[ 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: Order, 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

NAYS — 35

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.