In the Legislature

B. Ralston: I rise to take my place in this debate, and I want to make a couple of comments about the proposed governance structure that this bill recommends to govern transportation in the south coast or the lower mainland. Secondly, I want to talk a little bit about these assumptions that are made as to how the new entity will be financed.

It is striking, the degree to which this governance structure shows contempt for the democratic structures of British Columbia. It's very striking. It's often been said that the British parliamentary system is a system of amateurs advised by professionals, and I think that is meant very seriously.

I remember a famous American political commentator who said he would rather be governed by 15 people picked at random from the Boston phone book than the entire faculty of Harvard. There's a presumption in democracy that elected people will make the best decisions, and if they don't, the people they represent will correct them either through their representations or at election time.

But here the presumption is very clearly different. It's striking in its contempt for elected officials. I refer, to give an example, to the mayors council, which will have some very minor role in the governance structure — nominally there in the structure, but a very minor influence.

What the prospective member of the mayors council on regional transportation must do, in section 209, is swear an oath. I'm reading from the section: "I will, when exercising my powers and duties under the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act as a member of the mayors council on regional transportation, consider the interests of the transportation service region as a whole."

Now, it's a striking proposition in the sense that it expresses a complete lack of confidence, an arrogant contempt for those elected mayors who have much experience in running a transportation system and certainly in interpreting the land use patterns and the property tax financial decisions that would be required in running such an enterprise.

To subject them, before they can take their place in this organization, to this process of taking an oath to consider the system — the transportation service region as a whole — strikes me as arrogant in the extreme and says everything that needs to be said about this minister's lack of respect for local government.

The mayors council has a role in the screening panel in selecting directors for the new entity. Again, it's striking that in section 170 of the proposed act, an eligible individual as a director "does not hold elected public office of any type…."

[1510]

So it's not simply that you're not a member of a council that might be…. That you can't be a member of a school board, can't be an elected official of any type, again expresses a contempt, an arrogance, for those people who choose to serve their community in whatever capacity. I suppose you can't be a diking commissioner. You can't be on the harbour authority. Any position in which you hold elected public office, you're disentitled to be a director of this agency.

The screening panel is set out, and these are the people who will select the directors. Another wise political scientist said that the greater the degree of remove from direct representation and the more levels you have to work through in order to get to the ultimate decision-maker, the less democratic it is. This board is constructed like a Russian doll. There's an entity inside an entity inside an entity inside an entity before you get to the real decision-makers.

I would like to review what's in the screening panel. The mayors council is entitled to appoint someone. But they can't appoint one of their own, because that would be an elected official. So the mayors council has to select someone other than an elected official. They certainly can't select one of their own to do that.

The Minister of Transportation can select someone, and it's directly, in this particular case. Presumably,

[ Page 8844 ]

that will be someone who's very supportive of the minister's position. One would assume that.

Next, the Institute of Chartered Accountants is entitled to appoint someone. The Institute of Chartered Accountants does appear before the Finance Committee. Their CEO, Mr. Rees, made a presentation to the Finance Committee earlier this year. I believe he appeared before us in Mission. But there's nothing in what the Institute of Chartered Accountants does that suggests, inherently, an interest in transportation per se.

I looked at what they called their checkup document, which is their annual review of the economy in British Columbia. Their recommendations are conventional business recommendations that one hears from chambers of commerce from time to time, but nothing terribly striking.

In their review of the mainland southwest development region, what they do talk about is air quality. It's striking that they do talk about that. They have some observations about ozone data, but they don't tie that in any way to transportation. I don't think it's any great revelation that air quality, particularly in the Fraser Valley, is tied to emissions, but they don't really talk about that in any way whatsoever. So they record the levels of ozone. They mark that as an indicator of public health, but they don't appear to connect that in any way to transportation.

I don't want to express any distaste for the accountants. Obviously, they perform a valuable societal function. No person who does their taxes that have any complexity would want to be without the advice of an accountant from time to time. Certainly, they perform a valuable function in industry, business, non-profits, universities — whatever. But there's nothing inherent, I would say, in this particular Institute of Chartered Accountants that qualifies them to appear on the screening panel.

Next, members of the Vancouver Board of Trade. Now, it's striking that for an organization that purports to govern the region, it's the Vancouver Board of Trade. It's not the Surrey Board of Trade. One of the members of this chamber is a former president of the Surrey Board of Trade, and I expect he'll probably vote against this legislation because of that. It's the Vancouver Board of Trade — not the Abbotsford Board of Trade, not the Tri-Cities Chamber of Commerce, not any other business organization in the lower mainland.

[1515]

Why is the Vancouver Board of Trade given such primacy? Why is it selected instead of any of these other business organizations? Surely one would have thought that the Surrey Board of Trade, being the leading business organization south of the Fraser River, might have been considered for that. But no. It's the Vancouver Board of Trade.

I really wonder about the choice of the Vancouver Board of Trade — again, a very respectable organization. I was recently reading a piece in B.C. Business where the then president, Dan Muzyka, attempted to put together a group to look at the future of the region. I agree with what he was setting out to do. He was saying that it's very clear that after 2010 there's really not very much of a business vision for this province. He was supported in that by someone who's on the city council in Vancouver.

Councillor Peter Ladner said: "But all booms end, and when you look beyond real estate speculations and one-time Olympic construction, our productivity is declining; our research-driven, high-growth new industries are lagging behind their competitors; and head-office employment is declining." He warns: "The foundations of all this growing wealth…. They're shaky at best." That's not a New Democrat. That's Peter Ladner, who is a representative on the city council in Vancouver.

In order to address this problem, this lack of vision, Mr. Muzyka, very much in the manner of the regional scope of this entity that's proposed, tried to put together an organization to develop an economic vision, to engage in regional economic development within the very same region that this entity is proposed for. One can't think of an activity that's more integrally related and tied to the economic development of the region than the transportation system. Certainly, that's a very important aspect of economic development.

Land development, the future growth of communities, the business development that would follow — all those things are integrally tied up in that vision of the region. But what Mr. Muzyka found when he tried at the Vancouver Board of Trade to put this group together to do it was that despite his very considerable qualifications…. I certainly in no way want to suggest that there's anything wrong with Mr. Muzyka's approach. I support it totally. He expresses his frustration in this article.

The Vancouver Board of Trade and its members didn't support him in creating this organization to create a vision for the economic future of the lower mainland region, the very region that this transportation entity will cover. So I'm a little troubled by the fact that the Vancouver Board of Trade, given this history of inability to develop an economic vision he proposed to 2025, is going to be placed in a very influential position to select the leadership who are going to drive this transportation entity forward, develop a ten-year plan and a 30-year plan.

They've failed as a group, not through any lack of effort on Mr. Muzyka's part, to develop an economic vision for the region. Why would they be any more successful in promoting a transportation vision for the region than the economic vision that they failed at doing?

I'm troubled by that, and I expect the minister will have an answer for that. Perhaps we can debate that when we get to committee stage of the bill.

The other entity that's included as one of the members of the screening panel is the Greater Vancouver Gateway Society. That is, I gather, not an organization that was set up by the minister to promote the Gateway project. It's a separate Gateway council, which was founded in 1994. I have a list of the executive members. Again, they will be no challenge to the vision that the minister is advocating — the exclusively business vision, I would say, and one aspect of business, not all of business.

[1520]

I'm not sure that their website was up to date. There were people such as the president and CEO of

[ Page 8845 ]

the Vancouver Port Authority, the president of the B.C. Wharf Operators Association, the president and CEO of the B.C. Trucking Association, the president and CEO of the Vancouver International Airport Authority. And in yet another interlocking directorship, I suppose, in some respects, the Vancouver Board of Trade is on the Gateway Council. There are representatives of railways, maritime employers, associations — things like that.

Really, the Gateway Council appears to be basically another aspect of the same thing, although it's styled as a separate entity. It seems very much like the kind of point of view that one would get from the Minister of Transportation or the Vancouver Board of Trade. So although the members of the screening panel appear to be appointed by different people, they all appear to come from the very same perspective.

That is a legitimate perspective, but in my view and in the view of the members opposite, it's certainly not the only view, nor is it desirable to create a board of directors populated exclusively by people who have that view. This board of directors is not accountable and has very little political scrutiny available to it. Really, it will treat the regional transportation services more as a utility than as a development mechanism, a community-building exercise with the environmental and social land use implications that, of course, any transportation system has.

The government has clearly said that as a result of the Premier's brainwave on the beach in Maui, they're embarking on a process of climate change. They're going to consider that.

It's significant that the governance review began before this change in the direction by the Premier. As a result, the governance review and the structure that is now before us in this legislation do not consider those goals at all.

It's not just me saying that, because I know the members opposite might be a little bit skeptical about me saying that. It's the David Suzuki Foundation. David Suzuki has said publicly that his climate change team is working very closely with the Premier's office. They're giving the Premier his advice on climate change, but none of that appears to have been listened to in putting together this legislation when you look at the financial implications and the sources of revenue that are proposed.

I know that TransLink is now a much-maligned and defunct organization. But back in April 2006 the TransLink chair Malcolm Brodie made a presentation to the Surrey and Langley chambers of commerce, which I was able to hear, and I kept a copy of his speaking notes. He spoke about the challenges in financing TransLink. This is a person who the minister praised earlier in his speech yesterday and is recognized as…. Mind you, he is an elected official, of course. He's the mayor of Richmond, so I suppose that diminishes him somewhat in the esteem of the minister.

Nonetheless, he did set out the challenges that TransLink faced, and I want to read a little bit from what he said about those because I don't want to be accused of misquoting him.

[1525]

"We found efficiencies in many areas, but with demands for more expansion come long-term revenue challenges. As business leaders, you all know that transportation improvements don't come without a cost. Please allow me to explain why TransLink funding options are so limited.

"Our main three sources of revenue are fuel taxes, fares and property taxes. First of all, our share of fuel tax revenue — 30 percent of TransLink's budget — is volatile due to fluctuating gas prices and consumption. We've already raised transit fares, and there is a danger of increasing them again since higher fares reduce ridership.

"We've also reached the limit, in terms of property taxes, that people are prepared to support, with two increases that were approved by municipalities through the GVRD."

Now Metro Vancouver, I add in parenthesis.

I'm continuing to quote:

"While TransLink will receive some federal New Deal funding, the funding is only certain for five years, and it can't be used for operating expenses. We're also facing increased construction costs, a 23-percent increase over the life of our transportation expansion plan."

He goes on to talk about the difficulty of the parking site tax, which this bill would abolish, but he says:

"Because the funds support debt incurred for capital projects, we can't abandon the tax outright without eliminating some $150 million to $200 million worth of vital capital projects, but we continue to look for alternatives."

He concludes with some comments about the importance of the transportation system and it being vital to the provincial and national economies.

Now, I thought that was a pretty good summary from the chair of TransLink about the sources of revenue and the difficulties with those sources of revenue. Just so I can review, there are three sources: fuel taxes, fares and property taxes.

What does this bill propose as the three sources of revenue for the new transportation entity? Why, fuel taxes, fares and property taxes — the same three areas that Mr. Brodie pointed out have some inherent difficulties as a form of stable funding for the operation.

The tax on transportation fuel — or the gas tax, as it's sometimes called. There are some assumptions built into this plan about gas tax revenue. If I could turn to this document now, in the TransLink governance review at page 43, where they looked at projected TransLink expenditures and revenues — because they did a business model for the proposed new entity….

What they assumed on the revenue side: "On the revenue side, it is assumed that property tax revenues would increase by 3 percent, that fuel tax revenues would increase by 1 percent a year and that fares would increase by the rate of inflation. No new taxes or levies are assumed."

Keep in mind that assumption about the increase in fuel tax revenue, because what the Premier's very close climate change advisers from the David Suzuki Foundation say is that that doesn't accord at all. It's completely in contradiction with the climate change

[ Page 8846 ]

objectives of the very elementary climate change plan that's been thus far discussed, because it envisages reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector by a substantial amount.

If you're going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector, you're going to encourage…. At least not a 1-percent growth per year over the life of the plan. You're going to increase or perhaps have it stable, but surely your long-term goal would be to have it decline.

That's a source of revenue. Mr. Brodie already points out that the gas tax revenue is inherently unstable because of fluctuations in price and vehicle usage. So the proposed financial plan for this entity doesn't make sense in terms of the other commitments that the government has made.

[1530]

Maybe the Minister of Finance didn't know that. I find that hard to believe. Maybe the Premier didn't tell him. I find that hard to believe. Maybe the two ministries or the Premier's office and the Ministry of Finance are working in isolation. That's possible. Certainly, on such an important, major public endeavour, these considerations would be taken into account. But there's nothing in the plan to suggest that that's been taken into account.

Mr. Ian Bruce of the David Suzuki Foundation, the Premier's climate change adviser, says:

"TransLink estimates that to achieve the B.C. emissions target, the percentage of trips now made by transit would have to grow from 11.5 percent today to 25 to 30 percent by 2020, more than doubling transit ridership within the metro service region.

"Although there are no studies or estimates on the level of transportation service required in B.C. Transit service areas to achieve the B.C. government's emissions target, a similar increase in ridership may be required for other B.C. Transit systems as well. Enhanced transit service will be most cost-effective and practical at shifting commuter trips from cars to transit when larger communities also pursue contact development.

"The province faces serious problems if current transportation trends continue on a business-as-usual basis. In the lower mainland vehicle ownership is growing faster than population, largely due to the lack of alternatives to the personal automobile."

The Premier's climate change adviser from the Suzuki Foundation says that the other measures are good measures — the California vehicle tailpipe measures and the low-carbon fuel standards. He goes on to say: "These policies will be unlikely to halt, let alone reduce, overall greenhouse gas emissions from B.C.'s vehicle fleet." This is for a couple of reasons. It'll take quite a while to phase in those new vehicles, and secondly, without significant investment in transit service and other sustainable transportation, more vehicles and longer vehicle trips will negate the emission reductions by the California standards.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

I want to read it, just so that it's clear that it's the advice of the Premier's climate change adviser at the Suzuki Foundation who's saying this. It's not something fanciful that I have extracted from any document.

Mr. Bruce says:

"Foremost" — he's referring to the TransLink governance review panel — "the panel's recommendations were based on TransLink's financial projections contained within the ten-year plan, a plan that was not designed to provide sufficient transportation infrastructure to reduce carbon emissions to the levels envisioned by the B.C. government.

"Secondly, the panel assumed that fuel tax revenues would grow at 1 percent, the then current rate of growth of fuel — gas and diesel — consumption. Under the province's new climate change targets, however, transportation fuel consumption in B.C. will need to decrease by 33 percent by 2020 to achieve B.C.'s emission target. Therefore, we have prepared a series of recommendations in this document that are consistent with the B.C. government's climate change goals."

There you have it. The financial assumptions that are in this document on one of the three sources of revenue — which Mr. Brodie says raised, in the old entity, 30 percent of the budget — are completely flawed. This projection was prepared before the Premier's climate change direction and has assumptions that, if the Premier is to be believed or these targets are to be seriously tackled, will not come to pass. So the revenue structure on which this entity is founded has had one of the three legs of the stool kicked out from under it at the beginning.

I really wonder whether this is good policy, and I'm not sure that all the professional experts that the minister would pack onto this board of directors wouldn't tell him the same thing. I don't see why this problem can't be addressed now.

[1535]

Apparently, this document, this bill, these financial assumptions and these revenue projections are prepared in the absence of any consideration of what the David Suzuki Foundation's climate change specialist says about the targets that have been set for reductions in the transportation sector.

I have very serious concerns about the financial viability of this entity, if that advice from the David Suzuki Foundation — Mr. Bruce — is taken seriously. Maybe it won't be.

There are some skeptics who deride the Premier's conversion to climate change and say that the targets are not really serious, that this will not come to pass, that it's simply being concocted for political purposes. I seriously hope I'm wrong on that, but what this bill posits, holds out as its projections for revenue and what the David Suzuki Foundation says are a complete contradiction.

At the committee stage I hope the minister, if he chooses to listen to me, will provide some answers.

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.

HER MAJESTY, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia, enacts as follows:

• The Utilities Commission Act, section 64.1 is amended as:

Read the whole Bill at www.leg.bc.ca/

HANSARD February 27

EXPENDITURES BY
PARTNERSHIPS B.C. CEO LARRY BLAIN

B. Ralston: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Larry Blain, the Partnerships B.C. chief, hosted a dinner at Al Porto Ristorante in Vancouver on June 23, 2005. The invited guests included board members and senior staff and other honchos from the public-private partnerships world.

Those in Mr. Blain's party drank their way through 13 bottles of wine: five Wild Goose Pinot Gris, three Columbia Crest Merlot, two Penfolds Chardonnay and three bottles of another Australian wine called d'Arenberg Stump Jump. They also drank a Grey Goose martini, a cosmopolitan, a rum, three bottles of beer and a glass of premium Scotch. The entire bill was paid for by the taxpayers of British Columbia.

Can the Minister of Finance answer this: how many bottles of wine does it take to build a hospital?

Budget Response – Day 1

www.leg.bc.ca/hansard/

Budget Response – Day 2

www.leg.bc.ca/hansard/