Bruce Ralston Pay Raise Response

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

When we also consider other financial pressures that those people who elect us are under, one of the other areas where members on this side of the House have been active is on gas prices. The MLA for Malahat–Juan de Fuca has introduced a private member's bill because in my riding of Surrey-Whalley, south of the Fraser River, where transportation services are underdeveloped to say the least, TransLink routes are, I would say, a fraction. The accessibility and convenience of public transit is far, far less, and less well-developed. There is a real problem there, and in order to get to work, to get to school, to do their chores, to take kids to and from soccer, people are obliged to drive their car.

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 think I'm paid fairly, and from what I've been told by people in my riding, they think I'm paid pretty fairly too. They don't see the need, and neither do I, to get a 29-percent wage increase, and a 54-percent wage increase for the Premier. There is no public support for that position — none. People don't come up to me in the street and say: "Bruce, gee, you're underpaid. You really deserve more money."

There is a bit of a special lobby, a narrow special lobby, but for the most part those MLAs who would support this increase are simply prepared to plug their ears, put their chin down, run the gauntlet and hope that the public forgets it. That's really what's going on here, in my view. But I don't think the public is going to forget about this. I think the public regards this properly as a defining moment where one's self-interest conflicts with some broader principles.

Now, this legislation isn't perfect. The Government House Leader, despite saying that he wasn't going to tinker or amend the recommendations of the commission, has introduced the opting-out clause, which other members have spoken of. That wasn't on the table before the commission, and it would have been very interesting.

It would have been very interesting to hear the views of a very distinguished former Court of Appeal judge, Mr. Josiah Wood, on the fairness, equity and wisdom of imposing such a clause on the legislation. But that was never before the commission. They didn't comment on it. Despite absence of any comment or any recommendation by the commission to that effect, we find it in the legislation.

It is designed, one can only speculate…. The Government House Leader has been, perhaps, a little coy as to why it's in there. Certainly, it's designed for political effect and not for the good of the process and not because it accords with the recommendations of the commission. It doesn't give an option to accept the pension plan that's put there before in the legislation and to opt out of the wage increase. It's all or nothing. It's not designed in any other way. It's designed to force people to a very difficult and hard choice.

That's unfortunate, and I suppose that's, regrettably, the style of politics that sometimes is played. But I'm content with the position that my leader and my party have taken. I will be donating the 29-percent increase to charities in my riding, and I will be accountable for that. The public will be able to judge, come 2009, whether I made the right choice. But as far as I'm concerned, those on this side of the House, given the alternatives that are presented, have made the right choice to reject that wage increase, because it is completely and totally out of touch with the reality of my constituents.

So I join my colleagues very proudly in opposing, and opposing completely, this legislation.