Hansard — Tuesday, May 17, 2007 p.m.

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Statements		8145
	Sullivan mine accident
	B. Bennett

Introductions by Members		8145

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		8146
	Asian Heritage Month
	R. Lee
	Laity pumpkin patch in Maple Ridge
	M. Sather
	Recognition of Surrey police in crime reduction
	D. Hayer
	Coroner's inquest into Sullivan mine accident
	N. Macdonald
	Support of B.C. farms
	V. Roddick
	Green Ribbon of Hope campaign
	M. Karagianis

Oral Questions		8148
	WorkSafe B.C. surplus
	C. James
	Hon. O. Ilich
	C. Puchmayr
	H. Bains
	L. Krog
	B. Ralston
	Coverage of post-traumatic stress disorder by WorkSafe B.C.
	C. Evans
	Hon. O. Ilich
	Hillside Gardens
	R. Chouhan
	Hon. R. Coleman
	Housing for refugees
	D. Routley
	Hon. R. Coleman
	Regulation of new home pre-sale agreements
	D. Thorne
	Hon. R. Coleman
	Funding for child care centres
	C. Trevena
	Hon. L. Reid

Petitions		8152
	C. Trevena

Second Reading of Bills		8152
	Legislative Assembly (Members' Remuneration and Pensions) Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 37) (continued)
	M. Farnworth
	C. James
	A. Dix
	H. Bains
	B. Ralston
	R. Chouhan
	S. Fraser
	S. Simpson
	M. Sather
	D. Routley

Statements		8180
	Apology for unparliamentary language
	L. Mayencourt

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		8180
	Estimates: Ministry of Forests and Range and Minister Responsible for Housing (continued)
	D. Thorne
	Hon. R. Coleman
	G. Robertson
	M. Karagianis
	Estimates: Other appropriations

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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….

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.

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.

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….

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.

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….

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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."

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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….

M. Farnworth: My colleague from Surrey-Newton — because I know he's the one I heard talking behind me, correctly, from his seat, as he often does — reminds me of the opting-out clause. There was no opting-out clause in the recommendations of the committee. There was no "You have seven days to sign in or sign out after royal assent." That was not one of the recommendations that the committee brought forward. That was something this government did. They decided to add that recommendation.

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.

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….

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.

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.

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….

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.

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….

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.

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

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….

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.

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?

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

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.

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….

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.

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.

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

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?

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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….

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

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….

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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,

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.

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.

R. Chouhan: I rise to oppose this Bill 37 for the obvious reasons. By any standard, no matter how you cut it, a 29-percent lump sum increase is not acceptable. And a 54-percent increase for the Premier is shameful. It's shameful. Once again, the B.C. Liberals are demonstrating they're totally out of touch with reality. They don't know what's happening out there. This Bill 37 proves that again.

This increase is an insult to the poor, to the working poor, single mothers, seniors and so on. In this province we tabled a private member's bill to increase the minimum wage. That minimum wage was in fact reduced from $8 to $6 when this government came into power in 2001. Instead of helping the poor by increasing that minimum wage to $10, the B.C. Liberals are proposing to take a 29-percent increase and a 54-percent increase for the Premier. What a shameful act.

In this province homelessness has doubled since this government has taken power. On one hand, we are being told day in and day out that there's a wonderful economy — everything is booming. But people are sleeping on the streets. They don't have a roof over

their head. In every city in the lower mainland homelessness has doubled. And what we are seeing today, this shameful act by this Bill 37, asking for a 29-percent increase….

The poverty rate. Let's look at that. B.C. has the highest poverty rate amongst seniors — not my figures.

The 2004 child poverty rate was 23.5 percent. Nearly one out of every four children is living in poverty. The estimated number of poor children in B.C. in 2004 was 196,000. Can you imagine how many people, how many children we could have helped with this amount of money that the Liberals are pocketing? It's robbery. That's what it is.

Poverty amongst single mothers rose between 15.8 percent to about 24 percent in the last few years. That's the kind of state of reality we have in British Columbia, but the B.C. Liberals are totally out of touch. They don't know. All they care about, all they talk about, is how much money they can rake in, take home, and that shows how greedy they are. It's unacceptable.

Let me talk about the union which I worked for, for 18 years — the Hospital Employees Union. In 2001, before the election, the Premier met with the Hospital Employees Union and promised that he would not touch the collective agreement of the Hospital Employees Union. He agreed, and it's on tape. It's recorded.

He agreed that that agreement was negotiated over many, many years. The provisions of that collective agreement were not negotiated between just one previous government and HEU. It took almost 30 years to get there. But no. Right after the election, the Premier, the B.C. Liberals, broke that promise, and they tabled Bill 29.

As a result, people with 15 or 20 years of seniority lost their jobs. Those who were lucky to keep their jobs, their wages were rolled back 15 percent.

Hard-working people working day in and day out in hospitals and long-term care facilities, making sure our patients were taken care of, our seniors were taken care of — 9,000 of them lost their jobs because this government broke that promise. It proved that you could not trust the B.C. Liberals. Today with Bill 37 they are proving again that you cannot trust the B.C. Liberals.

Let me talk about farmworkers — people who put food on everybody's table. They start their day at five o'clock in the morning, and they're never back home before 10:30, sometimes 11 o'clock.

When they're taken to work, they are transported in the most unsafe vehicles. We have seen deaths on our highways.

When they go to the fields, they work in farms with the most difficult, unsafe conditions. In many cases, we didn't even have drinking water for them. Toilets were not provided.

It took so many years of hard struggle to get farmworkers covered under the Employment Standards Act — and the basic coverage. But in 2002, shortly after this government came into power, all those people who were brought under the basic protection of the Employment Standards Act were deprived of their fundamental, basic rights.

They don't get the minimum wage, vacations, overtime. In some cases they are not even getting their rest breaks. People who work in the fields are not all seniors. There are many who work there — seniors, women and children, all of those. This government does not have the guts to protect those workers, to spend some money so that those workers who are putting food on everybody's table can have some fundamental protection like anybody else. No, they want all that money in their own pockets. It's shameful.

It shows again that this is not the true representative government of British Columbia. These are not the people, sitting on that side, who represent ordinary people. They're heartless; they don't care; they have no compassion. All they care about is their pocket. How could they justify a 54-percent increase for the Premier? What makes him so special? You know, we have heard that the Premier is working hard. So is everybody else. This kind of act, of robbing money, is unacceptable.

Let me also talk about Burnaby-Edmonds, the demographics. There are lots of people: new immigrants, refugees, single mothers, poor and working poor. That's the kind of people who live in Burnaby-Edmonds. When they see a 29-percent increase for an MLA and a 54-percent increase for the Premier, it's a slap in their face. Those people are working hard. They go to work like anybody else. They're trying to put food on their tables. They're trying to take care of their families and children. What about them? Why don't we have the same amount of money, the same amount of increase for those people in Burnaby-Edmonds?

Today in question period we talked about Hillside Gardens, a government-owned facility. The conditions in which people are forced to live at Hillside Gardens are deplorable. There are holes in the ceiling, urine leaks from pipes above, dead mice, cockroaches. That's the kind of place those people are forced to live in. We have no money for repairs, renovations or taking care of those people whom we are forcing to live there. What a shameful act.

In British Columbia a single mother on welfare makes about $11,347. That's how much she gets. A $22,000 increase in an MLA's salary would help two of those single mothers. You can imagine, with a 54-percent increase in the Premier's salary, how many people that could be used to help.

The B.C. Liberals are playing a cheap political game. They're saying, oh, they're so honest. They're going to accept all of the recommendations of the commission that they have made. Could somebody show me, please, where is that seven-day opt-in or opt-out clause? I haven't seen it. They're playing these cheap games. They're not being honest.

Mr. Speaker, I challenge all three Liberal MLAs from Burnaby — for Burnaby North, for Burnaby-Willingdon and for Burquitlam — to do the right thing. Do not accept this 29-percent shameful increase in your

wages. Do the right thing; represent those poor people in Burnaby. They're looking at you. They expect some representation.

We have thousands of people there who are hardly making minimum wage — and we are taking 29 percent? That's not acceptable. I challenge again my colleagues from the B.C. Liberal side, those three MLAs: stand up for those people and say no.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I'll finish my comments. I hope people will show some maturity and will turn down this shameful package that they have put on the table through Bill 37.

S. Fraser: I will not be speaking in favour of Bill 37, as the Chair and the others might have guessed.

It is a difficult thing, always, to be put in a position to have to make a decision on your own compensation package. I've seen it in municipal governments, and it's never easy. That being said, most of us believe in fair compensation for fair work done. I would like to see a 29-percent increase for all British Columbians. That would be wonderful, I would think. It would be a great help to many, many people and probably spur on the economy — all kinds of things.

Of course, that's not realistic. A 29-percent increase, one shot? Take the largest pay increase proposed ever in British Columbia for provincial politicians? A 54-percent increase for the Premier. It would be wonderful if everyone in this great province could join in that largesse, but that's not practical. That's insane. That kind of increase has no footing in the real world.

Let's look at the government's record that's proposing a 29-percent, one-shot pay increase for MLAs, a 54-percent pay increase for the Premier. This is a government that adjusted the minimum wage — well overdue — but they made a mistake. They dropped it to $6 an hour, a 25-percent decrease in the minimum wage in British Columbia.

They changed child labour laws, making them the most draconian that I've ever seen in North America. They broke promises regarding honouring contracts in an attempt to get in as government. That's a dirty trick, tearing up a contract. Laying off, dismissing long-time employees with no cause; rolling back wages from a duly-negotiated contract — it's appalling, and it certainly flies in the face of previous statements made prior to that election.

Rolling back 15 percent for HEU workers. I know HEU workers in my constituency, in Alberni-Qualicum, that were devastated, long-time employees who lost their jobs after assurances that their contracts would be safe, that they would be honoured — which is a pretty basic thing to expect, especially when it is promised. We've all seen the devastating effects of Bill 29 on so many people.

When there is a proposal to adjust rates of pay or compensation…. Well, I can go to my own constituents, and they understand the tough position that we're put in, and I believe they understand that the work we do here is hard, and it is important.

I'm speaking for all sides of the House here. This is not easy. I've had many jobs in my life, and this one is tough in a lot of ways: the long hours, a multitude of endless issues that none of us are experts at just because we've been elected. There is a lot of stress and a lot of pressure to do the right thing, an endless learning curve and a lot of time away from home and family.

That's certainly worth something. I believe my constituents have seen a positive difference from my work as their MLA. Maybe they would accept a fair and reasonable proposal, say something that tracks public sector negotiated contracts — something that has some basis in the real world.

It's 29 percent for MLAs; 54 percent for the Premier of this province. The Premier of the province doesn't seem to have reacted to our proposal, the opposition proposal, to adjust the minimum wage. I already talked about the reversal of the minimum wage to a minimalist minimal wage. People are being exploited by six bucks an hour.

We have proposed to raise that to $10 an hour. I believe that's long overdue. It would be a great benefit to a great many people, and it would be a benefit to the economy. I note that the Tofino–Long Beach Chamber of Commerce, a very successful chamber of commerce representing many businesses on the west coast and representing a lot of tourist dollars…. They agree with the opposition position, as do municipalities.

We're seeing resolutions coming forward supporting the opposition position to increase the minimum wage to $10 an hour. We have a government side, somewhat vacant-looking, and a Premier, who haven't even considered that basic proposal that will add dignity to people's lives, a step away from exploitation.

With that refusal, they have taken a position that they should receive a 29-percent increase, and a 54-percent increase for the Premier that refuses to consider raising the minimum wage to $10 an hour. Now how does the public react to that? Well, we all know, from all sides of the House, how ludicrous that situation is. It isn't fair. There is no basis in social justice.

I noticed that when the House Leader introduced this bill he spoke about not cherry-picking, that the bill would go forward as is, that it wouldn't be appropriate to pick and choose, words like that. That I was heartened with for a different reason.

Yesterday the Special Committee on Sustainable Aquaculture tabled this in this House. It's a volume that proposes recommendations for sustainable aquaculture. There is….

Mr. Speaker: Member, would you please allow all members to speak in the House without interfering and making comment. And it's Mr. Chair or Speaker.

S. Fraser: This report on sustainable aquaculture, 18 months in the works…. There are 50-plus recommen-

dations to this place, this Legislature, that will help lead to sustainable aquaculture in this province and help protect the environment — laudable causes, causes that the public have demanded.

So there are recommendations in this. If the House Leader is to be consistent, I believe we are to assume that these recommendations will not be cherry-picked, that they will be followed through with. Indeed, I've been receiving letters from first nations all over the coast asking for that.

Gitxsan chiefs are pleased to see the recommendations of the Special Committee on Sustainable Aquaculture include that there will no new fish farm sites approved north of Cape Caution. They are urging the government to follow through with those recommendations. Indeed, this request from the Gitxsan First Nations would be in complete consistency….

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, will you please stick to the subject matter.

S. Fraser: I digressed — my point being that the House Leader stated in this House earlier today that it would be inappropriate to cherry-pick from recommendations put forward by the panel on compensation. So I am assuming that that should be consistent with recommendations coming to this House from a legitimate…. This was a commission designated by the Premier 18 months ago.

The recommendations — I believe there's a parallel — are recommendations to this House, as were the recommendations that came forward from the panel dealing with our compensation package that have led to this bill. The House Leader has suggested the recommendations should not be cherry-picked. So in that sense, I'll move on.

However, that consistency — or inconsistency, if that's the way it's going to go down — I would suggest, would be inappropriate and could be construed as misleading if the House Leader was suggesting that it was unwise to cherry-pick from this report on compensation, the panel on compensation, yet the government would be willing to do so with another recently tabled report with recommendations.

However, this government did cherry-pick from the panel's recommendations, so I am confused. I'm not sure if that bodes well for the other reports that have been coming forward to this House to adjudicate. But I do not remember an opt-out clause in the panel's recommendations. When the panel recommended a 29-percent increase…. That's a recommendation to be deliberated on in this House. When the panel recommended a 54-percent increase for the Premier…. I would suggest that a wise legislative body would consider those recommendations and amend them as necessary, in keeping with public needs, public expectation, fairness, social justice and consistency.

There's nothing consistent about a government that brings forward a bill that suggests that a 29-percent increase for members of this House and a 54-percent increase for the Premier…. There's no consistency when they fail to even consider raising the minimum wage to $10 an hour.

Now, if you go around the province and ask the public, I would dare say they agree with my position here. If you go into the Alberni Valley and ask someone: "Does the government deserve a 29-percent pay increase or a 54-percent pay increase for the Premier…?"

In 2004 this government and this Premier took 70,000 hectares out of tree farm licence 44 and gave it as private land, even though they received a report from their own staff that warned them that it would be to the detriment of the workers and the community of Port Alberni and the central coast. And it was.

It created job loss, mill closures and environmental degradation that goes on today. The government members, the minister involved and the Premier knew it would do that, and they did it anyway.

You ask those workers: "Do decisions like that deserve a reward of 29 percent for MLAs and 54 percent for the Premier of the province, who made a decision to their detriment knowingly and willingly?" I would suggest that the majority polled in Port Alberni in the central coast would not agree. They might consider 29 percent a bit too high. They might consider 54 percent even more outrageous.

I think you would find in a poll of those HEU workers who had their contracts torn up, who were dismissed summarily despite assurances to the contrary or had their wages rolled back by 15 percent that it might be a bitter pill to swallow for those people, should this government have asked them for their opinion of a 29-percent increase for MLAs or a 54-percent increase for the Premier.

B.C. maintains its ranking as having the highest poverty rate in Canada, at 20.1 percent. This ranking of highest poverty rate in Canada, at 20.1 percent, is at least less than the proposed pay increase of 29 percent for MLAs and 54 percent for the Premier. I guess that's something to grasp onto.

We have the greatest number of families living in poverty in this golden decade brought to us by this government, who are proposing to give themselves a 29-percent raise. If you were to ask the one-quarter of children living in poverty — the highest rate of child poverty in Canada two or three years running…. If you were to ask those children if the government that stick-handled that one should get a 29-percent raise or a 54-percent raise for the Premier, those kids — I'll guarantee you — would question that.

Kids are smart. They have an instinct for things like this. They would see a natural justice that was flawed, a logic that didn't work and a syllogism that didn't match up. If you've got the highest child poverty rate in Canada, if one in four children is living in poverty, so are the rest of their families — largely single mothers.

It's interesting, the attack on the HEU workers — the rollbacks, the layoffs. An inordinate number of women suffered that one. I wonder how many in that statistic became part of the statistic on child poverty, because child poverty is family poverty.

How many single moms weathered that one? They, I would dare say, would not go along with a 29-percent increase. They might consider that a bit rich. And a 54-percent increase for the Premier — I would suggest they might also think that a bit rich.

The estimated number of poor children, children living in poverty in B.C. in 2004, was 196,000. That hasn't gone down. That's rising. It has risen ever since. That's among claims of a golden decade that this government is taking credit for, I suppose, as a rationale for a 29-percent pay increase or for a 54-percent pay increase for the Premier.

However, we've seen that the golden decade hasn't been shared by many British Columbians. The disparity between those that have most of the wealth — the smaller group — and the vast numbers of those that are not sharing in that prosperity…. That gap has been growing under this government.

The applause they give themselves, the self-congratulations about how great everything is as a justification for an astronomical increase, may not be agreed to by the majority of British Columbians, who either are not sharing in this golden decade or are living in poverty or are homeless under the guidance of this government's policies.

One-half of single mothers live in poverty in B.C. today. If you ask those single mothers: "Does it sound reasonable for anyone to get 29 percent in one shot, to vote themselves a 29-percent increase, because they work hard…?" And we work hard. We do.

I have worked hard before. I've worked 12-hour shifts for many years. I've worked night shifts. I've worked in the Arctic. I've been hurt on the job. I've worked hard before, and I've never received a 29-percent pay increase. I've never expected a 29-percent pay increase. I've never conceived of a 29-percent pay increase.

Parallel to that, a 54-percent increase is way, way out there. It is a fantasyland idea, a land of milk and honey. "Let them eat cake." If the members of this House make the terribly flawed decision to vote themselves this kind of largesse, the public will notice. They won't forget.

The Leader of the Opposition has put this, earlier today, much more eloquently than I ever will. The Leader of the Opposition reflects the premise of social justice that most people in this province agree with — that for us to vote in 29 percent or 54 percent for the Premier, while the great disparities that I've referred to are occurring in this province, is wrong. Those that vote in favour of that wrongness, I think, should be ashamed of themselves. With that, I shall sit down.

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to stand in my place and speak about Bill 37, the legislation brought forward by the government today for the purposes of putting in place a pension and pay raise for MLAs — a pay raise that will be 29 percent for MLAs, upwards of 54 percent for the Premier and amounts in between that for ministers and others.

We've heard it from other members, and we've heard it previously from members across the way who talk about MLAs, when they deal with their own pay — that it's a difficult decision and a difficult challenge to do that. That's true. That's true that it is difficult, but I think it's particularly difficult when you are proposing a number that simply does not have public support and a number that the public cannot comprehend as being reasonable in the context of where everybody else in our society is at the time.

The reality of it is that people aren't getting 29-percent pay raises. People aren't getting 54-percent pay raises. That's the biggest difficulty here. The difficulty is that this particular proposal for a 29-percent raise is absolutely inconsistent with what people across British Columbia are seeing and certainly is absolutely inconsistent with what people in my constituency of Vancouver-Hastings are seeing.

The government, in defending this decision, talks about the independent commission that brought these proposals forward. I want to acknowledge the independent commission. It was a commission comprised of three people who are all honourable people, who worked hard. We know from having read their report that they spoke to a variety of people. They reviewed a variety of circumstances in order to come to the conclusions and decisions that they did. I understand that.

But the reality is — and it has been pointed out by other people who spoke previous to me in this Legislature — that because it's an independent panel, because it reports out, doesn't mean that we have an obligation to agree with the results of that report. We as the official opposition, as the NDP, don't agree with the findings of the commission as it relates to this pay package — the 29 percent for MLAs and 54 percent for the Premier.

I think this is one of the flaws, and this was a panel that was put in place by the Premier, by the government side. As I said, the three individuals who sat on that panel are all honourable people who did the work that they felt was right.

But the reality is — and it has been pointed out by a number of different interests around the province in discussing this issue — that they were three individuals who've been very successful in their own personal lives. They have been in professions and careers that allowed them to make very significant pay packages — pay packages that are greater than what we're talking about here, pay packages that are in the six figures easily and well into the six figures in some cases.

I don't begrudge them that at all. They worked hard. They were career professionals. That's what they accomplished.

The problem, though, is that that doesn't reflect the people of British Columbia. The majority of the people in British Columbia aren't in that place. I think a flaw in the commission…. It's not the commissioners. It was certainly not their flaw. They were asked to take on a task. They took on the task, and they're doing the job. The flaw in it was the composition, which did not ensure that the makeup of that commission more fairly reflected the face of British Columbia in terms of wage earners, in terms of a variety of people who reflected

the different demographic of this province and certainly the different demographic in terms of people who earn a salary in this province.

I think it's a big problem that this was in fact the case. As a result of that, I believe there was a greater comfort level to some degree to be talking about these kinds of increases of 29 percent. It's an increase that frankly isn't acceptable to the people of British Columbia. It's too much. It's just simply too much.

While the commission worked very hard at their job — and I think they were very sincere in their efforts — I believe they simply missed the mark on the pay package. Unfortunately, the government isn't prepared to acknowledge that, isn't prepared to recognize that the commission missed the mark and weren't prepared to introduce in this Legislature a piece of legislation that would have more fairly reflected the expectations of British Columbians of their elected representatives.

That was the government's choice, and it was the Premier's choice, to not do that. So we live today with Bill 37 — a 29-percent increase for MLAs and a 54-percent increase for the Premier. When we look at that, when we talk about the work of that committee, we have to talk about why 29 percent doesn't work. What's wrong with 29 percent?

One of the problems with it, other than just the size of that number in comparison to the kinds of pay increases that British Columbians have been getting for a number of years and certainly the kinds of increases that this government negotiated with public sector workers….

Part of the problem is that the comparisons are wrong. The commission looked at a number of comparisons, and we've had people talk about comparisons with managers — the MLAs versus senior-level managers, and what they would be paid; MLAs versus private sector professionals.

When you look at those numbers, you begin to look at numbers that say…. That number, the $98,000, doesn't look that big in comparison to what some of those folks make. But the reality is that we aren't middle managers. We are elected representatives of the people of British Columbia. We have a very different and unique role. We're not employees; we're the people's representatives in this place. Our job is to represent their interests and to reflect their interests.

The reality of that, I believe, is that you need to reflect the people who sent you here. We don't come in here on our own. We all work hard to get here, and many of us will work hard to stay here. But the reality is this. We come here to represent the people who sent us here — for me, the people of Vancouver-Hastings; the 60,000-odd people in Vancouver-Hastings who sent me here.

If I want to reflect the people who sent me here, I need to look at their circumstances. Of course, it's different for every member of this Legislature who represents a different part of the community, but the reality is that you have to look at who you represent. When I look at my constituency, the people of Vancouver-Hastings, and I see this increase, the $22,000 or so between what I get paid today and what this bill would do in terms of increasing my paycheque….

That $22,000 in reality is more money than an awful lot of people, an awful lot of families, in Vancouver-Hastings make. The difference is more money than many, if not most, of those people would make. I have to acknowledge that. I have to recognize that. They're not alone. Vancouver-Hastings is not a unique constituency.

When I see people who come into my office, who have severe challenges around mental health issues, severe challenges around meeting housing needs, severe challenges around just keeping their lives together for their families…. It becomes very challenging to say that I can, in good conscience, take this money and continue to reflect and represent their interests, because it's too much. It is too much, and it's absolutely inconsistent with what the people of British Columbia expect of us here.

When I look at my constituency and at what the people there expect…. I certainly have had lots of time to talk with them over the last couple of weeks since the commission brought in its report. I heard from people that it's not a question of whether a fair increase would be a reasonable thing to do. It's not a question of whether there should be recognition of what MLAs are valued at. But certainly to a person, they told me that 29 percent was too much. They told me that 54 percent was too much.

I don't believe that's a view that is unique to Vancouver-Hastings. I believe that's a view that is shared by British Columbians across this province and by British Columbians who all believe that for us to do this puts us in a whole different place than the people that we're supposed to represent. If there's one thing we can't do, if there's one rule we shouldn't breach, it's to put ourselves completely out of sync and out of step with the people that we're supposed to represent.

We have an obligation to represent them. We have an obligation to understand their issues. I believe that when we look at this kind of pay increase — 29 percent for MLAs and 54 percent for the Premier — we are in fact creating that divide in a way that isn't good for the job that we need to do in this place.

The amount of the pay raise is one issue. The House Leader, in introducing this piece of legislation, spoke about members who went and talked to the commissioners when they were here. I certainly know that a number of people did that, and I went and spoke to the commissioners.

One of the things I told the commissioners when I spoke to them was my belief that it is a difficult situation for members of the Legislature to in fact vote themselves a pay raise. I did urge the commissioners that whatever increases they plan to bring in, they should in fact bring it in for the next Legislature, for May of 2009. It would be in place for the next parliament and for the people who would be here in the next parliament. Whatever increases would be there would be there for them.

You know, when I got elected in 2005 — when I decided to run and to do this thing — I took a look at

what the pay package looked like, at the RRSP and at what the benefits and things were. I read all of that before I ran for office in this place. I pretty much knew what I was getting into, what the compensation would be and that I wasn't coming to this job for the money.

I also knew that it was a fair compensation package — $75,000 to $76,000 or whatever it was at the time that we got here in 2005. I had no expectations, not a single expectation, that that package would change between the time I was elected in 2005 and the time that my term ends in 2009.

If in fact I were to get a pay raise, I would reasonably expect that pay raise to be put in place after 2009. I would at that point know that when I ran in 2009 — if I were fortunate enough to be selected again by the people of Vancouver-Hastings to represent that constituency — I might have a somewhat different package. That would be clear to me and to the people who were voting for me, and they would know that's what the package looked like.

I don't think that any of us who came to this place in 2005, whether it was those of us who came new or those who were returning, should have had any expectation at all that we were going to see an increase in the amount of money we were paid in our compensation during the period of this term from 2005 to 2009.

I think it was unfortunate that the commission chose not to accept that recommendation and that consideration. I know there are a number of members who made that suggestion to the commission — that they introduce that benefit, any compensation increases, for after the election in May of 2009. But I understand that the commission chose a different direction and chose what we're seeing reflected in this report.

I have a problem, for two reasons, in supporting this piece of legislation. First of all, as I said before, it is too much. Twenty-nine percent is just absolutely out of sync with British Columbians. It certainly is out of sync with what the people who sent me to this place expect, and I do respect their concerns. I believe they're legitimate concerns, and I will respect those in my vote on this matter.

Secondly, I do believe that you don't vote yourself a pay raise. It is a reasonable thing to say it will be put in place for the next parliament. That was something that should have been done. It's something that the decision was made not to do. It's something that clearly the government side has chosen not to do.

There is a second piece to this, and I'll reference it briefly. Of course, that is the pension. I will tell you that I support defined-benefit pensions. I believe we should work in this place to ensure that as many British Columbians as possible have defined-benefit pensions. A number of years ago when the shift went to RRSPs, there was a whole lot of spin, I believe, put in much of that debate to tell British Columbians that they could do better than the professional pension managers. They could do better if they had an RRSP and invested it themselves, and they would make pots full of money and have an even more secure future for themselves.

Well, in most cases, unless you have an awful lot of money, that's simply not true. Defined-benefit pensions provide security for those people who are fortunate enough to have them. If there's a concern, it should be that not enough British Columbians have a defined-benefit pension. That's the concern that we should have and that we should be looking to support a shift on.

Quite honestly, MLAs should have a defined-benefit pension too. This is a very good pension plan. I don't know whether it's gold-plated or whether it's silver or what it is. It is a very good pension plan. It's a pretty rich pension plan. It is the one that is in front of us today.

It is a pension plan that I support in principle — the principle of pension plans. I support this pension plan, as it is the one that's in front of us at this time.

What to do? That's the question in front of us. The government, as we know…. While they on one hand spoke on and on about respecting the panel, the independent commission, and wanting to reflect the recommendations of the independent commission, they made the decision, of course, to create the opt-out clause — to try to put pressure on through an all-or-nothing, forever, opt-out clause.

Well, it's a bully tactic, but this is a government that is known for bully tactics. It's a government that practises the bully tactic at every turn. You simply have to ask local governments or others who deal with them on other matters. And they're putting forward the bully tactic on this.

I'm very proud that my leader and my party have said that they're not going to succumb to the bully tactics of the Liberal government. They're not going to succumb to the bully tactics of the Premier.

Instead, we are going to approach this in a way that is principled and focused. We're not going to opt out. We are not going to walk away from this in the way that some might expect. Instead, what we're going to do — what we've chosen to do — is take that difference, the paycheque-to-paycheque difference…. I'm proud to take that paycheque-to-paycheque difference in my constituency, and I will give that money and donate and contribute that money into my community.

I will contribute it in a way that hopefully will provide some support for people who live in Vancouver-Hastings. I look forward to being able to support some scholarships for some young people who could use that assistance or are working hard to build their futures. I'll look forward to the opportunity to contribute to those scholarships some of this pay raise that is too high.

There are a lot of vulnerable people in my constituency who are not receiving the support from this government that they need, people who are at risk and children who are at risk. I'm hoping that in some small way I can make some contributions with this money, which will help some of the organizations that provide support for those families and those young people at risk. If I can do that, I'll feel pretty good about that.

The reality of the situation is this. We have taken the position that the pay raise is too big. We have taken the position that the pay raise is absolutely inconsistent with the values and wishes of British Columbians —

that this government is inconsistent with the values and wishes of British Columbians. What this government is proposing in terms of this particular package is absolutely off the mark with the aspirations and the expectations of British Columbians of their elective representatives.

What we know is that people expect their representatives to reflect them to some degree, not to work for free. So $76,000 or $77,000 — that's not free. We're in that top echelon of people who collect a paycheque in this province. We're not hard done by in that sense. They don't expect us to work for free. They don't expect us to work for cheap. But they also don't expect us to fill our pockets when they are facing challenges as well.

Unfortunately, what Bill 37 proposes is exactly the opposite from that. It says yes, we have an entitlement. That may be the most disturbing thing about this piece of legislation. It reflects a government that believes it has an entitlement, a government that believes it deserves this.

It's to understand that we all come to this place and to the job that we have largely because we're selected to be here. We come here, as I've said before, to speak for those who are in our communities and those that we represent. Those who are in our communities don't see 29-percent raises and 54-percent raises.

I don't think there's anybody in Vancouver-Hastings who has got up one day and gone out and had their boss say: "Let me give you a 30-percent raise or a 50-percent raise." It's certainly not happening in my constituency. I know that.

I know that in my constituency, the people who are coming through my door aren't saying: "I want to complain because I only got 15 percent and not 30 percent today in a pay raise." They're coming through my door saying: "I don't know how I'll get to pay the rent. I don't have a place to live. I don't know how I'm going to eat."

Those are the people who we have to address first and foremost. Those are the folks that we need to do our work for. Until we're doing that work, we certainly shouldn't be talking about 29-percent pay raises for ourselves. That's not what we're here to do, and that's not the job that we've been given by the people of British Columbia who chose us to come to this place to represent their interests.

Hon. Speaker, this bill will pass, I'm sure, because the government has told us that it's a free vote. I'm afraid I'm a little skeptical about that. I must say I'm a little skeptical about the freedom of that vote. Maybe my skepticism about the freedom of the vote is reflected by what I'm sure is the freedom of the House debate strategy on this issue adopted by the government, which is apparent to all of us who are in this place. That seems pretty free too.

I don't think it's a free vote on that side. I think it's pretty clear that the whip has come down on that side in terms of what is going to occur. The government is going to pass this bill. They'll do that.

We will give away the pay raise. We will give away that difference in the pay raise between today's paycheque and whatever that paycheque will be after this is all said and done. We will go to the people of British Columbia, and we will talk about values. We will talk about expectations, and we will talk to them about who best reflects their values and expectations.

As I believe the Premier said in a question period a day or two ago…. He talked about going to the voters in 2009 and being happy to have people weigh the two choices that they will have in May of 2009. I say to the Premier, and I say to the members of the government, that I'll be very happy to do that in 2009 as well.

We'll have that discussion about who reflects values, who best represents the interest of British Columbians and whether 29 percent or 54 percent is the right dollar figure or whether, in fact, this government should have done the right thing. The right thing was to bring in a fair and balanced increase, to have brought in something that reflected what British Columbians everywhere else outside of this place are experiencing.

But the government has chosen, for their own reasons, not to do that. The government has decided that they are entitled and that it's okay for the Premier to get $64,000 more than he makes today — that's okay. It's okay to do that.

Well, ultimately, the Premier was right about one thing the other day in question period. He will be accountable. His government will be accountable for that, come 2009. We'll see what the people of British Columbia decide. They ultimately will be the arbiters of whether this was responsible, whether it was accountable and whether it actually reflects the spirit of British Columbia. I don't believe it does.

M. Sather: It gives me pleasure to rise in the House today and to speak to Bill 37, a bill that our House Leader has characterized as a cynical bill, and I agree with that. This is a cynical bill by a cynical government. They need to be held to account for that, and that's what we're here to do.

It's clear to me that this government, these members, are completely out of touch with regular folks in British Columbia. They have no idea whatsoever about what the average person thinks in British Columbia about pay hikes of this magnitude for members of the Legislative Assembly. But I'm expecting that they're starting to learn a bit about what the people of British Columbia think about this.

I understand that the Premier's office closed down as a result of responses from the public. I'm not surprised if that's the case, because I know that people are unhappy. It's not hard to figure it out. Just go and talk to them.

I'm not sure, however, that the Premier himself actually talks to regular people in British Columbia. I know that he doesn't when he comes to my community. I don't know if it's like that in other communities, but when he comes to my community there's no notice that he's coming. It's an invitation-only event, and then he disappears in the night. If he does get to speak to regular British Columbians, it must be on an unusual occasion, and he's not listening. Clearly, he's not listening to what those people are saying to him.

We got the compensation package. We got the report from the commission that came down, not that long ago. I live in a 35-year-old subdivision — a beautiful place. It's got lots of greenery and lots of space. It's a lovely place to live. They're not rich folks there. They're regular folks, regular working people.

When I came back to my community, into my neighbourhood, one of my neighbours says to me first thing: "I hope you're not taking that 29-percent pay increase." He's not an outspoken man. He was not over the top in his presentation, but I could see the anger on his face. I could see it. It was palpable; it was clear.

He said, "I know that you work hard" — and I fully acknowledge that my colleagues on both sides of the House work very hard; that's not the question here. He said: "I know you work hard, but 29 percent? I cannot buy that."

That epitomizes what the average person in British Columbia thinks about a wage increase of 29 percent for MLAs. They can't fathom it. They can't understand it. He said to me that the working guy is lucky if he gets 3 percent — 3 percent, Mr. Speaker. He is a working guy — works in construction. I'm sure he does all right when he's working, but there are times when he's not working. There are layoff periods, there are slack periods, and that's the reality. That's the kind of reality for regular folks in this province.

People in my community and in other communities around the lower mainland in the suburbs are not particularly predisposed to feeling kindly towards MLAs raising their pay by a whole whack, because they get up early, early, early to go to work. They have to. They're on the road in droves at five in the morning, or before five in the morning regularly to get to work, because of where we live. They have a long day, and it's the same thing or worse coming home. They have a long, long day. They know about working hard. They know about long hours.

They don't say to me: "You don't work; you're lazy." They don't say that. Most of them that know me know I work hard, and as I say, other members do too. They can't understand why I would deserve a 29-percent pay increase. They can't fathom it. They can't understand, I'm sure, why this government thinks that it's okay to give themselves a 29-percent pay increase and a whole lot more for the Premier, 54 percent — a whopping 54 percent increase for the Premier of this province, who is out of touch. He's completely out of touch with the people of this province.

I'm sure the Premier is thinking: "Oh, people will forget. People have short memories. It doesn't matter that much. We can get over this. It will be all right in the long run." I don't know if that's right or not, but if it's right, if that part is correct, it doesn't make the choice any more ethical or any more morally right.

I would ask any of the members opposite to stand up and say their piece. What do they think about this bill? What do they think about the 29-percent pay increase? I'm waiting to hear. We've heard the House Leader for the opposition, but we haven't heard any other members speak on this. I am hoping they will get up. I'm hoping they will all get up and tell us and the people of British Columbia what they think — how hard they work and how they deserve to get that 29 percent and the Premier to get that 54 percent. They should have the courage to get up in this House and tell the people why they deserve it. Let the people of British Columbia judge whether or not they deserve it.

There was a poll that came out in The Maple Ridge Times today, and the people were asked: do you agree with the 29-percent pay raise for MLAs? Over 90 percent said no. Over 90 percent said they do not agree with a 29-percent increase for MLAs. But I guess they're just a bunch of cranks out there, and maybe the members opposite feel they don't represent real British Columbians, or maybe they don't represent the British Columbians that this government talks to. Maybe this government feels that they're an elite, feels that being in the top 7 percent of wage earners — which we are currently — is not enough, so kaboom, it's suddenly 25 percent and 54 percent for the Premier of this province.

The reality is that there are a whole lot of people out there that have suffered under this government. I think of the hospital employee workers. When I worked at Burnaby Mental Health at Burnaby General Hospital, I remember the difficulty, the trouble and the misery that they got from this government. I was there. I walked the picket lines with those people. It was mean. It was nothing but cruel.

You had to see it: "You get a 15-percent decrease. You're a toilet cleaner; you get a 15-percent decrease." Nasty — beyond nasty. That is for the people who are doing the work that most of us wouldn't have the intestinal fortitude to do. To be treated like that by this government and to be told they're not of value. They're of so little value, in fact, that we're going to knock their wages back 15 percent.

I remember when that came down. This government and this Premier said: "You know what? It's not enough that you're going to lose 15 percent of your wage. We're going to make your cutback retroactive." Retroactive. It was beyond the pale, and even this government couldn't take the outrage that resulted from that little manoeuvre, so eventually they pulled that one off the table. But that epitomizes, unfortunately, the mean-spiritedness of this government.

People haven't forgotten. Now when they see a government that's going to feather their nest to the tune of a 29-percent increase, they wonder: have they really become a kinder, gentler government? Has the Premier really changed? It doesn't seem so.

This is the other side of the coin; this is the other side of the cutback. This is the other side of, as my neighbour said, the "3 percent if you're lucky" that the working man or woman is lucky to get. We see the two extremes. We see that those who do the jobs that other people would find very difficult to do…. The hospital

workers — the jobs they do are very difficult to do, and we don't honour that. This government doesn't honour that.

I remember, at the time when that happened, talking to one of those health care workers, a cleaner. She told me she was a single mother, had two young teenagers. She said that she came to clean up after I was finished work. We had a pretty large office, maybe 20 offices or so. At the other end of the building, in the other wing, there was the same number.

I didn't see anybody else helping her out. I said: "Are you going to be able to finish this on your shift?" She said: "Oh yes, I can do this." I said: "Okay, that's good. How long is your shift?" "Four hours." Four hours — okay. She said: "Yes, before the cutback I was working at UBC Hospital. I had an eight-hour shift, and I could go there and work the eight hours. But now I work four hours at ten bucks an hour at UBC Hospital. Then I come over here to Burnaby General, and I work my four hours here."

I said: "Oh, that's difficult." She said: "Yes, and after I'm finished your wing, I'll go and do the other side." I said: "Wow, that's going to be a lot of work for you to do." She was just accepting; in one way, really hurt but accepting that this was what was laid upon her to do by this government.

What really floored me, though, was that she said: "Yeah, but after that I'll finish the cancer ward." The cancer ward. Three…. It was an impossible workload that she was being given to do at ten bucks an hour — $9.90 or something, I think it was — and with a ward where we have to be sure that people are able to do a great job — not just a good job but a great job, because we have to have the cleanliness. It's essential in places like our hospitals.

Instead, the government has privatized and not only hurt the workers but hurt a whole lot of other British Columbians in the process. So I think that while this government should get up in this House and talk about this bill, they should also go out and talk to some of those people and ask them what they think about the 29-percent and 54-percent increases. I think they will get an earful, because many of those people haven't forgotten that. I talk to them these days, and they're saying the same thing.

In question period today the Minister of State for Childcare gets up in the House and tells us on and on how happy she is to speak, and how she ignores the cutbacks that happened in child care this spring — with a government that has a large surplus. But they turn their backs on those workers. The minister can say what she wants. I know what's happening in my community.

I know that my child care resource and referral centre is managing to stay open. I know that people were laid off. I know how good those people were. I know that the hours have been reduced. I know how my community depends on that centre.

They had an open house a few weeks ago. It wasn't a protest. It was an open house, and 500 people showed up — 500. They were concerned parents of my community, regular working folks. They know the benefits that centre was providing to them, and this government turned its back on that. For what? I can't understand it.

It wasn't for the money. It wasn't that they didn't have the money. They have the money now, obviously, to give themselves a raise. It wasn't about the money. What was it about? It boggles the mind. It boggles my mind to figure what it was about, but I can only think that it has to do with the government's philosophy.

The philosophy seems to be that child care centres — the people that take on the job, whether it's in their home or in a licence-not-required centre or in a licensed facility…. I've gone and visited those people and seen the great work that they do. They're disheartened that this government would turn its back on them and would make their work harder.

Talk about working hard. Go talk to some of those people that run those day care centres. They're up and going at seven o'clock in the morning or earlier, and they're still going at five o'clock. They don't have anybody to spell them off. This is full-time, full-on work. This is hard work. And they do a great job.

The parents in my community know they do a great job, and they're willing to pay. They want to see their government support them in that needed work. But what they see instead is the government saying, "No. No, you don't deserve full support, but we do. Guess what — we do. We deserve a 29-percent pay increase. Our leader deserves a 54-percent pay increase," and on it goes.

We look at the report and what the Government House Leader said about how the government's mantra these days is how they don't interfere. They don't interfere in this, don't interfere in that. Now they're not interfering in the report that came out. But that's not true. That has been laid out here in this House.

They picked and chose what they wanted out of that report. You know, there was no opt-in/opt-out clause. That was a political move on the part of the government to try to make us look bad, I guess, but in my estimation, it wasn't a good move.

I'm glad to have this opportunity to stand up and tell this government that it wasn't a good move. It was not only not a good move for the government to take the 29 percent and 54 percent, but it wasn't a good political move to try to force the opposition to accept their proposal. But I'm sure the members here are taking this all in, and hopefully, they will be responding. I know they're listening carefully to what's happening here in the House today.

Let's look at this. So 98,000 bucks is what the increase would amount to. The average annual wage in this province is $36,600, so we're talking about over 2½ times the average wage. I don't think that anybody in this province — or most people, anyway — begrudges MLAs a good wage, but the fact of the matter is that we do get a good wage now. I think it's a reasonable wage. Certainly, if there was going to be an increase, it needed to be one that is acceptable to British Columbi-

ans. I don't know what the government is hearing, but I don't know how they could be hearing things differently. They are saying to me that this rate of increase is not acceptable.

Some $64,000 more for the Premier. Whoa — good money if you can get it, but that's not what the people of this province expect. They don't expect the leader of this province to get on the gravy train in that fashion. They really don't. That's not leadership.

The members opposite stand up in this House, not uncommonly, and talk about what great leadership the Premier shows. Well, is this an example of great leadership by the Premier? I don't think so. I know that the members opposite — some of them, most of them — have been here for a while. I guess it starts to wear on you after a while, and you start to think that you're entitled to being in the stratosphere in terms of remuneration. That's the danger, I think, for all of us in this House. It's not difficult, I suppose, to get out of touch.

The only thing that I can say to the Premier and to members opposite is: do go out there and talk to people. Do go out there, Members, and talk to regular folks. Find out what they're saying. Find out what their experiences are. Find out if they can anticipate the possibility in their remotest dreams of getting a 29-percent increase. Ask them about it, Members.

It's the whole backdrop of this government's modus operandi, their operations and their history that makes this particularly galling for people. Amongst all provinces in this country, ours has the widest gap between the haves and the have-nots. That's a significant factor. This is moving more in that direction again. It's polarization of those that are doing very, very well and those that are struggling to get by at best.

We know that, as I mentioned before, the average annual wage is $36,600. What about families? You look at lone-parent families in Richmond — $31,700. You know, that's where you have to really watch your spending at that rate. You don't have any chance for frills.

We can tell ourselves how entitled we are, that we suffer. It's true that there are stresses in this job. I wouldn't deny that in the least. It can be difficult for families. But this is not the only job. Try being a long-haul truck driver. You're on the road all the time. Anytime you're working, you're on the road, and you're away from your family.

We're not alone in having difficult jobs. We are remunerated well. This is the money that we got when we took the job. I wasn't expecting a wage increase, at least not in this term. You know, if the government had said, "We should get a 29-percent increase, but we're not going to take it now when people have no opportunity to make their voices heard around this; we're going to wait until after the election and then we'll run on that," that would have been fair. That would have been honest. It might even have been considered to be reasonable.

Give the people a chance to vote, to speak on what they think about our 29-percent increase. But, no, that's not what happened. I don't know what the government members expected when they were elected in 2005, but I know I didn't expect to get a wage increase unless I was re-elected, and then I thought there might be a modest increase. I hadn't really thought about it, but I certainly wasn't expecting a 29-percent increase after two years on the job.

That's the reality. We've got the highest poverty rate in Canada — the highest poverty rate in Canada again in British Columbia. What about those people, Madam Speaker? How do you think they feel? Those people that are there, that are living in poverty, those children and their families that are living in poverty: can they relate? Can they? Or is it that they don't matter? Is it that they don't matter to this government?

I'm sure that the members opposite, as I say, will want to respond to what we've said. I'm sure that all these members have their own viewpoint on this. I can't imagine that they're going to sit here in this whole debate and not get up and say anything and not have the courage to do so. We'll find out. We'll find out in the course of the debate. As I said, I'm glad that at least the members are listening. That's important.

The greatest number of families living in poverty in Canada — of course, because with child poverty comes family poverty. The children aren't alone. If they're poor, their parents are poor. How can we just brush that off? We bring this up to the government all the time, about the highest poverty rate in Canada amongst children. They'll spew out a bunch of figures from the '90s, and then they'll spew out some more figures, but do they really care?

People want to know that they care. This doesn't show that this government cares. It's like: "Oh well, you know, it might be tough for you, but hey, I'm doing all right, Jack." It's not an attitude that goes down well with people in this province.

Also, we have the highest poverty rate amongst seniors. There's another group that really knew, over the course of this government — and still knows today, as I talk to them — what this government has done to them. Government can talk again, and they'll spew out figures, but you have to talk to the real people to know how they think.

They weren't happy about the cuts to their Pharmacare. They didn't like it at all. They didn't like the many different ways that this government has treated them. They told me that repeatedly in the run-up to this election and the last election, and they still tell me that when I meet with them. They haven't forgotten. These are people that have long memories.

I would hope that this government is not so cynical that they're looking at recent poll results. We know that the government is leading in the polls right now. I hope they're not so cynical that they're looking at those poll results and thinking: "Well, you know, people might get a little bit cranky, but they'll forget. We've got a cushion. What the heck, it's not a problem in the long run, because the only thing is getting re-elected in the next election in 2009."

I'm hoping that the government is not taking such a cynical approach, but I'm doubtful in fact that they

aren't. I'm doubtful that they aren't. Once again, Madam Speaker, I know that the members opposite are listening to this debate here in the House today, and that at least is a good thing.

One-half of single mothers live in poverty in B.C. today. One half of those people are living in poverty. Single mothers who are struggling to pay the bills, struggling to keep their families together and struggling to make ends meet. How are they going to see a 29-percent increase? Go out, Members, and talk to them. Go out and ask them what they think about a 29-percent increase for members of the Legislative Assembly.

I know the members opposite, as I said before, think that the Premier is a great leader. Well, go out and talk to them. Test it. Do they think the Premier's that great a leader that he should get a 54-percent increase? Check it out. I find it hard to believe that they would, and I know they don't.

The poverty among lone mothers rose 15.8 percent between 2000 and 2004, and in Vancouver it rose a staggering 24 percent. That's not a statistic to be proud of, especially in an economy that is doing relatively well. How can this government turn their backs on those people in such a cynical manner? How can they do that? We have to wonder again about how much in touch or out of touch this government is with reality and how much they really care. Do they care? Does everyone matter to this government? I don't think they do. We see that over and over again.

They froze the minimum wage in 2001, and the opposition proposed — it's a booming economy — an increase to $10 an hour. Don't see any uptake on that from this government. As I say, they are listening carefully, so I'm hoping they will reconsider and will say that there are people — we know, and the stats show — in want, in great want. The poverty rate is high amongst a considerable segment of people in our province.

I'm sure they're going to reconsider. They're going to reconsider and say that those people need a lift too. We're getting a 29-percent increase. Can't we give them an increase? But no. They froze the minimum wage in 2001, and they did worse than that. Talking about wages, they knocked the wage backward — backward — to six bucks an hour. Six dollars an hour is what they knocked it back to.

People look at that and say: "Is this a government that deserves a raise? Is this a government that deserves an increase of 29 percent?" The minimum wage in this province means living on an annual income that's at least $4,000 below the poverty line for a single person — $4,000 below the poverty line for a single person. You can't make a living on that. You can't get by on that. You need to have more than that, and I'm hoping that this government will reconsider.

D. Routley: I'm going to spend my time talking about a number of subjects. First, arrogance, hypocrisy, cynicism: the history of this government, this bill and the notions they put forward. Then I'd like to move to the legacy: the poverty, the lack of vision and the total vacancy of principle of this government. Then finally, I'd like to move to the expectations of the people who brought us here, who elected us, the demands that they will make of us, the demands that they will make of this government and the duty that we all have to be responsive to the people of British Columbia. That's what I would like to spend my time talking about.

When we came here to this place two years ago, almost to the day, all of us understood what the package was, and so did our voters. They elected us understanding how much we would be paid — at least those who care. They elected us understanding that we had made a solemn oath to serve them on the terms we were elected upon. They understood that we swore in this chamber our oath to them, that we would be true to the principles that they expect sent us here.

What's been answered is arrogance, arrogance in policy that has ignored the plight of British Columbians despite the many pleas, despite all of the activists of this province who organized to protect the women, to protect the environment, to protect the poor of this province. All their pleas for assistance have fallen upon deaf ears, a government deafened by an ideological purity.

It's quite sad for a province as proud as British Columbia that has had this equitable approach to policy, an equitable approach to the way we manage our resources, the way we invest in our children. All of these things are not simply social programs. They're not gifts to people. They're investments in our economy, in our prosperity and in the health of our communities. All of those things have come under attack from this government. All of those things systematically, one by one, have become targets of this government.

We've seen seniors targeted. We've seen women targeted, families, public education, public health — all of the things that are foundation stones for the success of our communities and, in fact, for the success of our business community.

All of our business community should be concerned when they see public education eroded, when they see child poverty rates soar, when they see families living in poverty. How can this be good for them? They know very well that it's not.

When a business looks for a location, they don't seek out an area dominated by poverty. So much of British Columbia is becoming just that — dominated by poverty. We have become the poorest province for those who suffer on the lower end. The gaps are bigger in B.C. than in any part of this country.

We lead this country in child poverty. That's atrocious. One out of four children in this province lives in poverty — well above the national rate of under 18 percent. How can this be? How can this be while a government boasts a boom and a surplus?

These are questions that need answering. These are questions that all need answering before we ever answer the question that this bill brings to us.

How can we live in a province where homelessness is doubling and tripling in our cities and our rural communities alike? How can we see our resource

industries suffer and dwindle? How can we not answer those questions before this question is put before us?

How can people die in our streets in such numbers? How can people who are worked beyond fatigue in our woods because of policies of this government, who are dying at work, who are becoming permanently disabled at work in record numbers…? How can this be happening? How can this question be brought to this House when those questions haven't been answered?

It makes me sad. It's such a partisan place, but when it comes right down to it, every one of us represents approximately 60,000 British Columbians of all stripes. We owe to those people our allegiance, a true commitment to principle. All of that is dashed against a rock of cynicism by this government's actions time and time again in a province where we see this great dichotomy — a made-in-North-America housing boom that this government's policies have coupled with a made-in-B.C. poverty boom.

Answer me this, Madam Speaker. No one on the other side seems prepared or able to answer these questions, yet they put this cynical question before me. They ask me if I would endorse this raise — 29 percent — in the face of a government with a history of tearing up contracts, reducing people's circumstance — a government whose legacy is to take pensions from people, take benefits from people, cut the wages of ordinary British Columbians.

Remember those 60,000 people that we represent? Remember them? If over 90 percent of them tell us we're wrong, can't we hear them? Can't the government hear them?

Can't we appeal to the members who might be on the other side and who might be in the House to listen to the people of British Columbia? They are telling us all that this is wrong. They were asked by this government — which created the myth of a deficit when it came to power, and it built upon that myth the excuse to take from the most vulnerable, to place people in jeopardy, to place children in jeopardy — to endorse such policies, and a mere few years later, it turns to the purse to line its pockets.

We won't stand by for this. We will vote no, and we will continue to fight for pensions, for disability coverage, for adequate raises and incomes for all the people of British Columbia.

That's what we have always fought for on this side of the House. We have fought for equity. That side of the House has set about dismantling every mechanism that has allowed British Columbia to be equitable, to offer to each of its citizens, each of those children in public education an equal place at the starting line. This government has placed so many of them ten steps back from that starting line.

That, to me, is the height of cynicism. It goes beyond words. It goes beyond any simple description we could bring to this place, because those are just words, just as the throne speeches were just words and the budgets were just words.

What needs to come to the floor of this House are the circumstances and the experiences of ordinary British Columbians, those we are meant to represent — those who are dismayed, those who are disillusioned and made cynical by steps like this and by notions from a government that thinks it can have such a hammer over people's lives and then turn around and reward itself. It's entirely too sad.

The poverty in British Columbia, the highest poverty rate in Canada at 20.1 percent sort of flies in the face of this boom mentality and the boosterism that we hear from the other side. It's jingoism. "As long as we repeat it often enough and loud enough, maybe even as long as the trains are running on time, no one will mind." Well, we do mind in British Columbia. We're affronted by the weak being put upon by a government that acts in hypocrisy, cynicism and without truth.

Until 2001 the poverty rate in B.C. had dropped faster and further than the national rate, but things changed in 2001 when this government came to power. Suddenly, single-parent families slipped below the line. Suddenly, families fell below the line more and more and more, until we see such a deplorable state that seniors should be the fastest-growing group amongst the homeless. This is a boom? That we should see one in four of our children living in poverty — this is a boom?

These are problems that shouldn't be answered before this bill is brought to question me? No, not while one-half of the single mothers in British Columbia live in poverty. Not while ordinary workers earning minimum wage have gone years and years without an increase. One out of every 20 workers in British Columbia earns the minimum wage. Some boom.

I wonder what they think as they watch us, prepared — at least those on that side of the House — to take 29 percent. I wonder what they think of their Premier taking for himself 53 percent, the architect of those policies that took and took from women, from families and from small communities and that abused our environment, decimated our forest lands and destroyed watersheds — destructive, abusive and hypocritical.

These are very strong words but none of them are strong enough to describe the history of this government.

This is a government who would take such an increase while the total annual income for a single person on welfare is now $7,320 and for a single mother with one child, $11,347. How must they feel? How must they feel while they watch this body propose to itself a 29-percent increase, multiple times greater — just the increase — than the annual income of a single mom with children living on assistance?

This betrays this government for what has been. It has targeted those who are most vulnerable. It has targeted the women, the poor, the families and the workers of British Columbia, has stripped the foundation stones that have supported equity and transferred to its friends massive tax breaks and benefits while taking from ordinary people.

Those ordinary people have great expectations. They have great expectations of themselves for their children but, most particularly, in this House, of us. They have expectations that have not been met for years, and now this slap to their face. Those who have been asked to do without, those who have been told that their struggle didn't matter enough to this government to be addressed — now they need to sit back, watch us debate this bill and watch this government bring this cynical question to the members of this House.

Activism brought most of the people on this side of the House to this place — activism borne out of the very cutbacks that this government had made. Those are the motivators that brought people to these desks on this side of the House. For us to watch this cynical question being brought to this House is an affront to all those we served, all those who worked to bring us here, all those who padded the sidewalks with their feet and leafleted homes to inform people about just how drastic and damaging policies of this government had been.

They worked, and now the question before me is a 29-percent increase. It galls me every bit as much as it galls them. It is an affront. It is contemptuous of what brought us here. We came here to serve. We understood the terms.

The unfortunate part is that a government that has a history of dishonouring agreements, of tearing up contracts and of ruining lives has chosen to do this — to break this contract with the electors who sent us here. It's all connected: the hypocrisy, the arrogance, the cuts, the tax breaks to the friends. All of those things are connected ultimately to this, and they all gain a symbolism through this. This is deceitful.

I implore the members on the other side to vote no to this bill. We have the notion of a free vote. Are the members free to listen to the debate? Are they free to offer their presence to this debate? I wonder. I wonder about the freedom of that vote, given what I've witnessed.

Mr. Speaker, I respect you; I respect this place. I must know that you would be as troubled as I would be to answer this question posed by this bill. I know that through your doors must come these same children who live in poverty. I know that through….

Mr. Speaker: Member. It's inappropriate to bring the Speaker into the debate.

D. Routley: I know that every member of this House has constituency offices through whose doors come those children and their parents that we are talking about, seeking help. I know that as a school trustee, I witnessed those parents of disabled children who had had their services cut wheeling through the doors of the board office, pleading with the board for help — help that couldn't be offered because of the policies of this government. Yet this bill puts before me a question of a 29-percent increase for the very same government that has taken these horrible and damaging steps.

After Mike Harris left government, it took two, three, four years for his legacy in education to appear. But you know what, Mr. Speaker? The last three cohort groups out of Ontario high schools have been dubbed Mike's children because of the cuts that he made and the decrease in the performance of those students. These are the legacies that these kinds of policies are leaving behind, while the government would choose to leave with the resources of B.C. — a government that has acted as bailiffs, a government that has auctioned off the assets of this province, its railway, its trees. These acts will not be forgotten, just as this bill and this choice will not be forgotten.

There are defining moments. This is one. This is a defining moment when this government will be characterized, when the label, the arrogance that is taken from this kind of a choice will come to symbolize all those other things that I've spoken about — all those other degradations to people's circumstance that have been brought by this government. These are the steps that the people of British Columbia will not forget and will not permit this government to forget.

The HEU contracts, rural schools, communities abandoned — these are the things that won't be forgotten. These are the things that will become symbolized by this day in this House. The loss of assets — B.C. Rail, B.C. Ferries.

We have a debt growing at double the inflation rate, and this government chooses to take a 29-percent increase. Our debt is growing at more than double the rate of inflation, and this government proposes a 53-percent increase for its Premier. It sounds like an Enron bonus.

It seems wrong to me. I know it seems wrong to the people I represent, because they tell me. Apparently, 90 percent of those polled in British Columbia are trying to tell the government — as I'm trying to tell them — that it's wrong, that it can't be accepted, that if it is, they won't forget.

Remember, they're saying they won't forget. I hope that the members on the other side will hear that and that at least some of them will take their Premier's offer to be free with their vote and vote no, save the people of British Columbia the pain of this debate, allow the people to have the issues that really matter to them and their children to come to this floor instead of this cynical distraction.

I know them. I see them come through my door every day. This raise alone is more than double what so many of them make as families. This I know to be wrong, and this I know to be true. And this makes me very sad, because I came here with a higher expectation. I think the people who sent me here and sent all of us here had a much higher expectation. I think that they will make a demand of us.

Maybe we should welcome this on this side of the House. We can donate the portion that we receive. We can address some of the deficits in our communities created by Liberal government policies. We can go out and address some of the inequities caused by the negligence of the government. Maybe I should welcome it, but I don't.

The people of British Columbia will remember that they chose this. The people of British Columbia will remember that. Mr. Speaker, 65 percent of people say it will be a vote-determining issue for them. I believe them. Apparently the other side doesn't.

I think this is an important issue, and these are watershed moments of choice. We can go one way, or we can go the other way. One way, we stay with the people. One way, we are arm-in-arm with the ordinary people of British Columbia.

The other way sets us further apart from them. In a province that has seen growing gaps, maybe that's what we should expect from the government. But 29 percent, 53 percent for the Premier, played off against income tax cuts for the most wealthy and service cuts for the rest of us — it's a very, very poor contrast.

Recent cuts. In the last few weeks, $170,000 was refused to keep three counsellors on at the Mary Manning sexual assault centre. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker?

I remember when this government threatened the reading books for seniors. I remember the outcry. It was just a trivial, notional, nominal…. But this government was mean enough to try. Do you know what? There was a big reaction and a demand made, and they had to back off.

The bully tactics have taken this government only so far. When finally the people of British Columbia speak up, they will be forced to listen. Those 65 percent of people who will remember this in the poll, those 90 percent of people who say this is wrong, they will remember, just as the HEU members will remember, just as those on welfare who have seen their incomes cut will remember, just as those who are served by the Ministry of Children and Family Development will remember the cuts to that ministry. They will remember. They can't help it, because they live it every day.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know if there's enough time in the world to say enough about this bill, but evidently I'm running out of it. This is a government that denied opposition status as one of its first acts. It cancelled the fall session. What would possess them? What possessed them was bad vision, a purity of ideology that paralyzed them, an arrogant sense of entitlement. Now I ask them as members, if they truly have a free vote, to finally listen, if not in here then to listen out there, and to vote no.

L. Mayencourt: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in question period I referred to the member from Port Coquitlam with an unparliamentary word, and I'd like to withdraw that now and apologize to you, sir, but most sincerely to the member.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, a week for members in their constituencies. I wish them all safe travels and a good week at home and to see them here in one week's time.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS
AND RANGE AND MINISTER
RESPONSIBLE FOR HOUSING
(continued)

D. Thorne: As agreed before lunch, I'm going to ask a few questions of the HPO office so they can leave — get home for the weekend.

One of the first things that I wanted to talk about was home warranty insurance satisfaction, the homeowner satisfaction survey that was done in '04. I just wanted to ask the minister about some of the results in that survey. I think there is a new survey out very soon — is there not? Yeah, so this information that I'm working with is obviously very old.

Some of the details in it to me don't really sum up…. The comments don't really sum up some of the details, that there is high satisfaction with the different categories — "How satisfied are you with the protection?" — and then the numbers on the next page, page 35, where they're looking at the types of protection and the satisfaction with that.

I think some of the numbers indicate that there is less than a lot of satisfaction with what's happening. I

would like to ask the minister about that and also about the data around the amount of money that is being spent by the average person in those years to repair leaky homes and those kinds of things.

I'm just wondering if the minister can tell me if he feels that we do have these problems under control now in British Columbia. Does the Homeowner Protection Office feel that this situation is under control?

Hon. R. Coleman: The homeowner insurance requirement under the Homeowner Protection Act is protecting homebuyers. The results of the independent research study of owners and homes with home warranty insurance indicated that 91 percent are satisfied with the construction of their homes and that 80 percent are satisfied with the protection provided by the home warranty insurance.

The results of an independent research body of owners and homes with home warranty insurance indicated about 4 percent of all people that have bought homes have actually filed a claim in the last number of years. This percentage is within industry norms.

No changes are planned to the home warranty insurance requirement at this time. The minimum coverage, which is the strongest in the country, is two years on labour and materials, five years on building envelope and ten years on the structure. B.C. is the only province to mandate third-party home warranty insurance on new homes constructed by licensed residential builders.

D. Thorne: I wonder if the minister could comment on the proposed changes, through the Limitation Act, on the HPO and the work that it does. What are your thoughts on that?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's a discussion paper on limitations. It's actually the Attorney General that will deal with that. Basically, it's a discussion on whether there should be some limitations on liability.

I think the last time government went through this type of exercise, nothing came out of it, because of the joint- and several-liability arguments and the legal…. Frankly, I think it's the trial lawyers and other people who were quite upset about the ability to limit some liabilities.

The work is being done as part of the modernization project. It's one of the pieces that we'll go through. It's a public consultation. We haven't formed any opinion on it one way or the other.

D. Thorne: Then I just want to comment. I'm assuming that the HPO will be putting some kind of a policy response to the Limitation Act revision paper that's on the website to give their opinions about the parts of the act that would apply to the Homeowner Protection Office.

I know that reading this Raising the Bar report put out by the HPO and reading the new bill that's before the House right now, Bill 34…. I think that it warrants comment by the HPO. Parts of it will have a tremendous impact on the industry, particularly consumers, but developers as well — all types of developers.

There's a lot of feeling out in the community. I've been reading through some of the responses — not in depth, but I've been reading through them. It's pretty clear that there are some comments being made about the fact that…. The Uniform Law Conference of Canada is being credited with saying certain things or at least backing certain things that are not necessarily…. They may be a little out of context. They may not be the case at all. Many, many people are concerned about the implications of the Limitation Act, and I think the HPO would be one of them, on behalf of the government of British Columbia or certainly the Ministry for Housing.

Hon. R. Coleman: This is an input process. The HPO board is giving input. They will do it like anybody else. They will do it in a public paper. They think that the reduction of the ultimate limitation period down from 30 years to ten years could probably create a more robust warranty industry for housing in B.C. Their opinions, the opinions of the public and organizations and everybody else will all have to be brought into this discussion also. Whether it ultimately finds its way into a piece of legislation in the House through the Attorney General's department is a long way down the road.

D. Thorne: I'm pleased to hear that we think it's a long way down the road. Just going back to the survey, I do look forward…. I'm not going to talk about it any more, because I think it is quite old. The satisfied numbers are much smaller than the ones that are only somewhat satisfied. Certainly back in '04 we had a problem with dissatisfaction or not complete satisfaction.

I think one of the reasons for that is the whole dispute resolution mechanism and the fact that the HPO does not have the authority to get involved in that, really. It's not legislated, as far as I know, that they have that mandate to get involved in disputes between warranty providers, builders and consumers. Certainly, if HPO doesn't have that mandate, I would think that nobody has that mandate.

Increasingly, we see that there is a need for more work in that direction. One has to wonder what the point of legislation is if somebody, the HPO, can't force builders and warranty providers to pay out on legitimate claims or at least settle what might be a legitimate claim. I know that the feedback often is: "Well then, you get into some kind of a process like ICBC, and we don't want to go there."

We may end up having to go there eventually, because I don't think that this crisis is necessarily over. We're starting to see a new crop of problems now with new construction. I know certainly we are in Coquitlam, which I can best speak about. I just wanted to put that on the table.

My next question is around the numbered site-specific shell and those kinds of companies. I am wondering: are we still allowing those kinds of companies to register as builders through the HPO in British Columbia? I thought that we weren't, to be perfectly

honest. But since my response the other day to the minister, to Bill 34 on second reading, I have heard from a couple of people by e-mail that I must have missed something, because they're saying that it's now obvious that we do still allow those companies. So either I misunderstood or they did, and I'd just like to get that clarified right now.

Hon. R. Coleman: There were some comments and questions, and I'll try to deal with them all.

First of all, FICOM, which is the financial management people in British Columbia, and the Insurance Council regulate warranty providers. Warranty providers are insurance companies. They're no different than a life insurance company, ICBC, the person you buy your homeowners insurance from or whatever the case may be.

Government does not step into those disputes. We don't step into disputes on housing either. We don't expect that HPO would have a formal role in that, because it is the role of the insurance company to deal with its claims with its clients. So the insurance is on the home.

Now, with regards to the other, today companies must have a director that's a nominee, a person who is actually a live person we can identify when they get their licence to build in B.C. The new act that's before the House, which depending on how debates go next week will either come into force or not…. If we don't get there, we lose the bill. That one actually calls on everyone that's attached to or in control of the company, with the company…. They have to be also disclosed and put on the licence.

The insurance is with the consumer. HPO has on occasion performed an informal role if there is a concern about how a particular insurance company is operating. But today I think our insurance providers pretty much are pretty good operators and are well-respected within the industry for the insurance they're providing.

D. Thorne: One hears rumours — I guess that's all it is — that we have trouble with some of the warranty providers, that there are financial problems. I know that's not something, even if I asked, that I probably could get an answer on anyway. I just wanted to say that there is worry out in the communities, and you are probably hearing it as well as myself.

People send me e-mails, I guess because I'm the Housing critic. I don't even know, sometimes, who these people are, so I really don't know how true what they are saying is either. But I'm hearing quite a bit about that kind of thing, I guess because of the failure before of the industry. People are nervous. So that was why I asked that question.

Now back to the coverage. If we change from the two, five and ten…. I mean, I know there's nothing in the current bill to change from that, so I'm hoping that that won't change. But for instance, with the five-year, is building envelope failure in year six or major structural defects found in year 11…? Is it acceptable to come forward at that point in time? What does somebody do with those limitations on there?

Hon. R. Coleman: If they're discovered before the end of that insurance period, they have a claim. If not, then they have a civil action against the builder if they think it was something that was, quite frankly, not done properly.

The reason it's two, five and ten is because our experience is that the problems that would be discovered structurally would, probably 99.9 percent of the time, be found in the first ten years.

With regards to water egress, it's the same thing. That first five-year period is the critical period. I think our rain screen technology that we've changed and stuff is probably delineating that risk a bit.

On the actual comments about somebody saying that insurance isn't financially stable, I would suggest to the member that if there was a concern, they would make a complaint or call the Financial Institutions Commission, which is FICOM. FICOM actually ensures that insurers are financially sound, and so does the insurance industry itself.

I do know, having been the minister responsible for ICBC for a number of years, that we moved to make sure that there was a certain reserve in place for them to meet the same financial institution requirements for insurance that other insurers in Canada did. There are some fairly clear rules on what, if you're going to be in the insurance business, your financial liability has to be.

D. Thorne: I recognize that people can do civil action. For most people that becomes very expensive and, along with the cost of repairing their homes, they often can't do it — right?

I did have a couple of questions that I was going to ask on Bill 34. I'll skip that for now. I am actually just about finished with this area. I really didn't have very much. I'm looking forward to actually discussing the bill. The timing for estimates — right when we're discussing the bill…. I probably would have had more questions afterwards.

I do believe that there is a role for government in the dispute process. I really believe that we should be providing some arena for people who are having problems and who don't have the financial wherewithal to look after it themselves. I know it's branching out. It's a whole new field, but I don't see how it's any different than — speaking about ICBC — what we do at ICBC for consumers.

There are problems within strata councils around water egress and building envelopes, where they can't even agree. There's really no place for them to go for dispute resolution either, except getting into the legal system as well.

It becomes very, very costly for people at every level, whether they've been deemed a defective building or whether they're just trying to decide if they are, or even to look into the process. Once they even open up the idea that they might have a defective building, you know what happens to their property values. The tendency for people is to want to just get the heck out of there before anything happens. They just want to be

able to sell their place without having any of those issues on the table or reading in the strata council minutes.

It's a huge issue. As difficult as it is for renters, quite often one hopes that when you make the investment to buy a condominium or to actually buy a home, you're not going to be plagued with these kinds of problems forever.

Unfortunately, there have been a lot of people caught up in this. We can only hope, I guess, that those numbers are going to keep diminishing over the years, even with the huge upsurge now of renewed enthusiasm with the condo market, and that that's not going to bring another set of problems down the road.

Hon. R. Coleman: Just so the member knows, under the legislation there is a provision for mandatory mediation for warranty disputes. A person that has a home and doesn't think their insurance provider is meeting the…. They can actually ask for mandatory mediation, and the providers and the parties have the responsibility to get together.

It is not going to be the intention of this government to become the arbiter with regards to insurance claims. It doesn't matter what you call it; it's a warranty. The warranty specifies what's covered.

It's no different than a friend of mine who bought a van from a dealership — with regards to cars. It was secondhand. That warranty had expired, and the paint started to peel off the vehicle. He said: "You should repaint my vehicle." They said: "The warranty is expired. There is no warranty on paint beyond a certain period of time, and that's what you understood when you bought the vehicle."

It's the same thing when you buy a home warranty. The fact of the matter is, you are buying a warranty. It specifies what it is. But there is no question that since 1998-ish, sort of, there has been a huge improvement in the construction and the technology in building in B.C. It's an ongoing thing.

I always have to be cautious when I talk about this subject, simply because I do know all the things that affect whether a building leaks or not. In the case of some condos, older condo projects, it's because somebody hasn't decided to put…. It's like buying a car and never changing the oil.

If you don't do the proper maintenance on your building, sooner or later your gutters are going to overflow or you're going to have difficulties with your roof or whatever — your decks, if they're not cleaned, if you're not keeping certain things off them. You can actually accelerate the damage to your building with a bad maintenance plan.

Obviously, the way we constructed them and did certain things with overhangs and different materials that we used…. We don't use them anymore because we do have the rain screen technology, and we have a much more adaptable thing for the wet climate. I think that's improved. But there's no question that one of the impacts was the desire of a marketplace to go to a more acrylic-stucco-California look for buildings at a different period of time. That actually puts some stresses on the buildings with regards to water ingress and egress.

The building practices have improved. The warranty has definitely improved. It's better than it was a number of years ago with the two, five and ten. There's the fact that we have warranty providers prepared to underwrite that because we have a licensed builders scheme in British Columbia.

Otherwise, the reality is if we weren't building well enough, and the claims percentages were wrong, one of two things would happen: (1) the insurance companies would vacate the field and say they are no longer going to insure houses in British Columbia or (2) the premiums would go through the roof because the claims percentages are too high. Neither of those two things is happening right now with regards to home warranty. I think at this stage of the game it's on pretty solid ground.

D. Thorne: Okay, I'm going to move now into renting — rental assistance, renting versus social housing. I was wondering about the breakdown of B.C. Housing's $89 million spending on the rent supplement assistance, and if I could just get a breakdown on that.

That will be under B.C. Housing. But according to what the minister was saying earlier, the figure that's in here may not be the same figure, because there has been more money added or something. Perhaps you could take me to where I can get that figure.

Hon. R. Coleman: In the rent supplements that we have through B.C. Housing, the lion's share of that is for Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters, at about $35 million, and the rent assistance program, which is budgeted for $40 million. In addition to that, there are some rent supplements in Independent Living B.C. residences. We do some rent supps within that. We also have some historical rent supplements in buildings that we've had for a long time, which are also included in that budget. But the majority of the money is in SAFER and RAP.

D. Thorne: I did have down how many families have applied for rental assistance, but I think you told me that earlier. It's 1,500 at this point in time?

D. Thorne: Somewhere around there — okay. How many of those would be seniors?

Hon. R. Coleman: Just to be clear to the member: of those 1,500, none of them are seniors. They are all families, because the rental assistance program is geared to families. But the member should know that there are 15,200 seniors on SAFER, which is the Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters. It's a different program.

D. Thorne: I'd like to know the average length of time between sending in an application and receiving assistance.

Hon. R. Coleman: SAFER is about two weeks — the Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters. The rental assistance program is probably closer to four weeks because of the volume that we're experiencing. We've actually staffed-up more people to cut that back.

There's a difference between SAFER and RAP. The SAFER application is much more straightforward because of the different incomes, whereas in a family situation you have to have the incomes of all the family over the age of 19. So there are some things that sometimes take a bit longer.

But for the member's information, the date of application is the date of payment. So if it takes four weeks, we pay retroactively to the date of application.

D. Thorne: Did any of the increase in funding actually go to increasing the amount of the rental assistance payments that families in the program receive? Or is it all going to the people who are applying that are between the $20,000 and $28,000 threshold? Did the rates of payment actually change, as well as the threshold?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, on both accounts. When we increased the threshold, it actually brought an increase for all the people that were in SAFER that would have been at lower incomes as well. So it went right across the entire bar. There's a bar. Basically, the higher your income, the less your assistance, and it goes down according to your income. As your income goes down, your assistance goes up, and the average today on rent assistance is about $330 a month.

D. Thorne: Okay. We did talk earlier about some of the marketing things that you're doing and going to be doing to try and get to people who are actually eligible to receive assistance. I won't go into that.

I don't think I asked, though…. I don't think anybody has actually mentioned a number, but how many families are eligible for rental assistance? Do we know? Certainly, the statistics that I have here…. In 2003 there were over 88,000 single-parent families in B.C. with incomes under $26,000. Are we thinking that there's well in excess of 100,000 people that are eligible for this assistance?

Hon. R. Coleman: We think it's about 15,000 to 20,000 households that ultimately could apply and be approved for rent, because it's not just on your income. It's what you're paying for rent, where you are. Our numbers, as we came through…. We would be very pleased to reach the 15,000-level in the duration of the program. We've always said that we'll look at the program as it evolves.

Just a couple quick things, though, for the member, and I know she didn't ask the question, but she asked it earlier. I have some information now that I would like to make her aware of. Since March 1 we've distributed 4,242 brochures and 255 posters to food banks; casual labour temporary work organizations; community services; student societies; immigrant and multicultural organizations; JobWave, through MEIA; church and faith organizations; and health authorities.

In addition to that, on our advertising campaign…. We had a fairly good advertising campaign from March 1 to May 16. We've had 38,281 visits to the webpage. It's the second highest page on the website after the home page.

There have been 14,798 RAP application forms downloaded to date — the most frequently downloaded item on the website — and 7,418 RAP calls between January 2007 and Friday, May 13. Those are the stats with regards to it.

We have a six-week radio advertising campaign staggered from the beginning of March to mid-April. We have some print advertisement going out in both major papers and locals as well as other things we're doing with the same groups and also with the multicultural communities. As I said earlier, as we go through that, we're also still working on the ability to put in the MSP stuff.

D. Thorne: I'm wondering about the groups that are left out of the ability to apply for this supplementary program. What about, for instance, low-income singles, and couples without children? Why don't we make them eligible as well for rental assistance?

D. Thorne: Okay. Then my next question would be: why are we preventing families on income assistance, who pay well over 30 percent of their income towards shelter, from accessing the supplements? If we really want to help families with children, why are they excluded?

Hon. R. Coleman: People on social assistance get a shelter assistance as part of their package. They get paid monthly for shelter assistance, and that's why we have a target for people who aren't working. That is social assistance through the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance. This is to target working poor, to give them an opportunity to have some affordability in the marketplace, and that's the group that everybody has always been telling us that we should pay some attention to.

D. Thorne: When you look at shelter rates, a family of four gets assistance of a bit over $1,000 a month for shelter and support. We know that that's not going to provide them with anything other than substandard housing — in Vancouver or Victoria, for sure, and increasingly in other centres across the province.

The report of the Inner-City Inclusive Housing Table, released in March, says most organizations concur that the biggest single factor in homelessness in

Vancouver is that housing is unavailable. I have here some very recent statistics on the cost of an average price of a two-bedroom apartment — we won't even look at houses — for a family of four. In Burnaby it's $950, in Coquitlam it's $850 and in Vancouver its $1,250. Those are the averages.

We think that rent ceilings can be set for a family of four at $875. That's for people who are allowed to apply for rent supplements. Families with children who we should be helping, who are paying sometimes 60 percent or more of their income assistance cheque on their shelter costs…. We've only got 1,500 people on rent supps, and we're willing to say we could take up to 15,000. We have all those families with children on income assistance who are paying those kinds of costs. I just wonder if the minister will agree that perhaps this needs another look and that this is a group of extremely vulnerable families — definitely one that fits into our priority group.

Should we not — to increase the uptake on the rent supplements and also to provide a service to this vulnerable group — perhaps be taking a sober second look at this now that the rent supps have been in for more than six months and we know what the uptake is?

Hon. R. Coleman: No. If the member wants to make a speech today with regards to income assistance, she can do that. I'm not answering that question. She should have taken that question to the Minister of Employment and Income Assistance during their debates.

This is about a housing rental assistance program for working poor — for people making low income and working — and it works. The member just gave a description: $900-and-some-odd dollars for an apartment in Burnaby. If you're getting $300 a month and you're making $24,000 a year that means your rent is down around $600 a month. That's what you would be paying, quite frankly, if you were paying 30 percent of your income in a social housing project. That actually does bridge the gap for affordability for low-income families, and that's the goal of the rental assistance program.

It's just the same thing with SAFER. It's eligible to seniors, but it has a program. This is a program that is geared to seniors. I know the member said: "Only 1,500 families." But that's 1,500 more families today that have better health outcomes and financial outcomes than they did six months ago. In reality, we're seeing more and more uptake as people get more and more knowledge of the program. People will see the benefit of this program in the long term. It is geared to a rental assistance program which is geared to working poor. That's what the program will be.

I'm not going to go back and rethink the program after only six months. I'm going to look at the income thresholds. I'm going to see how we can get the message out better, how we can get more people to apply. That's what we're going to do. That program is there for the working poor in British Columbia, if they're renting, to be able to get some help with their rent. That's the whole idea behind the program.

It also bridges a gap, so you've got those people…. Like I said earlier, it would cost about $450 million to have built just 1,500 units for those 1,500 people that are on rent assistance today. If we take it to 15,000, it would have cost $4.5 billion and years of construction to try and get help to those people.

I can tell the member opposite…. There's one I can remember in particular, the little note I received from a lady who said: "Thank you for the rent assistance program you gave me. My 14-year-old son and I thank you from the bottom of our hearts because you've changed our lives." Now they have the money to maybe let that young fellow go into sports or maybe get a better nutritional outcome where they live without having to sit on a list and wait for social housing. This is an opportunity for them to have that program.

As the member will watch, the program will grow. It will grow in numbers as more and more people become comfortable and get to know it — just like SAFER did. It takes a little bit of patience to build a good program. We're going to have that patience, and we're going to apply that to this program for it to work.

On the other side, the social assistance side, that is not a debate I'm entering into this afternoon. Quite frankly, it has nothing to do with the fundamentals of the Ministry of Forests and Range and Ministry Responsible for Housing's budget, which is what this is about.

D. Thorne: Thank you to the minister. I don't agree that this is an income assistance question. I think rent supplements are Housing, so we'll have to agree to disagree on that. That's why I'm asking the Minister for Housing and not the Minister of Income Assistance. There are a number of groups that are excluded. Fair enough. This is a program for the working poor.

I have a couple of other questions that I'm just wondering if you'll at least be looking at down the road. One is the low-income families who are eligible who haven't lived in British Columbia for 12 months. If they can't apply for rent supplements and get the kind of help for 12 months that the minister has just so eloquently described, likely, they could end up homeless on the streets. We know that all the reports coming in now, the latest reports, for the first time are showing children homeless even in the Tri-Cities, where the hon. Chair and I live. We're both involved in trying to work on that with a committee actually. But in Victoria, it's worse than anywhere apparently, according to the studies.

I would ask the minister if he is going to revisit that decision that they have to wait 12 months before they can apply for rent supps. At the same time, I'll just finish up with this particular section by asking: in how many languages other than English are outreach and applications for this program available?

Hon. R. Coleman: They've been translated into a variety of languages, and we have language services available with regard to this in our call centre at B.C. Housing as well. We do have those things available.

To the member's comment on the residency requirement: as we come through, we will be looking at that with regard to the program in the future to see whether it should mirror up with other programs. We just got past the residency requirement on SAFER, where you had to live here for ten years. We know that that had some impact, and we will be looking at that.

D. Thorne: Okay, now I have a couple of residential tenancy questions about the branch and the act, actually.

This is the act. In the lead-up to the Olympics, large rental companies are evicting tenants to do cosmetic upgrades to properties and then re-renting the units at much higher rates. This isn't news to anyone on the other side, I'm sure. The Residential Tenancy Act protects tenants from unfair rent increases, but it only applies to occupied suites.

What is the minister doing to ensure that property management companies are not unfairly evicting tenants in order to raise rates?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm glad we're moving to residential tenancy. I always grin when I do residential tenancy, because I remember asking the former Premier Ujjal Dosanjh, when he was the Attorney General and he had residential tenancy…. He saw me down in the dining room one day, and he said, "What are you going to do this afternoon?" because he had that in his portfolio. I said: "I'm going to do residential tenancy." "Oh good," he said, "I didn't understand that act when I went to law school, and I still don't understand it." We did have a bit of a chuckle about how complex sometimes these issues are in and around residential tenancy.

Before a landlord can issue a two months' notice to end a tenancy to do major renovations or repair, all required permits and approvals must be in place. They can't just say it's cosmetic. You can't just say, "I'm going to paint the place and change the carpet," and call that a major repair. There's actually a process.

A landlord must also provide a tenant financial compensation equivalent to one month's rent if he is going to do major repairs. What we're talking about, though, is a renovation, not a cosmetic repair. If a landlord chooses to try and evict somebody for just a cosmetic repair, then there's a dispute resolution process available to the tenant through the residential tenancy branch.

D. Thorne: Well, I mean, that sounds great. You know, it sounds like the tenant is always protected and the dispute resolution process always works. That's another question that I'm going to ask. What does the minister hear from the RTB about the dispute resolution process? And how is it working in comparison to the arbitration that we had until Bill 27 passed last year?

I was not the Housing critic at that time, but I was reading earlier this week about this, and I know that I have heard — as have all MLAs, I'm sure, on both sides of the House — from many, many people in our constituencies. It's not just tenants, in fact, but landlords as well, who are just fed up with trying to get through to the residential tenancy branch. They get an e-mail that says there's a minimum wait of six weeks — all kinds of things.

Just in the past couple of weeks I've had letters from two landlords in my riding that are having huge problems with the waiting. I would say it sounds like there are several problems. There's not enough staff there, for one thing, to even have your first appointment. To get an e-mail that says there's a minimum wait of six weeks, which one of these building owners got immediately when he sent in the e-mail — it seems ridiculous.

I know that the B.C. Housing representative here probably knows all of this very, very well — what the minister just told me about what the act says about evictions, etc., and about the dispute resolution process. But when you have that kind of wait, that process just doesn't work.

People are given an eviction notice for two months. Look at the case in New Westminster, the one that I'm most familiar with recently. People got their eviction notices, and they were dated. They had to be out on New Year's Eve, of all days. Not just in the middle of winter, but on a date when they'd be unlikely to get a moving truck or to be able to move in anywhere else — even if, with the supply and vacancy issue, they were able to find another lower-income apartment building.

The lack of staff or the backlog, whatever you want to call it, at the branch is causing the act to not work in this area. It's very difficult for people. They get this notice, and they request a dispute resolution. By the time they get in there, it's often three days before the date of their eviction. Now any normal person, every one of us included, if we were given an eviction notice, would get very nervous, start looking for something else and probably be moved into possibly very substandard housing or, God help us, onto the street before they even got into the RTB.

I have two questions. I would like to ask the minister if the ministry is looking at increasing the funding to the RTB so that we can have more staff, can get rid of this backlog and can try and make the resolution process work — not sending out e-mails to people that they have to wait six weeks before they get to actually talk to anybody. I'll let the minister answer that one first.

Hon. R. Coleman: The member's descriptions are actually valid. We have been doing a bunch of work to improve the service at the residential tenancy branch. We have not been satisfied with how fast our calls are turning around and with how our process is working. That's why we moved to the dispute resolution officers — so that we could have a measurement of people's times, the number of files they were handling and how we could get more expediency and efficiency. In addition, we have been doing a review of our processes, and we have added additional dollars to do that.

The member's description on the eviction side, though…. The description is basically the same for both sides. Any eviction notice is set aside while it's under dispute. It delays the eviction until such time as

the dispute is heard by an arbitrator or a dispute resolution officer — we have both today — and the order of possession is not given until that is heard. So the ability to have the eviction take effect is not there until such time as that's heard.

I recently met with the Rental Owners and Managers Association and a number of other groups. They tell me that they think the service has gotten better in the last 60 to 90 days. They feel that a number of the issues that they had that address inefficiencies are working better. The Tenants Rights Action Coalition has similar concerns, and we're working with them. They've been a working partner with this thing as well.

I must admit that as I heard what the member described, it sounded like a description I made in about 1997 of this office and how we seem to always have…. I don't know what it is, but we're determined this time to get the efficiencies there.

This has been approached a number of times over the years. You get staff trained, and you get them in there. I think it's probably a tough job. You get your efficiencies, and then somebody retires and moves on, and then you have to redevelop your processes and that sort of stuff. But I think we've got the right team in place now. We've brought on some very good people who are very dedicated and committed to making this thing work.

I will not say that the processes at either the phone side or the dispute side are perfect today. I wouldn't kid myself over that, because I know they're not. I know they need work. But we've made the financial and the ministerial commitment to get this thing running much better than it is today and to see improvements. As I say, we have been told that there have been improvements in the last 60 to 90 days.

D. Thorne: Okay, so back to that. You're saying things are improving. We know that there's been a growth in the tenant and landlord population. I'm wondering: how does that stack up against the change in the number of staff? How many staff do we actually have at the RTB, and how many tenants do we have in British Columbia? Do we have that statistic?

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't have the number of rental units in British Columbia, but if I recollect, it's in the hundreds of thousands of units. The fact of the matter is that for most people in a residential tenancy relationship with a landlord, probably about 90 percent of the tenancies — if not higher — actually are in a functional relationship. We don't hear from those folks. We don't hear of the dispute resolution because there's no dispute.

When the act was changed back in 2003, there was basically a contract put on the Internet that was the tenancy agreement between a landlord and tenant. The law says that that is deemed to be the agreement if there isn't an agreement that's been written, which has been signed off by the tenant and landlord on the way in.

There is a requirement for an inspection going in and an inspection going out. There were better rules put in place with regards to the return of damage deposits and all of those things to bring sort of a business discipline between the client and the customer in the residential tenancy.

Having said that, we know that has very much improved the landscape on the residential tenancy side. But on the other side of the coin, there are still going to be those that are in dispute. As the member knows, there are always arguments on both sides of these things when there is a dispute.

We have 80 full-time-equivalent employees in the residential tenancy branch. We have what we call a running posting in government. If we get any turnover now, we have a running posting where we have people who are interested in coming to work at the branch that we can immediately hire, so we get a quicker deployment of someone into the position if a position becomes vacant.

We increased our dispute resolution officers. There were 11 new ones put into place starting on April 1. Those folks are starting to handle files and are trained up, so we'll just see the evolution of that.

D. Thorne: I gather that the six-week or two-month wait times are starting to gradually diminish. That will be good news to everybody — owners and tenants.

D. Thorne: And I'm sure to the minister — yes, indeed — and to the branch and everybody, all the staff. But certainly the tenants will be very happy about that, because they are facing many other things.

Before I lose this in my piles of paper, I was asking about the people being evicted and what the RTB can actually do to protect them from these unfair evictions, because there are some that are unfair evictions.

Certainly the one in New Westminster was a good example of that, because they did not have their permits in place. Unfortunately, by the time it got through to the RTB, most of the people had left. I've heard since that some of them did find alternative accommodation, but some of them did not. They probably now are amongst our other statistics — ones that aren't so good.

I do have one question that's always asked about the Ontario legislation. It's asked by tenants quite often. I'm sure you've been asked it many times. It commits the government to fixing what is often called a hole in the RTA by legislating that tenants have the first right of refusal, giving tenants the option of returning and paying the same rent after renovations or giving them three months' compensation plus four months to actually move out — 120 days.

Ontario has put this into legislation. I'm wondering if this government is going to or would consider putting this in as a way to have the residential tenancy branch actually help people who are in this situation.

Hon. R. Coleman: I can tell the member there are no amendments anticipated to the Residential Tenancy Act at this time.

D. Thorne: I'm sorry to hear that. I'm sure a lot of renters will be sorry to hear that as well. Every day you pick up a paper and find that another one of these big, huge companies, like Hollyburn and TransGlobe, etc., is buying up four apartment buildings in Coquitlam, six in Vancouver, or whatever. We all know what the next step will be for those companies.

They're buying up the lowest-rental, oldest buildings and systematically, one by one, evicting or trying to evict the tenants. There's one building in the West End where I think Hollyburn is the owner, and they are in all stages of the dispute resolution process. Some are in court. Some have been to the Supreme Court. Some win; some lose.

That brings me to my next question, which is about the arbitrators or the people who actually do the dispute resolutions, and how arbitrary the outcomes of those dispute resolutions seem to be — how subjective they are rather than being objective.

It's as if there is no standard rule. Some people have the same issue and go to one arbitrator — I'm sorry, I'm probably using the wrong word — or officer, whoever it is, and get one outcome. They win their case, and then they lose their case with a different arbitrator. I am concerned, as are many people, about the seeming lack of objectivity in these arbitrations.

Also, I'm wondering why we're doing so many of them on the telephone today. This is providing huge problems for people where English is not their first language, or they have not got the literacy skills to handle dispute hearings over the telephone.

I don't know why we don't try and do, like we used to do, more in person. I certainly understand if it's a process in Prince George, for example. Perhaps all of our staff is in Vancouver. I'm not sure if they are or not. That could be another question, I guess. I'm piling up the questions — too many in one go.

Are all or most of our staff in the lower mainland? Is that why we're doing so many by telephone? What about the people who can't handle the telephone hearings? And also the other two questions.

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, I want to tell the member that telephone arbitrations are not new. They have been going on in B.C. for probably well over a decade. Actually, long before I was in this House, I did telephone arbitrations in the interior of B.C. on properties that I had for rental. So this is not a new process. It's been around a long time.

There are a number of compelling reasons to do it. First of all, you can hire dispute resolution officers, as we call them now, anywhere in British Columbia, who can now be connected. They don't need to be in a centre. It also means that people don't necessarily have to travel distances to get to the arbitration.

If somebody has a language issue or an understanding issue, they can request an in-person hearing and will receive one. They can actually say, "I want an in-person hearing," and that can be provided to them. We do try and do it in the different languages, of course, and provide the interpreters, people that can help them with their language and stuff. We do that.

The member talked about the same fact pattern going in front of two different arbitrators and having two different decisions. That was also an argument back in 1996. There is usually some different fact pattern in every single file. Oftentimes they do look the same.

The reason we did move to dispute resolution officers is so that we could try and achieve exactly what the member describes. In the arbitration system that we had prior to dispute resolution officers, folks were hired on contract. They were not bound by any case law. They could make their own decisions.

An arbitrator could have a bias, and that bias could go through the system on every one of their decisions. There was no discipline that said, "You know, actually, we really do have that follow the act," or "You need to…." There was no ability to measure the decision.

The movement to dispute resolution officers, we hope, is going to help solve that. When we redid the act in 2003, that was one of the things that we decided not to do on the first blush of the act because it was felt that the independence of the arbitrators shouldn't necessarily be brought into question, to see if we could have systems that would improve that through education. That didn't particularly work that well.

That's why we're going to dispute resolution officers. They are trained, and they are trained on the act. They are trained on what the basic premises of all the decision-making processes are, and then outside there is a certain latitude. But there are things within the act that clearly state what things are. It doesn't mean you can now second-guess that.

For instance, if somebody on a tenant side had a leaky water pipe and didn't pay their rent because the water leaked and had a cost that they paid, there is no…. There should be no question in arbitration that no eviction for non-payment of rent should take place because that took place, and you should compensate your tenant.

In the past you might get two different arbitrations that might view that differently. One might say, "Well, they are ones that broke the pipe," or something like that.

That's sort of the difficult side of this thing. I do think that the changes we've made and some other things we're working on to adapt some of our regulations to be clear so that people can get clearer decisions…. It's important because if you don't get clear decisions, it really does make the whole operation come into some question. I don't like to see that.

I really do think that what we're trying to do in the dispute resolution process is better. It will have better outcomes because we'll be able to measure them better. These people will now be employees who are operating as dispute resolution officers.

D. Thorne: Well, those are admirable goals. You are moving in that direction. I hope you can solve it. But I'm going to make sure that your office gets some information about this particular building that I men-

tioned earlier in the West End, where it's the same issue for all of the tenants.

It doesn't matter who the tenant is or what their personal situation is. They live in an apartment in a building that is supposedly being renovated. They're being evicted floor by floor or whatever. There appears to be, from what I can see — obviously, I don't have every personal detail — very little objectivity. It's willy-nilly what's happening to the tenants.

Some people go to the dispute resolution, win the case, and then it's appealed by the holding company — the owners. Other people go to the dispute resolution, and they lose the case. So they go through the legal process. Some of them have gone to the Supreme Court of Canada and won their cases, which are then appealed by Hollyburn. I think I have the name right. I'm pretty sure it's Hollyburn.

This is just one case in many, many that I'm hearing about these days. I don't understand, and neither do the tenants and anybody who knows the story…. If there are objective criteria that are being used in the dispute resolution, why are there different outcomes for different tenants? It would appear that tenants who are more verbal or who have more education or something have better outcomes. That to me smacks of a lack of objectivity, and it really worries me.

I wanted to just talk about that today, and I have my answers. I don't even know which office I would send it to, but I'll make sure that the minister gets the information to just look at it and maybe ask the question: why are these outcomes all so different? It does seem very strange. I will continue to let the minister have copies of information that I get in this area in the future as long as I am the critic for Housing.

I'm going to now let my colleagues…. They both have a question they'd like to ask, and I'll just sit down.

Hon. R. Coleman: I think the one she was talking about in the West End was Hollyburn Properties. Hollyburn Properties did receive from one of our people that they could do the evictions, but then there's an option under the law, the act, that calls for judicial review. The judicial review did take place, and the court set aside the eviction notices.

So the system actually worked. They may not have liked the decision on the front end, but the fact of the matter is that the evictions were set aside. The residential tenancy branch, though, are working on options and regulations to tighten up that whole definition with regards to what is a substantive repair.

G. Robertson: A question to the minister specifically about the rental housing crisis in Vancouver related to redevelopment and the loss of affordable apartment buildings. Most specifically in my riding, in South Granville–Fairview there are five projects underway right now. Several hundred tenants were evicted in the last year. This evening I will be at city council speaking in favour of the rate-of-change recommendations from the Housing Centre there.

Many of the concerns raised against protecting the rental housing stock in the city of Vancouver right now are coming from the development community and apartment owners concerned that the appropriate incentives from provincial and federal governments do not exist. Some from the federal government for multi-unit residential buildings disappeared in the '70s.

In terms of capital gains, tax and policy incentives are totally inadequate to make sure that new rental housing is created and that the rental housing that does exist actually is worthwhile for business owners and investors.

Can the minister outline specifically what the provincial government is providing in terms of tax for policy incentives to create rental housing? What exists at this time, and what is being worked on right now?

Hon. R. Coleman: This is a real tough one, because we can't do anything on the recapture of capital gains, which is one of the big issues with regards to rental housing in British Columbia for people who own buildings. The way the tax structure is federally these days, it is better for them to actually demolish a building, rebuild condos and sell them than it is to continue to hold a building into their portfolio.

There are two bodies of thought that push back and forth on this particular issue. The one body of thought is that we should have rental increase restrictions like we have in our act, which is 2 percent plus CPI, for a rental property in British Columbia. If you own a building in B.C. and you have a building that is getting older and you want to do renovations to it, you cannot actually recapture that renovation in the normal rental setup, because rent restrictions and rent controls have been advocated by various political organizations over the years.

So you have on one side where you say to a marketplace, "We're going to control what you're allowed to get on an increase," but on the other side: "We want you to keep these buildings up and maintain them in a housing stock and therefore lower your return on capital year over year and we'll erode that for you."

What happens is, frankly, it creates a disincentive. If you were to sit down with the people that own large tracts of building, the first thing they will tell you is: "Don't have rent controls in British Columbia. Take those off."

I can tell the member that when we debated the legislation back in 2003, it was one of the options on the table, and neither party in the House supported the removal of rent controls of some form in B.C. So we actually continued to put that problem back on their backs.

Then you had the situation where you have municipal tax issues. If a municipality wanted to encourage rental housing, they could decide that they could have a category of residential taxes that are a little bit lower for people who want to build or own and operate a residential housing in their community. They don't do that.

What happens is a large increase, for instance, will come through in the city of Vancouver in this year's

budget — I think it's about 5 or 6 or 7 percent on the taxes alone, which will also flow down to the water, sewer and all of those costs — and will flow down to a person that has a building but are told they can only increase the rent 2 percent plus CPI.

So you actually create this dichotomy that becomes a problem in the marketplace. If you add into that the fact that we haven't built purpose-built rental housing in British Columbia very much for the last 15 or 20 years….

I remember doing debates here in 1996 and saying: "I think we're headed for a rental housing crisis if the economy changes, and the reason is because we're not building any." We used to build about 8,000 units a year in this province. Today we build about 1,000.

I am the national chair for housing ministers for Canada at this point in time. I've met with two successive federal ministers — the most recent minister twice — and we've actually put stuff into their finance side, which might be something the members could advocate as well. We would like to see them bring back some form of tax incentive, either on the capital gain side and recapture or something that would actually encourage investment into these forms of housing in the future.

There is no incentive in the marketplace today — when your increases are controlled and the return on capital isn't there and the value of the property just by building it and selling it out is there — for people to go in and build purpose-built rental housing.

Then it becomes a challenge for us. What we're trying to do is some pilot projects in the city of Vancouver where we'll take some land from the city of Vancouver. We'll put up some capital, and we'll match it up with the private sector and try to buy down the value by creating a marketplace for some affordable rentals. We're going to be somewhat aggressive on trying to put a couple of those partnerships together to show how they can work.

The big challenge, quite frankly, is that on a national basis there is one very interesting thing that could be done, which would incent the marketplace on housing. That would be some tax incentives, particularly on the capital gain recapture stuff. So we're advocating that.

There is a standard position across the country by all ten provincial ministers and the three territorial ministers with regards to asking the federal government to move in this direction. Frankly, we've not had any uptake from either federal government that's been there in the last two to three years. It's something we continue to push for and work towards.

I really think, though, we have to recognize that people have to be able to maintain their properties and get enough of their money back when they make it a maintenance issue so that they can actually not see a deterioration of their capital. If we take away all incentive to invest, what happens is a deterioration of stock at the level the member is experiencing.

We're seeing some of this on the Island as well. The stock deteriorates to the point where somebody says: "It would be better if I just tore it down." That isn't good because that takes more rental stock out of the marketplace.

The only other measurement I was mentioning to your critic earlier, which isn't made as far as what is rental stock in the same communities, is…. We don't have a measurement of how many in the condo market in Vancouver that are being built are actually being rented out. I was mentioning a building I'm in, in Victoria where about 25 percent of over 100 units is actual rental. But it's a strata building, so those don't actually go into the count of what we have for rental stock.

There is no question in my mind that we need to find some incentives that could work for us to re-ignite the interest in building purpose-built rental housing in our marketplace, but it's all levels of government that are going to have to try and do it. It makes tough policy decisions because, for instance, rent controls are one of the disincentives to actually building stock and owning it for any lengthy period of time. Yet there's a very good argument that in an inflationary marketplace you don't want to allow the explosion to take place that kills affordability, so you try to have some controls in your marketplace.

G. Robertson: I'm concerned that although the minister states that he and the other housing ministers across the country in every province and territory are advocating and pushing on the federal government, there is no uptake. The fingers are pointed at the federal government. Obviously, some of these tax and policy changes and incentives need to come and must be generated at the federal level.

However, the finger also gets pointed back at municipalities in terms of their tax base and municipal policy. What's missing here is: what can the provincial government do? What will this provincial government do given this is a problem not just in Vancouver that the city council there is grappling with but is affecting many municipalities around the province?

Given that rent control is an accepted form of maintaining affordability — has been and is at this time — here we are in this pickle.

What is alarming to me is that there isn't leadership from this Housing Minister that the provincial government takes these concrete steps to help maintain and create more rental housing in the province. Other than the few pilot projects the minister mentioned in Vancouver that sound like they are in the works, is that it for measures to protect or to create more rental housing in the province?

Hon. R. Coleman: I think we've taken a lot of concrete steps. The rental assistance program is a concrete step because it allows people to have affordability within the rental marketplace. Therefore, their stability and ability to pay their rent is there so that the landlord can continues to operate their building. That should affect 15,000 people over the next couple of years.

I think that there weren't any concrete steps made by any provincial government in this regard for many,

many years. In the 1990s, for instance, over a ten-year period there were two single-room-occupancy hotels bought. There were ten bought in Vancouver alone in a 60-day period, to protect stock for supportive housing in the marketplace. In addition to that, five other buildings were also bought elsewhere in the province to maintain and protect some affordable housing.

I don't think the member should kid himself. Unless we actually allow the marketplace to function, we're not going to see any changes. I'm not pointing fingers at anybody, quite frankly. We've been the leaders in coming to the table with capital and saying: "Look, we can show you how a small-unit rental can work in your community. We'll put capital on the table. You put up some land. We'll bring in the partner, or we'll do it ourselves. We'll show you that it can work."

If we can get municipalities to see some of those that work, maybe they'll change some of their zoning rules to where they will allow more density in a site to allow for rental housing, or smaller units so that you can get affordability. At the same time as they do that, maybe they can start to look at some of the other things.

Cities are the classic example, because we invest as a provincial government, with the federal government, billions of dollars — whether it be the Canada line or new bus systems or additional dollars that we put into what will be the SkyTrain here or light rail transit there or whatever the case may be. When we do that, we have town cores build up around this stuff.

Then somebody says: "If you want to build a condo building here, you need to have two underground parking stalls per unit." That just drives the cost up. It doesn't make it affordable as a rental project. It puts it back into the marketplace where somebody wants to turn it into a retail condo versus a rental, and then we lose the opportunities for this to happen.

This isn't just the city. I can tell the member that when I was involved in a service organization many years ago out in the Fraser Valley, we were going to build a townhouse project for 50 families. The municipality that we were in demanded 2.5 parking stalls per unit. This was a social housing project for families.

We had to go underground for 50 of those spaces, which put an additional $1.2 million in costs on a $5 million project. What you could have done was have a lot less parking, and you could have taken some of that million dollars and invested it in another social housing project somewhere else in British Columbia.

The reason I have challenged the municipalities…. Quite frankly, I'm going to give them credit. They are coming to the table. The only linchpin so far, as far as building this affordability factor and starting to build these partnerships, is the federal level of governments in Canada, because they do have that one piece. They can do the tax stuff that we can't do. I believe it would be prudent for them to do it, looking long-term across this country, and I will continue to take that message to them.

I'm not blaming any level of government here, and I believe that we have to learn. I think we're starting to get it. Society doesn't always learn really fast, but we do need to learn. And learning is on the fact that if we are going to build communities close to where there is transit, that means we don't have to put some of the other impact costs on that development, which could now go into affordability.

It's the same thing in communities outside Vancouver, for instance. Ironically, if you look at the city of Vancouver, they knew about affordable housing back when nobody thought it was in vogue — probably 30 or 40 or 50 years ago. They had small-lot subdivisions. They had houses on small lots, and they actually built the city with some density.

If you come out my way in the valley, you can buy a small lot, but it will also have about 3,000 square feet of house on it with five bedrooms and four bathrooms and all the attendant costs. You don't drive affordability by doing that.

If you're going to drive those things into the marketplace, you also have to wake up to…. I think many cities have, and many more need to. A basement suite is actually a form of affordable rental housing, and we should encourage that in our marketplace. I don't see why we don't do more of that.

We should do more of what I've seen recently in my community and other communities, where the double garage in the alleyway now has a one-bedroom suite above it — it's called a coach house — so that you can build additional affordable housing in the marketplace. It doesn't all have to be a big apartment-block, purpose-built rental housing. It can be a mix in the communities for people, to have viability.

There's no question that we are facing a challenge with regards to rental housing. We're hoping to have a meeting with the federal minister in the fall and to sit down and try to nail this down with a concrete proposal from the provinces. We have already made the overtures. I, as the chair, have done that with the federal government.

It's going to take more than just that. It's going to take us to recognize what drives the cost that makes it impossible for affordable rentals to be built. Those costs are driven by all kinds of bureaucracies and levels of government. We just need to streamline all of that.

D. Thorne: I want to go back to the residential tenancy branch, but I'll just ask one question. Since my colleague opened the door on the development issue and the municipalities, I'm wondering what concrete steps the province is taking to actually help municipalities to meet the kinds of objectives you're talking about and that were talked about in the budget and throne speech.

Having been a municipal councillor, I know that it's a difficult situation for them. Yes, there are some steps they can take, but they've not traditionally been seen as providers of social services or housing.

People don't pay municipal taxes to provide those services. They're federal and provincial taxes. In a lot of

the communities there's an uproar about spending municipal dollars on these kinds of services, I have to tell you. I know first hand. I suffered through a lot of that.

I know the province is aware of those kinds of things. It's not just NIMBY. There are other issues as well. Is the province taking any concrete steps other than just asking the municipalities to step forward and come on board? I'm wondering about that.

Hon. R. Coleman: There are a lot of concrete steps. When we say, "There's a piece of land. We'll put up the money if you put up the land, and we'll put a project in your community," that's a pretty concrete step. When you step up to the plate and offer operating money — whether it be the Salvation Army, the YWCA, the Phoenix in Surrey or whatever the case may be — those are pretty concrete steps.

The fact of the matter is that we're now working, as we promised, on a new classification for municipal taxation to work it out with municipalities for small-suite units so that we can get affordability into rentals. They've asked us to do that work. We'll do that work with them through UBCM, but we're doing that work now.

We have for years worked with local governments to help them through workshops and training, so that they can get through their issues in public hearings and that sort of stuff, with regards to projects on affordable housing.

I don't agree with the member that they don't have any impact on or any responsibility to the social services within the communities. They do. They help fund the libraries. That's literacy; that's a social service. They help with funding into their rec centres and community youth programs. Those are all social services that they do. I think they have a role to play in housing too.

Quite frankly, you have got some terrific examples in British Columbia of municipalities that have been leaders in the partnerships in and around housing, and you've got examples of those that have been deplorable at the same time. They'll take an organization through a whole process, from development permit right to third reading, and after they've spent a year and $100,000 of their money to get somewhere, they say: "Sorry, we changed our minds," and "No, we don't want you to go there now."

There is a dramatic role, because the zoning of the property and the densities are controlled by the municipality through those local zoning bylaws. Overlaying that in the GVRD is the GVRD and their green zone and some of their attitudes as to how they think they should tell some municipalities to develop versus others. Those attitudes have an effect on the affordability factor to create projects that are good for communities to have integrated uses.

It's like saying this: "We can design for you. We can give you an example bylaw on basement suites, but if you don't decide as a municipality to pass a bylaw on basement suites to allow them to be legal in your community, who is affecting the affordability of rental housing in the community?" We can help as a government. We've put substantial dollars on the table to do that, and we invest capital.

As far as I'm concerned, in British Columbia, the local and provincial governments are pretty much in tune on this thing. The Premier's Task Force on Homelessness and Addictions which has the mayors of major communities all across British Columbia, meets with me as the minister and with the Premier every quarter or so and walks through what projects are in the communities, which ideas they are finding as best practices that they can use in their communities, and how we can work together on that. It's a very important process.

As we do that, I think we're learning more and more. I think you are seeing more and more. I think the classic example was the last proposal call. You go out for 450 units, and you get 758 with the same money.

How did you accomplish that? Because you've got partnerships — partnerships on some land, partnerships with somebody to say: "Well, we'll reduce our DCCs on this one because we don't think you need to have the DCCs," or "We'll adjust the parking down, so you don't have to have that cost, but you can still send us 30 units now for 25-percent less. Now you can take that 25 percent of the dollar and invest it over in this community over here and do another project." So those are the things….

I think that in B.C., for the most part, municipalities and the provincial government have a pretty good working partnership on this file. I cannot say that there is the same relationship federally, whether it was the previous federal government or this one. My first discussion as minister with the federal government under the previous government was to the federal minister, saying: "Quit doing unilateral projects in our jurisdiction, please."

They would come in and announce the capital, they would build the project, they would leave three-year funding behind, and then they'd leave. When the three-year funding expired, everybody expects another level of government to pick up the funding from there on in.

We said: "If you're going to do projects, do them in partnership with us. Either that or send us the money, and we'll partner up our dollars. We'll tell you where we did it so that we can make it work for our communities." We understand our communities, and our municipalities understand our communities better.

I think it's a concrete step that we have got the Ministers of Housing in this country together on the same page on a number of issues to say: "This is what we need." One of the challenges when you deal with another level of government — the federal government is no different — is that they get tired of you just coming and saying: "Give us money."

We're not saying, "Give us money," to these folks. We're not saying you have to make…. We're saying: "You know what? If you did policy changes and some tax changes, it would actually help what we can achieve on the ground." That, to me, is a concrete step to try and get that done.

But I don't live in a sort of Lalaland on this one. I think that the federal government is tough on this one to get through it. I think the message is going to take a continual pounding to get it through to people to understand how important that is as a piece of the puzzle for housing going forward.

D. Thorne: How much money are you actually spending this year that came from the feds?

Hon. R. Coleman: In January of this year we did what they called a devolution. Basically, devolution was that we took back the ownership and management of all the stock from CMHC. They give us about $140 million a year, ongoing, through that devolution. That is in addition to the housing budget. That money is basically to pay the mortgages and operational portion that they have on longstanding agreements with the province with regards to that housing stock.

Then there is about $50 million in capital that comes through to our Ministry of Finance and then through to us. About $25 million of that is for the homelessness stuff, and the other $25 million is for aboriginal housing.

You saw the big announcement. I forget the big number it was, but that's what the trickle-down effect is. What we actually get is a piece of the…. What was supposedly hundreds of millions ends up being a few million when it reaches the province.

Those are the two areas where the federal government plays today. On the devolution side, that is a two-third and one-third partnership on most of the stuff. That's stuff that has been around for a long time.

D. Thorne: I gather, then, that there is no other money. I knew you had gotten that money for the CMHC housing, the devolution, the homelessness and the…. So there are no other federal dollars anymore coming into B.C.

Wasn't there a transfer last year of federal funds to create a trust fund or something? I vaguely remember. It wasn't a lot of money. I think it was $1 million or $2 million. Whatever happened to that?

Hon. R. Coleman: That's what they called it. They called it trust funds, but it's not trust funds. They made a funding announcement that said: "We're going to put this much into housing. We're calling it a housing trust, and the money then delineates over to the province over three fiscal years."

What I told you a minute ago is what we're getting this year, and then there will be some next year and some next year, and nobody knows what happens after that. It's not a lot different than the other program before that, where there was a two- or three-year window where they sent some money, and then we get to match the….

The only difference on this one is that we get to leverage these ones better, because they're not doing unilateral projects with them. They're actually transferring the money to the province so that we can match up with our money — municipal dollars, land and all the rest of it — to get more bang for the buck, versus them coming in and saying they're going to do a project in this community, announce it's funded and then leave an operating deficit problem afterwards.

We actually get to manage the money, so I guess they're trusting us with the money. But it's not a trust per se, where only the interest is being paid. It's money that they're calling a trust. I think that's because they had some surpluses, maybe, in CMHC, or someone decided they wanted to delineate it out, and that's what they called it.

D. Thorne: So there was no extra money, no special amount of money, last year? It was basically just the same as this year, then? Okay.

Back to the municipalities. I know you say they do parks and rec and they do libraries, and they have traditionally done that for a long time. But other than those kinds of things, people in municipalities are used to their social services and housing, certainly for homeless people or supportive housing. It has always been thought of as a senior level of government — that it would be provided.

When a municipality, like Coquitlam just gave that lot to B.C. Housing…. If they sold that, they could take that money and do something with it in the community — make a park out of it or whatever. Right now, as the B.C. Housing representative probably knows, there's a huge controversy going on over that piece of property and the fact that it was originally going to be — well, it still is — supported housing. It comes under one of your priority areas.

Now the contract has been given out to the YWCA, so everything has calmed down a little bit, because it's for women fleeing violence. That's more acceptable than homeless people, addicted people and people with mental illness. The community still wants a park there, not housing. However, it gets a little tougher to fight against women and children fleeing violence.

There are only so many of those homes that we can put in. We still need to have houses for more difficult, vulnerable or hard-to-house people. That makes it really, really difficult for city councils. The minister refers to them spending a lot of money and then turning it down at the last minute. That's one of the reasons they do it: because of the NIMBY factor. I don't know how we're going to get around that.

My question is: if a municipality is prepared to give B.C. Housing land for housing for families — not supported housing; just what we used to call Homes B.C.; the old-fashioned, regular, low-income-family subsidized housing — and if they felt that was all they could get through their city council and their community because people are afraid of so-called supported housing, would B.C. Housing turn that subsidized offer down? Or would they accept it because they would be getting free land?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, we're deploying our resources in the way we've outlined in the housing

strategy. So if somebody wants to build a rental project on city-owned land in Coquitlam and somebody is eligible for RAP, we'll give them RAP. We don't need to own it, we don't need to go build it, and we don't need to operate it if that's what it's for — if it's going to be rental housing. That's how you can make that work without us having to be engaged.

Somebody gave me a new acronym the other day when I was sitting here talking to people about affordable housing for the tough-to-house, the people who are at risk and the people the member just described. They're not called NIMBYs anymore; they're called NOPEs — which means "not on the planet everywhere" — because they don't want them in any neighbourhood anywhere. They're just opposed.

The reality is…. That's what we've tried to work on with municipalities. You know, you look at the city of Vancouver. They do have a lot of stock on their land that they've done for a long time generationally with regards to different forms of housing.

It takes leadership at a municipal level to sit down sometimes, stare it down and say: "This is the right thing to do." It's the easiest thing to do to say, "Let's make a park out of it and ignore the problem, and maybe it will go away," and then to say: "It's the other government's fault for not doing anything about it, but oh, by the way, we won't zone a piece of property for you to put a project in our community so that you can help the people in our community." There is a leadership role that has to take place in local government.

There are some people that have had a real tough time learning and dealing with that. There was a mayor in Kelowna who probably got hurt by the fact that he stood up for the homelessness side when the union gospel ministry wanted to build a shelter in that community.

He probably lost an election to somebody who was actually opposed to the project but who is now championing the project today, because they say: "Well, people and all my chamber of commerce guys are saying, 'You've got a homeless problem. Why don't you do something about it?'" The reality is that somebody tried to do something about it.

In the city of Nanaimo I know that the mayor there has had some very tough public hearings that he's had to do in order to get things like the New Hope Centre through. But he did it, and people will find after the building is built that it's a big benefit to the community.

That's why I stress the partnerships between local government and senior government, because we don't get to go in and zone their land. I was at one seminar recently where the city of Montreal did a presentation. The city of Montreal has a charter amendment that says they don't have to go to a public hearing for social housing or supportive housing or for anything — even things like the drug and alcohol addictions and group homes.

At one of the meetings, one of the mayors said, "Maybe we could do that in British Columbia," and the response was: "Well, you should bring that through UBCM." The other mayors around the table said: "That would never sell in my community because they believe in the public process."

You can't arbitrarily, as a senior government, say: "You will zone this much land, and this is where you'll put it." You can't do that. So you have to have a relationship between that and the local government.

Sometimes at this level of government, whether you're an MLA in opposition or government, you have to call them up on it. You have to say: "Look it, guys. You've got to be part of the solution. You can't just say no all the time." It's like a speech I gave just the other night in my own community, where there is going to be a proposal for a homeless shelter with some supportive housing.

I spoke to a group in Prince George not too long ago, the chamber of commerce. As I came through the door, five of them said to me: "You've got to do something about our homeless problem here. You have to step up to the plate." I spoke to this chamber of commerce and said: "Well, you had a project. You had a public hearing. How many of you went and spoke in favour to support your local council?" None of them.

I challenged my community the other night, when I spoke to 300 people from my chamber of commerce. I said: "Look. If you think it's an issue — and you're telling me it's an issue — when the public hearing comes on the project that might get proposed in Langley, I expect to see you people there supporting your local government so that they can make this decision with some people standing behind them, not feeling like they're left out on an island every time they try and do something good for the community."

I think that's a big piece of this. It doesn't matter where you sit on the issue or where you sit in this House. I think that we, as people at this level of government, have to continuously say: "Come on, guys. You've got to be part of the partnership and build this relationship so we can be successful in the future."

D. Thorne: It certainly is a problem — there's no doubt about it — with municipalities. In the end it comes down to getting re-elected sometimes. You're right about the mayor. I remember that Kelowna event.

If people in the community are really unhappy…. That is one of the problems right now. I just think that it's unfair to blame the municipalities too much when I think they're trying really hard, most of them, to survive themselves. They are up against their voters — they're our voters as well — who are pressuring them not to okay these supported-housing developments.

The groups that we're focusing on make it very, very difficult when you're moving into a municipality, into the middle of a residential area. It's like the problems in social housing units that are managed by B.C. Housing. More and more we're moving supported, vulnerable, hard-to-house people into those units and putting them right next door to seniors, older people, people who themselves have probably lived there for 20 and 30 years.

My office is getting an awful lot of phone calls from seniors who live in B.C. Housing developments, who

are really afraid right now because of the type of clients that are being moved in. I know that when we have these priorities… And we're not housing families. We're just housing the hard-to-house, essentially. It's almost like a scorecard where before you can get into a place….

I have people phoning me who haven't been able to get into B.C. Housing unless they were already evicted from a place. They get themselves evicted because they're living in substandard housing or scary housing. They get themselves evicted so they can get something better. They'll go higher up on the point system and get into B.C. Housing in a better unit.

The clientele create the problem. In a lot of instances, I don't think that it is the municipality. I think they are trying to do their best, and they are increasingly coming on board with secondary suites.

In Coquitlam, I think, we were the first to actually legalize suites. That's a whole other area that I don't even want to get into because…. I'm not going there. Thank goodness, it's not even on my list, so I won't do it.

I agree that secondary suites are, in some communities, an untapped source of affordable housing. Hopefully, as a government and a ministry, you can encourage municipalities to look at legalizing their suites by providing some incentives to them to legalize them.

D. Thorne: I was just going to go back to a couple of questions on the Residential Tenancy Act to ask if assisted and supported housing are covered. My understanding is they're not covered under the act. If that's the case, any of these housing units, then, that we change from regular subsidized or low-income housing to the supported housing designation, do they immediately fall off the table where the residential tenancy branch is concerned? If so, what do those people do when they have a problem?

Hon. R. Coleman: Supportive housing is under the Residential Tenancy Act, so it doesn't affect them at all; they're fine. It's assisted living that the member's probably thinking about, where there are other medical services provided that don't fall under the Residential Tenancy Act. They receive both hospitality and personal care services — i.e., bathing, administration, medication and that sort of thing. That's more in a contractual relationship in assisted living. Although there's been some work done on it, it hasn't been thought to move it to residential tenancy yet until we, quite frankly, get the house in order on the first part.

D. Thorne: So supportive housing…. It's very confusing, the difference between the two. Supportive housing is regulated, essentially, then. That's a different thing from the residential…. It is covered by the residential tenancy branch. There are no regulations for supportive housing — are there?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm going to try and clear up the confusion for the member. It's actually not that confusing, but it can be because we've got so many names and acronyms and stuff in housing.

Let's take, for instance, a downtown east side hotel as an example. We buy an SRO. We call it supportive housing. We fix it up. We renovate it. We charge you, let's say, $400 a month for your rent. That's the room you get.

On the same premises, we may have a worker that does things with mental health work or addictions. Your rent doesn't pay for that person. Those are other supports that are brought into the system. They could come from the Minister of Employment and Income Assistance, they could come from Health, but they are coordinated supports for the individual that's the tenant. So their tenancy is under the Residential Tenancy Act, but the supportive housing side is not part of a contract that says they're paying for those services.

In assisted living, on the other hand, you have a portion that is your rent, a portion that is your meals and a portion that is your other services, and you're paying for that amount. That's why assisted living is different than supportive housing: because supports that are given in supportive housing are actually coming from agencies of government and are not part of your rent. That's why all supportive housing is covered under the Residential Tenancy Act.

D. Thorne: Where does somebody in assisted living go if they have need of dispute resolution or arbitration? They're not covered. Presumably, they're living in an apartment as well. They're a tenant.

Hon. R. Coleman: Those types or forms of housing are covered under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act. There's a registrar. There's a community living and assisted-living registrar who can deal with disputes. It's not in this ministry.

We have been doing some work to look at if it's possible to move some of this into res ten over time as far as the rental side of those particular contracts and maybe assisted living. That work's ongoing. It will probably take some months yet before we can determine whether we can make that work within the Residential Tenancy Act. We're doing the work now to see if…. There's a body of work that's being done. Then we'll determine whether it makes any sense to actually do it or move it around or not.

D. Thorne: Assisted living comes under the Ministry for Housing, though. I mean, it's on that list of services that are provided through the Ministry for Housing — assisted living. That's the one you're

Hon. R. Coleman: We don't manage any assisted living. We deliver for the health authorities the housing component to the assisted living. We put together the partnerships, the bricks and mortar, the subsidies if there are going to be units within them. They fund into us, for certain, but actually, on an operational side, they're not with the ministry. We are actually the deliverer of the housing, just like if one of the other ministries needed a group home or something. We would deliver that. The capital would flow through us. We deliver the product, and it becomes their responsibility thereafter.

The registrar is covered under a piece of legislation that reports to the Minister of Health.

D. Thorne: I assume that's why you're moving towards putting it in as part of the residential tenancy branch. If it's the housing part that you're doing for assisted living, then it makes sense that eventually they would have the same access to dispute resolution or whatever under the residential tenancy branch, I would think, as supported housing.

So I guess my last question in this area is what I referred to earlier about the units being increased in the regular non-market housing managed by B.C. Housing and other non-profits and people being put into units in these probably older apartments, and the current tenants — seniors and other people — being quite afraid and moving out, in some cases — out of subsidized housing, out of B.C. Housing and non-profit housing because of this.

Is the ministry doing anything to work with those people to try and alleviate their fears and keep them from feeling that they have to leave their homes? Sometimes they've lived there for 20, 30 years. They feel they have to leave, and they're often over 65. I'm just wondering: do we just put people in…?

I guess this goes back, too, to what we were talking about this morning with those buildings in Burnaby at Alpha and Beta. There's another building, another example — I'm just putting that together now in my mind — of where the people are really nervous and apprehensive. Because of the priority clients that will eventually be moved into their building, no matter what happens, people will leave, and there will be vulnerable, hard-to-house people moved in. What are we doing for the people who are there now?

Hon. R. Coleman: This is a public resource. It is housing owned by the province, funded by the province, whether it be managed by non-profits or by the province. We have people that are vulnerable tenants. They require a range of supports. We don't just say: "Okay, there you go. You're in there." We actually do an assessment of people.

We identify what supports they need so they will be able to maintain their housing — whether it's medication or whatever the case may be — if they're moving into a unit within a building. We have partnerships with our service providers, whether it be non-profits or other agencies of government.

I haven't had calls about seniors saying: "I'm afraid because you moved somebody into my building." The reality is that we try and do this with a system of supports. We try and get what is a workable mix in a building, and we don't…. I don't think that we're putting people at risk, quite frankly.

We do this in cooperation…. Some of our non-profits are very good about working with some of our vulnerable tenants versus others. They're prepared to take on the system of supports to make them work within their buildings, and we work with them to make those buildings work well for the people who live in them.

I'm not going to tend to think — I as a minister and we as government — if we have somebody that's a vulnerable tenant that is suitable to move into a particular apartment in an apartment building and if we can provide them supports so that they can be a good member of that community and have the opportunity to self-sustain themselves in a rental accommodation, that we shouldn't do it.

It's just part of what we've done for many, many years. This isn't new. We'll continue to do it, and we continue to get better at how we do it.

D. Thorne: At this time I'd like to switch my questioning for just a moment and ask a few questions on the modernization strategy, because I meant to do that when I did the HPO stuff. I'm sorry I neglected to do that. I did want to ask a couple of general questions, and I'll go back to the other topic afterwards.

Really, all I want to ask is for a kind of general overview, more to have it read into the record than anything else. I have a pretty fair idea of what is being suggested. I'd like to have a very quick overview. I don't want to take up too much time.

My main concern with the strategy…. I can certainly see some of the positive benefits of it. I'm wondering if some of the areas — and I have discussed this with Mr. Cameron — were perhaps being premature in terms of the industry itself not being fully licensed yet. I was referring to the Raising the Bar document with Mr. Cameron and also with the minister. I didn't feel that Bill 34 went quite far enough in implementing the recommendations from the HPO in 2005. I'm wondering what the feeling is of the representative on that.

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, I want to introduce, now sitting to my left, Jeff Vasey, the executive director of the housing and construction standards branch. He's also the person who oversees the modernization strategy.

I want to, first of all, clarify that there are two different projects here. There is the modernization strategy, and then there's Raising the Bar.

Raising the Bar is a project of the Homeowner Protection Office, where they're raising the bar with regards to construction standards and how we identify

products in the future — raising the bar of the standards within that particular branch.

The modernization strategy, on the other hand, is a provincial government initiative to make the building regulatory system and how building construction is regulated more effective. So the modernization is proceeding under the leadership of the office of housing and construction standards, and that's under Jeff's leadership.

The strategy is focused on building code application, enforcement and risk management. Over 150 people to date — owners, developers, designers, builders and trades, local government and consumers — have been involved in discussions to identify current concerns or problems in the areas and to where all participants in the system would like to evolve.

It's basically a big project to say: "Where do we want to evolve with regards to building code enforcement and that sort of thing in the future in British Columbia, given some of the experiences we've had with not very good enforcement with some jurisdictions over the years?"

They're now consulting on proposals that were developed based on these discussions, which clearly assign responsibilities and design processes for applying and enforcing the building code and provide new tools to support code-related decision-making. Consultations will include feedback to the modernization strategy website and events such as meetings that are taking place, and have already taken place, around the province.

The foundation for this discussion is really on modernizing the current system based on the understanding that compliance with building codes means safer buildings. Basically, as you will see in your own community, there has been a lot of building. If you look at your building department and your building inspectors, you have to come to the realization that there isn't the capacity for them to be up on the code all the time as well as do the inspections and be there all the time, whether it's somebody building a shed in their back yard or building a house or a highrise.

There's some building-up of how we review design and construction by an independent party, how that can be done to improve compliance and how those opportunities can exist in the future. We work from the standpoint that the public expects the buildings in B.C. to be safe. The provincial and local governments and industry all have an interest in achieving that same public safety objective.

Then we say the current building and regulatory system in B.C. is discretionary, and the B.C. government may establish a building code and the local governments may regulate buildings. This is commonly interpreted to include enforcement of the code, but there are no explicit requirements or obligations. There's a longstanding history of local government involvement in code enforcement.

So you go through all of that, and you try to get down to where you want to boil this thing down to. You want to get to where you're doing a better job of enforcement and building code and that sort of stuff. Basically, the intent is to have a benefit coming out of the building code, where people have a better understanding of what the code is, what the compliance is and what the standards are.

I'll give you a couple of examples of standards. If you want to build a warehouse to store brand-new tires in one community in the lower mainland, you can put in a sprinkler system, and you can get approval. If you go into a different community across the border a mile away, they'll have a different sprinkler system standard or no sprinkler system standard because they've decided their local fire code is going to be different than the fire code next door to them.

In one community you may have somebody tell you that you have to put a sprinkler system into a townhouse project, and another community might not. One community might have a variance with regards to pitches on their roofs, and in many cases it makes sense. But in actual fact, there's no ability to have the flexibility to reach those standards within this system. So you want to try and build this thing so the people that are doing it have a good understanding of it.

If you're a contractor that's going to build a condo building in either Coquitlam or Surrey or New Westminster or Burnaby, you should have some expectation that the building code standards would be somewhat harmonized between those communities so that you'd have an understanding of it. You don't have to actually go hire a specialist every time to go interpret a different building code in every community. Part of it is harmonization and trying to get to the modernization side.

The proposal for code enforcement throughout the province is expected to clearly define who's doing what, as we come through this process with local government and industry, and give local government access to code-related expertise to assist them with code application and enforcement — which is pretty important, because we have an evolution of building inspectors and code changes coming through, and we're going to have a different, younger group come through to deal with the modernization of the building code — and make more efficient use of limited staff and resources at all levels so that we can actually get the efficiencies to make it work.

The biggest benefit, of course, is that we would streamline things, increase code compliance, reduce the safety risks and achieve more consistent safety outcomes across B.C. It would also help us remove unnecessary barriers to economic development.

Those are all goals at this point in time. The strategy is going to be a big piece of work to take the code — the relationship between community, building departments, industry and the consumer — and work it through to where something makes sense. I know, having been in the field at one time, that you could have basically a bunch of different code changes from one community to another that make in many cases not a lot of sense, frankly.

We're going to try to get to a good understanding of this stuff, and that's what the modernization strategy is about — to get to where we build the consistency. We build that integrated relationship between municipalities, their inspection departments and the industry itself so that everybody has a clear understanding, and we actually have a better compliance and enforcement of the code.

D. Thorne: You would anticipate then that this strategy…. On the face of it, it sounds like it's more to streamline things for the cities and for builders than…. It's not really a consumer piece of legislation, right?

I'm assuming that this is not just for efficiency then. You're hoping that with everybody being on the same page so to speak, we'll also have — let's say, as an example — fewer leaky buildings, fewer bad buildings. This would be good certainly for the consumer and ultimately the builder as well, if that's the case.

So I'm wondering if that's one of the expected outcomes of this strategy, because what I've heard from a couple of consumer groups who are already involved with bad buildings is that they are a little afraid of the modernization strategy. That's one of the reasons why I'm asking about it.

Hon. R. Coleman: Actually, public safety is the ultimate objective here, but also consumer protection. We have consumer groups who have had to deal with the leaky-condo issue as a part of this process. They're part of the modernization process, and it's going to be a very open public process.

There are so many things that were done probably over the last two or three decades in housing with regards to building codes, that I think we didn't catch up. For instance, how can we modernize our skill set so that if we have a new building product that can be introduced to the market, we can actually test and understand it so that we can use it, rather than have it become a faulty building product in our marketplace because of something that has an effect on the water ingress or egress of a building?

Can we be adaptable enough so that if the snow loads in our community require different peak and structure of a beam or truss, we could be able to adapt to that and make sure that it's safe, and it won't crush under the heavy weight of snow, whether it be a ski resort or a community like Whistler or whatever the case may be?

It's really a project, I believe, whose time has come, because it's like the compilation of things. Sooner or later when you have a building industry over many, many years, you acquire all this overlapping layer of things that don't benefit the consumer, public safety or the process of building good buildings. It's probably timely, with that many years of experience behind us, that somebody took a step back and said, "Okay, why don't we do a modernization strategy?"

Let's bring in the people affected by it That's the building inspector in every community, the person that's the contractor, the person that's the architect, the people that are product people, and the consumer themselves who have had to deal with issues.

Planners, quite frankly, need to be part of this, because planning department guys for some years decided that they could tell an architect and a builder what they should change a building to look like when they brought their plans to them pre any council ever looking at them. Some of the changes they demanded led to design problems on those buildings, but in order to get their zoning done, they had to agree with the planners. So there has to be some understanding at that level too, as to what their role and responsibility is.

I think, because of the evolution of the size and the growth of our industry within B.C., it's a good time to do it. We have the participants ready to do it, and we have the right people leading the file. We are not going to rush this. We're going to do it very strategically, and we're going to do it well. We're going to do it in such a way that we get the buy-in so that we get the cooperation to make this thing work long term.

D. Thorne: I look forward to hearing and seeing more about it in the future. Hopefully, if it's all it's expected to be, it will go some distance then towards keeping municipal inspection actually happening. I know that there are many city halls that are looking at liability issues and wanting to walk away from the whole thing. That's not necessarily good for anybody, really, except maybe the municipalities. Who knows?

Okay, so I'm going to go back to my last question on the residential tenancy, which I think I already know the answer to. Basically, your office has moved to phone dispute resolution. You are not doing in-person dispute resolution at all or in what percentage of cases?

Is there any reason to think that you might be considering sometime in the future putting in a few more residential tenancy offices? It's very difficult for people since so many of them were closed — especially for seniors and people without cars and things like that.

Hon. R. Coleman: We do in-person arbitrations, like I said earlier. I don't have the percentage. We're going to try and get you those numbers. If people have a language issue, we'll also provide…. If they request one, they can also have one. A person can request an in-person arbitration.

The reason we actually do the phone thing is, quite frankly, so that people who don't have cars and don't have the ability to get to an office are able to do it by phone. Like I said earlier, that's been going on in British Columbia for long before we came along. It was back in the 1990s that I did some phone arbitrations when I was responsible for some properties on residential tenancy.

This wasn't uncommon then. The argument back then was that they felt that if you had arbitrators in more communities so they had an understanding of

some of the areas, that it would be better. Because the dispute resolution thing for the interior used to all go to Kelowna by telephone. So if you were in Kamloops, you didn't have an office. You did it by phone to Kelowna, etc. That's been around a long time.

We're not at this time anticipating any more offices. We are staffed up now with our additional folks. We're going to see how this works for the next number of months, see whether we can get our call centre times and our turnaround time down and improve our service as we go through it.

D. Thorne: Okay. I just want to talk a little bit about the minister's favourite topic, subsidized family housing. I did have some questions, particularly, that we haven't talked about, which is cooperatives.

When you start talking about affordable housing and the marketplace and people, especially young people and first-time buyers, not being able to find any affordable housing, the co-op housing movement seems to me to be a bridge between renting and owning. There is certainly part ownership, a collective kind of ownership.

They have done lots of studies on co-ops, that it might be one of the most beneficial kinds of communities for raising children. I understand that because of the priorities of the ministry, the co-op housing federation has been more or less excluded from any of the proposal requests that have come out from the government in the last few years. I guess that's because they don't house any of the priority groups.

However, the people who live in those co-ops are working individuals who, were they in the co-op…. It would be very beneficial to them, in the same way, I'm thinking, that you could look at a rent supplement as a way to assist that group of low-income working people. So a cooperative would do the same thing with minimum involvement from the government.

I'm just wondering: is there any way that we are going to be considering co-ops again in the future?

Hon. R. Coleman: The province hasn't done co-ops for many, many years. The federal government did some co-ops, and they did not devolve them to us. The only thing we're doing on co-ops right now is that the Cooperative Housing Federation in B.C. is looking at some options on lands in False Creek and some stuff in the city of Vancouver. We provided them with — for lack of a better description — some development funding to look at options that they might want to bring back to us as some ideas.

D. Thorne: I'm pleased to hear that. I really like co-ops. I just think they're a great idea.

Looking at social housing and Little Mountain. It's the first redevelopment of a social housing site in the province, and I've had some questions. I did go to the open house, and Mr. Ramsay was there. I had most of my questions answered.

At the time I understood that people wouldn't be moving out in the very near future, but I understand from a group of residents that have formed and are becoming quite involved that people are being moved out now. I'm wondering if there has been some significant change in the time line for Little Mountain or changes in the plans.

Hon. R. Coleman: We have people that have moved off the site for various reasons, some because of when their children are going to go to school. They want to be organized for the fall for school or what have you. What we have in place there is we've said that we will pay all the move-out costs for any tenant as they move out. We will keep them whole in their price wherever they're living in the meantime. And they'll get the first right of refusal to move back, and we'll pay their cost to come back.

We think it will take about 18 months, as people move on and find other housing, to get to where we have a vacant site that we could develop. This is a significant opportunity for both governments and for the city of Vancouver and other communities across B.C., this particular site. Because as we redevelop it, we're allowed to reinvest any capital we glean in other housing projects — both in the city and throughout the rest of the province. It's a site that is way underdensity.

We are going to be as open, cooperative and helpful to our tenants as possible. We'll give them the first right to come back to a new unit when the project is done.

D. Thorne: So nothing really has changed then in the original plans, and some people still may not have to move out if the development is phased in. Is there any reason to think that we're going to be able to get some additional social housing in there or even supportive housing on that site when it is redeveloped? Or are we just absolutely only looking at the same number of family units rather than any new family or supportive units?

Hon. R. Coleman: We haven't made a decision on that yet. The minimum we're going to expect is to have the housing that is there replaced for the people that want to come back. So we'll have that minimum number of units.

The reason we haven't made that decision is because, as we do the development, we may want to put some affordable rental on the site in a partnership. We may want to look at some supportive housing. But at the same time, we want to keep our options open on that capital. If we have two or three other sites in the city that we could parallel at the same time as that project's going on and put new product into that marketplace at the same time as we're doing the development, I think that we get more benefit.

Our objective is obviously no less than what's there. Some other affordable options will either be on that site or on other sites in the city as a result of doing this project. There is going to be a huge housing benefit coming out of that one site for people and citizens of B.C.

D. Thorne: Okay. I just wanted to talk for a minute about the Olympic Inner-City Inclusive Housing Table and the housing recommendations that came out of that table. I'm sure that everybody on the other side of the table is very familiar with those recommendations.

I'm wondering if the government…. I'm assuming you're studying the report. I'm wondering if and when we can expect a response from the province on the housing recommendations. Those are the ones in the report that I'm particularly interested in. There were some in there that are not directly related to housing.

The recommendations certainly tie in with work that's been done in the last few years by the GVRD as well. They released the study, a regional affordable housing strategy, basically forecasting a much higher demand for housing units. They go through to 2021 rather than 2010. They're forecasting 315,000 new units will be needed in the GVRD population — 12,000 units a year of new market housing and 3,600 units of rental housing.

So between those two reports, we're talking in the next 14 years about really an astronomical amount of housing for renters, for buyers and for the homeless and people who are near homeless, leading up to the Olympics.

I'm wondering what the long-term strategy of the ministry is. Will it be based on those two reports for the lower mainland, and when might we expect to know?

Hon. R. Coleman: No, our strategy will not be based on those reports. Our strategy is based on the Housing Matters homeless strategy that we have and what we're funding.

They've done their report. I believe we have 90 days that we can respond to it. We will respond with a response, but those reports are not going to drive our strategy. Our strategy was announced in October of last year.

M. Karagianis: I actually have a couple of questions for the minister regarding manufactured homes. I'm hoping that doesn't require any kind of staffing change.

As the minister is aware, here on the Island we've had a couple of manufactured home parks receive eviction notice. I have written to the minister. I know the minister has made some public comments about actions that government might consider.

I'd like to know whether or not he's prepared to elaborate on some of the things he has inferred in the past about strata ownership or any other programs for manufactured home owners around the province, but certainly for those individuals in my community that are currently facing financial ruin because of this eviction?

Hon. R. Coleman: This is a challenge — no question. It's been a challenge since the early 1990s. In developing the act, as we came through for the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act, we tried to address some of the issues, but quite frankly the challenge is this. It's not dissimilar to the discussion I had with the critic earlier with regards to rent controls.

What we have facing us in B.C. today is a number of manufactured home parks that were built, put in place in neighbourhoods and areas where there wasn't any urban growth. The urban growth has come to them. They have seen their property taxes and their water taxes and their other taxes go up dramatically. There is no mechanism in the act other than they can go through an appeal mechanism and try and recoup that.

What happens is that some of the parks have started to…. There are a number of different factors here, but let me give you a couple of examples. I have one park, for instance, where its increase in property taxes this year was close to $35,000. They can't flow that through to their tenants. So what happens is the cost continues to build up for the operator of the park to the point where they say: "You know what? I'm better off to just sell this land, to redevelop it and get out of this business, because I can't continue to function and pay my bills."

That's one aspect that we have. The other aspect that we have is where if a park owner, in some jurisdictions, wants to sell the park to their tenants, for instance. Let's say I want to sell you your lot. So you are no longer renting the property. You can actually buy the lot. They would be able to go and do a bare land strata.

To do that, some municipalities require them to increase and make a significant investment in the level of services or what the services are like within the strata. Sometimes they put on huge development cost charges, even though they are just transferring title by doing the survey and saying: "We're going to do this." So there is another situation that faces us.

Then, of course, there is the situation that these people have one of those very unique types of tenancies, where they are renting a piece of property with a home that is much more permanent than just renting an apartment. So I've asked my staff…. We actually had somebody do a report on manufactured home parks. We hired a consultant to go look at it, and I'll be honest with the member. I wasn't satisfied with the report. I didn't think it thought outside the box much or that it came up with any ideas.

I have challenged our folks to look at everything from the notice required for the notice to redevelop a park right through to how we could streamline things — like somehow to get municipalities to streamline for strata property, to be able to do a bare land strata and move the park off to ownership.

As I come through all of that, I run up against other standards where anything built prior to a certain year no longer, when it's moved, would even meet any standards that would be allowed in any municipality to be repositioned on another lot because it's so old, it doesn't meet CSA standards and stuff.

This was around when I was a critic. All I can tell the member is that I've told my guys and I have said to the industry that we're going to try and find some solutions here. But as we find them, we have to understand a couple of things.

If we want people to stay in the business, we may have to consider that they can flow through certain uncontrollable expenses without having to be caught in the rent control — an uncontrollable expense of a significant property tax increase, or having to replace the entire sewer system in the park because it's deteriorating and the septic system needs to be replaced, or whether it's to redo the roads or whatever.

There is no provision today that allows that flow-through other than a fairly lengthy dispute situation, and it doesn't work because there are so many people affected at once, so many properties, that it ends up in a quagmire.

I thought we'd figured that one out as we came through the act, but we don't have it figured out. So we need to fix that. There is work going to be done over the next few months to try and address those issues.

At the same time I would like to see jurisdictions start to recognize again that this is a pretty decent form of affordable housing — and that they might allow some new parks in their communities. Maybe if they get new parks, they might take the one other policy position on it and say: "We'll let you have a park, but we want it bare-land strata so people can buy their lot rather than just paying the rental of the land."

I'd like to see some ability to transition that. As the member would be well aware, that is complicated legislative stuff that our guys have to do a bunch of work on to see if we could even pull off some of that.

I met with the owners here a few weeks ago. Their complaints were the same as they've always been. Their numbers guy came up to me and said: "Look, I'm thinking of just getting out of my park. I'm thinking of just selling it for commercial development. Although I've been in the business for 20 years, I just can't afford the incremental costs that are coming at me, because I can't get the incremental increase from my pad rental to cover that incremental cost."

In some areas of B.C., where the parks have been there a long time, they have significant infrastructure costs facing them. There are treated water systems, as well, where there are individuals on wells. They'd have to manage the water system, and those systems are starting to deteriorate.

We do have to find a plethora of solutions on this one. I'm not going to tell the member today that I have the solutions, but I do think we have some incremental ideas that will start to roll out over the next 30 to 60 days and some legislative ideas that are obviously going to take a little bit longer to develop to deal with this issue.

M. Karagianis: I appreciate that the minister is taking some action on this. Now, in the case of some of these communities…. I'll use my community, Pedder Bay, as an example, but I think this story is playing out right across the province. I have 30 families there, some with children, some who are seniors, some who are frail of health. I have individuals there who have heavily invested in mortgages as recently as a year ago and now are quite indebted. Many of these families, as the minister has alluded to, are unlikely to be able even to move their homes, even if there were someplace for those homes to move to.

In addition, many of these people will now find themselves in financial ruin because they can neither sell the property to recoup the investment in mortgages that they hold right now nor recoup things like loans for improvements. Some of those were done recently. Storms of the last winter caused a lot of damage out there. A number of those homeowners were encouraged by their manager to make the repairs to their homes and are holding sizeable loans.

I think this is probably not an unfamiliar kind of scenario. Playing out elsewhere I've heard of similar circumstances in other situations here on the Island and over on the mainland. Now, I know the city of Coquitlam has tried to put forward some resolutions here on some fair compensation, so I would ask the minister whether that is something that the government would find endorsable.

Secondly, what options, if any, do many of these people have now — people who are facing financial ruin, obviously, and are caught in a situation where there are no legislative tools for them to access, where there are very few support systems and options for them to choose? What, if anything, can or will the government do to try and alleviate some of these tragedies? They are very tragic situations that are occurring right now.

Hon. R. Coleman: This may be one where the courts may help us. The Pedder Bay one is going to court. It is going through a court process that may direct some solutions back to us. Whether I was the critic asking the questions about mobile home parks in the 1990s or being here today, I don't think that we've been able to find the solutions here yet.

I did suggest to a number of municipalities that came to see me at UBCM that they should allow for bare land stratas, without development cost charges, and allow these things to be sold to tenants. Some of them thought that was a good idea. I haven't seen many of them happen. I've seen where Surrey said no to a redevelopment of a manufactured home park property. Any municipality has the power to do that as well.

At the same time, I am going to look at that compensation package as part of my review that is going on right now with regard to eviction for the purposes of redevelopment. We're going to take a look at that, but we're also going to take a look at how we manage the flow-through cost challenges that are facing park owners saying: "I'll stay in the business, but you have to at least let my business have a chance to function at a reasonable level." That's going to be part of the work as well.

M. Karagianis: Just one final question. Obviously, there is some encouragement for strata ownership here, but given the nature of this as an affordable housing option…. As the minister has alluded to and as we all

know, in many cases this is for a lot of people the only way that they can find housing for themselves that is affordable, that is a very modest investment to get into.

Is it possible for government to think of a way to put together some kind of financial backing, help either to back the mortgages or to carry the mortgages — a similar kind of thing that's done across Canada for other kinds of housing? Is it possible for the government to look at a way of putting together some kind of backing so that these individuals do have the capacity to access that kind of financing either to purchase their property or to participate in some kind of strata fees?

If many of these individuals had the kind of money it would take to buy a lot, I'm sure they could have taken advantage of other affordable options like moving into a condo. But I think that for the most part the families that I have met and dealt with…. I know from my colleagues that I've spoken to on this topic that many of these families are in very modest financial circumstances and therefore would need some kind of supported help from government.

Is this an option that government would seriously consider — finding a way to assist in a financing of this kind of strata ownership?

Hon. R. Coleman: We're actually a national housing mortgage manager at B.C. Housing, and there are ways that we can look at financing. The challenge, though, is to determine how you do that. If you look at it, in reality if you are paying $300 a month today for your pad rental and if you look at today's interest rates, it means that you could probably handle about a $50,000 charge to buy your bare land strata. If the densities are there in the land base, because of where some of these parks are located, those numbers might just work, in a pure economic sense, through an insured loan or whatever the case may be.

In some of our larger municipalities, where we have lots selling for as much as $280,000 or $300,000 for a single-family lot, the challenge will be whether a municipality would allow infill for better density. We have some parks, for instance up in the Nanaimo area, where the residents are on 7,000-square-foot lots. You could actually put two or three more units on the same space. If they allowed for that density and bare land strata, then you might be able to recruit the same dollar and make the numbers work. Each one's going to be a bit different, I guess, as far as the business case is concerned.

We're not leaving any idea off the table as we come through this, quite frankly, and I don't know whether I will be the minister that successfully solves this one. There are predecessors back through…. Even in my opposition days the House Leader was…. I remember having a discussion with him about manufactured home parks back when he would have been the minister, in about '97 or '98.

We're going to try. But we're going to have to recognize as we try this that we also have to find a way for people to stay in the business, too — like if they want to have their park that they actually have the ability to at least cover their costs and make a reasonable return. If we don't do that, we get to like…. We're finding even in some of our rental stock, where the default position is: "I'm better off to tear it down and build something new." We want to try and find that balance and see if we can find some other places to be innovative on the land base, where we could actually encourage more manufactured home parks.

I have lived in a manufactured home three times. My first home was a manufactured home in Alberta. It was a single-family home. It allowed me to get into my first lot, build my first house. The second one was in Penticton, and one was on an Indian reserve on leased land. Frankly, when you have a 1,440-square-foot unit that has a fresh-air fireplace or whatever, it's not the old trailer park.

We actually build these in B.C. We deliver them all over the province. These things as a form of housing are as affordable and as good as any other form of housing, and I'd like to see us encourage more of it, to be honest with you. I do think there are opportunities to try and find an innovative project somewhere, if we can find the right land, to maybe show people what can be done.

There's no question there's a little bit of institutional bias at municipal levels for new parks. That always makes it a challenge for you. It's not just the fact that somebody wants to close one, it's that nobody will let you open one either. You need to get to where we're getting some more uses on the land base. There are some interesting challenges coming at us and some ideas we'll try and make work. We'll keep our fingers crossed to see if we can solve this one.

D. Thorne: I had a question around the PTT. I'm not positive if this comes under Housing or if it's under the Minister of Finance because it was around using part of the PTT for affordable housing, like a designated percentage. I know that the Real Estate Association people have talked to the government about that.

I was just wondering if the minister has spoken with them about that and would like to make a comment, because it's a different issue than…. They're talking about increasing the ceiling. I know that's the Minister of Finance. But what are the minister's thoughts on designating a much larger…. It's about 15 percent now, I think, if you look at the dollars that are brought in for the PTT. Say you double that for affordable housing of some kind. Certainly that could go anywhere — affordable housing.

Hon. R. Coleman: No, we're not going to do that. We're not going to advocate for it because, quite frankly, as I said to the Real Estate Association…. I gave them a speech. I outlined to them that we just spent $45 million on SROs, that we're doing another 300 units in Vancouver, there are 758 units we did on the proposal call, the money that we put into subsidies and the 500-and-some-odd units we did on the Premier's Task Force on Homelessness. When I finished I said: "And where do you think that money came from?

Where do you think tripling the Housing budget on top of that capital investment came from? It came from general revenue."

I don't believe in dedicated funds within government. I don't. Having been a member of Treasury Board, I know what the budget process works like. I know that we have a pool of money, and we have to make decisions around those dollars. If you took the money that was actually invested in forms of housing in B.C., outside just including this ministry…. Take a look at all the long-term care beds, all the intermediate care beds, all the hospital costs, and then look at how much property transfer tax comes in. You'd say it pales by comparison to the real dollar value.

The real estate guys always have an "ask" every year. This is one of their annual asks. Because I'd spoken to them at a panel discussion the day before, they came to my office and said: "This year we are not going to ask. We think we know what you think on this one."

I just think the property transfer tax is a piece of revenue no different than the revenues we might get from liquor, taxation or MSP premiums that go into an overall budgeting process of government. When you have already tripled the housing budget in three years, and you have made significant capital investments, it's just frankly not on.

It's not something that I would advocate, knowing how the budget process works, that we would say: "The property transfer tax is dedicated to X." The next thing, somebody is saying "take the revenues from this and dedicate it to X," and then along the way you find out you don't have the right amount of money for education and health care because you've dedicated money everywhere else. You really do have to manage your overall gross dollar value of a budget with as limited an amount of special accounts so you have flexibility in your budgeting process.

D. Thorne: Thank you for a direct answer and not beating around the bush. I've always thought it was kind of a good idea. I do recognize, however, that a dollar is a dollar, whether it comes out of a dedicated fund or out of the black hole of general revenue — right? A dollar is a dollar.

I guess their recommendation to increase the ceiling is much more interesting and probably not something that the government is going to look at either because it means far less money, although it would certainly make first-time homebuyers happy because it would decrease the amount of tax they would have to pay.

Even the Vancouver Sun wrote an editorial that kind of says the PTT is a terrible tax, but governments are not known for getting rid of taxes once they have them.

I just had a couple of quick questions on the housing endowment fund. I almost forgot to ask, because I did want to go into homelessness and shelters in our last half-hour. I'm just wondering, if it can be answered quickly, where it is going to be held. Is it a true endowment fund like goes to the Victoria Foundation and is administered by them, and then a board makes the decisions about who will get the money, like a regular endowment fund?

Hon. R. Coleman: Just to deal with the PTT for a second — we did raise the ceiling this year for first-time home buyers in this budget. I don't think they had seen our budget yet when they first put that document together.

Hon. R. Coleman: Believe me — the Real Estate Association always wants a little bit more. Because I was involved in their organization at one time, I can say that.

Basically, the housing endowment fund is $250 million that goes to the B.C. Investment Management Corp. The B.C. Investment Management Corp. is a corporation within the Ministry of Finance who manage money on behalf of government. So it takes it out of the consolidated revenue fund and puts it strictly into the management of this particular management fund. They administer money for pension funds, Crown agency investments and organizations like Hydro.

The type of investment that can be made will be subject to prudent personal rule, which currently governs the types of investments that can be made by other publicly administered funds in B.C., so it's low-risk investments. That's what this corporation does. The specific investment strategy will be developed over the next few weeks, which is basically done, and we know that we should be able to glean about a minimum $10 million a year out of this fund into it.

The account, the $10 million, comes to the Ministry, the office of housing and construction standards. We will do a call for proposals periodically by B.C. Housing in consultation with that portion of our ministry, and the frequency of those calls will be determined by what innovation we're trying to achieve.

So we don't necessarily have to spend it any fiscal year. The money can accumulate there, and we can use it the next year if we want to. It's not like it's in a budget cycle that's determined the same way as other…. It's actually an endowment that can grow if we don't use it. Of course, we do plan to use it.

The proposals will be reviewed by the deputy minister and the CEO of B.C. Housing, with expert assistance as appropriate. Then recommendations for the proposals to be funded would be forwarded to the minister for decision. Funding will be awarded for proposals that are innovative and do not typically qualify for existing government programs.

The idea of having the innovation fund is to say: "Is there something different that we're not doing today or that we could try to do that doesn't fit into our 'boxes'." I am not saying this is a project that would get funded, but one was an example of a number of families that came to me and said: "We all have developmentally disabled adults at home, but we're aging parents. We're wondering if we could do something innovative by perhaps buying four or five units on a floor in an

apartment block, condos, and maybe you guys buy one for basically a care worker to be there, and fund something there so that we would be able to give them independent living for the long-term of their lives because we are concerned about what happens to them if we pass away."

That would be something you might say: "That might be innovative or interesting to look at, and we might be able to find it within that type of a program." There is no box within Independent Living B.C. or anywhere else where that would fit as far as maybe trying to invest some money to do something different.

We're going to give preference to proposals to provide the creation of new affordable social or supportive housing where they provide for advances in housing development and management. The innovative proposals will suggest new ways to meet the diverse needs of those who are not served through existing programs, as I said.

The budget has been established. It's a housing endowment fund special account, within that corporation, of $250 million, effective April 1, 2007. The purpose of it is to provide the funding for innovative, affordable projects, as I described them.

D. Thorne: So these criteria are on your website? How would somebody get it, then?

Hon. R. Coleman: The criteria are being developed. It will be posted when it is developed, and we would anticipate our first proposal call under the housing endowment fund for innovative projects to be sometime this fall.

D. Thorne: I'm assuming non-profit and profit companies would be eligible to apply. I'm assuming also that there will be performance measures at the end of the projects. So the absolute final decision will be made by…?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, it's open to municipalities, non-profits — anybody that has an innovative idea and wants to make a proposal under the criteria that we establish. Basically, we will have the projects assessed and recommendations come from the CEO and the associate deputy minister to the minister for final decision.

D. Thorne: I wanted to just talk a little bit about homelessness. There are just a couple of areas I wanted to cover. I know that the ministry is very aware that this is a monster problem. It's just getting worse every day right across the province, and it is no longer just southern British Columbia.

People in the Kootenays, the Okanagan, Prince George and all over the place are having a huge problem with the homeless, the hidden homeless and the near-homeless. Victoria is probably having nearly as big a problem as the downtown east side, which of course has always been thought of as having the highest homeless population.

Where I come from, in the Tri-Cities, our numbers have gone from 32 to 177 in a year and a half. We just had our second report from the Hope for Freedom Society, which is actually a group that's been funded to do…. I'm not sure if it's been funded through the Ministry for Housing or through MEIA, but I know that they had their second grant, and they employ outreach workers who have been making contact with the homeless in the Tri-Cities.

The first report by this group was remarkably non-political. I mean, it just totally reported on statistics and reality. A couple of weeks ago the second record came out, and I noticed that the tone is quite different in this report now that Mr. Thiessen and his staff are recommending several things. They didn't really recommend anything in the first report. They are now recommending a detox facility, as well as a 20-bed emergency shelter and transitional supported beds for longer-term treatment and recovery.

I know that we have a homelessness task group in the Tri-Cities that Mr. Bloy and Mr. Farnworth and myself all attend and try to do what we can to help. But I think it's indicative of how bad the problem is getting when you have groups like the Hope for Freedom Society saying: "We have to have these things; we're desperate."

I'm wondering about one really important thing, and that is the housing first concept that they're using in the United States. I understand that the minister had a meeting or at least a conversation with Philip Mangano when he was here last week. I sure would have liked to have been a fly on the wall in that conversation. I just don't think it's fair that I never get invited to anything like that.

I'd be very interested in hearing what the minister…. Anything he is prepared to say…. I know it's not very long ago. I know it's an expensive proposition, but we also know that it works and, you know, it may just be our best hope at the moment here in British Columbia. Is the minister prepared to make any comments about housing first?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, let me tell the member that the housing first strategy in the United States has been employed in this province for a long time. In actual fact, the one part of the meeting I think both myself and the opposition member refers to is that neither one of us felt that either one of us was afraid of stealing any good idea from anywhere that might work. I think that's basically what their drive has been with regards to their policies and what they're trying to do federally in the United States.

They have a much larger level of bureaucracy to work through from a federal level down through the state level to their regional state levels. They have a lot of issues just in trying to drive a consistent agenda. Mind you, he's got a 300-million population too.

I think that the Premier of this province actually took significant leadership a few years back when he put together the Premier's Task Force on Homelessness. I think it was important that that be done. It

brought together the partners from a number of major municipalities across the province with regards to this issue, and by so doing it, started to find the best practices and ideas that would work and that might have success in our jurisdiction and continue to do that.

Since that task force was put together, there have been a few thousand supportive housing units — 2,287 to be either done, converted, bought or whatever in 22 communities across this province. The task force has raised awareness, created better understanding, looked at better practices and that sort of stuff, and put together the packages to have these things done.

As we've come through this, though, we've done more supportive housing, and we've committed to even more. Then we went and bought the single-room-occupancy hotels. Then we did it in another 287 ones we've committed to in the city. Shortly there's another proposal call. There's one out now for 250 additional units of supportive housing. If we get the same uptake as we did the last time, we'll get a lot more than 250 out of that call.

We've put hundreds of millions of dollars now on the table for the operating budget of the ministry so that we could do things like the cold-wet weather beds and turn them into year-round shelters that which was announced in this year's budget and which automatically overnight gave us an extra 300 year-round beds for shelters. We implemented the 20 homeless outreach projects across B.C. in 18 communities — outreach workers.

Incrementally, these things are starting to work. I want to give you one example, and that's the outreach workers, because I think it is a good example. We invested some money. Vancouver had 279 clients housed, just less than the last year; 91 percent of those clients remain on income assistance, and 84 percent of those clients that were homeless are still housed today.

In Victoria the program is running just about the same amount of time — 168 clients have been housed in the last year, and 70 percent of those clients still remain housed in that community. In Surrey the program has been running for only six months; 58 clients were assisted and another 22 people are housed — 73 percent of those clients all remain housed today. In Kelowna 168 clients were assisted and about 70 people were housed, and 68 percent of those clients remain housed today.

It's an incremental thing on homelessness. It's a lot of work, but I do think that the pieces of the puzzle are starting to fall into place. I do believe that we're going to have the successes. I'm already seeing those successes and hearing about them on the street.

They're not something that you're going to see reported on because it's not the story. The story is: let's go find somebody that we can take a picture of and make everybody say that this is a crisis. I get that because that's how it works on the media side.

At the same time, they could also go say: "Gee, what about the 300 people that got housed in Vancouver as a result of the outreach workers last year? Why don't we go talk to a few of them and find out just how much better their lives are now that they are connected into services?"

We know, on the homeless side, it's not just housing. We know that there are people out there with mental health and addictions and literacy issues that have a tough time even accessing services.

It's something as simple as…. One person I did talk to about homelessness, who was homeless at one time, said to me: "You know, I didn't know how to look up in the phone book to find the social services office. I couldn't have made the application because I can't read or write. Somebody helped me make the connection so that I can read and write and I made that application, and then I got social assistance. Then somebody helped me get to a doctor to get some diagnosis done to help me because I didn't have a doctor."

If you start seeing these incremental things together, then you can find housing and get them with support services so that they can stay in their housing and not end up in a situation where they redo the cycle. That's one victory at a time. I believe that on a whole mental health and addiction issue, which is a big part of the housing-homelessness issue, it's an incremental win. It's one person at a time. It's taking the time to build the services, the supports, and to build the connectivity into system for that.

The thousands of units that we as government manage or we have non-profits manage should be part of that puzzle and support, so that we can incrementally help one person at a time and get them off the streets. I believe that we can be successful doing that.

In the last year and a half, two years that I've been the minister responsible, we've taken the time to systematically look at how we can improve these things one piece at a time to get there. I think we're on the right track, and I believe we're going to find the results will bear that out over time.

I also know it will be work that's being done. I've had more providers from the downtown east side, who would normally not be what you would call supporters of government, walk up to me and say: "You're doing the right thing." When we did the SRO announcement just about every organization in the downtown east side that had any play in the housing came to me and said: "This is amazing. We didn't think anybody would ever get that level of vision."

The reality is that we're going to do this incrementally with our partners in the non-profit sector, and we're going to work through it. We're going to continue to incrementally do it community by community because that, quite frankly, is the right thing to do.

D. Thorne: Well, it's interesting to hear the minister answer my question about housing first by saying that, in fact, this government is already doing the housing first. I'm wondering if he always knew that, or if he just realized that last week when he met with Mr. Mangano. It appears as if the business community, for

instance, or whoever brought in Mr. Mangano, doesn't quite realize that the government is doing that.

I suspect there are some differences in the program. It just might be that it's more regulated. There's more of a structure, shall we say, for the housing first. The supports are all in place, and they feed people into those supports in a very process-oriented way in the major cities in the U.S. rather than in small groups with requests for proposals the way we're doing here in British Columbia.

It's reassuring to hear that this is a model that the minister believes works. I hope that the ministry, and the government in general, especially with the Ministry of Health and the other relevant ministries, will try and move working with the homeless and health and addictions into more of a process so that it's there and ready to go for the homeless, as we try and get them off the streets. There's no doubt about it: for every person we house, it seems as if there are two or three more taking their place in all these communities.

Sad to say, we're not keeping up very well, as many people as we are managing. We do have success stories, there's no doubt about that. We all know that. But we're not keeping up with it.

I believe it's going to take a major commitment by the government — by all of us really, everyone in the community and the business community as well — to recognize that the homelessness crisis is as much an economic problem as it is a social problem. And not just around the Olympics, which everybody seems to be focusing on all the time — particularly the report that I referred to earlier, which is very clear about the support and the homes that are needed in the next couple of years in Vancouver.

There is still the rest of the province and growing homelessness outside of southern British Columbia. People are leaving and going to the smaller centres thinking that things will be better and finding that there are often fewer supports in those centres.

I just had a couple of questions. I see the time is moving on. Everybody is getting a bit fidgety and wanting to get out of here for the long weekend, except my colleague, who is very happily sitting.

In any case, I wanted to just confirm that the 300 beds that were announced in the budget are going to be converted to year-round beds. Is there going to be new space provided for these beds, or does that just mean like putting a few more beds in every shelter? That's one question.

I'm wondering if these 300 beds are spread over three years, or is that 300 beds this year?

Hon. R. Coleman: It was 300 beds immediately. These were beds that would normally have closed after the cold-wet weather had gone by. We formalized the funding so they could stay open year-round. So it was 300 beds immediately and a $27 million cost a year to do that. The commitment was made, and the commitment has been met.

D. Thorne: Are these operating shelters? Can we expect to see some new shelters come out of this, or will we have to wait for the next budget, next year, to see any new shelter beds?

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't know how to answer that question other than to say they are open now. They would have been closed. They'll continue to be open. The budget is committed on the three-year budget cycle because we do three-year budget cycles. Nothing is going to change there.

There still will be the emergency shelter program, which is a program so that if you go beyond the capacity of these shelters in the winter, you can open up other shelters in the communities that have the programs.

Some communities choose not to put a plan in place. Then they're the first ones to say: "Why didn't you open a shelter or unit in my…?" We said: "We offered you the opportunity. You just have to have the church hall, or whatever it was that you were going to have that relationship with in your community." On top of the ones that were formalized, there are 1,100 of those beds across the province available in extreme wet weather conditions.

I do note the time, and I do know I have four votes to get through. So maybe the member, if you have any other questions…. There are a couple of things I want to give the member relative to earlier discussions, so that she can have the information she requested earlier today.

I just wanted to clarify. I had asked earlier, and I just want to be very sure, that the SRO beds that were purchased on the downtown east side, which will become classified as supported housing now, will still be under the RTB and any of the tenants in those rooms will still have access to all of the same dispute resolution, etc. Is that correct? I did get that correct?

Hon. R. Coleman: The answer to the question is yes, again. They are under the residential tenancy branch. They would be governed by the rules of that act.

Some of those people that live in those projects today need supports, and they may not have them. So they're actually going to get supportive housing immediately because they live there.

We're going to renovate them. We have a renovation plan. We have management companies that are presently managing them. We are doing a request for proposals very, very shortly, asking non-profit housing management groups in Vancouver, Victoria — because of the units that we have — and Burnaby to come and make a proposal if they want to manage them.

It could be someone like the Salvation Army managing one or two buildings, one of the hotel societies that exist in these particular areas, Cool Aid in Victoria or different groups like that which may want to come into the proposal call and say they want to run these buildings.

We'll connect the supports in through Health and the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance into those buildings. As tenants move on and vacate a

unit, which some will, then we'll reoccupy it with somebody else who needs this system of supports.

D. Thorne: This is my last question. I was just going to refer back to the greater Vancouver regional affordable strategy where, as I mentioned earlier, they're anticipating needing 315,000 new housing units by 2021. They are saying that 100,000 of those units will have to be affordable, meaning of course that people can't pay more than 30 percent of their gross income for housing. I'm wondering if the ministry is planning a strategy to ensure that this demand can be met into 2021.

Hon. R. Coleman: I will reiterate what I said earlier. There is one housing strategy in British Columbia, and it's Housing Matters B.C. The GVRD isn't going to tell the province how to manage housing. They are not going to receive some endowment funds so they can go do something. I think the GVRD, from my own perspective, should manage the services that they should be managing: water and sewer — which is what it was set up for in the beginning. The relationship between us will be directly one-on-one with municipal governments to build the relationship on the ground in the communities.

We don't need another layer of government with regards to this particular issue in British Columbia. I've actually met with the board of that group and explained that to them. I have also told them that after session we will have a meeting. I will explain to them in more detail to their full board what we're doing in housing in the Greater Vancouver area.

I have made it very clear that their report and their request is not on. It's just not something that I'm prepared to enter into, nor would I take it to my cabinet or caucus on any level, simply because that is not their responsibility. That is not where they should be spending their energy. We have a housing strategy in B.C. It's funded to the tune of $300-odd million, and we'll continue to fund it and see great opportunities coming out of the things we're doing.

In the estimates debate this morning the opposition Housing critic asked about the composition of the budget. I'll put this in Hansard, and then I'll give the member the copy. She was asking about the $20 million that is in the Housing budget for the ministry outside of B.C. Housing.

I'm going to use rounded figures here: $10 million of that would be the endowment, which will come through and go into innovative projects. The other $10 million is broken down into about six or seven categories.

The Safety Standards Appeal Board is about $100,000. Research is about $300,000. Housing policy, which would include the modernization strategy, is $1.5 million. The associate deputy minister's office, including building occupancy charges, systems and other corporate services — which actually services the entire operation of the ministry — is about $4 million. The PST refunds through the Homeowner Protection Office, which is part of the leaky-condo stuff, is $4 million. And post-budget interministry transfer from the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance to fund two emergency shelters, which they do in some cases, is about $700,000.

The difference this comprises is, basically, B.C. Housing will receive directly from the ministry the other balance of the money. I think I've covered that off. In-person dispute resolutions are now at about 20 percent at the residential tenancy office. The volume of requests over last year is about 40-percent higher than the year before. We attribute that to a lot of it being based on availability, and it's also because of the growth in population and the growth in numbers.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.