And your inflationary policies.... Go down to the grocery store and see what's happening to the cost of pork and beans. A lot of the widows in this province are living on pork and beans, Mr. Premier, because of your policy.

You talk to widows about ICBC and they'll tell you how they budgeted and used to make their payments on their car insurance on a three-times-a-year basis. Now under ICBC they don't have any reductions and they have to hand out the money all at once, and they can't afford this.

I would ask you again to get down from your hang-up and don't double-tax widows in British Columbia. Recognize their need. Give the widows in British Columbia an opportunity to live at the standard of living that they worked for when they were married and after they've lost a partner.

You can go into apartment building after

[ Page 1015 ]

apartment building. Talk to your own Member — the Hon. Member who was going to have the special debate in this House on the problems of the renters. Find out how many renters in British Columbia are widows. Ask yourself, when you get through chewing your pen, just exactly what you are doing for them.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's hungry.

MRS. JORDAN: I know he's hungry, and so are the widows in this province. They want this Premier to stand up and recognize their plight. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) who is sitting next to you, and is a lady, knows this problem. She wouldn't deny it.

Don't deprive the many just because you have this hang-up of yours about anybody who has worked hard and has garnered a few assets in this province. Don't tell the widows to go out and spend their $25,000 to go to Hawaii and then come back and live on Mincome. They can't afford to keep their homes on Mincome.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam, through you Mr. Chairman, I will try to restrain my sense of querulousness. I am so puzzled by you, madam, that I'm restrained in my response as much possible.

Where do you think the money comes from Pharmacare to pay for the drugs for the poor people so they can get their drugs free? Succession duty helps pay for it. If you're fighting for the poor, then you're on the wrong end of the stick. You are so mixed up, I don't even believe you believe what you say yourself! You got trapped into a speech and you're trying to climb out of it.

What about Mincome? Did you provide Mincome when you were the government? No way you did, and thousands of people in this province know that you didn't provide Mincome. When you sat over here in your fat cabinet seat and flew around all over in the airplane, you weren't up there fighting for widows. You sat over there and scoffed at the NDP. You should flush with embarrassment at your own lack of action. When we sat through your estimates time after time, you never said a single word in defence of these people. But I hear this hypocritical speech. I've heard your own estimates debated in here and you sat there. Grace would come in white, you'd come out in brown and Isabel would come in blue. What a performance! What a performance! What hypocrisy!

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Are you talking about yourself?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I'll tell you that this scale will stay. There will be succession duties and the rich will pay and we'll tell everybody what your speech was all about.

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't know what the Premier would do if he didn't have that sort of little pat speech of his when somebody gets to him. He says: "I'm going out in the boondocks and I'm going to tell your constituents all about you." Whatever he does. It doesn't matter whatever it is; it'll take off.

Well, I'll tell you, he was up in my constituency for a while. It's the best show they've had since the days of Barnum and Bailey. I'd like to welcome him back. Next time I'm going to set up a show of my own; I'm going to charge admission. Come see our Premier. It's the best show you've ever seen since the circus was last in town! And I'm going to tell the people of my constituency about our Premier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm going to tell them how he's ripping off the resources and hiring a bureaucracy down here that's costing the taxpayers of this province $50 million.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, he's giving my speech! (Laughter).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order, please! I'd ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to vote 57, the Income Taxation Branch.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Through you to the Minister of Finance, there is one area of taxation that.... I thought this was succession duties. (Laughter.)

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): A question on vote 57, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, vote 57.

MR. GIBSON: I notice the number of personnel in the Income Taxation Branch has gone up by 11. I wonder if the Minister of Finance could tell us how much of that applies to the staff necessary for the enforcement of the capital taxation provision.

HON. MR. BARRETT: About six, Mr. Member.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you.

Vote 57 approved.

On vote 58: Assessment Equalization Act, $329,528.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Just a quick question to the Minister, Mr. Chairman. With regard

[ Page 1016 ]

to the availability of assessors, as it is in every other municipal department almost with reference to municipal officials, there's an extreme shortage of qualified personnel to fill these positions. As I understand it, talking to the people in the municipal field, in the next few years — in fact, very shortly — with a lot of retirements coming forward, they will not be able to get people to fill these positions and there's going to be an extreme shortage of assessors and other officials. Is the government doing anything to help fill that gap?

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's been reported to me that we checked in the interim. That report is in the Civil Service Commission and it has an urgent label on it. We're doing everything we can to expedite that very good report by Mr. Wright.

Vote 58 approved.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like to ask a question. What vote do you discuss succession duties under?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Fifty-six. (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, that's "real property taxation."

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's 57.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, that's not it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We've discussed this. Where were you? We had a very intelligent debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. This is administered by the Income Taxation Branch.

On vote 59: Purchasing Commission, $753,364.

MR. FRASER: I'd like to ask the Minister of Finance a few questions here. First of all, are all the government purchases put to tender call?

Another thing I would like to know regarding the Purchasing Commission is have they different sets of specifications for different departments? I refer to the fact that, for instance, the Forestry department can get a better quality vehicle for their use than the Highways department. I think this is completely wrong and I'd like to hear what the Minister has to say so that we can standardize these things. The Purchasing Commission buys a pickup for the Department of Highways. The Minister says they're going to buy Datsuns from now on so they're getting even worse. But I want to know why they buy a pickup for the Department of Highways stripped right down. There's hardly anything on it; in some cases I think they try and deliver them to the Highways department without wheels and tires. They're completely standard. The Forestry department can turn around, going through the same Purchasing Commission, and buy a pickup that's worth $2,000 more and certainly it's a better value for the taxpayers of this province. It's about time this nonsense stopped. I'd like to hear from the Minister of Finance about this.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the answer to question No. 1: yes, they're all by tender.

Secondly, it could be that each department puts in specific requests because of different terrain, but you would have to ask the details from the Minister. I'm advised that the Purchasing Commission follows the specifications received from that department. It doesn't determine; it follows the specifications from the department.

MR. FRASER: Well, Mr. Chairman, on that point, I've been raising this for two or three years in this House. Last year it's my information that the Department of Highways sent the higher specifications in to the Purchasing Commission. They started questioning them and said,"You can't do that." They still ended up with junk equipment.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We'll get the answer from the Purchasing Commission.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver-Little Mountain): Mr. Chairman, this is one of the votes I'm not too happy with. I could approach this from a political point or as a businessman. As a businessman, it takes two people, a salesman and a purchaser, to make a good business deal. I feel the Hon. former Premier or Prime Minister (Hon. Mr. Bennett) was a very poor businessman because he was a small-town merchant, because he didn't want to waste money on buyers who would go around and find the best deal for the province. I'm afraid, judging by the vote, we haven't given them enough money so that they can find the best deal.

Because of this style of purchasing, it has a tendency to centralize the buying in Victoria and Vancouver. It seems to centre into the bigger suppliers and this doesn't get the people of all the province a chance to bid on these government jobs. I hope next year, or even quicker, we can manage to spread this business so as to share it equally among all the businessmen, all the wholesalers, all the retailers from one end of British Columbia to the other. I think it's completely unfair for this centralized bureaucracy down here to end up with the business.

There's another point that's bothering me very, very much. When I was checking over the Purchasing Commission, I find out that Mr. Bennett, that fine, upstanding businessman, discontinued having an

[ Page 1017 ]

inventory of what this province owns. Believe it or not, every department doesn't even know what it owns itself, let alone what else it owns. So there could be cases where we buy things which another department has in surplus. There's no inventory. I really do feel that an inventory should be brought back.

Mr. Bennett was a very, very small businessman. Why waste time taking stock because, when he was a businessman, you didn't need to take stock. Of course, he was the type of businessman who came from an era where a handshake was a handshake. That means your word was your bond and you would follow through with your word. I wouldn't want to get political about the old era, what a handshake is worth, but that's all I have to say.

Vote 59 approved.

On vote 60: Langford warehouse, $10.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Member raised a very valid point. Do we or don't we have an inventory? Apparently the inventory has been stopped because there wasn't enough staff. I have asked for a report on it from the Deputy.

MR. GARDOM: When was it stopped?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Two or three years ago. I have asked for a report, and we'll look into it.

MR. GARDOM: What, roughly, are the provincial assets to date?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, they are going around counting desks, and after they count the desks they file a report.

MR. GARDOM: Have you no idea what the assets are?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes. The assets are on the balance sheet, Mr. Member.

MR. GARDOM: Well, what is it?

HON. MR. BARRETT: We are talking about an inventory in terms of a specific number of desks, chairs....

MR. GARDOM: Well, inventory gets a lot more than desks and chairs, as you well know. The Member made a very, very good point.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Okay. Look, I'm going to get a report on it, and I'll let you know.

MR. GARDOM: Doesn't the Deputy have an idea, roughly, what the assets are that your Member was talking of and that I am asking questions about, in dollars and cents?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The answers are on the balance sheet, I am told.

MR. GARDOM: Then what are they?

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's on page 26, Table A, of the budget speech.

MR. GARDOM: I don't have it in here. What is the amount?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Cash: 1973 in hand, $27 million. Got your pencil handy?

MR. GARDOM: We've taken inventory in cash....

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right. Write it down — $27 million.

Investments: $196 million. Write that down.

MR. GARDOM: I've got that — investments.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Accounts receivable from other governments and agencies: $17 million.

Working capital advances....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The information is obviously available.

MR. GARDOM: How do you know it is available? Tell him to read it out. Don't come up with an asinine suggestion like that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Could I ask the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver-Point Grey to be finished until the Premier is finished, because only one Member should be on his feet at a time.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Working capital advances: $13,780,463, for a total of $254,846,474.

Taxes and other accounts receivable: $43,184,656.

Loans and advances: $22,315,428.

Investment in, and advances to, Crown corporations: $209,257,587.

Fixed assets: $1,565,491,062. That includes the furniture in the Liberal Party caucus room.

Special Purpose Funds: cash, $826,000; investments, $287 million; homeowner (second mortgage) loans receivable, $113 million.

Superannuation funds: cash, $81,000.

Investments: buildings and furnishings on page B4 of the schedule of statements. Assets and liabilities,

[ Page 1018 ]

details at March 31, 1973: highways.... We count the highways. I don't know who goes around counting the highways. There are $1,121 million worth of them. I don't know how many of those are in Kamloops.

Bridges — we count the bridges. We have got $279 million worth of bridges.

Wharves — we've got $203,000 worth of wharves.

MR. GARDOM: Those are fixed assets you are reading now.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. The Hon. Minister of Finance has the floor.

MR. GARDOM: But he's tired of it.

MR. CUMMINGS: Actually, Mr. Chairman, I shouldn't bring this out. (Laughter.) There used to be a little vegetable market fellow on Hastings Street who used to take a physical count once a year. That is what I want to talk about — the physical count.

MR. GARDOM: You've got $1,565 million in fixed assets — that's the statement you gave us — and you also informed us that there hasn't been an inventory for three years. But you haven't told us why there has not been one. It seems very peculiar to me, and I thoroughly agree with your own Members when you were talking about this kind of money....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I am advised that the previous government reviewed it carefully, and decided that it wasn't worth the effort. I have asked now for a special report, because I was unaware of this. As soon as I get the report, I'll review this matter. Thank you, Mr. Member, for bringing it to my attention, and thank you, Mr. Member, for bringing to my attention. I'm pleased that I have had the opportunity of discussing this here with you this evening.

MR. GARDOM: As a friend of mine would say: "It don't matter none." But was this until, it seems, three years ago being carried on annually — this inventory?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, it was not carried on annually.

MR. GARDOM: How many inventories have we had since 1952?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I don't know the answer.

MR. GARDOM: More than one?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes.

MR. GARDOM: More than two? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: Not too many.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver-Howe Sound): That's as bad as the B.C. Rail.

AN HON. MEMBER: That doesn't look too good.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We are going to check into this. You've ferreted out a very important item. I want to thank you.

MR. GARDOM: He doesn't look like a ferret. (Laughter.)

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): The Minister of Finance just a few moments ago told us that we have these fixed assets of $1.5 billion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Would the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver-Little Mountain state his point of order?

MR. CUMMINGS: The Minister of Finance inferred that I look like a lawyer, and I don't like that. (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance suggested that there has been no inventory. I was wondering just how he arrived at this figure of $1.5 billion in assets. He suggested that they do do some counting. They are concerned about the number of desks there are in the Liberal caucus room.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They know what we own. They just don't go around counting them every year — that's the distinction. Yes, we own that, and then we take depreciation off that. I think that's it. If you get my estimates through I'll start tomorrow and go around and check the latest.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, apparently they are going to proceed again into a matter of taking an inventory of the assets of the provincial government. The only suggestion I want to give is that they don't use the method being used by the Second Member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings), who sticks his finger into a tub of ice cream to measure how much there is in it.

MR. CHAIRMAN. Shall vote 60 pass?

MR. PHILLIPS: Just a moment! We're still on vote

[ Page 1019 ]

59. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Vote 59 has been passed.

MR. PHILLIPS: We're talking about inventory. Right?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We allowed one question returning to vote 59, but actually it had passed.

MR. PHILLIPS: We are still on 59! We are still talking about inventory.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're on vote 60. I'll allow further questions on inventory if they seem to be in order.

MR. PHILLIPS: What I would like to know from the Minister of Finance is: what inventories exactly are taken? Is it inventories of furniture? Is it inventories of stores in your government garages?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Just furniture. Every other inventory is taken.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, now — there! (Laughter.) We are getting down to it. In other words it is only the desks that didn't get counted. How is that for a ferret?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Pretty good, Mr. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Snow job! Ice cream job!

MR. GARDOM: I ask the Premier, in view of this shocking revelation coming from your own benches, why don't you support the concept of having an independent auditor-general in the province?

HON. MR. BARRETT: We do not provide desks for horses — that's only in Petawawa.

MR. GARDOM: We don't know that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The desks are numbered.

MR. FRASER: We've got horses in Fort Steele.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Fort Steele? Well, you've brought the wrong half down here, Mr. Member. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'm going to have to call the House to order. Vote 59 has been passed.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's ridiculous!

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are now considering vote 60 - the Langford warehouse.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, we are still on 59!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Does the Hon. Member have a relevant question?

MR. PHILLIPS: Relevant! (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Vote 60.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, we are talking about vote 59. The desks concern me, because I want to know if there are desks in the province with no people behind them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Before we proceed, is it agreed that we reopen vote 59 again?

MR. PHILLIPS: We've never been past it yet! We are talking about a very serious matter here, because the Member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings) made an assertion that there was no inventory taken in the province, and everything was run haphazardly, but I certainly don't think that this should just flit on by until the impression is corrected. Now, if it's only desks and chairs in the province that we don't go around and physically count, that's what I want to know. But I know we take inventory of cash, I know we take inventory of automobiles, and I know we take inventory of stores in the repair depot.

HON. MR. BARRETT: And each department takes an inventory of their own.

MR. PHILLIPS: And each department takes an inventory of their own.

AN HON. MEMBER: An annual one?

HON. MR. BARRETT: So many desks they check them routinely, Mr. Member. There is not a great shortage of desks being trotted out under the former administration or under our administration. The system seems to work well. I'm waiting for a report on the matter so I can review it. I wasn't aware of this problem before as the good Member for Vancouver-Little Mountain so graciously raised it this evening.

MR. PHILLIPS: Who's got the floor here?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Minister of Finance be seated? I've recognized the Hon. Member for South Peace River on vote 59.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now that we've got this nonsense

[ Page 1020 ]

brought on this floor of this House by the Second Member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings) — there is an inventory taken, we do know how many desks we've got, we do know how much cash we've got and there are assets in inventory. So he gets up and says: "Oh, the previous Premier...." Listen! I wouldn't give the fingernail you cut off and throw in the wastepaper basket off of the previous Premier for your whole body, when it comes to business sense!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Vote 59, we're considering the Purchasing Commission.

MR. McCLELLAND: While we're on the subject of inventories, I'd like to caution the Minister of Finance when he's out counting not to count pencils, because I was just reading them and I notice they've been donated to the government by the Victoria Family Planning Committee. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: At the rate we use our time in this House, there's no need for family planning.

MR. GARDOM: Could you tell us how often B.C. Hydro has an inventory?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I don't know; I'm not on the board. You can ask the Member who's on the board.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, not that old....

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm not on the board.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, come on now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver-Point Grey has the floor.

I want to draw the attention of the committee to the fact that there are some people downstairs later that are going to have to unscramble this mess. I would ask them to speak only when they're recognized and their microphone is turned on. We have to give some consideration to the people who have this job. I would ask one person at a time to speak, please.

MR. GARDOM: Assuming that the Premier is the Minister of Finance and has control of the coffers of British Columbia and its largest principal asset, which I assume to be B.C. Hydro, and its second largest principal asset, which I assume to be B.C. Rail, does he not have the information from his Deputy as to whether or not these Crown corporations — and I'm not finished yet, Mr. Premier — have annual inventories?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I'll take the question as notice and answer you tomorrow. I don't have the information here from the Deputy. I don't know the answer to your question. I'll find out for you as quickly as I can.

MR. GARDOM: Well, I would just volunteer this one observation. I would tend to think that this would be one of the responsibilities of the Minister of Finance, and maybe the Premier is overworking you.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I don't have the time to do the inventory. I'll find out.

MR. GARDOM: I think, Mr. Minister of Finance, you indeed have the time to know whether or not the B.C. Hydro or the B.C. Rail have inventory. If you don't, you'd better appoint somebody else as Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I will find out for you. The question has never been raised. I want to thank you for bringing it to my attention, along with the Member for Vancouver-Little Mountain. There is no truth to the rumour that I am making little dolls' images of that Member and yourself. (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: Now that you have us doubting about inventories, I'd like to know what inventories are taken daily on the ferries. Is a good inventory taken daily after the ship sails at night? Is it taken before the new crew comes on in the morning? When is the booze inventory taken on the Queen of Prince Rupert?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: What's the matter with that? What order did I make?

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's a very good question, Mr. Member, and I will find out for you as quickly as I can.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Member for South Peace River has the floor. I was calling order because you were being interrupted. Would the Hon. Member continue, please?

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister of Finance, he should know, because he's paying the bills in this province — he's signing the cheques. He should know if there's inventory taken on booze on the Queen of Prince Rupert. He should know if there is inventory taken of food on all the ferry systems. He should know how much gasoline is in the tanks of the....

[ Page 1021 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. This would come under the responsibility of the Minister of Transport and Communications.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's under the Minister of Finance. He buys the food, he buys the gasoline, he signs the cheques for the booze — he should know. How many doughnuts are on those ferries? That's what I want to know. Is the doughnut inventory taken after the ferry sailing at 12 o'clock at night?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I know the total number of holes in those doughnuts and what they add up to.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you very much for assuring me that inventories are indeed being taken, not only yearly but daily in this province.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: One question: when the Minister of Finance is making inquiries about fixed assets, would he please also indicate where we would find a notation of current assets of the provincial government? Fixed assets does not include equipment in the various departments.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Page 26 of the budget speech under "general fund" has current assets under four subtitles — cash, investments, accounts receivable and working capital advances.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I would think in the public accounts it refers to fixed assets. I wonder if the Deputy Minister could ....

HON. MR. BARRETT: What page?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Page B4 gives a statement of fixed assets, but it does not include any equipment inventories — only buildings and furniture.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Page A2, Mr. Member.

MR. CHABOT: A very brief question. There have been some impressions conveyed here which I really don't like. First the Second Member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings) gets up and leads people to believe that there's no inventory whatsoever of assets, be they provincial or a Crown corporation of the province. Now, from further questioning of the Premier, we find that there is an inventory, basically on a departmental basis. The only inventory that really we don't have is a master inventory of the furniture — it isn't included. I want to make sure that that is the case. We also have the impression left by the Minister of Finance that there are no inventories taken of the Crown corporations.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I said I don't know. I'll find out.

MR. CHABOT: I hope that this rumour doesn't go around the province that you don't know, and which in turn leaves the impression that there is a possibility that there's no inventories of these Crown corporations.

I hope that in due course, Mr. Minister of Finance, you will take this matter almost as an oral question during the oral question period — take it as notice and bring the matter back and inform the Members — because I've always been one who believed that the provincial government was well administered in years gone by, and I hope that the administration that was evident at that time will continue in the years ahead.

I feel the same way about the Crown corporations. Crown corporations, as the former Premier would say, are some of the finest Crown jewels we have. I'm sure that those figures that we have seen on page 26 of the budget clearly indicate that there must be a fairly reasonably accurate form of inventory of the Crown corporations in British Columbia. I hope this little in-depth discussion we've had about inventories will dispel the rumour which the Member for Vancouver-Little Mountain tried to establish just a few moments ago.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll answer tomorrow.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now that we've established that there are indeed inventories taken, I'd like the Minister of Finance to advise me — and I realize that for income tax purpose the government doesn't really have to establish his assets once a year — what rate the provincial buildings are depreciated on a yearly basis. I realize that that would determine whether they are made of wood or cement but are they depreciated on a yearly basis? Furniture like the furniture we have here costs so much to buy, and we are certainly buying a lot of desks lately, I'm sure, to have facilities for these 8,000 new civil servants to work behind. What depreciation rate is used in the depreciation of furniture?

Who determines the amount of write-off, for instance, in the food storage? At the end of our fiscal year, which is March 31, is there a write-off of certain assets? For instance, if you've got vehicles what depreciation rate are they depreciated at? Do you go by the year or when they were purchased?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I am advised that this is a matter of policy by the Comptroller-General. If you want to place the question on the order paper in terms of specifics, we can respond that way. In terms of buildings, I can find out for you tomorrow.

[ Page 1022 ]

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm a little bit concerned about the travelling expense item on that particular vote. It's up $10,000, and I really wonder why a Purchasing Commission travels in the first place.

HON. MR. BARRETT: More staff.

MR. MORRISON: But where do they go and why would they have that size of a travelling allowance?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Typewriter mechanics do a lot of travelling; service people under this department do a lot of travelling. We have more staff.

MR. MORRISON: I notice you have more staff but no more cars. How are they going to travel?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. BARRETT: They go in twos and threes, servicing together.

MR. GARDOM: When you give us this information about the inventories, Mr. Premier, I wonder if you would also inform us exactly what the inventory procedures are for the province; whether or not there is the same system for the Crown corporations; whether you're following the last-in first-out (LIFO) procedure or first-in first-out (FIFO) procedure.

I think all of that information would be most interesting and necessary for the taxpayers of B.C. who apparently today are unaware as to whether or not there is an inventory or what the taxpayer really does happen to own.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We'll check on everything.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: One further short, good, quick question. Would the Minister of Finance, when he's advising depreciation rate on buildings, equipment and desks, et cetera, advise me also of the depreciation rate on the jet airplanes and how much they depreciate in their first year?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Member. We will try and find out for you.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, under the fixed assets and liabilities we have highways, bridges, wharves, ferries, buildings and furnishings, as indicated by the Premier. We then come to the Songhees reserve, Victoria — presumably the Indian reserve — there's a $773,690 item there. I wonder whether the province owns the reserve or whether the Indians have been bought out from their reserve. What is the purpose for listing this under provincial assets?

HON. MR. BARRETT: We'll find out and let you know tomorrow.

Vote 59 approved.

Vote 60: Langford warehouse, $10 — approved.

On vote 61: government agencies, et cetera, $3,695,140.

MR. FRASER: I have a few short questions here. As an example of government agents in their different class, government agent (4), located at Courtenay, gets a salary of $16,236. A government agent (4) located at Cranbrook gets $14,784. I'd like to know why the difference. Government agent (4) at Quesnel gets $15,150 and government agent (4) at Williams Lake gets $16,236. Why the discrepancies in these? I gather they are all government agents (4); why the differences in their salaries?

Again, on government agent (3) at Duncan: a salary of $14,784 per annum. Government agent (3) at Fort St. John: a salary of $13,068. As a matter of fact, the government agent at Fort St. John has had a reduction in salary, and it's the first one I've seen. It has actually dropped from last year's salary of $13,440 to $13,068. I can't understand how all these different salaries in the same group rating.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The last case is a new agent. They are all on ranges, Mr. Member, according to lengths of service.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, the range varies. They're just like the other civil service wage structures, that's all. And in the case of the last one, it is a new agent.

MRS. JORDAN: I would like to ask the Minister of Finance about the constituency I represent. In our government office we're the fastest growing area in British Columbia and one of the fastest growing in Canada. We had a staff of 21 last year, and there is no increase for staff this year. We have the same number: 21. It is my understanding that there has been representations made to you, as Minister of Finance, to increase the staff there.

Also, we are due for reappraisal, and there's a decrease in the number of appraisers (2) from four to two. You've increased appraiser (1) by one. But this,

[ Page 1023 ]

in essence, doesn't seem to be a proper balance, judging by the type of work these men have to do. I would ask the Minister of Finance why there hasn't been an increase in staff as requested in such a rapidly-growing area. Why have you shunted the appraisers down and, in essence, left us with a more difficult task to do due to Bill 71, plus the fact the area is for reappraisal and a less than adequate staff to do it?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, the matter is constantly under review. There were no additions this year, but the matter is under review in terms of local patterns, I'm advised.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I was just looking at the government agencies, particularly in the north: Fort St. John, Prince George, Pouce Coupe. I noted that these government agents' salaries vary in the $16,000 to $17,000. range. Most of these men carry the full responsibility of representing the government, sometimes many, many hundreds of miles away from Victoria, They have a great responsibility. In many cases they have to buck the ice and the snow in winter and the dust in the summer. Many of them have been in their jobs and are very well qualified to answer any question that comes up, whether it be about government financing, whether it be about the Department of Mines, whether it be about assessments — regardless of what it's about. I feel these men are grossly underpaid.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. PHILLIPS: Everything is relative. The Minister of Finance hires himself an administrative assistant with no previous experience whatsoever at $21,500. These men, many of whom have served the province well for years and years and years, have to be able to answer to the general public out there in those government agencies any question that comes up about any phase of the operation of this government whatsoever. Many of them have been in the government service for a great number of years. They've studied to take the provincial government civil service test; they have to continually study to keep up with new legislation.

Here all we're paying the majority of them is $16,236 a year. Some of them get less. Here the Minister hires himself an executive assistant, with no experience in the government whatsoever, and pays him $21,500. How can that be justified, Mr. Minister of Finance?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, we inherited a number of injustices, including Deputy Ministers' salaries, which we corrected.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Name names! Name names!

HON. MR. BARRETT: We are allowing the government employees to do bargaining rather than allow for paternalism. We hope that collective bargaining will review a number of procedures.

In terms of specific areas, we are reviewing specific areas of low salaries which have caused us to lose staff or an inability to recruit good staff. In those cases we have had to make separate decisions.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance really didn't answer my question. Can I go back to these government agencies and say there is help on the way, that they are going to be paid more, that they are going to have an increase?

HON. MR. BARRETT: You can say that they, along with many other categories, are being reviewed, along with what we hope are substantive rearrangements in terms of contracts negotiated openly and honestly between the union and the government.

Vote 61 approved.

On vote 62; courts of revision, $58,000.

MRS. JORDAN: I assume this is the appeal boards for....

HON. MR. BARRETT: No.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I'm a little concerned about courts of revision. First of all, the number of changes in the past two years — 99 changes — is...

AN HON. MEMBER: A good thing.

MR. McCLELLAND: ...considerably more than has ever happened in the previous years that I can discover. Secondly, I've had a number of complaints about people who serve on courts of revision. Too many of them, it seems, have little or no experience in any field of property management, property ownership, whatever. There is concern among the assessors of the province, as well, that there is a lack of expertise on the courts of revision, in recent years particularly.

I'd like to know if the Minister of Finance, Mr. Chairman, is going to insist, perhaps, that appointments to the courts of revision contain at least one person with some area of expertise in the tricky field of assessment. Secondly, would he like to explain why he found it necessary to make so many

[ Page 1024 ]

changes — 99 changes — in the past two years?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, these come up for annual review through order-in-council. Some people — I don't know the number — indicated they didn't want to serve. That happens all the time; that's normal. The changes are over a two-year period. I do hope the boards get stabilized. It's difficult to get people to serve sometimes.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, there's been a big change. Inflation alone, in terms of how we approach these things, has caused people.... For a highly-skilled person to take a slice out of his day or a week, it's difficult. These are things that have to be considered.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, that's a valid question in terms of expertise to recruit people who are willing to sit for the amount of money that's available. It's a matter that we're concerned about and looking at. The whole assessment thing, as you know, is an area of concern.

Vote 62 approved.

On vote 63: Assessment Appeal Board, $70,000.

MR. McCLELLAND: There was a commitment given earlier, I think by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer), that the chairman of the Assessment Appeal Board would not be holding two positions as the chairman of the local court of revision and the chairman of the Assessment Appeal Board. I'd like to know if that has been carried out.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's in the process of being carried out, Mr. Member, I'm informed of that.

Vote 63 approved.

Vote 64: printing public accounts, estimates, et cetera, $165,000 — approved.

Vote 65: temporary assistance, $300,000 — approved.

Vote 66: incidentals and contingencies, $100,000 — approved.

On vote 67: Public Service Superannuation Act, $10.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Minister could tell us the effective interest rate being earned by the Public Service Superannuation Act fund?

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's over a great number of years, Mr. Member. We would have to get an average rate for you.

MR. GIBSON: Could you do that, please?

HON. MR. BARRETT: We can give you the current rate; 8 1/2 per cent is the current rate.

Vote 67 approved.

Vote 68: Members of the Legislative Assembly Superannuation Act, $10 — approved.

Vote 69: interest on trust deposits, $1,800,000 — approved.

On vote 70: salary contingencies and adjustments (all departments), $15,000,000.

MR. CHABOT: We're talking about an increase here in salary contingencies and salary adjustments of $4 million, from $11 to $15 million. I was wondering the reason for the increase. I notice there are the adjustments in the various departments here upgrading and ranging anywhere from 10 to 25 to 30 per cent, and now we see an unallocated block of money as well.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well....

MR. CHABOT: Just a moment; I still have the floor. Drink your coffee, Mr. Minister of Finance, while I'm saying the few words I'm going to say. You tend to believe that once I stand up I'm going to go on forever. You know me as a brief speaker; I don't speak very long. (Laughter.) But I always say something when I do speak. You know that, too, Mr. Minister of Finance. Thank you very much.

I was wondering if you could tell us why the dramatic increase from $11 million to $15 million in view of the fact that you have already, in effect, set certain salary schedules.

I know there's going to be collective bargaining between the government and the B.C. Government Employees' Union. I was wondering if that is the reason for that contingency. If that is the reason, why wasn't the entire sum of money which goes into salary put into that lump as a means of coming to a proper conclusion? You almost predetermined to a substantial degree what kind of an increase a civil servant, depending upon his classification or his position in the department, will receive. Is he going to receive a bonus from this money in vote 70?

[ Page 1025 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, Mr. Member. You've raised a very valid question. In the past the figure was established and the increases were announced. Now there are two additional factors here. There is an awareness that we need to review. The fact is that salaries for professional, skilled and technical people have risen dramatically in the last two years. We must compete to find the skilled people we need. That's part of it and the adjustments. For example, the Member (Mr. Phillips) behind you asked about the review of government agents. If that review indicates they must have an increase, it would come out of this adjustment figure here.

MR. CHABOT: Is this for bargaining purposes, as well?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Bargaining as well. The figure last year, I think, was $10 million without bargaining. No, I'm not predicting what the bargaining will be. We will bargain fairly, but we also are faced with the very real fact in the last two years of the acceleration of professional, technical salaries. We have to recruit on an equal basis with our other provinces.

The Member behind you raised a valid point with the government agents, who could have been and should have been paid an adequate salary two years ago. It has pretty well been knocked over and we've got to keep those people on staff. They are very skilled people.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, another brief question on this.... The NDP, I'm sure, are concerned whether part of this contingency might be for an increase in the MLAs' indemnity. Maybe that action has come out in caucus, I don't know.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, that's a separate vote, but if you're putting in a plug I'll certainly give it consideration. (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: I never said that. (Laughter.) I do want to say one other thing, in view of the fact that we're discussing contingencies here which relate themselves to a certain degree to collective bargaining.

I want to lend support to the approach you took last year when dealing with salaries prior to the collective bargaining process, the approach you took establishing a basic minimum for those people in the low salary classifications. I want to applaud the government for taking that action and I hope the government will pursue that type of bargaining on their side of the fence.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, we laid it on in terms of how we wanted this handled. That is the only fair way to go.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The across-the-board percentage increase hurts the lower levels. That's why we gave that fixed amount to lower levels. I would hope that private industry would approach this on the same basis.

AN HON. MEMBER: I do too.

HON. MR. BARRETT: In terms of the pressures by membership of an association or a union, it's a lot more logical to bargain on that basis with understanding rather than the very, very top benefiting the most from that percentage of increase. I appreciate your comments.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The question of adjustments, Mr. Chairman. I asked this question of the Minister of Agriculture, vote 5 was where I asked the question. Eight people more were hired and they had $500,000 more for salary, which made it $60,000 a throw — which seemed very high.

In your increases, Mr. Minister of Finance, for example in vote 57, the Director of the Income Taxation Branch went from $19,500 to $25,100. Have these increases assumed to be the increases that are going to take place next year after bargaining or are all increases as a result of bargaining going to come from vote 70?

The difficulty is this: we have a whole series of positions, all of which have been upped in salary, and probably quite rightly in most cases. However, at the same time, we have a $15 million fund which strikes me as somewhat curious.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Those are the salaries they are at now. The levels they will go up to are in the $15 million, Mr. Member. The bargaining will take place this year. Those are the existing levels.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: So every line along the right-hand side of the page is an existing level of salary.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That is correct.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I just take a moment, then, to point out the improvement of this system as used here over that used in the Minister of Agriculture's estimates. He used a new system there and we just didn't understand it. It just delayed the House enormously. It did not indicate what positions are being filled by what people; it did not indicate salary levels. The whole thing was terrible, and we had nothing but facetious remarks from him which

[ Page 1026 ]

thoroughly delayed the whole passage of his estimate.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, unfortunately I wasn't here for the debate, but you will recall that when I called that first vote I said this was an experiment. I would appreciate hearing the reactions from the Members at the end of the estimates. If the approach was invalid, we won't use it. If the experiment was a failure, then I would appreciate hearing at least from the leaders of the parties. Then we won't mess with it at all.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: My view briefly is this: it was a failure because we were getting about one-third of the information provided by the estimates previously given and are given, for example, in the Minister of Finance's estimates.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, if that seems to be the consensus, then the experiment has ended.

Vote 70 approved.

Vote 71: Expense contingencies (all departments), $200,000 — approved.

On vote 72: Motor-vehicles and accessories, $125,000.

MR. CHABOT: Vote 72, similar to vote 70 and 71; they talk about all departments. Does that indicate that that is the kind of expenditure for motor vehicles and accessories in all departments?

HON. MR. BARRETT: These are extra for all departments for emergencies. That's for all departments.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, I see, that's for emergencies. I notice that in the various departments they have an allocation fund for emergencies.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right, for emergencies.

MR. FRASER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Under vote 72 I would like to find out what government policy is in relation to government vehicles on the job and after hours and so on. People are being dismissed for this. I would like to hear the policy on the use of government vehicles, particularly after hours, from the Premier and Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It is the policy we inherited: no private use.

MR. FRASER: There's a lot of it going on, Mr. Chairman. Are you going to force this policy, or just when it's brought to your attention?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Member, we try to tell the staff that there's no private use. At one time stickers were on all cars; I think they still are on almost all cars. On Minister's cars, I think the same practice as before is present now; I don't know. I don't have a Ministerial car although I get a ride in one every day. I don't have the Cadillac. And there was never a sticker on the side of it.

The Cadillac is here, it's parked and we use it on official occasions.

MRS. JORDAN: On this policy of using government vehicles I think there are probably extenuating circumstances in many instances of long-term employees. But certainly, in some of the areas this summer, one of the things that browned the public off no end was when they found summer help using government vehicles at 10 o'clock at night with their wife and children in the drive-ins having hamburgers and this sort of thing. This was a real abuse of.... These were not even competent employees — just the fill-ins. And this is something I think that the taxpayers would like the Minister of Finance to be concerned about.

Vote 72 approved.

On vote 73: rural power subsidy, $3 million.

MR. PHILLIPS: Finally! Mr. Chairman, I want to say first of all that when I die don't bury me way out in Lone Prairie, because if the funeral happens to be in the evening, it'll be a candlelight service; because those wonderful people out in Lone Prairie do not have any power and they don't live that far.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. It has been the practice in all the years I've been in this House, although this is administered by the Minister of Finance, we discuss this....

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, I recall. Under the previous structure we discuss it under the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. The former Premier would make the same appeal, and I make the same appeal. I accepted it then and I ask you to accept it now. We always debated it under the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I'm afraid I'm going to have to go up to the great Peace River country and I'm going to have to tell those people about our Premier: how he turned me down time after time after time and wouldn't let me discuss rural

[ Page 1027 ]

electrification out in poor old Lone Prairie.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, we will send smoke signals up to Lone Prairie that there will be adequate debate on this matter.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, honestly, Mr. Chairman! I'm a conscientious man; how can I vote $3 million for rural power subsidy when I've been trying to discuss it on the floor of this Legislature. I think this is the fifth time since the Legislature opened. I'm in favour of the vote...

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...but I want to know how it's going to be spent.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister has given his assurance that this matter will be debated under the Minister of Lands and Forests' estimates.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Next year I'll get it out of my estimates.

MR. PHILLIPS: So close, but oh so far, Mr. Chairman, is what the Minister of Finance is saying to himself.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If the Hon. Members wish to debate it, then they can debate it at this time.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm sort of caught in between the devil and the deep blue sea. I don't want to antagonize the Minister of Finance over the Lone Prairie Hydro deal, yet I do want to do the best for those people up there. And I do feel that the whole formula has to be revised. Then I have to deal with B.C. Hydro, so I really.... I'll have to, if the Premier makes a plea to me....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, I make the plea. And I assure you it will be debated then, and next year this and inventories are being transferred to the Minister of Lands and Forests. (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: I want the people of Lone Prairie to know that I tried to fight for them here tonight.

MR. FRASER: Can the Minister of Finance tell us how much of this vote was expended in the last year up until the end of December? Or does he want the Minister of Lands and Forests to answer that too?

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's drawn quarterly and it is expected to be all expended.

Vote 73 approved.

On vote 74: Municipal Treatment Plant Assistance Act, $75,000.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's a very small amount. Are we getting it raised? We've heard a great deal about the need for this from government Members, and I wonder why it is so small.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's a separate draw. We're putting the vote in for the first time; we can't predict how much it's going to be, so that's the reason for that, Mr. Member. We don't know. We just put it in so we'll establish the whole thing.

MRS. JORDAN: Does this first draw work within the framework of the previous Act, whereby it contributes to the cost of pollution control aspects of municipal treatment plants? Would one assume then that really in actuarial thinking you only anticipate around $75,000 or $100,000 this year?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Member, we don't know what the total request will be; it's a way of opening the vote, that's all. It's under the Act, as you suggest.

Vote 74 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolutions and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 7:43 p.m.