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)

Friday, November 6, 2009

Morning Sitting

Volume 7, Number 6

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Speaker's Statement

Visit by Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 21 — Ambulance Services Collective Agreement Act (continued)

A. Dix

Hon. B. Lekstrom

M. Farnworth

On the amendment

M. Farnworth

R. Chouhan

L. Krog

D. Routley

S. Simpson

D. Black

R. Austin

D. Thorne

S. Herbert

On the Motion to Recess

M. Farnworth

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 21 — Ambulance Services Collective Agreement Act (continued)

On the amendment (continued)

B. Routley

N. Simons

G. Coons

S. Fraser

M. Mungall

M. Elmore

B. Simpson

J. Horgan

N. Macdonald

J. Brar

G. Gentner

R. Fleming

M. Karagianis

L. Popham

D. Donaldson

B. Ralston

S. Hammell

A. Dix

On the main motion

J. Brar

Hon. K. Falcon

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 21 — Ambulance Services Collective Agreement Act

R. Chouhan

Hon. K. Falcon

S. Simpson

A. Dix

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 21 — Ambulance Services Collective Agreement Act

Royal Assent to Bills

Bill 21 — Ambulance Services Collective Agreement Act

[ Page 2185 ]

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2009

The House met at 9:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Speaker's Statement

VISIT BY PRINCE CHARLES

AND THE DUCHESS OF CORNWALL

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, today is a special day in the province and in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. Later today we will have a visit to the precinct by His Royal Highness Prince Charles and Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cornwall. I know that all members of this House welcome the visit, and we are hoping that the threatened rain will hold off between four and 4:30 this afternoon. I know the House joins me in extending a warm welcome to the royal couple.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Good morning. I call continued second reading on Bill 21.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 21 — AMBULANCE SERVICES

COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT ACT

(continued)

A. Dix: I understand that I have but five minutes left in my time, which seems hardly enough to summarize the dozens of reasons why members on all sides of this House should oppose this piece of irresponsible legislation. But let me offer ten. Let me offer ten reasons in four minutes and 30 seconds.

(1) The government has failed to bargain in good faith. Very specific offers made at the bargaining table have been withdrawn. Four years of effort by the union to deal with fundamental problems in the Ambulance Service have been thrown away. It is wrong, and it's wrong to impose a contract after you've failed to bargain in good faith.

(2) The government has misled people, frankly, about the reason for this legislation. Before the Labour Relations Board officials of the B.C. Ambulance Service have been clear that this is about the Olympics, and the government has failed to talk about that. I think that when you're bringing in draconian legislation to affect a particular group in society, you have the obligation to be straightforward and honest.

(3) The ambulance paramedics have worked for years to deal with issues of response times. They have worked on joint management committees. The results of those committees, the reports of those committees, have been rejected by the government. They have not been implemented.

When you repeatedly ask a group of employees to work on joint labour-management committees and then you repeatedly ignore the results of that committee's work, it is institutional contempt on the part of the government.

(4) They haven't been allowed to vote on the last contract offer of the government. It is unprecedented labour history. It is contempt for the democratic process, and we in this Legislature have a duty to uphold the democratic process.

[0905]

(5) The contract being imposed here does nothing to deal with the disastrous issues of gaps in service in rural and remote areas in British Columbia. In fact, it will make things worse, and $2 standby is not enough to deal with those problems. There will continue to be gaps, and if this legislation is imposed — and the government took away the provisions that might improve that situation during these negotiations, in bad faith — things will get worse there.

(6) Ambulance paramedics, all of them, have shown immense commitment to become full-time paramedics. They've shown that they deserve more respect than this.

(7) The public is on the side of the ambulance paramedics. They're on the side of the ambulance paramedics. All summer…. They know the contribution ambulance paramedics make, and they want ambulance paramedics to be there when their families and their friends need help.

(8) By imposing a contract in this way, the government has put at risk the workplace. A workplace like this has had esprit de corps for years. This is a group of workers, the ambulance paramedics, who believe in the B.C. Ambulance Service. The government is working right now, is moving right now to damage and to rip up 35 years of history of that workplace.

(9) The president of the B.C. Ambulance Service last night asked the government to come back to the bargaining table. We should not be proceeding with this legislation when there is an opportunity to go back and find a collective agreement.

(10) Thirty-five years of history. This ambulance service is very much part of making our province one province, of delivering services and health care services no matter where you live in the province.

That was not the case before the B.C. Ambulance Service. That was the dream of the legislators who sat in this place on all sides of the House — NDP, Social Credit, Liberal, Conservative — at the time and who supported an ambulance service for British Columbia, supported nationalizing private services and bringing them together under one ambulance service.

That was a dream that has lived through 35 years. It is not politicians who have made that dream real, but

[ Page 2186 ]

it is politicians on that side of the House who are going to wreck that dream with this piece of legislation.

It is ambulance paramedics, dispatchers, managers, British Columbians who made that dream real, who have given British Columbia an ambulance service over a period of time that has saved lives, that has delivered health care everywhere in our province, that has made our province a better and more livable place to be.

That is the tenth reason, but that's the number one reason why members of the government's side should think again about imposing a piece of legislation that will damage a service that is fundamental to public health care in British Columbia.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I rise today to join in the discussion around Bill 21. I will be speaking to it on a number of fronts.

This is not a bill, I think, that people are happy about. It is an issue that has been brought upon us after seven months of this labour dispute carrying on. It is a significant amount of time. Certainly, I rise to speak on this knowing very well how the workers must feel, how the people of British Columbia feel, how the members of this House feel, on both sides, in having to deal with the bill that's before us today.

There has been, I think, a great deal of effort over the last seven months, and even prior to that, in trying to find a negotiated settlement. I believe that both CUPE 873 and the Emergency and Health Services Commission would have hoped to reach a negotiated settlement. Unfortunately, we are at an impasse. It's clear.

I think that for people that have been involved in the labour movement, when seven months pass, and even longer, reality does set in that the possibility of getting to a negotiated settlement is waning. We've reached that.

The actual issue on this is not something that hasn't been through a great deal of effort to try and reach. I'm going to point out that CUPE 873 has tabled four proposals — five, actually, I believe; the fifth was a mirror of their fourth that they tabled — in making an effort. The EHSC has tabled six proposals, as well as one cooling-off period proposal that was put forward.

So there has been effort from both sides, but the reality is that that effort has not led to a resolve. That's why we're in this House today, tomorrow and the next day — whatever time it takes to have the discussion to deal with this.

[0910]

I hear a lot of discussion about how there's no respect for ambulance paramedics from this side of the House, and it's sad. I have heard members say from the other side that there is respect, but this is not about one side or the other side not respecting a group of people.

I'll tell you that I fully respect the ambulance paramedics of this province. It was probably less than two months ago that they saved my brother's life, so I have a great deal of respect for them. The work they do is incredible. It's difficult work. Without question I think the people of British Columbia, the people on this side of the House and the people on the opposition side of the House fully respect the work they do. I think I can speak for all.

I don't know of a single individual that would go into negotiations wishing they couldn't reach a negotiated settlement, only to end up in mediation, arbitration or a legislated settlement. That's the last place people want to end up. These are professionals, and imposing a settlement is one of the most difficult things, I think, that anybody could ever have to deal with. I know that the other side of the House must know that very well, after listening to them talking about how this could be the end of collective bargaining as we know it. We know that isn't true. I think it is an incredible right in this country, and one I fully support and respect.

I do want to point out that much of what I've heard would lead the public to believe that this has never happened before. It has. Legislated settlements, unfortunately, sometimes are a fact of life and not only in this province, but we're speaking to British Columbia. There were four legislated settlements during the term of the opposition when they were in office. I didn't sit at that table, so I don't know the discussion that took place, but I have to believe they were difficult decisions for the opposition at the time that they were in power in this province. May 30, 1993; April 28, 1996; July 30, 1998; April 2, 2000 — all legislated settlements.

I'm sure those were difficult times. There may be members on the other side in opposition that weren't aware that took place, I'm not saying it was right or wrong. I'm saying it was probably difficult. But there are members on the other side of the House that were here during this time, so they were heavily involved in that discussion, and I'm sure it weighed heavy on them when they had to bring in the legislation to discuss those options to put a settlement in place.

What we're talking about is a difficult situation. It is something that is not about, you know, right or wrong. It's about an impasse that's been reached, an unfortunate impasse and obviously, a significant difference as to what was on the table. This settlement puts a 3 percent general wage increase in place until March 31, 2010. It's a one-year settlement. I'm hoping that what that will allow is actually for some work to be done between now and then.

The system is broken. I've heard that from the members. Do I think there are challenges in rural British Columbia, in urban British Columbia? Yes, I do. I think we all have an obligation to try and work towards resolving those.

I heard a great deal about the $2 on-call rate. That was something that…. People don't take their profession on as a paramedic, I can tell you — and I've said this before, whether it's a teacher or a paramedic — to get rich.

[ Page 2187 ]

They do it because it's their calling. They do it because they want to help people in whatever field they choose. I'm sure that's why people make the decision to run for office. It's because they believe they have something to offer.

Whether you're an elected politician, a paramedic or a teacher or you're in any profession, you do it because you're trying to make the world in which you live a better place and, in the case that we're speaking about, to create a safer environment for the people which you serve.

The $2 an hour on call. Again, $2 an hour is not what this is about. Actually, it was zero before we brought that in, and that's an issue I want to point out. This is not about $2 an hour on call. This is about a group of people who provide an invaluable service to all of us.

We're talking about a piece of legislation that is going to impose a settlement. My hope, as I said, as we move forward in this is that we can actually find a resolve to the broader issue, which is a broken system — not a broken system in what the men and women do but in how it's delivered. Are there better ways? Are there ways that we can improve? The system needs improvement, and both sides recognize that.

[0915]

The issue in rural B.C., as I said, is distinctly different than what is faced in the larger centres. That's not to diminish the challenges that our larger centres face, because they do face these challenges. These are difficult jobs. These are jobs, as I've heard many times, with challenges that the members face out there in their day-to-day lives. They face challenges. They take this tragedy that they see each and every day, and the tragedy that they see is in the way of helping you and me and our families and all British Columbians, and they have to live with that in their day-to-day lives. It's a difficult situation.

We are appointing an industrial inquiry commissioner, and I think that is one of the most important things that we can recognize here. This commissioner is something that, as I understand it, the union leadership had stated was probably the most important initiative to improve the Ambulance Service.

I'm an optimist. I'm hoping that the industrial inquiry commissioner will be able to do his work or her work in a way that actually will address the issue of the challenges not only in the collective bargaining but in how we deliver this service, for the betterment of British Columbians.

We have to repair a broken labour relations system. That's fair to say. I have heard members of the opposition speak about this. This isn't a system that began to be broken in 2001 or 1991. It's been flawed, and each and every one of us, hopefully, is in this House today to try and improve on what we've done yesterday. If we do that, I think we'll build a better province. We'll build, certainly, a better country. And with what we're talking about today, I think that we can build a better ambulance service.

I'm not going to take a great deal of time on this bill, other than to say that I will support it, not with a great deal of joy but a reality. Seven months into a labour dispute — I'm a realist. I don't think there is the ability for a negotiated settlement. I think that both sides, with the effort they've put in to date, would have reached that settlement.

As I've said, this goes back to the first proposal that was tabled by CUPE 873. It was a two-part proposal that began in December 2008 and followed through with the second phase of that in January 2009 — a long time ago.

I'm going to close with this. The paramedics that are in Dawson Creek, Chetwynd, Tumbler Ridge, in the riding that I represent…. Certainly, most of them, we know each other. Does it create challenges when your friends are on one side, being a paramedic, and the government is dealing with a bill that will legislate them back to work and impose a collective agreement? Yes, it does. I've always said that I'll never let politics come between a friendship. My paramedics know that, and we'll deal with this professionally.

Do I understand their frustration? I do. Would I be…? I try to put myself in their position, as we sit here today and discuss this bill. Do I recognize the e-mails they send? They say: "Blair, I'm frustrated. You know, we've reached this point, and it's sad." I fully accept that, because I think that I would probably be writing the same e-mail if I was in their position. But the commitment I'm here to talk about is our commitment to try and improve a system that I think is broken. We're going to deal with this piece of legislation that gives a reasonable wage increase.

I understand the equity that they're looking for, and one that may take many years to get to that point, because I'm a realist. It didn't take one or two or five or ten years to get to the point we're at today.

Probably from the beginning of the B.C. Ambulance Service there were things that could have been looked at each and every year, from its inception, to say: "We've learned from something last year, and we should improve upon it." Unfortunately, that hasn't carried true.

Our commitment today, as we discuss this bill…. I know that there will be future discussion saying, "I support it" or "I don't support it," and the reasons why, and I fully respect that in the democracy in which we live. We're going to respect that next Wednesday as we pay our remembrance on Remembrance Day, to the people that allow us to have this discussion in this building today and across this country, which is our free and democratic right. But to the members of the paramedics union, to CUPE 873, this is not something that comes lightly. This is something that is a difficult decision for all in this House.

[ Page 2188 ]

This is not the first time a legistated settlement has occurred for our government, for the opposition, when they were in government, or for governments before. But I think it's fair to say that I don't know an individual, when they have to present a bill like this, in whichever government they're part of, that is happy about having to do it. As I said, for members on the other side, I'm sure that it weighed heavy on their minds as they did that.

[0920]

I'm optimistic that our industrial inquiry commissioner will find resolve and present solutions that I'm sure both sides of this House will support, as we move forward.

In closing I will say this: to the men and women who provide this service in the B.C. Ambulance Service, thank you. Thank you for what you do. Thank you for your commitment to a better British Columbia and for saving the lives of all of us — and most particularly my brother, less than two months ago.

M. Farnworth: I rise to take my place in the debate around Bill 21, a piece of back-to-work legislation that will impose a contract on the paramedics of British Columbia.

We've just heard from the government that, you know, they respect the work that paramedics do, that they believe that these issues are not easy to resolve, that legislated contracts have taken place in the past. That's true; legislated contracts have taken place in the past. But this one is different. This one is different, I think, on a very fundamental basis, and that is that there's a vote going on.

That's never happened before. A bill that cuts off the vote of an offer of a potential contract, prejudging the outcome: that's just wrong. Paramedics have been trying to negotiate a contract with this government for, well, four years. There have been huge issues around the work and improvements in the contract, not just financial but improvements in working conditions and improvements in training conditions. And for some reason, there has been an inability by this government to recognize that changes have to be made and that that means the government has to take those steps in order to reach an agreement.

If we go back and look at what some of the key issues are — recruitment and retention, issues in rural and remote communities in British Columbia about the ability to deliver service, the training that's required — we've been able to deal with those issues in a whole host of professions. We've been able to deal with it with firefighters, we've been able to deal with it with police, and we've been able to deal with it with sheriffs.

Now it's the turn of paramedics. Yet for some reason, there seems an inability by this government to recognize that if you can make changes and you can put in place policies with other professions that deal with working conditions around recruitment and retention, for example, and training, why can they not do the same thing with the ambulance paramedics?

The minister who spoke before us said that one of the things that he'd like to put in place or one of the things that he's looking forward to see happen is the industrial inquiry commission. Well, hon. Speaker, for the last four years paramedics have been working with joint union-management committees to deal with a lot of these issues and come up with recommendations.

The people involved on the front line of the delivery of the service and exactly what's taking place are working to try to say: "These are things that we can do that can improve things. These are things that we can do that can make our working conditions better." Yet when those reports just sit and gather dust, what faith does anybody have that any recommendations that an industrial inquiry commissioner brings forth would even be implemented or carried out?

[0925]

This government, for whatever reason, seems to have taken an approach that can best be described as one of wilful neglect and disinterest, just straight shameful in its dealings with paramedics in British Columbia. Hon. Speaker, you have a situation of frustration at a lack of willingness by the government to even put on the table in its legislation an offer that was there in the spring — to give them less. It's what we have in this bill that's before us today.

The minister who spoke before talked about respect. That's not respect. To the paramedics and the public out there it looks more like punishment, instead of taking an approach that says: "Look, we're prepared to take that extra step. We're prepared to go to that extra effort to achieve a settlement. We're prepared to recognize that there's a vote taking place."

There's no need for this legislation at this particular point. What there is, is a need for a government to recognize that the best way to achieve a settlement is to send a message that we want a settlement and to recognize that it's not just a wage offer that's on the table. It's recognizing, for example, that the signing bonus that every other area of the public sector got would, no doubt, have certainly been a strong message of an olive branch or a step to say: "Yeah, we want to achieve a settlement."

But no, we don't have any of that. We have, in the middle of a vote, a piece of legislation imposing a contract, and that's unprecedented in British Columbia. We've never seen that before under any government, whether it's been NDP or Social Credit.

Paramedics, as many have spoken in this House, have a really unique challenge when it comes to their training. They take in-depth, complicated, comprehensive courses that require effort, training, skill, dedication. They often have to move away from the community where they're

[ Page 2189 ]

living to get into the profession. They work long hours on call, on standby, at a very low rate of pay, an on-call rate of $2 an hour. They work long years to work their way up into part-time positions or full-time positions to pursue the career that they believe is what they're meant to do.

It takes a great deal of commitment. It takes a great deal of dedication. It takes a great deal of sacrifice. That's something that should not only be respected but also be admired. That's something that's not unique just to paramedics but to lots of professions — in our police, fire and health care professionals right across the province. Yet for some reason the government does not either want to or is failing somehow to recognize that these workers deserve to be treated with the same respect, with the same consideration, as the rest of the health care system, as the rest of the health care professionals.

[0930]

We heard that the government values the work they do. Well, if that's the case, then the best way to show that is to say, "Withdraw this bill," and to go back to the bargaining table and recognize that a serious effort to address those issues — a serious effort — will no doubt pay dividends, because that's what people expect. That's what the public expects.

It's not the first time an impasse has been reached in a collective bargaining process, and it won't be the last time an impasse is reached, but when those impasses are reached, particularly when it involves government negotiation and government is one of the parties, when the government takes that first step to try and break that impasse, that usually goes a long way. It sends a positive message. We've not seen that.

We dealt with sheriffs last year. A similar profession, in many ways, where people…. They study. They work hard. It takes a long time to get to full-time work. There had been significant imbalances in relation to other workers performing the same type of work or comparable work, and the government was able to reach adjustments, not only in pay but also around working conditions.

They were able to do that, but we're not seeing that here. There were work disruptions with the sheriffs, but the government came forward and said: "You know what? We're going to resolve this."

Well, there's no reason why you can't be doing the same thing here. There's no reason why you can't be saying: "You know what? We're going to take another crack at this. We're going to be realistic, and we're going to be fair. We're going to treat paramedics the same way that we've treated other workers in the public sector. We're not going to do the mistake of saying….

"Okay, we had a settlement back earlier this year. Let's go back and look at that. Let's make that a benchmark, for example, and not say: "Okay, here's what we're going to do. You don't like it? Too bad. Take it or leave it. This is a contract. We're imposing it, and it's less than what was on the table last year, and by the way, you're not getting the signing bonus that everybody else got." That does not send a message that we value the work that you do. That does not send a message that we respect the work that you do.

All that does is send a message of: "We're government, and we'll do what we want when we like. If you don't like it, too bad. Because your vote doesn't fit in with our timetable. Your vote on an agreement doesn't fit in with what our schedule, what our agenda, is."

Well, that's just wrong. That is not right. That's why we are going to be voting against this particular piece of legislation. We're going to do so because we know there is a better way.

[0935]

We know if government steps back and recognizes that there is an opportunity here to continue the bargaining process…. There is an opportunity here. If you start looking at the work that the joint management and union committees have done on a lot of the issues and you start taking those reports and recommendations seriously, you can resolve a lot of the issues. You can deal with some of those concerns in rural areas around recruitment and retention and training.

You don't have to have legislation in place like this, which is why I think it's important that we give the government an opportunity to do that. They seem determined that they somehow have to have this in place, that they're not prepared, that a week isn't long enough to do something.

Well, maybe a longer period of time is called for. Maybe a longer period of time is called for — a set time frame for the government to work within, to step back from the brink with a piece of legislation that will not accomplish what they think it will, that will create bitterness and ill feeling, that will take a long time, if ever, to resolve.

There's another way, and that is to say: "Okay, let's step back. Let's take the time that's required." It may be a month; it may be two months. But there's a window.

To facilitate that work that needs to be done, to facilitate that opportunity, to encourage the government to step back, we're going to offer them that opportunity. We're going to offer them that opportunity to save face. We're going to offer them that opportunity to recognize that — you know what? — we do need to reconsider, to take that second look at this piece of legislation.

Hon. Speaker:

[I move that the motion for second reading of the ' Ambulance Services Collective Agreement Act ' (Bill 21) be amended by deleting the word "now" and substituting the words "six months hence."]

On the amendment.

M. Farnworth: This amendment is an amendment that will pull this bill back for six months. It's referred to as a hoist motion. Well, it's a bit more than that.

[ Page 2190 ]

It's an opportunity for the government to recognize that there needs to be a more reasoned approach, another different approach than a dramatic jamming of a piece of legislation that will force paramedics back to work with a contract before they've even voted on an offer on the table that puts less on the table than what was in place earlier this year. That avoids, I think, the government making a serious mistake.

To let the government know just how strongly people feel on this, I'm going to read some remarks from individuals in the paramedic service about how they feel about this issue. I'm reminded of some of the arguments that the government has put forward in the course of this debate around why we're taking now to do this.

[0940]

Last night we talked about the extending of the hours. One of the justifications for the need to have this piece of legislation in place right now is the H1N1 virus — that there is a pandemic, and we need our paramedics out there to help deal with it.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

Yet at the same time, this is the same government that does not have a plan in place to get paramedics vaccinated. You've had paramedics who have been out there trying to do their job, and yet they haven't been able to get the vaccine.

They are front-line workers, dealing with people on a day-to-day basis who are injured, who are sick, who are ill, who have a range of conditions that cover the entire spectrum imaginable, who already have flu cases, compromised immune systems — all those things. They are front-line health care workers, and yet the government didn't have a plan in place to have them vaccinated.

If that doesn't illustrate how this government has viewed issues of concern to paramedics, I don't know what does. If that doesn't illustrate everything that's been wrong with this government's approach to the contract negotiations, both monetary and non-monetary, to dealing with issues around working conditions, to dealing with issues around training and recruitments and retention, I don't know what else does.

If you don't even realize that paramedics are at the front line of health care service, of health care providers, at the public level, there's something wrong.

That to me symbolizes why this government needs to get back to the bargaining table, why they need to sit down, address the issues, the serious issues that paramedics face, and put together and work to negotiate a contract and an offer that can be voted on by the membership and that can be passed without us having to impose a legislated contract in a way that I think is unprecedented in the province of British Columbia.

I want to read into the record just some comments that many paramedics have sent to the opposition, outlining their concerns and their frustration. Here's one.

"Have you ever rode in a car with paramedics to see what they endure in a 12-hour shift? You should try it. They don't get to sit and have lunch. They have call after call, holding for the next available car. When they get to a routine call they're often asked: 'What took you so long?' They risk their lives driving through oncoming traffic to get to an emergency call, yet they're not considered to be in danger like a police officer or a firefighter.

"I've rode in a car with a paramedic crew, and I was shocked when we went code 3 to a call. We risked our lives to get to that call, as not everyone cares about a light and siren.

"This government needs to allow the collective bargaining to continue. Demand that they oppose Bill 21."

[0945]

Those comments illustrate a couple of points: frustration on the part of the workers and a desire for negotiated settlement. But they also point out some of the challenges they face that we sometimes forget about. I mean, the government clearly hasn't thought around the issue of H1N1 and vaccination.

That's not the only challenge that paramedics face. There's the health issue — you know, the health care challenges they face on a day-to-day basis, the people they come in contact with as they do the work that they do, the work they believe passionately in and the work that they want to do.

But they also have to face challenges in just the actual doing of their job that most people don't face — the fact that many people don't listen to what a siren and flashing lights mean, that when they're going through an intersection to get to a call, they're not sure whether or not somebody is busy listening to an iPod, not paying attention and driving straight through and crashing into them.

We saw that, actually, last night in Port Coquitlam. It wasn't with an ambulance. It was a police car that had been T-boned. As the police car was off, lights flashing, someone goes through the intersection. That type of occurrence is the type of thing that paramedics, along with other public safety professionals, have to deal with every single day.

That gives you some idea of the stress that they have to deal with. It's not just the stress of their job, not just the health care stress, not just the stress of having to deal with someone who has been badly injured, someone who may be dying in transportation to a hospital, and of the carnage that they often see at a traffic fatality, but they have to deal with the stress of working conditions where the very people who count on them to help them, the public, are sometimes not paying attention to things such as sirens and flashing lights.

To have to do that day after day is unbelievably challenging. I bet there are not many of us in this chamber who would be able to do that kind of work day in, day out.

Deputy Speaker: Member, on the amendment.

[ Page 2191 ]

M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, I am speaking to the amendment and will continue to speak to the amendment.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: I hear comments from a minister over there, and I hope that he will have the courage of his comments to heckle, to stand up and defend the government's piece of legislation.

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: Ah, you know, he is…. I noticed the hon. minister over there. As usual, hon. Member, a lot of the members are particularly brave when it comes to heckling, but they're less committed to defending their legislation when given the opportunity. We will be happy to give the minister all the opportunity he wants to defend the legislation and, in particular, to speak to this amendment, which is what we are debating at this particular point in time.

But the point I'm making is that we need to take…. The government needs to step back, and a six-month hoist motion allows them to do that. It allows them to save some face, to recognize the errors of their ways. It allows them to get back to the bargaining table. It allows them to recognize that they need to take that first step. They need to be serious in dealing with issues around recruitment and retention. They need to be serious in terms of working conditions.

[0950]

They don't need to take a full year to do that. They need to go back and look at the work that's been done. They need to go back and talk to the people on the job. They need to take the time and go listen to what paramedics have to say, because they've been working to provide solutions. They've been working to deal with these issues, to try and bring solutions to these issues.

Unfortunately, we have a government that has turned a deaf ear to those concerns. It's as though it's had, you know, ear plugs in place for the last number of years — that it's just not been interested in what people have to say, what those workers have to say. That needs to change.

That needs to change, and this hoist motion, this amendment, is an opportunity for them to do just that. It's an opportunity to step back and to address the issues — that the paramedics of this province should have a proper contract, a negotiated contract, a fair contract, a contract that treats them with respect, the same way that other members of the public service have been treated and deserve to be treated.

If members are still unsure as to whether to support this amendment, I will read some more comments that I'm sure may have an impact, that may help to convince them of the error of their ways.

This is actually from a citizen, a member of the public.

"I'd like to register my concern as a citizen of B.C. with the way our paramedics are being treated by this government. Undermining a vote on a proposed collective agreement is an unfair labour practice. This sudden move to end a strike after obliging the workers to continue to provide services under essential service legislation for months is an abuse of power, once again undermining a fair process of collective bargaining.

"Please continue to support the paramedics."

The public recognizes that the government's position is wrong. The public is saying that the government needs to negotiate fairly. The public understands what a lot of the problem is. The government is the one that needs to address that, and they can do that by taking a step back from the brink. They can do that by ensuring that a collective bargaining process takes place that allows for a negotiated settlement.

I know there are others in this chamber who will be speaking to this particular piece of legislation, in particular to this particular hoist motion. They will be speaking to the amendment that we are on. So I will be taking my place, and others will be following.

I encourage members of the government to stand up and to share their perspective as the Minister of Energy and Mines has done. I disagree with the Minister of Energy and Mines, but he did have the courage of his convictions to stand and defend the legislation, as opposed to just heckle from the sidelines.

I encourage other ministers and other members to stand up and to take that same opportunity to get their voice on the record as to why this legislation is a good thing or why, as we hope, they will vote with us, vote in favour of this amendment to pull this bill back for six months and allow a proper, freely negotiated, collective bargaining agreement to be reached.

[0955]

R. Chouhan: I rise to speak on the amendment. The reason that we are here today and the reason that the opposition has moved the amendment is because Bill 21 is not going to do the job. It is an admission of the failure of this government to manage the health care system.

We have moved this amendment because, instead of addressing the critical issues that paramedics face across this province, the government has decided to ram through legislation that undermines the integrity of our ambulance services and damages our health care system.

It's important to note that if the B.C. Liberals, the Minister of Health or the Minister of Labour had appointed an independent arbitrator months ago and settled the paramedic strike, we wouldn't have to be here today. We wouldn't need to move this amendment because we would not have been discussing Bill 21. Instead, the government ignored the issues and refused to listen to the paramedics' concerns.

The basic fundamental principle in collective bargaining is respect and trust, and the government has lost

[ Page 2192 ]

both. Instead of meeting with the union, with the members — the paramedics — sitting down in meaningful negotiations, the government is trying to tell them: "No, we don't care what you are trying to achieve, what you are trying to tell us. We don't care what kinds of issues you have regarding the ambulance services in British Columbia."

Bill 21 sends a message to all British Columbians that this government is not interested in working through challenges and that this government action will undermine the collective bargaining process for years to come, not only with the paramedics but also with all public sector workers.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

The reason we have moved this amendment is, again, to provide another opportunity so that this government can sit back and have a second talk, to go back and work with the union and paramedics to find a meaningful solution, a fair and equitable collective agreement. That's the reason we have moved the amendment today.

Now, the Minister of Health has talked about the industrial inquiry commission. If the government side agrees with our amendment, they would have the opportunity to correct their mistake by directing, by appointing that industrial inquiry commission with a mandate to meet with the parties and to find a solution.

[1000]

The government can also set a time limit on it. They could say: "You have only two weeks, or three weeks at maximum, to meet with the parties, find out the issues and make recommendations." Those recommendations can also be binding on both sides. That will put an end to that dispute. That will resolve the issue, and everybody will be happy.

By introducing Bill 21, by imposing this settlement on workers, this settlement that is less than what was offered to these workers many months ago, less than what they were in the process of voting upon…. The ratification process was underway. It was to be completed today. But the government has decided to ignore that.

Again, we are providing this opportunity. I hope the members of the government will take that opportunity to work on this recommendation that we have moved today.

Mr. Speaker, last night the president of the union, John Strohmaier….

Deputy Speaker: Please keep your remarks directed towards the amendment.

R. Chouhan: That is exactly what I'm doing. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am doing it to encourage the government that we have moved this amendment.

In light of that, the union president last night contacted Lee Doney and proposed to Mr. Doney to return to the bargaining table and negotiate that settlement. This hoist motion will provide that opportunity for the government to go back to the table and listen to those concerns. That's why it's important that we must debate this hoist motion, the recommendation that we have made today.

We have repeatedly pointed out the importance of a negotiated settlement, a collective agreement. This Bill 21 talks about the Ambulance Services Collective Agreement Act. What a misnomer. There's no collectiveness in it. Let's not lose this opportunity. Let's take this opportunity in front of us. This motion provides another moment for all of us to look back, sit down, and talk about and find out meaningful solutions. That's the reason to move this amendment this morning.

When you impose a collective agreement on workers, when you refuse to provide H1N1 vaccine to those workers, it creates an unsafe workplace. The minister uses that excuse, that the reason to table Bill 21 was because of the H1N1 pandemic, yet the same paramedics are not given that vaccine.

It's important that we realize that there's the Workers Compensation Act.

Section 3 of the Workers Compensation Act requires all workers to work in a safe workplace. What happens if these workers refuse to go to work, to work under those unsafe working conditions? Then what happens? It will be clearly the responsibility of this government if that happens.

I'm again asking the government to show some respect, to listen to what the workers' concerns are. I'm again asking this government to listen to British Columbians, who are 100 percent behind the paramedics. They know the importance of the paramedics' work. They know that paramedics, when they need them, if they need them, will be there.

[1005]

Despite the fact that Bill 21 was introduced last Monday, despite the fact of a clear message of disrespect, those paramedics are still on the job. They're working hard. They're doing their best. They're not leaving their workplace.

Again, I urge the government side to look very carefully at the amendment that we have moved this morning. Think about it. Think about if you don't do it — the damage it will cause to labour relations for years to come. Do we want that kind of working relationship with our workers in British Columbia? No, we don't. So let's take that opportunity. Let's look at that amendment that we have tabled. Because if you don't, it will be you, this government I'm talking about, that will be responsible for this.

As I said, the industrial inquiry commission, I know how it works. I've been there. For 30 years I've been negotiating collective agreements. We can easily have that industrial inquiry commission in place with a mandate to finalize this process in two or three weeks. But the government has to have that courage, the wisdom to do that.

If the government loses this opportunity, our children, our families, British Columbians will be paying for

[ Page 2193 ]

that. The kind of ambulance services we need, the kind of ambulance services the union has proposed…. Those are the front-line workers. They know what is needed out there. If we miss this opportunity, we will not have it, and it will be British Columbians who will suffer.

That's the reason that we have tabled this amendment. I hope in their collective wisdom, the government members will sit down and talk about it and stand up today and say that they made a mistake — that they'll say: "Sorry. Let's sit down and have a negotiated settlement." We'll give you the credit. Everyone will give government credit if they do that. We'll applaud. But would they do it? I really doubt it.

That's why we are moving this amendment today. Sit back and listen. Think again. Don't lose this opportunity. Show some respect. Build that trust that you have lost. Work with the union and those members. They're crying for help. They need that help. Let's give that help to them. Let's negotiate a settlement. Don't impose it.

Thank you very much. With that, I'll take my place, and I again urge the government to withdraw Bill 21, and I urge the government members to vote on the recommendation, the amendment that we have tabled this morning.

L. Krog: It always gives me great pleasure to rise in this chamber. I'm conscious every day of the privilege it is to work in this place. I'm also conscious of the great responsibility that's given to the members of this chamber. The precedents that are set in this chamber have impact. What this motion speaks to now is an opportunity for this government to avoid the impact of what is a very radical move in terms of labour relations practice in this province.

[1010]

Imposing a contract in the middle of a vote is absolutely unprecedented. What this motion speaks to is an opportunity for the government to step back; to reconsider its position; to take into account the views of British Columbians; to really consider the evidence, if any, that exists that requires this government to move so quickly, to demand of this chamber that it pass the bill this week — not next week, not last week, this week.

I'm reminded of the words of Churchill, who once said that it's better to "jaw-jaw than to war-war."

The talks have been going on for a very long time, not overly fruitful. One can understand that. The paramedics are in an absolutely almost impossible situation, so constrained by essential services restrictions that the strike has really been about signage, not picketing the way we think of it in the normal sense.

Their ability, if you will, to force the employer to reach a reasonable settlement is extremely restricted — restricted almost to a scale that the average worker in British Columbia can't imagine it.

The government, if you will, the Ambulance Service, is holding all the cards. They've held all the cards since April — seven months, seven long months. Yet we're being told that we have to move so very, very quickly in order for this legislation to pass.

I ask the same questions I asked last night. Having heard only, as I recall it, two ministers speak — the Minister of Health and the Attorney General, the Government House Leader — this morning we had the pleasure of listening to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. He spoke in favour of the government's bill.

Well, with the greatest respect to the minister, I haven't heard anything from the lips of anyone on the government benches, minister or backbencher, longtime server, fresh MLA…. From none of them have I heard that kind of cogent argument that tells this chamber in no uncertain terms what the facts are and why those facts necessitate the speedy, unprecedentedly speedy, passage of this bill.

What the opposition, if you will, is offering to the government by way of this motion, this amendment, is that opportunity to step back; to, if it has a case, develop the evidence for it; and to convince British Columbians — whose voice we are in this opposition — and the members of the opposition why we have to proceed this way.

You know, one of the great masters of the art of politics in this province, W.A.C. Bennett, was famous for that sober second look. When things got a little rough, when he was trying to go too far too fast, he'd put his ear to the ground. He'd listen to the people of British Columbia. He'd listen to the opposition, and he'd step back.

He was a wily old guy. Dave Barrett tutored under him, and Dave Barrett was a pretty wily master in this House as well. But they weren't just wily. They actually understood that merely having the privilege of being here doesn't give you the right to run this place like a dictatorship. The privilege is not to be a dictator. The privilege is to serve, and the privilege is to listen. What that privilege requires is that you actually do it; you don't just talk about it.

What we're asking the government this morning to do is to take the six months. After all, the bill itself takes us only until March of next year, gets us past the Olympics, but it doesn't deal with the fundamental issues confronting the paramedics in this province and the B.C. Ambulance Service. It doesn't address those. It really doesn't.

The question becomes again: what's the hurry? Why the rush? And if so, if there's such a need, what is it? What are the reasons?

Is there some contractual requirement involved in the Olympics that says we have to get this done now?

[1015]

Is there some secret that the government can't share with the chamber that requires us to proceed so quickly, to drive this through the process in an unprecedented way — when, as I said, it is imposing a contract at a time

[ Page 2194 ]

in negotiations when a vote is underway and has been underway that, again, is absolutely unprecedented in British Columbia?

The Ambulance Service is a great model. The famous Foulkes report in 1973 said: "The ambulance must be considered a mobile extension of the emergency room of a hospital and must therefore provide, as far as possible, an equal standard of medical care." He also expected and envisioned a system where in rural areas, because tertiary hospitals wouldn't be available, that it would almost be like the emergency department of a small hospital, that there would be some equalization, if you will, of the availability of emergency care in the province, addressing the rural nature of many of the citizens of British Columbia.

Well, we're perhaps more urbanized now, but there are still lots of people living in rural British Columbia, represented by many members in this chamber, and their expectation is that they will have access to emergency medical services.

In my own community, I read out the statistics the other day, about how, in the majority of cases, both in north and south Nanaimo, if you call the paramedics, they're there in under nine minutes. Now, in the middle of a crisis, nine minutes may seem like a very, very long time, but that's a pretty remarkable statistic.

These are people we trust and need and value. Gosh knows, hon. Speaker, if it's one of us lying on the floor, with a spouse screaming over us, or if it's your child that's injured, I can't think of a more welcome face coming through that door than a paramedic — trained, able, competent, cool, collected, ready to figure out what the emergency is, ready to listen, ready to help, and quite literally ready to save lives. Now, that is a pretty remarkable profession.

This government — for whatever reason, because it hasn't been articulated to us — is demanding that we sit until this bill is passed. Can't sit the following week from Monday, in accordance with the schedule. We've got to jam it through.

Notwithstanding that the opposition's job is to criticize, the opposition does listen. I appreciate that the government members may think I'm being insincere, but the opposition does listen. I'm always delighted to listen to the remarks of the government, when they make their argument.

I expect a little fluster and bluster and huffing and puffing, but generally speaking, from the government comes some facts, some evidence, some story, some argument, something that, if I'm being objective, I can step back from, listen to it, and say: "You know what? I still think I'm right, but they've made a very good point" or "You know what? Maybe they're right, but we're in the opposition, and we can never say the government's okay." But that hasn't happened in this debate, and we have been at it, in one form or another, for hours.

Today this motion gives that opportunity to government to do the right thing for the paramedics of British Columbia; to take that sober second look; to continue to jaw-jaw, so to speak, with the paramedics; to try and come to a solution that will give the paramedics — who by virtue of essential services legislation are denied the dignity, if you will, of the ability to strike — the respect that they deserve; to give them an opportunity to continue to make their case; and to give the opportunity to the public to remind this government that the public are on their side, on the paramedics' side. They're not on the side of jamming this through.

[1020]

There is no good reason. If I'd heard it, I could argue against it. If I heard the government's position articulated, I could stand here, and I could try and make points against what they had to say. But the commentary from the government, in total, notwithstanding that they enjoy the majority of seats in this chamber, has been less than, probably, a half an hour speaking to the whole bill — let alone the issue of an adjournment, let alone the issue of the hoist motion that's before the House.

If this place is to function, it isn't good enough for the opposition to be the only voices that are heard here. It is necessary for the government to step up to the plate. Now, I was encouraged by the fact that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources stood up this morning and spoke. I'm glad he took the time to speak. I'm glad he took the time to say something on behalf of his constituents. Because, on behalf of my constituents, I want to tell you that they support the paramedics.

All across my community there are signs in every neighbourhood of every description — whether rich or poor, clean and neat, dilapidated and rundown — supporting the paramedics. Last night I had the occasion to be in the emergency room in the Nanaimo Regional General Hospital, and I can tell you that two of the paramedics took the time, notwithstanding how busy it was, to come up and thank me and thank the opposition for speaking out on their behalf, because they are a group that feels punished by this government and punished by the Ambulance Service.

They believe in what they do. Hon. Speaker, you have heard many of the members in this chamber recite the kind of time it takes to actually get a position. The on-call hours, historically unpaid, are now paid so pitifully that members of the paramedic service wait and wait, year after year, notwithstanding the expense of their training, in order to actually get a position.

Now, I have to tell you that there are occupations in our province that pay much more for less training that don't require that kind of wait. So what does that tell you about the paramedics? It tells you that they care about what they do, and it is a difficult job. I won't mention the name of the member who was sitting beside me the other day that said they could never do that job. They

[ Page 2195 ]

have to turn away if they get a needle pricked in their arm.

Can you imagine what it is, as your daily routine, to attend at accidents, to attend at emergencies of every description and to render the kind of service that the paramedics do? You know, my hat's off to them. Because I represent a community with so many seniors now, so many people retiring to beautiful Vancouver Island, my constituents in particular, I think, get it. They do appreciate what the paramedics do.

As much as that disturbing sound of the siren in your neighbourhood puts a little fear into you every time you hear it, for the person who's waiting for the sound of that siren, it's a pretty sweet sound. It's a pretty sweet sound, because they know that what it means is that help is on the way, that there are people who care. They have cared enough, in many cases, to wait years to get a permanent position in the Ambulance Service, and they're there to help you. They're there — potentially, in many cases, we well know — to save lives.

So if the government really wants to show for once that it has this softer side, that we're not talking about the government that brought in Bill 29, that it respects the rights of working people, that it respects the collective bargaining process…. If the government wants to demonstrate it, surely today in this House it has a clear and, I would say, easy opportunity. An olive branch has been offered by the opposition.

Support the amendment. Delay it six months. Take it off the table. You know, it's never too late in any fight to step back and say: "Maybe we should do this differently. Maybe we can take a different approach. Maybe we can actually work towards a solution. Maybe we're capable of doing that."

[1025]

That opportunity now is here. It is here in the form of the opposition's motion by our Opposition House Leader. Because if the government chooses not to, and continues to drive this through to its conclusion — and a conclusion which, I hate to say, may well be inevitable, which is the passage of the bill — what will have been achieved? In practical terms, as I understand it, precious little in terms of the necessity of the timing of this. The ambulances still run around this province, and the paramedics continue to serve. They deliver people to the emergency wards of our hospitals on a regular basis.

The fact is that to suggest that there has been any significant disruption in service is just not on. I haven't heard the kind of crisis talk from the government that I might have expected if that was the argument. I certainly haven't seen the evidence in the newspapers. You haven't heard any horrible tales in the seven months of this strike — the horrible tales that would indicate that it's absolutely necessary for this legislation to be passed and a contract be imposed and go back to business as usual — because the evidence would indicate it is business as usual.

It's frustrating. It's morale-breaking. If I were a paramedic, I guess I'd be getting pretty near the end of my fuse at this point, after seven months of a strike. But the truth is, from what we can see and hear, not much has changed since this strike began, except that in seven months a message has been sent very clearly to the paramedics that the government doesn't care about them and their employer doesn't care.

There is talk of a time of financial crisis, and you know what? There's a suggestion now that we've passed the worst of it. I guess "crisis" is a relative sort of term. If you're suffering a coronary on your living room floor, that's a real crisis. If your job is threatened, that's very disturbing, but it's not a crisis. If you lose your job and you lose your house and your spouse leaves you, that's a crisis.

But I don't get the sense, with great respect, that this province is in such a crisis that it can't afford to do the right thing by the paramedics, that it can't take the time to continue to negotiate, that it can't take the time to compensate fairly people who do an extraordinary job in every corner of British Columbia, every hour of every day of every week of every month of every year.

It's extraordinary. They continue to do this, notwithstanding the way they've been treated, notwithstanding all the difficulties around employment and securing a permanent job. Given that the Ambulance Service is now — what? — 35 years old and has served British Columbians so well, I would have thought the government would have been more conscious of this and would have worked diligently to ensure that the paramedics received a reasonable settlement, that it didn't have a contract imposed on them, that it wasn't forced. Forced by legislation.

You know, there are only a few workers in British Columbia who ever get forced back to work or have a contract forced on them. The vast majority of us never face that, and the reason is, firstly, because hopefully it's not necessary, but more importantly, because people understand and governments and legislators understand that to impose a contract is an extraordinary remedy. But it's even more extraordinary to impose a contract when there is no urgency, when there is a vote literally underway on a proposal, when the strike is seven months old, and when there's no evidence to support any call for a real crisis.

[1030]

The fact is that if three weeks from now or a month from now or a month and a half from now, this government said there was a crisis, they can call this place back into session. That's the way our system works. They could do that. They could jam it through, and they could bring in closure. They could do all kinds of things to pass a similar kind of bill.

[ Page 2196 ]

What this tells me is that there really isn't that much of a crisis. There isn't that much of a problem. Today what I'm really asking is that this government consider the opposition motion, that it do the right thing for the paramedics of British Columbia — that it step back, take six months, cool off, try and get a settlement, show some respect for these people. They work so hard for us, hon. Speaker. They've got public support. Everything supports their side, and I haven't heard anything from the government side to suggest to the contrary.

As much as I suspect it is a completely false hope, I'd love to think that the government, during the course of the debate today, tomorrow, Sunday or whenever, will finally step back, listen to the ghost of W.A.C. Bennett and Dave Barrett, accept the opposition motion, do something that would send a signal to British Columbians that this government is not anti-labour, that it is not dictatorial, that it does care.

Do something remarkable. "Step out of the box," I say to the government side. Step out of the box. Do the right thing for our paramedics.

D. Routley: It doesn't give me much pleasure, but it is an honour always to rise and speak in this House. In this case, it's sad that we are here considering a bill which would essentially remove the rights of the ambulance paramedics to fair collective bargaining.

I am here to support an amendment to that bill. It would allow an opportunity for the government to step back and have a second look at the action they're about to take and listen to the people who they represent and truly represent those views, by taking some time to go back to the bargaining table with the ambulance paramedics of this province and consider the many valid issues that they bring forth to the government, the many challenges that they face — not only the fact that they work with such a dismal rate of pay, particularly on call and without benefits, without recognition of their training, but also the fact that they face such an extremely challenging calling on a daily basis.

I think the government should step back, rather than ram through legislation which will completely destroy and evaporate any good faith they might expect from the ambulance paramedics when the government goes back in a mere four months or less to negotiate another contract with ambulance paramedics. Rather than take this bludgeoning approach to the process, the government has an opportunity, by supporting this amendment, to reflect on what they are being told — not only by ambulance paramedics but by their own constituents, by the people of B.C., who hold ambulance paramedics in the highest order of respect.

I don't know how many times I've heard people say: "Oh, I just couldn't be a paramedic. I just couldn't." We're all aware of the challenges that they face. On a daily basis, moment to moment, they face the prospect of witnessing the kinds of circumstances and scenes that would challenge anyone's psychology.

[1035]

They are a people who are beset by all manner of industrial illness — injuries from lifting people, the challenges of being in traffic situations where they're often severely injured — and also the psychological injury represented by post-traumatic stress disorder and all the fallout from what they witness on a daily basis. They and their families are challenged to find enough faith and enough inspiration to be able to go out another day. They do so not because it's a job, but because it's a calling.

All of that beckons the government to hear their voices and step back at this moment. It's not too late for the government and its members to step back from the abyss here, look at what is really happening in British Columbia and consider their role in the lives of British Columbians and these devoted servants of British Columbians.

It's been mentioned that some 52 percent of the time, the international standard of a nine-minute response is met. That means that 48 percent of the time, it's not. It's not met because of a number of reasons, and one of the main reasons is recruitment and retention, particularly in rural communities.

It's no surprise that retention and recruitment are issues for the Ambulance Service. These are the kinds of challenges that the ambulance paramedics are calling on the government to recognize. The bill that we've been presented with does nothing to address those issues.

We're asking the government to simply step back and reconsider this bill, reconsider this action. You know, the government had months upon months where it could have appointed independent arbitration, and that arbitration could have examined exactly what the challenges are. Then we would have perhaps had an agreement that both sides could have respected. Surely no one would have gotten everything they'd wanted, but in a perfect world no one ever does.

This bill wouldn't have been necessary, and it's not too late for this bill not to be necessary. It's not too late. We have another couple of weeks of sitting time. Many speakers here have asked what the rush is.

There was a memo sent from the International Olympic Committee and the VANOC organizers of the Olympics to Lee Doney, CEO of the Ambulance Service, and the other negotiators for the government, demanding that they settle this strike by October 1 in order to ensure services for the Olympics.

Is that the reason we're standing here today on a Friday, an unusual sitting day? Is that the reason the government has taken an absolutely unprecedented step — unprecedented in the history of this nation, let alone this province — of bringing forth back-to-work legislation in the middle of a contract vote?

We on this side are at a loss. We want the government to stand up and explain what that rush is. We've heard

[ Page 2197 ]

two ministers, and now today the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, stand up and very briefly offer some explanations. But none of them have been satisfactory to the ambulance paramedics, to the people of the province. None of them explain this haste and the brutality that this bill represents to the collective bargaining process.

We've been offered the H1N1 pandemic as a reason for this bill coming forth. Well, for many, many months that was predicted and predictable. For many, many months the government dragged its heels, dragged its feet through the election period.

The ambulance paramedics — I know that they were at every all-candidates meeting that I attended. They were demonstrating in front of campaign offices of candidates for office. There was no way the government could not have been aware of the urgency they felt their issues needed and deserved, but even still, the government dragged its feet.

[1040]

The progress that had been made at the bargaining table was dismissed and wiped out come June. And what happened in June? Well, we had a new Health Minister. Apparently the appointment of a new Health Minister meant that all the progress that had been made to that point was wiped out.

Sadly, the government refused to respond, just as throughout this debate we've seen a refusal of the government to respond or to hear or to listen to the voices of British Columbians.

We know the types of messages they're receiving in their constituency offices, because they're copied to us. We know that their own constituents are demanding that they retreat from this Bill 21 and that they go back to the bargaining table in good faith with the ambulance paramedics. This hoist motion offers the government that chance.

This hoist motion offers this government one more chance to send a message to British Columbians that they aren't bullies, that they will respect the people who serve us and that they will respond to the voices of British Columbians who — by far, by a huge majority — obviously support the position of the ambulance paramedics.

I would challenge one of these members on the government side to stand up and read an e-mail from a British Columbian who says: "Right on; good job. We like what you're doing to the ambulance paramedics. They don't deserve what they're asking for, and you guys are right." There's not one, and not one of them will stand up.

Not one of them will stand up and read the e-mails from their constituents pleading with them to retreat from this bill. But we're offering them that chance one more time.

Bill 21 is unprecedented as a negative step and an interference with free collective bargaining.

The members won't stand up and read constituents' letters — the government members, that is — but I'll do it for them. I'd like to read a letter sent to the member for Maple Ridge–Mission from one of his constituents. He says:

"As a citizen of Canada, a resident of British Columbia and one of your constituents, I cannot believe that this government has the arrogance to introduce legislation that takes away the rights of the paramedics.

"My brother-in-law and friends of mine have spent many months away from their families serving with the Canadian Forces commitment to the ISAF in Afghanistan, the purpose of which is to oust the Taliban and bring to the people of Afghanistan the values that we as a nation believe, values that our fellow countrymen and women have and continue to fight and die for.

"It is those rights, as guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that make this country what it is. To dictate the terms of a collective agreement and to take away the right to collective bargaining is a slap in the face to the paramedics. They put their faith in the process. They softened their position while their employer made the same offer over and over again. Their employer then goes to government, saying that there is no hope of a negotiated settlement and that the government must intervene for the safety of the public.

"While on strike, we — the paramedics of the B.C. Ambulance Service — have been subject to an essential service order that supersedes our collective agreement by ordering us to work overtime on our days off and provide ambulance coverage to events like Olympic trials, even though the public is not allowed on the site. While the ambulances are on site covering a couple of hundred athletes for the trials, the people in your own riding quite often have only one ambulance, sitting at Highway 11 and Clayburn Road, to cover the communities of Abbotsford and Mission.

"The reason I know this is that I work as a full-time paramedic based in Maple Ridge and have spent a number of hours sitting at that exact spot, which means the citizens of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows are left with one ambulance for their communities that is not sitting at the Pitt River Bridge covering the communities of Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody and Coquitlam.

"Mr. Doney, executive director of the Ambulance Service, says that he is only concerned with public safety. One ambulance for how many people? Doesn't sound very concerned to me. This is only one example. Things like this are happening every hour of every day all over this province.

[1045]

"In the last nine years covered by the 12th collective agreement and the following memorandum of understanding, we the paramedics have taken six years of zero percent raises while the rest of the world moved ahead, including you politicians — some to the tune of 50 percent.

"Our total raises in the same time were about 9 percent, or 1 percent per year. Our employer says we are unrealistic, since a large number of us have received up to 28 percent.

"We are all paid by salary, which is calculated on a 70-hour biweekly pay period of 35 weeks. The problem is that I and the large majority of my co-workers work 84 hours biweekly, or 42 hours per week. Yet prior to 2000 we were only paid the same salary as those that worked 35 hours."

I don't know who would accept that. We're offering the government….

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, I'm going to ask you to contain all your remarks to the hoist motion, the amendment that's on the floor. I do not see the reasoning

[ Page 2198 ]

behind this letter and how it pertains. So if you'd please direct your remarks. Thank you.

D. Routley: Absolutely, absolutely. This letter, I think, details the reasons that this government needs to respect and support this hoist motion.

We cannot expect people to work in the conditions that these people have, except if we're willing to take advantage of their commitment to each other one of us. It is, I think, unfortunate that a person like this, who's worked all these years and who faces those circumstances, can see a bill like Bill 21 rammed through this Legislature without considering these conditions. These conditions are the reasons that this government should support this hoist amendment and step back.

This person asks the member for Maple Ridge–Mission to respect the views of British Columbians and retreat from passing Bill 21. He appeals: "You, as a member of the governing party, have…."

Deputy Speaker: Member, please direct your comments to the amendment. Your comments.

D. Routley: Absolutely.

"You, as a member of the governing party, have the ability…."

Deputy Speaker: Member, please take your seat. I've asked you to please direct your comments to the amendment motion on the floor. Thank you.

D. Routley: This is the reason that the government should respect the hoist amendment and retreat from Bill 21. This person says: "You, as a member of the governing party…."

Deputy Speaker: Member.

D. Routley: Yes?

Deputy Speaker: Take your seat, please.

On the motion paper, moved by the member for Port Coquitlam, is: "I move that the motion for second reading of the 'Ambulance Services Collective Agreement Act' (Bill 21) be amended by deleting the word 'now' and substituting the words 'six months hence.'"

I'd ask you to make your comments towards this motion.

D. Routley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm attempting to do that. I'm attempting to give reason that the government should respect this hoist amendment and move away from passing Bill 21. Take that period of time to reflect on the words of people like this person. These are the very reasons and motives that should drive the government, if it is representing the views of the constituents of British Columbia and of the ambulance paramedics.

This ambulance paramedic writes to the member for Maple Ridge–Mission, appealing to him for exactly that reason, by saying: "You, as a member…."

Deputy Speaker: Member, we're talking directly to the amendment. I would like you to use your words to talk to the amendment. Thank you.

D. Routley: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to the amendment. The amendment asks the government to retreat from passing Bill 21. The amendment asks the government to take sober second thought.

Now, the government hasn't offered any reasoning for the haste that they've offered to this House. I am offering reason that they should step back and take sober second thought of what their actions are.

[1050]

This letter appeals to the member for Maple Ridge–Mission. It appeals to the sense of that member that he should hear his constituents.

"You as a member of the governing party have the ability to rescind this bill" — that is directly responsive to the motion — "and tell the B.C. Ambulance Service to get back to the bargaining table and negotiate in good faith a fair contract with CUPE 873.

"If the government chooses not to rescind Bill 21, by nature of our job, we as individuals have become very creative at combatting the challenges that face us. I will not lie down and allow this government to bully me. I will not allow this government to unilaterally take away the rights of my fellow workers without a fight.

"I will seek out every legal option to remedy this situation. If the government thinks we will just go peacefully, they are sorely mistaken. As your constituent, you work for me, not for the Premier, not for the Health Minister. I expect you to vote against Bill 21 when it comes for a vote.

"When you are standing in front of the war memorial on Remembrance Day listening to and possibly giving a speech on how important was the sacrifice our veterans made for freedom, I hope you can say that you are not hypocritical because you truly believe in what they fought for and some died for, and that you voted against a bill that would have seen this government sacrifice the democracy that they served and continue to serve for."

How much closer to the core value of what this place represents could we come than that letter? And how much further could we drift from that purpose than this bill? This government…. These members refuse to stand up. These members refuse to read into the record the letters of their own constituents, asking them to do exactly what this hoist amendment is asking, to step back from taking an action that would reduce their democratic rights. And it is an unprecedented action in the history of this nation for any government to bring back-to-work legislation during the vote on a free collective agreement, but this government seems ready to take many steps that are unprecedented.

The hoist motion, if it's supported by government members, particularly the government members like the one I just read from, who won by very narrow margins

[ Page 2199 ]

and must be nervous about the political implications of not supporting this amendment…. I mean, there must be enough of them who, in their heart of hearts, must know that this is wrong.

I know the pressure of being a member of a party and supporting the position of the caucus. That's an important role in parliamentary democracy. But our first obligation is to our constituents and to the people of the province and public interest of the province. If any member of any party is asked to vote for a step that transgresses their own very basic principles — the values that they stand on when they talk to their children, the values that they hope their children will emulate, will absorb from them — they surely cannot support this bill.

I know there's a member in the House whose own son is a paramedic. How can he support this bill? How can he vote against this hoist motion?

It's difficult in a world that demands so many compromises. We all in our lives face cross-pressures. There are seldom simple rights and wrongs. There are always issues and pressures to balance in decision-making, particularly at this level. But this is one of those circumstances, those rare moments, when we're asked to choose between two clear choices: one right, one wrong.

[1055]

It is wrong for any parliament to pass a bill that would reduce the freedoms of its citizens.

Any time back-to-work legislation has been introduced in the past, it has been after protracted negotiations that have failed. It has been after both sides have sought mediation, and usually it involved the appointment of arbitration. This bill is singular. This bill is unprecedented. This bill says that even though we've been negotiating….

Despite the fact that government dragged its feet for the last five months, despite the government having swept off the bargaining table what had been agreed upon up to June…. During the election period there was a brief moment of opportunity, and the government had to present some sort of softening in order to appeal to the people of British Columbia. Even after all that process was underway and even once a vote was underway, a mail-in vote, and even after most of the ballots had been cast, this government brought forth Bill 21.

We have asked. We have begged the government members to recognize that they have an opportunity to step back. They have an opportunity to recognize the folly of this act. This is why we need an amendment to Bill 21 that would give the opportunity for the government — the time, the space, the opportunity — for them to step back and hear once again these many voices. This is why it's so important that the government consider this hoist amendment. This is why….

This letter that I'd like to read from was addressed to myself and the member for Nanaimo. If this isn't reason for the government to consider a sober second thought, I don't know what is. This writer, Dave Robertson, a resident of Nanaimo, says:

"Every day paramedics are invited to people's worst nightmares, sorting out uncontrolled mayhem — not just transporting patients but rendering life-saving medical treatment that was at one time only provided by emergency physicians. This stabilizing treatment is either carried out before transport or during transport to the hospital, depending on the situation.

"In many cases it was the difference between life and death. Imagine going home after your day's work and sitting down with your family for dinner from your day's duties. Etched into your brain is a young male or female's body hanging lifeless from a rope. The paramedic just tucks this away so that family life can be somewhat normal."

We're not just dealing with the simplicity of common, everyday labour-management negotiation. This hoist amendment is necessary for us to pay respect to that. That testimony is…. The people we're talking about are extraordinary servants to British Columbia. Not only extraordinary because of the challenges like that that they face but also the conditions of employment that they've endured — no benefits, working part-time for years and years before being able to apply for full-time work, no support for training, no raises.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

There's little more powerful reason for the members in the government to support a hoist motion that would give them this moment to reconsider and this opportunity to renegotiate than that letter.

[1100]

You know, it's been said that rural paramedics are so much more beset with challenges. They have to travel great distances to their workplace. They sit on call at essentially no pay. They spend years and years serving at very low wages. But there's another element. They know the people they serve.

In my own case, my daughter Madeline once had the bright idea that she would tie her great big brown Lab to her toboggan, and he could pull her around in the snow. Well, he wasn't having much of that, so she thought she'd offer him an incentive by standing in front of the toboggan and throwing a stick. She didn't really think that she would not have enough time to get in the toboggan again. He went after the stick, and she was run down by the toboggan, landed on her back and was in severe pain. We called the paramedics, and we were terrified that she had broken her hip or her back. She said at that time that she couldn't move her feet.

The paramedic who showed up was her soccer coach. Luckily, Madeline wasn't in a terrible circumstance, life or death. Luckily, she wasn't in a horrific car accident, but so many times rural ambulance paramedics do face that reality. They know the person that they're serving, and we know them. What more valuable service is there? This is a service that has linked our province. My grandfather, a CPR worker, used to bring the ambulance

[ Page 2200 ]

home from the railroad. If there was an accident, he'd have to respond. But it also served the community.

There was a disparity of ambulance service throughout the province. The Ambulance Service linked and unified this province. These are the reasons that this government, those members, should stand up and support this hoist motion. These are the reasons that people hold in such high respect those people who serve us as ambulance paramedics.

This is a core value. This is a basic principle upon which this very place and this function that we serve, called parliamentary democracy, is founded on. This is the foundation, and we should respect it by supporting the hoist amendment.

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to stand and speak to the hoist amendment that was moved by the member for Port Coquitlam. I'm also pleased, just as an observation here, that we have paramedics who have joined us in the gallery today. Tanya Bellagente and Shane Edwards, who are both paramedics, are here to watch the debate today. I'm sure they're pleased to hear the comments of the members of the opposition, and I'm sure they would be very happy to hear some members of the government's side stand up and explain why this is a good idea.

Regarding the hoist amendment moved by the member for Port Coquitlam, the first thing that I'd like to do, maybe, is just put that in a bit of context. This is a hoist amendment to Bill 21. Bill 21, of course, is the imposition of a collective agreement on the ambulance paramedics in British Columbia. It's a decision to impose a collective agreement that would be in place up to and including the post-Olympics period, at which time, next spring, the paramedics would essentially be back in bargaining, and we would be largely back where we stand today.

What the hoist motion does is it will set this piece of legislation aside for a period of six months. What that does is it sets it aside for six months, and it allows for further discussion and consultation to occur over that period of time — or for, as some people have said, sober second thought on the part of the B.C. Liberals and the minister and the Premier as to whether this is, in fact, a good idea.

[1105]

The debate here on this particular amendment really is around whether this hoist motion is warranted or not. So why is it necessary? Why is it necessary for us to move forward with this action, to put this motion to set aside this piece of legislation for at least six months?

Well, ultimately, the objective of this has to be for the government and, through the government, its agents to in fact reach a fair settlement with the ambulance paramedics in British Columbia — a settlement that respects the ambulance paramedics, that respects the free collective bargaining process and that comes to a resolution where people in the Ambulance Service — paramedics and management and others — can focus their attention on the critical and crucial task they have in delivering those emergency health services to millions of people across this province every day.

The problem, of course, that has led to us being in the place where we needed to move this hoist was, first and foremost, the draconian decision of this government to bring in Bill 21 — the draconian decision of this government to turn its back on the collective bargaining process and decide to ram this through when it clearly isn't warranted for any reason that is fair.

What that does is demonstrate a lack of respect for paramedics. It demonstrates an inability on the part of government to provide leadership that would lead to fair negotiations, including the notion and what we know in the case of the paramedics — as with many emergency services and critical services — that paramedics are an essential service. They have limited capacity. They cannot withdraw services, and everyone appreciates why that is important.

They have essential services, so essentially a full complement of paramedics is working every day. They're delivering the health services. They're protecting us and protecting our families and loved ones every day. They have a limited capacity to affect the bargaining process through what would be the more traditional tools available to unions — one of which is, of course, to withdraw their services.

I know the paramedics all understand why essential services are there, and their commitment to the service they provide…. They know that they need to be there every day. It's critical for people in crisis who require their services.

But part of the problem is that when you do that, you need to provide tools to be able to find resolution. Binding arbitration is one of those tools, and it's one of those tools that the paramedics have asked for. It's one of the tools that the government has denied them, and it's one of the few tools.

That being the case, part of the reason to move this hoist amendment is to ask the government to take this period of time. Let's be clear here. If the government walked away from this legislation today and went back to Mr. Doney and the Ambulance Service and said, "We are telling you that it's time to bring a binding arbitration to the table, put an experienced arbitrator into this process and come to a solution that is fair for everybody," I am confident we would have a collective agreement that was dealt with in a fair way by the time we got to Christmas.

That's not what's going to occur. Instead, if Bill 21 goes ahead, if this hoist motion isn't successful today, then what we're going to see is a very bitter process through the next number of months. We're going to see ourselves get

[ Page 2201 ]

to April of next year when this whole exercise will start again, only it will start with a very poisoned atmosphere.

It will start with a bargaining table where there is no trust. It will start with a bargaining table where paramedics come to the table knowing that government has no respect for them and the job that they do.

[1110]

That makes it a very difficult place to ask those people to come to the table to bargain in good faith and have any confidence at all that they are being treated in a fair and respectful manner, even though hundreds of thousands of British Columbians across this province would tell you every day that there are particular professions and professionals who deserve that respect. Paramedics and the job they do are very, very high up that list of people who deserve that respect.

That's why British Columbians across this province are angered about Bill 21. The most clear thing here is that it's a government that is refusing to show that respect to paramedics.

In the middle of what we had hoped would be a negotiation we see a situation where Bill 21 is introduced in the middle of all this. What Bill 21 has done, of course, has just taken all the possibility of a solution off the table. Now the hoist motion potentially gives us the opportunity to step back. It gives the government the opportunity to step back and to find a solution.

As my colleagues have said earlier, if we're facing a situation in the coming period of time leading up to the Olympics…. We'll talk about what has caused Bill 21, a little bit, and part of the reason that government members might say that the hoist motion doesn't make sense. Since it doesn't appear that the government members are prepared to talk to this, I'll explain what I'm sure part of their argument would be for you.

Of course, we know that we have the memo from VANOC that essentially says to the government: "You have to settle this thing. You have to put this in place, because we need to be satisfied, at VANOC and at the IOC, that everything is going to be the way that we want it to be come Olympics."

Now, there has never been any suggestion from anybody that the paramedics are going to do anything but fully cooperate through the Olympics. The fact that VANOC or the government or whoever doesn't have the ability to be sitting down with the Ambulance Service and others to determine, in fact, what kind of strategy should be put in place; the fact that to the best of my knowledge, nobody's talked to the Ambulance Service, nobody's talked to the paramedics about what those services look like — maybe they should have opened those discussions.

If the argument is that the hoist motion, if it is put in place, proceeds through the Olympics, so as a consequence we can't support taking Bill 21 off the table because it might affect the Olympics, my argument would be that there's no foundation for that.

Be absolutely clear. If an independent and binding arbitration process is put in place, there is no reason why this collective agreement cannot be fully resolved through a legitimate process of collective bargaining, binding arbitration, well in advance of the Olympics, and the system will be back in place and operating as it should be. And we won't be back doing this in a few months.

There are other reasons why this labour relations failure that the government is about to impose on British Columbia needs a second look. The hoist motion offers us that second look.

The Health Minister, unfortunately, has proven himself, well, not just to be a dismal failure in his ministry. He's taken that sort of rhetorical flair that he has, that sort of in-your-face approach that was pretty good for building highways, and is now trying to make that work when it comes to the health care people. He's trying to make that work when it comes to how he treats emergency health care workers like paramedics.

What we know is that that process is a failure. Increasingly, British Columbians are realizing that the current Minister of Health brings nothing to the table as a Health Minister that does anything for British Columbians — nothing to the table that supports British Columbians. I'm sure that if they had a wish for Christmas, it's that the Premier would wake up and find a Health Minister who could do the job.

Let's look back at how this works in negotiations. Part of the success of labour relations…. Maybe if the government were to say, "We're going to accept the hoist amendment and look at this one more time," they could go back and revisit the conduct of their own past Minister of Finance, Carole Taylor.

[1115]

Now, Carole Taylor admittedly had a pot full of money to spend when she settled public sector negotiations, and that money, obviously, was an important component of that. But I'll tell you — and I've known Carole Taylor for a few years — that the other thing that Carole Taylor would have brought to that table was respect for those unions, their members and the jobs that they did, because that is her nature. That is her nature.

That doesn't mean that she wouldn't have been tough. It doesn't mean that she wouldn't have looked at the government's interests, but she would have brought that respect to the table. I may quibble and argue with her about some of that settlement, but I would not have questioned the integrity that she would have brought to that in terms of her respect for people at that table.

That respect…. As we know, Ms. Taylor couldn't stomach more than a single term in that cabinet before she walked away, and there are many of us who would be pretty sure to know it's because that respect that she showed was non-existent with the vast majority of her cabinet colleagues. She couldn't stomach that, so she walked away.

[ Page 2202 ]

The problem we have now is that we have a government that doesn't have anybody who brings that quality to the table, who brings that maturity to the table. We have a bunch of bullies. That's what we have today. They need to get over this. They need to think this through.

The reality is that this hoist amendment gives them a chance to do that. It gives them a chance, whether it is the Health Minister or the Labour Minister or whoever, to catch a breath, to reinvent this government a little bit and to begin to settle this. This is an important thing. This is a very important thing because what the hoist amendment will achieve is the time for some more discussion.

It will allow all the parties who need to be there some time to come to the table and talk. It will take a level of tension right now, a tension that's in the streets with the paramedics who are angry at how they've been disrespected, and rightfully so — a public who doesn't see the government working in its best interest to deal with a critical and important group of workers….

We have an opportunity here to rebuild some relationships, and that's critical. It's very critical right now, and this hoist amendment will allow that, the opportunity to build some relationships. Let's be clear. This is not just about paramedics today. This government is going to enter into a broad set of negotiations with the vast majority of the public sector in the coming few months.

In the coming few months all the negotiations with most of the major public sector unions are going to be on the table. Does anybody think for one minute…? If the government proceeds with Bill 21, as they have today and puts the boots to the paramedics, forces this contract down their throats and then expects those other unions to be able to come to that table with any confidence that they are facing anything but the same thing, you're dreaming. You're dreaming.

We know those will be tough negotiations. We know that there aren't the dollars on the table that Carole Taylor had to be thrown around — hundreds of millions or billions, or whatever it was, for bonuses. We know that it will be a difficult discussion. But it will be made no easier at all if the government proceeds with Bill 21 and doesn't take the opportunity afforded to them by the opposition, by the member for Port Coquitlam, to in fact step back and find a solution that is fair and is based on fair collective bargaining processes.

Otherwise, what we will see — and there is no doubt about it — is an extremely challenging time, and not just challenging for a government that doesn't have the capacity or the ability or the competence, quite frankly, to deal with those relationships with workers, but it will reflect across the province. We will see it in difficult situations around the province — difficult situations that will have been caused by this government's intransigence and by this government's inability to deal with people in British Columbia in a fair way, by this government's inability to show respect for people who deserve their respect.

We're giving the government an opportunity to get out of that situation, that box they have put themselves in. That opportunity is this hoist amendment. That opportunity is the chance to step back and have another look at this, the chance to step back and do this right.

[1120]

Now, we all know on this side that this government's not very good at taking advice, certainly not from British Columbians, but we can be hopeful that that will be the case.

What is the situation that we face, then? Well, let me just make a couple points about how again we got into this situation.

First and foremost, when it comes to labour relations in British Columbia, when it comes to the relationship between the government and the public sector — and today that's encapsulated in the relationship between the government and CUPE 873 and the ambulance paramedics — somebody should tell the Premier, the Health Minister and the Minister of Labour that while VANOC has an important job to do to deliver the Olympics, VANOC doesn't get to call the shots on labour relations in British Columbia.

VANOC may have a legitimate right to be concerned that ambulance services are provided in a full and complete way for the Olympics, but there has not been one indication, not one sliver of evidence or one reason to believe that that would not occur. There is no reason at all for anybody to believe that we wouldn't have full and complete ambulance services for the Olympics.

It isn't VANOC's job to make those decisions for government. It's cabinet's job, and cabinet shouldn't be the toady to VANOC in this situation.

There are no diminished services. We know, and I am sure, that if the government said today, "We've had the change of heart. We're accepting the hoist amendment, and we're asking the union to come back and sit down. We're bringing in a third party who's respected by both sides, and we want to find a settlement. We're going to go back to those items…."

The member for Vancouver-Kingsway, in his debate yesterday, talked about the previous Health Minister and about the work the previous Health Minister had done to try to start to fix some of the problems with the Ambulance Service.

What we know is that many of the issues that the paramedics are facing today, and many of the issues and concerns they have…. Well, some of them are certainly things like the $2-a-day pager fee that they're being paid for sitting on a pager — those are critical issues that need to be resolved — but the paramedics have, as much as anything, talked about what it will take to enhance the service.

They have talked about how to improve the service. They've talked about how they make sure that the facilities,

[ Page 2203 ]

the equipment and technologies, the staffing levels, the resources are sufficient and adequate to deliver the job that they need to do, and how it is that the Ambulance Service can once again be the world-class ambulance service that we've all been so proud of.

That's been a big part of what the union has brought to the table. Wouldn't it be good if the government said: "We're accepting the hoist amendment, and we're going to sit down, and we're going to talk about how we move forward together"?

That means dealing with the strict labour relations matters, and it means having a discussion about the integrity of the Ambulance Service and those critical questions.

What we know is that the previous Health Minister had some appreciation of that. As the member for Vancouver-Kingsway said yesterday in his comments, the previous Health Minister was prepared and had, in fact, begun to develop some serious conversation and dialogue and some solutions that, potentially, led to some of that.

What we know is that what Bill 21 has done is ripped those all up. This government hasn't even had the integrity to keep on the table the matters that the previous Health Minister was prepared to engage the paramedics in to try to find solutions to problems that weren't just the paramedics' problems. They're British Columbia's problems, because they affect the quality of our ambulance service.

But those fell off the table. Not only did Bill 21 not move us forward; it moved us backwards. It moved us backwards in terms of the discussion that was going on. It took the hammer and just brings the hammer down.

There's no value in that. There is no value for anybody. Mostly, there is no value in that — there is nothing good about that — for British Columbians across this province.

[1125]

You will hear from my colleagues, and you've heard from them previously, and you will hear from them again today, tomorrow and for days to come. You will hear from my colleagues, hon. Speaker, about how this affects communities around this province.

I come from Vancouver. We have a number of other unique challenges for our ambulance paramedics in Vancouver that are very complex, but we do have paramedics there. In many communities it's a question of whether the paramedics are even there because the resources have not been applied to have the paramedics on the ground 24-7 when they're needed. As we all know, you don't

schedule your emergency as to when paramedics are available. They've got to be available 24-7, and the Ambulance Service does not have the capacity to do that, though the paramedics would be happy to do that job.

The hoist motion is about bringing a little good faith to the table. It is about an opportunity for sober second thought by the government. It is about trying to have everybody bring the temperature down a little bit in the room on this and begin to talk again. But if this motion fails, if the government doesn't come to its senses and see the logic of passing the hoist amendment and getting on with the opportunity to settle people down, to have a real discussion, to bring in some expertise like binding arbitration to the table…. If they don't see fit to do that, we will end up in a situation here very, very shortly when the government ultimately does force this legislation through.

If they turn their backs on the hoist amendment and they force Bill 21 through, we will be into a labour relations climate in this province that is nothing but bad news for everybody from workers to citizens to the British Columbia economy, because there will be no good faith and no trust at the table.

The only people who will have 100 percent of responsibility for that poisoned atmosphere will be the cabinet and members of that B.C. Liberal caucus. They will have 100 percent of the responsibility for poisoning labour relations in this province, and they will do that by passing Bill 21, if they don't come to their senses. The member for Port Coquitlam has offered them the opportunity to do that, to come to their senses by saying that we will adopt the hoist amendment and that we will sit back and find a solution that is fair and balanced.

We have just a few days here. Who knows how long this will last? We have a few days here to try to bring the government around.

We're hearing from more people every day and, hon. Speaker, you've heard from my colleagues and members of the official opposition, who have talked about and read letters into the record from people that they have heard from — from paramedics who are so extremely disappointed in this government's conduct, from citizens and British Columbians who have no direct link to the paramedics but who intrinsically know the value that they bring to the table and who trust the paramedics and want the paramedics to be treated fairly and believe that Bill 21 does not treat them fairly.

You've heard those letters read — letter after letter from members of the official opposition. Every one of those letters is an endorsement of the hoist amendment. Whether it says it or it doesn't, it is an endorsement of the hoist amendment.

Every one of those letters, when you read through what they say, when you get to the message that underlies every one of those letters says: "As a British Columbian, as a paramedic, as somebody who is concerned about my province, I am terribly, terribly disappointed in where this is all going and where it's leading. I am terribly, terribly concerned about what this means for a critical service, the Ambulance Service, and what it means for the social contract and the social fabric of our province as we rip them up one more time."

That's what those letters are saying, once you get past the stories and all of that. That's the message that lies under those letters.

[1130]

[ Page 2204 ]

I would hope that the government would get the message, because the reality is this. The government may be here. They may have this view that they know what is right, that they don't have to listen to anybody, that the Premier calls every shot, and everybody else just says: "Yes, how quickly can I abide the Premier's interests"?

But the reality is this. Every one of those members on the government side, like every member on the opposition side, was sent here to represent the people of British Columbia. The people of British Columbia know that Bill 21 is not good enough. The people of British Columbia know that Bill 21 does not address this issue in a fair manner. It does not address it in a competent manner. It does not address the issue of the relationship of the Ambulance Service with the paramedics in a way that any reasonable or thoughtful person could endorse.

They are asking. They sent us here, and we all stand up every day and talk about who we represent and how we speak for the people in our constituencies. Well, think about what the people in your constituencies really want you to do.

The people in our constituencies want us to resolve this in a way that is fair for paramedics, in a way that is fair for British Columbians, in a way that moves the Ambulance Service forward and in a way that ensures that as this becomes the first step in what's going to be a complex public sector labour relations period, it's done right and done in a way that sets a foundation for fair and honourable settlements for all the unions that are coming up and for every British Columbian.

We can only do that if the government comes to its senses, realizes the opportunity that's been put in front of them with the hoist amendment and makes the decision today that they will back away, adopt the hoist amendment, come back to the table and bring to the table an independent third party who's respected by all sides, get a fair solution for the ambulance paramedics and move on to build that ambulance service once again into a world-class service that we can all be proud of.

If the government would do that, it would truly have accomplished something that in the long term is probably a bigger deal than the Olympics coming in February, in terms of what's good for British Columbians.

Hon. Speaker, I'm pleased to have had the opportunity to speak to this issue and to speak to Bill 21 or, more appropriately, to the hoist amendment for Bill 21. I do look forward to hearing from my colleagues. I must say I know there are paramedics visiting us and there are many who are watching us. I would like the government members to stand and explain themselves.

Deputy Speaker: I would like to remind members that they should not name people in the gallery except by way of introduction.

D. Black: I am also pleased to have the opportunity to speak today in the Legislature on the hoist amendment that my colleague from Port Coquitlam has put before the House on Bill 21. I think this amendment is very key to ensuring that we have peaceful and productive labour relations in this province in the months and years ahead.

It seems incredible to me…. In the debate on Bill 21 earlier this week, I read into the record a letter I received last August from a constituent who was concerned about this issue. As you know and as people in British Columbia know, this labour dispute has been going on for many months and had been going on for many months before we even began to sit here in the Legislature on August 25.

That constituent laid out a case predicting that the government of British Columbia would bring in back-to-work legislation without doing the necessary kinds of negotiations and without using the tools available to them to appoint an arbitrator to ensure there would be a fair settlement for paramedics.

[1135]

When I received that letter from my constituent way back last summer, I thought: "Wow, they really sort of have a negative view of the way this government would operate. Hopefully, it won't come to back-to-work legislation." In fact, my constituent was right. The government did not bargain in good faith with these employees and brought in back-to-work legislation with Bill 21.

I'm very pleased that my colleague from Port Coquitlam has introduced a hoist motion that would give the government an opportunity to take a sober second look at what they're proposing in their back-to-work legislation and to bargain seriously and productively with the paramedics, who have put forward a number of solutions to this labour dispute.

During the whole time that they've been on strike, they've been providing the very services that British Columbians depend upon. Last summer one of my sons…. I have three sons. One of my sons and his wife, his partner, have three young children under the age of two. They had twins, so they have three babies under the age of two.

Last summer they were with their daughters at Stanley Park, and one of the children — the older one, the two-year-old — fell. She hit her head quite badly, and she started to vomit and was quite sick. Of course, my son and my daughter-in-law were terribly concerned, and they phoned right away for an ambulance.

I must say that the ambulance attendants who took care of my granddaughter…. It was amazing. Of course, my son and daughter-in-law also got in touch with me, and my husband and I rushed off to Children's Hospital, to the emergency department there. We were there just shortly after the ambulance had arrived with our granddaughter and with the infant twins, who were six months old. We were there to, hopefully, relieve some of the pressure on the parents.

[ Page 2205 ]

I watched the paramedics as they dealt with my granddaughter, who was terrified. As I said, she was only two years old and very frightened. They had her on a board, and they'd immobilized her. They didn't want her to move in case she further damaged herself. The care and attention that the paramedics gave to my granddaughter while waiting for the medical doctor to be freed up to deal with her was outstanding — patient, sympathetic and understood the needs of an infant and her family.

I know that many of us in this place have had situations where we've had to call on paramedics and the ambulance service and understand how important it is to each and every one of us in British Columbia to have a good service and continue to have the kind of dedication that paramedics have shown to British Columbians over many, many years.

This bill, Bill 21 — if it's not hoisted, if we don't have the opportunity to pass the hoist motion that the member for Port Coquitlam has put forward — will indicate to British Columbians that this government really is not interested in working productively through the challenges that we all know we're facing in public services in British Columbia. If we do not pass this hoist motion, we will undermine the negotiations that are coming up in a very few months, as my colleague for Vancouver-Hastings just indicated.

Going back into negotiations in just a few months, into a poisoned environment where people have been forced back to work without being given the kind of respect, attention and serious thought to their working conditions, would really turn a page in British Columbia that will be hard to turn back again to a time where people can negotiate in good faith.

If this hoist amendment is not passed, it will show to public servants everywhere in British Columbia that this government does not bargain in good faith, does not pay attention to the needs of the services that British Columbians depend upon — certainly, in the health care sector — and will make it very, very difficult and more difficult than it needs to be in the months ahead when new contracts come up for renewal.

Paramedics respond to every region of this province. A response can take them out to sea. They can be landing on the deck of a cruise ship. They can go deep into one of our forests or right into my neighbourhood or your neighbourhood.

Because of the continued lack of funding, the B.C. Ambulance Service has not kept pace with the growth and the need for pre-hospital care for the people of British Columbia. There is an increasing shortage of ambulances, paramedics and related infrastructure in British Columbia. These shortages translate into delays in emergency response, and the lives of our fellow British Columbians are sometimes put at risk.

[1140]

The current issues that the government is faced with and the reason we feel that we should pass this hoist motion…. These issues that threaten the state of B.C. Ambulance Service are the shortage of paramedics in our communities; the working conditions — which have been articulated by many of us on this side of the House in the last few days — are not what they should be; and the whole issue of recruitment and retainment of paramedics, which is at a very serious situation in British Columbia.

This amendment would give the government an opportunity to seriously address those issues and, again, bargain with good faith with the paramedics.

The B.C. Ambulance Service currently employs about 3,400 paramedics, and they provide emergency pre-hospital care to the 3.5 million British Columbians and visitors who come here every year. Paramedics provide care in the huge, diverse geographical terrain that makes up our province. Our population is growing steadily every year, with the percentage of older people in our population increasing even more rapidly. This growth is reflected in increases in ambulance call volumes and emergency room visits annually in every area of our province.

Over the 2000-2001 fiscal year the B.C. Ambulance Service responded to 430,144 ambulance calls. Five years later, in the 2005-2006 fiscal period, B.C. Ambulance Service responded to 579,519 ambulance calls. Those numbers continue to climb. These are some of the statistics that the government needs to look at by passing this hoist motion and ensuring that we have the kind of ambulance service in British Columbia that at one time we were very proud of.

At one time our ambulance service in British Columbia was a model for the world. Other countries and jurisdictions came to British Columbia to look at how we delivered ambulance care in B.C. and modelled their services on what we were doing in British Columbia. Sadly, that's not the case now. Many jurisdictions have moved ahead in the service that they are able to prov