2009 Legislative Session: First Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the

Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 7, Number 2

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Groundwater protection

D. Routley

Community fund for veterans' memorials

G. Hogg

Kinuko Laskey

J. Kwan

Burnaby Business Excellence Awards

H. Bloy

Community social services workers

S. Simpson

Adoption awareness

N. Letnick

Oral Questions

Legal aid services

L. Krog

Hon. M. de Jong

S. Simpson

Public health services in Smithers area

D. Donaldson

Hon. K. Falcon

A. Dix

H1N1 influenza vaccination program

J. Brar

Hon. K. Falcon

Government distribution of Olympic Games tickets

J. Kwan

Hon. M. McNeil

M. Farnworth

Government support for Kitimat forest workers

R. Austin

Hon. B. Bennett

Funding for FPInnovations

D. Routley

Hon. P. Bell

Petitions

M. Sather

M. Karagianis

A. Dix

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 21 — Ambulance Services Collective Agreement Act (continued)

D. Routley

M. Sather

N. Macdonald

V. Huntington

H. Lali

G. Coons

M. Karagianis

S. Fraser

B. Simpson

Speaker's Statement

Rules for public bills in the hands of private members

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Small Business, Technology and Economic Development

Hon. I. Black

J. Kwan

L. Popham

M. Sather

B. Simpson

S. Herbert

[ Page 1949 ]

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2009

The House met at 1:36 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. G. Campbell: Joining us today in the gallery are representatives of the B.C. branch of the Last Post Fund. The Last Post Fund is a national non-profit organization that works to ensure that all veterans in Canada receive a funeral, burial and grave marker befitting someone who has defended our shared freedoms.

In honour of the 100th anniversary of the Last Post Fund, we are proud to be proclaiming November 5 as Last Post Fund Day in British Columbia.

I hope the Legislature will join me in welcoming retired Maj.-Gen. Ed Fitch, the branch vice-president; retired Col. Sam Dunbar, the branch president; retired Col. Don McLellan, an honorary member; Mr. Ron Rowdon, the manager; Howardeena Kembel-McGrory, senior counsel; and her husband, Shawn McGrory.

Thank you for all the work you do in honouring our veterans.

L. Reid: Today in our gallery we are have representatives of Equal Voice. Today was the British Columbia launch of Equal Voice, which is a process that is all about engaging young women, young girls in the democratic process — how they might wish to become involved.

I have lots of guests here with us today, and I want to thank my colleague from North Island for assisting in the hosting of this lovely group of souls. We have Amanda Reaume, Carolyn Jack, Janet Wiegand, Jodi Robertson, Laura Mcleod, Kristine Zellweger, Catherine McGregor, Slaine Sutherland, Siobhan Powlowski, Jocelyn Jones, Annie Do, Ariana Moragh, Jordon Watson, Breanna Aslett, Bethany McElvaine, Puja Bates, Jenn Bowie, Jen Wizinksy, Corrina Shanga, Kati-Raven George-Jim, Kieran McCabe-Gregg, Katherine Charlesworth, Siobhan Mcarthur and Elizabeth Kuroyedov.

Our sponsors today: Katherine Rio from TD Canada Trust and Patrick Lauzon from Merck Frosst. Also represented are the Girl Guides of Canada, by Alex McKenzie and Daphne McGregor-Grier.

I would ask the House to join me in offering the finest welcome ever. Thanks to all the colleagues who joined with us today in the Ned DeBeck.

K. Conroy: I want to introduce a group who will actually be arriving in the Legislature later today. SOS The Americas is a campaign of over a thousand students who will relay the Torch of Life throughout 36 countries in the Americas, promoting the importance of organ and tissue donations. This is a two-year journey that started in Alaska on October 24 of this year and will end in Argentina on October 24, 2011.

The odyssey is sponsored by Step by Step, a charitable organization created by George Marcello in 1997. George, a recipient of a life-saving liver transplant himself, has spearheaded this journey in many other countries, with this being his seventh campaign.

Students from Victoria High, with George, will be arriving at the Legislature at approximately three o'clock, carrying the famous Torch of Life. Victoria is the third city of 277 cities to be visited in the two-year student torch trek.

I encourage all members of the House to join me now, and outside at three o'clock, in welcoming these young people and the torch to the Legislature today.

Hon. M. Coell: Visiting in the precinct today and seated in the gallery is Lisa Tinney, senior account manager for the main branch of the Royal Bank of Canada here in Victoria. Would the House please make her welcome.

Hon. R. Hawes: In the gallery today is Mr. Normand Chevrier. He's from Eurocopter. Eurocopter manufactures about 51 percent of the helicopters sold worldwide. He's here to talk to MLAs about the use of those helicopters in British Columbia. Could the House please make Normand welcome.

[1340]

N. Letnick: It was also my pleasure to be present at lunch with the Equal Voice crowd. Just to say that in my previous life as a city councillor, the mayor was a woman, and the boss of me as a college student — my dean, Jayne Brooks — was also a woman. I've had many women in my life who have taken the lead.

With that segue, I'd like to introduce the first woman that's led me, and I'll stop right there: my mom, who's in the gallery, Marie-Claire Letnick from White Rock, and her friend Elizabeth Budge. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

Hon. S. Thomson: Joining us in the gallery today will be five representatives of B.C.'s Young Farmers. I had a chance to meet with them this morning. It's an organization that helps promote a positive future for farming in B.C. Young Farmers organizations meet, and they network together and run education programs.

From the Fraser Valley are Ravi Cheema, Myles Andrews, Steven Redekop and David Mutz, and from Nanoose on Vancouver Island is Ross Springford. He is working to establish a Vancouver Island

chapter of B.C.

[ Page 1950 ]

Young Farmers. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

Hon. P. Bell: It's not often I get to introduce someone from my constituency, but joining us in the gallery today is Dennis Jackson, who's a great campaigner, a great friend and a great advocate for Prince George. I'd ask the House to please make him very welcome.

I have one other brief introduction. Normand Chevrier was already introduced from Eurocopter. They also produce a variety of firefighting devices that can be utilized in initial attack crews. Certainly, we're looking forward to working with them.

Also joining Mr. Chevrier is Steve Vander Wal, who was a previous ministerial assistant for what was then the Minister of Advanced Education, if memory serves me correctly. I've noticed that Steve has lost that nasty tic that he used to have when he was around here. I'd ask the House please make Steve very welcome as well.

C. Trevena: I'd like to make two introductions. I'd like to join the member for Richmond East in welcoming Equal Voice. It's a show that we can get many more women, many more young people involved in politics. I think it would be very healthy to do so. I'm very pleased that Equal Voice came to the Legislature and that the member for Richmond East hosted the luncheon and that other members came.

I also have noticed in the gallery a person from my own constituency, Hugh Smith, who was working with Campbell River television and now works with Shaw TV. He is in the gallery today. I hope that the House will make him very welcome.

Hon. I. Chong: I am pleased to acknowledge today another school group from my riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head that is visiting. They're in the precincts and will be joining us shortly, I'm sure, to watch question period. They are from Hillcrest Elementary School. There are 35 visitors — 27 grade 4 students and eight adults. They're led by Miss Claire Mullen. I hope the House will acknowledge them by making them very welcome as they make their appearance shortly.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

GROUNDWATER PROTECTION

D. Routley: I rise today to speak of groundwater protection issues on the islands of the south coast. Groundwater is often the only practical, viable and economic source of water supply for community as well as individual water systems. Groundwater also augments agricultural and industrial uses.

In Canada we possess 7 percent of the world's total renewable freshwater supply. In B.C. groundwater provides 23 percent of our population with their drinking water. Groundwater provides 9 percent of the total water consumption in our province. In B.C. groundwater consumption accounts for 25 percent of the total groundwater use in Canada.

On Vancouver Island and the south Gulf Islands we are facing a groundwater crisis. Many who had water in their wells are losing it, and many who seek it can't find it. Complications include residential development expansion, climate change and habitat damage through pesticides and other pollutants.

Groundwater often maintains the base flows in streams and rivers during periods of drought and is critical to fisheries habitat and spawning areas. An ever-increasing population brings an increased demand in reliance on groundwater as well as an increased responsibility to sustainably manage and protect this critical resource.

[1345]

The biggest crowds come out to public meetings that address groundwater issues and the developments that implicate its quality and supply. All residents of B.C., particularly those on Vancouver Island and the southern Gulf Islands, recognize the need to address groundwater protection.

We have many pressures to balance. We have many rights deserving respect. We have many complications to untangle, but we have an overwhelming obligation to act to manage and protect our groundwater resource for the benefit of all future generations.

community fund for

veterans' memorials

G. Hogg: The founder of the Last Post Fund, veteran Arthur Hair, said: "To honour and protect in death seems but a small return to those who protected their country in life." In Montreal in 1909, motivated by a powerful sense of patriotism, he is reported to have moved heaven and earth to ensure that no indigent soldiers would be buried without respect and dignity.

That singular act of compassion was the launch of an incredible national organization which has lived by the same principles for the past 100 years: the principles of dignity, compassion and respect.

In cooperation with Veteran Affairs Canada, the Last Post Fund ensures that no eligible veteran is deprived of a dignified funeral, burial or headstone. Over the past century the Last Post Fund has arranged funerals for over 145,000 veterans. They honour those who have served our country, and they keep the memories of their service alive for future generations.

There are still approximately 3,000 unmarked veterans' graves in British Columbia, and each of us can assist in

[ Page 1951 ]

ensuring that those veterans' contributions are remembered with the deference and appreciation which they so richly deserve. As Arthur Hair said: "The Last Post Fund is not a charity. It is a duty."

I ask this Legislature to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Last Post Fund, to congratulate its members and to thank them for the important work that they have done and continue to do on behalf of all Canadians.

kinuko laskey

J. Kwan: On October 24, I attended the unveiling of a bronze memorial statue dedicated to peace activist and educator Kinuko Laskey at the Seaforth Peace Park. She's one of the few, if not the only, first immigrant Asian-Canadian women to be honoured in the province of B.C. in this way.

Kinuko Laskey was a survivor of the Hiroshima nuclear bombing on August 6, 1945. At the time she was a 16-year-old student nurse and was less than two kilometres away from the hypocentre. As a result, she suffered from radiation sickness, loss of sight in her right eye and underwent many plastic surgery operations.

She immigrated to Canada and settled in Vancouver with her husband, David, in 1953. Kinuko's personal experience of the horrors of nuclear warfare prompted her to actively promote peace in schools, within our communities and across the globe. She was a founding member of the Canadian Society of Atomic Bomb Survivors. She delivered a message of peace to Vancouver's Expo 86, and in 1987 she co-lit the Vancouver Centennial Peace Monument flame with former Mayor Mike Harcourt at Seaforth Peace Park, the same park where her statue now stands.

Her dedication was an inspiration to many, including artist Keith Shields, who donated the beautiful sculpture of Kinuko Laskey for this memorial, and to the members of the Vancouver and District Labour Council, who are also strong supporters of social justice and the peace movement and are the sponsors of the memorial project.

Kinuko passed away on the third of November 2004, but the memory of her work continues. I would like to ask all members of the House to recognize Kinuko Laskey for her contributions and to reflect on her words and wishes that we must all be tolerant and respect each other, and we must know how important peace is to each and every one of us.

burnaby business excellence awards

H. Bloy: On Wednesday night, November 4, the Burnaby Board of Trade will present their Business Excellence Awards. Burnaby is blessed with a great variety of outstanding entrepreneurs and businesses, and every year many outstanding businesses and companies are nominated for awards. This year is no different.

[1350]

This is the tenth annual award ceremony, and 19 companies are nominated in six different categories. A few of the companies are nominated in more than one category: Soyaworld for Business of the Year and Entrepreneurial Spirit awards; Costco Wholesale Ltd. for Business of the Year and Burnaby Community Spirit awards; Centaur Products Inc. for Business of the Year and Community Spirit awards; Dimensions 3 Plastics Ltd., which is up for Small Business of the Year and Business Innovation award; and Can Am Importique, which is up for Small Business of the Year and Burnaby Community Spirit awards.

Four individuals are finalists for Business Person of the Year: Adriana Furnaro of Julian Ceramic Tile Inc., Jack Kuyer of Valley Bakery Ltd., Paul Smolen of Hart House Restaurant and John Zaplatynsky of GardenWorks.

Finally, there are four finalists for the Not-for-Profit Organization of the Year: Cameray Child and Family Services, Charlford House Society for Women, RCMP Hastings Brentwood community police office and S.U.C.C.E.S.S. Employment Services.

All of the finalists for this year's Burnaby Business Excellence Awards are very deserving, and I wish all members to congratulate them on their success and Burnaby for the place to do business.

COMMUNITY SOCIAL SERVICES WORKERS

S. Simpson: On November 6 people across Canada will be celebrating the second annual Community Social Services Workers Appreciation Day. The purpose of this day is to recognize the invaluable job that thousands of workers in British Columbia and across the country perform on behalf of their neighbours.

This day recognizes those who work for people with developmental disabilities, for women and children who are fleeing domestic violence, as addiction counsellors or those who deliver aboriginal services and child care, to name only a few critical areas.

This recognition was initiated by the National Union of Public and General Employees, the BCGEU's national counterpart, and has grown, with many other unions joining in — like CUPE, Health Sciences Association and HEU, along with a number of national advocacy groups. It has also seen many cities across Canada, including Victoria, adopting proclamations acknowledging these workers and the valuable jobs they perform.

Thousands and thousands of British Columbians deliver these services every day. Many of them work for the provincial government, others for municipalities and towns, as well as for the non-profit sector. They make our social contract work. They do it, generally, for modest wages and benefits compared to many career areas. Almost without exception, these workers would tell you that it isn't about the money; it's about their commitment to a civil society and their belief that we

[ Page 1952 ]

have a shared obligation to each other as neighbours and citizens.

Community Social Services Workers Appreciation Day is a modest opportunity to acknowledge these true heroes in our communities, the people who step up to make our lives better, safer, healthier and richer, often with little recognition and too often too little economic security for themselves and their families.

Every member of this Legislature knows the people in their community who are these champions, and I urge you to join me in thanking those thousands who go above and beyond the call of duty every day to improve and protect the quality of life for our constituents in every corner of British Columbia.

ADOPTION AWARENESS

N. Letnick: I rise today to recognize November as Adoption Awareness Month in British Columbia. Adoption is an important way for people to build their families, and we have many children and youth still waiting for a permanent family to call their own.

There are more than 1,000 children in British Columbia alone who are in ministry care and are waiting to be adopted. Every child deserves a safe, loving home and loving parents, and Adoption Awareness Month is a time to appreciate what family truly means.

This is a time to celebrate the gift of love and commitment and nurturing that family provides to help children through life's challenges. There are approximately 1,300 children in British Columbia waiting for a permanent family, with more than 600 of these ready to be adopted today. November is a time for us to recognize adoptive parents who have grown their family because they have more love to share.

That is indeed the reason why 13 years ago our family of four decided to adopt Naomi when she was only two years of age. Naomi has become another shining light in our lives, bringing love to our family and parental pride. She may have been delivered to us through adoption, but like our two other children, she is a gift from God.

Naomi loves to play piano, guitar, organized sports, achieving outstanding school grades and asking a million questions. She says she would like to become a doctor, which her mother and I fully support. I look forward to seeing a lifetime of opportunities and being proud of Naomi's accomplishments.

[1355]

She has sung her way into our hearts, and I ask every family large or small to consider sharing their love with someone new, someone in need of a family, someone with much love and joy to give.

I encourage anyone who is interested in adopting a waiting child to call 1-877-ADOPT-07 or visit the Ministry of Children and Family Development website during this Adoption Awareness Month.

Oral Questions

LEGAL AID SERVICES

L. Krog: Today we've learned that Legal Services' budget is going to be cut by $2 million. That will have an impact all across this province. Offices are closing in Kelowna, Kamloops, Prince George, Surrey and Victoria.

At a time when B.C. families struggle and require legal services more than ever, how can the Attorney General possibly justify these cuts now?

Hon. M. de Jong: Actually, he's incorrect about the funding description. Funding has actually gone up significantly this year, by almost $2 million.

But he is correct about this. The Legal Services Society faces some real pressures, largely as a result of the fact that other sources of funding — the Law Foundation, the Notary Foundation — which make contributions based on interest rates, aren't able to make the same level of contribution.

What the society is doing is exactly what we would hope they'd do, and that is to reduce administrative costs and channel as much money, as much resources, as possible to front-line services to ensure that people facing criminal charges or involved in family relations disputes have the legal support that they require.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: What incredible hypocrisy. In 2001-2002 the legal aid budget was $96 million. It's $74 million this year. If that isn't a cut, I don't know what is.

Just yesterday, not 50 feet from this chamber, we honoured his predecessor, Wally Oppal, for, amongst other things, opening the Justice Access Centre in Nanaimo. The first anniversary of that centre is November 6, three days from now. It's going to be closed as a result of these cuts. The access to civil law across this province is essentially gone.

I want to hear from this Attorney General again. What is he going to do to help all those working families in British Columbia who rely on legal aid?

Hon. M. de Jong: Actually, the member is wrong again. The centre is not closing. What the society is doing is recognizing something that I think the hon. member actually knows, which is that a service delivery model built around agents, as opposed to regional offices that have very high overhead costs, will actually accomplish just that — providing legal services, actual lawyer assistance, to the people that need it most.

Difficult decisions — to the people affected, I think in excess of 50, obviously very difficult. But the principle, and the priority, is to provide legal assistance to the people that need it most.

[ Page 1953 ]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

L. Krog: The government has directed that the Legal Services Society can't access their accumulated surplus in order to meet the genuine and real needs today of people who require legal services in British Columbia. So I'd like for the Attorney General to explain to this House why denying them the ability to access a surplus, to continue to deliver much-needed services to families in British Columbia, is good government policy.

Hon. M. de Jong: Actually, the member is wrong again. Look, these are difficult decisions that the Legal Services Society is taking, brought on by the reality of reduced resources from a number of sources — not government.

[1400]

But there are pressures, and what the society is doing, in my view, is absolutely the right thing — looking at its administrative costs, reducing them where it is at all possible and channelling those resources into front-line services to ensure that people have the legal assistance they require.

S. Simpson: The reality is a $22 million budget cut since '01-02 in terms of the legal aid services; five offices will close in this province; a number of critical services that are provided for community advocates and others will be shut down — all of these things that affect our most vulnerable citizens, those ones who cannot afford to go out and pay a lawyer. How on earth is this fairness and equity from this government when those are the services that this minister allows to be cut?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, here's what the Legal Services Society says in the material they released today. "The changes" — and they are changes — "are part of a long-term strategy to reduce our administrative costs and focus spending on the services we provide to low-income people."

That is exactly what they should be doing. At a time when all of us are challenged with finite resources, they are opting for a model of service delivery that is 30 to 50 percent more efficient. That means more people, not less, will have the legal assistance they require — difficult, but precisely the right thing to do at this time.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: Unbelievable is the only word to describe this minister's comments. Tell that to the people in Kelowna, in Kamloops, in Prince George, in Surrey or in Victoria, where those offices are closed and they can't be accessed by those people anymore. Explain to people how 22 million less dollars for services for legal aid since this government came to power is good for those vulnerable people. It is unbelievable.

Will this Attorney General stand up and for once say: "Vulnerable people, poor people matter, and we will restore that funding"?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, therein probably lies the difference. I actually have never met a single mother in need of legal assistance who has said to me: "Boy, I wish you had a couple of extra offices." You know what they say to me? They say: "I need legal help. I need a lawyer to help me."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat, Minister.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Attorney.

Hon. M. de Jong: The member may prioritize a building ahead of the people that deliver the services. We do not. More importantly in this case, the Legal Services Society does not. They are opting for a more efficient front-line service delivery model. I think it's the right thing to do. At the same time, I recognize that for about 50 people involved, it is a difficult decision. But for the people who require legal aid in this province, it is the right decision.

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES

IN SMITHERS AREA

D. Donaldson: In the middle of the H1N1 outbreak we have learned that next week public health nurses who would be administering the vaccine in Smithers will be laid off. Why does the Minister of Health support cutting the jobs of the very people who are working on the front line to fight H1N1?

Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, medical professionals from one end of the province to the other are doing an exceptional job of delivering the H1N1 program. They're doing an exceptional job under the exceptional leadership of our chief provincial health officer.

[1405]

When we see challenges right across the country, in British Columbia I think what we see is professionals at work. We are listening to those professionals as they administer a staged program to ensure that those with high-risk needs are dealt with first as we move towards the general population.

That does not mean, Member, that there will never be any other change in the health system. It is a very large health system. But I'll tell you this. There is lots of demand for nurses in every single part of our health

[ Page 1954 ]

system, and if any become available, the health system will certainly take advantage of that.

D. Donaldson: Well, there's mounting concern in places like Smithers and around the province about the delays in receiving the H1N1 vaccine. Cutting the people who actually administer flu vaccinations adds to people's anxiety. In fact, public health nurses are a cornerstone of rural health care in all aspects, and they are stretched to the limit. Again, does the minister think laying off public health nurses is a good way to address health care issues facing our communities?

Hon. K. Falcon: If I understand correctly the issue that the member's talking about, what the health authority is doing is actually saying that the vaccinations that the member's talking about for people that are travelling overseas or going on vacation are less of a priority right now. The big priority is….

Interjections.

Hon. K. Falcon: Just a minute. I'm not finished. The members might want to hear the answer.

The priority right now is to make sure we deal with the H1N1 pandemic vaccinations and deal with vaccinations for children for polio and other vaccinations that are important. That's the decision they're making. The member may disagree with that decision. I support the medical practitioners in decisions they're making.

A. Dix: To the Minister of Health: why does the minister support laying off public health nurses in Smithers?

Hon. K. Falcon: Remember, we've had this discussion before, so the member should know that there may be some displacement in Smithers, but there are also new hires in other parts of the Northern Health Authority. What they are doing is quite appropriate. They are making sure that the service levels they're providing are equivalent in all parts of the Northern Health Authority.

They are also saying that the vaccinations for people travelling overseas are not as important right now as the ones that are taking place for children that need vaccinations to deal with H1N1 or to deal with vaccinations having to do with the multiplicity of potential disease out there.

A. Dix: Is the minister saying that he doesn't believe there's need for public health nurses in Smithers? Can the minister simply answer the question? We asked a specific question to him, a question that he seemed not to take on notice, so he claims to know the answer.

Let me ask the question again. What is the possible justification — especially at this time, when we have this issue around H1N1, which is testing the entire health system…? What possible justification is there for laying off public health nurses in Smithers?

Hon. K. Falcon: I thought I just answered that. What they are trying to do is make sure that there is equality of service right across the north.

You know, the member talks about yesterday.

Interjections.

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes, I know we had a member from the north coast ask a question about an audiologist.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Falcon: The answer was that that individual had retired from service, and they're trying to recruit a new individual.

To the NDP, this is the end of the world as we know it, but the member should know this, because I know they always try to fit in this idea of cuts in health care, even though the budget's going way up. The public health funding component of the Northern Health Authority — the member can go into the service plan and look — is going up 20 percent over the next three years.

[1410]

H1N1 INFLUENZA

VACCINATION PROGRAM

J. Brar: Now in the second week this government response to H1N1 continues to generate confusion and frustration. Reports are coming that the Interior Health Authority is not strictly giving the H1N1 vaccine to the priority groups established by the provincial health officer.

My question again is to the minister. Can the minister explain why, at this stage of the vaccine rollout, the health authorities are not consistently following the protocols laid out by the provincial health officer?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, Mr. Speaker, to be honest with you, I take offence at the question. I take offence at the question because what it is trying to do is attack some of the best medical professionals we have in the country right here in British Columbia.

I would encourage the member to read some of the national newspapers today, which are talking about how British Columbia has it right.

You know, this is a challenging time. We are undertaking the most massive vaccination program in the history of the province of British Columbia, and we are doing it under the direction and leadership of our chief provincial health officer, Dr. Perry Kendall. He and his staff and

[ Page 1955 ]

medical health officers across the province are doing an exceptional job.

Now, there is strong public demand. There is concern out there, and it's understandable, but we are asking the public to be patient as they stage the delivery of the vaccinations to the at-risk populations first, while we get to the broader public population once the vaccination supplies allow.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Brar: Actually, the minister proves my point. He seems to be very frustrated, too, with this process.

The Interior Health Authority is taking an approach that can allow individuals not deemed high-risk to access the vaccine,

whereas other health authorities are asking British Columbians to be patient and wait for their turn to receive the vaccine to allow the most vulnerable people to be protected first.

Another example. Despite being separated by Boundary Road, Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health are still not coordinating together to deliver the vaccine in a coherent manner to the people of the Lower Mainland. The absence of such an approach creates delay and more questions about how prepared British Columbia is to fight H1N1.

Again, to the minister: why is the government still not rolling out a consistent and cohesive vaccination plan?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, you know, I'm not even sure why we have a chief provincial health officer. Apparently, the member here for Surrey-Fleetwood has all the answers. I don't know why we wouldn't just turn over the entire program to the NDP. They apparently know a lot more than the medical experts right across the province. Rather remarkable. Rather remarkable, but as much as I respect the opinion of the member, I actually respect the opinion of medical health officers across the province a heck of a lot more than I do that member.

I know this. I know it is always tempting for members, based on little information and what they read in the paper, to take potshots at the medical health professionals in this province, but I can tell you this. They are doing an exceptional job for British Columbians. I support them 100 percent.

GOVERNMENT DISTRIBUTION

OF OLYMPIC GAMES TICKETS

J. Kwan: On October 28, 2009, the Minister of Small Business said: "The distribution of whatever Olympic tickets are touched by government will be fully accounted for." Will the Minister Responsible for the Olympics confirm that she will release the plan for the distribution of the tickets immediately, and will she make public the full list of the people selected to attend the Olympics on the taxpayers' dime?

Hon. M. McNeil: You know, magic happened here this weekend on Vancouver Island, when the….

Interjections.

Hon. M. McNeil: And that magic was the landing….

[1415]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. McNeil: The Olympic Torch Relay started here on Friday in Victoria, and it's gone to Nanaimo, Port Alberni, Tofino, Courtenay, Duncan and all over this Island. That's just a taste of what's going to happen in this province come February. This province — which, I will remind you, is the host province for the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games — is going to take every advantage of the greatest opportunity it has ever had for economic development and, therefore, create jobs.

That's the plan. That's what we're going to be doing.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: Is the minister, then, saying that what the Minister of Small Business said doesn't count? Her "Just be happy and trust us" message doesn't cut it with British Columbians when they want accountability.

If the minister responsible for the Olympics cannot answer the question, will the Premier stand up and tell British Columbians that he will be accountable, that they will immediately release the plan for the distribution of the Olympic tickets and that he will ensure that the full list of everyone who gets a free ticket from the government is accounted for and made public?

Hon. M. McNeil: There will be a full accounting of all of these tickets when we're ready to receive it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Farnworth: Well, my question is also for the Premier, because there seems to be some confusion between the Minister of Small Business and the Minister Responsible for the Olympics. I think it's up to the Premier to clarify just which of his ministers is correct.

The Minister of Small Business stood in this House and said there would be a full accounting of who got

[ Page 1956 ]

those tickets. So the question is really clear, Premier. On the host program regarding the tickets, will the Premier stand up and commit to this House that every single one of those tickets will be accounted for, that every one of those tickets will be accounted for in the way that we know who used the tickets and who were the guests that were taken by the MLAs and cabinet ministers during the host program? Will the Premier commit to doing do that?

Hon. M. McNeil: As I have said in this House and as my colleague has said in this House, there will be a full accounting of each and every ticket used.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: This is like pulling teeth. My question to the minister is really quite simple. Will she stand in this House and commit that she will table an accounting of who used every single ticket, whether it is a minister or a cabinet minister, and which guests accompanied those ministers and cabinet ministers in the use of those tickets, and will she commit to tabling it — a date to tabling it in this House?

Hon. M. McNeil: To avoid sounding repetitive, there will be a full accounting of each and every ticket used at the Olympic Games.

[1420]

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR

KITIMAT FOREST WORKERS

R. Austin: This government has had another 24 hours to address the crisis in Kitimat. Yesterday the minister hinted that Kitimat would not qualify for the $2 million that was given to both Mackenzie and Fort St. James just prior to the last election.

Can the Minister of Community Development tell this House what the criteria is for this $2 million? Is it ensuring that ministers are re-elected, or is it taking care of citizens who find themselves out of work for no reason of their own?

Hon. B. Bennett: I'll tell you one thing I'm not going to do. I'm not going to make light of a very difficult situation in the member's riding, where 535 workers and their families have been notified that as of January 31, they won't be working at that mill. I actually don't think that's something that we should politicize. I think it's something that we should work together on. I invite the member to work with myself and with the Rural Secretariat on a plan for Kitimat for transition.

I should say to the member that the workers are there until January 31. I hope he's not throwing in the towel, because we think there is some chance…. We're certainly not going to give up on the possibility that this mill can remain open. I know the Minister of Forests wants that to happen. We'll do our best to try for that. In the meantime, I have staff from the Rural Secretariat in Kitimat, and just recently the mayor said she was very pleased to have them there.

R. Austin: I'm not by any means making light of this. I just want to make sure that the citizens of Kitimat and the northwest get the same treatment as other communities. That's all we want. The crisis in Kitimat affects directly 535 workers, but we all know that there will be many more who are dependent on the Eurocan pulp mill.

This minister has never answered the previous questions around transition funds for workers. Will he tell this House today if the B.C. Liberals are going to put aside moneys for worker transition?

Hon. B. Bennett: I can tell the member that we have a number of initiatives already underway. In fact, the Rural Secretariat was in Kitimat in late September. They were already, even before the announcement, working on an economic diversification plan for Kitimat.

The member has both today and previously suggested that there is a fair comparison between Mackenzie and Kitimat. Although it is a difficult, even tragic, situation to have 535 workers notified they're going to be laid off, Mackenzie has about a 70 percent reliance on the forest industry compared to Kitimat, which gets about 14 percent of its income from the forest industry. So they are different situations. I can tell the member that members of my Rural Secretariat team are there.

You know, the member doesn't seem to have confidence in his own community. I mean, there are lots of communities in this province that just wished that they had the opportunities that Kitimat has.

FUNDING FOR FPINNOVATIONS

D. Routley: To the Forests Minister. FPInnovations is a company with a 30-year track record of providing new products, new processes and new markets to help diversify our forest industry. Despite this minister's claims to want to revitalize the industry, his government cut half a million dollars funding to that company, which was matched by a half-million-dollar federal cut.

So now we're seeing a company that has proven its value, has never laid off an employee in its 30-year history, facing the layoff of almost a third of its staff. How does this cut make sense when the forestry industry has been put into a crisis by this government's policies? Will the minister restore that funding immediately?

Hon. P. Bell: FPInnovations actually works out of the University of British Columbia, and I met very recently with senior officials at FPInnovations. While we are

[ Page 1957 ]

refocusing some of their efforts to products that are more aligned with what we believe the future of the forest industry is, they are one of the most advanced institutions in moving forward on things like bioenergy.

[1425]

We're continuing to fund FPInnovations. They receive funding from many different sources — the Canadian government and institutions — and we'll continue to support them.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Routley: I'll give you just one example of the type of innovation that's being stymied by this government's cuts. There was a company that made a $2,000 investment in FPInnovations services. They went in and gave advice. They got an 18 percent increase in productivity and a 27 percent reduction in energy costs out of that $2,000 investment.

That's the kind of innovation that will revitalize our forest industry. That's the kind of innovation every British Columbian wants for our industry, not this minister's empty rhetoric. Again to the Minister of Forests: will he restore that funding to FPInnovations so that their great work in helping to diversify our forest industry can continue?

Hon. P. Bell: It's interesting listening to the member opposite. I think I almost heard a policy articulated from the other side. That's exceptional.

This government has been very supportive of the research-and-development initiatives that go on at the University of British Columbia. We've substantially added to the research activities that have been going on across this province through research chairs, through increased funding. We're going to continue to work with FPInnovations. They're one of the organizations that we're very supportive of.

[End of question period.]

M. Sather: I seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

M. Sather: I present to the House a petition opposing the implementation of the HST, from people in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows — in total, 1,875 individuals.

M. Karagianis: I'd like to present a petition as well.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

M. Karagianis: I have here 214 people in my community opposing the implementation of the HST in British Columbia.

A. Dix: I wish to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

A. Dix: It's signed by hundreds of people in my constituency of Vancouver-Kingsway in opposition to the HST.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Small Business, Technology and Economic Development; in this chamber, continued second reading debate on Bill 21.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 21 — AMBULANCE SERVICES

COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT ACT

(continued)

D. Routley: It's a bit of a case of: where was I? You know, we started out this debate lamenting the fact that the government would reduce itself and British Columbians to seeing our highly respected ambulance paramedics legislated back to work in this brutal way.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

The connection has been drawn by several speakers between this step by the government at this late hour, this unprecedented step to interfere and interrupt the free collective bargaining process four days from the vote count being taken in the contract vote, this contract being voted on as we speak by ambulance paramedics. This is a mail-in ballot, so most of the ballots have already been cast.

Why would the government choose this moment to introduce this legislation, considering that it is the first time in Canada that a government has acted to intervene in the collective bargaining process while a vote is being taken?

[1430]

Well, I could give you the local example that I've already cited, where our communities of Nanaimo, Ladysmith, Crofton, Chemainus, all the way south to Duncan — between Nanaimo and Duncan — were served by three ambulances on Halloween night, while three ambulances were forced by the LRB decision to be stationed at an Olympic venue to do practice runs with crews staffed at premium rates. So the connection is being drawn here.

VANOC has called out across the country for volunteer paramedics who would come and help during the Olympics. Many of those paramedics are refusing to

[ Page 1958 ]

respond out of fear that they would be crossing a picket line.

Well, I'd like to read to you from a memo. This memo was sent from Dr. Mike Wilkinson, the director of medical services for VANOC, to Stephen Brown, Lee Doney and other government officials involved in this paramedics dispute. An excerpt from that memo says:

"VANOC Medical Services, and thus the IOC, requires definitive confirmation by October 1, 2009, that all required ambulance services will be provided as planned. These services include the ability to engage the VPCs and BCAS members in full venue-planning as soon as possible. This confirmation must also include a guarantee that no services during the games will be disrupted or reduced from what has been planned.

"If we are unable to obtain that guarantee through either settlement of the strike or legislated détente for the games, then VANOC will be required to initiate alternative contingency plans to avoid cancellation of the games."

Many of us have stood and extolled the virtues of our ambulance paramedics. I said earlier in my speech that all of us have heard people say: "Oh my god, I wouldn't want to be an ambulance driver — the pressure, the stress of what they do." We all have an undying, unwavering respect for the sacrifice and commitment of ambulance paramedics. We all do in British Columbia, but that respect is not being mirrored or matched by our government. This B.C. Liberal government dragged its feet for months without addressing the issues of the ambulance paramedics.

On average, an ambulance paramedic takes five years to become full-time. During that time they work part-time, and they pay out of their own pockets for their training. Unfortunately, many of them leave the profession.

The minister has cited a difficulty in recruitment and retention. Well, hardly a surprise when those part-time ambulance paramedics are being paid as low as $2 an hour on call, when they're at an instant called out to the most horrific scenes.

They're called out to accident scenes. They're called out to address the needs of children in crisis, injured and dying people. They are the ones who witness the last glint in the eye of so many British Columbians. That incredible stress so often results in the very difficult condition known as post-traumatic stress disorder, not to mention the other perils of the job in terms of injury and illness — the high accident rate, the high injury rate due to the demands of lifting and moving people in very difficult circumstances. Can it be any wonder that so many would leave the profession?

When the government pointed to the fact that the sheriffs in this province were experiencing a recruitment and retention problem, what did they do? In mid-contract they opened the collective agreement and applied a 10 percent increase in order to provide more incentive.

What did this government do when it came to our ambulance paramedics? They dragged their feet. They refused to appoint an arbitrator. They refused to address the needs, and now they throw a gauntlet down to the entire public service, telling the public service that this is what they can all expect come negotiation time.

It's a terrible failure to acknowledge the respect and the station that British Columbians consider for their ambulance paramedics. We all expect our government to address their needs. If there's a recruitment and retention problem, address that recruitment and retention problem, not through this kind of brutal legislation that interferes and interrupts with their collective bargaining in a way that's unprecedented. Actually address the conditions on the job that force people out of that profession.

[1435]

It's very sad that we could end up in this situation, but then I think it's only reasonable that the cynical view that this is being driven by VANOC and this government's fear of being embarrassed during the Olympic Games, which finally drove them to action…. And a brutal action it is.

It's sad that the people who probably hold one of the highest places of respect with British Columbians should be treated this way. Since the strike began, our service has been protected through essential service rulings from the LRB. The ruling found that only 16 of their some 3,500 members are non-essential. In fact, the essential service ruling meant that most ambulance paramedics had to work more overtime hours to meet that requirement, indicating that perhaps this government wasn't even meeting essential service levels before the ruling.

The minister has pointed to a number of other issues to obfuscate the real reason. The real reason, in my view and the view of several other members who have spoken, is the pressure being put on the government by VANOC.

They've also mentioned H1N1 — that we're in the middle of a crisis. Well, that crisis was predicted for months and months — in fact, before the dispute even began. The government ignored that haste. They did not pay attention to that impending pressure on the system. If it were true that they are moving to legislate the ambulance paramedics back to work only now and that that is based in part on the H1N1 outbreak, then why are ambulance paramedics not part of the first wave of priority vaccinations?

In fact, up in the Courtenay-Comox area the ambulance paramedics have tried to get vaccinations but have been told, I am told, that they are not part of the first priority. How can the H1N1 outbreak be sufficient grounds to take an unprecedented legislative action in intervening and interrupting the free collective bargaining process but not enough of an imperative to advance those very same people to the highest-priority level for vaccination?

The government's reasoning doesn't hold water. Again the government is found being less than truthful. The government is telling British Columbians something

[ Page 1959 ]

that isn't true, and the government is hiding its real motivations. Its real motivations are tied up in VANOC and the impending Olympic Games, which they've hung their credibility on — their wavering and sinking credibility — and the fact that the public service is about to enter into collective bargaining. So they're throwing the gauntlet down.

In fact, these very same ambulance paramedics will be due to bargain again on April 1, and labour lobbying — what it is in B.C. — means that those negotiations will likely start four months ahead of that date. That's December 1. So the first meetings for the next collective agreement may take place as early as December 1.

What kind of goodwill will those ambulance paramedics and their union representatives feel heading to a table with a government that would take this unprecedented and brutal act of interference, a government that has absolutely failed and refused to recognize their legitimate complaints about the structure of the service?

Remember, we're dealing with people who most British Columbians hold in the very highest order of esteem — a job that very few of us could face day in and day out, night after night, knowing that the next call might be the one that sends them into the cycle of post-traumatic stress disorder or challenges their very souls as they try to help people in crisis. Like so many other British Columbians who provide the services that we as human beings rely upon in an essential way, they have been insulted by the policies of this government and the actions of this government.

[1440]

They have been, through the social policies of this government that have created a situation on our streets where homelessness in the province has increased by at least 350 percent, where people are being scooped up off our streets in absolute crisis.

Our ambulance paramedics are being asked to do more than just the job they were trained for. The training they're receiving on the job is delivered thanks to the mistreatment of the people of British Columbia by this government. They're being forced to be social workers. They're being forced to be police. They're being forced to be drug and alcohol workers. They're being forced to be mental health workers, and they're not being recognized.

In fact, they're being slapped, and they are being insulted. They have stood proudly to serve us. On Vancouver Island at the same time we only had those three ambulances serving the population of Nanaimo and south through Ladysmith, Chemainus and Crofton. At that same time car dealers were being paid to remove the On Strike stickers from their ambulances.

What priority is this? What priority is this that this government should deliver to the people and to those who serve them in such a dedicated way. None of us — not many of us — can even imagine the commitment it takes and the strength of character it takes to continue to deliver that service.

With this decision, how many more will leave the profession? How many more will decide that they aren't recognized or valued? How many more will take the training they've acquired and apply it to the fire service or take it out of our jurisdiction or into a completely different field because they are so frustrated by this government's insult?

The recruitment and retention problem that this minister faces will only be amplified, multiplied by the action he's taking now. Who will pay for that? Who will pay for this government's failure to do its sworn duty to represent the public interest of this province, this time?

Will it be someone in a car accident when we don't have the attendants we need? Will it be someone who suffers a heart attack or stroke when we don't have the attendants or the ambulances required to help them in a timely enough way to perhaps save their lives?

This government is playing a cynical political game ultimately with the lives of British Columbians. We've seen the ads from the ambulance paramedics. They asked the same question: who will pay? Who will pay in the end? This government thinks it's okay that British Columbians should face that bill, that the result of their actions should lead to an increased difficulty in recruiting and retaining our ambulance paramedics, which will lead to an even increased level of frustration amongst those dedicated British Columbians.

This government thinks that's okay, and they think it's okay to drag their feet through months and months of non-negotiation. They think it's okay for them, now at the final hour as the votes are being counted, to take this unprecedented action, this unprecedented interference and interruption of the collective bargaining process.

They think it's okay because they're used to playing cynical games with people's lives. It is a very sad circumstance in our beautiful province with the wealth of this province, the wealth of natural resources and most particularly the wealth of human resource.

The faith of British Columbians is what built this province. The faith and commitment demonstrated every day by those ambulance paramedics is exactly the character and principle and value upon which this province is founded, and it is being insulted by the cynical political game being played by this government and that minister.

[1445]

How can it be? How can it be that such an essential service to British Columbians should wind up being the political football of this sad government? It's fine that they have their ideology — that they will privatize and deliver the benefit of this province into the hands of the few.

If they're honest about that ideology, we can judge them on that. But when they hide from the public their true intention and motivation the way they did during

[ Page 1960 ]

the election campaign, the way they did before they were originally elected when it came to HEU workers and the tearing up of those contracts, the way they have here…. The way they have taken the contract between our province and the people who serve us and who we value at a higher level than practically any people in our province — that they could do that — and turn this into cynical political gamesmanship is sad commentary on the place that we have come to.

There aren't many other steps this government could take that would be more insulting to the character of British Columbians than to bring an affront like this to people like ambulance paramedics. But I'm sure there's more in store for this province as we head for further collective bargaining amongst other public workers.

I'll make a prediction here. This cynical and brutal step taken by this government in dealing with the supposedly good-faith bargaining process between our ambulance paramedics and the people of B.C. will come back to haunt them and, unfortunately, also to haunt the people of B.C. when they go back to the table in as little as a month's time to seek good-faith commitment from the other side.

I hope, for the sake of British Columbians, there's enough faith left in the hearts of the ambulance paramedics for them to extend it to the government, because it's hardly something that we should hope for — that they should not be at that table.

I predict that this government will have a very difficult time acquiring any credibility when it comes to dealing with the human issues of British Columbians. When they seek to negotiate any kind of settlement with any group, in the interests of British Columbians, we will all be looking to their vest pocket, to the true interest that they protect. It's never been the public interest of British Columbians; it's always been some of their insiders and some of their friends.

M. Sather: I rise to address Bill 21, Ambulance Services Collective Agreement Act. As a speaker before me commented, it's a very bizarre title for this bill — collective agreement act — when, in fact, what the government is doing is gutting the collective agreement and saying that the collective agreement doesn't count, saying that all of the negotiations that have gone by so far don't count, saying: "Your whole process of free collective bargaining that is recognized in a democracy doesn't count."

It's a troubling day, I think, for British Columbians when a government makes a move such as this, particularly with this employee group, this group of workers that means so much to the safety and security of everyday British Columbians. All of us depend on the B.C. Ambulance Service and the workers who do the exemplary work that they do for them.

We don't know whether it's going to be today, tomorrow or sometime down the road, but we do know that most likely we or certainly our family members are at some point going to depend on that service. It is life and death. As we know, we're not talking about optional services; we're talking about essential services.

[1450]

It's troubling to look at what effect this legislation, in imposing a settlement in the way that it's been done, is going to have not only on the morale of paramedics but also on the future security of our ambulance services. Certainly the trust in the process for those folks must be severely shaken, and I expect they're mulling over what their options are.

But when the government comes in with a big hammer and they have the power to do that — government has the power to do that — it doesn't leave these workers with many options, except they have to figure out how to deal with it psychologically. They have to figure out how to deal with it financially, which we know is a big issue for paramedics, particularly in terms of the standby time issues that they have.

What is it going to mean for all of us? It's a dark day, I think. It really can be said without hyperbole that it is a dark day for labour relations in this province when we see the government come through with this bill in the way that it's been done. It's certainly disconcerting. We know that the health and well-being of those that are the caregivers and caretakers is in many ways more important than the health and well-being of the rest of us, because if we can't depend on them….

If you go to your doctor and he's not psychologically in the position of stability that he can act in your best interest, then you know you've got something to be concerned about. Yet these workers, the paramedics, deal with considerable trauma all the time in ways that we, not having done that, can't imagine.

I remember talking to a friend years ago. He wasn't a paramedic, but he was a volunteer with the fire department. We have a partially volunteer fire department in Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows. You know, he would unfortunately have to witness some pretty severe scenes at car accidents and the like. I asked him what effect that had on him. I was surprised at his response. His response actually kind of concerned me, in that he didn't think it had any effect on him.

Having been a mental health worker myself, I know that's how post-traumatic stress disorder creeps up on people. They don't think it has any effect on them, and then things start happening in their lives that are…. It could be a number of things — certainly sleep disorders, nightmares, inability to concentrate, sometimes overuse of alcohol or drugs.

These are the kinds of stresses and strains that we take for granted that these folks are doing for us every day. I don't think I could do it, and I take my hat off to them and the work they've done. I just feel strongly that the kind of respect we should all have for those workers is not being shown here by the government today.

[ Page 1961 ]

We're going to talk about other members. I'm going to talk about other members. I've already talked about what appear to be some of the overriding or underlying reasons for this draconian measure that the government has taken. One of the things, too, that interested me about this dispute since its beginning…. Paramedics certainly have fallen behind in terms of comparability in remuneration and benefits with police forces over the years.

[1455]

I wondered what the police departments feel about that. We know that the police, of course, deal with very difficult situations. They're given arms to manage what are sometimes very dangerous situations. So when I started talking to them, I was surprised to hear some of the things I heard.

I remember one officer telling me: "Oh absolutely. They should have parity with us." I said: "Yeah? Can you tell me why you think that's the case?" And he said: "Well, those folks are out on calls where they have no idea what they're going to be facing."

They don't know when they arrive on the scene whether there's anybody armed. They don't know whether there's anybody dangerous. They don't know if the person has a gun or a knife. They have no idea, and they go in there unarmed to a completely unknown situation and a dangerous situation. Those are often in homes.

The ambulance, 911, gets called, and there's a need for an ambulance. Sometimes they're the first ones there. They may be the only ones that are called in a situation. Yet they have to deal with the situation as they see it, and they don't have the security that being armed provides to one when you go…. Of course, we know that being armed is not a surefire way to keep from being injured oneself. But they don't have that security, and I think that's been the impression.

The support from police forces for the paramedics has been shown quite visibly. I've seen the paramedic signs up at RCMP detachments in several places around the province. I think we should be aware of what other professionals think about the jobs that paramedics do, because it seems that the government doesn't value very highly the job that they do. They're willing to sacrifice the stability of the system — I think that's what it amounts to — and the future stability of the system for some questionable reasons or apparent reasons.

In Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows we have only two cars, two ambulances, and they have to serve not only our area from Mission to the Pitt River Bridge, but they have to serve outside of our community. Because they're often short-staffed, particularly in a larger call, they're called out of the community. So when you dial 911 and need an ambulance in Maple Ridge, one of those ambulances may be in New Westminster. In the kind of traffic congestion that we have most of the time, most of the day and evening, between New Westminster and Maple Ridge, it can be some considerable time for them to get back.

So people's lives are at risk. We had a tragic death of a young child a few years ago. She choked to death. We did not have the capability to get there in time to save that child's life. We know that the capacity to do that, to respond, is dropping. But I know it certainly gives me a feeling of security.

Actually just the other morning, Monday, about two o'clock in the morning, I woke up. We happen to live close to the Lougheed Highway in Maple Ridge. I heard this screeching sound followed by a big bang, and I knew there was another accident on the Lougheed Highway. I'm waiting and was very pleased to hear within a matter of a couple of minutes….

[1500]

The ambulance station, fortunately, is not far from our place, and I was very pleased to hear…. I sometimes have gone out on the Lougheed Highway, because I am close to it, to assist. I'm wondering. Do I get up and go out in the middle of the night to help or what? Fortunately, very quickly I heard the ambulance coming to the rescue.

The problem for us is — and it's even more acute, as we've heard from other members on this side of the House before and as I know we're going to hear again…. The situation is even more acute in rural areas. The response times are not up to what they should be because of the lack of resources that our ambulance services have and that our paramedics have to work with.

When we look at the breakdown of how this came about or what was taking place, we see that three days before a vote on an offer made by the government on September 28…. The government pulls the pin on the paramedics three days before they're due to take a vote. That's curious.

Apparently, the minister said that Mr. Strohmaier, the president of CUPE Local 873, said that the contract was crap, so that was it. They weren't going to accept it. Or that's the supposition of the minister, apparently — that they weren't going to accept it.

Well, it seems to me, in fact, that anyone in labour negotiations would say and I think most reasonable people would say: "Why not wait and see what the result of the vote was going to be?" But no, there seemed to be, suddenly, a great urgency on the part of this government to….

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, Member.

The member rises on a point of order.

Point of Order

J. Rustad: Some of the language that has just been used in that speech, I believe, is somewhat unparliamentary, and I'd ask him to withdraw it.

M. Sather: Thank you.

Deputy Speaker: One moment, Member.

[ Page 1962 ]

I would certainly caution all members to be cautious in their use of parliamentary language.

Please proceed.

M. Sather: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I certainly will take your advice on that issue.

Debate Continued

M. Sather: Clearly, this is a government that each and every one should be ashamed of this day — should be ashamed of this legislation, should be ashamed of treating working people in British Columbia like this. I can understand that the government should feel a little bit sensitive about the issues that we're discussing, because they're not comfortable for them and certainly not very comfortable for us either in that. It's just a sad day all around.

The government could have appointed an independent arbitrator months ago. We will remember that back a few years ago, a couple of years ago, when the government was thinking about how to have labour peace — I'm sure that over the Olympic period was part of the equation — the then Finance Minister Carole Taylor came up with a package that was acceptable. Any of the good feeling or rapport or trust that might have been built up by that time by that then-minister has certainly disappeared now. It's gone out the window in a big way.

[1505]

This Bill 21 — the minister says that it's for a short time, that it expires March 31 of 2010, which just happens to be after the Olympics. I'm sure it's a coincidence. As the previous speaker mentioned, bargaining is probably going to resume on that collective agreement very quickly — before Christmas, certainly, I would expect. Or it should, in normal terms. Whether any of the normal terms are going to be pursued in terms of labour relations from this point forward seems to be very much in doubt.

I can't imagine sitting across the table on the government side as a negotiator in a few weeks, after having pulled this bill out of the hat. It's going to be very difficult for the sides to come to an amicable agreement, and that's the problem with this. It damages, poisons labour relations.

People don't forget, and we've seen already that the paramedics don't give up. They're standing strong for the needs that they see in the system that they work in, and who could see them better than them?

You can't expect them…. Maybe the government doesn't care. I don't know what future plans they have in terms of labour relations in this province, but maybe they don't care about what the paramedics think or how they feel. That's a very shortsighted perspective, because we will all pay the price if we don't have a paramedic workforce that is not only well trained, adequately paid but that is able to work and feel respected and to have the psychological support to be able to deal with the trauma of the kinds of situations that they have to deal with every day.

Certainly, there's a troubling direction that has been revealed that has come from VANOC with regard to labour relations, specifically the paramedics and the Olympics, saying that VANOC must have a guarantee that no services will be disrupted during the games. Otherwise, VANOC will have to invoke contingency plans to avoid cancellation of the games. Whoa, really? This is what it's come to?

We get a letter, or the government gets a letter. They can deny it, but I don't think it's false. They get this directive from VANOC saying: "Well, you know, you better deal with these paramedics. We're going to have to figure out something, or we'll cancel the games." This is a few months before the 2010 Olympics.

Interjection.

M. Sather: Well, the member used a word that I guess I probably shouldn't repeat with regard to my colleagues on the other side being offended, but it certainly does really give cause for concern as to what on earth is going on here and why this has happened now and in such, to use a word that former colleagues have used, a brutal fashion.

I talked to a young man not too long ago who was very keen, and he's in the process of becoming a paramedic. As he mentioned, it takes some time to become a full-time paramedic. He's a young man who lives here in Victoria. They get sent out in the process at various times to other communities for days or a week or more at a time.

[1510]

He was spending time over in Tofino and Ucluelet. It's a small community — right? He loves his job. He wants to be a paramedic, but he says: "How do I pay my bills when I'll be sitting there for days and there may be no calls? A couple of days go by, and there's no call for our services, so I'm getting paid a standby rate" — which would barely pay his gas to get there and back.

Now, nobody can build a career on that kind of an arrangement, so we've got a big problem. We've got a problem with paramedics leaving their profession in large numbers. Recruitment isn't a big issue for the service.

Again, I just don't understand how the government can see any wisdom in a precipitous move, apparently to satisfy VANOC — that they would put at risk the future of our ambulance service. I certainly would think twice. I probably wouldn't enter a profession…. If I looked around and saw this is what I'm facing — this is the lack of respect that the government has towards me — I would think, you know, there must be somewhere else that I can work where I would be treated better. So that's a real concern that we all should have.

You know, it's not as though there hasn't been…. The services have been provided lo, these many months —

[ Page 1963 ]

the essential services legislation that requires workers like paramedics to not be on a regular strike. Yeah, they had some On Strike signs on their ambulances, but they really weren't in any real strike situation. So a lot of them ended up working overtime to make sure that things worked, because unfortunately there are not a lot of people, as I say, that are looking to become paramedics these days.

Now, if we look at the proposals that were put forth by the government and by the union, there doesn't appear to be a mile of difference between the two. We have a 3 percent wage increase in common. A labour market adjustment of 1.2 percent and a not all that different, perhaps, proposal from the government side. Expiry time — 17½ months from the union and a year from the government side. And some differences around the employment of an industrial inquiry commission.

But no signing bonus for the paramedics. The signing bonus that public sector workers…. I don't know what the member feels; maybe he feels they don't deserve it. You know, other public sector workers were offered that. It seems like it's just absolutely adding insult to injury.

It really makes one wonder if…. I think some workers in British Columbia thought, after the broad collective agreement for public sector workers was negotiated a couple of years ago, that maybe things were getting better with this government. Some of the concern they had about their attitude towards labour, about their attitude towards public sector workers, was changing.

Well, it's gone back to zero and then some, I would suggest, in terms of the confidence or faith that working people can have in this government when it comes to respecting free collective bargaining, when it comes to respecting the work that they do. So these will be long-lasting, the effects. They won't go away easily. People don't forget this kind of treatment.

[1515]

I wanted to look at some of the things that the union is calling for the industrial inquiry commission to look at: staff recruitment, training and retention. Well, those are the big basic issues that they talk about, as well as the resources to do their job. I've talked to them many times over the years. They said: "Money is not the big issue for us. It's the resources to do our job." And it's the capacity to do a good job that they have a concern about.

Employee compensation, of course, is part of any negotiation, but what I see as being relatively close to being an agreement certainly doesn't look exorbitant by any stretch of the imagination.

Staff workload and occupational health and safety issues. And of course, rural and remote deployment and management structures and staff responsibilities and other related matters.

Very reasonable requests that the workers, through their union, have been putting forth. I don't see that the government couldn't have come to some agreement with them. Instead, there seemed to be this need to bring in the hammer to make sure that we have "labour peace." And it is a quote, because this is not labour peace. This is labour unrest — and long-lasting unrest.

VANOC may think it's peace. I don't know. They're, of course, focused on the Olympics, as they should be. That's their job. But it's not the only job of the province of British Columbia and the government of British Columbia — to ensure that anything and everything is done to ensure that there are no disruptions in any way, shape or form to the Olympics. We've seen that in other legislation before this House and in legislation that we've already discussed in this House.

We have to hope that the government has not lost sight of their general mandate in governing the province over these next few months and is going to focus solely on the 2010 Olympics. But if this is any indication, it seems to me that their perspective is really out of whack, if I can use that term.

You know, the response times are just not good enough, and that's due to a lack of resources. Now it's down to 52 percent on average — the goal of reaching the intended party within nine minutes. That's dropped from 85 percent in 1985. We need ambulance services every bit as much now as people did in 1985, and yet we've dropped from 85 percent to 52 percent. That should be a concern for each and every British Columbian.

With that, I'll take my seat.

N. Macdonald: I rise to speak to Bill 21. It is misnamed, as many of the members have already said, the Ambulance Services Collective Agreement Act. But of course, there is nothing in this that is collective, and there is certainly no agreement.

What this does is continue in what has been year after year of mismanagement of this service, and the people that have paid the price…. The first thing I want to do is to just say to paramedics just how much we all appreciate the work that the paramedics do and really respect the fact that they are willing to put up with such mismanagement. They're the ones that have to deal with it.

[1520]

But what you see again and again is this government letting them down and not doing their part. It is that lack of respect on behalf of the government that you see. To my mind, it's epitomized by this Premier. During the election he flicked a loonie at striking paramedics, told them not to spend it all in the same place. That contempt, that disrespect is what you see here on display again, where you have the imposition of conditions that…. For years it has been recognized that they are conditions that simply aren't acceptable if the service is going to work the way that it needs to.

This is more than just a labour issue. These are people that we depend upon at the most difficult times in our lives. This is when a child is choking. This is when

[ Page 1964 ]

a senior is having a heart attack. This is after a motor vehicle accident. We depend upon these people to come and do things that we are unable to do. At that moment there is nobody more important than the person that comes and provides comfort and uses their skill to help somebody that's injured. Yet what we see from this government is a willingness to allow the system to operate in a way which simply does not work.

The main issue in this debate is the one that the minister alluded to. For me, the part of it that I am most familiar with is the rural paramedic issue. The minister recognized that there are huge problems with how this government has organized itself to deal with the rural paramedic issue. There are huge problems.

The B.C. NDP and local government and the UBCM and AKBLG — every organization that has knowledge about rural paramedics — have raised it with the government over the past four years. We have raised it repeatedly in the House, pointing out the problems that exist for the Ambulance Service, in particular, in rural B.C. — not just rural B.C. but, in particular, in rural B.C. And it's been ignored.

I'll bring members here back to a question period when Corky Evans asked a question about Nakusp. He said that Nakusp could not get paramedics to provide service for the community. They put out a letter to every person in the community, asking if somebody would be willing to be a paramedic, and they couldn't find anyone.

When the past Minister of Health was asked, the Minister of Health said…. The direct quote is that he gets it — that there's an issue — but it's a collective agreement issue. That was, like, three years ago, and there was some expectation that the government would be working to try to find solutions.

I mean, let's be clear about who created this problem. This government changed the working conditions for paramedics. In the past training was paid for, and then people very often in rural communities would be almost like volunteers. They would be able to have another job, and just like the volunteer fire department, they would come out and provide ambulance service.

Well, this government changed those roles. They said that you needed to pay for the training yourself. Now, there are many professions that do that. As a teacher, I would pay the cost of getting the training, go for four years. But then with my job, I would be compensated in a way that would make that worthwhile. But what this government did was download the cost of the training, and we're talking $5,000, $6,000, $7,000 — not an insignificant amount — and then basically required the paramedics to stay at stations and earn $10 an hour.

Well, how are you ever going to pay back the investment in training? You never will. You won't be able to. If you are in a smaller community, you can be paid as little as $2 an hour. When you treat people like that, there is no question that there is going to be problems with retention.

That happens again and again, but instead of dealing with the issue, instead of listening to people, to the opposition, and dealing with the issue, it is put off again and again. With this legislation, it's put off for another year. They're not going to deal with it for another year.

[1525]

So what you have left is this expectation that paramedics are going to accept the burden that comes to them, because this is a government that cannot manage this system.

This government required members to stay at the station. They said that they had to. Did they check to see that there were stations that were adequate for people, for paramedics, to stay there? They didn't. So across rural British Columbia, you had areas that didn't have appropriate stations.

Was there any thinking as to how you would retain paramedics and actually make the system work? There wasn't. So what we've had over the past four years is that again and again we have put these problems in front of the government, and the government ignores it. The best the Premier can do is flick a coin.

Do we hear any B.C. Liberal talk about these issues? There used to be a member for Cariboo South that would talk about B.C. ambulance issues, but that seems to no longer be a problem in Cariboo South. Presumably, no B.C. Liberal represents paramedics that have any issues. They won't even stand and speak in this House — not one. The minister stands and gives his ten-minute talk, and because the Premier has contempt for paramedics and flicks coins at them, each and every one of these B.C. Liberals will sit down and be quiet and say nothing on the issues.

But do they depend on the service? Absolutely. Surely they are aware that there are problems. Surely they should be standing up and demanding that something be done. The minister himself recognizes that certainly in rural British Columbia, the system is not working, and yet year after year, they allow it. They allow it to remain the way it is.

I'll talk about each of the communities that I represent. In September I was at each of these stations. Now, Kimberley has a station. It has, I believe, one, maybe two, full-time paramedics. They get paid a salary. The rest of the force that is there doing really difficult work is part-time, but part-time is kind of a strange term.

There was a gentleman I talked to. He works the equivalent of two full-time jobs, and because he's often getting $2 an hour or $10 an hour, he earns less than $50,000 a year, and only one-third of that is pensionable. He is not doing that work for any benefit to his family. It is a commitment to the community, and yet that is not even respected. That's what he said to me.

He said: "Why can I not, even at the very least, get some respect from this government?" Instead, they're treated with contempt.

[ Page 1965 ]

Now, Kimberley knows more than many other communities the dangers that go along with coming in and doing this service. We lost two paramedics in the Sullivan mine disaster, and when you had the gathering of paramedics from across the province that came to that community funeral, what you saw was tremendous emotion and tremendous dedication to that service.

You know, there were stations that couldn't send representatives. Golden couldn't send a representative. We did not have enough people. We needed them there in the community, and it just points to the fact that for year after year, there has been this retention issue. The fact is that the government has not managed this in a way that works. Who is left carrying the ball are rural paramedics, and paramedics in general.

I'm focusing on the things that I understand. I can tell you that in Kimberley the depth of feeling on this issue is huge. You go from house to house, and you will see signs. You will see signs on people's lawns that indicate that they want something done with this issue. They want to save the paramedic service. They want the paramedic service to be treated with the respect that it deserves, and clearly, that's not happening now. In Kimberley you have a situation that is clearly very, very difficult.

[1530]

I just want to give people a sense of the next community, which is Invermere. Invermere has a station. They're fortunate in that way. But the government there decided that it was best to get rid of one of the full-time paramedics that we have there. So it depends, again, on what they describe as a part-time service, but it is by no means part-time. These are jobs that require people to stay at the station.

This is a community that is hugely expensive to live in, and yet for most of the time that the paramedics are working, they get paid less than the Tim Hortons. So they have to pay for their training, they have to live in an expensive community, and much of the time they spend getting less than somebody who works for Tim Hortons.

Then you take them from there, and you put them into some of the most difficult situations that we can imagine. You put them in a situation where they have to go and deal with a medical emergency. You can imagine the trauma that's involved, but what sort of respect does this government show? None at all. That's an issue that has been put in front of this House again and again, and that this government has failed to deal with.

In Golden paramedics aren't in the station. This government can't even figure out how to have a station for paramedics to stay at in Golden. There's a mould issue. They've been out and in a motel for the longest time. It's not like a motel….

I see that in Victoria they've got them outside of motels, too, so it's not just rural areas they're mismanaging. But in Golden it snows. You have the ambulance sitting outside. You have all of those issues that have to be thought through, and this government can't even manage that part. They have to make paramedics' lives more complicated than they need to be because they can't do the basics in terms of figuring out how to make this service work.

The other thing that struck me, going again and again and meeting with paramedics, is that they actually make the best of it. For all of the things that you hear, you think: "Why do you put up with that? Why do you put up with no pension for years? Why do you put up with getting paid ridiculous amounts of money and then being required to go on overtime and having no life? Why do you put up with it?"

Yet what you consistently see with paramedics is this sense of duty which is incredible and which this government takes advantage of. They absolutely take advantage of it. The government comes in and changes the rules however they want to. But do the paramedics ever do anything other than their duty? They don't. So that sense of duty, this government takes advantage of.

The paramedics are out there right now. Are they happy about this? Do they think it's fair? It's not. And they're not happy about it. Are they out there doing their job? They are, to the best of their ability.

If only we had a government, if only we had members here who would do what they should be doing. Instead, what will we get? We will not have one B.C. Liberal stand up and actually speak. They've been told to be quiet. They'll be quiet. They do what they're told. So the contempt that the Premier shows for paramedics is acceptable to each and every one of these members.

We've had questions about VANOC. Is the minister responsible for the Olympics going to stand up and explain anything? No. She's been told to sit down and be quiet. She will. She'll do exactly what she's told, despite the fact she has to know, and other members have to know, the situation that's there and real for paramedics. But a complete unwillingness to speak on their behalf or to try to understand this issue or to put in place a piece of legislation that is in any way reasonable.

In Golden you have the Trans-Canada Highway. You have one of the most difficult sections of the Trans-Canada Highway. Between there and Revelstoke is a very challenging place, and there have been some horrific accidents. When those accidents take place, paramedics are expected to go and deal with the situation and deal with it basically on their own.

[1535]

They are not minutes away from a facility. They will often take an hour to get to an accident. Then they have to deal with the patient and look after them for an hour and a half until they get back to a hospital, a local hospital. Then following that, it can often be hours again before they get to a trauma centre like Foothills in Calgary.

[ Page 1966 ]

That is an incredible burden that you're asking those paramedics to carry. Yet, how are you going to retain the most skilled people in that community? You simply can't.

There was a paramedic in Golden that I was talking to. She made more as a waitress. You're asking her to pay for her training, the thousands of dollars, to come in and earn less than she would if she had not trained, if she had simply remained as a waitress, and to do jobs that, to be honest, very few of us would do because of their challenge and how difficult they are.

Revelstoke is the last of the communities I'll speak about. Here was a community that, when these changes were introduced four or five years ago by this government, had found themselves with no station. The area that they were in was part of the fire department. There was no room for people to stay overnight, so they had to leave. They had to leave that station, and where they ended up was in a motel. This is just how poorly thought through this service is.

They put them in a motel. If you have been to Revelstoke…. I doubt there is a part of British Columbia that gets more snow. The ambulance was parked outside over the winter. It was covered in snow. Because they had to be ready to go if an accident happened, they were constantly out there cleaning off the ambulances, and they were told by their employer, they were told by this government, that they're not allowed to do that. That $10, when you're supposed to be sitting in the motel….

Here's an official note: "Don't clean off the ambulance, because you're not covered by workers compensation." Not only do you not get pension for that, but you're not covered by workers compensation. If you injure yourself, it's not only tough luck for you, but we've told you not to do it. Therefore, you're going to be in trouble with us as well.

Paramedics, of course, have to clean off the ambulance, so they're out there doing it. But it just shows you, each and every time you have paramedics with the burden of the mismanagement of this government and having to deal with it.

In Revelstoke we were promised a station. What we have ended up with in Revelstoke is the motel situation, then into an industrial site. Because of pollution issues and safety issues, the paramedics went back to a motel, and now they're back in a cleaned-up industrial site, waiting for a station that we were promised a year ago, six months ago.

This summer I was on the phone with the B.C. Ambulance Service, and I was guaranteed, from the minister on down, that that ambulance was coming. The city of Revelstoke bought property, got it all ready, and still it's not arriving. It's just one more of the many, many cuts that this government makes.

When the minister stands up and says that he's going to deal with rural issues for paramedics, you've got to wonder, in the context of…. At some point, some of the commitments that a government makes have to actually come true if they expect to be believed on anything, and that's just not the record of this government. They say one thing, and you can be sure that the opposite is more likely to happen than not.

I just want to, again, say to paramedics how much I respect the work they do. I just want to read, in the time that I have, a couple of things. First, related to the life of a paramedic and then related to the life of people that live with paramedics and what it means for families.

This is from a gentleman named Michael Tomaino. He's from Vancouver, actually. He e-mailed me after my throne speech, where both in the throne speech and in the budget speech the first thing that I did was just talk about paramedics for a few minutes. I think it's instructive just to hear what he said.

He heard me speak, and he sent off a quick e-mail. He says: "My name is Michael Tomaino, and I am a paramedic with the B.C. Ambulance Service. I'm attaching a picture of a colleague of mine, who this week was photographed by the Province newspaper, sitting on the bumper of an ambulance with his head in his hands. His heart was heavy with sadness, for he just witnessed the aftermath of a terrible accident."

[1540]

The member will remember a tragic accident this summer in Vancouver where a young child was with the mother, and the child was hit by a runaway truck. He just talks about that paramedic and that paramedic having to deal with that situation. We can all imagine it — the mother, the young child, realizing there was nothing they could do for the child.

What Mr. Tomaino goes on to say is that it reminds him of things that he's had to deal with — removing a young man out of the waters beneath the Pattullo Bridge and realizing there's nothing that he could do and having to make that decision. He talks about attending the mushroom farm in Langley a year ago and having to deal with all of that.

I think that these are things we forget. Most of us are quite fortunate in our lives that we don't deal with these traumatic events. These are professionals, and he goes on to say that they're not asking for sympathy or to be called heroes or to do anything else. They want to do this work, but they do think that it's absolutely important — and Michael makes this point — that they receive respect for what they do. That is a big part of what is missing here, a big part of what is missing.

The B.C. Liberals are going to line up and vote for this. I would expect that at the very least they explain their vote. If nothing else, stand up and explain why this is a reasonable course of action. I don't think that's too much to expect. Surely we all came here to express the views of our constituents, and to accept that you don't get to say something on it, for the B.C. Liberal members, is ridiculous to me.

[ Page 1967 ]

I want to read one other thing. It just talks about a family member. It just gives you an idea of how it's not only the paramedic but also the members of the family. It's from George Weitzel from Kimberley, a good friend. Here he's talking about his life with a paramedic.

"I would like to address the on-call pay issue as one that I am personally familiar with and one that I believe demonstrates the disregard the provincial government has shown to our paramedics.

"I would like you to imagine that your spouse is a fully trained paramedic who has a

schedule that may include as many as five on-call shifts per week. They can be either ten-hour day shifts or a 14-hour night shift. Your spouse carries a pager at all times when on call and must be at the ambulance station in uniform and ready to roll in ten minutes. They are not free to go out for dinner, go grocery shopping or do anything that would prevent them from responding in ten minutes.

"Now try to imagine going to sleep when you're on call, with a pager inches from your ear. Imagine being paged at three or four in the morning and quickly putting on the uniform and being out the door into a cold winter night, the adrenalin pumping hard.

"Now imagine receiving $2 per hour for being on call. There is not another emergency service provider in the province who receives such a pittance for being on call.

"The present treatment of our paramedics is shameful, and the failure of our government to recognize the importance of a well-trained and motivated ambulance service is a disservice to us all."

I don't think anyone could sum it up better than George Weitzel. That is exactly what is going on here.

"The present treatment of our paramedics is shameful, and the failure of our government to recognize the importance of a well-trained and motivated ambulance service is a disservice to us all."

You could not articulate the issue here any clearer than that.

I know that the opposition will continue to fight on this issue. We will do what we need to do to get the B.C. Ambulance Service so that it works not only in rural British Columbia but in all parts of British Columbia. I know and want to say again to paramedics how much respect we have for the work that paramedics have done. I think that this piece of legislation treats them, again, in a manner of contempt that most British Columbians find offensive.

In each one of my communities and actually across the province we see the signs. We know that if you look at surveys that are done of jobs that are respected…. I saw one recently in the Reader's Digest . It had firefighters at the top. Right behind them you had paramedics, the people that we depend upon.

[1545]

I won't say where politicians fit in that list, but you can imagine. It's nowhere near.

These are people that deserve respect. To wait a year for another process that's uncertain is a ridiculous option. This is something that could have been settled.

It is actually not up to the paramedics to make this work. It is actually up to the government. The government should be the one that is looking at the issues of retention and getting the training piece right. That should be the minister's responsibility. He shouldn't have to be dragged into that by paramedics.

I'm going to wrap up. I know that there are other members, B.C. NDP and independent members, who are actually going to stand and speak on this bill.

I will say again that the behaviour by the Premier of flicking a loonie at paramedics was indicative of contempt. That's an action I've never heard the Premier apologize for. He should be in this House and apologize. The fact is that he's not even going to speak on this. He's not even going to stand and speak on this issue.

There should be a B.C. Liberal that stands up and explains their vote. Otherwise, I don't know how you go back to your communities and hold up your heads. I honestly don't.

With that, I turn it over to my colleague. I thank you for the opportunity to speak, and I thank paramedics again for the jobs that they do.

V. Huntington: I'm not normally given to speaking on behalf of unions, but I would like to take this opportunity to say a few words about Bill 21, the Ambulance Services Collective Agreement Act.

The explanatory note attached to the legislation states: "This bill settles the labour dispute between the Emergency and Health Services Commission and its ambulance paramedics and dispatchers." The explanatory note, to me, is unsettling, given that the legislation was obviously drawn up in the middle of a formal offer to the union. If that isn't an example of bad-faith bargaining, I'm not sure what is.

I agree with the minister that we're going into a bad flu season. Yes, the holiday seasons are coming, and yes, the managers are tired and frustrated. Yes, we would all like to see this labour dispute settled. I also have to admit that even though there are legitimate demands, I feel the expectations of the paramedics and dispatchers are somewhat unrealistic, given the announcement in the February '09 budget that there would be no new money for public sector wage increases.

I can even understand the government's decision not to go to arbitration, and I certainly applaud the minister's announcement of the industrial inquiry commission. There are many structural issues that clearly need independent resolution in this dispute.

What I do not understand, however, is the decision to enter free bargaining, the decision to make an offer and the decision to bring in back-to-work legislation four days before the vote was taken on that offer. I wonder sometimes if there's been a decision at some level to so discourage participation in this profession that a move to privatizing the Ambulance Service is in the offing. If that's so, let us have a public and open debate on the merits or otherwise of such a move.

In the meantime, I feel that there are principles of fair play on which our society depends and on which it is founded. There is law surrounding collective bargaining rights. There is, or was, public expectation that government

[ Page 1968 ]

operates within the sphere of law and fair play. In fact, the long-term stability of a democracy is, in its essence, dependent upon the predictability of process. That is what contract law is all about. That is what we expect our governments to honour: the legal processes that bind a sound, stable and democratic society.

[1550]

But fairness and dependability are in danger of becoming unknown commodities in this province, at least for the people this government should be representing. If you are an industry, access is now your speedy right. There's a new noblesse oblige in this province. But if you are just the people, you can no longer rely on the expectation of fair play or the ear of this government.

So here I am, a strong free-enterpriser defending the right of a union to fair play. I strongly believe the government should let the bargaining process play out and that the vote should be taken. If the offer isn't accepted and the government continues to believe there is a threat to the delivery of ambulance service in B.C., then perhaps legislation of this nature would be more understandable.

At the moment I can only say that I believe the government has acted in bad faith and has moved intemperately with the introduction of this legislation. To me, it is just one more nail in the coffin of public trust and faith in the legitimacy of this government.

H. Lali: I rise to take my place in the debate on Bill 21 entitled Ambulance Services Collective Agreement Act.

It's a bit of a misnomer here because there's no collective agreement. The collective agreement, or the so-called collective agreement, is being forced upon the paramedics while their rights are being run roughshod by this government — all of this following, basically, months and months and months of foot-dragging from the government while the paramedics had been looking for an agreement and a solution.

The government's basically wasted all this time. Now, because the Olympics are around the corner and they don't want anything going astray, they're bringing this forward under those auspices.

I'm just going to read you a list of some names of communities here. There are a whole bunch of communities on the north coast, not the least of which is Prince Rupert. There's Masset, Sandspit, Bella Coola, Bella Bella, Stewart. We also have Kamloops, 100 Mile House, Agassiz, Harrison Lake, Lake Eric, Ruby Creek, along Highway 1 from Annis Road to Herrling Island, northern part of Vancouver Island, Invermere, Revelstoke, Kimberley, Fernie, Chase, Merritt, Armstrong, Ashcroft, Salmon Arm, Canoe, Sicamous, Terrace, Alexis Creek, Chemainus and Port Renfrew.

You're probably wondering why I'm reading all these names. What is it that these communities have in common? Well, with the exception of a couple of larger communities like Kamloops and Prince Rupert, which is kind of medium-sized, it's all rural British Columbia. Every single one of these communities is located in rural British Columbia.

They're not just in one part of the province. There are communities here from the rural part of Vancouver Island, the north coast, communities here in the Cariboo, in the Thompson, in the Okanagan region, from the Kootenays, and there are some communities that are not listed here up in the Peace River country as well. They are communities all over rural British Columbia.

The reason those names are mentioned is that if anybody was looking at all of the written media or even listening to the radio or television, every one of these communities and dozens more that are not listed here in my list…. Every single one of them has had problems in terms of the ambulance service, whether it's a shortage of paramedics or the overly length of time — I think I just invented that word — the extra amount of time it actually takes for the ambulances to respond to emergency situations.

[1555]

It's not good enough. It's actually pathetic, in terms of the lack of resources that have been given to our ambulance service by this Liberal government over the last eight years, and the situation is not getting any better. It's getting worse year by year, month by month, week by week, and for some communities it's getting worse day by day.

You know, these are some of the municipalities and the incorporated communities that I have talked about. There are dozens and dozens of unincorporated communities which are not actually covered in the list that I just sounded off, but I have another list of hundreds of communities where they are included.

What's also not included is all of the aboriginal reserves, the aboriginal villages that surround almost every single one of these communities that I mentioned. If the length of response time is a little too long in those municipalities and in those communities, just imagine the length of time that's tacked on because you happen to be a first nations community. Some of them are as far away as two or three hours from these municipalities or these organized towns.

Communities up on the north coast, communities up in the Cariboo region, which are on the actual west coast of British Columbia — how long it takes for an ambulance to get there, or the ambulance doesn't get there because there are no paramedics. It's getting worse.

Successive Ministers of Health have done nothing to improve the situation for these small communities. I see my colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke, who did a fantastic job of outlining some of the concerns, nodding in agreement, because the problems that I'm going to talk about, some of these issues that I'm going to raise in my constituency, are no different than the issues and the concerns that people are talking about in his constituency and in the constituencies of the rural members opposite.

[ Page 1969 ]

But you would be hard pressed…. You know, they're going to stand up here on Bill 21. They're all going to stand up, one after the other, and they're going to vote to actually pass this bill. They're going to vote to get the paramedics back to work. They're going to force them. They're going to bring the hammer down on them. They're all going to get up and do that.

Since getting re-elected in '05 and again in '09, I haven't…. I might be wrong, because I might not have been in the House at that particular time, as members, as you know, go in and out and serve their duty. They have other duties they have to go to — meetings and functions, etc. But I have not heard a single one of the Liberals, especially the rural MLAs, and some of them are in the House right now, actually get up and defend the paramedics or defend their rural communities where ambulance services are being nonchalantly and routinely gutted by the Liberal government since 2001.

I have not seen a single one of them actually stand up and lock arms with their rural colleagues on this side of the House to stand up for our constituents and their constituents and hold the government to task, to say: "We're not going to put up with this any longer. We're not going to actually put up with the continued onslaught and the disrespect that this Premier and this Liberal government have been showing to not only the paramedics but to residents who live in rural communities, residents in these small communities."

Some of them are significant — these municipalities. Others are very small, and some of them are in remote areas even, especially first nations. Not a single one of them actually got up to defend, and I mentioned…. I think Kimberley is in the Minister of Community Development's constituency. How come I don't see the minister stand up to defend his community of Kimberley? How come I don't see the minister from Kamloops stand up, or the MLA for Kamloops–North Thompson, who sits a few seats to my left?

How come I do not see any one of the Liberal MLAs from rural British Columbia, and cabinet ministers…? I see the cabinet minister from Prince George is also here. How come they don't stand up and fight for their communities?

[1600]

How come they don't stand up to fight for their constituents, these paramedics, who are doing a fantastic job? How come they never get up to defend them? How come they don't stand up for their communities? How come it's always the NDP opposition who stands up to not only fight for the NDP constituents in our own communities and in our ridings…? I mentioned all these communities that I read out. They must be — what? — only, maybe, 1/10 or 1/15 of the master list that's out here.

We're standing up. We're fighting for our own constituents. We're standing up, and half of those names that I read out here are constituencies held by members on the government side of the House, on the Liberal side of the House. Their constituencies, their communities, their constituents — members opposite sit muted, not a word. They don't take their place in the debate of Bill 21. But it is us, the members opposite, the New Democrat members, who are consistently and routinely standing up, fighting for the rights of our constituents and their constituents opposite, while they sit on their hands.

We have seen this happen every week here in the House, every month that we're here in the House. We've seen this happen for the last eight years, where members opposite do not fight for their own constituents. They do not stand up for their constituents, the paramedics. They don't stand up for the first nations who need the ambulance services and the paramedics. They don't stand up and actually talk for them. They don't stand up and fight for them. We're doing it.

We've been doing it day in and day out, and we're going to continue to do that. We're going to stand up and fight for our constituents, and we're going to fight for the constituents opposite because their Liberal MLA refuses to do so. Consistently we've seen that happen over the last eight years.

You know, my colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke spoke so eloquently about the respect that he has for paramedics. I know other members opposite here on our side have as well. I'm going to continue in that vein, because of what the paramedics have been going through for the last number of years as the B.C. Liberals have systematically dismantled and destroyed the Ambulance Service in British Columbia through its chronic underfunding and neglect and their uncaring attitude.

While they've done that, you just see the morale of all these paramedics and the folks that work for the Ambulance Service. They won't speak up for them, but we respect our paramedics. We respect the folks who work for the ambulance services.

Whether it's the person who's driving the ambulance, or the paramedic who's doing the attending or doing the lifting, or the person who's sitting there in the ambulance services answering the phone call, or the person doing the paperwork, or the manager who's actually doing the managing, or the administrator or the head person in each one of these outfits who is doing what he or she is supposed to do in terms of the management, or the persons who are the baseline workers, on our side of the House, on the NDP side of the House we respect the job that each and every single person working in the Ambulance Service, including paramedics and administrators, does.

We respect the job that each one of them does. We do on this side of the House.

I'm still waiting for somebody on that side of the House, on the Liberal side, to actually stand up and say those very words and actually show that they care

[ Page 1970 ]

— show that they care about not only the people who deliver our ambulance service and our paramedics but also the people who receive the service on the other side, the people in all of those small communities spread out all throughout rural British Columbia, the first nations communities in the unincorporated territories and the unincorporated territories in the regional districts.

They're the ones who are hurt the most if they can't get adequate medical services in time because of this government's uncaring attitude and their neglect. That's the bottom line.

[1605]

I want to show how much disrespect this government has shown. You know, the paramedics have taken a vote. They're still in the middle of it. They're still voting. Amazing.

G. Coons: Unbelievable.

H. Lali: Unbelievable. Unbelievable, and not because they're taking the vote. That's not what my member for the North Coast behind me is sitting there in disbelief over.

That vote has been going on for a while. The Minister of Health knows about it. Cabinet ministers know about it. The Premier knows about it. Every single one of these Liberal MLAs who sit to my left…. It's amazing they're actually sitting to my left — behind me to my left, in front of me to my left, right in front of me, you know….

Interjections.

H. Lali: The member from Langley says it's to his right. It's unfathomable to think that somebody would actually be to the right of that member, but there are some Liberals who are even to the right of him. All of those Liberals…. I'm waiting for some of them….

Interjections.

H. Lali: Well, wait until the 2013 election. If the minister thinks there are not enough Liberals in the House, wait until 2013. There will be even less of them after 2013, with the way that they're doing things.

Is there a single member on the opposite side, even those folks that sit behind me, the Liberals there…? Does any one of them even know that there's a vote taking place? I know the member for North Coast said it's unbelievable that they wouldn't, but there's a vote taking place. It's part of the collective agreement process. It's part of our democratic right and our democratic process as part of the union to have a vote when there is an offer ahead of you.

"Here's one side," the government says to them. You know, there's an agreement — bargaining taking place. They're having a vote. They're not even finished the vote. The vote hasn't even been counted.

My good friend the Minister of Health doesn't even know if it's a negative or a positive vote, but he's sponsoring…. He came in here with this Bill 21. He says: "Regardless of how you guys vote or which way you vote, I'm going to take this sledgehammer, and I'm going to show you that you guys can't do this. You guys can't go on strike. You folks can't do this. We're going to legislate you guys back to work. We're going to impose an agreement on you guys because we the government have this big, big, huge sledgehammer that we can use through the Legislature."

That's what's happening — unbelievable. My good friend from the North Coast says: "Unbelievable." Isn't it unbelievable? It's unprecedented. While the union takes a vote, the employer, the government decides: "Oh no, we're not going to wait for the results, because we've got this hammer. We're going to use it, and why are we going to use it? Because we can." That's what the government is telling them. "We're going to use it because we can." They're government, and they're going to use it — unbelievable.

Hon. Speaker, I also want to go through that list I was telling you about just a few minutes ago of some communities. I won't read about all of them, but I'm going to read about some of them in terms of the paramedic data from '08 and '09 that's been supplied here.

The B.C. Ambulance Service has actually set a benchmark of reaching 90 percent of critical calls within nine minutes. That's the government's ambulance service. They set the rules. So the B.C. Ambulance Service has set a benchmark of reaching 90 percent of critical calls within nine minutes. In 2007-2008 they reached this benchmark only 52 percent of the time.

You'd think it might have rung some alarm bells in the minds of the cabinet. "Okay, we set the rules — 90 percent. It's only at 52 percent. There's something wrong. Let's go out there and talk to the people who know best. These are the folks on the ground — paramedics and the Ambulance Service on the ground. Let's talk to them and ask them: how are we going to improve this? What's needed?"

[1610]

You'd think somebody might…. The little light might have gone click — on. "That's the idea. Let's go talk to them." No, those are their own rules. You know, this is only in urban and metropolitan areas. In rural areas it's far worse. In remote and rural areas they almost never even reach this benchmark of 52 percent.

I'm going to give you some examples. I'm not picking and choosing, you know, looking for the worst examples or the community of the member from Prince George or the community of the member from the Chilliwack area — I guess he's only got one community — or of some of the other rural members.

No, I'm not picking and choosing. I'm actually going with communities I represented. That's it — in one area, all those communities, whether it was in Yale-Lillooet or

[ Page 1971 ]

now in Fraser-Nicola. Remember, they set a benchmark of 90 percent for critical calls within nine minutes.

Ashcroft, rural. They've had a 75.13 percent increase b