2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 31, 2007

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 22, Number 3

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Bertha Wilson

Hon. W.

Oppal

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Carmen Purdy

Bennett

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

Parliamentary Calendar Act, 2007

(Bill M222)

C. James

Tabling Documents

Legislative Assembly Management

Committee, report for the period March 2005 to March 2007

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Sharon Huang

J. Yap

Rob Wickson

Fleming

Health care volunteers

Rustad

Detention of Aung San Suu Kyi and

political prisoners in Burma

Fraser

Tynehead Hall

D. Hayer

Adult students

Hammell

Oral Questions

Vancouver Convention Centre

expansion costs

C. James

Hon. S.

Hagen

Marketing for Vancouver

Convention Centre

J. Kwan

Hon. S.

Hagen

Macdonald

H. Bains

Farnworth

Settlement of power export case

between B.C. and California

Horgan

Hon. R.

Neufeld

Impact of legislation on health

care workers

A. Dix

Hon. G.

Abbott

Impact of Canada line

construction on small businesses

Robertson

Hon. K.

Falcon

Petitions

M. Karagianis

S. Fraser

G. Coons

D. Routley

Tabling Documents

British Columbia Railway Company,

annual report, 2006, and audited financial statements for the period ended December 31, 2006

Petitions

R. Fleming

D. Routley

G. Robertson

Tabling Documents

Guarantees and indemnities

authorized and issued report, fiscal year ended March

31, 2006

Statement of 2006-2007

borrowings

Revised

schedule I, fiscal year

ended March 31, 2007

Motions without Notice

Appointment of acting Auditor

General

Hon. M.

de Jong

Second Reading of Bills

Legislative Assembly (Members'

Remuneration and Pensions) Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 37)

(continued)

Thorne

R. Hawes

Simons

Lekstrom

Macdonald

Hon. R.

Neufeld

G. Coons

Mayencourt

Puchmayr

Hon. R.

Thorpe

C. Wyse

Committee of the Whole House

Legislative Assembly (Members'

Remuneration and Pensions) Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 37)

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Legislative Assembly (Members'

Remuneration and Pensions) Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 37)

Committee of the Whole House

Human Rights Code (Mandatory

Retirement Elimination) Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 31)

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Human Rights Code (Mandatory

Retirement Elimination) Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 31)

Point of Privilege

Hon. M. de Jong

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Legislation

Estimates:

Officers of the Legislature

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

Supply Act, 2007-2008 (Bill 38)

Hon. C.

Taylor

Second Reading of Bills

Supply Act, 2007-2008 (Bill 38)

Hon. C.

Taylor

Committee of the Whole House

Supply Act, 2007-2008 (Bill 38)

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Supply Act, 2007-2008 (Bill 38)

Tabling Documents

Annual Report of the British

Columbia Legislative Library, 2006

Royal Assent to Bills

Pacific Coast University for

Workplace Health Sciences Act (Bill Pr401)

Mission Foundation Amendment Act,

2007 (Bill Pr402)

Coroners Act (Bill 8)

Security Services Act (Bill 15)

Public Safety Statutes Amendment

Act, 2007 (Bill 16)

Forests and Range Statutes

Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 18)

Small Business and Revenue

Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 19)

School (Student Achievement

Enabling) Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 20)

Teaching Profession (Teacher

Registration) Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 21)

Education Statutes Amendment Act,

2007 (Bill 22)

Knowledge Network Corporation Act

(Bill 23)

Parks and Protected Areas

Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 24)

Health Statutes Amendment Act,

2007 (Bill 26)

Finance Statutes (Innovative

Clean Energy Fund) Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 30)

Human Rights Code (Mandatory

Retirement Elimination) Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 31)

Assessment Statutes Amendment

Act, 2007 (Bill 32)

Attorney General Statutes

Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 33)

Homeowner Protection Amendment

Act, 2007 (Bill 34)

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment

Act (No. 2), 2007 (Bill 35)

Legislative Assembly (Members'

Remuneration and Pensions) Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 37)

Supply Act, 2007-2008 (Bill 38)

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Children

and Family Development (continued)

Karagianis

Hon. T.

Christensen

C. Evans

C. Wyse

Fraser

L. Krog

[ Page 8441 ]

THURSDAY, MAY 31, 2007

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. L. Reid: I am absolutely delighted today to rise in the chamber and acknowledge excellence in early childhood education. We are today recognizing the B.C. recipients of the current Prime Minister's Awards for Excellence in Early Childhood Education.

It takes a special person to work in this field, and these individuals deserve our appreciation. This is a wonderful opportunity for us to honour these nationally recognized child care providers for their hard work and dedication to our province's youngest citizens — our children.

Joining us in the gallery today are Natalie Lucas of Valhalla Children's Centre, from Slocan; Susan Middlemiss, St. Margaret's School, Victoria; Angela Roy, North Okanagan Childcare Society in Vernon; Lillian Spurr, Inlet Montessori School, Port Moody; Beverley Superle, Mount Seymour Preschool, North Vancouver; Catherine Burnett, Early Discoveries Preschool and Kids Club, West Vancouver; Ellen Elizabeth James, Advantage Preschool in Burnaby; Sherry Page, Nutsumaat Lelum, Chemainus First Nation, Ladysmith; and unable to be with us today but also a recipient, Neermala Tulsie from Lynnmour Creative Child Care Centre, North Vancouver.

Hon. Speaker, these individuals take a child by the hand and a parent by the heart each and every day. I would ask the House to join me in recognizing their excellence in early childhood education and welcome them to the chamber.

[1335]

M. Farnworth: I rise in the House to introduce five bright, enthusiastic and extremely hard-working people who are with us in the gallery today, as they have been every day that we have been sitting so far this session. They are our interns.

Ross Coupé, Jenny Vermilyea, Sarah Wiebe, Erin Bett and Stefan Currie-Roberts are the legislative interns who have been working with the opposition caucus during the session, assisting us with all manner of legislative work and especially in helping to prepare our MLAs for ministry estimates. They've done a terrific job. We have all enjoyed working with them and are extremely proud of them, so we want the House to give them a big round of applause. We look forward to working with them, hopefully in a fall session later this year.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'd like, on behalf of the government side, to also extend our thanks to not only the legislative interns who assisted us but to all of the legislative interns. I've had an opportunity to get together with them on a number of occasions. They can't believe that someone who was in the program 31 years ago is still alive, and I'm tremendously appreciative of being one of those who are still alive after 31 years.

They are a delightful, knowledgable group, and I hope that their view of politics hasn't been permanently affected by their experience here. They've been a lot of fun, and they've been a tremendous asset, I know, to both sides of the House. I want to share with the Opposition House Leader in thanking them for a job well done.

D. Chudnovsky: You'll recall, I think, hon. Speaker, that Vancouver-Kensington is the best of the 79 constituencies. I think I've mentioned that once or twice. It's an amazing coincidence that the best constituency assistant actually works in Vancouver-Kensington. I wonder if we could all welcome Kate Van Meer-Mass.

R. Sultan: In the precinct today is Darren Parfitt, the Legislative Assembly's own webmaster. As former Chair of our bipartisan Select Standing Committee on Health, I would like to congratulate Darren and also our committee's media consultant Carla Shore for having won no less than three awards for their contribution in designing our Health Committee's myhealthyspace.ca website dealing with the issue of childhood obesity.

These awards include the Bronze Quill Award from the International Association of Business Communicators, a Hygeia Award given by the Health Care Public Relations Association and a Community Relations Award from the Canadian Public Relations Society. Would the House please join me in congratulating Carla and Darren and other legislative staff who helped so creatively in this committee's work.

J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery today are two individuals that, on behalf of the member for Vancouver-Hastings, I'd like to thank for their effort and tireless perseverance over the past number of months. Of course I speak of Regulator Ross "the Gas Guy" Coupé and our climate change crusader Erin "Enviro" Bett. Would the House please thank the two of them.

J. Nuraney: In the gallery today we have two of my very close friends. One is Nurdin Kassam, who was one of the pioneers in terms of establishing the practice of mediation in British Columbia. The second is Abdul Pirbhai, a childhood friend whom I've known for many, many years and one of the pioneers of our community who made Vancouver his home. I would ask the House to please join me in making both of them very welcome.

G. Robertson: With all due respect to my colleague from Vancouver-Kensington, I don't believe that Vancouver-Kensington has the monopoly on superlatives regarding constituency assistants, much less the riding itself.

I would like to welcome to the House today my constituency assistants who work wonders for the people of Vancouver-Fairview, Maria Dobrinskaya and Joni Sherman. Welcome to you both.

[1340]

[ Page 8442 ]

Hon. S. Bond: Today on behalf of the Premier, I would like to welcome a group of 40 grade 5 students. They're actually coming from Vancouver–Point Grey, from Queen Mary Elementary School. They are visiting here with their teacher Ms. Maria King and a number of other adult chaperones. I had the chance to visit with them and talk to them a little bit about the Legislature. They were on a scavenger hunt finding out all kinds of wonderful things.

The only thing that concerned me a little is that when they described question period to me, they said it was something about adults yelling at one another. So I am hopeful that today we will have….

Interjection.

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, it was an accurate description. What was their point? It starts already, students. Do you see? I want to make sure that these students feel very welcome. I'm sure that we will not disappoint them in question period today. Please join me in welcoming them.

J. McIntyre: I would like to add my voice of congratulations to that offered by the Minister of State for Childcare to Catherine Burnett from West Vancouver. I had the pleasure of meeting her today along with her husband Richard at the awards luncheon. We were warmly exchanging anecdotes about Caulfeild Elementary School, where my two children attended.

I just want to say that Catherine obviously excels as a child care provider, and we're very fortunate to have someone as passionate as she is about her calling in our community.

Thank you, Catherine, for all of the good work, and congratulations.

Tributes

BERTHA WILSON

Hon. W. Oppal: April 28 saw the passing of a great Canadian. Bertha Wilson, the first woman to be appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada, passed away at the age of 83. Bertha Wilson was a trail-blazer. She entered the legal profession in the 1960s when the profession was not all that welcoming to women.

When she first sought admission to the Dalhousie law school, the dean of the law school told her that the legal profession wasn't a proper place for women, and maybe she ought to take up crocheting.

Thereafter, she went to law school, and she joined a major law firm in Toronto. She got appointed to the Ontario Court of Appeal in 1976. She was the first woman to be appointed to an appellate court in the Commonwealth. In 1982 she was appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada — again, the first woman to be appointed to that court.

She was tremendously influential in the area of human rights, particularly in the area of gender equality. She was the first judge to recognize the defence of battered wife syndrome. She wrote many judgments championing the cause of women and diversity. She was a giant in the legal profession.

We are a better nation by virtue of the contributions that were made by Bertha Wilson.

Introductions by Members

Hon. T. Christensen: I'm very pleased this afternoon to be able to welcome a number of individuals to the House. It's a group from the Fraser Valley that I had the pleasure of having lunch with, a group of elders who have been instrumental in providing advice to the Fraser Region Aboriginal Planning Committee as they make efforts to move toward the establishment of an aboriginal authority for the delivery of child and family services in the Fraser Valley.

Joining us this afternoon are Mercy Thomas, Shirley Larden, Evelyn Locker, Dianne Monds, Georgina Campbell, Ivan McIntyre, Margaret Francis, Roger Andrews and Florence Louie. They are the elders who are with us.

They are joined by Jim Latham, Maureen Chapman and Derek Hansom, all of whom are doing great work for the Fraser Region Aboriginal Planning Committee. I would ask the House to please make them all very welcome today.

B. Ralston: I don't want to engage in any rivalry with my colleagues. I just want to say that I have an excellent constituency assistant, Melissa Sanderson, and she's here today. Will the House please make her welcome.

V. Roddick: Touring the Legislature today are 35 students from Southpointe Academy in Tsawwassen, who are definitely up to date on our current local issues. They are accompanied by two teachers, John-Paul Planta and Allison Boomer, plus two terrific parents. Will the House please make them very welcome.

[1345]

N. Simons: In the House today I'm pleased to be joined by Chief Stan Dixon of the Sechelt nation, along with Marita Paul and Warren Paul, both councillors with the Sechelt nation. I'm not sure if councillors Feschuk or Tommy Paul are here, but will the House please make them welcome.

Hon. I. Chong: The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast got to make the introduction I was going to. For the sake of the other member joining them with Stan Dixon, councillor Marita Paul-Franke and councillor Warren Paul…. They have also been joined by Graham Allen, who is the legal adviser for the Sechelt Indian band.

I had an opportunity to meet with them earlier and talk about things in their community. I know that they're doing very good work, and I would ask the House to please make them all very welcome again.

D. Hayer: We have some special guests here today, Wendy Carmichael and Jackie Tryan. Jackie used to

[ Page 8443 ]

work in the Premier's office before. Now they're both working with the government relations and the community relations for Fraser Health. Would the House please make them very welcome.

We also have Derek Tryan here, who is Jackie Tryan's husband. He has been my legislative assistant for the last three years and has done an excellent job in helping many other MLAs here. He will be leaving on June 1 to work for the Ministry of Health in Surrey. Will the House please thank him for all the hard work he has done here for all the MLAs.

S. Hawkins: Visiting in the precinct today are two entrepreneurs, Michael Sproule from Kelowna and James Nunes from Austin, Texas, who is soon to be also from Kelowna. Will the House please join me in making them feel welcome.

Tributes

CARMEN PURDY

B. Bennett: It's my honour to announce to the House today that one of my constituents, Carmen Purdy — a lifelong conservationist, hunter and trapper — has just won the Roland Michener Conservation Award. That is given to the Canadian who has demonstrated a commitment to conservation through effective and responsible activities that promote, enhance and further the conservation of Canada's natural resources. Carmen was selected from many candidates from across the country, so I wanted to congratulate him. I hope the House will help me do that.

Introductions by Members

J. Nuraney: I also want to add my thanks to Derek Tryan for his excellent services as a legislative assistant to me, in spite of the fact that the member for Surrey-Tynehead tried to hog him all the time. He really did an excellent job for us. I want to say: thank you, Derek.

Hon. T. Christensen: I don't usually get up to introduce somebody that's already been introduced, but I did want to give a personal and special introduction and welcome to Angela Roy from the North Okanagan Childcare Society. Not only is Angela obviously an incredibly wonderful child care provider, having been recognized by the Prime Minister, but she also works at the child care facility with a number of other excellent child care providers that have provided great benefit to each of my three children.

I do want to pay a special welcome to Angela and acknowledge the great work of the North Okanagan Childcare Society.

Hon. L. Reid: I'd like to take this moment, in terms of talking about excellence in the staff…. I'd certainly like to bid a fond farewell to Jennifer Burnett, who has served this House and served this province very, very well over the past number of years and to wish her well in her future endeavours.

J. Kwan: I just noticed that my fabulous constituency assistant Am Johal is visiting us today, and I want the House to please welcome him back to the Legislature.

J. McIntyre: I would be remiss, since the member for Surrey-Tynehead and the member for Burnaby-Willingdon have both thanked Derek Tryan for his years of service as their LA…. I'd be in great trouble if I didn't add my voice as well. He's been my legislative assistant not for as long, but for the last year. I really appreciate his efforts and wish him well in his career.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

PARLIAMENTARY CALENDAR ACT, 2007

C. James presented a bill intituled Parliamentary Calendar Act, 2007.

C. James: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

[1350]

C. James: The Parliamentary Calendar Act, 2007, sets a firm parliamentary

schedule for the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. This is the same piece of legislation introduced in the fall after the government chose to cancel the fall session. Now several months later, sadly, we're in the same position.

The government has chosen to invoke time limits and closure on key pieces of legislation to avoid a fall session and duck accountability. In the previous parliament, this government rightly argued that our standing orders needed significant amendments to maintain a balance between the will of government and the necessity of adequate accountability.

In exchange for granting government the authority to invoke closure on business by a fixed date in the spring, a fall session was added to the calendar to ensure that the people's work was done and the government remained accountable. However, at some point this government abandoned that principle. At some point this government chose political expediency over political and public accountability.

This bill would prevent the government from cancelling future fall sittings and ensure that we're all here to do the work that the people of British Columbia sent us to do.

I move this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M222, Parliamentary Calendar Act, 2007, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 8444 ]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon Members, I have the honour to present the Legislative Assembly Management Committee report for the period of March 2005 to March 2007.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) SHARON HUANG

J. Yap: It's not every day that I get to recognize in this House the winner of a nationwide contest, but that is precisely the honour I have today. It's my privilege to be able to congratulate Sharon Huang on becoming the national winner of the 2007 Canada Day Poster Challenge.

Each year the Canadian Heritage branch of the federal government challenges Canadian students from the ages of five to 18 to participate in a contest to design the official poster of Celebrate Canada. This contest gives students the unique opportunity of exploring their own heritage while expressing themselves artistically.

This year I'm pleased to say that the winning artist came from my riding of Richmond-Steveston. Sharon, a grade 9 student at Steveston Secondary who emigrated from Taiwan several years ago, embraced this challenge and was able to capitalize on her artistic talent and curiosity about her new country. Artistic by nature, Sharon has been drawing, painting and taking art lessons for years.

Taking on the theme of a portrait of Canada celebrating 140 years, Sharon focused on the technological developments, the natural beauty and the multiculturalism that make Canada so unique. Her

interpretation of Canada's heritage was more than enough to beat over 15,000 submissions and claim the top prize.

Not only will Sharon's poster be seen by millions of Canadians in the coming months, it will be on display until September in the Canadian Children's Museum as well as at Bay stores across Canada. To top it all off, Sharon will be flown to Ottawa with the other provincial finalists to celebrate Canada Day on Parliament Hill.

Please join me in congratulating Sharon Huang and all of the participants in this year's contest. Keep your eyes out for her winning artwork, as it may just help you remember what a great nation this Canada of ours is.

ROB WICKSON

R. Fleming: I'd like to give thanks and pay my deepest respects to the outgoing president of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Rob Wickson. He continues to serve the organization for another year as past president, but I think that his accomplishments as president are worth mentioning today, as is his record of active and valuable community service.

I would include in that his role as president of the Victoria Bike to Work Week Society, which has had another successful week here in Victoria — incredible amounts of participation from both the public and the private sector. It's certainly not any surprise that, once again, Victoria retains its title as the cycling capital of Canada, thanks to the work of Mr. Wickson and others.

[1355]

Mr. Wickson owns a business in my constituency. He resides in the constituency of Saanich South. He's a very visible member of our community here on the south Island. I know that members from both sides of the House are approached by Mr. Wickson on a fairly regular basis because he is a truly non-partisan change agent in our community.

What we constantly, consistently and passionately hear from Mr. Wickson are his ideas and his actions to bring about new, energetic leadership in the business community so that the private sector can play a central

part in meeting the global challenge of climate change here in British Columbia.

Mr. Wickson has changed many minds in business, in local government and in his community about how we should provide and organize services and create products in a sustainable manner. We know that there can be great resistance to change. Perseverance is a quality needed to see major adjustments through to change the way we've acted in the past.

Looking at some of the resolutions that were adopted last week at the B.C. Chamber's annual meeting, it's clear that Rob has been able to substantively change thinking at the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. He has moved the organization to embrace innovation and investment in public transportation, in alternative energy and in tax and pricing reforms that can help us to become a prosperous, environmentally sustainable province.

I'd like to thank Mr. Wickson for his service during this past year and for all the other things he does in his community, day in and day out.

HEALTH CARE VOLUNTEERS

J. Rustad: People who volunteer are very special people. They give of themselves for a cause that they believe in for the betterment of all of us. Nowhere is this more true than with the auxiliaries that help in our health care system.

These individuals are a giving, caring group of people whose aim is to see that better health care is provided for every person in our province. They help to personalize the care and comfort of the patients or residents and help with raising funds for the necessary purchase of equipment.

Just think. There are over 7,000 individuals in B.C. who in one year registered 1.2 million volunteer hours, resulting in more than $6 million raised to assist health care services in B.C. An example of this was $100,000 raised for the Prince George Hospital in 2005. This is a remarkable feat performed by remarkable individuals.

Over the years the auxiliaries have carried out their work without a lot of praise. Many people aren't aware of the volunteer work they do or who the auxiliaries are — people like Lorraine D'Auray of Prince George, who donates many hours as an auxiliary as well as

[ Page 8445 ]

through the B.C. Association of Health Care Auxiliaries.

To help raise the level of awareness, the BCAHA declared May 10 this year as Auxiliary Day. Events were held around the province, such as appreciation teas as well as volunteers serving cake and coffee in various communities while raising money. Perhaps one way we could help recognize these fabulous volunteers is by proclaiming May 10 as auxiliary day in B.C. next year.

I ask the House to please join me in thanking and recognizing the auxiliary volunteers around the province for everything they do to help make our health care system a better place.

DETENTION OF AUNG SAN SUU KYI AND

POLITICAL PRISONERS IN BURMA

S. Fraser: The regime of Burma, now known as Myanmar, has just announced that Aung San Suu Kyi will remain under house arrest for yet another year. Born on June 19, 1945, the Nobel peace prize laureate and leader of the National League for Democracy in Burma has been under arrest for most of the last 18 years.

May 30, 2007 — that's yesterday, hon. Speaker — marks the fourth anniversary of the Depayin Massacre. On the evening of May 30, 2003, after Aung San Suu Kyi had been released from house arrest, she and other pro-democracy activists from the National League for Democracy had their caravan ambushed by up to 5,000 junta-sponsored soldiers and mercenaries.

Eyewitness affidavits indicate that as many as 300 pro-democracy activists were murdered. Aung San Suu Kyi was arrested and taken to an undisclosed prison for four months, while the regime systematically searched for, arrested and imprisoned National League for Democracy activists who survived that massacre.

June 19, 2007, will be Aung San Suu Kyi's 62nd birthday. As leader of the National League for Democracy, her party won 82 percent of the parliamentary seats in the 1990 general election, and Aung San Suu Kyi had been arrested in 1989. She was in prison. She should be Prime Minister.

[1400]

There are presently over 1,500 political prisoners in Burma. Those include democratically elected Members of Parliament.

I ask this assembly to join me in calling for the immediate release of Aung San Suu Kyi and all political prisoners in Burma and that the negotiations commence for the transition from a military dictatorship to a democracy.

TYNEHEAD HALL

D. Hayer: History is a measure of community. My riding of Surrey-Tynehead has a remarkable history and a remarkable group, the Tynehead Community Association, for keeping that history alive. This year marks the 100th anniversary of Tynehead Hall, built by volunteer labour in 1907 on land donated by pioneer Thomas Bothwell, whose great-great-niece Joan Parolin is still involved as a volunteer with the community association.

For many years the pioneer Tynehead Women's Institute, the first ever formed in the province, operated the hall until the community association was formed. For the past century Tynehead Hall has been the heart and soul of the community.

I was pleased to present a $66,000 cheque from this government to help extend the life of this historical building, which defined the community in an era before highways and modern conveniences.

Surrey has deep roots that are still nurtured today by the dedicated work of many volunteers from many community organizations and associations. Surrey has long since grown from its agricultural and forestry foundation, but its past is remembered and its pioneer spirit cherished, and a sense of community has endured through the Tynehead Hall.

Many board members and volunteers have helped preserve that rich history — presidents of the association like the late Richard Bishop, who served as the president for over a decade, Rob Poole and the current president Rob Terris. There are so many others who have given valuable contributions to make and continue to make Tynehead Community Hall the jewel it is today.

One of the most cherished pillars was Mrs. Mabel Bishop. She served as a treasurer, director and volunteer for 25 years. Sadly, Mabel passed away on May 18, 2007, and she will be dearly missed.

I ask all members to join me in remembering the selfless efforts of all those volunteers, both past and present, and congratulate the Tynehead Community Association for maintaining our history in Tynehead Hall as it enters its second century.

ADULT STUDENTS

S. Hammell: When we think or speak of our local schools, the images that come to mind are young children playing on the playground, in a classroom reading or working on a project with other students. If we think of the high schools, we think of teenagers in classroom discussions, playing sports or hanging around the school with their friends.

In my mind's eye, the children are engaged in learning skills that will enable them to be successful in later life. But we know the road to adulthood for all students will not be smooth or uninterrupted. Some will leave the school system for a variety of reasons, and each one will have a compelling reason as to why — some tragic, some bewildering and some just because they're young. They drop out and become statistics. Game's over; school's out.

Fortunately, that is not the whole story, for in most school districts there is a corner for the student who doesn't usually come to mind when we think of our school system — the mature student. These adult students are also learning to read, doing projects with other students and studying for exams. Many who left are back. They are determined to create for themselves

[ Page 8446 ]

and their families a better life, based on education and acquiring the skills they need for success. They are courageous as they face their own limitation, abilities and demands on their time.

What is important to us in this House is that we recognize that this is a second chance for many of these students — a chance to change their future. An adult student spoke passionately at the Invergarry graduation last week and expressed his deeply felt thanks to his community for providing him with that second chance. Hon. Speaker, I am passing on his thanks to all of us here.

[1405]

Oral Questions

VANCOUVER CONVENTION CENTRE

EXPANSION COSTS

C. James: As British Columbians wait to hear from the B.C. Liberals just how big the boondoggle of the convention centre really is, industry insiders are sounding the alarm. The price tag has ballooned out of control — hundreds of millions of dollars — with no end in sight. Now Phil Barnes, the regional vice-president of Fairmont Hotels and Resorts, is warning that the whole thing could become "the biggest empty ballroom in town."

To the Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts: just how many millions is he willing to waste on an empty ballroom?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Hagen: This convention centre is going to be able to attract conventions from all over the world. It is going to be able to compete with cities like San Diego, Toronto, Hong Kong and other cities from around the world.

The fact of the matter is…. I've said this in estimates, so this is not new news, but obviously the Leader of the Opposition has either forgotten it or wasn't aware of it. Currently we have 54 conferences booked for the new trade and convention centre. That represents $1 billion worth of economic activity. Of those 54….

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

C. James: The minister is obviously living in his own world, because no one in the tourism industry believes anything that the minister is saying about the convention centre.

It's Mr. Barnes who is demanding action. He's the one calling out the government on their incompetence. He's the one telling the minister to wake up and see the black cloud that's above him. I'd like to quote again: "If I was staying here, I'd be scared silly."

Again to the Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts: when is he going to get over his cheery defence of this boondoggle, get control of the budget and actually deliver something more than an empty ballroom to taxpayers?

Hon. S. Hagen: Let me start the answer by saying that there is only one black cloud, and that's floating over that opposition. It's always floating over that opposition. It never seems to go away. NDP stands for negative, destructive, pessimistic.

Let me also say, in answer to the Leader of the Opposition, that the bookings are on track with where they should be, according to Tourism Vancouver's own independent KPMG projections for 2005.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. James: The minister can blow all the smoke he wants, but the industry heavyweights themselves are saying that there's a problem. The minister needs to wake up to it today for the taxpayers of British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. James: The minister refuses to tell us what the final price tag will be. He refuses to hold anybody accountable for this boondoggle, continuing the trend of the rest of the government, who won't hold anybody accountable for anything over there on that side.

[1410]

We also know that the Auditor General's final report on this mess is due out any day. The minister most likely has seen the draft. The convention centre board hired the Auditor General to conduct the report.

My question to the minister is: can he tell British Columbians today when that report will be released so taxpayers can see how deep the mess really goes?

Hon. S. Hagen: Why is the NDP opposed to this project? I mean, the former Premier of the province — Premier Glen Clark, who led the NDP during the dismal decade of the 1990s — said in 1997: "This is an opportunity to showcase British Columbia to the world." They were even prepared to spend $73 million without putting a pile in the sand.

Now let me answer the question about the Auditor General. The Auditor General, as you know, is the auditor of record for this project. The board has contracted with the Auditor General to do a more extensive audit of the project. The draft is not ready yet. I

[ Page 8447 ]

have not seen the draft. When we get that report, we will make it public.

MARKETING FOR

VANCOUVER CONVENTION CENTRE

J. Kwan: The trade and convention centre expansion project is more than 100 percent over budget. Ken Dobell, the guy who should have been held accountable and responsible for this overrun boondoggle, continues to sit in the Premier's office as his key lobbyist.

Now the marketing for the trade and convention centre is being mismanaged. The bookings are only in the range of 3 percent to 38 percent — well below the industry's expectations for the trade and convention centre to survive. Industry is saying that the government needs to ensure 80 to 90 convention centre bookings by 2009. They're calling for targets and accountability.

Will the minister commit today to setting the industry's targets and hold himself accountable?

Hon. S. Hagen: Once again we have a classic example of the NDP not knowing the facts, not doing their research. What I can say to this House and to the people of British Columbia is that according to the KPMG study that was funded by Tourism Vancouver and by PavCo, we are on track for bookings for conferences right out to 2016.

J. Kwan: Is the minister saying that the industry's target of 80 to 90 convention bookings for 2009 is wrong? If that target is wrong, then what is his target? And if he won't hold himself accountable, who is he going to scapegoat now?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Hagen: Unlike the NDP, we believe in working in partnership with our partners. We're working with the hotels and with the restaurants, with Tourism Vancouver, with Tourism B.C., with Tourism Victoria. PavCo is responsible for the marketing of the trade and convention centre. They do 90 percent of the marketing. Tourism Vancouver does about 10 percent. According to the study that was done by KPMG in 2005, we are on track with the conventions.

N. Macdonald: From day one — and I don't think anyone here would argue with this — this government has mismanaged the construction of the Vancouver construction expansion project. The minister responsible cannot tell the House when this project will be finished. He cannot tell this House the cost, although we know it's over 100 percent over budget.

[1415]

Now we learn that the bookings, which this minister projected a rosy picture about, are not in fact rosy at all. It has knowledgable industry leaders saying that it's a disaster, that you're going to end up with a dance hall — 3 percent in 2013.

So the question that I have for the minister: when is he going to wake up, and when is he going to make sure…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

N. Macdonald: …that we deal with this latest convention centre disaster?

Hon. S. Hagen: Let me give the member some facts. Fact: there are 54 conventions booked out to 2011.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Members. Members.

Continue.

Hon. S. Hagen: That relates to $1 billion worth of economic activity. On top of that, PavCo is engaged at varying stages of the booking process with over 169 events out as far as 2015. That relates to $2 billion worth of economic activity.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: You have business insiders. You have people that you describe as your partners telling you in unequivocal terms that this is a disaster. We know the construction aspect of it is a disaster. We know that you have lost complete control of that. You don't even know the cost.

The fact is that it's not us. It is your partners — the people that you describe as experts — who are telling you that this is a disaster in marketing. You do not have the bookings. You have 3 percent in 2013 — 3 percent of capacity. It's a disaster. The minister knows it.

The question I have is: who is accountable? I think it should be the minister. Who does the minister think should ultimately be responsible for this disaster?

Hon. S. Hagen: I hate to say this, but the NDP was actually more positive back in 1997…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Hagen: …when the then Premier said: "The convention centre is the biggest single economic driver that I have ever seen."

When you look at 54 conventions, 29 of which could not have come here without the new centre, and

[ Page 8448 ]

when you look at the negotiations with 169 other conventions reaching out as far as 2015, I have no idea what that member is talking about.

H. Bains: It is clear that minister after minister has mismanaged this project right from the beginning, including the Premier. No one is held accountable. While experts in the industry are worried sick, this minister is asleep at the switch.

My question is…. Either the minister is incompetent, or he's not telling the true story. Which is it?

Hon. S. Hagen: The existing convention centre has been operating over capacity for the last several years. You know why? Because that party did nothing ten years ago to proceed with the new convention centre. We have done that, and it's a success story. We have 54 conventions booked, 29 of which couldn't have come here. That's a billion dollars' worth of economic activity. We're negotiating with 169 others — $2 billion worth of economic activity.

I'm going to make sure that all of you get an invitation to the opening.

[1420]

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

H. Bains: This minister continued to mislead this House by continuing to paint….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Member, choose your words more carefully.

H. Bains: While this minister continues to paint a rosy picture about this billion-dollar boondoggle, the industry disagrees with him. In complete contradiction, Mr. Barnes from Fairmont Hotels and Resorts said yesterday that this convention centre will be the biggest empty ballroom in town in years ahead unless somebody wakes up and does something about it now.

My question is again to the minister. Will he wake up and hold someone accountable or hold himself accountable?

Hon. S. Hagen: Tourism Vancouver's own independent KPMG projections say that we are on track. As a matter of fact, in the year 2006 PavCo actually exceeded the targets.

M. Farnworth: The minister seems to be placing a lot of stock in work done in 2005. So let's just recap for a moment, shall we? In 2005 he was saying that the trade and convention centre was on time and on budget. It's now two years later and more than 100 percent over budget.

Now he's standing in this House and saying that on the basis of a report done in 2005, he's entirely happy with the rate of bookings. Well, today, 2007, Phil Barnes, the regional vice-president, is saying that we're looking at an empty ballroom unless something is done.

My question to the minister is quite simple. Is Mr. Phil Barnes wrong, or is the minister wrong?

Hon. S. Hagen: We're working in partnership with the hotel industry and everyone else who is connected with conventions. But I can say this.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Hagen: The targets that were set by KPMG are being met or exceeded — met or exceeded. Fifty-four conventions, 29 of which couldn't have come here because we wouldn't have had a big enough facility, $1 billion worth of economic activity and 169 additional conventions that are being negotiated with for $2 billion worth of economic activity.

SETTLEMENT OF POWER EXPORT CASE

BETWEEN B.C. AND CALIFORNIA

J. Horgan: In 2000 and 2001 the state of California experienced rolling blackouts and brownouts until B.C. Hydro and the people of British Columbia came to their rescue to keep the lights on and to keep the people working in California.

In light of the new-found relationship between the Premier and the Governor of California, will the Minister of Energy confirm that this is a golden opportunity to seek an out-of-court settlement and get that $286 million outstanding account receivable back in British Columbia where it belongs?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. R. Neufeld: On the eve of a great opportunity for British Columbia to sign some agreements with California to look at climate change across North America and British Columbia and be better for British Columbians, all of these negative Nellies over here could do is complain. What's wrong with having…?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1425]

Hon. R. Neufeld: Just listen up a bit.

Mr. Speaker, what's wrong with having a memorandum of understanding with California that will foster innovation, including the hydrogen highway, clean and renewable energy, clean technology? What's wrong with having an MOU that shares expertise, technology, knowledge and information, and ocean climate data? What's wrong with that? What's wrong with sharing best practices and policy design?

[ Page 8449 ]

I suggest that group get off the negative post, get on the positive post and get with British Columbians. That's what we need today.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: In 2000-2001 we had binding contracts with the state of California, and they said: "Too bad." So now we have the Premier sitting down with the Governor signing what says right here: "This is not…."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Interjections.

J. Horgan: I'm sorry, Speaker. I forgot that there are two sets of rules in this place.

Mr. Speaker: No. Just take your seat.

Members.

Continue.

J. Horgan: The Governor and the Premier today signed what is "not intended to be legally binding or to impose legal obligations." That's what we signed today.

The state of California owes the people of British Columbia $286 million. My question is to the debt collector, the Minister of Revenue. What are you doing? In my hometown, if I don't pay my hydro bill, they turn off the power.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Neufeld: It's interesting that the member across the way, who was a backroom operative for the NDP during the 1990s, talks about binding contracts. We're still trying to collect on all kinds of contracts that that group actually had signed. That's what they call binding contracts. They were selling electricity from British Columbia into a U.S. market that was broke, that wasn't fixed, that wasn't working right — at huge rates, at huge profit — and never thought that they ever had to collect for it.

Well, that's why they couldn't run a popcorn stand in the '70s. They couldn't run it in the '90s, and I hope the people of British Columbia turn the lights out on them again in the next election, in 2009.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

IMPACT OF LEGISLATION

ON HEALTH CARE WORKERS

A. Dix: Since we're talking about contracts, my question is to the Minister of Health. The Minister of Health will know that in 2001 he and the Premier promised workers in the Hospital Employees Union that they would never tear up their contract, and they did.

The minister will know that last night 450 care aides were given a termination notice as a direct result of his government's policies, of Bill 29 and Bill 92 — 450 care aides. What is the minister going to do to deal with this situation that causes so much disruption in the lives of seniors and workers in British Columbia?

[1430]

Hon. G. Abbott: The facilities and the workers which the member references are within three privately owned facilities, I understand, in the Vancouver region.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Abbott: I understand that the issues in question have had some previous reference to the Labour Relations Board. As I said in other exchanges in reference to the Nanaimo Seniors Village in Nanaimo, the appropriate venues for issues of this character to be debated and resolved are the Labour Relations Board and the employment standards branch.

I understand that the Hospital Employees Union, in fact, has advised that they intend to take this matter, appropriately, to the Labour Relations Board. Our concern as a ministry and as health authorities is to ensure that there is appropriate continuity of care for all of the residents within those facilities…

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Hon. G. Abbott: …and that is precisely what we will do.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

A. Dix: Appropriate continuity of care? This company was created by Bill 29. This government created this company that's caused all this hardship. The question for the minister is simple. When will he deal with the consequences of Bill 29 and Bill 92? When will he take away those laws? When will he come into this House and rescind those laws so that health care workers have the same rights as other workers in British Columbia?

Hon. G. Abbott: I realize the member has to raise these questions as the union is an important benefactor for the party with which he speaks.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

[ Page 8450 ]

Continue, Minister.

Hon. G. Abbott: I didn't mean to strike such a sensitive chord. I had no idea it would produce that kind of reaction.

But the member is wrong. This company, or companies, was not created by the government of British Columbia. This is a privately owned company in a privately owned facility. The issues that are in question will be appropriately resolved at the Labour Relations Board and, if not at the Labour Relations Board, the employment standards branch.

For the member to suggest that the government should be intruding in that I think is entirely inappropriate.

IMPACT OF CANADA LINE CONSTRUCTION

ON SMALL BUSINESSES

G. Robertson: For some reason, the Minister of Transportation keeps getting up to trash the small businesses along the Canada line. No big surprise. It's no big surprise….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, just take your seat for a second.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member continues.

G. Robertson: None of us on this side of the House are surprised, considering that it is big business that has financed the Minister of Transportation's election campaigns. But I'm not sure why the Minister of Small Business hasn't leapt to his feet to advocate for the fair treatment of over 500 small businesses being hammered by RAV line construction, so I'll give him an opportunity to do so.

The $2 billion privatized project has now drained over $100 million from revenues of local small businesses. I'm curious if this minister thinks it's fair for those small businesses to subsidize the construction of this line. Given the unprecedented hardship being imposed on small businesses by RAV line construction, will the Minister of Small Business stand in the House today and support urgent and reasonable compensation from this government?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Take your seat.

Members.

[1435]

Hon. K. Falcon: Always a pleasure to take a question from the unannounced mayoral candidate in Vancouver.

The fact of the matter is that again I stand in this House almost awestruck at the new-found interest in small business from the members opposite. I actually was here in this House. In every budget our Finance Minister has put forward that reduces taxes, they vote against tax cuts for small business. Every single time we talked about reducing the regulatory impact and burden to small business, they're against it.

How is it that suddenly this member, in a desperate quest to find another reason to oppose the Canada line, which will see 100,000 people a day get out of their cars and into public transit…?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Falcon: They just continue to find ways to oppose a great project that will have great benefit for British Columbians and for Canada.

[End of question period.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, I know it's the last day.

M. Karagianis: I have a petition to present.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

M. Karagianis: I have a petition here with 294 names on it asking this government to supply sufficient funding to the Mary Manning Centre and for all programs that provide counselling for sexual abuse victims in this province.

S. Fraser: I seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

S. Fraser: I have a petition with over 1,100 signatures on it from across the province urging this government to move forward with the safe antifreeze bill.

G. Coons: I seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

G. Coons: I have a petition of 75 names from Haida Gwaii in addition to the 580 to raise the minimum wage to $10 an hour and to abolish the $6 training wage.

[ Page 8451 ]

D. Routley: I seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

D. Routley: This is a petition signed by 324 of my constituents urging the government to continue funding child care resource centres and to stop the cuts.

Tabling Documents

Hon. K. Falcon: In accordance with

section 18 of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, I have the honour to present the British Columbia Railway Company's annual report for 2006 and the audited financial statements for the period ended December 31, 2006.

Petitions

R. Fleming: I present a petition to cease funding cuts to child care operating funding programs and the dismantling of child care resource and referral programs.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

R. Fleming: I have 2,528 signatures signed on a petition against privatizing parts of the water distribution and wastewater collection treatment systems in the capital regional district.

D. Routley: I seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

D. Routley: This is a petition signed by 155 members of the community of Honeymoon Bay seeking help from the government related to flooding of their community caused by logging practices, and I seek leave to submit this petition.

G. Robertson: I rise to table a petition on behalf of small business owners and residents along the RAV line construction corridor calling for fair compensation for the small businesses affected by the construction.

C. Wyse: I request permission to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

C. Wyse: It's my privilege to welcome to the House the constituency assistant from Cariboo North. I've noticed that that individual has just arrived. I would ask my colleagues to make the individual welcome.

Tabling Documents

Hon. C. Taylor: I'm pleased to present a number of reports.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1440]

Hon. C. Taylor: Pursuant to the Financial Administration Act,

section 72(8), I respectfully present the Guarantees and Indemnities Authorized and Issued report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2006.

The next two reports on all the amounts borrowed by government and all amounts loaned to government bodies are also pursuant to the Financial Administration Act. These reports provide an overview of the province's borrowing activity in fiscal 2006-2007.

Finally, I have the pleasure to table the revised

schedule I for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2007.

Orders of the Day

Motions without Notice

APPOINTMENT OF

ACTING AUDITOR GENERAL

Hon. M. de Jong: By leave, I move that:

[The Legislative Assembly appoint Mr. Errol Price as the Acting Auditor General for the Province of British Columbia pursuant to

section 7 of the

Auditor General Act , effective from June 2, 2007 until the date when Mr. John Doyle is able to commence his official duties as Auditor General.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: With leave, I move committee stage of Bill 31.

Leave not granted.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued second reading debate of Bill 37 and in Committee A, Committee of Supply, continued estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

Second Reading of Bills

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (MEMBERS'

REMUNERATION AND PENSIONS)

"STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

(continued)

D. Thorne: I rise today to speak to Bill 37, and for the first time in this House, I have to say it's not with pleasure.

In the beginning, I agreed with the appointment of a committee to look at the pay compensation package. I never agreed with the composition. I thought that we would have trouble because of it, and we did in fact have trouble. Had we had a different composition of the committee, we would not have had the kind of results that we have had in the recommendations.

The recommendations that resulted from this committee are out of step with the rest of British Co-

[ Page 8452 ]

lumbia. Over 90 percent of the population is earning less than the current compensation of members of this Legislature, and 29 percent is a figure that is too high to go in one go.

[S. Hawkins in the chair.]

I think it's unbelievable that in the face of all the poverty in British Columbia, we in this House are even considering such a raise today. I think the fact that it's being pushed through without sufficient debate is shocking. I feel that to stand and try and say all of the things that I have heard from my constituents and my feelings in such a short period of time, in order to allow my colleagues to speak, is absolutely atrocious.

For example, Madam Speaker, how about the 15,000 families that are on a waiting list for affordable housing — families that had the misfortune only of living in a province with a government that doesn't believe in spending money on housing with the same fervour as they do on their own paycheques?

This growing list leads to more homelessness and to the highest number of poor children in Canada for the second year in a row. How can this government push this through, knowing that all of these people — I've only given a few examples — in British Columbia are struggling at the end of the day to put food on the table for their children? We, the privileged few who sit in this House, are looking at an increase of 29 percent.

I'm not suggesting that the members in this House don't work hard. I think we all work very hard, both here in the House and in our constituencies. But we are not struggling as individuals, I would not think — at least I'm not aware — with the kind of poverty issues and hard work that so many people in British Columbia are struggling with.

[1445]

Just in my own volunteer work at the women's centre in the Tri-Cities, I know many women, single mothers, who are raising their children alone. Some of them are working three jobs; many of them are working two jobs. I would submit that that's hard work.

I don't think that most of us in this House — I can't speak for everybody; I don't know what they did before they came here — know the grinding, day-to-day poverty and hard work that so many people who are out there in our province today have to struggle with.

I have heard from most of my constituents that they are not in favour of this pay raise. They would be very happy for us to get a raise, the kind of raise that they get and that most people out there get — 2 or 3 percent a year. Why do we not bring in a bill that says we will get a decent wage increase but something that is more akin to the kind of wage increase that ordinary people get?

The report itself was shocking enough, but I myself, along with many of my colleagues and certainly my constituents, were in disbelief when this government took the outrageous recommendations in this report and did several things with those recommendations. They brought in one bill, combining all of the recommendations for the pay increase and the pension in one bill.

I think that was wrong. My constituents think it was wrong. I continue to think it was wrong. Pensions and pay are two entirely different things. Benefits and compensation are not the same thing. There should have been two bills brought in so that people could express their opinions on both separately and not be forced to vote on one bill with two different issues in it.

For this government to say that they're holding a free vote when both of these issues are in one bill is ridiculous. I don't even understand what that means. What does that mean? I haven't heard an opinion from anybody on the other side.

What is a free vote? I suspect the free vote will lead to 100-percent acceptance on one side and the opposite on the other side. So there is no free vote. It's just more loose words.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, Members, please. Let the speaker….

D. Thorne: Okay, Madam Speaker. The….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Just a moment, Member.

Order, Members.

D. Thorne: The second thing that this government did after the report was accepted that I think was shocking was to not make the recommendations, if they are accepted, for the next parliament — to make it retroactive so that, in fact, we are voting on our own salaries.

I absolutely disagree with this. I found out in municipal government that this is not the way to go. The public does not want politicians voting on their own pay. They don't like it. They've made it clear to me, and I believe that the people who vote for the government don't like it either. I think they're going to find that out, Madam Speaker.

The third thing that happened, Madam Speaker….

Interjections.

D. Thorne: I'm talking over the other side. I think that I'm able to do that. I have a loud enough voice.

Deputy Speaker: Order, Members, please.

D. Thorne: The third thing is

section 4.6, the most mean-spirited thing that most of us have seen in a long, long time — the attempt, in a way, to blackmail MLAs. You know, vote for this bill, or you will never get a pension. Vote for this bill, or you will never get blah, blah, blah.

It's atrocious that that would happen. We have young MLAs; we have older MLAs with service. How could it happen in a House like this, with supposedly

[ Page 8453 ]

intelligent people and freedom, that we could allow something like this

section to be brought in?

I think I've stated my opinions. I've stated the opinions of my constituents. We are shocked in Coquitlam-Maillardville. People are shocked and outraged at what's happening in this House today. They're shocked and outraged at the bill itself, and they're more shocked and outraged at the way it's being pushed through today without proper debate.

[1450]

This should be put forward to a fall session and discussed properly. If it passes — as I suspect it will, because the votes are on the side that is in favour of this — it should be brought in, in the next parliament. At the very least, this is something this government can do.

R. Hawes: I'll say the same thing as many of the members opposite have said. It's not really a pleasure to have to stand and speak to this bill, because frankly, I am speaking in favour of the bill, and I have no shame, or I feel no compulsion to speak against anything that's been done here. I am going to stand up and stand on my principles. I'm not going to hypocritically say that I'm going to not do something and then go ahead and do it.

The first thing that I would suggest….

Interjection.

R. Hawes: The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast will get his opportunity, as have his colleagues, for a long time on this debate.

Deputy Speaker: Member, take your seat for a moment, please.

Members, please give the speaker respect when they're recognized and standing in their space to speak. Thank you.

Continue, Member.

R. Hawes: I'm going to start by first just talking a little bit about, in this report, who the commission is. The commission was put together by the government. They were independent people — people who I think have a fair bit of knowledge and are, to start with, completely insulated from influence in the government. For example….

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast, please come to order.

Continue, Member.

R. Hawes: One member is a learned judge in our province, and as everyone knows, judges are not only free from political influence in this province, but they are actually kind of used to taking a lot of public pressure, which judges often fall under when they make the decisions that they make.

We felt it was very, very important that the committee that would look at this would be able to take a look without worrying about the political implication of a decision that they might make. Now, when we looked at Bill 17…. I was and am a member of the Legislative Assembly Management Committee, which looked at Bill 17 — along with two members opposite and several members from our side of the House. A little over a year ago we looked at pay and pension and came up with a package that, frankly, every single member of this House voted in favour of.

Every single member of this House stood up and voted yes to Bill 17. The principles that were espoused in Bill 17 are actually not really different than the principles espoused in this bill. However….

Interjection.

R. Hawes: Madam Speaker, the member opposite, for Coquitlam-Maillardville, just had her opportunity. If she had more to say, she didn't have to yield the floor.

The bottom line here is that every member of the House, including the members opposite — the NDP side of the House — all voted in favour of Bill 17. There was no mention, as I recall, of waiting until an election or how bad it was to vote for your own pay raise or any of the things that we now hear. None of that was present with Bill 17.

As I recall, all members of the House left the House after voting yes to Bill 17 feeling quite comfortable with it until the Leader of the Opposition, in our belief…. She left, by the way, for Saskatchewan immediately when the House adjourned that day and somehow from Saskatchewan got word — I suspect by telephone from Jim Sinclair — that she had done something wrong and took her orders and immediately recanted, which caused Bill 17, as everyone knows, to be withdrawn.

[1455]

It's strange. When that happened, the members opposite were not acting joyfully and were feeling quite bad about the withdrawal of Bill 17. As someone who is in this House and sees what's going on in this House, we all knew — all members of this House knew — that was not a day of great joy. The Leader of the Opposition that day obviously had done a complete flip-flop in her position, and I know that members of her party were not overly thrilled with that newly found position.

When we looked at this…. The terms of reference that the committee had were to look at pay and pension. But one of the things that I know we have all looked at, and I think quite fairly…. When you think about what happened on the federal scene not long ago…. Members of the federal government in one party said: "We will not take pensions." They signed off on their pensions until they were ready to leave office. Deborah Grey comes to mind. When they were ready to leave office, they suddenly they recanted their positions and took their pensions. So there was a political game played.

[ Page 8454 ]

Ontario recently passed some new legislation with respect to pay and pension. In their legislation they said: "We do not want people playing political games. We think that people should be straight up with the taxpayers. They should be accountable for their decisions. If they wish to have a pay increase, then no problem. They can have it. If they don't think it's appropriate and they shouldn't have it, they can opt out. That's not a problem either."

But you can't play political games and opt out and come back in two years just before you're going to leave office — or three years, six years or whenever it is — and say: "I've changed my mind." That's not really on. It's not fair to the taxpayer. It's not showing any kind of accountability. Frankly, it is hypocrisy. It is not hypocrisy to stand up and say to the taxpayer: "I believe that the compensation package is fair, and I'm going to take the compensation package, and I will be judged at the appropriate time in May of 2009. I will be very straight up about my actions."

It is not, in my view, appropriate to say that I'm not going to take something when really I am taking it. I can tell you, when you're issued a T4 slip for your paycheque that reads on the base $98,000, as it will after this bill if it goes through, and then you say "I'm donating the money…." Well, you've got the money.

Interjection.

R. Hawes: The member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows asks about donations — how many I make. Well, I do donate to charity, as do many, many people in this House. It's shameful that that member would politicize what he thinks his generosity is. That member should be ashamed of himself. I donate money to charity, as do many people in this House, and I do not do it for political gain.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

Member, please take your seat.

The Chair recognizes that this is going to be a passionate debate, but can we please give the speaker a chance to speak so the Chair can hear what he has to say.

R. Hawes: Many of us in this House donate money to charity, various charities. Each year as we do that, we do it because of a sense of duty on our part — not to gain political favour, not to go out and advertise what we do. Some of us give to our churches. Some of us give to all kinds of charities. Nobody goes out and puts on a website what they have donated to. That is not, in my opinion, what the essence of charity is all about.

I am not interested in political gain for the donations that I give, and at the municipal level I have been a volunteer in my community for decades. I have donated to the various charities that I believe I should donate to, in terms of both time and money, for decades.

I've served as a mayor in my community, a community leader for a long period of time, and not one time did I go out, even in election campaigns, and advertise the kinds of organizations that I belong to. I donate my time to them. I do it not for political gain but because I think it's my duty to do so. I'm ashamed of these people that want to go out and advertise on websites the kinds of donations they make. This is about politics; it's not about charity. And that's disgusting to me.

[1500]

When we looked at what wages should be in Bill 17, there were some principles at play. One of the principles that was agreed to by both sides of this House was this. We have as a government said our civil service should be compensated as the second or third highest in Canada, and it is. We also, then, in Bill 17 said: "You know, as MLAs we should be compensated second or third in Canada." Bill 17 achieved that.

With Bill 17 being withdrawn, we have slipped to eighth in Canada. But our civil service continues….

Interjection.

R. Hawes: The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast is going to get his choice. I'm going to get to that.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, Members, please.

I think that the principle is fair. Now, you look at the comparisons that I hear the members opposite doing, to people who are at minimum wage or people in our economy who are struggling. And there are people like that. But we're not comparing ourselves to doctors or lawyers or engineers. Wages generally in this country are decided upon by comparison. That's generally how we decide. In every sector of our economy, engineers compare their wages to engineers, carpenters to carpenters or other similar trades.

I'll tell you what, Madam Speaker. Bakers rarely will compare their wages to those of brain surgeons and say: "We should be paid equivalently." It doesn't work that way. It works with comparisons. So now you look at what an MLA does. Well, who would you compare that to?

In the committee report, the committee went out and consulted broadly with British Columbians, and

[ Page 8455 ]

they found out that British Columbians, by and large, really have very little knowledge of what an MLA's job is. They believe that we work, for example, I think it says, 38 hours a week and only 196 days a year. Now, members on both sides of this House would agree that we work very, very long hours, and actually, many of us work harder when we're out of this building and in our constituencies than when we are here.

This is a job that doesn't have regular hours, that doesn't have the luxury of allowing us to go home to our families every night.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, please come to order.

R. Hawes: Madam Speaker, you can't compare this job as an MLA to really any other job I can think of in the general run of society. Who would you compare to? Well, I would suggest other MLAs in other provinces. That's the best example, the best comparison you can make. So I'm having some difficulty understanding how the salary of an MLA compares to minimum wage or to any other occupation that's…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I'm having trouble listening to the speaker.

R. Hawes: …not affiliated.

I've heard over and over and over in the opposition's seeming opposition to this bill, for the wage and pension that they want to vote against but they want to take…. They talk about how this is being rammed through somehow, and they talk about how we're abusing the Legislature by shutting out debate.

Earlier this session I sat and listened for a couple of days while we talked about whether or not a sessional order…. A sessional order is to make a change in the times that the Legislature is open for this session as an experiment. It was thought by the government, and I think rightly so, that sitting until nine o'clock every night…. Many of us are in this building at seven o'clock in the morning, and being here till nine o'clock at night two nights a week, if that's fair…. We felt it's not a healthy thing for people to do. People should have an opportunity to go out and go to the gym….

[1505]

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member, just a moment.

Members will have their time to stand and speak in their place. The Chair is having difficulty listening to this speaker. So Members, please remember that. Thank you.

R. Hawes: We spent two days talking about a change that amounted to half an hour a week or something, but we spent two days of vacuous time in here listening to the NDP go on and on and on about a sessional order. At the end of the session, it ends; it goes back. The experiment is over. I'm not sure what the House Leader will decide and how he will discuss that with the NDP in future, but this is a sessional order. We wasted two days talking about it, because that's what the NDP chose to do.

Yesterday I listened for several hours when what I think is a very important bill came up to end mandatory retirement in this province. I think that's a very important bill. I listened for several hours while the NDP got up, one after the other, and talked about how the bill was getting rammed through. They didn't talk about the merits of ending mandatory retirement. They didn't talk about the bill at all. All they talked about was how it was being rammed through.

Then today we come and we say: "Okay, let's move this bill into committee stage so that we can get into the discussion about the bill." They won't agree to that. So they want this bill to go to closure. They want this bill to go through without the kind of debate that they say they want on it — again, more hypocrisy. The last several days have been crowded, hour after hour has been crowded, with really unbridled hypocrisy on the part of the NDP.

I just want to say for a minute…. The Leader of the Opposition said in January, as the commission was appointed: "I am certainly pleased to see it's a public process. I said, when I acknowledged the mistake that was made last year" — that was on Bill 17 — "that if we're ever going to bring this back again and have a discussion, it needed to be open and transparent, and it needed to be an outside panel looking at it. I am pleased to see that process is going to occur."

Well, it did occur, and the panel brought in the recommendations. Somehow — because, again, I suspect that Jim Sinclair and a few others made a phone call — suddenly 29 percent, as outlined in this report, is too much. They don't say how much is enough. They seem to be saying that they're going to donate the difference between the base pay and the new base pay — 29 percent, which is $22,000. At least I take it that they're saying: "We're going to donate that money, less the taxes on that money, to charity." I have not yet heard one of them get up and say that's not true.

The panel's recommendation does say that there will be a pension and that pension will require an 11-percent contribution. I would like to hear the members opposite, as they get up and take their place in this House later in this debate, get up and say: "Gee, we're going to give the $22,000 to charity, take off the taxes and then from the remaining base pay — so that we haven't had a raise, $76,100 — we're going to pay the 11 percent on our pensions." I'd like to hear them say that, but I suspect that won't happen. I suspect that they're all, every one of them, going to take the 11 percent that's required for the pension contribution, which is a raise, and they're going to….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order.

[ Page 8456 ]

R. Hawes: They're going to say that they're not taking a raise, but they're taking the 11 percent to make their pension contribution. And I haven't heard them talk about next year, when they get a tax refund, if they donate money — that they're now going to redonate that tax refund to charity. You don't hear any of those things.

Interjection.

R. Hawes: Madam Speaker, I haven't stood up and said that I'm going to make any donation to charity from my raise other than what I feel my conscience says I should make. I'm not going to advertise ever what I donate to charity — ever.

[1510]

The bottom line is that I don't happen to believe, as I said earlier, that anyone should be compelled…. Frankly, I don't think anyone should be out there advertising what they give to charity, and especially under these kinds of circumstances. So, Madam Speaker….

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Order, Member.

R. Hawes: The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast is developing an annoying habit of wanting to speak a lot in the chamber but rarely gets to his feet to reflect the kinds of things that he's saying, the kind of nonsensical things that he's coming to.

Interjections.

R. Hawes: Now, I didn't hear that. But, Madam Speaker, if what my colleagues are saying, that that member did say: "Pigs at a trough…." I would really like him to have the courage to get up and withdraw his remark. That is completely uncalled for.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the Chair recognizes that there is going to be a lot of debate, and this is a passionate debate. Again, I would ask that the members keep their comments parliamentary. Thank you.

Continue, Member.

R. Hawes: In 2001 when we were elected as government, we took a look at where the budget was at that time, and we had been left with very empty cupboards indeed by the NDP.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

So we thought as a government at that time…. Every member of our caucus said, "We should show some leadership and take a 5-percent pay cut," which we did. Universally, our caucus took a 5-percent pay cut in 2001. We walked into the comptroller's office and said: "We would like to take this pay decrease." We didn't say we were going to take some….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue.

R. Hawes: We donated the 5 percent back to the government, in a way, by saying to the comptroller: "Take it off our cheque so that it never appears on our cheque." So our paycheque in 2001 was reduced at source to $68,000. It was reduced by 5 percent, and we froze it for four years — until the election.

If the members opposite truly think they shouldn't get a raise, the easiest thing for them to do would be to walk over to the comptroller's office the day that this bill passes and say: "Reduce our pay to $76,100, which is the base." They then don't have to worry about all of the stuff about donations. They don't have to worry about taxes. Their cheques will automatically be cut to $76,100 — just as we did in 2001.

But what would be the implication of that? What would be the implication? The implication of that would be that their pensions would be based on a paycheque of $76,100. It's very clear that these members who don't want the raise but want it, these members who aren't taking the raise but are taking it, are really looking at the $98,000 pension.

They sit here and point fingers at members on this side of the House who actually are being straight up and straightforward with the taxpayers and are standing up and saying: "I will be accountable for the raise that I'm going to take, because I happen to believe this commission, which travelled to several locations and held public meetings and took public submissions — not just in British Columbia but travelled to Quebec and Ontario and, I think, Saskatchewan — and did interviews across this country and came up with the numbers that they said this job deserves as compensation."

I look at it and say that the commission took a look. I think it's a fair report. They've said what the job is worth. I am not ashamed to say that I am going to take for my salary what the commission says the job is worth.

I've heard members of the opposition, and I've heard others say: "Well, gee, you knew what you were getting paid when you got elected." Well, a lot of people in British Columbia, when they first got their job, understood what their paycheque was. But we do live in the kind of a country and the kind of a province where you have the right to say to your employer: "I'd like a raise." When you start on a job, it just doesn't freeze everything forever.

[1515]

Our unfortunate position as politicians is that we have nobody to go to ask: "Could we have a raise?" The decision can only be made one way, and that's by a vote here. We have to vote, or there can be no change.

I think the members opposite get that. I think the members opposite, to be honest…. It would be my guess that the members opposite are absolutely thrilled at the prospect that the members on our side of the House, the government side of the House, are going to stand up and say to the taxpayers in a straightforward

[ Page 8457 ]

way: "We will be accountable. We think it's fair. We're going to vote in favour of this."

They're thrilled that's happening. They can try to hide under the cover of voting no, under the cover of saying, "We're making these wonderful donations," when I really do believe that at the end of the day, every single one of them will take the 11 percent for the pension contribution and add that to their base, which is a raise right off the top.

That in itself is sanctimonious. That in itself is hypocrisy, to say: "I'm not taking it, but yet I'm going to take the 11 percent for the pension." To say that they don't want the raise, that it's too big…. Why would they then want the pension to be set at the new $98,000 rate when they could simply go straight to the comptroller and say, "Cut my pay to $76,100," and it will be done?

There will be no worry about taxes. There will be no question about what they are really giving their money to. There will be no media going to them later and saying: "Could you show us receipts?" It will be done. It will be reflected in Public Accounts . Everyone will know that they're making $76,100 as their base. They have day after day after day got up and said: "This is what we should be getting, because we shouldn't have a raise."

Speaker after speaker on that side of the House gets up and says: "There should be no raise, and we're giving it all away." If they're giving it all away, then why not just go to the comptroller and save the taxpayers the problem?

In fact, I find it pretty objectionable that they would take the taxpayers' money when they say they don't want it and give it to the charity of their choice. What about those charities out there that aren't going to receive their largesse, if you will? Will this be a favourite treatment? Will it only be their favoured charities that receive money? If they're going to deal with taxpayers' money, then they should be dealing with it in a fair manner.

They seem to be implying that it's not their money; it's the taxpayers' money, and that's why they can't take it. Then tell the comptroller that you don't want it. Tell the comptroller to cut your pay back to $76,100. You'll still have your pension, which you said you want, but you won't have to worry about taxes. You won't have to worry about anyone coming after you to ask for an audit. Just do that. That would at least have a shred of integrity.

I don't see any integrity in the position of saying: "I don't want a raise. I'm voting against it, but I am taking it." I don't see it. How can you do this? It is absolute hypocrisy at its greatest height.

Members, I would ask everyone in this House, if you really think that this raise is warranted, stand up. When the vote is called on this bill, stand up and vote for it and then tell your electorate: "I think it's fair. Here are the reasons that I think it's fair. The raise will be something that I will be taking."

If you don't think that it's fair, if you think for some reason that it's too much, refuse it. This bill actually gives you the choice. You can walk in and say: "I've decided not to take the money."

An Hon. Member: Forever.

R. Hawes: Yeah. It's forever. I think that if you say now, "I don't want a pension. I don't think that it should happen," or "I don't think I should have a raise, because I knew in advance what I was going to make," then fine. Don't take it. The bottom line is that if they decide to do that, their pay would still be indexed.

M. Sather: More dirty tricks.

R. Hawes: The member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows says: "More dirty tricks." How can it be a dirty trick to lay out a choice? Here's the dirty trick. The dirty trick is right here. The dirty trick on the taxpayer is to say, "I'm not taking a raise at all," and then turn around and take the raise.

[1520]

Go to the comptroller and say: "I don't want the raise." That's completely honest. That is doing precisely what you say that you're trying to do, but you're not, really. We all know that you really want the money, and you're taking it. Be honest.

Just in closing, I've read the report carefully. I was on the committee that formed Bill 17. I thought…

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

R. Hawes: …Bill 17 was put together in a very fair manner. It was put together in complete cooperation with the NDP, who at that time agreed wholeheartedly that Bill 17 was the right way to go. Bill 17 had a pension plan, actually, that was much, much richer than the pension plan that's contained within this bill.

The members opposite gleefully voted for that. They gleefully voted for the raise that came with it, and now the whole issue of their conscience seems to have hit — the 29 percent that Jim Sinclair has told them is too much. So they found a way to take their leader out of the hole that she dug by once again speaking precipitously and saying they would not take the raise.

Even the very next day the House Leader for the NDP was on television going completely opposite to what the leader said, and the fumbling and the bumbling. We all saw that. You all saw that. The members opposite know this is what happened — the fumbling and bumbling around trying to protect the leader's ill-conceived position that was precipitously made, and now you've found a way to get out of it. Do things honestly.

N. Simons: They say you should never follow children or animals, and I don't want to be insulting to children, but…

Mr. Speaker: Member.

N. Simons: …what I've heard from the member for Maple….

Mr. Speaker: Member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast, you will withdraw that immediately, with an apology.

[ Page 8458 ]

N. Simons: I withdraw with apologies.

I will continue. That's a very common expression in show business that may not be known to some in the House that simply indicates it is difficult to follow someone when they've made an exciting and wondrous display of something. Now, I leave that something up to each one of you, but I'm speaking on Bill 37. I'm speaking on an issue of importance to me, and that's integrity of this House, and the integrity of this House was brought down and debased by the member.

The member on this side of the House has no right to question our motivation, no right to come in here and question whether or not we will carry through with the word that we have given to our communities. We will hold fast to what we have said, and the member on this side of the House, who happens to be from the other side of the House, should know better.

He knows very well that the dirty tricks of this government have put us in the place where we are today, where the debate has been cut short and where the actual discussion on the issues that are important to British Columbians is left to the trash, left on the side.

Let me address issue number one. The recommendations of the report which purportedly are now in Bill 37 did not include tying the pension and the pay together. Strike 1 to the government.

The second thing. It did not say: "Give them an opt-out clause, and make it optional." They didn't say that, yet the government decided to put that in. Strike 2.

The third thing they did is they said: "Take it or leave it within seven days. Walk away forever. Take it now, or take it never." Strike 3. This government should be seen as the fraud that it is. In this particular case they have given us this option, the only possible option, that the members opposite don't understand.

I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, the option is this. When giving in to a situation where there's no choice, when the government plays a dirty trick, leaving no option for opposition politicians, on the pain of never taking it for their entire career…. The ministers opposite, who may be making noises in defiance to what I say, know very well that the government did not have to bring in a bill like this. They did not have to make this the most divisive bill possible, but they chose the low road once again. They chose the road travelled more by their type than by our type, and we have seen the result of that. We have seen the results.

I urge the members opposite to think carefully about this. This is a bill before the House like many others before us. We have voted different ways on different bills on different issues. This is the first free vote for the party in power. This is the first time they have an opportunity. Well, they pretend they have other options. Okay. They have this option now….

[1525]

R. Hawes: With great apologies to my colleague from the opposite side, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

R. Hawes: We have a class from Hillside Elementary, which is a grade 5 class, I think, from Mission. Pardon me, 45 grade 7 students are here. I'm trying to read the sign they put in front of me.

Hillside School is a very good school in Mission. Actually, I have a grandson who attends that school. I don't know if he's in the audience or not. Welcome, and could all members in the House please make the grade 7 class from Hillside welcome.

Debate Continued

N. Simons: The member was making an introduction. I also welcome the class. I'm happy that you're here. You're seeing in front of you a debate over whether we should give ourselves a pay raise, whether we should give ourselves more money for us to take home in our pockets.

We should be saying to the government that we shouldn't do it while we're in the job. We should wait until we get re-elected. I'm trying to tell the government side of the House that they should vote against this because it was built badly. It was written badly, and it included things that shouldn't have been included in the bill. They didn't have to do it that way.

I think that the grade 6, 7, 5 or 4 class that the member for Maple Ridge–Mission…. They should realize that, in fact, this is just one debate that we have. We have debates about other bills, and usually we have enough time to debate them. But this government didn't really want us to have enough time, so they said we have to stop at 5:30 today no matter what — because they can. They've got the power to do that; they're allowed to.

They're also allowed to put legislation forward that we think is okay sometimes. Sometimes we think it's bad. In this case we think it's bad for many reasons.

The first report this government has ever received that they've approved of the recommendations and immediately added their own bad ones…. We've had the Hughes report and a series of reports for the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Mines. We have a number of reports from the Ministry of Children and Family Development, and that took two years to get recommendations put into practice.

Well, they were pretty excited about these recommendations. As soon as they came in, they turned around and put their favourite ones into it. They added a few little spicy things that said: "Let's make it like if you don't do it now, you don't get to do it even if you get re-elected. Maybe even if you get re-elected, maybe you'll never have an opportunity to change the legislation yourself."

We're stuck. There's no choice. "You decide now within seven days. You've either got what we have as backbench MLAs on the government side, or you don't." I don't think that's fair. I don't think anybody in my constituency thinks it's fair.

Because of that, they look at this situation, and they say: "Are you going to take a 29-percent increase in the

[ Page 8459 ]

middle of your term and say that's a good idea? Are you going to vote in favour of that?"

I say no, I can't possibly vote in favour of that legislation because that legislation sucks. It's not good. It's bad legislation.

They say: "What are you going to do about it?" I say: "My option is that I vote against it. My option is that this is what I'm going to be paid forever and ever and ever."

"What do you mean forever and ever?" Yeah, they said it in the legislation. It'll never be changed. That's what you're stuck with forever. So you'll never get a pension, and you'll never get a raise.

Even most British Columbians think we should get a raise. We could have, probably, if the government had thought about it a little more instead of just taking full advantage of the giddy little excitement they had when they saw 29 percent. Suddenly it was 29 percent in the legislation. It didn't say tie it with the pensions. It didn't say you're allowed to opt out, but you've got seven days to choose. And it didn't say that you take it or leave it.

This is what makes the legislation bad. On that basis alone, the government backbenchers should vote against it. I know that people in my constituency are fine. That's okay. They understand. I've been public about it. They understand this is an uncomfortable situation for everybody. They think that the government has purposely done this, that it's a cynical move and that it doesn't do much for us in terms of respect for politicians, unfortunately.

But this is the position they've cornered us into, and this is the position we've accepted. We are proud to be able to say that there will be no net gain. We're going out and telling them….

It's clear that there's division on the government side. It's clear that, unfortunately, they're required to be able to say with a singular voice that we will be up to our ears drinking from the trough of the public purse….

[1530]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast has the floor.

Continue.

N. Simons: I would simply like to hear from the government's side some of the issues around why everything was bundled into one and why it decided to take the full recommendations. I have never seen the government accept recommendations and put them into law so quickly as when it benefits their particular interest. Here we have a 29-percent increase. I've never seen the giddiness of their side's response: "Someone else told us we could, so we can."

Well, somebody else told them about the pathetic state of child welfare in this province, and it took them years to figure that one out. Someone else told them that the forest industry is on its last legs, it appears by most accounts, and they're trying to figure that out still. People have told them that the fisheries were in terrible difficulties. They said: "Let's find out. Someone else should tell us what we should do." When they pick and choose what recommendations they want to accept, which ones they want to turn into legislation and which ones they don't…. That's what I'm pointing to, the fraud of the government. They say one thing, and they do something else.

The member for Maple Ridge–Mission knows very well of what I speak. He knows very well that we're taking the principled stand in this particular situation.

Interjection.

N. Simons: The laughter from the other side betrays an insecurity of what they're about to do and of what their constituents will say. "Did you do this for yourself?" "Yes, I did it for myself." That's what every member of the government side will be able to say.

I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. I'm afraid that it does degenerate into a discussion about who's nicer than the other ones. The fact of the matter is that it's bad legislation. I appeal to the others in this House to vote against it.

B. Lekstrom: As I take my position in this debate, I rise and I will speak in support of this bill, Bill 37. I've listened to the debate, and I have a great deal of respect for the debate that goes on in this House. I think it's fair to say that there are different views, not just from both sides of the House but from different people on each side of the House. We've heard those views today and yesterday, and I'm sure that we'll hear them carry on for some time.

It's never easy — whether you're dealing with elected office at the level at which we hold, as a Member of the Legislative Assembly, or whether you're a school district trustee, a mayor, a councillor or a federal MP — when the issue of compensation comes forward. But there are times when I think it has to be looked at, and it's a difficult decision that has to be made.

It was clear that roughly 18 months ago the decision that this assembly made unanimously, together, wasn't acceptable. For that reason we then reached an agreement that we would entertain an independent panel, which we actually commissioned. They went out and did their work, and that's what we're here to debate. Bill 37 reflects what the compensation commission came back with. We're debating it here today, and there will be a vote.

I've spoken to my constituents, and I've spoken to people who thought it was a reasonable expectation that a Member of the Legislative Assembly would receive the compensation as laid out in that package. I've talked to others who thought it wasn't acceptable, and that's fair. We have a good discussion about it, and then we leave on our way. I accept both sides of this discussion.

Do I think that it's reasonable that a Member of the Legislative Assembly in British Columbia earns 65 percent of what a Member of Parliament earns? I do. A Member of Parliament begins at $150,000 a year. I've

[ Page 8460 ]

never held that position, but I would believe they would earn every bit of that. Do I think that a Member of the Legislative Assembly is worth what this report and this piece of legislation is recommending? I do, and I think it's important.

We hear that people are talking about a 29-percent increase. They're talking about the Premier and seeing this massive increase in his wage. Our Premier is the CEO of a $34 billion corporation, organization — call it what you will. It's a large, large, large business. The difference in our business as government is that our return to the shareholder is service, not money in their pocket. I'm proud of what we've delivered for the last six years with the service, with what we've done.

[1535]

I'm not going to stand and speak for a half hour, but I certainly heard members of the opposition, and rightfully so, ask where we stood on the issue. I think they knew where we stood as far as where the vote was going to be, but they wanted to know reasons. I want to make it very clear that I've never ducked an issue in my life. I certainly won't begin to do it now. If I thought this wasn't right, I would stand up and say it wasn't right. If I think it's right, I'm going to stand up and say that.

The key issue here…. This bill is not about any one individual in this chamber. This is not about myself or about members of the opposition — at least in my mind it's not. It's about the position of a Member of the Legislative Assembly, whoever holds this position. Whatever the compensation is at the end of the day when this vote either passes or fails, whoever has the honour and the privilege to be elected to this office will earn every cent of what the compensation is. For that reason I wholeheartedly support this.

If it was about money for myself and my family…. I can tell you that I'm not an independently wealthy guy. I work each and every day, and I have since I was 18 years old. My first priority is to earn a living for my family. But if it was solely about earning big dollars, I'd go work out in the oil patch. I have friends, I'm sure like many of you, that are earning far more than we would earn in this business here.

You know what? I think each and every member is here for one reason, and I do believe that, and that's because they believe they can make our province a better place. Their commitment to the people of British Columbia is what brings them here. They don't look at a compensation package and say: "That's the job I want to do." At least I couldn't imagine somebody looking at that and saying: "I want to do that because I can earn $98,000 a year."

If there are people that do that — maybe there have been in the past, and maybe there will be in the future — I don't think they would last the four years, because if you don't love each and every minute of this job, it would be the worst job in the world. You deal with the good, you deal with the bad, but what you deal with is your ability to make our province and your own constituency a better place.

I've heard debate, and I have a great deal of respect for differing views. That's really what this House is about. Opposition comes to this House to present differing views on much of what the government puts forward. We listen, and we act upon what we think, as government, is in the best interest of the province. That's what democracies do. That's what those who now are in opposition did during the 1990s. They acted on what they believed was right. We've made a change in government. That change happened in 2001.

Where I have a significant problem — and I know that members have spoken about this time and time again — is if you want to speak against it, I have the utmost respect. If you want to vote against it, I have the utmost respect. But in my mind, you can't speak against it, stand up and vote against it and then take it. That's an incredible thing.

There are issues, and like I said, this is not about any individual.

Interjections.

B. Lekstrom: People can chirp all they want, but I would suggest…. Take it for what it's worth. I've sat here and listened to your debates. I don't have to agree, but I certainly have the privilege, and I respect you, and I'll listen.

[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Member, take your seat for a second.

Members, there is no use of cell phones in the chamber. Please step outside the chamber if you're wishing to use your cell phone.

Continue, Member.

B. Lekstrom: The key issue here is that we put something forward that allows, I think, for a fair decision to be made by each and every member in this House. The issue is that if you believe this is the right thing to do, you would vote for it. If you believe it is the wrong thing and you have different ideas and feel that this isn't the piece of legislation that you can support, you would vote against it. I do have to go back to the point that to vote against this, speak against this and then accept the package is an abdication of their responsibility to the taxpayers of British Columbia.

[1540]

I do want to point out that in Bill 37 — I believe it's under

section 4.1 — there is the opt-out clause. I thought that was a reasonable clause. It allows each and every member in this Legislative Assembly — who hopefully has a free vote on this; I know that we do — who thinks it's reasonable to stand up and vote for it. It allows members who think it isn't reasonable to vote against it and then walk down the hall. It's a short distance, Mr. Speaker, to your office, as this bill is written. They have seven days to sign a paper and opt out. And there's nothing wrong with that, if that is their choice.

But again, I can't stress enough…. I'm going to stand up in my constituency, and like each and every one of us…. I'm sure you'll have people who will come and say, and I've had a number: "I can't believe that it's

[ Page 8461 ]

taken this long for that assembly" — not for you, Member, or myself, but for that assembly — "to address this issue, because we support you, and we think it's long overdue."

I've also had some others come and say: "You know what? We don't think that's right." That's fine. That's what a democracy is about. But I encourage the members, as they've encouraged us on this side, to listen and take the information and the debate that we hear to heart, weigh it out before we cast our votes. That's what I'm encouraging the members opposite to do.

If you do truly believe that this bill is wrong and it's the wrong direction, then do vote against it. But also, if you do that, have the courage to walk those 35 steps down to your office and sign the opt-out clause, because it is wrong if you don't. You can live with it, and you can justify it, but….

I think a lot of people watch these debates and think, "My God, these people must be enemies, because they're on different sides of this House and different parties," when in fact that's probably just about opposite of how it really is.

I think that most of us are friends in this assembly. We go at it here, and we have some good, healthy debate. You watch question period, and you'd think it was like a war. But shortly after question period you then carry on with your business. You're pleasant to one another. You talk to each other. You want to understand how their lives are going. That's part of any job. I think that's part of humankind.

But I want to make it perfectly clear — and I've never been accused of not being clear — that I support Bill 37. I will stand for it. I will vote for it, and I will not stand up, speak for something, say I'll support it and then not do it, because that's where I have difficulty.

In carrying on with this debate, I know that we're going to have a significant amount…. We also hear that debate has been stifled and….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

B. Lekstrom: I hear members yelling that we're invoking closure. When I started the spring session of the Legislature, it was quite clear to me that on May 31 at 6:30 p.m. we would adjourn the spring session.

Interjection.

B. Lekstrom: I know for a fact that the member that's talking can read, because we've had some good discussions. I know that he's seen the same issues and knew the same deadline. So I'm not going to get into whether I'm right and you're wrong and so on. This is a personal choice. But it's an important choice.

I'm going to close with a couple of comments. I respect the views of all the members from both sides of the House on this issue if they speak to Bill 37. What I don't respect and find it very difficult to find inside my heart to respect is someone that would stand up and speak against it, someone that would stand up and vote against it and then somebody that doesn't have the courage to go sign the opt-out clause because they're going to take it. That doesn't score any points, certainly not with me. I think the public can see through that screen, and I think they will see what's actually taking place.

The idea of making a donation to charity — I encourage you all to. I think that we all do. I don't know who does and who doesn't, but I know I do. I don't write my newspaper and write an

article about it, but our family donates. I think we all have a social conscience. That's what it's about.

The one thing that I'll say to the members opposite, because they seem to want to lecture us on this on how righteous they are in their views on this…. Sometimes that is a hard thing to take, but again, it's debate. I certainly will respect your views if you're against this, and I do. If you're going to vote against it and you're going to speak against it — and so far that's what I've heard from every member from the opposition — have the courage not to take it. This job….

J. Horgan: And be a second-class MLA. Vote for me. I'm 29 percent cheaper than the other people on that side.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

B. Lekstrom: That's pretty good.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member. Member.

[1545]

B. Lekstrom: It's interesting hearing the member talk about that he's less of an MLA. I don't want to stand here and agree with you; I'll let the public determine that.

But the issue here is not about the member over there or myself being worth this. This issue is about if the position of MLA in British Columbia is worth what Bill 37 has put forward. I think it's worth every penny.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

B. Lekstrom: In closing, I stand in support of this bill. I've spoken in favour of this bill. I will vote for this bill. I will be answerable to my constituents on this bill. Once again, I encourage the members of the opposition to have — I don't know what political word I can use here, Mr. Speaker — courage, I guess, or guts. Live with your convictions. To speak against this bill and to vote against this bill and then take it is so hypocritical.

Hon. S. Bond: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[ Page 8462 ]

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Bond: Today we're delighted to have in the gallery…. It seems to be the day for having students from Vancouver–Point Grey. I know very much that the Premier would have liked to have been here today, but on his behalf I would like very much to welcome you to the legislative precinct.

We're always delighted when we have school classes coming to spend time observing and learning more about the process of government and how it works. I know that my colleagues will want to make very welcome a group of grade 7 students from St. Augustine's School who are visiting with their teacher Ms. Donna O'Hara. Thank you for being here, and welcome to the precinct.

Debate Continued

N. Macdonald: We've heard a lot about hypocrisy here. I'll give an example of hypocrisy. This is a Premier that in 1996 fought against pensions and fought against pay. What if he had signed in 1996? He would have broken it at some point. He breaks it now. Let's talk about the Premier because this is driven by him, as all things in this House are. The Premier flows, this flows….

Mr. Speaker: Member, don't talk about a personal member of the other side.

N. Macdonald: Okay, I'm talking about the legislation, sir. It says "Premier." He's listed here.

Mr. Speaker: Member. It is part of the bill, but if you don't start having some respect for the Chair, you will not continue to speak. Now you can continue.

N. Macdonald: This bill flows from a commission that was set up by the Premier. The Premier chose the people to sit on the panel. The Premier and his government chose the people that would sit on this panel. I had no choice on that. I had no choice on this agenda. It is the Premier and the government who chose to act on their recommendation. It's the Premier and his government who chose to act selectively in terms of what they chose from those recommendations. It is the Premier and his government that threw in some of their own things.

To be honest, there are elements of farce in terms of how this commission has acted. I chose not to participate in any way. Despite the fact that we were told that this was going to be a confidential activity, the panel decided that that didn't mean anything, and they broke down the results and made it public. So there's a problem with that.

There's a problem with the fact that it wasn't unanimous, and one member finds out, apparently in Europe, what the recommendations are actually going to be. That member was accused of not knowing about pensions, which begs the question about why the Premier and his government chose to have that person on the committee. So I have problems with the committee, and I have problems in particular with what they came up with.

My view on this is that if we're going to make a change, it should be a change for the next parliament. A 29-percent increase in wages at the base rate for all of us is by any standards too much. By any standards, it is too big a raise. I would ask anyone here to point to where in British Columbia somebody is getting a 29-percent raise.

[1550]

What's different about here is that, unlike any other situation, we get to decide for ourselves. We get to choose. Well, that's not quite true. The government gets to choose, because this is the Premier and his government's agenda. This is not something that we asked for nor is it something that we want. We will vote against it.

The real burden in this job is the time that we spend travelling and away from family. So $76,000 as a base rate is by any standard a good wage. It is, as other members have pointed out, a wage that is higher than almost all of the people that we represent. Now, there are people here who think that this is a particularly difficult job. I've had other jobs that I've found more difficult. The only difficulty, really, is the travel and the time away. That's my experience.

The Premier and his government choose the panel. The Premier and his government write the legislation. The Premier and his government reward the Premier, in particular, despite his objections to pensions and raises in 1996, because it's the Premier who is the biggest benefactor here — a 54-percent raise from his caucus. This is somebody who said he was against raises, and somebody who said that he was against pensions. But it's a magnificent pension that he's given himself as well.

Now, a member over here from Cariboo South was talking about him as a CEO, which is I'm sure the way he sees himself and that somehow he has earned this. I wonder where he gets the right to say that he's earned it. He gets to decide for himself. He didn't mention this before the election that this was one of the things that he was going to do. In fact, his record for things that he says before the election and after is not that great.

When I talk to people in my constituency, they mention a number of things. I will mention just a few — of people pointing out. The convention centre project. Here's somebody who feels that he deserves a 54-percent raise, and yet we have a convention centre project that he has run, he has chosen his people to run. He has donors. If you look at that board, there is not one person who is there for any reason other than connections to this Premier and the B.C. Liberal Party. They are all donors, and they are all compatriots for a long time.

Interjections.

N. Macdonald: It's 54 percent. I am asked: "Does this relate to the bill?" It does, because the bill is about giving the Premier a raise of 54 percent. It was put to me that that was as a reward for something. I wonder what the reward is. I wonder what the justification is.

[ Page 8463 ]

It would be interesting if the Premier came and spoke in this House and explained to us why he feels that he is justified in taking a 54-percent raise, given that the convention centre project is 100-percent over budget, given that each person that was chosen to run that project was chosen by the Premier based not perhaps on their competence but definitely on their connections to the B.C. Liberal Party.

You have a former party president. You have defeated B.C. Liberal candidates that were there for a while. There's not one person there that is not part of a company that has donated massive amounts of money to the B.C. Liberal Party.

What's the result? We have a project that is out of control in terms of cost. We have a project that has not been marketed properly, so that there are all sorts of problems with the bookings that will come in the future. It is a disaster from start to finish.

That is just one of the faults that the Premier has to take responsibility for, because he also talked about making private clinics redundant. You remember that promise? He gets 54 percent as a raise for making private clinics redundant. That was his goal. How did he do on that?

He did pretty poorly by any account. What about this — 5,000 long-term care beds? It's 2007. How has he done with that one? Failing grade, but still worth a 54-percent raise, apparently. How about the improvements that he promised in 2001 to the apprenticeship program? How has that gone? But still, 54 percent as a raise.

Interjection.

N. Macdonald: The Minister of Education is talking. Well, let's talk about some…

Mr. Speaker: Member.

N. Macdonald: …of the promises that were made….

Mr. Speaker: Member. You don't refer to people that are in or out of the House. Thank you.

[1555]

N. Macdonald: A member was talking about education. So let's talk about that, because the promise in 2001 by this minister was to improve education. Well, the experience that people in my area had was — what? — seven, eight schools closed? When the member is visiting, she can visit with some of those schools, and they can tell you about the other problems that exist in the schools that remain, about special education, about librarians, about maintenance. All of these after a promise by the Premier to strengthen education.

Still on that theme, how about Bill 20? That comes after a promise by the Premier to strengthen the independence of school boards. How's that going? It's worth a 54-percent raise, according to the Premier and his government — a 54-percent raise.

What about protecting child care — B.C. children? Child care — a failure there. Protecting B.C. children. How does that work? How do you earn a 54-percent raise, according to this Premier and his government?

First you cut the amount of money you're spending on it. Then, at the same time, you reorganize. Then you get rid of the children's commissioner. When you've been shown that that is a complete mistake, what do you do? Do you come back and face it, or do you sit out a whole session in the fall, not showing up once? That earns a 54-percent raise?

What about the promise from this Premier to stop the expansion of gambling? How's that going? As the CEO of the government that has expanded it to where it's a billion dollars…. What is it? It's a billion dollars that the government is taking in. That's after a promise not to expand. What's the quality of the work that's going on there?

I would expect — I would hope — this afternoon that somebody is going to get fired for the work that's gone on there, for the travesty at the Lottery Corporation. Yet the very same afternoon that