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)

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 7, Number 5

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Crisis lines on Vancouver Island

C. Trevena

Remembrance Day and war veterans

E. Foster

ArtsConnect and Theatrix Youtheatre

D. Thorne

Richmond Chinatown Lions Club

L. Reid

New Westminster organization supporting grandmothers in Africa

D. Black

Activities of North Shore fish habitat restoration groups

R. Sultan

Tabling Documents

Office of the Representative for Children and Youth, service plan, 2012-2013

Oral Questions

Crisis lines on Vancouver Island

C. James

Hon. K. Falcon

S. Fraser

B. Simpson

J. Kwan

Waiting times for surgeries in B.C.

A. Dix

Hon. K. Falcon

Supply of H1N1 vaccine to Copeman clinic

S. Simpson

Hon. K. Falcon

Government support for Kitimat forest workers

R. Austin

Hon. B. Bennett

Petitions

C. Trevena

S. Fraser

D. Donaldson

B. Simpson

D. Thorne

S. Herbert

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 21 — Ambulance Services Collective Agreement Act (continued)

R. Fleming

M. Elmore

C. James

L. Popham

A. Dix

On the Motion to Adjourn

Hon. M. de Jong

M. Farnworth

L. Krog

J. Horgan

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development (continued)

M. Karagianis

Hon. M. Polak

M. Elmore

J. Kwan

[ Page 2113 ]

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2009

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

N. Macdonald: It's a pleasure to introduce Laurence and Kathy Charlton from Golden. They are my daughter's boyfriend's parents. I think with them is Laurence's twin brother. I'm presuming that. We haven't met, but I'm pretty sure that's the case. I want the House to join me in making them all welcome here.

Hon. M. Polak: Today in the gallery joining us is one of my CAs, Kathryn Merrifield. What makes this special is that she is joined by her mother, Gillian Merrifield. Would the House please make them welcome.

B. Simpson: As individuals in here well know, sometimes we sacrifice our family for the work we do in here. Last time I left home, my son turned 20, and I haven't seen him since. He's in the gallery today, and I'd like the House to wish him a belated 20th birthday.

L. Reid: Today is Bring Shachi's Mom to Work Day. On behalf of press gallery member Shachi Kurl, I would like to welcome Mrs. Tripta Kurl to the Legislature.

Mrs. Kurl is a long-time Richmond constituent and volunteer, giving her time, when her girls were little, as a parent helper at Mitchell Elementary School and as a long-serving member of the Richmond family court youth justice committee.

A former teacher in India, she found a talent for retail sales, keeping the economy strong over a 20-year career at Eaton's and then the last decade at Hbc. She says that work keeps her young, and she has no plans to retire.

For those who do not know, Bring Shachi's Mom to Work Day includes lunch in the dining room and taking in question period. I'm sure she will find both to be unforgettable experiences. Will the House please join me in welcoming my constituent Mrs. Kurl to the Legislature.

[1335]

M. Elmore: It's my pleasure to welcome back to the House the constituent from Vancouver-Kensington David Chudnovsky, the former MLA. It's always great to see him, have him here, in the House. Please extend a warm welcome for David.

T. Lake: Many of our constituent assistants were here this week for a conference to learn how to help us with our constituents, and I see that my two constituency assistants have had to stay for some remedial work. I want to introduce Linda Friesen and Robert Scherf. Please join me in making them welcome in the House today.

Hon. B. Bennett: It's my pleasure to introduce the parents of our caucus communications manager Stephen Harris. For his parents' benefit, Stephen is a very bright young guy and doing a great job for us. Rod and Ingrid Harris moved to Nelson in the beautiful Kootenay region from Ontario a couple of years ago. This is their first visit to Victoria, so please help me make them welcome.

M. Dalton: I'd like to recognize in the gallery today Dr. David Rempel. He is a four-term school trustee from Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows. He's come with a Russian school exchange from school 130 in an academy town outside of Novosibirsk, which is in the dead centre of Russia — population about two million people.

There are over two dozen people that have come here today — students and adults — including Iryra Polyakova and also Boris Bayev. This is the 20th anniversary of the first visit that they made to Victoria and the Legislature, and I would ask the assembly to give them warm greetings.

D. McRae: I would like the House to make welcome Mary Clarkston, who's been a long-standing volunteer in the Comox Valley and just a darn nice person. Please make her welcome.

Hon. I. Chong: In the gallery today are a number of individuals from around greater Victoria, but they have been brought together and led here by a constituent of mine from Saanich. It's a seniors walking-hiking group called the Green Adventurers. I understand they walked to the Legislature, even in today's weather. They are touring the buildings and now are here to watch question period.

I would like the House to welcome the following: Cas Bohlken from Victoria, Elizabeth de Moor from Oak Bay, Donna Humphries from Esquimalt, Anne Lupri from Saanich, Norman and Joan Mogensen from Saanich — and Norman was the one who organized them all — Dick Turner from Colwood, Sheila Tusz from Victoria and also Alex and Jenny Briker. I don't know which municipality they're from, but I know they're going to enjoy their time here. I would ask the House to please make them all very welcome.

D. Routley: Looking around in the gallery, I don't see my daughter or my partner, Leanne Finlayson. They're late. My daughter is displaying a strong hereditary penchant for being late. I'm always teased that my reputation precedes me, because I'm always late. So Madeline is following a strong tradition that goes back to my dear mother.

[ Page 2114 ]

She is coming here later to join me with my partner, Leanne Finlayson, and I'd like the House to please make them welcome. I'll let them know how welcome they are when they arrive.

Hon. G. Abbott: In the gallery today are two of my favourite constituents from the Shuswap — excluding family, of course: Roxena Goodine and Holly Cowan, both from Salmon Arm. I'd like the House to welcome them today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

CRISIS LINES ON VANCOUVER ISLAND

C. Trevena: I rise today to talk about crisis lines, small organizations, usually staffed by volunteers, who provide a lifeline to hundreds of people every year. There are six across Vancouver Island, and they're part of our social safety net. The volunteers are not just trained to listen and do not just have access to emergency service numbers. They have local knowledge.

[1340]

They know the communities where there's no RCMP. They know the places accessible only by boat or floatplane. They know the makeup of the often small communities from which the calls come. They have contacts in isolated communities or on reserve.

This comes after years of work. The crisis lines across the Island have decades of experience. At the crisis line in Mount Waddington, based in Port Hardy, there's a volunteer who has clocked 10,000 hours helping people. Vancouver Island Health Authority statistics show that Mount Waddington faces some of the highest incidence of family violence, addiction, abuse and early death in B.C. That line received 1,100 calls last year alone.

The crisis line in Campbell River is a lead on suicide prevention and awareness, running courses and workshops in schools and throughout our community. The line also becomes an after-hours emergency number for many agencies, including mental health and addictions, and victim services.

The people volunteering know their communities. They know the mill is down in Campbell River and what impact that's having. They know there's still uncertainty about the economic future of Gold River. They know what time the last ferry runs from Cortes Island and the isolation that can bring.

The Crossroads centre, which covers the Comox Valley, trains volunteers four times a year and has about 50 people on its roster. Within the community it serves as a volunteer placement location as well as provides vital assistance to people in need.

Where I grew up, the local base crisis lines are called the Samaritans. That's what the volunteers who work in crisis lines are — Samaritans, people who are willing to give up their time to help others with little thought for themselves.

REMEMBRANCE DAY AND WAR VETERANS

E. Foster: I am honoured to rise in the House today to recognize the first day of Veterans Week and to acknowledge those who have fought and continue to fight for our freedom.

This year Veterans Affairs Canada asks: how will you remember? I remember the photos of my father, who was in the Canadian navy during the Second World War, and the photos of some of his friends who did not come home.

As we sit in the House today, many Canadians are serving abroad, maintaining our proud tradition of peacekeeping. We have a duty to remember and a duty to teach our children about the brave men and women who have served and currently risk their lives so far from home.

On the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month we will bow our heads to pay our respects to the more than 1.6 million Canadians who have served in the First and Second World Wars, the Korean conflict, pray for those who are serving in faraway lands today and remember the thousands who did not come home.

Wearing the red poppy helps us to remember and reminds us to pass along the memories to our children. The poppy encourages us to speak to veterans and hear their stories. The poppy reminds us to remember Remembrance Day and attend a ceremony with our friends and loved ones. But above all, the poppy signifies that we are truly grateful for the sacrifices these brave men and women and their families have made so that we can live in a free and democratic country.

ARTSCONNECT AND THEATRIX YOUTHEATRE

D. Thorne: I rise today to offer anniversary greetings and congratulations to two extraordinary organizations that serve my Coquitlam-Maillardville riding. ArtsConnect Tri-Cities Arts Council is celebrating its 40th anniversary today. Amongst the 90 art councils in B.C., ArtsConnect is unique in that it serves three cities — Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam and Port Moody — and two villages, Belcarra and Anmore, with a combined population of 200,000. Today has been proclaimed ArtsConnect Day in the whole region.

For the last 20 years ArtsConnect has lived up to its slogan of "Connecting people through the arts" with projects as diverse as the local art walk and a five-minute film challenge. ArtsConnect also brings an arts element to local events such as Treefest, which is held on the Riverview Hospital grounds each fall. Its members are a welcome presence also at many local festivals and special events.

[ Page 2115 ]

As well, ArtsConnect is the regional hub for information relating to the local arts and culture. I called on its members to display their art in my own constituency office on International Artist Day.

I also want to speak about Theatrix Youtheatre Society, which is a longtime member of ArtsConnect and which is celebrating an anniversary this week, its 18th. This grass-roots non-profit theatre group has members ranging in age from three years old to 89.

[1345]

Theatrix specializes in creating original theatre, eight or so productions per year, which are written, staged and performed by the young troupers. I've attended many performances, and they are terrific. Theatrix's mandate is to provide opportunities for all, regardless of family income and abilities. With more than 50 original scripts, numerous Theatre B.C. awards and a new mentorship program, Coquitlam can take credit and give thanks to these groups.

richmond chinatown lions club

L. Reid: The Richmond Chinatown Lions Club celebrates 15 years of service this year. The charter of this club was granted on August 15, 1997, and 73 charter members were inducted on October 8 of 1994. This club was chartered by charter president Kenny Lee with the guidance of past council chair Monty Jang and Vancouver Cathay Lions Club as their sponsor. Since then, this club has been serving the community of Richmond and making donations to Lions International.

With the Lions' motto, "We serve," in mind, their members and the executives of their club have worked closely to raise funds with major events such as charity golf tournaments and dinner galas. In the past 15 years they have donated over $400,000 supporting numerous non-profit organizations such as the Richmond Hospital Foundation, the Richmond Gateway Theatre, Richmond Youth Orchestra, B.C. Children's Hospital Foundation and B.C. Women's Hospital and Health Centre.

They also support individuals with special needs across the Lower Mainland, such as Richmond Therapeutic Equestrian, Richmond Centre for Disability, Richmond Food Bank, Richmond Salvation Army hospice house, Canadian National Institute for the Blind and the B.C. Guide Dog Service.

Thurman So is the 2009-10 president and assisted by Kenny Lee as secretary, Herman Leung as the treasurer, Lucy Ng, Keith Wong and Gary Chow as vice-presidents, and directors Lucy Quinn, Beate Breuers, David Chin, Douglas Wing, Edward Ng, Stanley Chow, Peter Ng and Aster Liew. This is a dedicated group of individuals with whom I have been privileged to serve.

I would ask this House to join me in congratulating Richmond Chinatown Lions Club on 15 exceptional years of service.

new westminster organization

supporting grandmothers in africa

D. Black: Africa has become a continent of orphans. An estimated 11 million children have been orphaned by AIDS, and the numbers are expected to reach 20 million in the next four years. In the midst of this devastation, grandmothers in Africa are the unsung heroes. They bury their own children, and then in their 50s, 60s and 70s they start parenting again, raising the grandchildren with little or no support.

In 2006 the Stephen Lewis Foundation launched the Grandmothers to Grandmothers campaign to raise awareness in Canada. Today, only three years later, there are more than 220 granny groups mobilizing support for their sisters in Africa, and they've raised almost $7 million.

Gogo is the Zulu word for grandmother, and six months ago a new granny group was started in New Westminster called the Royal City Gogos. They've organized a Scrabble tournament, Good Words for Africa, on Saturday at Douglas College from 2 to 4 p.m. Already the pledges total over $13,000, and their goal is to raise $25,000.

The day includes a sale of African art and jewellery, a silent auction of luxury items, including Olympic hockey tickets, handmade quilts and crafts. There will even be a Mike Holmes clone auctioned off for home repairs.

I'm playing Scrabble for this worthwhile cause, and I want to thank my colleagues, my family and my friends who have pledged donations of support. If anyone else would like to offer support, they can click on the Royal City Gogos fundraising page and donate. All proceeds raised will go to the Douglas College Uganda Project and the Stephen Lewis Foundation for grandmothers campaign and will make a real difference, a positive difference, in the lives of these very brave women and children.

activities of north shore

fish habitat restoration groups

R. Sultan: Trout, salmon and steelhead have been driven from the fast streams of the North Shore by culverts, highways and development.

But I am pleased to report the fish are making a comeback through the efforts of a strong coalition consisting of the Streamkeepers, led by volunteers such as Hugh Hamilton, Michael Ritter and Elizabeth Hardy; the Coho Society, including Jim MacCarthy, Bill Chapman, Heather Dunsford and Tom Boppart; the Shoreline Preservation Society, led by Ray Richards, Chuck Brawner and Jack Wood; BPP — British Pacific Properties — managed by Jim McLean, Walter Thorneloe and the Guinness family; DFO, inspired in years past by Rob Bell-Irving; Adopt-A-Fish led by West Vancouver Library staff, our school superintendent Jeff Jopson, school vice-principal Joanne Wallis and Taylor Nettles; the municipality itself guided by Steve Jenkins;

[ Page 2116 ]

and Paul Berlinguette, who has the knack of making strategic appearances in his very annoying frog costume.

[1350]

To illustrate, with the construction of the Upper Levels Highway in 1972, culverts and development blocked fish migration in Hadden Creek. BPP commenced restoration, including a 100-metre fish ladder underneath Highway 1, restoring the stream banks to original configuration and replanting native vegetation. Coho salmon were wiggling their way up in the shallow water between the workers' legs even before the project was finished.

This illustrates that Mother Nature, given half a chance, will do her part. It's up to all of us to give her that chance.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the 2012-2013 service plan of the Office of the Representative for Children and Youth.

Oral Questions

CRISIS LINES ON VANCOUVER ISLAND

C. James: Today in the Legislature are representatives from the Vancouver Island crisis centres concerned about the elimination of regional crisis lines as of March 2010. They serve some of the highest-risk communities on the Island. They've helped countless people over the years. They're rooted in the needs of the community, and they're a proven model for health care delivery, including for first nations.

But the government has decided to dismantle all six of these crisis centres without warning, without discussion, without any consideration for the impact. My question is to the Minister of Health: did he talk to any of these professionals? Did he consult any of the communities where these centres are before he decided to dismantle these crisis lines?

Hon. K. Falcon: No, what we did is learn from experience. What we've learned, for example, with the 811 NurseLine that operates in British Columbia is that having a single contact point actually makes a lot more administrative sense. It makes a lot more sense in terms of delivering the service.

On Vancouver Island it is no different. Rather than have six different crisis lines with the attendant administrative costs associated with all six, it makes sense to have one line, one contact line with people that can answer and address the very serious issues that can arise in individuals' lives. That is a best practice, and it makes sense to do it on the Island.

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

C. James: It's very clear that the minister didn't talk to the communities, because it makes no sense to the communities on the Island.

Here are some comments from those people. The executive director of the North Island Crisis and Counselling Centre said: "In rural and remote areas a crisis line is so much more than simply a call centre. We have local staff who respond to calls, who know who to call." This is what the mayor of Port Hardy said: "This decision is devoid of any local knowledge. It will result in delays for clients, escalation in incidents of violence and abuse."

Again, my question is to the minister. Is he saying that front-line workers, health care professionals and community leaders are making up these concerns? Why is he abandoning the most vulnerable communities on our Island?

Hon. K. Falcon: Look, I understand that any change is difficult, and I understand that the NDP is opposed to making any changes in health care.

Even with an almost 20 percent budget increase — in fact, on Vancouver Island, an over 20 percent budget increase over the next three years — there are still pressures. We have a responsibility in government to make sure that even with…. In an era where there's an over 20 percent budget increase and there are still pressures, it should not be too much to ask the health authorities to look at how they deliver services to ensure that they're doing them in a manner that actually respects the massive amount of taxpayer dollars going into the system.

What they did on Vancouver Island, having looked around at the success we've had around the province in terms of the 811 line, recognizing that that is a best practice, that that is actually the best way to deliver a service…. I understand that a change is difficult for the individual communities that enjoyed their service and would like to have it continue forever. The reality is that the approach they're taking is respectful of the fact that even in an era of 23 percent health budget increases, they still have a requirement to try and do the best they can with the dollars. That's what they're doing.

[1355]

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

C. James: I'd like to remind this minister and every member of this government that they also have a responsibility to listen and consult the people of this province before they make decisions. If the minister had actually consulted these professionals, if he'd taken time, this is what he would have found. These crisis centres save lives. These cuts will hurt the aboriginal population particularly hard. Staff maximize those dollars and provide additional services, and those services now will also be lost because of this decision.

[ Page 2117 ]

According to Cliff Atleo Sr., the president of Nuu-chah-nulth: "There is no doubt that there will be negative impact to all people, but especially to our people."

So my question again is to the minister. Why is he abandoning such a critical resource without consultation and without warning, and why won't he listen to the first nations leaders, the professionals and the people in the communities?

Hon. K. Falcon: This is coming from an NDP opposition that doesn't believe that, frankly, there should be any limits on administrative duplication or processes. It's not altogether surprising. It is the same NDP that thought it was appropriate to have 53 different health authorities across the province of British Columbia. That's the NDP model. So I understand in the NDP world more is always better, particularly on administrative duplication and overlap.

But actually, we do know one thing — that best practices…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Falcon: …actually don't suggest that. In an environment where 23 percent budget increases are being provided…. There are still pressures which they will rail on about every single day, but then the moment you try to actually do anything to make sure the dollars are being spent appropriately, they rail on about that too. You can't have it both ways. We're trying to do the right thing here in British Columbia.

S. Fraser: In my constituency the KUU-US crisis line serves the citizens of the Alberni area and out to the west coast and on Vancouver Island. The society was formed because of Nuu-chah-nulth concerns over youth suicide. It was a community meeting in 1993 that led to the birth of the centre, a meeting between first responders, mental health workers and Nuu-chah-nulth members to address gaps in services for those in crisis. Last year 40 percent of their clients were aboriginal people living off and on reserve.

To the minister. He knows the kind of impact this cut will have, particularly on first nations. How does he explain his failure to consult first nations leaders and communities before dismantling this lifeline for so many people in crisis?

Hon. K. Falcon: Let's try and follow the logic of the NDP opposition. What we should do, following their logic, is get rid of the 811 line and set up individual lines in every community in the province. Apparently, that is the best practice — have one in every community and let's just see if that's the best way to deliver the service.

Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry, but what they're doing is fearmongering and, as usual, trying to pretend that any change is going to be disastrous when all the evidence says exactly the opposite.

The 811 line is actually the best example of that — 24-7 service for every British Columbian across the province, easy number to remember, easy to access, excellent service, over 120 different languages. There's no reason why they can't replicate that on Vancouver Island. That's what they're trying to do, and they oppose every change in the system that might bring about a better use of dollars.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Fraser: Fearmongering? This minister never fails to live down to expectation. Fearmongering indeed.

[1400]

Here's what the president of the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council, Cliff Atleo, went on to say about the impact of this cut and this decision: "We worked hard to address suicides and our troubled people only to be handcuffed by this cutback, which is unacceptable."

But the minister is bent on pushing ahead with this shortsighted decision, a decision that is setting back our communities and dismantling our support systems — a decision made without any consideration for the impacts, particularly on first nations.

Again to the minister: how does he explain his failure to consult with anyone — first nations leaders, the affected communities, front-line workers, or health care professionals — before axing six vital crisis lines?

Hon. K. Falcon: In northern British Columbia we also have many first nations. We've got many rural communities. We've got a number of communities spread over an area that's two-thirds of the province. Guess what. They've got a single crisis line.

Do you know what's incredible about that? The world didn't come to an end. It did not come to an end, Member. You know, chaos and disorder and panic have not arisen over the fact that there is a single crisis line serving the entire population of northern British Columbia.

I know that the NDP…. You can't have any change. God forbid if the change might involve eliminating duplication. I realize that goes against the very core of their being. But this is a best practice. It has been demonstrated over and over.

I know change is difficult, but we are asking the health authority, in an era of 23 percent budget increases, to also manage those dollars well for the benefit of Vancouver Island residents.

B. Simpson: The youth suicide rate is substantially higher than the non-aboriginal suicide rate. That's not a piece of administrivia. That's a stark reality in first nations communities.

[ Page 2118 ]

First nations people and youth work best with direct access to community-based resources, not some stranger in a lowest-bid call centre somewhere else in the province.

My question is to the Minister of Aboriginal Relations. Will the minister intervene with VIHA and ensure that the first nations communities throughout Vancouver Island get the resources that they are demanding, which are community-based resources explicitly for first nations youth and other first nations individuals in crisis?

Hon. K. Falcon: That's actually an insult to all the professionals that work hard to deal with individuals like that every single day. It's an insult because it's a classic example of the NDP — that every change has got to be bad, it's got to be the worst possible outcome, it's got to not serve British Columbians. That is nonsense. For them to raise that kind of spectre and try and pretend that the professionals involved that serve the system and serve first nations every single day don't do that to the best of their abilities, I think, is an outrage.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Simpson: What's an outrage is the people who are in here today whose jobs have been cut, who have served their communities, who know intimately how first nations youth live, know where they live and know how best to allow first nations youth to make a decision to stay alive the next day. Those people, I'm sure, are outraged by the minister's offhanded and political responses to our questions today.

I happened to phone one time to the Tourism B.C. 1-800 number asking for a campground in Bowron Lake. They didn't know where Bowron Lake was, and they didn't know if a campsite was available. I don't know what would happen to a first nations young person who, in crisis, phones a lowest-bid call centre and asks for help.

[1405]

To the Minister of Aboriginal Relations: instead of flipping pages in a binder, will he stand up and commit today to intervene with VIHA and make sure that first nations communities are resourced appropriately?

Hon. K. Falcon: All I can say is that it's disappointing, to say the least, to listen to that kind of nonsense come out of that member. To always try and suggest that every change is just going to bring about the end of the world as we know it, when, in spite of all the evidence, in spite of the fact that we can point to examples like 811 that have been enormous successes…. Apparently, according to that member, the 811 line really should be dismantled, and we should set up one in every community. That's the only way, apparently, we can deliver good service in the province of British Columbia. What nonsense.

I get that those members just can never even imagine a change that is going to bring about better service. They're incapable of believing that even with 23 percent budget increases we still have to try and do more to make sure we provide the best possible service to people on Vancouver Island. That's what VIHA is trying to do, and for that member to try to politicize it like that and then pretend that we're politicizing it is nonsense.

J. Kwan: Well, according to this minister, the mayor of Port Hardy is wrong, then; the director of the North Island Crisis and Counselling Centre is wrong; the president of the Nuu-chah-nulth community…. They are wrong. This minister is right that there is no need to talk to front-line workers to ensure that they have the best services available to people who are in crisis in their communities.

If the minister is so convinced that he is correct, why is he afraid to consult with them? Will he commit today to meet with all the guests that are here today who demand the appropriate respect that they deserve in the community and getting the crisis line services that they deserve in their community? Will he commit to that today?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'll tell you who is wrong. Who is wrong is the NDP trying to politicize a change that can actually bring about better service. Who is wrong is the NDP trying to suggest that, where we've seen it work in other areas of the province: "Oh no, it can't possibly work on the Island." The Island must be a bastion that is impervious to any kind of change, no matter what the evidence shows.

The fact is that the Crisis and Intervention and Information Centre for northern B.C. provides crisis counselling for the people of the entire north. That is coverage from the Alberta border to the east, to the Queen Charlotte Islands in the west, from Quesnel in the south to the Yukon border. They do it very successfully.

It covers first nations. It covers non–first nations. It covers rural, remote. It does a great job, and that's why these members cannot even countenance the idea that any change might actually have some benefits. I know they want to stick with a system where duplication and administrative costs six different times is the better way to go, but actually, a best practice is worth following, where it works elsewhere in the province. That's what VIHA is trying to do.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Minister.

WAITING TIMES FOR SURGERIES IN B.C.

A. Dix: A question for the Minister of Health Services.

Interjections.

[ Page 2119 ]

Mr. Speaker: Member, just take your seat for a second.

Continue, Member.

A. Dix: After a week of changing stories and non-existent MOUs and suggestions that ideas came from Saskatchewan that never came from Saskatchewan, I gather that the Minister of Health has actually spoken to the Minister of Health from Saskatchewan today. Here, according to the Minister of Health from Saskatchewan, Don McMorris, is what the minister told him.

[1410]

He said: "B.C. is looking to invite people from all over — not just Saskatchewan, also from down in the States — to come up to British Columbia, and if they need a procedure done, they can accommodate it in the public health care system."

He goes on to say — this is the Minister of Health again: "It isn't just targeted towards Saskatchewan. They are looking at surgical tourism — people coming up to British Columbia, spending some time in British Columbia and being able to get a procedure done in our public health care system."

What the Minister of Health is proposing is selling places in our public health care system at a time that he's cancelling surgeries for British Columbians in our public health care system. Why has this idea come forward? Why is the Minister of Health selling out British Columbians to sell public health care down in the United States?

Hon. K. Falcon: So this, of course, from the member that was the chief of staff to the government that had to send cancer patients down to the U.S. to receive the kind of care that they couldn't get in British Columbia. That's your record, Member. That's the record for the member from Vancouver.

I know it horrifies the NDP to imagine that we have had dramatic successes in British Columbia investing in innovation like the UBC Centre for Surgical Innovation, where we have seen reductions in hip and knee surgery wait times by 50 percent in British Columbia.

I know that even when you have independent groups like the Wait Time Alliance, made up of Canadian Medical Association doctors from one end of the country to the other, that actually rated British Columbia and gave British Columbia A's in every single

section on wait times….

What is unique about that is those innovations, those investments that we made — the NDP opposed them every step of the way, voted against every one of them. They can't deal with success. We love success on this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

A. Dix: What's outrageous is people waiting in pain in British Columbia. Some 10,000 surgeries cancelled, according to Dr. Nigel Murray, according to Dr. Ostrow, according to Murray Ramsden, according to Howard Waldner. Who are they? They're the CEOs of the health authorities. That's what they say.

Now, maybe one day they'll brief the minister. That's what they say — 10,000 surgeries cancelled for British Columbians. Why is the minister selling the places of British Columbia? Why is he, contrary to the Medicare Protection Act, contrary to the Canada Health Act, proposing to sell the places of the tens of thousands of people waiting for health care in British Columbia?

Oh, I know it's hilarious. I know it's hilarious to him that people are waiting in pain. People are waiting in pain in British Columbia, and he's proposing to sell out our public health care system. Why doesn't he give up on this loony idea?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, I can only assume he must be reading a memo from 1999. That's exactly what the situation was like in '99. It was so bad that they were shipping cancer patients down south. That's how bad it was.

You know, I have repeatedly said to the NDP opposition that they don't have to take my word for it. They don't have to take my word for it. As I say….

Interjections.

Hon. K. Falcon: Thank you. Thank you. No, that's good.

They won't like this next part.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. K. Falcon: What they can do is look at the Wait Time Alliance, made up of the Canadian Medical Association, made up of physicians from one end of the country to the other. What did they say for wait times in British Columbia — for cardiac, for hips, for knees, for cataracts? We got an A in every category. Every category. That is a record of success that I'll put up against the NDP record any day of the week.

[1415]

SUPPLY OF H1N1 VACCINE TO

COPEMAN CLINIC

S. Simpson: The H1N1 vaccine is supplied free to clinics and doctors' offices in British Columbia. In return for that, British Columbians can reasonably expect to go to those facilities and receive that vaccine, if they're on the priority list, free of charge. Colleen Fuller, a type 1 diabetic in British Columbia, called the Copeman clinic and had it confirmed that she in fact was a priority because of her condition and then was told that, no, she could not

[ Page 2120 ]

receive the vaccine there unless she paid a $3,900 membership fee. That is not free access.

Will the minister demand today that all clinics in this province and all doctors' offices, including Copeman, provide the vaccine free of charge to any British Columbian who comes through the door who is on the priority list?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member should know that every physician usually has a list of clientele and patients that they deal with. Any time those patients wish to receive a vaccination, they have every right to visit their physician. You know, if I phone up a physician at the other side of the province and say that I want to come in for a vaccination, they're likely to refer me to my own physician. That is not unusual.

The fact of the matter is, though, that every physician in the province….

Interjections.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm not sure why the members don't like listening to answers. I'm actually confused. Do you want to hear the answer or not? I mean, you asked me a question. It's your time. If you don't want to listen….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm just actually trying to answer the questions for the members. The fact of the matter is that every physician knows in the province of British Columbia — it's clear in the guidelines — that the vaccinations are to be delivered at no cost to British Columbians that are in the eligibility groups as they begin the phased rollout.

I will add this. I know the members don't like to hear good news, but as of tomorrow, 20 percent of British Columbians will have been vaccinated to date. That is great work by the health professionals in our province.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: We have a pandemic. We have a public immunization program. We have a shortage of vaccine, and we have a pay-as-you-go program here. It's $3,900 to walk in the Copeman clinic and get this vaccination.

Alberta, Saskatchewan and Quebec have all said the vaccine only goes to public clinics so that it can be provided free of charge to all of the residents of those provinces. Deb Matthews, the Ontario Health Minister, has said that she's doing a review of Medcan because of exactly the same problem as Copeman is creating here, where they are charging, essentially, through a membership fee for people to jump the queue and access that.

Will the minister follow those examples — examples of good public policy — and say no to private clinics that charge for this vaccine?

Hon. K. Falcon: Again, it might be helpful for the viewing audience to know that actually the first private clinics opened up under the NDP government, under the auspices of the NDP government. It is rather remarkable that we seem to be having some kind of a conversion here where suddenly the private clinics are apparently the great enemy of the NDP now. Yet at the time they were in government and they were popping up around the province, there didn't appear to be a problem in the NDP world. Now the NDP world has changed. Apparently, they are now the big enemy. That's quite interesting to me.

It doesn't change the fact that every physician, whether in a private clinic or a public clinic, has patients. Some of those patients have chronic illnesses. Those patients are eligible to receive, at no cost, the vaccination and the flu vaccine that is being provided throughout British Columbia.

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR

KITIMAT FOREST WORKERS

R. Austin: On Tuesday the Minister of Community Development downplayed the effects the closure of the Eurocan pulp mill would have on the community of Kitimat. He did this to justify his government's refusal to offer any real help to the community.

[1420]

The shameful fact is that the B.C. Liberal government has put in more effort to justify their inaction than they have to actually helping. The minister said on Tuesday that forestry impacts 14 percent of the economy in Kitimat. For the minister's edification, Eurocan represents 40 percent of all industrial jobs. The truth is that a substantial portion of Kitimat's residents will be personally impacted by this mill closure.

Can the minister tell us: what is the cutoff for assistance? Is it 15 percent, 16 percent? What is it?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, for the member's benefit and for the benefit of people who live in Kitimat, we're actually already there. The rural secretariat that's an important component of the ministry that I'm responsible for was there even before the announcement was made. They are working….

The mayor of Kitimat knows this actually. Just so we're clear about this. Aside from the political posturing of the member opposite, the mayor has told us that Kitimat is actually quite pleased with the actions of the rural secretariat.

We have brought together all of the people who have an interest in investing in Kitimat. I would never underplay

[ Page 2121 ]

or minimize the personal impact of the layoffs that they're going to experience as of January 31 in Kitimat. It's a big deal. I've said that many times in the House, and it remains a big deal.

But instead of panicking and instead of saying, "Well, let's just write a big cheque; that's the first thing we should think about in terms of a solution here…." Instead of doing that, why don't we sit down and work together and examine all the opportunities that are available to the great city of Kitimat?

[End of question period.]

C. Trevena: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

C. Trevena: I'd like to introduce to the House — and I hope the House will make them welcome — from the crisis centre in Port Hardy, Cathie Wilson, Dean Wilson and Kris Huddlestan; from Campbell River crisis line, Lynette Walley and Linda Schulz; and from the Courtenay crisis line, Mary Kueber and Stew Gallant.

S. Fraser: Hon. Speaker, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

S. Fraser: I'd like to introduce today workers and the lifeline for the KUU-US crisis line, Elia Nicholson-Nave, Tammy Webster, Rebecca Brown, Lindsay Rogers, Nicole Rollan and Marian Webster. Would you please help me make them feel very welcome.

R. Fleming: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

R. Fleming: Joining us today are two individuals from the Victoria NEED crisis line, an institution in this community for 36 years. I'd like to introduce Dallas Atkins, who is a pastor at the Capital Edge Community Church., who works very hard with the board of Victoria NEED crisis line, and Mary Rumsby, who has worked for a number of years at the crisis line.

It's a fantastic service. It's available 24-7. It has a specialized youth line that has been an award-winning function of this service. I would ask the House to make them feel welcome.

S. Simpson: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

I remind members that introductions are usually at the beginning.

S. Simpson: They are, hon. Speaker. My apologies. I just wanted to introduce my daughter. Shayla Jones has joined us, I think for the first time in five years. I'd ask the House to make her welcome.

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

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

C. Trevena: I actually have two sets of petitions. The first has approximately 800 signatures from the Campbell River area. The second has almost 1,200 signatures from the Port Hardy area, asking that the Vancouver Island Health Authority reconsider the decision to cut funding to crisis lines on Vancouver Island.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Alberni-Qualicum.

S. Fraser: Alberni–Pacific Rim. Thank you, hon. Speaker. I do that too.

I seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

S. Fraser: I have petitions here from 2,084 residents of the Port Alberni area, asking that the Vancouver Island Health Authority reconsider the decision to cut funding to all the crisis lines on Vancouver Island.

D. Donaldson: I seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

[1425]

D. Donaldson: I have a petition here of 900 signatures from the people of Smithers and the Bulkley Valley calling for microbiology lab services not to be cut at the Bulkley Valley District Hospital.

B. Simpson: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

B. Simpson: I present the House with a petition signed by hundreds of people opposing the HST.

D. Thorne: I rise to present a petition, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

[ Page 2122 ]

D. Thorne: I present the House with a petition signed by hundreds of people opposing the implementation of the HST.

C. Trevena: I have another petition. This is from people in the central and north Island opposed to the implementation of the HST.

S. Herbert: I rise to present a petition. This petition from Think City opposing the cuts to library funding is signed by 3,382 residents of B.C.

I also rise to present another petition opposed to the cutting of library funding in B.C., signed by 2,252 residents of Metro Vancouver.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call in Committee A, Committee of Supply, for the information of members, the ongoing estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development. In this chamber, the ongoing second reading debate for Bill 21.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 21 — Ambulance Services

Collective Agreement Act

(continued)

Mr. Speaker: Member for Victoria-Hillside.

R. Fleming: I hate to correct you, Mr. Speaker, but it's Victoria–Swan Lake. I'm partially nostalgic for the old name. I thank you for allowing me to continue debate that we adjourned on earlier this morning on Bill 21.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

This is legislation that a number of people in my constituency — indeed, across the province, as we've heard from members — are following very closely because it is something that people far beyond the direct employment of the Ambulance Service of British Columbia are impacted by.

Deputy Speaker: Member, could I ask you to please take your seat for just one moment while the House closes?

I ask the House indulgence. I would like to make a special introduction today. In the gallery that joined us late we have my wife, Anita, and great grandma, my mother-in-law, Joan Callow, and my sister-in-law, Bernie Boese. They're here for a women's retreat with my daughter. So if the House would make them welcome.

Thank you, Member.

R. Fleming: As I was saying before that wonderful introduction of your family, this is a piece of legislation ending a dispute that is being watched far more broadly than just by people directly employed by the ambulance paramedics service, and it's because there are democratic freedoms, quite frankly, involved in what this dispute is about and how this government is proposing to end it by using legislation of this type to overrule and impose a settlement of this kind.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

People have watched and heard governments before prescribe the right to strike, and this has been done by governments of all political stripes. They've seen the debate happen and the labour code changed with the addition of essential service legislation for various professions. Ambulance paramedics are one of those essential, life-saving services in British Columbia that is included in that, along with firefighters and police services.

[1430]

That's not what's at debate here today. We've had that debate, and the public, by and large, has accepted that that is how, for those professions, labour negotiations are governed in B.C. But it was always seen as the trade-off for prescribing the rights to withdraw labour in a disagreement when collective bargaining has failed for essential services. It was always suggested that we must tread very carefully, for a couple of reasons.

We must be careful to ensure that both parties — in this case, government and the union that represents paramedics, but unions representing any members that are involved in essential services — have significant incentive and actually engage in meaningful, realistic bargaining. Real bargaining must happen. That means that pieces of legislation like this one are not hanging over the process from day one.

I think a number of people, through watching this government over all of those months of this dispute, have been persuaded that, in fact, the government was always dangling that sword contained in Bill 21. They never had any intention or sincerity of bargaining in good faith.

You know, I can remember one of the low points of this dispute was actually during the May 2009 election, when an incident was recorded where the Premier actually flipped a loonie at striking members who had come to have a word with him. I cannot begin to describe how disrespectful that is or what that would have done to exacerbate a dispute that was already very far apart and polarized.

But it says something about the attitude of the government in this dispute all along. It says something about how they have continued well past the election until the point today, here in November, when we're debating this bill, when they had opportunities to conclude an agreement — opportunities that they chose not to take, deliberately.

[ Page 2123 ]

I think the other warning when we created the essential service designation — besides the tendency for the parties not to bargain seriously, and it's being borne out today — is that governments will, in fact, use legislation like this more and more frequently, on a recurring and regular basis.

That is a serious point to be considered in this debate, because what differentiates democratic societies and nations like ours from places where there are not rights and freedoms enjoyed as Canadians and British Columbians have…. One of those that is paramount, that is recognized by the United Nations, that is part of the post-war for economic freedom and social development that nations like ours are signatory to, is the right to free and fair collective bargaining. We are going down the road with legislation like this to be no different than other countries that have serious prohibitions on free and fair collective bargaining.

We have earned a reputation already with this government, internationally — with the International Labour Organization, that body of the United Nations — for other examples and other incidents where government used heavy-handed legislation like this. So this isn't the first time in eight years that the B.C. Liberal government has done this. This is, in fact, the latest incident, but I think it's one that British Columbians are watching with growing concern.

You know, the excuse the government is using, that the minister used in his first reading remarks on this bill, is that the imperative for this legislation here in the last couple of weeks of this session is caused by the H1N1 virus. That's the cover story for this legislation.

[1435]

I think that is a story that deserves examination by media and by others, to see whether it holds up. I have so far heard no medical health officer of the province, who have a measure of independence and professional advice, indicate that they provided the minister with concerns like that. That hasn't been done, to my knowledge.

I haven't heard anybody who is on the front lines working in the vaccination effort in British Columbia to immunize and treat people who've contracted H1N1 suggest that there is going to be a looming crash on ambulance paramedics services because of this virus. Nobody is saying that they predict those contracting the virus will admit themselves to hospital via an ambulance and pay $125 to do that. That's not likely to occur, and I've heard nobody say that is likely to occur, on the public record. I find that at odds with the minister's supposed motivation for introducing this bill at this time.

Even if it were the case, even if there was a chief medical health officer or other independent person in Health Services saying exactly that, what has been said is that they expect H1N1 not to be just here until March 31 of next year, when this legislation expires, when this imposed contract expires. The suggestion is that H1N1 will be around for two or three years, that vaccination efforts will be ongoing and will continue, that outbreaks and epidemics at universities, schools, large places where people congregate — workplaces, those kinds of things — will go on for much longer than this flu season.

It's interesting that when people look at H1N1 planning and the timelines involved for the effort that the province has to make in its health care system to combat it, it doesn't at all align with the flimsy excuse that supposedly motivates the Minister of Health for introducing this bill.

I think that rather than anyone be tempted to believe any element of the flimsy H1N1 cover story this government has produced, which imposes a contract to March 31, 2010, I would suggest that this is, in fact, about another event that will occur in 2010.

I want to talk a little bit about paramedics in my region, here in the capital region. Some of the issues that have been going on for years, well in advance of bargaining, are not wage and benefit issues to be resolved at the table.

I want to speak about them anyway, because I think they were things that the union and the professional members, the front-line workers, were looking to see improved and to get letters from the employer on making serious efforts to improve through this stage of collective bargaining, had it been successful and had it been free of political interference by this government at every stage. That is the working conditions of our paramedics, which many in the B.C. Ambulance Service feel have been allowed, in different parts of the province, to decline and go unaddressed for many, many years.

It may shock members to know that in my region there are three ambulance paramedic stations that are designated as temporary. One of them is not far from these buildings and has been rented by this government for eight years. It is premium space in a hotel. This is where ambulance paramedics report to and work on their daily shifts.

[1440]

The rent is, I think, $140,000 a year, which the taxpayer covers — and they've been there for eight years. So that's well over a million dollars paid in rent that can never be recovered, that could have been capital costs for an ambulance station. These things only cost a million or two to build new, and when they are built that way, they are purpose-built. They're not rented hotel space up a couple of flights of stairs. But that's what we have. That's one example of where these professionals are forced to work at.

The other one that I can think of is temporarily housed in a seniors residential care facility. Again, it's not ideally in the catchment area that it serves. It costs valuable time, life-saving time potentially, for these paramedics and their ambulances to get to where the call-outs are. They've been there for, I believe, five years.

[ Page 2124 ]

Now, B.C. Ambulance Service actually tried to move that station on Hillside Avenue and looked for siting, but their efforts to find more appropriate siting were seriously hampered because B.C. Ambulance Service does not actively look for site locations. It has no capital plan for the ambulance service, and it doesn't do that work anymore.

We don't have the B.C. Buildings Corporation anymore — that was privatized by this government — that used to help procure workspace like this. It's gone. The site that they proposed…. There was a considerable amount of public uproar about this, and the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head will well recall this, because it was in her constituency or is in the new boundaries of her constituency.

It was proposed to be put in the middle of a greenfield park space in a residential neighbourhood three blocks in from any arterial road — traffic-calmed, speed-bump streets leading to the ambulance station or leading out of it when there were the call-outs. A B.C. Ambulance Service professional, who was induced to finally appear at a public meeting, was forced to admit that on a scale of 1 to 10 on how ideal the siting of this location was…. He described it as between a 3 and a 4 out of 10 in terms of life safety and all the other conditions.

This went on for months before the effort was finally abandoned as an unsuitable location, and they moved on. They wasted time and money. They even bought this Atco trailer thingamajig that they were going to put the paramedics in — a temporary structure. I mean, what a joke. This is how this service, this once proud service that was created in the 1970s, is now administered in 2008-2009 under this government? That's what we've come to?

Just to give you an example of how uncoordinated and disconnected the Ambulance Service is from the health care system, we have what's called a campus planning activity going on right now at the Royal Jubilee Hospital centre. Before we had these temporary locations, we used to have an ambulance station on that site. It makes sense — right? Emergency ward there, end of destination, lots of land at Royal Jubilee.

They've got a campus planning activity going on right now, and there has been no directive from the ministry or anyone in charge of the B.C. Ambulance Service or the health authority to include an ambulance station in the future growth and planning of Royal Jubilee Hospital, and that's where it should be. That's where everybody says it should be.

We've got an aging population. We've got a lot of calls. Call demand is growing in Victoria, and I have some numbers around here to show it. But I think the number that sticks out for me is that, on average, each Ambulance Service station in greater Victoria is experiencing at least a 12 percent increase in calls, and that's just over the last couple of years.

The paramedics I know are proud of the job they do. It's a dangerous and ugly job. I mean, you go onto a construction site where somebody has been crushed by a piece of machinery or some horrible accident like that, as the first responder — that's something that very few of us would undertake as a career — or attend to people who are having mental illness episodes or drug overdoses or all kinds of very difficult situations that we ask them to do every day.

[1445]

They never know what kind of calls they're going to get, but they go where the call takes them, and that's the job they do. They come back to the ambulance station. They have blood on their clothes in some cases. They need to take a shower before they go out on the next call, and we have ambulance stations that aren't even equipped like that, that aren't even purpose-built or designed for these professionals to do their job.

I know paramedics, because I've talked to them in my constituency. They do the job because they love it. They're constantly training themselves professionally. They're taking on debt. They're attending the Justice Institute, taking out student loans to do it or borrowing against their house or whatever. They are investing in themselves to invest in the job they do for all of us.

I guess we ask them to do that, and they asked in return that we respect the laws as we have them, which doesn't give them much of a right to strike. They're an essential service, so 95 percent of them were on the job at all times during this dispute, and I think government took advantage of that. They never seriously bargained, and it's taken us to where we are today.

That wasn't what essential service designation was supposed to be about. It wasn't supposed to make the government side lazy and insincere about sitting down and talking to people who work in the public service about their problems and about how both sides might mutually benefit from making changes that can be bargained and contained in an agreement. But that's where this government has taken that legislation. They've abused, in my view, essential service designation to treat paramedics extremely poorly, to impose this agreement.

You know, who actually believes that we might not be in a situation where we're back here in this very same place debating a bill just as draconian as this after this thing expires? What's to stop a government, if they get away with imposing an agreement like this, from doing it in more and more instances?

[ Page 2125 ]

As I mentioned earlier, the cumulative effect of imposing more and more agreements and forcing it in what is supposed to be a free and fair bargaining process is something that we don't call democracy, quite frankly. It's an important fundamental human right that distinguishes us from other types of government, but it's one that this government across the way is taking increasingly for granted, increasingly lightly in terms of their regard for it.

I mentioned earlier that a number of ordinary citizens are watching this dispute and watching this debate on the legislation, and I want to read a couple of letters. Actually, before I do that, I want to make one more point on this, to build on the point I was just making.

It's not only that the government is making a dangerous precedent with this legislation. I think the government side needs to be reminded of where it came from with regards to legislation like this that politically interferes with bargaining. They used to oppose it when they were on this side of the House. They used to oppose it.

It's interesting, because there was legislation before the House — I think it was close to 15 years ago — that was going to look at an arbitrated settlement for police and fire. In that case it was a 3½-year dispute between local governments and those unions, and guess who spoke against that passionately, spoke against the principle of interfering in that regard? Gary Farrell-Collins absolutely opposed the legislation, and he advocated for something that would be interesting if the government — same party, the now government — could have picked it up, a tool they could have picked up in resolving this dispute.

He argued that there should be a final-offer arbitration process that would resolve the dispute. It would avoid by legislative fiat the kind of spectacle that we're enduring now today and the kind of precedent it sets. It would have kept it away from direct government political interference.

[1450]

He argued that with the government…. It turns out that the NDP government of the time and the House Leader — I think he might have been — for the Liberal Party at the time weren't that far apart. Both of them wanted to avoid this kind of legislation — it was never introduced this way — and both of them, although they didn't agree on the final text of the bill, agreed that an arbitration service agreed to by the parties was the best way to resolve the dispute.

Now, that's interesting for a number of reasons. One, the government has absolutely changed its position. It has moved off from that principle entirely. It's interesting now, because in 2009 that's exactly what the paramedics union proposed.

That's exactly what I think a majority of British Columbians would like to see happen. Have an arbitration process, jointly select an arbitrator that both sides can agree to, and resolve this thing. Get it out of the Legislature, because we shouldn't be imposing collective agreements this way. This is what other places do — not British Columbia, not Canada, not the signatory to the ILO and the United Nations Charter on free and fair collective bargaining. But the Liberal party has changed its position.

You know, the late Fred Gingell argued the same thing in that debate: "Don't use legislation to impose collective agreements. It's the wrong way to go. It is a dangerous precedent." That is ignored by his party today. It's an interesting change in position, because they said something different when they were in opposition than they say today in government. They ignore the warnings that they raised back then and proceed exactly as they advised against now.

As I mentioned, there have been a number of people following this dispute. They've written letters. They understand and appreciate what paramedics do, how they put themselves on the line every day. As you know and can appreciate, Madam Speaker, not a lot of people have the time in their lives to write their representatives and get involved in issues with the competing pressures of home and work and all of those things, but I am impressed by how many have been writing on this legislation.

I have received several of them, and I want to read a couple of them into the record. One of them is from a health care professional who works at the Royal Jubilee emergency room and who says:

"As a registered nurse in the emergency room, I find it ridiculous that the government has legislated our paramedics back to work. They were" — the paramedics — "in the middle of voting on a contract when this legislation was introduced."

That process was suspended. They were in the middle of voting on an offer, Madam Speaker, when government pursued this tactic.

"The bottom line is that these people save lives. There shouldn't be an argument about them getting a raise. The government has given themselves a raise, but not the people" — and I hope this isn't literally true — "who will save them when they have a heart attack."

People are writing about that kind of thing — the double standard, one rule for us and one rule for people we ask to go out and do a job on all of our behalf each and every day.

Another letter from a constituent reads that…. I can't read the minister's name into the record, but it's the Minister of Health. "Bill 21, introduced by the Health Services Minister, is unprecedented in Canadian labour relations history. This is the first time a government has forced public employees to accept a collective agreement while the union is in the middle of voting on an offer from that same government."

I see my time has expired, but I appreciate the time to take my place at second reading debate this afternoon.

M. Elmore: I join to take my place in the discussion and debate on Bill 21, the Ambulance Services Collective

[ Page 2126 ]

Agreement Act. The imposition of this agreement, it's been noted by many of my colleagues, is an unprecedented act in terms of what we would be witnessing. B.C. would hold the dubious distinction of having adopted this legislation and legislated ambulance paramedics back to work while they were in the process of voting on their collective agreement.

[1455]

I've had the opportunity to speak to a number of ambulance paramedics in Kensington, in my community. We talked, and they explained the circumstances of their job. I was struck by their dedication, their commitment to providing quality exceptional service and their exceptional professionalism in their work, in their career. Certainly, the impression that was left on me is that they're very dedicated. As a career profession and as a choice for a career…. They have an absolute commitment to the work they do in providing the best care and service in these high-stress jobs.

In the Ambulance Paramedics of B.C. there are 3,500 members. They went on strike after their contract expired. The members of the Ambulance Paramedics of B.C. are represented by CUPE 873. The issues they've been attempting to negotiate at the negotiating table are to address wages, job security and ambulance shortages in B.C.

I've talked to ambulance paramedics and got a flavour and a picture of their work in an urban area. Certainly, it's no surprise to anyone the stress that the job brings and having to think quickly on your feet to respond to any number of emergency situations.

The ambulance paramedics that I spoke to told me that in their contract negotiations one of the main issues that they are negotiating is to have parity with other emergency service professionals, along the lines of Vancouver police officers and paramedics in other parts of the country.

I think we can say that the Ambulance Paramedics of B.C. are an exceptional group. They do outstanding work. They're committed to their profession and to providing the highest level of service. They've been attempting, through the collective bargaining process, to bargain a collective agreement with their employer to reach resolution on a number of issues of concern for them and on their basic working conditions — not only wages and benefits but also the conditions of their work.

The principle of collective bargaining is a right in B.C. and across Canada. It's recognized internationally. It's a human right that, I think, is not to be taken lightly. The imposition of this Bill 21, as I mentioned, would be an unprecedented, legislated back-to-work act while the members are in the process of actually voting to ratify the latest version of their collective agreement.

The importance and the value of allowing the collective agreement process to proceed, I think, can't be understated. Certainly, beyond the details of negotiating for a collective agreement, it's also an established process and procedure in terms of the labour legislation, labour relations and, I would say, the dynamics within our public service system. It's certainly an important aspect within the Ambulance Service in terms of trying to resolve and bring resolution to some of the issues of concern for ambulance paramedics that they've been encountering through trying to do their jobs.

[1500]

It's been brought to my attention that while the workers themselves are incredibly committed to providing the best level of service for British Columbians, they face a number of challenges in terms of being able to effectively do their job and to effectively offer timely and quality service to British Columbians, often in a time of great need and trauma.

It's been brought to my attention that the Ambulance Service has…. The negotiations are taking place now in the context of a number of years of consistent underfunding and neglect. I was saddened to hear that the B.C. Ambulance Service has gone from being recognized as a world leader in pre-hospital care to, currently, a system in peril.

So we now have Bill 21, by which the government is attempting to legislate the ambulance paramedics back to work, circumventing the process of collective bargaining, a process to legitimately bring forward concerns and issues and try and work to mutually agreed-upon resolutions to some of these issues, which I think are very important in our system.

It's a very important process in our democracy. I think it represents the democratic expression and the recognition of workers to engage in collective bargaining, to engage in negotiating and setting the terms of collective agreements to resolve some of these outstanding issues.

The present conditions and challenges of the B.C. paramedics. Besides needing to have their rights respected to be able to negotiate a collective agreement, their wages have also fallen behind, and there's a crisis and a difficulty in terms of recruiting and retaining these valued professionals.

I've been surprised to learn that outside of the metropolitan areas and urban areas of B.C., most paramedics are working for the rate of $2 an hour. It's a quarter of the minimum wage, and certainly, it doesn't come anywhere near a living wage to compensate these professionals, to recognize the investment that they've made in their certification and in their training and also to be able to retain them, particularly in remote and rural areas.

In addition to this very low on-call rate of $2 an hour, I've been told that the average paramedic must work at this rate for an average of five years before gaining full-time status and an hourly wage. That's with no benefits — so working part-time at the low rate of $2 an hour with no benefits.

Recognizing the valuable commitment and contributions of paramedics — I think one of the most important

[ Page 2127 ]

measures of that is to ensure that they have a living wage, a livable wage, and that they have access to benefits, part-time or full-time. I think it's a great contradiction in terms of our health system that the very professionals that we depend on to provide emergency acute trauma care to citizens in times of emergency…. These very professionals don't have access to health benefits or other benefits.

[1505]

Certainly, there's a need to show that respect to our ambulance paramedics, to recognize the contributions they make and to allow for the collective bargaining process to proceed with its normal conclusion and at least allow the members of the paramedic service an opportunity to vote on the agreement.

These paramedics are exceptionally hard-working and committed, and Bill 21, the attempt to impose a legislated end to any kind of negotiating process, undermines the rights of workers to a free and fair collective bargaining process. The collective bargaining process is enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and it's an important right that can't be taken lightly.

In terms of talking to ambulance paramedics — hearing about their situations, the conditions that they endure across the province in their attempts to deliver quality service to British Columbians, often in a time of great need and under very great, difficult conditions…. The system itself isn't supporting ambulance paramedics, particularly through the regions of B.C.

Besides the low wages of ambulance paramedics on call, besides the lack of access to benefits for a period up to five or six years, until they're able to make full-time status…. I've been told that in addition to that, there's also difficulty in terms of shortages, in having qualified paramedics working and assigned, in particular, to the remote regions, and also a lack of resources — inadequate resources.

We heard about the lack of ambulance stations in the greater Victoria region on the Island, and we see that that's a situation across the province. Not only are ambulance workers on call being paid the very low rate of $2 an hour, with no access to benefits as part-time workers for a very long period. In addition, those conditions give rise to a shortage of trained professionals to deliver these emergency services, particularly in outlying and remote areas. Paramedics also have to struggle with having the appropriate resources of ambulance stations and vehicles to be able to transport people in times of emergency to hospitals.

I've also been receiving a lot of e-mails from paramedics talking about their situations and the realities of the work that they undertake in their jobs. I've heard from the regions right across B.C. — northern B.C., Thompson-Okanagan, Cariboo, the Sunshine Coast, the Sea to Sky corridor. All these areas have been hard-hit by shortages of both ambulance resources and trained paramedics.

In particular, it's the remote and rural stations that are increasingly unable to staff their ambulances, as it's difficult to attract new employees, partially due to the high cost of paramedic training in B.C.

[1510]

This process in place, collective bargaining, which is enshrined and recognized in our charter of freedoms…. That is why it's a process that allows for these grievances to come forward. It allows employees, who know the conditions of their work and the situation of the system, a process to be able to bring forward their concerns and to reach a resolution.

The advantage of that is that it's a mutually agreed agreement. The employees agree to that, the workers vote on that, and it contributes to an atmosphere of cooperation. It contributes towards respect — respect for workers and the work that they do — and shows that their opinions are important, that the issues they bring forward are important and that it's respected in terms of the priorities that they raise.

Bill 21, the legislated end to the strike of B.C. paramedics, cuts short and undermines the collective bargaining process. Not only that, it also will have an impact of undermining the sense of trust. It will have an impact of the ambulance paramedics feeling that they're not respected, that they have had their constitutional rights undermined by this.

I think, also, that it's unnecessary, Bill 21. It's not necessary to take this heavy-handed legislative hammer and impose it on these workers, the reason being that they are currently in the midst of voting to ratify a current agreement. So this bill, Bill 21, doesn't make sense to me in terms of why the government would be seeking to take this approach when the collective bargaining procedure is underway and workers are currently voting to ratify the current agreement.

Besides the issue that ambulance paramedics are attempting to negotiate the situation of their wages, their benefit package and the issue of difficulty of retention in the remote and rural areas is also the issue of chronic resource shortage.

I've heard that the call volumes have been increasing in urban areas as well as in rural areas. When call volumes increase, for example, in an urban area, this leaves

[ Page 2128 ]

the city reliant on the nearby communities to help respond to emergency calls into the city, which leaves the surrounding communities left with no ambulance coverage for extended periods of time. We're seeing that it is becoming an increasingly common practice for the response times to emergency calls to increase, as often the responding ambulance is coming from a great distance.

We've heard from ambulance paramedics that they have a number of concerns and realities in terms of their working conditions, their wages, their benefits and the issues that they face and the challenges that they navigate in trying to deliver a quality service, and in the issue of shortages for ambulance stations and appropriate vehicles to transport people in crises.

[1515]

These are the issues that have been festering for a number of years. There needs to be an acknowledgment and an opportunity for ambulance paramedics to bring their issues forward, to have them discussed and to have a mutually agreed-upon resolution to these issues.

I've been told that there's been downsizing in communities. Despite calls doubling, communities are having their full-time positions eliminated. As well, some areas, particularly in rural and remote areas, are being left without service while they try and deal with the increasing calls that are coming in.

The picture that's being painted talking to ambulance paramedics is that they're incredibly committed to their profession. They offer exceptional service. They are dedicated in their career, but they're faced on their end with very low wages for their on-call rate, a lack of benefits as part-time workers and also the difficulty of retaining professionals in rural areas because of the low wages and the difficulties and challenges of working with an ambulance system that needs significant investment and support.

Also, in Lower Mainland the average response time to emergency calls is currently between 13 and 15 minutes in Metro Vancouver. I'm told that the B.C. Ambulance strategic plans set a benchmark for a nine-minute response time for emergency calls.

There are a number of factors that contribute to lengthy response times within Metro Vancouver. We hear that there is increased volume of calls over the last few years. As well, there hasn't been significant investment in ambulance resources. It means that the system has to cope with more, and we're not keeping pace in terms of investing in supporting the workers through recognizing their need for a living wage or investing in ambulance stations and vehicles to meet the increasing need.

When I was going door to door in Vancouver-Kensington, I met an ambulance paramedic, and he expressed to me his frustration. Paramedics, I think, to generalize, have a desire to provide the best level of care for citizens, especially in their time of need. He expressed to me his frustration at just not being able to meet that need because of the stress on the system because they didn't have appropriate numbers of full-time positions in Metro Vancouver and also that the increasing calls were not being matched by increasing hours of vehicles on the road being able to meet those service demands.

Paramedics are on the front line 24 hours a day, seven days a week. These men and women put their lives on the line to service British Columbians, often in the time of greatest need. The B.C. ambulance paramedics have told me that they've seen an increase in call volumes and workload and that these are the issues they want to bring forward in negotiating their collective agreement.

This Bill 21 is like a slap in the face to these paramedics and to their efforts to engage in a bargaining process that recognizes their rights and also respects them.

[1520]

I think the response that I've heard from a number of paramedics…. The message they're getting with Bill 21 is that the government is not interested in listening to their concerns. The government is not interested in sitting down and allowing the process to proceed for both sides to reach a mutually agreed collective agreement.

I also have to question the reasons for implementing Bill 21. It's questionable, in my mind, that one of the leading reasons for implementing Bill 21 was concern about the H1N1 vaccine. It doesn't seem to hold up in terms of scrutiny.

While we're in the midst of the second wave and certainly now going on to the third wave of the H1N1 pandemic, it was deemed that there was a need to bring in this legislation now. It seems that there was pressure from the Vancouver organizing committee in terms of putting pressure on the government to bring a legislated end to this dispute.

This bill, Bill 21, the Ambulance Services Collective Agreement Act, would be unprecedented. It would be the first time that there would be a legislated end while members are currently in the midst of voting on the agreement. Certainly, it's unheard of. It's surprising that the government would go to such extremes and such lengths to impose this on ambulance paramedics.

It also speaks to a lack of respect that this government is showing ambulance paramedics. We've heard that there is a long list of issues, legitimate issues, in terms of wages, benefits and working conditions that ambulance paramedics have. This government is showing contempt, I think, for these workers and the resolution to some of these issues.

The role that ambulance paramedics play in delivering a quality service that all British Columbians can depend on…. They certainly deserve much more respect than they are seeing with this, which Bill 21 shows them. I've heard from my constituents, from paramedics and also B.C. citizens right across B.C., and I know all British

[ Page 2129 ]

Columbians have a very high regard for the ambulance paramedics of B.C.

We know the dedication and the commitment they have to providing the highest levels of care across B.C., across Canada and internationally. These ambulance paramedics should also be shown the same amount of respect for the work that they deliver, the public service that they give to British Columbians.

This government should go back to the bargaining table to address legitimate concerns of ambulance paramedics, to show them the respect they deserve, to engage in the collective bargaining process, to show some respect in addressing the outstanding issues that they've raised and to support the B.C. ambulance paramedics.

I think they deserve no less. They deliver day in and day out. They're very committed, and they have my support. Bill 21 doesn't show respect for them.

C. James: I take my place to speak to second reading of Bill 21.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

I have to begin by stating how proud I am to stand with my team on this side of the Legislature to say no to Bill 21 and say yes to respect for paramedics in this province.

[1525]

I want to begin by talking a little bit about the role of paramedics. I know that others have described the important job that they play, the critical role that they have when it comes to health care service. They really are on the front line of delivering health care.

I know that others have mentioned remembering driving along a highway at nighttime and seeing the ambulance on the side of the road. We know that paramedics arrive in unexpected places to unexpected situations. They do an extraordinary job in making sure they're there on the front line. I often say that the paramedics provide a service that all of us hope that we'll never, ever need but that all of us require to be there. They play a critical role.

Paramedics are much more than that. I think it's important to also acknowledge the role that paramedics play in our community, the members of the community that they are — the coaches, the support to teams, the work that they do at schools.

I've been to many community events where it's the paramedics who are there volunteering their hours and their service to make sure that things are safe at baseball games, at Little League, at community events. They put in their time. They put in their energy. They volunteer that support. They're also critical members of our community, and I think that's very important for every member in this House to hear — that paramedics are important citizens of British Columbia.

I think it's also important to recognize the kind of work that paramedics do themselves when it comes to the job they provide on behalf of all of us — the time and the energy they give to training, to upgrading, to providing opportunities to keep their skills up. Often a lot of that work is done on their own, without supports, without resources provided by the system or government. It's work that they take on because they love their jobs. Anyone who has spent some time talking to paramedics in the field knows that they love their work.

They certainly don't go into this job because of the money, and we'll get into talking about that in a little bit. They certainly don't go into it because of the huge respect from government. They go into this work because they care about the work, because their hearts are in the job, because they care about the people they serve.

We also need to remember that paramedics provide an important part of our health care system. It's not simply being there for the sake of being there. They're there because they are a critical member of a health care team in providing support for individuals.

I want to share a personal story of my paramedic experience from many, many years ago. I was pregnant with my daughter, my first child, a week and a half overdue, driving in the city of Victoria, and an individual ran a stop sign and smashed into my car and totalled my car. As I waited, the police arrived and said: "We're going to phone the ambulance and have the paramedics arrive."

I know others have either had an experience or an experience with members of their family or friends who know what it's like to have that paramedic arrive and know that there's somebody there who's going to reassure you, who's going to take care of you, who's going to make sure that everything's fine.

They insisted that they stay with me when I headed to the hospital. Everything was fine. I was fine. The baby was fine. There was no problem. But to have that kind of reassurance and that kind of support and that kind of voice there when you're in a difficult situation like that is something we should never take for granted.

I think it's also important, as we all think about…. Right now, people are thinking about it with the H1N1, but when we think and hear about it on the Island, often it's earthquakes that we talk about, natural disasters. Again, paramedics aren't simply there for individuals as they have their health care challenges. Paramedics are also part of a critical support to any kind of disaster program that's put together.

[1530]

We won't be able to manage any kind of natural disaster in any community in British Columbia without the paramedics. They are critical. They are the first responders. They bring their skills. They bring their energy to that kind of program. They're often the people who sit on the committees in communities to plan for a natural disaster, to make sure that things are in place just in case, in hopes that something won't happen but to make sure that we're well planned and we have those in

[ Page 2130 ]

place. Paramedics play a critical role in providing that support.

Certainly, I've heard from members in my community and from people around the province about the important job that paramedics provide. I want to read just a couple of the letters that have come in to me, because I think it's important that people hear that it's not simply the paramedics who are concerned. It's not simply New Democrats who are concerned. Citizens in British Columbia are concerned about what's going on with Bill 21.

A letter came in to me from a registered nurse. She writes:

"As a registered nurse in the emergency room, I find it absolutely ridiculous that the government has legislated our paramedics back to work. The bottom line is: these people save lives. The paramedics work in deplorable conditions, armed with only a pair of gloves and maybe, if they're lucky, a mask. They go into unsafe conditions just to save lives."

Madam Speaker, I think that says it pretty clearly about the important role of paramedics.

Another letter came in.

"I've been a paramedic for the past nine years, and I still work part-time. I've given thousands of hours of my time for anywhere from free to $2 an hour, just to make sure that my community is covered and safe. Now all I feel is that I've been taken advantage of for these past nine years. All the time I've invested into the Ambulance Service has been a waste of my time. I would appeal to the sense of right to allow collective bargaining to continue and to stop this blatant abuse of power.

Another one.

"I'm writing to express my dismay at Bill 21. Recently I had the opportunity to sit down with some paramedics themselves to determine what their situation is. It's clear to me that they've been treated unfairly for quite some time. They need the opportunity for fair and open collective bargaining, not a bill that forces them back to work with no improvements whatsoever. Fair bargaining is the way through this impasse, not heavy-handed force."

Again, well said.

The last letter I want to read:

"It's difficult to summarize my feelings, but suffice it to say, it includes anger, disappointment and fear. I'm angry because CUPE 873 has bargained in good faith, unlike the government. I'm disappointed because this gives me no incentive to continue working for the B.C. Ambulance Service.

"Finally, I'm very scared because if this legislation passes, then it truly confirms that the government has no respect for the job that I do and, most importantly, no respect for the citizens of British Columbia."

That's from a paramedic who provides support to all of us, day in and day out.

What are the issues that they're bringing to the table? I'm sure others have spoken about it, but I just want to talk about a couple of issues I've been hearing about.

I raised the $2 an hour, and I don't think anyone in the public would look at that and say that's fair compensation for on-call supports for a paramedic — $2 an hour. But have they had the opportunity to come to the table and talk about that? No. Has there been a fair support for individuals to be able to raise those issues? No.

I've heard about the shortage of ambulances and trained personnel. We hear those concerns all across the province. Just an example — 100 Mile House. Two ambulances and 5,000 square miles. Extraordinary support that the individuals are providing, and what's the response they get? No support.

[1535]

We all remember a year or so ago the issue at the Kamloops ambulance station. Again, an issue that the ambulance attendants and the paramedics have been raising for years about the deplorable conditions of that dispatch station. There was a sewage leak in the station, and the individuals had to continue working in there — no support. A lack of respect from the government for, again, a critical important service that they provide.

I raise the training. I hear this over and over and over again. The paramedics, despite not getting support and resources for the training and upgrading they do, still go and get it done because, again, they care about their jobs.

They came to the table in good faith. They came to the table to, as is expected when you come to the table for collective bargaining, have a chance to resolve these issues. But the paramedics didn't just come to the table during bargaining to resolve these issues.

They've been trying for years to get the government's attention on these issues. For four years they've been raising concerns about the training, about the shortage, about the services and the lack of supports for the services. So these weren't issues that came up all of a sudden when they sat down at the bargaining table. They've been trying to get the attention of government for years.

They expected that government would recognize that paramedics play an important role in the health care system and that they do something to try and help the health care system. But no, Madam Speaker, no support there either from government.

So it should have been no surprise that after years of trying to resolve these issues, when they come to the table and there finally was a chance in a formal way to be able to address them, the same kind of response from government once again — not interested, not going to talk about the issues that matter.

It's important to recognize, as well, that issues in the health care system affect the paramedics' work. The examples that we've all seen — our ambulances sitting in an emergency bay or a paramedic sitting with patients in a hallway in a hospital because the emergency room is overcrowded, because it's understaffed, because there aren't enough supports in place.

It's also true that the lack of work that the government has done in the health care system has negatively impacted the work of the paramedics. Is that a good use of time for a paramedic — to have to sit and wait in a hallway in a hospital because they can't get the support they need to move the patient to the next step when it comes to health care supports? But it's an example, again, of how the government has ignored the issues that were brought forward and refused to listen.

[ Page 2131 ]

What was the government's response? Well, we find out today, when we're standing here dealing with Bill 21, that the government's response is once again a heavy hand. Legislate and force an agreement.

I think even more disturbing is that the government is legislating an agreement when the paramedics are in the middle of a vote, when they're in the process — a democratic process — of looking at a collective agreement and making a decision and then informing government of that decision and getting back to the bargaining table, which is usually the process that occurs.

I heard the quote from the Health Minister that said he was using as light a touch as possible. I think that just shows how completely out of touch the minister is and the government is with what's going on in the health care system in British Columbia.

Sadly, this is a pattern with this government. Sadly, this isn't an issue we've only seen with the paramedics' dispute. Sadly, we've seen this story before from this government.

This is a government that does not work well with others. That's very clear. This is a government that thinks they know best, which is so arrogant that they don't listen. They don't sit down and talk to people. They refuse to have those conversations. They think they know best.

Sadly, just in the years that I've been here, we've seen it with other disputes with this government. We've seen it through the dispute with the HEU. We've seen it through the dispute with the teachers. Same kind of approach. Government knows best — instead of going back, looking at the challenges, working with people and trying to resolve them.

[1540]

We've seen it in other areas as well. We've seen it when it comes to dividing the province. Just as this government, through Bill 21, is dividing the paramedics from the government and from the health care system that they've worked so hard to provide for, this is a government that has also divided the province between rural and urban. This is a government that has divided the have and have-nots.

That's the hallmark of this government: a more divided British Columbia in every way you can imagine. You certainly see this, as I said, with this dispute as well. I think it's a sad statement about the direction of this government.

It's important to recognize that it's not simply the short-term effect — there is a short-term effect, and I'll talk a little bit about that — but it's also the long-term consequences of dividing British Columbia that we all have to pay attention to. It isn't just the immediate that's going to happen. It's the long-term impact of a divided British Columbia.

It's the long-term impact of not addressing child poverty, for example, and what that means to us as a society; the long-term impact of not addressing seniors; the long-term impact of treating employees in British Columbia with such a lack of respect and with disdain. There's a consequence to that. There's an impact.

Let's remember that the government has to go back to the table in just a few short months with the paramedics. This agreement, this legislation, ends March 31. How is that going to set the table to improve relationships? When the government brings in the heavy hand and then says, "Oh, we're looking forward to sitting down and improving our relationship with you," what kind of statement does that make to people who have worked so hard?

Then when it comes to long-term consequences, what kind of statement does it say to every other public sector bargaining that has to occur next year? That sends quite a signal, I would suggest, that this government isn't interested in hearing the real concerns. This government isn't interested in working through the challenges, in working with people who know best the challenges that are there.

The paramedics know that firsthand. They know the challenges in the system. They just wanted an opportunity to sit down and work through those challenges. Surely, that's the kind of approach a government that respects people would take.

I think that's why you see such frustration — frustration from the paramedics, certainly frustration from this side of the House and frustration from members of the public — because it didn't have to be this way. There were other alternatives and other options that were there for the government to use, steps that could have been taken.

An independent arbitrator was an opportunity that government could have used. They could have used it months ago to resolve these issues. All of a sudden the Health Minister says that we have to address this issue. Well, why is that?

The public is asking themselves, for good reason: does this have to do with the Olympics? Does the government want to try and clean something up so we don't have that issue out there? Well, if the government was serious about improving things in health care, they'd respect the people who work in the health care system. They would have put in place an arbitrator, and they would have gone back to the table and addressed the challenges that were there.

The government had months to be able to do that, to sit down and talk about how you deal with rural communities, about how you deal with the challenges of paramedics and about how we address the pressures in the system — the training issues, the demographics that are there — all of the important things that matter not simply to paramedics but to our health care system, to patients, to the people of British Columbia. That's the kind of approach that should have been taken.

[1545]

[ Page 2132 ]

That's the kind of approach and respect that the paramedics of British Columbia deserve and certainly aren't getting from this government.

So it is a sad day. It is a sad day for all of us to have to stand here and speak to Bill 21, to have to talk about a government that once again decided to use a heavy hand instead of sitting down and working through things and addressing the challenges in front of us. They used a heavy hand to address people who, as I said, are critical to our health care system.

There are paramedics in my family. My husband's cousins are paramedics in a couple of different areas in British Columbia, a husband and a wife. We spent a couple of days here with them this summer — with very little time because they were on the road, and they were doing their jobs. But to see the kind of commitment there again…. They're members of their community. They're foster parents. Both of them are paramedics. They're committed to the people in their community. They provide an extraordinary service and extraordinary support.

They're both working hard. They're raising their kids. They're providing support to their community through fostering. They expected that when they went into bargaining, the government would recognize the pressures and provide them with some support. They didn't expect the world would change overnight. They didn't expect that every challenge would be fixed. But they certainly expected that someone would be at the table to say: "We respect the job that you do."

I'm proud to stand on this side of the House to say we do respect the job of paramedics, so we will be voting against Bill 21.

We will be doing everything we can to make sure that the voices of paramedics are heard, that the members of communities' voices are heard, that we raise their concerns, that the government is forced to at least hear those voices in this Legislature. We'll do everything we can to continue to do what we can to respect the hard work of paramedics in every corner of British Columbia.

L. Popham: It is my honour and privilege to stand up and say I will not be voting for Bill 21. This is a really difficult bill for me to talk about, and the reason for that is that I have spent the last 18 years married to a professional firefighter from Oak Bay. My brother has been a firefighter with Delta for 20 years.

My life has been about living within a community of emergency response employees who love their jobs. Their hearts are huge, and they would do anything to help anybody in British Columbia 24 hours a day.

What I've seen over the last 20 years is firefighters and paramedics working together. They're at the same calls. They're responding to people with love and respect. They're holding hands of family members whose loved ones have passed on before their eyes. They respond to vehicle accidents that are so horrific that they have to get trauma counselling for what they've seen.

These are employees that are so strong when it comes to these situations that you would probably never guess they were being affected. But when they come home, they feel sadness, they feel pain, and they feel exhausted. Yet they still want to go out again the next day because they believe in what they do.

These paramedics have been asking and asking this government to listen to them for months and months and months. Yet they still continue with their jobs. This government has shown utter disrespect for these employees, utter disrespect, and it infuriates me because I see these people all the time. They're part of my family too, and I see their frustration.

[1550]

I can tell you that before the election and during the election campaign, they were on their educational lines trying to pass out information — because they were an essential service, and they weren't able to go on strike — to show what they wanted.

I can tell you that this government doesn't actually think they're essential services. They actually think that B.C. Ambulance workers are disposable. That's what they think. If they thought they were essential, they would be listening, and they would have gone back to the bargaining table with these folks months ago.

The most disrespectful thing I have seen in this House since I got here six months ago is Bill 21. Disrespect — disrespect for the workers, disrespect for their families and disrespect for everybody else in B.C. that depends on them and needs them. We all need them — maybe not on the other side of the House. Maybe they don't need them, but we know that we do.

I have in fact used ambulance services three times in my life — caring, caring people in this profession. When I visited these information lines during the election period and over the last few months, what were they saying to me? They were saying: "Let us get back to the bargaining table. Can someone just listen to what we're trying to say?"

When I stand up here today, I can tell you that I can't change it myself. We can try on this side of the House, but this government is such a bully that it makes me wonder if they're going to listen to us, no matter how many hours we do this.

But I can tell you that the one thing I can do that I feel good about…. It's not enough, but I can read letters from the people from my constituency, and I'm going to tell this to the government because the government won't listen to them when they're trying to do it. So they're going to have to sit there and listen to me tell you for 30 minutes what people from my constituency are trying to tell you.

"As a citizen of Saanich South, I am incensed about the current resolution to legislate the end of the labour

[ Page 2133 ]

dispute between the B.C. paramedics and the B.C. Ambulance Service. This is a slap in the face to all of our hard-working paramedics and to the collective bargaining process."

Absolutely it is.

"Across the province, paramedics work tirelessly to ensure the health of B.C. residents and visitors. They provide invaluable service. However, the B.C. Ambulance Service has not kept pace with the rest of Canada or the other emergency services in our province in recognizing and compensating its employees for the work they do.

"Over the past ten years, paramedics have sacrificed their way of living to improve the B.C. Ambulance Service and have not received fair wage settlement. I know this personally as my husband is a part-time paramedic. It's not fair."

This letter goes on to say how unfair it is and how much of their lives are built around their job. And $2 is what we're talking about? Give me a break. "Paramedics are on the front line risking their lives to save our lives. They respond side by side with other emergency personnel in our communities, and paramedics deserve to be treated equally."

That comes from a resident in Saanich South.

"Hi, Lana. My name is Dave Hermer. I appreciate you taking the time to read this…."

Deputy Speaker: Member, just remember — no names.

L. Popham: Sorry, I'll withdraw that.

"I appreciate you taking the time to read this and to hear my real sense of disappointment with what the Liberal government has done by trampling all over paramedics who risk their own personal safety on a daily basis to take care of people just like you and I and our neighbours.

"I think they should be ashamed of themselves and should repeal this Bill 21 immediately. They need to work together with their employees, not in a manner like this that only causes more resentment and likely causes employees to lose faith and respect in their employer and government.

"I would hope that this government would fix this blunder by admitting it was not a good idea."

Absolutely.

"I am writing to thank you for opposing Bill 21. It is regressive and against workers' rights. Keep using the time, at all costs, at your disposal to defeat this legislation." That's from another constituent.

"Dear Ms. Popham, I generally ignore most…."

Deputy Speaker: Member, please. No names.

L. Popham: Sorry.

"I generally ignore most political issues due mainly because I believe that government doesn't listen, and they usually get what they want. I just received e-mails from CUPE outlining Bill 21 and was outraged with the Campbell government trying to hide behind the H1N1 to introduce legislation that forced the dedicated ambulance paramedics into unfair and total illegal agreement while there was pending bargaining taking place between the parties.

[1555]

"As a member in good standing with CUPE 374, the municipality of Saanich, I hope that, as our voice as representatives of your official opposition, you are strongly opposed to this legislation and that you and your party will deal with this swiftly and effectively. Once again, the Campbell government are two-faced bureaucrats and are trying to pull a fast one on British Columbians.

"If you could only look through my eyes and see the things that I have seen in the past ten years, if you could look through my eyes and see the things I dealt with last night, never mind the stress of the job, the unrealistic demands, the horrific abuse and disrespect you get from some customers, it's really the family of paramedics that suffers.

"I work twice as much as a full-time paramedic for less pay. I am on as a part-time paramedic, equally qualified as a full-time paramedic with identical licence, yet I get paid $2 an hour. Forget all of the above. In fact, what concerns me most is that we carry the sick, the diseased, the ill. Yet if we get sick, we do not receive sick benefits for six years. How can paramedics be deemed essential according to essential service acts set by our biased Labour Relations Board to be forced to work for $2 an hour, forced to work when you get sick and have no sick time?

"We have carried this service on our backs for years. Please listen to us."

One of the things about this job that we should be listening to is that as we see pandemics come in and become more of a crisis than we've seen, we are going to have to depend on these people more and more. Instead, we're not listening to them. It's very disrespectful, and it's defeating for them. I don't think that's what we should be doing.

I can tell you the stories that I've heard from my brother in Delta. He has seen such severe traffic accidents that there have been some employees who had to walk away.

The sense I get is that we don't understand how much they sacrifice every night. Every night when you hear a siren, someone's heartbeat is beating quicker. It's a paramedic. It's a firefighter; it's a police officer. There are health risks involved with these jobs, and that needs to be acknowledged.

It's a high-risk job, any way you look at it. It's high risk because of the stress. It's high risk because of what you're faced with. There's a high incidence of cancers in these jobs. It's because what you're breathing in at these scenes is toxic. Why can't we look at that as something that matters? Why can't we think: "Yeah, you know what? You are sacrificing your life for somebody else's life. You deserve to be listened to"?

I'm going to read something…. You find, because there's so much trauma that these employees see, that a lot of them write to try and get rid of that trauma. There's a poem called The Last Call that I think really sums up what these people go through nightly and daily. It's called The Last Call .

I stood staring out the station bay window, staring onto the black…soaked street.

The station is quiet. The rig is silent. The faint sound of sirens past echo in my ears.

The smell of diesel hangs in the air like a vivid dream.

It's 3 a. m. I still see the pain. I still see the fear. I still hear the sorrow.

I cannot sleep.

The silence is pierced by the emergency tone. My heart begins to beat fast.

[ Page 2134 ]

A thousand thoughts rush my mind in an instant.

What kind of terror has shattered this night?

As the bay door opens, the rig awakes with mighty vengeance.

The dispatcher tells of a baby who will not wake up.

The dark silent street suddenly comes to life. Red pulses of light disturb the night.

Sirens shatter the eerie silence.

My heart feels like it will explode and burst out of my chest.

I must cage my fear, my sorrow and my pain.

The doctors tells the parents that their baby is gone.

I walk what seems like a thousand miles.

I stand outside of the hospital in the cold rain as the tears stream down my flushed cheeks.

I replay over and over the baby's lifeless thousand-mile stare.

This time death beat us to the call. I feel empty, I feel cheated, and I feel angry.

[1600]

It's 5 a.m. I stare blankly out the station bay window. I am numb.

The sounds of painful cries echo in my ears. The smell of diesel is intoxicating.

The rain gently falls.

The night is silent.

This is a really emotional poem, but this is something that happens to them day in and day out. We don't see it.

You know, these workers have been trying to get our attention for months. They have signs on the ambulances. They have been extremely polite with their request, and all they get back is a giant slap in the face.

It makes me really upset to know that in British Columbia we have a government that won't listen to workers like this. I can tell you right now that I will be absolutely voting against this, as well as everybody else on this side of the House. We feel it is disrespectful, and this government needs to listen.

We have many letters. Letters are coming in minute by minute from people in B.C. — not just ambulance workers and paramedics — everyone in B.C. that thinks this is very unfair. I think if we held a vote in B.C., everyone would say no to this bill. I can probably read one more letter.

To all members of the British Columbia Legislative Assembly:

I am writing to voice my concern with the imminent passage of the Ambulance Services Collective Agreement Act, Bill 21. I am a long-time ACP paramedic — 22 years I've been a paramedic — who doesn't normally involve myself in union issues.

I am appalled by the lack of respect that this government has for the role I fulfil in society. This lack of respect is the central issue for me in this current labour dispute and has been demonstrated again and again.

For years I have attempted to do the right thing, sacrificing myself to make the service work for the people of British Columbia, because I believe in it. I believe it's my ethical and moral responsibility to help people in need, not only individually but also as a collective patient group.

The government and my employer repeatedly take advantage of this commitment to compensate for their inability to adequately fund the B.C. Ambulance Service. Paramedics are expected daily to work enormous amounts of overtime.

My belief is taking a personal responsibility to ensure the best possible care and safety of the patients I see, and they lead me to a position where I have respect for their families. I see their pain.

We give safe, quality care to our patients. It costs money, yes, but what's it worth? What's the care of B.C. worth? What's it worth to have somebody hold somebody's hand as they're dying or as they're watching their child die?

Please stand up for paramedics and vote no to Bill 21.

That's where I'm going to end it today. I don't know how long this is going to go on, but I can tell you that if it was up to the people in B.C., it would go on until this bill is stopped.

A. Dix: It's an honour to be up to speak in opposition to Bill 21, the Ambulance Services Collective Agreement Act. As you will know, hon. Speaker, this kind of legislation — which imposes a settlement outside of the collective bargaining process, which imposes a settlement that is, in fact, less significant than what the government had previously offered at the bargaining table — cannot be viewed as anything else but a catastrophic admission of failure by the government.

In fact, it's an admission of failure in their management of the health care system. It's an admission of failure in their efforts to manage a vital public service. It's an admission of failure in their ability to bargain, and it's indeed — as you see a government that throughout this process has put things on the table and taken them away — an admission of bad faith.

[1605]

It is not surprising in this debate that people have stood on this side of the House, spoken of these issues and spoken of the value of the Ambulance Service in their community. People on the government side of the House put forward a series of excuses for the introduction of this legislation, excuses that didn't even last a day in credibility.

This is a critical debate for the future of British Columbia, I think, because the Ambulance Service is a critical service in the life of British Columbia. All of us know this. All of us know that the moment when an ambulance is called, the Ambulance Service and the ambulance paramedic become the most important public servant to you in the world. They arrive there, and they assist you. They use their skills to aid you or your family member or your friend or just someone you may not know who you've seen on the street and called an ambulance for, whose health or life may be in jeopardy.

Ambulance paramedics play a central role in our health care system — an absolutely central role. The disrespect that has been engaged in by the government not just in this legislation, not just in the months since they started bargaining in December 2008, not just in that period…. It's not just a matter of flipping a dollar to ambulance paramedics during an election campaign in a moment of mistaken partisanship. It's worse than that.

This has been years of neglect, years of failure to respond, years of not operating in good faith, which have culminated in this moment that we may not be able to come back from. That's why people on this side of the

[ Page 2135 ]

House are speaking so strongly — because we believe we'll be heard. Certainly people in British Columbia have been heard. We believe we should be heard by the members on the government side, who know the work that ambulance paramedics do in their communities.

As I say, this is a fundamental debate. I want to speak a little bit about where we've come from, how this happened and how this occurred in our province where a service has developed