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 17, 2007

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 21, Number 5

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Statements

Sullivan mine accident

Bennett

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Asian Heritage Month

R. Lee

Laity pumpkin patch in Maple

Ridge

Sather

Recognition of Surrey police in

crime reduction

D. Hayer

Coroner's inquest into Sullivan

mine accident

Macdonald

Support of B.C. farms

Roddick

Green Ribbon of Hope

campaign

Karagianis

Oral Questions

WorkSafe B.C. surplus

C. James

Hon. O.

Ilich

Puchmayr

H. Bains

L. Krog

Ralston

Coverage of post-traumatic stress

disorder by WorkSafe B.C.

C. Evans

Hon. O.

Ilich

Hillside Gardens

Chouhan

Hon. R.

Coleman

Housing for refugees

Routley

Hon. R.

Coleman

Regulation of new home pre-sale

agreements

Thorne

Hon. R.

Coleman

Funding for child care centres

Trevena

Hon. L.

Reid

Petitions

C. Trevena

Second Reading of Bills

Legislative Assembly (Members'

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

(continued)

Farnworth

C. James

A. Dix

H. Bains

Ralston

Chouhan

Fraser

Simpson

Sather

Routley

Statements

Apology for unparliamentary language

Mayencourt

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Forests

and Range and Minister Responsible for Housing (continued)

Thorne

Hon. R.

Coleman

Robertson

Karagianis

Estimates: Other appropriations

[ Page 8145 ]

THURSDAY, MAY 17, 2007

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Statements

SULLIVAN MINE ACCIDENT

B. Bennett: One year ago Doug Erickson, Bob Newcombe, Kim Weitzel and Shawn Currier lost their lives in a tragic accident at the decommissioned Sullivan minesite in Kimberley. I'd like to ask members of the House just to take a few moments today to remember and honour them and honour their families.

Mr. Speaker: Take a few moments of silence, Members.

Introductions by Members

C. James: I want to introduce Frank Scigliano, who is here today chaperoning his daughter and her class as they tour the Legislature. Frank is the president of the Ship and Dock Foremen, International Longshore Workers Union, Local 514. Would the House please make Frank and his daughter's class very welcome to the Legislature.

[1335]

Hon. L. Reid: We are joined on the floor of this chamber today by the hon. Janis Tarchuk, Minister Responsible for Children's Services in the province of Alberta. I would ask the House to please make her fabulously welcome.

D. Thorne: I have the pleasure today of introducing four people who have very special ties to this Legislature. I'd first like to introduce Jack Campbell, who is the four-year-old grandson of former MLA John Cashore and is in the gallery along with his mother Judy Cashore and his grandparents Sharon and John Cashore.

Jack has long had an interest in Africa. In particular, he is very concerned about the plight of child victims of the fighting in Sudan. By collecting bottles, cans and coins, Jack has raised over $600 to aid the people of Darfur through Amnesty International. I would like to welcome John, his grandson Jack, and Judy and Sharon as well. They're up there.

B. Lekstrom: Today, on behalf of my friend and colleague from Peace River North, I have the honour to introduce a number of his constituents. Judy Fox McGuire and her three children Bennett, Paige and Amy are visiting us today.

Judy works as a probation officer with community corrections in Fort St. John. Bennett and Paige attend North Peace Secondary School, and Amy attends Dr. Kearney Junior Secondary School. Will the House please make them all very welcome.

L. Krog: Joining us in the gallery today are two separate groups of school children from Hyland Elementary in Surrey, school district 36. Accompanying them is their teacher Mrs. Euseubio. On behalf of the member for Surrey–Panorama Ridge, I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

R. Cantelon: Please welcome in the gallery today Lee Mason, the executive director of the Nanaimo Chamber of Commerce, and Michael Naprawa. He's the president of Sunbelt Business Brokers, which may be of interest to members. After they leave their political careers, he may assist them in getting relocated in a successful business.

R. Fleming: With us in the gallery today is a very well-known performer from South America. Mr. Daniel Viglietti is a singer, composer, poet and human rights activist from Uruguay. He's a peer of the late Chilean folksinger Victor Jara in the 1960s and '70s.

In 1973 the Uruguayan military dictatorship forced him to leave Uruguay, taking exile in Argentina and later in France. Following the restoration of democracy in 1995, the Uruguayan government gave Mr. Viglietti an official national honour for his contributions to popular Latin American music.

He's touring cities across British Columbia and Canada. I know that he performs tomorrow night in Vancouver. He's joined by Ms. Gail Robinson from Vancouver, who is coordinating his visit. I would ask the House to please make these two guests most welcome.

Hon. C. Richmond: It is indeed a pleasure for me today to introduce to the House Almas Dewji. Almas is one of British Columbia's highly motivated disabled residents and one who would be a perfect fit for my ministry's 10 by 10 Challenge for employment. I'd ask the House to make her very welcome.

J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery today are a constituent of mine, John Burrows from Cobble Hill, and his sister visiting us from Leicester in England, Jane Savage. We just had a lovely lunch on behalf of charity in the legislative dining room. Although we didn't talk about Australia drubbing England in the recent cricket World Series Cup, I'm certain they'd want to hear about it now. Will you please make them welcome.

D. Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce 79 grade 4 students, who were here earlier today from Coyote Creek Elementary School in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead. Joining them were their teachers Mrs. Lorri Mawhinney, Pat Taylor and Mrs. Ingrid Nelson, as well as many parent volunteers who took time out of their busy schedules to accompany these students.

The students were here to learn about the Parliament Buildings and how our government works. Would the House please make them very welcome.

[1340]

Interjections.

Hon. S. Hagen: No respect.

[ Page 8146 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. S. Hagen: I have two introductions today. I'm really pleased that we have 35 grade 9 students and three adults from Cape Lazo Middle School in the precincts. If you heard the singing in the rotunda over the lunch hour, it was the students from this school. The band was playing outside, making beautiful music. I want to ask everyone to please make the Cape Lazo Middle School grade 9 students, adults and their teacher Ms. Charlotte Harvey very welcome.

I also have two constituents from my riding of Comox Valley joining us in the House today. Would you please help me welcome Eileen Rix and Joyce Alexander, who are spending a few days down in this great city doing tourism.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) ASIAN HERITAGE MONTH

R. Lee: In December 2001 the Senate of Canada passed a motion officially designating the month of May as Asian Heritage Month. With over 20 percent of our population having Asian heritage, many events are taking place around the province to showcase Asian culture and history — food, television programs, lectures, workshops, exhibitions, films, theatre, music, dance, performances, tours and a celebration dinner.

Many of these activities are in the explore Asian programs put together by the Vancouver Asian Heritage Month Society. This society works to connect British Columbians with Asian heritage in this great province and country of the maple leaf.

Last month I participated in the Korean veterans' groundbreaking ceremony for the Korean war memorial monument in order to mark the end of the Korean War 54 years ago. Last week I participated in the Chinese Canadian veterans' celebration, the 60th anniversary of the repeal of Chinese exclusion act and the receiving of franchise by Chinese Canadians. Asian Canadians fought for the values and freedom of this land, our beloved country of the maple leaf.

This Saturday a group of artists will be performing at the Centre Theatre in downtown Vancouver to celebrate Mother's Day and fundraising for the Chinese Cultural Centre. Mr. Hongwei Wong, the honoured performing artist and the Chinese national first-class young tenor vocalist of folk songs from the China national song and dance troupe, will take a special trip from Beijing to Vancouver to provide a hit voluntary performance. The title of his gala performance: The Love Song of the Maple Leaf .

In the month of May we revisit our history as we celebrate our rich diversity. In the month of May we affirm our allegiance as we commemorate our faithful adherence. In the month of May we sing the love song of the maple leaf.

LAITY PUMPKIN PATCH IN MAPLE RIDGE

M. Sather: Although we are several months away from the harvest, I wanted to talk about pumpkins — not just any pumpkins, but pumpkins that grow among fairy tales and dinosaurs. Some of these pumpkins even starred in a movie with Pamela Anderson. I don't know what that says.

At a time when the weather signals the end of summer and frost-filled nights are upon us, you can find the fields dotted with bright orange spheres of all sizes and shapes. Thousands of folks have made their way to the colourful fields, hoping to find the perfect pumpkin. In the bright autumn sun, it's the place to go to find a crop of these stellar squash, all waiting to be transformed into scary Halloween jack-o'-lanterns. This is the Laity pumpkin patch in Maple Ridge.

[1345]

Walk through the pumpkin tunnel and begin your journey into the corn maze and the trails of corn-fusion where young and old greet with anticipation and excitement giant sunflowers, a petting zoo with farm animals and a fun hay ride. Romp through the colourful fields with your galoshes and transport yourself back to a time when BlackBerrys, computers and cell phones were nary a thought. You can feel your fingers squishing the goo as you scrape out the seeds.

The Laity pumpkin patch opens the first weekend of October for their family fall farm harvest. They're open for tours. Perhaps we here in this chamber could all go together one day — one happy family. If not, I invite everyone in this House to mark it in your calendars and bring your families to Maple Ridge for a fun-filled day to pick out your pumpkin at the Laity pumpkin patch.

RECOGNITION OF SURREY POLICE IN

CRIME REDUCTION

D. Hayer: Surrey is transforming itself in the fight against crime and is winning hugely. Today with the tremendous effort of our mayor, council and community, due to the excellent work of Surrey's outstanding RCMP, Surrey is becoming one of the safest places in Canada to live. Through the RCMP's innovative initiatives, car thefts have dramatically dropped by 21 percent, property crime is down by 8 percent, and there's a 21-percent drop in drug crime. In fact, in virtually every area of criminal activity, statistics show that Surrey has got a handle on crime.

That is why I am proud to tell the House today that the best of the best who have worked diligently to reduce Surrey's crime rate will be honoured tonight at the 11th annual Surrey Board of Trade's Police Officer of the Year Award ceremonies, which was started by my team in 1997 when I was president of the Surrey Chamber of Commerce, now called the Surrey Board of Trade.

Our top cops, community sports stars, community organizations and businesses, who all work together to improve our city, will be honoured for such things as

[ Page 8147 ]

Police Officer of the Year, nominated by the community at large; Police Officer of the Year, nominated by his or her peers; Auxiliary Constable of the Year; Policing Volunteer of the Year, who helped with policing; Police Municipal Employee of the Year; Police and Business Partnership Award winner; and the Arnold Silzer Community Policing Award, which recognizes a person or a group who has had the most positive impact on a community's safety.

I ask all members in the House to join me in congratulating all nominees of the Police Officer of the Year awards for being nominated for the hard work and dedication and helping achieve such a remarkable reduction in Surrey's crime rate.

CORONER'S INQUEST INTO

SULLIVAN MINE ACCIDENT

N. Macdonald: As the House knows, it is a year today since Doug Erickson, Bob Newcombe, Kim Weitzel and Shawn Currier died in a small shed on the site of the Kimberley Sullivan mine. The House at the time recognized the sorrow of the families of those who died and the impact of their deaths not only on the communities of Kimberley and Cranbrook but in the wider area.

On July 9 a coroner's inquest will begin. The families and the community want this, and I am hopeful that it will provide part of what the families need. They told me they want all of the facts about what happened public and that they want to make sure that what happened to their loved ones doesn't happen to anyone else. Kimberley has, of course, shown itself to be a special place that not only looked out for the victims' families but helped them in the search for the truth about what happened.

The strength of the families has been truly amazing. They have been resolute and far more articulate than I think they even thought they could be. I also want to say that there was a time when the families felt that they may not get the answers they wanted. I just want to recognize the work of Carolyn Grant at the Daily Bulletin, and Gregor Craigie at the CBC and Tom Sandburn at The Tyee were among others who were very important to the families.

The families had had a very poor experience with a very small number of the media on the first day of the tragedy. When it came time for them to tell their story at their time, these were the people that stepped forward to tell their story, and it was a complicated story. I know they appreciate them for doing that.

It's also important to mention the paramedics union and the steelworkers union. My understanding is that they're providing the legal support that will allow the families to fully participate in the inquest, and they pushed for the inquest along with the B.C. Federation of Labour.

[1350]

I hope the inquest, along with the families, will give them the comfort they need. It may also lead to findings which this House may be asked to act on, and my expectation is that they will.

I want to close by saying that people have a right to expect that those who go to work come back safely. I know all people here feel that.

SUPPORT OF B.C. FARMS.

V. Roddick: I have no doubt that the entire House is absolutely delighted to support "Farming is booming in British Columbia." For me that headline is a vision and a dream come true. I went into politics to bring farmers, ranchers and food back into everyone's home and onto their plates, and it is happening.

I want to thank the Premier and the Ministers of Agriculture as well as the Investment Agriculture Foundation for putting up with my "agriculture first" rants over the past ten years or so.

However, as with any industry, it's not letter-perfect. But with our provincial agriculture plan due by the end of June, we will have the foundation to meet and deal with such challenges as attracting young farmers and making sure there is land available for them.

The biggest challenge is reaching the consumer, to have them take an interest in buying and serving the best of the best — B.C. fresh, safe, locally produced food. Every single product listed in the Vancouver Sun today used to be grown in abundance in the Fraser Valley. I've dealt with them all. Members, we are starting to bridge that urban agricultural divide.

Again, I throw out a challenge to this House. ActNow, milk, fruit and veggies in the schools all contribute, but it's the consumer that will make it truly happen. We as consumers can make every crop a winner by buying the very best. Buy B.C., because we still have to eat to live.

GREEN RIBBON OF HOPE CAMPAIGN

M. Karagianis: May 25 is the National Missing Children's Day, and May is the Green Ribbon of Hope Month. In 1986 the Solicitor General of Canada declared that May 25 be commemorated as Missing Children's Day. Unfortunately, we will not be sitting in the House that day.

The green ribbon is recognized as a symbol to remember the missing children and to seek their safe return. It's also used as a way to express our concern for the missing children, their families and their communities. Green is regarded as the colour of hope. Sadly, each year in Canada, thousands of children are reported missing.

Community members are also asked to show their support and concern for these missing children by prominently wearing their green ribbon. Proceeds generated by this campaign enable Child Find Canada and its provincial partners to continue their mandate of assisting in the search for missing children and the education of children, parents and adults about child safety.

This campaign runs for the entire month of May, raising awareness of the issue of missing children.

I wish to also highlight the enormous efforts by families who keep the hope alive all year long through events like those in my community, the Michael

[ Page 8148 ]

Dunahee run. I cannot speak highly enough of Crystal and Bruce Dunahee, their family and everyone in the community, who continue to keep a light burning for the return of their son Michael.

To all the families across this province and the country, I am confident that the members of this House will join me in voicing our hope for the safe return of all their sons and daughters. I hope that all of us will remember to wear a green ribbon on May 25.

[1355]

Oral Questions

WORKSAFE B.C. SURPLUS

C. James: Every day in B.C. workers are injured on the job. Last year there were 5,000 workplace injuries in B.C. When workers are injured, British Columbians expect them to be fairly compensated, but that's not what is happening. In fact, WorkSafe B.C. is restricting compensation to injured workers, all the while sitting on a net fund surplus of almost a billion dollars alone last year.

My question is to the Minister of Labour. Will she commit today to allocate the billion-dollar WorkSafe surplus to helping B.C. workers by returning the pensions and benefits that her government stripped away in 2003?

Hon. O. Ilich: Well, first of all, the billion-dollar surplus is as a result of a very good security market, and it's a strong investment return. That money is used and needs to be used to look after the people that are sitting there on…. There are 37,000 people currently collecting benefits, long-term disabilities and pensions from WorkSafe. The fact is that the claim payments in 2006 are at $1.12 billion. That's the highest it has ever been in the history of WorkSafe.

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

C. James: The minister seems to miss the point that WorkSafe is there to help workers and return the benefits to workers, not to build a surplus in WorkSafe B.C. The surplus at WorkSafe B.C. is certainly not all due to an increase in investment. It was this government's callous cuts to the benefits and pensions for working people that resulted in these large savings.

The pensions and benefits this government stripped away in 2003 could actually be restored for a cost of $78 million a year. The billion-dollar net fund surplus for 2006 alone is enough to restore pensions and loss-of-earning benefits stripped away for the next 12 years.

Why does the Minister of Labour think that it's acceptable to sit on this huge surplus while denying loss-of-earning benefits to workers who have been injured on the job?

Hon. O. Ilich: I think the members opposite ought to get their facts straight. If they would like to sit down with the people at WorkSafe to go over the numbers, I would be happy to make that arrangement for them.

The fact is that there is more money being paid to workers now than there has ever been before, and there are more workers working in the province than there has ever been before. There are more claims right now than there were before, because there are 370,000 more people working in the province than there were in 2001.

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

C. James: Let me present a very clear fact to the minister. Surpluses for WorkSafe B.C. have been steadily increasing since this government stripped away pensions and benefits from injured workers. That's why they've been climbing. I certainly would have hoped that the record billion-dollar fund surplus last year would have been a wake-up call for the Minister of Labour, but apparently not.

My question again to the Minister of Labour: why does this government continue to deny benefits for workers while a billion-dollar net fund surplus sits in the bank?

Hon. O. Ilich: Perhaps a history lesson is required for the members opposite. In 1996 WorkSafe was doing so badly — it was so broke — that the minister of the day had to completely fire the board. A panel of administrators was brought in, and they went to a royal commission with some great people that are, I'm very sure, familiar to the NDP. There was a royal commission, and the way that the pensions are now treated, in fact, was a recommendation of the royal commission which was brought in by that government.

[1400]

The fact is that WorkSafe is now in the best shape it's ever been. It is there to protect workers. It's doing more in education, and it's paying out more money than it ever has in its history.

C. Puchmayr: Last year a record number of young people died on the job. A record number of young people died on the job under this government's watch. Since 2003 — since the government stripped away workers' rights — the operating surpluses continue to climb off the backs of injured workers.

I recently met with some workers dying of asbestos exposure. Some of them were not diagnosed until after age 65. They are now using their last breath to fight a system that is so inherently wrong.

Does the Minister of Labour think that it is okay to impose these hardships on workers who gave so much to build this province and now are getting so little?

Hon. O. Ilich: You know, the workers' compensation system in B.C. is working better than it ever has before. The policies that we have right now are being constantly reviewed. The fact is that more people are being injured at the moment because more people are working.

[ Page 8149 ]

As I said a few minutes ago, 370,000 jobs have been created in the province of British Columbia. In 2002 the board was underfunded by $400 million and was on the verge of collapse, so it needed to be looked at. It was looked at by a royal commission that their government started. In fact, some of the things that we are now doing were recommended by their royal commission.

We are constantly reviewing things to make sure that the system is still working, and we're going to continue to do that because we know that the system needs to be there to protect the workers of this province.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

C. Puchmayr: Workers injured on the job aren't buying this spin. They are suffering because of the policies introduced by this government. This government thinks that funding WorkSafe has to come off the backs of injured workers. That is absolutely wrong.

I hear from injured workers daily. They're having extreme difficulty in rehabilitation and getting back into the workforce. Will the Minister of Labour just admit that racking up such huge surpluses off the backs of injured workers is wrong? Will the minister please admit that?

Hon. O. Ilich: Well, obviously the members opposite don't know how to read balance statements or income statements. The money that is a surplus right now for WorkSafe….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. O. Ilich: Almost $900 million is an investment return. That's a good story, because that is money that will be there to look after workers in the future. The other money that contributes to the surplus is $148 million more contributed by employers than is actually paid out.

But the fact is that the injury rate right now is 30 percent lower than it was in 1996, and we have the lowest duration since 1997 of people being off work due to injury.

H. Bains: The injured workers are telling this minister and this government that the huge surplus that exists at WorkSafe B.C. is the result of a culture of denial at WorkSafe B.C. This minister doesn't get it.

Maybe the minister will get into this if I remind her of a case that she is fully aware of. Mr. Atwal was injured while working as a bus driver, and the disclosure shows clear collusion between WorkSafe B.C. and the employer.

[1405]

Clearly, it shows that WorkSafe B.C. blocked and refused the relevant information that was needed for Mr. Atwal to launch an appeal. WCAT, at the end of the day, decided in favour of Mr. Atwal. But rather than complying with the WCAT decision, WorkSafe B.C. is dragging Mr. Atwal to the courts for a judicial inquiry.

My question is to the minister. How can the minister justify ripping off injured workers like Mr. Atwal while billions of dollars are sitting in the bank?

Hon. O. Ilich: I have in fact spoken of Mr. Atwal's case with the member opposite, and he's well aware of the story. I don't really want to discuss individual cases in the House, but the case does date back to 1995. The members opposite might be well aware of it.

The fact is that claim payments in 2006 to injured workers are $1.12 billion. That is more than it's ever been. That is real money to real people. The system is sustainable. The system is working to look after people.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

H. Bains: The vocational rehab that is meant to help injured workers like Mr. Atwal has been cut from $115 million, only a year ago, down to a million dollars this year. As a result, workers are being forced to go back to work before they are even ready. The end result is that many workers end up permanently disabled and are discarded on a waste pile. We have already called for a public inquiry, and the minister has refused.

Why won't the Minister of Labour agree to put the surplus back where it belongs — to the benefit of injured workers like Mr. Atwal?

Hon. O. Ilich: Any surplus that WorkSafe has will be to the benefit of the workers of British Columbia.

L. Krog: Hon. Speaker, it astonishes me that in this House that minister, proud of a billion-dollar surplus taken out of the blood of injured workers in this province, can sit here and justify it as if it was some corporation bragging about its profits.

The whole purpose of the workers' compensation system is to protect injured workers. The minister says it's working better than it ever has before. So my question is: who is it working for, Minister? Is it working for the people of British Columbia who are injured and need the money, or is it working for the corporation?

Hon. O. Ilich: I'm not surprised that the members opposite don't know an investment return, because they didn't see one when they were in….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. O. Ilich: The workers' compensation system was in such disarray when the members opposite were in power that, as I said a few minutes ago, the whole board was fired. The whole system was broken down.

The billion-dollar surplus has come mostly from investment returns. The rest has been a surplus — what employers pay over what has been paid out.

[ Page 8150 ]

The fact remains that more money is now going out — more money, real money to real people — and that's a benefit to the workers….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

B. Ralston: There is one thing such as having a demonstrably justified actuarial surplus, and another thing is having an excess surplus. In this case, given what benefits were paid out at the 2002 and 2003 level, there's ample room to restore those pensions and benefits to injured workers in this province.

So I'd ask the minister to commit, based on that surplus — that demonstrated actuarial surplus — to restore those benefits to those workers today.

[1410]

Hon. O. Ilich: I just want to repeat the same thing right now. There is more money going to injured workers than ever before. It's at the highest level it has ever been.

COVERAGE OF POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS

DISORDER BY WORKSAFE B.C.

C. Evans: My question is for the same minister. I visited her in her office. I asked questions in estimates. I visited the previous minister and asked questions on the subject of the fact that in 2002 the minister's government, by making a regulatory change in this room, by law, removed the right to claim post-traumatic stress disorder from police, firemen, ambulance workers and emergency room nurses.

Throughout history, since there was a WCB — now called WorkSafe — workers who engage in possibly violent, dangerous occupations dealing with casualties had the right, if defined by a doctor according to the diagnostic orders, to claim post-traumatic stress disorder if they found themselves unable to do their job. In 2002 that right was removed in this room by law.

I asked the minister to reverse her decision on behalf of my constituent, and she said: "The WorkSafe B.C. people will consider your request." I don't think it's up to WorkSafe B.C. I think it's up to the government to legislate.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Quiet. Quiet.

C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, I've been waiting two years for an answer and my constituent, four years. Will the minister today make government responsible and reverse your own government's mistakes of 2002?

Hon. O. Ilich: Well, the member opposite is right. He did come to talk to me about that. I have asked WorkSafe to take a look at that. The member knows there are several cases with this in front of the courts. We would like that to go through the system to see what the courts have to say. But we have asked for review of that. Not only that, we are constantly reviewing the system. It is our government that added the presumptive cancers for firefighters.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. The member has a supplemental.

C. Evans: I kind of thought that this was the place where we legislate. Is "It's before the courts" going to become the answer to everything that you guys don't want to talk about?

My constituent doesn't want to hire a lawyer and go to court. He wants his representative at the parliament to speak to the minister responsible for morality and good law and ask the minister to correct the mistake that her government made in 2002.

There isn't a single person out there working on an ambulance — or a policeman out in the province of B.C. — who, if the cumulative impact of their job imposes stress, can claim it. Will the minister — not a judge, not a bureaucrat and not WorkSafe — do her job and decide yes or no, and then take responsibility for it?

Hon. O. Ilich: Well, the member opposite knows full well…. He did come to see me, and I did tell him that we would take a look at this as soon as the court situation has worked its way through the process.

In the meantime he knows full well…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1415]

Hon. O. Ilich: …that a workers' adviser visited the person that he is interested in. We don't really want to discuss individual cases, but he knows that we are looking at this. We continually try to do a better job for the workers of British Columbia, just as we did in the case of firefighters.

HILLSIDE GARDENS

R. Chouhan: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Minister of Labour is not capable of answering any questions, so let me ask the question to the Minister for Housing.

Last Friday I had the honour of meeting Leocadie Sinigirira, a government-sponsored refugee who came to our province last year with her eight children aged three to 16, after fleeing Burundi in Africa. Like many other refugees, Leocadie moved to Burnaby, but her apartment in Hillside Gardens is in deplorable condition.

Hillside Gardens is owned by the provincial government. She has twice lodged complaints about the deplorable living conditions, to no avail. Why does the Minister for Housing think it is okay to have massive

[ Page 8151 ]

holes in the ceiling, mice-and-cockroach-infested houses for refugees?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm familiar with the situation at Hillside Gardens. There was a fire that damaged 11 units. Those units are being fixed. The hole that the member actually refers to has been fixed, and we are in communication with the tenant.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

R. Chouhan: In April a fire damaged one of the buildings at Hillside Gardens. The engineer's report is expected in June. In an

article published today in the Burnaby News Leader , Darin Froese of B.C. Housing said that one of the options being looked at is the sale of the property.

It is absolutely unacceptable to have the government consider selling Hillside Gardens. The story of Leocadie illustrates the need for more affordable housing. Will the Minister Responsible for Housing reassure this House that Hillside Gardens will be redeveloped into affordable housing so that people like Leocadie and her children have a place to call home?

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, I should just give you a little bit of history of Hillside Gardens. It was actually purchased in the 1990s. It was purchased because a local MLA politically influenced a decision at B.C. Housing to force them to buy a market unit, which we now have as market housing. It's not social housing; it's not subsidized housing. Some people in there get rent assistance; some don't.

The fact of the matter is that B.C. Housing has a responsibility to its portfolio, to review its portfolio from time to time. And they will look at Hillside Gardens as any other. At this point in time there is no anticipated change to the operation of Hillside Gardens.

HOUSING FOR REFUGEES

D. Routley: It's time for this Housing Minister to step up to the plate — a plate he's left vacant for six long years. It's time for this government to address the needs. This mother and her eight children have been forced to endure conditions that most of us can only imagine.

Housing has to be not only affordable, but it needs to be safe, and that principle has been abandoned here.

My question to the Minister for Housing: why has his government failed to provide adequate housing for refugees in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. R. Coleman: I know the member didn't think it was a good idea to buy 700 units of single-room-occupancy hotels in Vancouver, evidently — to actually take care of people and have affordable housing in British Columbia.

I know the member doesn't want to recognize the 758 units of supportive housing in 20 communities across the province of British Columbia that just came from the recent…. I know that the member doesn't want to recognize the 557 other units under the provincial initiative of the Premier's office on homelessness in British Columbia.

I know that we took the shelter beds, which they never did in the 1990s, and made them all of them formal, so they're all paid up. For 365 days a year the shelter beds are available for the people in the province of British Columbia.

[1420]

There are 15,000 families eligible for rent assistance in British Columbia today that wasn't, if ever, available under their government.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member, just take your seat.

Members.

REGULATION OF NEW HOME

PRE-SALE AGREEMENTS

D. Thorne: Last week we learned about the pre-sale fiasco in my riding — families in danger of having their new homes sold out from under them by their contractor, CB Development. Now families with valid pre-sale agreements at a UBC housing development are being told by their developer that they can only keep their new homes if they are prepared to pay thousands of dollars more than they originally were told.

It is obvious that there is a much bigger issue here than we originally thought and that this government is failing consumers by not regulating pre-sales and this industry properly. Just saying "Buyer beware" doesn't cut it.

I am going to ask the minister who is responsible for housing if he will commit today to broaden the government's investigation into CB Development to include this new development. We need to finally get to the bottom of this mess, once and for all.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'll take that question on notice for the Minister of Finance.

FUNDING FOR CHILD CARE CENTRES

C. Trevena: Two weeks before the end of the financial year, the Minister of State for Childcare announced one-time funding for child care centres. She said she had to spend $20 million before the end of the financial year. In fact, she told the Williams Lake Tribune that she'd have loved to have done as other provinces did and roll that money over. "But," she said, "our Auditor General said that was not permissible."

The Auditor General, however, has said he never said that. In a letter to the child care community he said: "When and how to spend public money is a matter of government policy and not an area our office should or would be involved in."

[ Page 8152 ]

To the Minister of State for Childcare: why the rushed handouts?

Hon. L. Reid: I'm always absolutely delighted to talk about child care in British Columbia. We have $14 million in the field today….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Just take your seat.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. L. Reid: We have $14 million in the field today, which is driving the creation of approximately 1,498 child care spaces. Families in British Columbia have spoken very clearly on this question. They have said clearly that they believe in the subsidy program in British Columbia. They are absolutely delighted that this government lifted that income threshold from $21,000 to $38,000 annually — absolutely delighted.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

The member has a supplemental.

C. Trevena: The minister of state did not answer my question. I wanted to know from the minister of state why she handed out — when she didn't have to hand out — $20 million without accountability to child care centres.

Hon. L. Reid: To continue, the second priority for British Columbia families was how children with special needs are supported in the system. That is the $54 million expenditure on behalf of government, supporting 5,500 youngsters with special needs.

[1425]

The third priority was space creation in the province, and I can assure British Columbia families that there are new child care spaces coming on line at every opportunity. The child care sector will receive an additional $20 million in the coming weeks to invest in the children of this province.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[End of question period.]

C. Trevena: I seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

C. Trevena: I have a petition with 444 signatures calling on the House to cease the cuts to child care operating funds, to reinstate child care resource and referral programs, to restore child care operating fund programs and honour their responsibility to the children of British Columbia by providing accessible, affordable and quality early learning and child care.

Mr. Speaker: Member presents petition. I want to remind members: just the title, please.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued second reading debate on Bill 37, and in Committee A, Committee of Supply, continued estimates of the Ministry of Forests and Range. I believe it's the Housing department that is the subject of those estimates.

Second Reading of Bills

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (MEMBERS'

REMUNERATION AND PENSIONS)

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

(continued)

M. Farnworth: It's a pleasure to continue where we left off at five to 12. I had briefly indicated that I wanted to address some of the points that the Government House Leader had made in his remarks on Bill 37. I think it's important to reflect or to just recognize a couple of things.

First, the commission was appointed by the government. The commission went out and did its job. They went and talked with MLAs and former MLAs. They did a process, and it was a thorough process. They talked to all kinds of people and held public hearings.

My remarks aren't about that. My remarks are about the fact that they came back with recommendations. What they did was what many commissions have done, many commissions of either inquiry…. Whatever. They go out. They get input. They come back to this chamber, and they bring forward recommendations.

We adopt those recommendations, or we reject those recommendations, or we can modify those recommendations. But what we heard this morning was that, no, we weren't going to do that. We won't do that. The government believes that you don't mess with the recommendations. Somehow it's the opposition that would do that.

That's just not the way it works. That is not the way it works. It is this House that decides whether or not recommendations are supportable.

What became clear when that report was tabled was that particularly in the area of a wage increase, 29 percent was significantly higher than what most people in this province were prepared to accept. They were not happy with wage increases that went from 29 percent to 54 percent. They felt that was too high. That message we received loud and clear.

It's not just a question of saying that we will accept that recommendation. Rather, it is a question of listening to what people have had to say. They recognize the

[ Page 8153 ]

importance of the work that we do. They recognize the importance of the contribution that elected officials make. They believe they should be compensated appropriately and adequately.

I ran into many constituents who said: "You know what? Yeah, you guys should have a raise. But 29 percent is too much, and 54 percent in the case of the Premier is too much." That is an issue for us. It's an issue in the recommendations.

[1430]

It was something that was made clear would be an issue if those recommendations or that recommendation came to this House. Yet in the remarks of the Government House Leader, because the committee came back with those recommendations, it somehow means that they should stay the way they are because to do anything else would be interference.

Well, that's just not the case. I'd like to remind this House and my good friend across the way of how, a few years ago when they were in their first term in government, the issue of judges' pay came up. An independent commission went out, did their work and came back to this House with recommendations. Geoff Plant was the former Attorney General. He and the government said that those were too much, that it was too rich, so they changed those recommendations. They brought them more into line with where the public was at.

So there is a precedent for this. I think it is very important to put that on the record. The public have said that they would support something else. The government could have listened to that, but they chose not to. The government has also made a big thing about: "Well, these are the recommendations. We're going to implement them." Okay. Well, there are items in this piece of legislation that clearly weren't part of the recommendations….

An Hon. Member: What?

Now, one can wonder and speculate as to why they did this. I mean, I have heard that it was modelled on something that took place in Ontario; I don't know. All I know is that this recommendation is there. It wasn't in the

preamble in the committee's recommendations. It wasn't in the main body of the committee's recommendations. In fact, it wasn't anywhere in the report that the committee did. Yet lo and behold, it somehow is pulled out of thin air and put in the bill.

I find it more than a little interesting. One might say that it is there to be punitive. One might say that it's there to be vindictive. One might say many things. I wouldn't say that, hon. Speaker. I wouldn't say that, because I know this government would never do something that mean-spirited. But it's there. Some people have even said: "You know, it's almost like bullying." But no, they wouldn't do that. That wouldn't be part of it, because I know that anti-bullying legislation has very much been something this government is strongly in favour of. But it is there, and it is different from what was in the report.

There are other aspects of the recommendations that are not in terms of legislation but that are referred to LAMC. Maybe that's the way of doing it, but again, when the government said, "Oh, we're going to do the recommendations," one might have thought they'd have been spelled out in there, but they're not.

[1435]

I have to say that when the government says, "Oh, these are independent recommendations. That's what we're dealing with, and to interfere with them somehow or to change them would be against the process or against the spirit of the panel," well, that's just not on. That's just not right.

There are too many examples where that has taken place — not just on judges' pay. I can think of all kinds of things where the government has chosen not to act on recommendations that have come before this House.

We've had coroner's reports where recommendations have not been acted on. There's the Romanow commission with recommendations that were important — not been acted on. So to somehow say that, you know, we need to change this, well, we're not buying it.

The government could have come in with a package, with legislation, with a recommendation that was significantly less than 29 percent, but they chose not to. They chose to come in with a bill that said a 29-percent increase in the base pay and a 54-percent increase for the Premier. This side of the House does not and will not support that increase.

The other issue that I want to talk about is this issue of the opt-in/opt-out clause and the way the bill is constructed. It's an all-or-nothing. It's designed to make it so that if you believe in the principle of pensions — if you believe that workers and individuals should have pensions — then unless you take an exorbitant pay increase, you don't get the pension. That is incredibly cynical.

There's no opportunity to say: "Okay, you could have brought in 5 percent, 10 percent, 12 percent." That didn't happen. They brought in 29 percent and 54 percent. They're talking….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: As the member says, even 15 percent. But you didn't do that, Minister. You didn't do that. You brought in 29 percent.

The member makes some comments, and he's free to make those comments, but the point is this. We need to listen to the public. We need to understand what they're saying. We need to be sensitive to what is out there. We need to be sensitive to what is the reality of British Columbians outside of this chamber.

[ Page 8154 ]

Outside of this chamber, they said over and over again that 29 percent was too much, that 54 percent was too much. They said: "We can't support that." They said: "Yeah, you should have a pension. That's important." People believe strongly in that, but people want compensation, a pay increase, to be reflective of what they're getting, to be reflective of their circumstance.

This package, that increase, just doesn't do that. It doesn't pass the test outside this chamber. It doesn't pass the test in Port Coquitlam. It doesn't pass the test in Kamloops. It doesn't pass the test in Terrace. It doesn't pass the test in the Kootenays. It doesn't pass it in Fort St. John, Comox, Surrey. It doesn't pass it in dozens of communities across this community. I see my colleague from New Westminster. It doesn't pass it in New Westminster.

A 29-percent increase — and 54 percent for the Premier — is simply too much. So what we say is that we should vote against that, that we cannot support that increase, that what we could have supported is not in this bill, and that's unfortunate.

[1440]

Now, one of the things that we could do…. We could look at ensuring that there are issues that are dealt with in this package that we haven't dealt with, things such as child care. LTD is not specifically in the bill. I thought that we might have seen that in the bill. I hope that we deal with that with LAMC. That would be something that I would have liked to have seen in this bill, because I think it's important that all members in this House recognize that issues such as long-term disability are important and need to be dealt with. I hope that we will deal with those issues.

The fundamental flaw with this bill is that a pay increase of 29 percent and 54 percent for the Premier is simply too rich. It's not in line, as I said, with the reality of most people in this province. It's not in line with the reality of what they expect from us.

They understand that a committee went out. They understand that a panel went out and spoke to people. They understand that the panel came back with recommendations. They also know that it's our job here not to just blindly accept those recommendations but to look at those recommendations to see if they are acceptable to the majority of British Columbians. If they're not acceptable — and 29 percent and a 54-percent pay increase to the Premier is not acceptable — then they expect us to stand up in here and be counted and say that's not acceptable. That is exactly what we are saying.

For a government that prides itself on openness and transparency to say that to change recommendations is wrong or to suddenly say they're putting in, in this case, this special seven-day clause…. What's wrong with just putting in place the bill straight up? What's wrong with just putting the bill straight up on the table? But no. That's too difficult for this government. That's too difficult.

Again, whatever this seven-day clause…. We don't support that either. The ministers can giggle and laugh and joke that somehow — and smirk and whatever other adjectives one wants to use on that….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: They don't have to be unparliamentary, Member. Sometimes they are, but most times they're not.

That doesn't have to be there. It didn't have to be there. It is indicative of the way this government, unfortunately, works sometimes. We saw it earlier today in question period around the issue of pensions with workers and WorkSafe. We've seen it on some legislation that has been tabled in this chamber this past session that it is intended as punishment. It is intended to be punitive. It is intended to be vindictive.

Some of the legislation that came around the BCTF was not policy-driven. It was driven because BCTF went out and challenged the government and won. The government didn't like that, so they brought in legislation designed to be punitive.

This bill was crafted in such a way, basically, to put a gun to people's heads and say: "If you don't take the 29 percent and the 54 percent, if you don't support this, then you're saying no forever to the pension." That's just wrong, hon. Speaker. It's mean-spirited, it's punitive, it's vindictive, and it's not right.

[1445]

The public understands that. They understand that that is not fair, that it does not meet any sort of fairness test under any circumstances. It's unfortunate, and we will be voting against that. We are not supporting that; we will never support that. That's why it comes back to what's wrong with this bill.

What's wrong with this bill is a 29-percent pay increase and a 54-percent pay increase for the Premier. It's just too rich. We can't support it, we won't support it, and we will not support it. That's why we are speaking on this side of the House against that. We will speak on that this afternoon, and we will be speaking when we come back the week after next. I know….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: The member across the way says: "It's quite a principle." Well, actually, it really is interesting to look at this bill from that perspective. The principle of fair compensation means something that meets a standard or meets a test of the people who are the employers — the voters. And the voters have been kind of loud. They've been kind of unequivocal in saying that they think 29 percent and a 54-percent pay increase to the Premier is too much. That's a principle that the member from Chilliwack may want to consider.

H. Bains: Perhaps not.

M. Farnworth: As my friend from Surrey-Newton just said, perhaps not. Because I know that he speaks from his seat.

The other principle is the issue, as I've stated before, about pensions. We believe in pensions. Again, this government is trying to play this game that forces people, holds a gun to their heads, and that's just not right. Principled people don't do that. A principled

[ Page 8155 ]

government wouldn't do that, and the public wouldn't do that.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Thank you. The member for Kamloops–North Thompson reminds me of an old maritime saying: it's an empty vessel that makes the most noise.

Hon. Speaker, I know the member for Kamloops–North Thompson. He believes he does a good job, and he believes he should be compensated fairly. But you know what? The voters in his riding feel that a 29-percent increase and a 54-percent increase for the Premier is too much.

I don't want to bring this up, but I have to. The member for Kamloops–North Thompson reminds me of some comments that he made when a group of workers in this province were having their pay rolled back by 15 percent.

These were people who work in our hospitals. They work to keep our hospital rooms clean — not just an ordinary job — to ensure that they are disinfected to such a standard that we don't have to worry about hospital bacteria — the type that have become problematic in a number of hospitals. He referred to them as toilet bowl cleaners. It devalued their work. It was like: "They don't work hard enough."

You know, hon. Speaker, I know he later regretted those remarks, but those same people whose pay you cut by 15 percent….

Mr. Speaker: Member, take your seat.

[1450]

Hon. K. Krueger: Point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

I did not refer to those people in the way the member quoted, and I ask that he withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Just for the member's information, it is a dispute on what you think he said, and the member corrected what he thinks he said, so it's a dispute on facts.

Member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain continues.

M. Farnworth: I'm not impugning the member. If the member thinks that I have misinterpreted what he said, I'm more than happy for the member at some point to stand up and say exactly what he said and exactly how he referred to that group of workers in this House.

One thing is beyond dispute, hon. Member. It is that he and his government rolled back their wages by 15 percent. They rolled them back by 15 percent.

Now he's going to those same people and saying: "Give me 29 percent; give the Premier 54 percent." Well, those people have said that's too much. People think we should get an increase. They just don't think it should be 29 percent or 54 percent.

I'm just saying to the member for Kamloops–North Thompson that when he's back in Kamloops this weekend amongst his constituents and he talks to them…. I know he does, and I know he works hard as an MLA. I know he works hard as a minister. Just listen to those people and recognize that to people you cut back 15 percent, a 29-percent increase and 54 percent for the Premier is more than a little rich.

I think I've made my points that I wanted to make this afternoon. A panel went out. They did work. They did a good job going out and doing what they were mandated to do. They brought back recommendations to this House. We've seen those recommendations, and we have said that we can't support those recommendations, particularly the issue around 29 percent and 54 percent. We don't like the opt-in/opt-out clause, but that wasn't part of the recommendations.

That's why we can't support it. So with that, hon. Speaker, I will take my seat, because I know other colleagues of mine have plenty to say as well.

C. James: I rise today to oppose Bill 37. This bill, as we all know, has been the subject of considerable political commentary, mostly centring on the political ramifications. I think that perhaps the government would prefer it that way. Perhaps the government would rather that we just stayed around the politics of this issue.

But there's a much more important issue at stake here, a much more significant question that the government has to answer. After six years in which the B.C. Liberals engaged in one of the most radical agendas of cuts in this province's history, I would like to ask every member on that side of the House to ask themselves: what possible justification could there be for giving themselves the biggest single pay increase in the history of this House?

[1455]

How can the Premier look British Columbians in the eye? How can the Premier and every member over there look at seniors who are facing a shortage of long-term care beds, students facing massive debt loads, parents without child care, forest workers on the unemployment line and say to all of those people and more in all of our communities…. How can the Premier say to those people: "I deserve a 54-percent pay increase"? He can't do that with any credibility, and I don't think he should.

I'd like to make it clear that I believe public service is, in fact, a noble profession. Those that answer its call make an enormous contribution, and they also make an enormous sacrifice. The hours are long, the responsibilities are many, and some days the rewards can be few. Spend a day with any one of us in this House, and you'll see dedicated, talented people committed to their work.

But that's no different than other workers out there in British Columbia. Is it any easier being a nurse, for example, working on night shift, long hours away from your family, long hours in a job; or a cook or a waiter or a waitress in a restaurant on their feet all day long; or a firefighter or a paramedic facing challenges each and every day when they leave for work; or a forest worker on the coast who's raising a family and who is facing mill closure and challenges with what they're

[ Page 8156 ]

going to do to pay the rent every single month, to manage to feed their kids, to cope every single day? It isn't any different for any of those workers, and can they expect a 54-percent pay increase? No, they can't. The Premier deserves fair remuneration, and so does every other MLA in this House, but there has to be some link between that remuneration and what most British Columbians expect in their lives.

As public servants, we aspire to reflect British Columbia in all of its diversity. In some ways in this Legislature we meet that test, and in other ways we don't. There are, for example, far too few women and aboriginal people in this chamber, and we're just beginning to see this House reflect B.C.'s ethnic mosaic. Voting for a 54-percent increase in pay for the Premier takes us in the wrong direction. Symbolically and practically, it further separates the Premier and his office from the very people he supposedly represents. It further alienates politicians from the public. It's wrong, and we on this side of the House say clearly: it must be rejected.

Let's put this proposed pay increase in context. In 2005 the average annual wage in B.C. was $36,633 a year — a $3,000 increase over 2001 when the Liberals took office. The one-year increase in this bill for the Premier totals $89,000. That's more than twice what most British Columbians make all year long.

British Columbia also has the fastest-growing gap between the rich and the poor anywhere in Canada. We continue for the second year in a row to have the highest child poverty rate, the highest poverty rate for seniors, the highest overall poverty rate in the country. Incomes for the poorest B.C. families are going down, not up. In the time that the government has been in power, income transfers to single moms decreased in this province by over $2,000.

[1500]

I want to take just a moment to talk about my own community. I'm very honoured to represent the community of Victoria–Beacon Hill, a community that I had the privilege of growing up in, a community that I raised my children in and a community that I continue to live in.

When we took a look around the community when I was growing up…. This community saw poverty but not the kind of grinding street-level poverty that you see today in this community. If you walk outside these doors, you'll find hundreds of fellow citizens living on the street. Homelessness in Victoria has more than doubled.

I want to share a story of an individual that I met three weeks ago, walking home from this very building on a day…. Yes, we had a tough day. I met a young man who came up to me because he recognized me as the representative for this community. This individual had moved to this community from Terrace. He wasn't able to find work in that community, because it's struggling.

He has halftime custody of his two young children, and he wants to do well by those children. That individual stopped me to plead for help, and he pleaded for help because he can't find housing to be able to house his two children. He's worried that he's going to lose part-time custody of those children because he can't find affordable housing. That's what this House should be paying attention to, not a 54-percent increase.

I reflect back on a visit that I made with my colleague to the Mary Manning Centre — a centre in my riding that provides counselling support for children who have been sexually abused. This centre has been pleading and pleading with this government to provide them with a measly $170,000 for three therapists so that they can address the wait-list for children who have been sexually abused.

What was the response from this government? The response from this government was no. They can't find $170,000, but they can sure find the 54 percent for the Premier's increase. They should be ashamed to stand up for that kind of increase when you see these kinds of challenges in communities.

The minimum wage for B.C.'s lowest-paid workers is $8 an hour, and $6 an hour if you're actually a new worker. These workers have had no increase for over six years, at the same time the cost of living has gone through the roof. What happens when those workers ask this government for an increase after six years? The answer from this government is no. They can find the 54 percent, but they can't find enough to give the minimum wage an increase for workers.

Now, I know the B.C. Liberals think that because the economy is doing well, they can just sneak this through. Well, the fact is that average British Columbians….

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member. Somebody left the House yesterday for that exact same remark.

J. Horgan: It's with great regret that I withdraw my statement, but there was no one on that side either.

Mr. Speaker: Member, you're not to refer to whether the members are in or out of the House.

J. Horgan: It seems abundantly clear where they are, Mr. Speaker. I withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Continue.

C. James: The fact is that average British Columbians struggle every single month to make ends meet. Unemployment is low, but costs are high. Let's talk about a few things that have gone up under this government. MSP, ICBC premiums, hydro rates, ferry fares and tuition fees have all dramatically increased under this government, and they're all making life less affordable for British Columbians.

[1505]

If the B.C. Liberals pass this obscene pay increase, then the government is telling British Columbians that it doesn't care about their lives and the financial reality that they face every single day.

I don't expect it will do any good, but I would appeal to the Liberal MLAs on that side of the House to

[ Page 8157 ]

listen to their communities and constituencies and take the opportunity to join us on this side of the House and defeat Bill 37. Now, I know that that possibility is remote and that the B.C. Liberals have decided they actually don't care what the public thinks. They want that raise, every one of them wants that raise, and they're going to pass this bill.

So I'd like to take this opportunity to tell British Columbians how New Democrats will respond. If this bill passes, the Liberal government is forcing MLAs to choose to opt in or opt out.

Was that anywhere in the report? Was that anywhere in the recommendations that came forward?

Some Hon. Members: No.

C. James: No. It creates two classes of MLAs. It's a cheap political game, and we're calling that game right now. New Democrats are not going to play that Premier's political game. Instead, every NDP MLA will donate our money to charity.

I wish I could tell you that the list of organizations in our communities that have been hurt is a short one. Instead, the toughest thing will be to make a decision. Because so many of those groups and organizations in our community have been hurt by this government, it's going to be a very difficult decision. The needs are so great because of this government's direction over the last six years.

So yes, New Democrat MLAs will donate our pay increase to charities, and we will participate in the pension plan. The pension plan isn't perfect, but it's the one before us. It's the one, as we've heard from the House Leader, that the Liberals intend to pass.

We believe that British Columbians deserve a good pension, including British Columbians who've had their pensions cut by this government.

There's no question that compensation for MLAs is a difficult issue. Every MLA in this House knows that from our experiences. The process that led to this bill had its flaws, but it was independent. But as others have said, the final decision rests with us.

When I ran for office, I ran knowing the situation. I ran knowing the amount of money I was going to be paid. I ran knowing the challenges that that was going to present for me, for my family, for others.

I didn't run because I wanted to change that. I ran because I wanted to change things for people in my community and make life better — because of that government's direction.

Every one of us will be accountable to our constituents. Every one of us will be accountable to the public for our vote here in the Legislature. I want to put out one last appeal to government members. For once — once in the last six years — will you listen to your constituents, will you listen to the voice of the public, and join us and vote no on Bill 37?

[1510]

A. Dix: The House, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, at this moment seems unusually thoughtful. It seems unusually caring. It seems unusually coherent.

This is a good moment for the Legislature of British Columbia, because the members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition are here, we are saying no to this bill that is wrong, and right now I like our chances of defeating it.

What we're talking about here, in the context of all that we know is going on in British Columbia, is a 29-percent increase for all MLAs and a 54-percent increase for the Premier. What is 54 percent? What does that count for? What are we talking about? We're talking about more than $60,000 a year in a raise for the Premier.

Hon. Speaker, what do people make in our communities? What does the average family, both breadwinners, make in my community? They don't make $64,000 all in. They don't make that. They don't make the raise of the Premier.

If you don't understand that this bill is out of touch with people in British Columbia, think of that $64,000 raise for the Premier today. He is out of touch; this government is out of touch. This government should listen to those people in British Columbia that overwhelmingly reject this package.

What I think about is that we in this Legislature are not a voice unto ourselves making a decision about our own pay. We do have an obligation to listen to people and to what's going on in our communities.

I want to spend a little time talking about my community of Vancouver-Kingsway so that people understand that. In this report, the report that was presented about MLA compensation, some comparisons were used, but none of those comparisons involved any of the people I'm going to talk about.

[S. Hawkins in the chair.]

You can walk along Kingsway from Boundary Road to Rupert Street and go to dozens of small businesses and not find a single person — not a single person — making as much as the raise that the Premier is going to vote himself in this Legislature. Consider that.

Consider a restaurateur who shared with me his balance sheet last year. He grossed $42,000 before he paid for the food he was serving, before he paid his rent. That's what he grossed — $42,000. He works seven days a week. He works harder than I do, and he works harder than the Premier does, and his work deserves respect as well. You go to every one of those businesses, and you see that.

People — the Government House Leader and others — say: "Well, you know, there's never a good time to raise our salaries. It's always inconvenient." Well, what I say to him and say to other people is that it doesn't appear that under this government there's ever a good time to raise the minimum wage or there's ever a good time to deal with the issues of people in poverty. It doesn't appear there's ever a good time for that.

[1515]

Let me talk about just one area of government — just one, Community Living B.C. — and four cases in my community. I won't share their names, but I'll share

[ Page 8158 ]

their circumstances. In one case, a woman in my riding who came to see me has a 30-year-old autistic daughter. As I describe these cases, I want to say that the Community Living B.C. has told each of these individuals, each of them, that there is no money to deal with their issues. They can't help them. There's no funding. This woman needs a live-in caregiver; they say no. She has a 30-year-old autistic daughter who is also suffering from epilepsy. She's a single working mother, taking care of this daughter with no support. She works shift work in a nursing home.

She applied for live-in caregiver support and has been turned down by Community Living B.C. She gets only 28 days of respite support every year, and you know what she does with those 28 days? She has to work every single one of them — every single one of them. Her workday starts at 7 a.m. and ends every night at 11 p.m. She works harder than I do. When will it be time to deal with her issues in this Legislature? Because, as the Premier says, it's never a good time.

What about the single mother, 65 years of age, who has a 20-year-old son with autism and needs assisted living? Her views, her needs are being rejected by the government. Her claim was rejected by the government. Think of this. Think of what this mother has done in her life — looked after a son way beyond the period of time that most of us can imagine doing it, and will continue to do so. The little bit of help, the little bit of support that she needs is being rejected by the government.

Think of the single-parent father with a 24-year-old daughter with epilepsy — all her life, severe impairment of her short-term and long-term memory, scoliosis of the spine and many other physical issues. She had a brain tumour when she was two years old. He is also working shift work. His claim was turned down by Community Living B.C. When will it be his time to have his issues dealt with in this Legislature?

Hon. Speaker, on and on and on we can go with cases such as this, with people such as this. They're not actors. They're real people who care and work in our communities, all of them — every single one of them — doing it in circumstances more difficult than anyone in this Legislature, and they do it every day. They don't ask for much, and what they asked for has been turned down.

What do people make in British Columbia? What is the average annual wage in British Columbia? What is happening to those wages in British Columbia? As the Leader of the Opposition has said, in fact, we're seeing an increase of inequality. The people in this Legislature, by voting these salary increases, are attaching themselves to those who are doing better in terms of salary and distancing from those who aren't doing better. I say that's wrong.

I say that both groups are relevant when you're judging what people should be paid in this Legislature and what they should not be paid. Both groups are important. Both groups are relevant. Both groups matter.

As I look around my constituency, those are the people I represent. So I am proud of a leader of the opposition that says: "We are not taking a centime; we are not taking a franc; we are not taking a peso; we are not taking a penny of this wage increase." We shouldn't, because we represent those people who have been consistently turned down by this government.

We hear a lot of discussions about the arguments used. I just want to talk about some of the arguments that are used, because it seems to me that there's an argument that gets used all the time. It says that if we don't pay people a whole bunch more, we won't attract people to public life. Hon. Speaker, I do not take such a cynical view of why people get involved in public life on any side of the House. That's a cynical view that says we are what we make.

[1520]

We're not what we make. We are so much more than that. It is a cynical view, and it defies reality. If you look back 25 years in this province and you compare the higher-paid people who serve us in Ottawa and the somewhat lower-paid people who serve us in Victoria, and if you judge the quality of their work and their contribution, I think that the people in Victoria measure up well.

I think you can say that, concerning people on all sides of the Legislature. I don't think, if you look at federal MPs, that increasing salaries to $150,000 a year in and of itself has done anything to address issues of quality one way or another.

The reason, in fact, that people of high quality are committed to provincial politics in British Columbia is that the issues we deal with in provincial politics are important to them. In other words, they're here because they want to make a contribution on things that matter to them: health care, education, social services, the environment and forestry. That's not about money. The issues that are in provincial jurisdiction are — for me, anyway — the most important issues you can deal with in public life. That's why I ran for provincial office.

I ran for it to represent people in my community, and I ran for it because I wanted to effect change in those areas. I didn't run for it for the money. I think the suggestion that people do is an insult to people in public life. To define people's work by how much money they make flies in the face of what we know about people in our communities and about their contributions.

I think it's wrong. I don't think it makes sense. If you can look down…. I don't want to name names of people in the federal jurisdiction in terms of the quality of those people making $150,000 a year…. I'll tell you that it's no guarantee of quality. It's sure no guarantee of quality.

Hon. Speaker, you know, I want to address a couple of the issues raised by the Government House Leader. He said this morning that the report can't be changed. He said that changing the report in any way is "a mug's game." We know that's not what's going on here. I mean, it says in the report….

By the way, this issue of opting in or opting out has been an issue in most of the recent jurisdictions that have dealt with pay increases, so it was an issue before the commission. They weren't unaware of the issue, and they made a decision. They said compulsory

[ Page 8159 ]

enrolment in the pension plan for all MLAs — compulsory enrolment. That was their decision. The government, of course, is saying no to that.

They're saying: "The commission report has to be followed in every way except when we say so." It's kind of like their response to just about every other report they receive on substantive issues of public policy. That's what they say.

The Government House Leader says: "We can't make any changes — oh, except this one, which might be to our advantage." I'll be interested, because we don't agree with that provision on this side of the House. We don't agree with the opt-in/opt-out provision, and we'll be voting against it.

You know what, hon. Speaker? The Government House Leader and the Premier of this province don't agree with it either. The Premier of this province…. I'll be interested to hear his answer to this question. It will be very interesting to hear him, who says that you make a decision about pension and pay, and you've got to make it now and for all time — for a thousand years maybe, 10,000 years — until the B.C. Rail deal expires.

Interjection.

A. Dix: It's 999 years for the member from Maple Ridge.

Well, the Premier in this House made a decision himself about pensions in 1995. It's not me that says he can't buy back his pension. But I didn't vote for it, and it's not my position that it's opt in or opt out. You make a decision on pensions, and you make it for all time — what hypocrisy on the part of the Premier of this province.

I'll look forward to the Premier's decision when he announces to British Columbia, consistent with what he said in this nasty little provision, that he will take the money. I'll be interested in his decision about that question, because it seems to me that you can't have it both ways.

The Premier, every time, wants it both ways. He wants to take shots at people. He wants to attack people, but he doesn't want to hold himself up to the same standard.

[1525]

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, your comments are verging on unparliamentary. We do not make comments about individual members in the House. Just mind the comments and keep them parliamentary, Member.

A. Dix: Hon. Chair, I'm delighted to say that I have a difference of opinion with the Premier on this question.

Deputy Speaker: Member, you can make comments if you're making them in the context of a group. When you impugn individual members, then that is not parliamentary.

A. Dix: Well, hon. Chair, I'll just say — because the Premier is in a small group of people that will be in that position of being put in front of what they're presenting to this House, being put in front of the words that they've said to people in this House — that we'll be interested to hear what he has to say. We'll be interested to hear how it applies in their cases, in the case of that group of people in the House of which the Premier is a member.

It seems to me, anyway…. It's probably a good time to let you know, hon. Speaker, that I'm the designated speaker on this bill. It seems to me….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, make comments from your own seats.

A. Dix: It seems to me, hon. Speaker, that as I say, you can't have it both ways.

In many respects this is a defining issue of who we represent. People don't get elected to this place to run things. When it is suggested that our role as MLA is comparable to a group of people…. I might add…. Let's talk about the comparisons that were used here. We know that teachers weren't a comparison, that nurses weren't a comparison, that restaurateurs weren't a comparison and that small business people weren't a comparison. We sure know that health care workers weren't a comparison.

We know they weren't a comparison because here's what's happens when you work in health care, if I may talk about that group of people in this House. What happens when you work in health care is that you have the Premier contact you before an election. He tells you that he "won't tear up your contract." I think I can quote him.

He says before an election: "I'll never do it." Then he comes in here with the majority in this Legislature, a majority that was overwhelming, and he cuts their salary by 15 percent. Now, what does that mean? I think that group of people works hard too. I know they work hard too. Some 1,500 members of the Hospital Employees Union in my constituency — you better believe that I'm giving back this wage increase.

Some 1,500 Hospital Employees Union members in our constituency — each one of them either losing 15 percent or losing more than 15 percent. What does that mean for people? I've talked about this before. It means, in the case of one woman that I know that lives on Euclid Avenue…. She's a single mom, and she has two kids. It means, in her case, that she has to work 40 hours a week at the same privatized job that she was working at before — for about half the salary, for a massive pay cut.

It means that she leaves that work and that three nights a week she cleans banks. It means that she takes on private clients. It means that she works 70 hours a week for the same amount of money that she used to get in 37 hours a week. What does that mean for her kids? What's the value of that? We always sort of seek value in monetary terms.

It means that this government, in this very place where we're going to vote a 54-percent increase for the

[ Page 8160 ]

Premier of British Columbia, in the same place we're going to do that — and it's right here in the bill, a 54-percent increase here — the same place….

[1530]

She and her kids had 33 hours a week stolen from them by act of this Legislature. There's a comparator. There's someone who works hard. There's someone who should have been on this commission. There's someone whose voice should be heard.

Let's look at the comparators of our salaries. We are to compare ourselves. We can compare ministers of state. We got the minister of state's salary. When you're a minister of state, it means you don't have any direct line responsibilities. It's a pretty good deal. You don't actually have to run anything. You're just a minister of state.

Their salaries were compared, but not to the woman that I was talking about, living in my constituency, and not to the small business people in my constituency. The minister of state's salary is compared to an assistant deputy minister; to the president and CEO of Powerex; to the vice-president of casino gambling; to a senior vice-president of marketing and underwriting.

When we come here, our fundamental job — this didn't start in this century; it didn't even start in the last century — is to represent people. That is our job. That is our core function and our core responsibility. To suggest that people who are….

By the way, let me add about this list of comparators, the public sector ones. Every one of those senior executives got a massive increase from this government before we compared our salaries to their salaries. It's nice work if you can get it.

We compare that, and we compare ourselves with other jurisdictions, particularly the House of Commons. Then down at the bottom of the list, after we look at per-capita operating costs for federal and provincial legislatures and ministry and provincial budgets and salary data from comparable professions, we look at average weekly earnings.

I think that's where my constituents come in. They come in only at that point, when we talk about average weekly earnings — the industrial aggregate across B.C. It's almost an afterthought in this report. I have to say with the greatest of respect that I simply disagree with that comparison and disagree with those conclusions.

I think this is an important debate. I look forward to members on the government side, to the Premier on the government side…. I just look forward with such anticipation to their speeches in defence of the Premier's 54-percent wage increase. I look forward to their speeches in favour of the increase for virtually every other member of the Liberal caucus on top of 29 percent.

I look forward to their speeches in defence of that in the context of people in their constituencies who struggle every day. Our job is to represent those people. To exclude those people from the comparisons that we make when we consider our own salaries doesn't make sense. That's why I disagree with this report.

In spite of what the Government House Leader said about how the government feels about reports…. It's a new thing for the government. They didn't think that the Gove report, which they originally supported, was untouchable. In fact, they tore it apart. This government tore it apart.

The Romanow report on health care, which went across this country, was rejected within 24 hours in its entirety by this government because its view of public health care and support of public health care disagreed with the government's view.

They took another view, if you look back a couple of years, on the position of judges' salaries. They took a different view on that. An independent report on judges' salaries said that there should be a large increase, and the Attorney General of the day said no at the time. He said: "We're not going to do that. We're not going to accept that."

In this case we see a picking and choosing between recommendations by the government in this piece of legislation. It's wrong. We will vote against this piece of legislation for that reason.

[1535]

The position taken by the leader of the NDP, the Leader of the Opposition, is admirable, and we are going to continue to talk about it, because it defines who she is and who the government is on this important piece of legislation. Our leader is going to be a great Premier of British Columbia.

As I see this legislation, as I saw the Government House Leader get up in the House yesterday to table this legislation, I see the day that's coming in May 2009 when we're going to defeat this government. We represent the 91 percent of British Columbians who earn less than we make today. We represent them, and the Leader of the Opposition represents them.

The Leader of the Opposition has given her life over to helping people who need our assistance. She gives that commitment 24-7. She's been a foster parent. She has done an extraordinary job in building a family and supporting people who have demands, who have developmental disabilities. This is a person who did this not to get applause. She's been doing this for decades. For her entire life she's been a leader and an elected person in our community.

When she stands and speaks in this Legislature as a person of such integrity, her words deserve respect. I am not surprised that members of the government side do not show that respect. I am not surprised about that. It is shameful. Their behaviour is shameful.

Their contempt for people, their belief that somehow they just have to say that 54 percent for the Premier…. They play little games with the legislation. They sneer and yell and say "hypocrite," and that's enough to defend their position. The Leader of the Opposition's view comes from a lifetime of commitment to community. That's why we as a caucus are standing as one against this legislation.

What could we be doing today? That's the question. That's the choice we make. It's the choice that we made yesterday when the Government House Leader got up and tabled this legislation, and then today, after one day of public comments, when it's debated in this Legislature. That's a priority. That's the choice.

[ Page 8161 ]

What would we like to be debating today? Let's start with the minimum wage. Wouldn't we like to be debating that today? Wouldn't we like to be debating a minimum wage change to $10 an hour? The government says that it's very difficult to deal with MLA compensation. It's very difficult to deal with that issue. They say that. They say that it's impossible to deal with MLA compensation. There's never a good time.

We want to know when the government believes it's a good time to deal with the wages of people earning the minimum wage in British Columbia. We're talking about hundreds of thousands of people. The only time this government has ever dealt with the minimum wage was to reduce it to $6 for young people. The only time they dealt with the minimum wage was to reduce it by 25 percent for some people in society. Can you believe it, hon. Speaker?

We say this is about priorities. We say it's about who you represent. I'm telling you, hon. Speaker, we shouldn't be getting a wage increase before people on minimum wage get a minimum wage increase. We shouldn't be getting that.

What about people with developmental disabilities? When will their issues be dealt with? Last year Community Living B.C. spent its budget in nine months. They spent their entire budget in nine months.

The people that I describe living in my constituency who meet all the criteria — who should be getting support, who have the same criteria as other people who are getting support — are not getting dealt with. They need a little bit of help. They need a small portion of the raise that the Premier is getting in this legislation. That's what they need.

[1540]

They're not asking for everything. They aren't letting down their children. They are doing more than anyone else in society. That's what they're doing. They're doing more than anyone else. That's what we should be debating in this Legislature before we deal with this bill today.

Hon. Speaker, you can go down the list. The member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca presented a bill on the gas prices that all those people who earn less than us in this province are having to pay today. That means money they can't spend on other things, money that's going directly to record oil company profits. Why can't we debate that in the Legislature today? That's an issue we should be dealing with in the Legislature today.

The issues that people in the opposition have brought to this House and that have been ignored by this government are the priorities of British Columbians. The Premier and all of us in this House, when we campaigned in 2005, said nothing — not a scintilla, not a small comment — about the idea that wage increases were coming for MLAs.

He said a lot about health care when and where you want it. What happened to that? Why aren't we debating that? Why aren't we doing something about that in this Legislature today? Emergency rooms are in crisis across this province. Why is this a priority over that?

The commitments that the Premier himself made in that campaign — those are the priorities of British Columbians, and those are the priorities represented by the Leader of the Opposition. Those are the issues that we should be dealing with in this House today.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

In my community of Vancouver-Kingsway, there are young people who need help to address addiction issues, and that help isn't available. Each of those young people needs only a small fraction of the raise that the Premier is giving himself here in this House by this legislation today. I think those are the issues that all of us want to be dealing with, that all of us should be dealing with.

This is an important time in our province — a time when poverty is on the rise, when we are becoming a less equal place. That inequality has implications for all of us. As we distance ourselves from the preoccupations of those who earn less than us, as we distance ourselves by this legislation in doing that, we are making a serious mistake, it seems to me. Inequality is one of the most damaging things for any society.

If you look across the board, hon. Speaker, you know what we should be doing. We should be spending our time investing in those services that will ensure real equality and real entrepreneurship in society, changes that would allow everybody the right to compete in society. We should not be reinforcing the privileges of the few. We should be giving opportunity to everybody, and it is in our interest to do so. It's in our interest as a society to ensure that the next generation has nobody written off.

It is a shame on our province that 25 percent of people live in poverty. It's a shame on our province. Beyond it being a shame and being horrendous; beyond making daily choices for people between prescription drugs and eating, those kinds of choices that people have to face every day in our province; beyond the sheer agony and banality of daily poverty and its grind on people's lives; beyond all of that, it's in the self-interest of society to ensure that we have equality amongst young people, that 100 percent of the people have an opportunity and that we don't write off 25 percent.

We are their representatives. We should not be distancing ourselves from them. It distances us from them when we vote ourselves a wage increase that nobody in my constituency…. I defy anyone on the government side to find a single person in my constituency who'll get a 29-percent wage increase. I defy them to find a single person, probably even in the Premier's constituency, who's getting a 54-percent wage increase. I defy them to find one of those people.

[1545]

Our role here is to represent our constituents. We on the opposition side intend to do this. Over the next few days we are going to fight this unjust bill. We are going to do everything we can to defeat this unjust bill. We are going to represent the views of our constituents. We are going to support our leader and the next

[ Page 8162 ]

Premier of British Columbia, because this is about who we are.

I say this to government members. You can stand with your constituents and against a 54-percent wage increase for the Premier, or you can stand with the Premier who wants his wage increase.

I say don't do it. I say, especially to backbenchers in the Liberal caucus, that you can stand with members of cabinet, who don't just get the 29 percent. They get more than that. You can stand with them, or you can stand with your constituents.

We know where we stand. We oppose this bill. We are going to oppose this bill at every stage. I'm proud to be a member of the NDP today. I'm proud to be a member of a caucus that stands against this piece of legislation.

People will have a choice. They have a choice between a party that says no to a wage increase that is beyond anything anyone gets in our communities, or they can support a government that consistently and at every stage supports privilege. This is the House of the people. I ask all members of the House to make it the House of the people when we vote to defeat this bill.

H. Bains: I, too, rise to speak against this bill. I rise to speak against this bill because this bill is unreasonable and out of touch with reality.

When I ran for election my constituents expected me to represent their needs, their desires and their concerns in this House. For me it is unconscionable to stand here and go along with the 29-percent wage increase that this bill will give to me and every member of this House and the 54-percent increase to the Premier of this province. I will not do that. For me to do that is a betrayal of the trust that my constituents put in me when they sent me into this House. I will not do that.

Right at the outset I want to say this. I do believe in reasonable wage increases for working people in this province and everywhere else and in a reasonable pension plan. For the better part of my working life, I have been doing that — negotiating a good deal, a reasonable deal for my members and a good pension plan for my members.

When you're talking about a 29-percent wage increase in one swoop and 54 percent for the Premier, like I said, it's unconscionable. It's unreasonable. It's not acceptable to me. As you've heard here, it's not acceptable to my leader. It's not acceptable to every member of this caucus on this side. For that reason, I will be voting against it.

Let's talk about these 29-percent and 54-percent wage increases that are going to the MLAs and the Premier from a government that said, when they got elected in 2001, that the health care workers of this province — who worked hard and provided very essential services to the patients of this province, my constituents and everybody else's constituents — were making too much money.

Do you know how much money they were making at the time? Half the money that the Premier will get in his increase. Half the money — and he thought that was too much.

[1550]

That's a shameful act, for us to talk about giving the Premier a 54-percent wage increase at a time when we said about our health care workers — who work hard to keep our hospitals clean, to provide the service to the patients in those hospitals — that the $17 and $18 an hour they were making was too much.

First, what the government did was rip their contract up — ripped it up, after they said they would not do that — and then threw them on the streets. Then they were hired back at $9 and $10 an hour. This is from the government who is forcing this bill through to give themselves a 29-percent wage increase. That is unconscionable, Mr. Speaker.

I said that they are out of touch and that they are out of reality. Here's how it is. The average wage in B.C. over the last five years, from 2000 to 2005, increased from $33,247 to $36,633 — an increase of 10 percent over five years.

These are the hard-working, average working families that obey the law, pack their lunch pails in the morning, go to work, work hard, make this economy go, come home, take the kids to the hockey game, take their kids to the soccer game or to piano lessons or whatnot, come home, cook, eat, sleep and then start the day all over again in the morning.

That's what those folks got in the last five years. And this government is talking about 29 percent in one swoop? It's unreasonable.

The public sector. We have a very hard-working public sector in this province. They were ignored by this government for the first four or five years. Finally, they negotiated some deals last year, and here's what they got. Health care workers — that includes home support providers, caregivers in group homes, drug and alcohol counsellors, health authority administration staff — received an 11.4-percent increase over four years. That's less than 3 percent per year. These are hard-working people in our health care system.

Registered nurses, another hard-working group and very essential to our health care system. Registered psychiatrist nurses received 14.2 percent over four years. This government is talking about 29 percent in one year. Teachers receive 16 percent over five years. Again, a little over 3 percent per year.

The B.C. Directors Guild received a 5-percent wage increase over three years. The United Steelworkers union — the union that I was a proud member of, and still am — at Teck Cominco received a 20-percent increase over five years. That's 4 percent a year. Port Moody civic workers received 9.75 percent over three years — 3¼ years, actually. That's the reality out there. That's the reality.

Those are the folks that we represent. Those are the folks that put us into this House to make sure that their interests are looked after, to make sure that we stay in touch with them, to make sure that we deal with their issues rather than filling our pockets and helping ourselves at their till. That's not responsible. I think that is greedy, and I think that is unconscionable.

This government is talking about 29 percent for the MLAs and 54 percent for the Premier. Minimum wage

[ Page 8163 ]

since 2000 has been frozen. In fact, it was lowered for first-time workers to $6.

I was a proud member of the caucus that put together a motion in this House to raise that minimum wage to $10, but this government showed no responsibility to act on it — none whatsoever. This is the same government talking about giving themselves a 29-percent wage increase. That's why I say it's unconscionable. That's why I say it's unreasonable.

[1555]

When we are talking about an over-$22,000 wage increase to the MLAs and $64,000 to the Premier, we have more people sleeping under the bridges and at the doorsteps of businesses. That's the reality in this province. That just shows how out of touch this government is.

There's no action by this government to deal with the homelessness issue. By the way, homelessness has increased twofold in this province over the last four years, and there's no action coming from this government except that they are looking at filling their pockets with a 29-percent wage increase. That's why I said unreasonable. It's unconscionable.

Single moms, as we speak right now, are worried about tomorrow. Where are they going to leave their children to go to work? Child care funding has been cut by this government drastically, and there's no affordable child care left for single moms to put their kids in so that they can go to work and earn a living. This is the government that's talking about a 29-percent wage increase at the same time.

Seniors. I ran across a number of seniors when I was door-knocking, and there was more than one senior who told me that they have to make a decision as to whether to get a prescription drug or groceries.

There was one gentleman who said that he has stopped taking a cholesterol-lowering drug because he can't afford it anymore. Here we're talking about giving the Premier a $64,000 wage increase, and we have ignored our seniors in this province. Mr. Speaker, the list goes on.

The list goes on as to how many ordinary working families have been ignored by this government because they wanted to help their friends and they wanted to help themselves. Here's a clear example that they're not on the side of the public. They don't understand the needs of the working people. The only thing they understand is greed and how much more money they can make in this House.

Farmworkers. We have dealt with those issues in this House, with no will from this government, no attempt by this government to deal with their issues. They're forced to travel in unsafe vans to their workplaces. These are the folks that are not even entitled to minimum wage.

[S. Hawkins in the chair.]

Employment standards don't apply to them. Health and safety inspections are cut — no inspections of their farm vehicles, no inspections at their workplaces. And guess what. We have seen deaths of these workers on the highways of this province, and this government sat there and did not adopt the 29 recommendations that were brought to this House, to this government, by the families of those who were killed in that accident. That is a shame.

Here we are talking about giving ourselves a 29-percent wage increase, talking about how reasonable that is, talking about how deserving the members are of receiving a 29-percent wage increase, while they are ignoring farmworkers.

Let me just touch on the issue where the Opposition House Leader said how hard-working the MLAs are. Yes, they are hard-working MLAs. The minister works hard, and the Premier works hard.

Let's talk about these farmworkers. They get up at five o'clock in the morning, pack their lunches, go to work, travel two to three hours to their workplaces, work ten hours, travel back two or three hours, and by the time they're back in their beds, it's ten o'clock.

That's 17 hours a day that they work. They don't even make half the money that the Premier is asking in his raise increase — not even half. They don't even make the money that the MLAs are going to get with this 29 percent.

It's unconscionable that we are not dealing with the working people who actually put food on our tables, who look after our children, who are educators of our children and teach our youngsters to be our bright future. We are ignoring those, but we are talking about giving the MLAs 29 percent. That is a shame. Clearly, that shows that this government's priorities are all crooked. They are all for themselves and their friends. They don't want to talk about what is needed for the working people.

[1600]

I have people in my constituency — a young woman with fetal alcohol syndrome — and their funding was cut to the service provided that would go to the schools to help the teachers to deal with their issues. Their funding was cut, and there was nothing available for them to go to, to get the help that they need.

We have taxi drivers in my constituency. They don't even make what the Premier is asking in his wage increase — $64,000. They work 12 hours a day. Roofers who go to work every morning and risk their lives standing on those roofs, work hard day in and day out, seven days a week and 12 hours a day. They are not even making anywhere near what these MLAs are asking for their raise increase.

Gardeners, construction workers, truck drivers — they all work hard. They don't work any less hard that these MLAs or these ministers. Why aren't they treated equally? Why don't we look after their needs? They are the ones who actually sent us here into this House to represent their concerns. We are ignoring their needs, but we are trying to look after ourselves and give ourselves a gross 29-percent wage increase. That's gross, 29 percent.

I knew when I ran for this position what the wages were going to be. I knew that those were the wages, and those were the wages that my constituents elected me to go and get so that I could work on their behalf,

[ Page 8164 ]

bring their issues into this House. For me to say now that those wages are not acceptable is a betrayal of their trust.

As I talked about earlier, reasonable wage increases are all right. They're all right. But it's not reasonable, this 29 percent. We talked about the public sector unions, public sector workers. They received 2 percent to 3 percent per year over three or four years. If that was in this bill, we probably would be going for it — but not 29 percent in one scoop.

The other thing that really, really is bothersome in this bill is this opt-in/opt-out clause. I heard the House Leader of the government side talking about this opting-out clause — why they somehow have to keep the integrity of the commission and of the report in its entirety.

That was not part of that report. Nowhere in there did they recommend that there should be that kind of clause. But this government chose, because of their history of being mean-spirited — their true colours are coming out again — to show that they are going to jam us with that kind of clause. It is mean-spirited, and I think it just lacks conscience, basically.

I think all of those reasons that I listed are reasons for me to say no to this. I would urge every member of the government side, as well, to vote against this bill, to be on the side of the constituents — on the side of their constituents who elected to send them here — and get a reasonable wage increase — not 29 percent.

With that, Madam Speaker, I will be voting against this. I urge every one in this House to vote against this unreasonable bill.

B. Ralston: I would like to begin first by responding directly to some of the arguments made by the Government House Leader earlier today. Just to make sure that I'm quoting his remarks accurately, thanks to the Hansard transcription services, I have a draft transcript of his remarks already before me.

He made much, in his introductory remarks and his comments on the bill, about the government's insistence in not tinkering with the recommendations of the commission.

[1605]

He said: "The government does not intend to tinker, amend or substitute our views as government or our views collectively as a chamber for the views of the independent panel that has made these recommendations." That's clearly a choice, but it's presented as though it's the only alternative when confronted with the recommendations of an independent panel. Surely, even if we go back to Edmund Burke and his letter to the electors of Bristol, we're elected here to exercise our judgment.

As distinguished as the panel may be and as thoughtful as the panel may be — and in this case I think it's a reasonable commission — we're not obliged under any circumstances to accept the recommendations of such a commission. Indeed, we have the duty to scrutinize and examine those recommendations, and decide whether we're prepared to accept them.

The argument that is made — that somehow it's wrong or it's tinkering or it's amending or that substituting is somehow inherently defective or faulty or unwise — is simply not a persuasive argument. It's one that doesn't have much support in parliamentary precedent.

Indeed, as the member for Vancouver-Kingsway mentioned, the former Attorney General Mr. Plant, back on October 2, 2002, moved a motion to reject four of the recommendations set out by the Judicial Justice Compensation Committee, a committee appointed in accordance with

section 3 of the Judicial Compensation Act.

It consisted of one person appointed by the minister, another appointed by the chief judge and one agreed to by two other appointments. A very distinguished panel made a number of sincere recommendations, but the Attorney General of the day, Mr. Plant, didn't say: "I'm not going to tinker with and I'm not going to amend these recommendations."

He moved a motion to reject four of those recommendations here in this very chamber in 2002. The Government House Leader, a member of executive council at that time, presumably supported that legislative action. So the very premise on which the Government House Leader bases his speech is faulty and I think unworthy of any support.

There are other things about the commission that I think are worth making note of. Before I enter into that, I think it's important in considering our pay that we not be out of touch with the community and out of touch with those we represent. That is to some measure a subjective view. Certainly, everyone judges from their own perspective.

Part of our job is to represent effectively the views of our constituents. One of the ways in which we represent effectively the views of our constituents is that we stay in touch with them and understand their circumstances. The degree to which our pay soars into the stratosphere beyond the contemplation, the reach and the ordinary experience of the people in my riding of Surrey-Whalley, for example, the less able I am in my view to understand what goes on in my riding and to represent those people. In fact, I think it diminishes to some extent the esteem that they might otherwise hold me in.

In some countries of the world, politicians live in a big house on the hill surrounded by a security fence and armed guards and travel to and from the Legislature in limousines. That's not the kind of democracy we have here. Part of our job — our task here — is to as effectively as we can, on both sides of the House, represent those people.

Granted, compensation has a subjective element. What is fair for one person is not always agreed to by another.

[1610]

But in this particular case, when the recommendation, which we are not obliged to accept, comes back with a recommendation of a 29-percent increase, it is so out of touch with the experience and the economic and social reality of the people that I represent — and, I dare say, the reality of the constituents that most members represent — it has to be rejected.

[ Page 8165 ]

In that report the panel attempted to compare the work of legislators with other people doing work out there in society. One of the examples they chose was that of a senior manager. Now, that's probably a choice that assisted the commission in coming to the conclusion that they did. But in my view, to compare the work we do to that of a senior manager…. This is on the basic MLA salary, because if you're a cabinet minister, of course, there is additional pay. That's as to should be, I think, given the extra responsibilities.

The role of a constituency MLA in the opposition or on the government side, in my view, doesn't compare to that of a manager. As an advocate with a relatively small office and working out in the community, the responsibilities and the work are very, very different. So one of the very premises on which the commission fashioned its salary recommendations, which they thought was not entirely accurate but a reasonably good one, was to compare MLAs with senior managers.

With the greatest of respect to the commission, I don't think that's justified. I don't think that reflects the reality of what MLAs do, and to some extent, it may have skewed the judgment in the result that the commission came forward with. In the table on page 10 of the report, there are some comparisons with certain senior positions in Crown corporations: the vice-president of casino gambling at the B.C. Lottery Corporation and the senior vice-president, marketing and underwriting, at ICBC. Those jobs, however important they are, are not the same and don't reflect the reality of what an MLA does whatsoever.

In my view, that comparison is not terribly helpful. I think what is more helpful is to have a sense of what the economic and social reality is of the constituencies and the constituents that we represent — that is, the bulk of the people in the province. This is a statistic from a Statistics Canada labour force survey — so, an impartial source. Average annual wages in B.C. rose from $33,247 in 2000 to $36,633 in 2005 — only over 10 percent. Over that period of time — five years — a 10-percent increase.

Here we are proposing in the government legislation that's before the House, in a single act of the Legislature, a 29-percent increase in compensation for MLAs. It's no wonder it sticks in the craw of most people. It's just too much. It's just too much, and very few people in British Columbia are getting that kind of increase.

In the last year the government settled, in a round of collective bargaining, a number of important public sector contracts — indeed, almost all of the public sector contracts. Just briefly, let's review what those settlements were, as a comparison to the 29 percent that's proposed for MLAs and a 54-percent increase for the Premier.

Health care workers, including home support providers, caregivers in group homes, drug and alcohol counsellors and health authority administrative staff, received an 11.4-percent wage increase over four years. Registered nurses and registered psychiatric nurses received a 14.2-percent wage increase over four years. Teachers received a 16-percent wage increase over five years. B.C. Directors Guild received a 5-percent wage increase over three years. United Steelworkers at Teck Cominco received a 20-percent increase over five years. Port Moody civic workers received 9.75-percent over three and a quarter years.

[1615]

Those are real collective bargaining…. Those are workers in the province. Those are agreements, at least the provincial ones, which we've heard from the government about how proud they are to have settled.

Yet the contrast between the wage proposal here and those wage settlements for the vast majority of public sector workers…. Also included in those comparative notes are private sector contracts as well. Simply, there is no comparison. Some 29 percent in one go at the snap of a finger — although probably this legislative process will take a little bit longer than that — is simply too much. It's way out of whack with those collective agreement settlements. It doesn't accord with reality. It doesn't accord with the experience of most people out there in British Columbia.

In addition, what people point to are some of the other actions of government. When one ventures into giving oneself a wage increase, people are often quick to make these comparisons. It's not surprising, because they do seem inconsistent — some might even say hypocritical.

The issue of minimum wage comes up. The minimum wage was last increased in 2001. It hasn't been increased for six years. The only time that the present government had any changes to do with the minimum wage law was to bring in a training wage of $6 an hour. That is a 25-percent decrease for people allegedly working for the first 500 hours. That's the only change that they brought about.

When I was speaking with the Minister of Finance in estimates debate not too long ago, a couple of weeks ago, I asked her about an increase in the minimum wage. There are over a hundred thousand workers in the province who earn the minimum wage, and they're not all just kids living at home with their parents. The statistics clearly show that.

The Minister of Finance said: "No. We're not prepared to contemplate an increase in the minimum wage; not at all. We have no intention of reviewing the minimum wage law. We're not going to do anything. We're not going to change that one bit."

The Liberal government in Ontario recently brought in some amendments to the minimum wage law in Ontario. The minimum wage law in Ontario will rise to over $10 an hour in a series of staged increases over the next 18 months.

Confronted by the actions of another provincial government — a major economic force in Confederation surely — the government and the Minister of Finance said: "No, we're not prepared to reconsider that." So people ask me: "How can you reconcile that?" Well, I can't.

It seems to me that on the one hand, supporting a 29-percent increase for MLAs and a 54-percent increase for the Premier's salary, and saying to those minimum-wage workers in the province who haven't had an

[ Page 8166 ]

increase of that $8-per-hour wage since 2001…. It's extremely inconsistent and really speaks to the distance, the social gulf, between MLAs who would support this increase and those who would oppose it.

[1620]

The price of gasoline has shot up and fluctuates among the major oil companies in a very curious way. It seems to go up and then go down all in unison. The member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca has quite reasonably said to the B.C. Utilities Commission: "Let's look at this. Let's see what we can do to protect consumers from gouging." That's a real economic pressure on people in my riding, people in Surrey and people in the province. That's why they've responded so strongly to the initiative we've taken — because that's reality. That's what people are feeling.

When we speak here in the Legislature, when it's proposed to increase our compensation — increase the compensation of MLAs — by 29 percent, I personally can't support that. I'm proud to stand with my leader and the members of the NDP caucus and oppose this legislation.

There are arguments made that in order to attract people to public life, you have to pay more. Frankly, I'm quite content with the way in which I'm compensated right now. This is a great job. I like doing it. It has moments of frustration, but for the most part, it's a tremendous privilege. I'm able to meet people from across the province, grapple with all kinds of important public issues, express my views and, in some cases, help constituents of mine. I find all of that pretty satisfying.

I thin