Hansard — House Blues — Friday, November 6, 2009 a.m.

This is a DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY of debate in one sitting of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. This transcript is subject to corrections, and will be replaced by the final, official Hansard report. Use of this transcript, other than in the legislative precinct, is not protected by parliamentary privilege, and public attribution of any of the debate as transcribed here could entail legal liability.

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

HOUSE BLUES

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2009

Morning Sitting

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.

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 Very specific offers made at the bargaining table have been withdrawn.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.

(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 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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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?

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 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.

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.

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.

[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."]

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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?

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 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.

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 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."

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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…."

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.'"

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 provide, in the equipment that their paramedics are provided with to serve the people of their jurisdictions. Not so in British Columbia.

In urban and metro areas there are not enough ambulances available to handle the daily volume of calls. Ambulances from nearby communities are frequently required to handle the growing number of call volumes. What that can mean to my community, where we often get roads congested by traffic, sadly, on the way to Royal Columbian Hospital.... It can take you 30 minutes to drive in what one time would have taken you five to ten minutes to drive because of traffic congestion along Front Street and along Columbia.

We have ambulances leaving different communities — from the Tri-Cities, from New Westminster, perhaps — to service a call in Vancouver, leaving an area in the suburbs short of an ambulance, and all the time fighting traffic, creating a situation where there can be danger of further accidents requiring ambulance care.

With our ambulances travelling great distances, this increases the response times, and you know that in rural and remote areas there are not enough paramedics to staff the ambulances that are there. This translates into delayed response times to emergency calls. B.C. Ambulance's target response time for high-acuity calls is less than nine minutes, but sadly, this target is achieved less than 10 percent in remote-designated stations.

This is another reason that the government should vote with the opposition and support the member for Port Coquitlam's amendment to hoist Bill 21, go back to the bargaining table, appoint an independent arbitrator, ensure that bargaining in our province is done in a way that shows respect to the paramedics who work so hard for us in British Columbia to provide a service — a necessary and essential service — that we all depend on.

In fact, in the seven months since ambulance workers have been on strike, they've continued to provide that service through essential services legislation. They have not done anything that would put British Columbians in any further jeopardy than the jeopardy that this government has already put British Columbians in by not funding our Ambulance Service and ensuring that the paramedics get the training, salary and working conditions that they so rightly deserve.

Over the past ten years there's been a sharp increase in calls for help without a corresponding increase in the number of paramedics or ambulances. In many areas of the province the call volume has increased by over 50 percent. This increase in call volumes is leading to increased paramedic burnout as well as recruitment and retention problems.

Paramedics are working out of ambulance stations that in many cases are literally crumbling beneath their feet. In many communities paramedics are placed in motel rooms, bus garages or trailers. Passing this hoist motion would give the government the opportunity to seriously address these issues instead of using the heavy hammer of Bill 21 to force an end to this labour dispute.

There are a number of ambulance stations in the Lower Mainland that have expired leases or leases that are due to expire or that simply no longer meet the needs of the Ambulance Service. One of the most obvious examples is the Port Moody ambulance station. Station 259 in Port Moody is located in the constituency of the Minister of Small Business, Technology and Economic Development, the MLA for Port Moody–Coquitlam.

After being evicted from their previous station, ambulance crews in Port Moody have spent over two years in a temporary trailer located in the parking lot of a fire hall. The lease is now expired on the land the trailer occupies, and there's no plan for an alternate facility for the ambulance station in Port Moody.

Yet we've yet to hear from the member for Port Moody–Coquitlam. We've yet to hear him speak on the issue of paramedics, on the issue of the situation in his own community, so I would invite him to get up and tell the people in his community how he feels this back-to-work legislation will improve the situation in Port Moody for ambulance services.

It's time that this government takes the situation seriously and provides Port Moody and all other communities with the appropriate and permanent kinds of stations that citizens of British Columbia deserve. Again, this amendment, this hoist motion, would give the government that kind of time to think about what is needed, to prepare and plan and to work with the paramedics to come up with a reasonable solution to these and so many other problems that are facing paramedics.

In Kamloops the ambulance dispatch centre has also been located in a temporary facility for two years now. The building's sewer system is so faulty that a warning system had to be installed by the building owner. Can you imagine? It's ridiculous.

Are these the kinds of working conditions that paramedics in our communities deserve? I don't think so. I think it's appalling. Clearly, the answer to that is no.

In the Lower Mainland the average response time to emergency calls is between 13 and 15 minutes, but as I said earlier, the benchmark set by the B.C. Ambulance Service strategic plan is a nine-minute response time for emergency calls.

There are a lot of factors that contribute to the lengthy response times within the metropolitan Vancouver area. As I talked about earlier, the dramatic increase in call volumes over the last few years without a reciprocal increase in ambulance resources means that each ambulance is responding to more and more calls each day.

With many specialized medical services being centralized, there is a need to transfer more patients between hospitals for specific kinds of care and treatment. There are also a number of patients who require ambulance transport back to their residences — patients from care facilities or patients who are bedridden. So the demand for ambulance transfers is actually over 300 transfers per day in the Lower Mainland alone.

The B.C. Ambulance Service transfer fleet currently does approximately 150 of these transfers each day. That means that approximately 150 transfers a day remain to be done by emergency ambulance, which again, when they're taken out of the emergency area of service, contributes to the already too long response times for emergency calls.

While emergency ambulances are doing these transfers, they're not available to respond to the emergency calls, the critical calls, in their own communities. When we combine these factors with the well-publicized waits for beds in the Lower Mainland emergency rooms — we all know that, in our own communities — it's no wonder, when emergency calls are made, that it's getting increasingly difficult to find an ambulance to respond to the call.

For these reasons and for many more, it's time for the government to take what used to be called a second sober look at what they're proposing. We had a Premier in this province who would often say, back many years ago, that he was prepared to take a second sober look at what he had proposed. W.A.C. Bennett would do that frequently, and we all know that he served a very lengthy time as Premier in British Columbia.

I would urge our current Premier to take that second sober look — look at our hoist motion, take the six months, sit down with paramedics in a serious and respectful way and resolve this labour dispute. It can be done. These are people who are dedicated to our province, who have a dedication to the role that they play in our province and who are being treated very shabbily by this government, I'm afraid.

It now takes emergency ambulances longer to reach patients in need, often because the ambulance must traverse many communities, as I said earlier, to respond to a call. To go through the traffic-jammed streets in the Lower Mainland is quite a challenge, and it's one that increases the safety risk, both to paramedics and to people in our communities.

The practice of having ambulances respond great distances with lights and sirens poses an increased risk of accidents and is a safety concern for both paramedics and for the general public.

In addition to being an essential piece of our emergency response, paramedics also dedicate a lot of time to volunteer activities in our communities. I know all of us will make note of the fact that when CPR training is given in different communities in British Columbia, it's often a paramedic who is volunteering their time to give that kind of training.

When we ask the government to treat these workers with the kind of respect we feel they deserve, it would be very appreciated if the government would see that this hoist motion would give them that kind of time to work in a fair and transparent manner and reach out to these people who are doing so much for those of us in British Columbia to save the lives of many people over many years, and take up that bargaining in good faith, appoint an arbitrator — it has been asked for by paramedics themselves — and come to a reasonable conclusion on this labour dispute, not use the heavy hand that they've put forward in Bill 21.

We do ask them to pass our amendment, take time to work with paramedics, ensure that they don't poison the environment of the labour negotiations that are coming up in the new year. Lots and lots of public servants are coming up as their contracts expire, and this Bill 21 would really poison that kind of working environment.

I have just a couple of notes from people. I know that, certainly, I and my colleagues are receiving a large volume of letters and e-mails and phone calls from people who have worked as paramedics and people who live with paramedics, families of people whose family members are working as ambulance paramedics.

I would like to just read this one into the record, because I think that it gives a good view of some of the issues that our paramedics are facing and why they believe that we should pass this hoist motion to give the government more time to resolve this labour dispute. She says:

"When I was just beginning my job as a paramedic, I was called to a stabbing on a local reserve. We were a three-person crew, and we had a third person training with us. At the residence we found a very distraught woman with a knife in her hand. Her hysteria made it hard to understand what she was saying, but we, and the police officer who had already cleared the scene for us, felt, we thought, that she was saying that the man who had stabbed her was trying to stab her sister.

"The officer set out the back door after the suspect, but as soon as the door closed, the suspect came out of a back bedroom, intent on finishing what he had started. He tried to stab our patient. I used the clipboard in my hand to deflect the knife while her colleague used the jump kit and swung it into the suspect. Our unit chief yelled out the back door and got the constable back, who quickly subdued the man."

When we say, and the government has said, that the paramedics aren't on par with other emergency services personnel, she certainly indicates situations where they are. She says:

"Fast forward five years. I was then working in Chilliwack, and we were called by the RCMP for a psychiatric emergency. When we got there, a schizophrenic woman was having a psychotic episode, which had the potential to turn dangerous at any time. Police had been with the woman for some time before we got there, but when I knelt beside to check her pulse, I kneeled on a knife. I quickly threw it over to the police car, and the male constable apologized for missing it before.

"We ended up taking this patient to the hospital. En route she became very aggressive. I got punched in the face before the female constable accompanying us was able to taser her, and together we got four-point restraints on our patient."

She says in her e-mail — which has gone, I must say, not just to me, but it has gone to the government side as well, as have most of the e-mails that we've been receiving:

"These are just two examples of when I've been attacked on the job, and I'm far from alone. To say that my job is not dangerous is insulting to me and the hundreds of my peers that are injured on the job every year. To impose a legislated agreement on us adds insult to that injury."

She, too, is asking this government to support our hoist motion and get back to serious negotiations. She ends her letter with:

"That the government would choose now, when we are remembering the courage and dedication of fallen soldiers that died on foreign soil to protect our right to bargain for a contract, is especially terrible. It feels like they're spitting on my grandmother's grave. Shame on anyone who votes in favour of this assault on democracy."

This legislation is totally unnecessary, and that's why the member for Port Coquitlam has introduced a hoist motion trying to give the government an opportunity to work with paramedics, to negotiate, to bring in an independent arbitrator — not to betray the trust of these paramedic workers.

This hoist motion would give the government the opportunity for what I said earlier was sober second thought and would show some good faith to the paramedics. When I spoke earlier in the week, I talked about respect and respect for the work that these men and women do every day for us. It's very important for the government to show that kind of respect to these workers. They show it every day to their patients, to the people of British Columbia, to the people they work with, and it's only right that this government should show them the same kind of respect.

Accept our motion to hoist Bill 21 and ensure that we don't go down this road of a very heavy-handed approach to labour negotiations in this province.

It's simply wrong. It's not the right thing to do. It won't achieve labour peace. It won't achieve better working conditions. It won't achieve the kind of work environment that paramedics and the people they serve deserve. It will, in fact, go in exactly the opposite direction.

I implore the government to support this motion by my colleague from Port Coquitlam and hoist Bill 21, go back to the bargaining table, work with the paramedics and ensure that they get a fair and just settlement and one that works for all of the people of British Columbia.

R. Austin: I rise in support of this amendment, this decision to bring forward and give the government an opportunity to have a sober second thought — to take away Bill 21, to go back to the bargaining table and figure out, in short order, how we can find solutions to some of these big problems.

I'd like to begin my comments by just talking about one of the major problems that the B.C. Ambulance paramedics have been talking about for a number of years — certainly something that myself and my colleagues have been bringing to this House — and that is the one of rural training and recruitment. If we pass this hoist motion, this is the kind of situation that can be dealt with.

In order to get training to be an emergency medical responder, you need to complete 105 hours of training, at a cost of $1,365. For somebody who wants to come down from northern B.C. and get primary care paramedic, the basic training of a paramedic, it's 1,575 hours and just over $5,000. If somebody wants to do advanced care paramedic, it's almost 3,000 hours and over $10,000.

This is the kind of situation that is untenable for people in my neck of the woods. How do we attract people to go into the service when they have to leave their families, go down to the Lower Mainland and spend this kind of money?

And it's far more than this. In addition to these numbers that I've talked about in terms of tuition, they of course also have to pay for the flights. They have to find accommodation. They need to pay for their food. It's a huge investment.

As a result of that, we don't find enough people in rural areas, places like Skeena, being willing to make this commitment to go down there and get the training necessary to be paramedics.

If we do find people, good people, who are willing to go and do it, what do they get paid? Once they fulfil these commitments, get all this training, get certified, what do they get paid? They start off by earning $2 an hour on a pager, because there isn't enough call activity in smaller communities like Terrace, Kitimat, the Nass Valley, to warrant having enough paramedics permanently in stations. They spend all this time and money getting the training. They then sit at home on a $2-an-hour pager.

If we pass this hoist motion, it gives the government an opportunity to go and address these kinds of issues.

Now, getting back to this issue of training and recruitment. Just imagine how long it takes, at $2 an hour, to pay for all of this investment of people's time and energy and money to go and get this training. It's impossible to do it. Even those who work out of the Terrace ambulance station and are sitting there on $10 an hour, if they don't get call-outs….

It's not like in the Lower Mainland. At least in the Lower Mainland, if you're in Burnaby or Vancouver or Coquitlam, there is a sufficient number of people and enough highways, etc., to have a constant turnover. At least, hopefully, when people are working on these shifts, they will actually get a call-out and go above the $10 an hour and get paid the normal wage for a paramedic.

In my neck of the woods they're lucky if they are making more than $10 an hour. As a result, we have people in rural communities having to put in or stay with a pager for day after day in order to even make any kind of income.

That is a major issue, and one that needs to be taken care of. By supporting this hoist motion, we're saying to the government: step back; take your time. It doesn't have to be six months.

I listened to the Minister of Energy and Mines making his comments this morning. I want to congratulate him for having the decency to stand up and speak on behalf of his party to give some of their reasons as to why Bill 21 is so important. So I appreciate his comments.

I appreciate, also, that he comes from a part of B.C. that has the similar kind of problems that we do in northwest B.C.: recruitment and retention; the inability to find people who will take this on; the fact that when the B.C. Ambulance Service is in crisis, it really hurts rural areas far more than it hurts urban areas, just by the nature of the service.

I do appreciate him getting up and making those comments, but you know what? If we don't pass this hoist motion and this bill gets passed, that isn't going to solve this problem. In fact, it's going to make this problem considerably worse, and I'll tell you why.

The Minister of Energy and Mines quite rightly pointed out that some of the issues this morning have been going on for years. They've been building up over a number of years. In fact, during my first four years in the House, we brought many issues to the table.

I'm sitting here looking at a colleague from the rural caucus here in the official opposition. We had so many discussions with the former MLA from Cariboo who brought all of these issues into the House. But the government of the day did not take those issues seriously enough to avoid the problem that we're at now. Here we are sitting here with draconian legislation being put in place as a so-called solution to these problems.

Well, it's not going to solve them. What it is going to do is actually make them worse. It's going to poison the atmosphere and make the negotiations that have to happen — because eventually, there has to be a solution to the problem — much, much harder.

When Bill 21 was introduced on Tuesday, I believe, I listened to the Minister of Health come forward with his rationale as to why they felt it was important for them to go ahead right now and bring back-to-work legislation. Something in his few minutes of comments, because that's all we heard at the time, made me figure that there's something a little bit wrong here.

I'm going to quote what the Minister of Health said around Bill 21, which we are hoping to hoist….

I want to just refer to the comments of the minister and lead it into why I think that this needs to be hoisted — okay?

R. Austin: Certainly, I respect what you're saying, Madam Speaker, and I am bringing this to the hoist motion — definitely.

The minister, in bringing in the bill — which we are now attempting to hoist, to give a sober second thought — did talk about the fact that in the Lower Mainland, the number of ambulances out of service each month had jumped to 150 compared to just 12 before the strike began. Further justification was that he said: "right now our entire health system is operating at full capacity to manage the impact of the H1N1 pandemic."

Now, the reason why we need to hoist Bill 21 is because if Bill 21 is passed and is not hoisted, then the Ambulance Service will be considered no longer to be on strike. They'll all be forced to go back to work. But during this strike, they have been under the emergency services act, which actually forced paramedics to take shifts and to be working on their days off in order to maintain services. If we don't hoist this bill, the strike will be called to an end. The real irony here is that there will be less paramedics working without the strike in place than there has been during the strike using the emergency services.

In reality, it's a false argument to suggest that if Bill 21 is passed and we don't hoist it, that all of a sudden they'll be back to normal service, because they won't be. People need to understand that under the strike agreement and because they are part of the emergency services, paramedics have had to work extra hours in order to provide those services.

The great irony is if we don't succeed in this motion — which I hope the government will realize is the right thing to do — we will actually be in a worse situation than is currently taking place under the strike. I hope that I've made my point clear in relation to the motion and why I'm speaking to what the minister said the other day.

The other argument that was made is that we need to force this bill through today or this weekend or whatever, in the next few days, because it's relative to the H1N1 pandemic. Now, I think it's fair to say that if one comes down with the flu, whether it be a regular flu or whether it be the H1N1 strain, I would suggest that it's not people's reaction to be calling an ambulance to deal merely with the flu. I think I'm right in saying that most people would stay home to see what's happening, follow what has been said by our public health officials.

If their temperature remains high, they'll probably go and see a doctor or go to the emergency. But it's not likely that they're going to be suddenly needing a stream of ambulances to deal with the H1N1 pandemic.

I think that is also a false argument and leads me back again to saying that we don't need to pass Bill 21 right now. If we agree with my arguments here that the H1N1 pandemic is not the reason to pass this bill and that ambulance workers have in fact been working under the emergency services act throughout the strike and that few of them will be if we pass Bill 21, I think this hoist motion makes an awful lot of sense.

What it does is enable the government to go back to the bargaining table and deal with some of the important issues that have been brought up by all of my colleagues and that I think are acknowledged even by members of the other side as being critical to this situation and the reason why we are here today. I would hope, just for those two arguments alone, that we can pass this hoist motion and deal with it in a sober way.

We are, of course, also here potentially for the weekend, but we have a week off coming up. We have a week away from this Legislature. If we pass this hoist motion, that gives ample time, even without the Legislature sitting, for both teams of negotiators to go back to the table and sit down and look at all these issues. I think it will be a good thing if we pass this.

I also just want to comment about the conditions under which paramedics have to work and why it's so important for this hoist motion to bring these working conditions into the discussion so that we don't continue to drive people out of the service. That is one of the most important things. If we pass Bill 21 and our motion fails, the message to paramedics is that we in the Legislature don't care about the work they do. We may all say we do, but we have to show by our actions.

By passing this hoist motion, we are showing action that says to the paramedics of British Columbia, who have been under enormous amount of stress not just for the last seven months, not just for the action of the strike, but for the months and years leading up to it…. Months and years have led up to where we are today. If we pass this hoist motion, it's sending a very strong message to all the paramedics of British Columbia that the government and the opposition are saying: "Wait a second here. We understand that you have serious issues, and we understand that simply legislating you back to work is not going to solve these issues."

I think if we can pass this hoist motion, it allows the government to say: "Let's give a deadline. Let's say three weeks." It's still long before the Olympics, and I'm going to speak to that in a minute. If it isn't the H1N1 pandemic that's driving this bill, then there must be another reason.

There's plenty of time between now and the Olympic Games for the government to go back, if we pass this hoist motion, and say: "Okay, let's go back to the negotiating table. Let's put in an arbitrator and give them a deadline of a few weeks, a month — whatever — and let's deal with some of these issues."

The working conditions that have been described by various paramedics who have sent in letters and have been appealing through their own comanagement process…. Let's not forget that prior to getting here, prior to this hoist motion, prior to Bill 21 coming into the House, there was a process taking place where management of the B.C. Ambulance Service and B.C. paramedics actually sat down and started to talk about some of these issues.

They started to talk about the fact that it is very, very difficult, when you are working shift work and raising a family, to also have to be on a pager for whole weekends at a time, to not have the security of income.

Those are the kinds of issues that we're dealing with here with the B.C. paramedics. If we support this hoist motion, it enables the government to put some pressure on those who are negotiating to come to an agreement on the working conditions.

Let's look at some of the working conditions. You have young families. In some cases, I've got letters here from paramedics who are married to one another, husband and wife or partners, both working in the ambulance service. Imagine that — two people on different shift work raising children. That is a lot of stress.

In addition to that, they then have to go to work, and this job by its very nature is one of the most stressful jobs that anybody could imagine doing. I think that's been acknowledged, not just by comments from this side of the House but also from the government side.

Everyone recognizes that this is not a walk-in-the-park kind of job. This is a very, very challenging job. If you are going to do a job that takes your stress level to a very high level every single day, imagine what that does to your psychological well-being, to your emotional well-being.

It's kind of important that we pass this hoist motion so we can deal with the working conditions that enable our paramedics to actually go to work being respected, knowing that their work is important and knowing their work is being valued, but also knowing that their basic needs are taken care of, that they have some security of income and that they know how many hours they're going to be working.

They know that when they go to work, whether it be for 20 hours as a part-timer or a full 40 hours a week, whether they be doing overtime…. They need to know that at the end of the month they're bringing back enough income to support their children, to support their family, to pay their bills. I don't think that's too much to ask. If we are able to convince the government to support this hoist motion, that enables these kinds of working conditions to be taken care of.

I also want to talk for a second about another issue. I don't think it's been brought up, but it's something that I think needs to be addressed, and by passing this hoist motion, it can be. It's related to when a paramedic goes from being a part-time paramedic to being a full-time paramedic. As has been discussed in this House, we have an enormous number of paramedics who are only part-time, and they're part-time for, in some cases, years because they have to build up the hours necessary to become a full-time paramedic.

Here's an issue that was brought to my attention, and I wasn't even aware of this. A person wrote to me telling me that she's a part-time paramedic. Her husband's a full-time paramedic. I'm going to quote this:

"One other issue that you may not be aware of is that when a paramedic goes from part-time to full-time, all or most of their seniority gets taken away so that the government does not have to pay them as much or just below. My husband was a part-time paramedic for 12 years, and then he went full-time. They gave him one year's seniority to start his full-time in the GVRD, being paid net $1,350 to $1,450 every two weeks."

So here's another issue that I don't think has been mentioned. If you spend six or seven years as a part-time paramedic, you would imagine, you'd think, your seniority would continue when you are made full-time. But no, according to their collective agreement, that all vanishes and immediately you start off with a very reduced seniority within the B.C. Ambulance Service.

Why is that done? As the person mentioned, it's done in order to start at a much lower pay scale.

Deputy Speaker: The member knows he's now returning to consideration of second reading, and he needs to come back.

Well, if we pass this hoist motion, it is issues like the one that I have just mentioned that can be addressed clearly and succinctly. Let's put all of these issues onto the table. Let's pass this hoist motion. Let's say to the government: "Let's take some time out here. Let's take a time out here –– okay? We've still got time before the Olympics. Let's take a time out."

Let's address the kinds of issues that have been brought up and which, quite frankly, the government acknowledges. I mean, the government side also acknowledges that there are lots of problems here. I don't think, in all fairness, that by passing Bill 21 and not passing our hoist motion, that we're going to address anything.

You know, if the sudden passing of Bill 21 and the defeat of our hoist motion was going to be a solution to this problem, then we wouldn't need to be here all weekend or however many days it's going to take to do this. We would be able to get on with the important job of actually addressing the issues at hand. But we're not, and so it is important for all of us to make the clear arguments that passing this hoist motion is a necessary thing to do.

It will defuse a very hostile situation. It will placate British Columbians, who I think are naturally worried. I mean, British Columbians must be looking at the news and going: "Well, you know, we take our ambulance service for granted." I mean, all of us do, because we don't sit there and plan for emergencies. None of us do.

But when they're watching the news and they're going to see tonight that the government or the Legislature is sitting in an extraordinary sitting over the weekend in order to pass Bill 21, or whether we succeed with our hoist motion, they must be sitting there wondering: what happens if there is an accident? What happens now? Is my ambulance service not going to be there for me?

In order for us to placate and ease the fears of British Columbians plus take care of the Ambulance Service workers, this hoist motion needs to be passed. If it is, I think that you will see everybody on both sides of this very contentious issue coming back, getting back to the table, recognizing that — you know what? — we don't just need draconian legislation in order to come to a solution. Maybe we can actually calm down, sit down, think about some of these issues — and on both sides.

I'm not trying to negotiate here. It's not our job to do that. But on both sides, hopefully, if we pass this hoist motion, it will enable those who are leading CUPE 873 to stand back and recognize, "Boy, we almost went to the nth degree here. We almost had a solution or a non-solution forced upon us" — right? It will give them a chance to have a sober second thought and recognize what issues they can deal with and what issues maybe they should let go.

As the Minister of Energy and Mines said today, this problem, when it is solved, won't be solved overnight. It may take months. It may take even years. But if we pass this hoist motion, it is the beginning of that process, whether it takes weeks, whether it takes months, whether it takes years. The passing of this hoist motion is a healing gesture, shall I put it that way, to start the important process — to say to paramedics and to those negotiating with them: "You know what? We nearly went to the brink. We nearly made the situation even worse than it is, but we pulled back."

That's my hope, and that's why I think all of us on this side want to pass this hoist motion.

I think it is a very rational argument to make, when you consider the importance of what the B.C. Ambulance Service means to British Columbia, when you recognize that we're making a decision here that is reflective of a long history. The B.C. Ambulance Service has been here for 35 years, and here we are over one weekend — one weekend, a very short little moment in the history of British Columbia — and we potentially could undermine 35 years' worth of building up of work, of trust, etc. We don't want to use this one weekend to destroy 35 years of good work.

I take you back to why this hoist motion is so important to us in rural British Columbia — okay? If Bill 21 is passed and our hoist motion is defeated, this is going to hurt people in rural B.C. way more than it's going to hurt people in the Lower Mainland. I'm not trying to make out that everything is fine in the Lower Mainland. Don't get me wrong. I'm sure there are plenty of issues around ambulance service in the Lower Mainland. But in rural B.C. it will be a bit of a tragedy, quite frankly, and I don't use that word lightly.

We are already having so many challenges, so this hoist motion means an awful lot to rural British Columbians — an awful lot. We want to see the government here and the opposition working together to respond to issues that are critical in rural B.C., absolutely critical. At least in urban B.C., or in the larger communities, there are ambulance stations everywhere. They are fairly close together. Even though there are challenges through this strike, and there are certainly challenges in staffing, at least they are there.

In rural B.C. it's hard to even find people to attract to even come and do this work. There are parts of my riding where there is no paramedic service whatsoever. When we have emergencies, people have to drive an hour, an hour and a half to even get there.

If we are able to pass this hoist motion, it says to people in rural B.C.: "Don't worry. Calm down. Both the government and the opposition have come to an agreement. We're going to take us back from the brink. We're going to say to those who are negotiating, 'Please go back to the negotiating table. It is too important, too important for all British Columbians that we come to a just resolution.'"

It may take a while, but at least if we can make some baby steps, if we can pass this hoist motion and then get back to the bargaining table and make a couple of concessions on either side, it's the beginning, just the beginning of something that could be good and will certainly make those of us who live in rural B.C. breathe a sigh of relief. I can assure you of that.

I think that the governing party, in listening to the arguments that we are making here, will recognize at the end of this important debate that.... I heard a member on the governing side this morning saying it was with a heavy heart that he wanted to pass Bill 21, and here we are now speaking to a motion to allay Bill 21.

I think that for all of those members on the governing side who recognize that it's not an easy choice, it's not something they are taking lightly. Some members, I think, do believe that. There are others, perhaps, who don't. But some members certainly do believe that Bill 21 is maybe a sledgehammer to open a walnut.

I think by passing this hoist motion, at least those members will recognize that this is a possible solution to start the process. That's why I am supportive and, I think, my colleagues on this side of the House are working so hard. They're going to continue to work hard right through the weekend or however long it takes to make the convincing arguments necessary, because too much is at stake here.

I wanted to also talk for a second about what has been offered and what we need to hoist. If you offer a 3 percent wage increase in Bill 21, it actually almost insults the ambulance paramedics. I think that if we are successful with this hoist motion, it enables us to take some of the sting out of what must be a group of people who work very hard and who feel as though they're being dismissed — they're simply being dismissed.

Even though it is retroactive, it of course ends very shortly. Even if Bill 21 is passed and our hoist motion is not successful, we're sitting here in November, and this agreement that is being potentially forced on the paramedics ends in March. This is only a matter of a few months away. It's not even a solution that is going to go more than a few weeks before we're back to where we are and, potentially, back in this chamber sitting here with another strike ahead of us.

I think by voting in favour of this hoist motion, we are actually avoiding inflaming the situation and recognizing that March 31 is only a matter of weeks, a few months, away from here. The passing of Bill 21 and the defeat of our hoist motion is not in any way a solution, not even a short-term solution. Because come March 31, if all the issues that we have been talking about during second debate on Bill 21 still exist and are not solved, we're stuck.

What will we have accomplished? We will have made the paramedics more upset. We'll have driven a few people away from the industry. We'll have said to those potential people who want to join the paramedic service: "No, don't bother. It's not worth it." And we'll be back in this House, because apparently we won't have forced the two sides to go back to the negotiating table.

It's incredibly important that we pass this motion, that we then say — the government then says — to those who are negotiating: "Here's what you've got to do. Here are the issues. They've been well canvassed in the House. Everybody knows what they are. Go and deal with them. Start with a couple of the things that you can agree on, make some concessions, and let's start."

I notice that my time is coming up, but I really, really hope and believe that the government will, in fact, take a second look at this, that they will think about some of the arguments that have been made by myself and my colleagues here and recognize that this is not the right way to go.

Bill 21 is a sledgehammer that's going to actually make the situation worse, and I think that they need to take this motion into consideration. I sincerely hope that enough of them join us that we'll pass this hoist motion and say yes to supporting the paramedics, yes to finding a solution to what is a very serious and intractable problem.

Deputy Speaker: The Minister for Aboriginal Relations seeks leave to make an introduction.

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes. Thank you, Madam Speaker. In the gallery joining us today is a member of the public service that I had the good fortune to work with for four years as the Minister of Health for the province of British Columbia. That is Jan Wheeler. Jan has been a very devoted member of the public service since 1979. She is currently the executive director at the Ministry of Health.

She was of remarkable assistance in generating the estimates materials for that process that we all know and love so well on an annual basis. The Minister of Finance, as a former Minister of Health, will know that one could operate a small paper mill with the amount of paper required for the estimates process. Jan was not only very capable in terms of assembling materials for the estimates process, she had a real passion and love for that estimates process — one that I shared with her.

I do want to say thank you to Jan. Jan is taking a well-deserved one-year leave of absence to spend more time with her family. I hope that all members of the House can join with me in thanking Jan for her awesome service in the Ministry of Health and extending the best of wishes to her as she commences her one-year leave of absence.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Cowichan Valley seeks leave to make an introduction.

With me today I'm delighted to have my wife of, tomorrow, 39 years. Charmaine Routley and I met more than 40 years ago, and I'm delighted that she would take the time to be down here and support me. This wasn't exactly the kind of weekend we had in mind, but she supports me nonetheless, and she's here to show me that.

I just want to say that it's kind of fun, in the Legislature of British Columbia, to be able to say that you're just as beautiful as you were the first day I met you, and I love you dearly.

D. Thorne: I'm happy today to rise to speak to this amendment to Bill 21, the hoist motion. I spoke a couple of days ago on Bill 21. I wasn't happy about the subject matter that I was speaking about at that time, but I'm very happy today because I think this is a wonderful compromise position for all of us in this House, all 85 members, to have the opportunity to look at this issue.

No doubt, this is a historic day, a historic weekend, when we're giving ourselves this breathing space, this opportunity to look at what we're doing here in this House to the people who vote for us — to our residents, the taxpayers of British Columbia —concerning one of the most important public services, probably, that we have in the province, the Ambulance Service of British Columbia, which is one of the largest ambulance services in North America and is certainly very highly reputed and very, very highly thought of.

We find ourselves today — I think we all know from reading the newspapers and what we hear — in a situation in British Columbia that is probably, by the hour, getting increasingly inflamed. I am sure that the members on the other side do not like that situation and are no more comfortable with what's happening than we are on this side of the House.

I know from reading Hansard…. When I spoke the other day, I actually took the liberty of quoting some of the members from the government side of the House and their comments in the Legislature over the past couple of years about the Ambulance Service of B.C. and specific paramedics and how highly they were thought of and how highly they themselves thought of particular members — not just the wonderful service that they provide, the no doubt critical service that they provide, but the volunteer work and the volunteer programs that they have instituted across the province.

I'm feeling encouraged. I'm thinking that with this discussion here on the weekend and taking this extra time, everybody putting off going home to their ridings…. We have a constituency week next week, and we all thought that would be starting today. Instead, we've all put that off. We've all agreed to sit here and think about what we're doing and talk about what we're doing.

Thinking back to what these particular members of the government sitting on the other side had to say over the past couple of years, I'm encouraged to think that this sober second thought just in the next day, two or three — whatever — will have the impact, where the hoist motion will indeed pass.

Every member on the other side doesn't have to vote for it in order for it to pass, but I think it's critical. It's crucial at this period of time in British Columbia that we look at how we sort out these kinds of problems in the public service.

Passing this hoist motion will give the government time not just to consider how to sort out this particular issue with the paramedics in British Columbia but also to prepare, in what I would say would be a really positive way, to deal with other public service contracts that are going to be coming up within the next six months or less. I haven't counted the days, but probably less. It's not just this particular contract, the paramedics, but it will give time to consider these contracts all of a piece.

I'm feeling encouraged that we're taking this time, and I think the government members are listening to what the opposition members are saying. They're probably also listening to what the residents in their own ridings and across the province are saying to them in letters and e-mails and phone calls. Most of those letters and e-mails, certainly, the members, myself in particular, are aware of. We're all copied back and forth usually, I think, when letters are sent out to an MLA, whether they're on the opposition or the government side of the House.

I think most of us are copied on those letters, so we know that the government members are hearing the same kinds of comments that we are hearing on this side of the House. I'm encouraged when I read those letters, because I know that the members on the other side of the House are thoughtful. They read them, and it makes them think about the kinds of decisions, the kinds of ways we do things.

I'm encouraged to think that after a few days of discussion, the hoist motion will in fact become clear as a way for everyone to save face on this issue. I think that passing the hoist motion will give….

Oh, I hope I can get through this without losing my voice. I'm not sure everybody in the House would agree with that, but I certainly hope so.

I think that passing the hoist motion will give the government the opportunity to deal, for instance, in looking at some of the issues that really need to be dealt with. And not in a heavy-handed way, because they're too important. I mean, we're really talking here about people's families and lives and how those lives get lived really. I think one of the big issues that we need to deal with — and certainly it's mentioned in a lot of the letters that I've been reading over the last few days — is the whole $2 rural call-out payment.

I have one letter here, where this gentleman says: "On weekends when I do not receive a call, I will end up making $48 for the whole weekend. I subtract gas and food costs, and I come home Sunday night in the red."

I think passing the hoist motion would give the government a chance to look at that issue and think about how that would feel to be caught in that position — to be the parent, the mother or the father, to be the ambulance worker, the paramedic. To be dealing with this on an ongoing basis is unconscionable. Thinking about doing the hoist motion gives us the opportunity — all of us — to think that perhaps this is not something we want to continue, not even for six months, when we'll obviously be back in bargaining again with the paramedics.

A lot of my colleagues have talked about the working conditions across the province — very different from rural to urban to city. Very, very different. Where I come from, Coquitlam, our biggest problems in terms of wait times and understaffing are a result of growth and traffic and just not enough staff, etc. — not enough money, I guess, in the system.

This one family has written, and they were living in the north, around the Island. Anyway, they decided to move to Coquitlam, to my riding, and it turned out to be….

Deputy Speaker: Member, you will need to draw your remarks back to the consideration of the motion. You are revisiting second reading debate.

What I meant to say was that passing the hoist motion would give the government and the House the opportunity to deal with these specific issues, with time, instead of pushing through a piece of legislation that, I would say, seems to have not been thought through for any lengthy period of time.

This family is saying that they moved to Coquitlam and found that the Ambulance Service there was so understaffed that the mother, who was the driver, would come home after a 12-hour shift and not even have had a meal break. We need to think about this kind of issue with the kind of spirit that we want to solve the problem, and you need time to do that. You can't go into a cabinet meeting and an hour later come up with a solution that will solve those two problems — the understaffing and the pay issue.

I think that we have here a golden opportunity, as I said earlier, a way for everybody to save face and make a bad deal into something where we can be proud of it.

Now, here's another problem that we would have time to deal with if we passed the hoist motion. This is a letter. I've just chosen a couple of letters, because I think they're indicative. They've gone primarily to government members, with just a copy to myself and the opposition.

This is a letter from a former paramedic who has now resigned because of all of the different issues. This is somebody who couldn't wait for the problems to be solved and who is quite chagrined, really, that the problems may not be solved even now, if this hoist motion isn't passed.

This man's name is…. Am I allowed to say a name in a letter, Madam Speaker? I'll read the letter.

"My name is Brandon Plunkett, and I handed in my resignation as a paramedic to the B.C. Ambulance at the beginning of this year, after three years of employment. I was originally stationed in Princeton, a rural-remote station, and later transferred to Summerland.

"I'm the father of four children, and as a result of unacceptable pay and working requirements, I was forced to work an average of 160 hours, not including my travel, between the infamous $2-per-hour pager pay and the $10-per-hour standby rate over a two-week period just to support them."

Then he goes on and talks about the day-to-day stresses of being assaulted by patients, exposure to disease, being stuck by needles, driving with lights and sirens through heavy traffic, telling people that their loved ones had passed away — very, very stressful work, work that I will say most of us in this House probably would never want to have to do, would never be able to do; very stressful work that needs to be supported by people like the legislators in this House.

"I nearly lost my marriage. I lost contact with my children, and I was pushed to the absolute lowest psychological lows that I have ever reached. I cared a great deal about my career as a paramedic and all the patients that I tried to help, as did those I worked with. A large number of those people who mentored me, worked with me, genuinely cared about the people they were helping, chose the same path I did and are no longer employed by the B.C. Ambulance Service."

Then he finishes up by saying…. This is a man who, if he were able to vote, if he had chosen a different career and was in this Legislature rather than a past ambulance service worker, would be voting for the hoist motion, because he would understand that it gives us that time to have that sober second thought.

He says: "Just because paramedics are being legislated back to work does not mean they will continue to accept these atrocities. Who can blame them for leaving?"

Prophetic words. I think really that this letter says everything that every member of this House knows in their heart to be the true issues, the true problems.

Yes, there are pressures on the government to get this thing sorted out, to get the paramedics off strike so that people won't have to worry about crossing picket lines and will be able to work in the Olympics or any number of issues. But we have to consider the other side, what we're doing to the province — not just to the paramedics but to all of us in this House who may need a paramedic for our families or ourselves anytime over the rest of our lives.

We cannot expect people, as Brandon says, to want to continue to accept the atrocities just because of a continuation of a piece of legislation that we now have the golden opportunity to do something about.

I have another e-mail here. It was actually sent to three of the Okanagan members and copied to myself. I'm not going to read it all. It is from Aaron Volk. Aaron is commenting on the passing of Bill 21 and talking about the legislation and what it will mean if we don't pass this hoist motion, if we don't reconsider on Bill 21.

He's talking about that it's the first time ever in Canadian labour history that anything like this has happened. He feels that it is a lack of respect for free bargaining. He's talking about the job action that they had taken having virtually no impact on services.

I'm not quoting this word for word because it will take too long, and many of my colleagues want to get up and speak on this issue. He finishes up by saying: "You should be interested in what people are saying about your government. Your government is abusing its legislative power. Your government is, in my opinion and many others, an embarrassment to democracy."

This hit home with me, thinking about hoist motions and legislation and prayers. Yesterday I did the prayer. It was my turn in the Legislature. I talked about our democracy in Canada and in British Columbia and the duty that we have in this House as legislators to protect that democracy.

Those aren't just words. That is the truth. That is really important. That is why we are here. People have voted for us because we live in a democracy, and because we are here to support them and to keep democracy alive.

We have to be conscious and cognizant all the time of when we're abusing democracy in any way, shape or form. It isn't just a prayer that we read out. In the House every day we read a prayer, and we say the same kinds of enlightened things. One can only hope that we really believe them and that we really act on them.

Aaron Volk, certainly, I would imagine, since he's written the Okanagan MLAs, lives in the Okanagan. It's hard to tell with an e-mail. I would say that Aaron Volk is very clear, very clear to his three members of parliament what he wants them to do. He wants them to vote for the hoist motion and reconsider this Bill 21 piece of legislation. He really, I would say…. I don't know. I'm now putting words in the mouth of Aaron Volk.

But I would say that if I asked Aaron Volk or if these three Okanagan MLAs sat down with Aaron and asked him what he thought about the hoist motion, what he thought about taking the sober second look, my hunch is that Aaron would say: "For heaven's sake, this is sent from heaven. This is such a good opportunity. Take this opportunity. Don't do what you're considering doing. Save democracy. Save free collective bargaining. And save public services in British Columbia."

Over the next year we're going to have an onslaught, and this can't be a good beginning, what we're thinking about doing today or tomorrow.

S. Herbert: I rise today to speak on the hoist amendment. As members in this House will know, this will be the first, I believe, hoist amendment I'm speaking on. I've spoken through the night before on a number of issues, but this is the first time I will be speaking on such an amendment to encourage the government to take the time to look at the legislation they are proposing to put forward, to speak with the parties involved and to come to a solution that unites the province and unites the parties together.

A hoist amendment or a hoist motion, as I understand it, is that we go for six months. The legislation, Bill 21, that's been put forward here is a bill that I believe strips ambulance paramedics of their right to vote on a contract that affects their working conditions. They will get that chance to have a vote should this motion go forward. They will get that chance to negotiate freely and fairly with their employer what the terms of their contract would be.

That's something that I think every British Columbia would understand — that people should have that right to agree to a contract. They should have that right to freely and fairly bargain and not be told: "This is what it is, and too bad. You can't have any involvement in that."

This hoist motion is really an olive branch, in a sense, from the opposition to the government to say: "Here, I know you're out on the ledge. You've gone out to the ledge, and you are hanging out in another world where contracts don't really matter, where the ability to freely and fairly bargain between two parties doesn't matter anymore."

The government's out in this position, which I don't believe stands up to what the majority of British Columbians would think was fair. It's not a value that I think most British Columbians share. In fact, I know the Minister for Energy and Resources was speaking earlier today about the difficulty that he had with this bill and the challenge that he had in supporting this bill, although he did say he would support it. But this is an olive branch so that members like himself and members across the government — across the backbench, ministers — can save some face.

The opposition is putting out the olive branch to them to say: "Come back in off that ledge. Come back in so that you can sit down with the workers who do so much for all of us — who take care of us in sick times, in ill times, in dangerous times; who look out for our families; who look out for our communities; who really care for each and every one of us in British Columbia; who care about the visitors to British Columbia; who care about the businesses of British Columbia; who care about the community volunteers of British Columbia."

They're the people who ensure that should an accident occur, should somebody reach the end of their life, should an illness happen, they're able to get the help they need in a fast, efficient and caring manner.

This olive branch, this hoist motion that we've put forward, would say to the government: "Put Bill 21 aside for a little while." I think it makes a lot of sense to do that. Government has rushed this bill forward. It came forward on Monday. By Wednesday we heard: "Oh, actually, we want to slam you with this, and you have to have it agreed to a.s.a.p."

It can't go on for a little while so we can have that time to listen to our constituents, to go back to our communities to hear from them, to hear from the paramedics directly, to hear from their families, to hear from those cared for. "No, we're going to slam you with this Bill 21."

Well, I think it's important for all of us to take the sober second thought, take a sober second look, take that time to think through our actions, because as we hear — as we know in our hearts, I believe — such a bill is not something that should stand. It is not something that should stand, and it's unprecedented in this case.

I know that some of the members spoke about other times there was back-to-work legislation, but in those cases there was no voting going on. The parties weren't coming together to have that agreement. There was no vote that people were having.

In this case the paramedics were voting. In fact, I'm told they were going to vote today on whether or not they should agree with the contract that had been put before them, but Bill 21 strips them of that right. In fact, from what I'm told, it gives them a contract that is worth less than what they were voting on.

This hoist motion — this olive branch, this attempt to get the government to take a sober second look — is one that I'm very proud to support. It's a positive motion. I've heard my colleague the member for Skeena speak about it as a healing motion, something that could heal the rift between people.

As we all know in this House, British Columbia has become further divided in the last number of years, the last eight years. The gap between those who have a lot and those who have a lot less has widened and widened. We see that in the voting results — very, very close elections in British Columbia between the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party. There's that sort of division now.

I believe that no matter what political party you represent, as MLAs we need to be doing our utmost to reach out to those we might have disagreements with, to those who we don't quite understand and bridge that difference. That's what this hoist motion gives the government the chance to do.

This is a government that has a reputation for not doing that — for not listening and not working and not having the trust of the people. But it's a government that can rebuild that trust, should it actually decide to support this motion that the opposition has offered to the government as a face-saving opportunity, an olive branch, a sign that… If we can come together in this House, surely our paramedics and the Ambulance Service can come together, as well, and come up with a contract that works for both parties. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, they were voting on a contract.

Now, why is it so important? Why is it so important that we vote today or we vote tomorrow in support of this hoist motion? It's because it's about standing up for the values that matter to all of us — values that suggest that we should have the liberty, the freedom, to vote on a contract in this case, to make a decision on what's best for our future.

I know that the government often talks about how it wants to provide people with choices. They accuse this side of the House of being people who just like to plan every last moment of every person's life. Well, we know that's not the case. We know it's sometimes that trumped-up political ideology and partisanship, so I appeal to the government to stand up for what they say are their beliefs — their belief of choices, their belief of giving people the chance to make the best choice for their future and the chance to vote, in this case, on a contract.

Now I know that we have many people in this House who have worked in businesses, either as an employee or a business owner. I can't think of any businesses in this province that would get away with telling their employees: "Bam. We're going to force you to take this contract. Take it or leave it. That's it."

No, most businesses that I talk to, most business people, understand that you need to have the respect of your employees. You need to gain the trust of your employees, and to do that, you need to allow that free, fair collective bargaining between people. You need to allow that negotiation.

This hoist amendment, this hoist motion allows that to happen. It's within the standards. It's within the values. It's within the principles that make British Columbia such a great province — that freedom to choose, that freedom to be able to negotiate with each other. That's what brings us together. That's what has allowed this province to grow. That's what has allowed this province to reach a strong future for ourselves and for our children.

As members will know, this is not the most hospitable province in many corners because of the weather, the environment, things like that. But when we work together, when we listen to each other, when we respect each other, when we trust each other that we can come together, that's how we survive. That's how we blossom.

I know, myself, that Vancouver–West End is not a constituency where we get too much snow, where we struggle to stay alive, as I know some up in the north and the Interior have to with heating the way it is. But there are those in our constituency who do, because they do not have homes. Certainly, we have talked about those issues before.

But the principle remains the same, which is about negotiating, about fairness, about listening to each other, about respecting each other so that we can build a great future together.

That's why this hoist motion is a strong one. It's a positive step forward for British Columbia. It speaks to our values. It speaks to who we are as a people — that when two people are fighting, you bring them together, as they've been requesting, as they would have voted for today.

For months now, we've seen the call for an independent, third-party arbitrator to bring people together. That could still happen. That could still happen and end this contract dispute. Set out the terms, bring the people to the table, and you can get a solution. Great things happen when you listen. Great things happen when you work together.

It's also about standing up for free and fair collective bargaining — that principle which we've seen in the constitution — regarding Bill 29 and the HEU. Had the government of the day done such a motion as this hoist motion, had they taken that sober second look, had they taken the time required to really think things through, that wouldn't have happened. People would still be at work. The government would not have lost in the Supreme Court of Canada. No, there would have been respect, and a whole bunch of pain and hardship would have been avoided.

Now, I think that a hoist motion like this is important, because it respects the front-line workers. It respects the people that we rely on every day. It respects their ability, and it respects what they do for all of us, just as we need to respect all British Columbians — respect people who put their life on the line for us. That's the ultimate respect. I know that we all speak highly of those first responders in our community, whether they be firefighters, whether they be paramedics, whether they be the police. The list goes on — our health care professionals.

But this gives the government the chance to show that they actually act upon that respect. Words are fine; actions speak louder. That's why it's so important that the government join with this side of the House and support this hoist motion.

Now, it can be very hard to be a paramedic, I'm told. It's a difficult and dangerous line of work. It can be hard to have retention of workers because it is such a stressful career. Some of the stories, as we've been hearing over the last couple of days about the horrors and the challenges facing these workers, bring chills to me. I think of my colleague from Saanich South, who read a poem in this House about a paramedic's time and the questions that remain after a call.

I talk to our firefighters, I talk to the paramedics, and I talk to police officers. They all share the same thing with me about how challenging and how rewarding the career can be. But it is tough: stress leave, needing counselling, not being able to get the images out of your head, not being able to sleep — those kinds of things. Those are dangerous things that people have to work through within themselves, and they do because they care for all of us.

Now, I was speaking the other day about retention, but also recruitment of paramedics. As we know, we have an aging population. We know it's challenging to get people to join our health care profession simply because sometimes we don't have enough people to do it.

I know my colleagues from rural British Columbia have spoken about the even higher challenges and the even bigger challenges they face in getting paramedics to work in their communities. I think it's very urgent that we support this hoist motion, because this hoist motion will help with retention.

This hoist motion will help the paramedics, help encourage more people to join the service, because it will allow for the tensions, the simmering anger, to be reduced. It will bring people together in a positive way.

Now, I got an e-mail from a fellow named Chris. I'd like to read it, because I think it speaks about this retention issue. He wrote to me:

"I recently had the opportunity to hear your speech at the B.C. Legislature about Bill 21 on television. You made a very poignant comment about questioning the likelihood of qualified applicants applying to the already short-staffed BCAS in the future for gainful employment. As an advanced-care paramedic who currently works in another province, I have been seriously considering the prospect of applying with the BCAS for a job as an advanced-care paramedic for quite a while. It had been my intention to apply for a position once the labour dispute ended…."

Deputy Speaker: Bring you back to consideration of the motion before you. You are now revisiting second reading debate.

Anyways, what he goes on to say in this e-mail — and I think that's why it relates so much to this hoist motion — that he is reconsidering applying to join the B.C. Ambulance Service. He is considering not joining the service because of this Bill 21 and the ensuing rancour that will exist within the ambulance service and within the whole health system in B.C.

It doesn't have to be this way, Members. No. We do have a choice: to step back from the brink, to come off the ledge, to take the olive branch, to come back, to take that sober second look and to support this motion so that ambulance paramedics and their employer can come to an agreement.

That's what this hoist motion allows for. It supports retention. It supports attraction, so that people like Chris will be able to come to this province with a belief that the employer, the government, supports this kind of discussion, supports people coming together. That's what this hoist motion allows for and why I'm urging — urging — the government to support it.

That's why this side of the House supports it, for a number of reasons. It will help with retention. It will help lower the tone, lower the simmering anger. It will help lead to agreement, and it will save this government some face.

Now, it's not often on this side of the House that we want to save the government some face — because, certainly, we're working to be the government.

I see the Minister of Tourism, Culture and the Arts laughing about that. But this time I urge the minister, and I urge the fellow members, wherever they may be, to save their own face and allow this opposition to save them some face, to give them a win, to pull back from the brink.

The minister could do that. The other ministers could do that. The members could do that. The backbenchers could do that and join with the opposition today in a positive action. Say yes. Vote yes, as they say.

Now, there are many e-mails that I get from constituents about this, saying thank you, thank you for opposing Bill 21, and urging us to find any way, any way to stop this. And that's what we're doing today with this hoist motion.

I speak of a constituent named Kerry. She says, "I would like to thank you for opposing Bill 21," and then, speaking, I think, to what we're doing with the hoist motion, she says:

"I encourage you to use all means at your disposal to defeat this legislation. If the government was upfront that this is due to the Olympics, then fine. But all this sneaking around the issues is just more Liberal tactics to push things through, to make them look good for the Olympics and to heck with the people of British Columbia and the people that are out there saving the lives of our loved ones and, who knows, maybe one day myself."

She says: "They have to be stopped, just like the HST has to be stopped. Regards, Kerry."

We're standing up today for people like Kerry, people who understand that we need to have respect for our constituents and respect for British Columbians. We're standing up for people like Kerry.

We're standing up for people like Chris, who wants to join the ambulance service. He isn't even in the province but is watching this debate because he's considering it. He's considering joining our ambulance service because he cares for this province. He cares for people, no matter where they are, and he understands that in order to be able to do your job you need to be able to have a positive working relationship with each other.

The hoist motion allows for that. The hoist motion allows for negotiation. The hoist motion allows for this House to respect the values of every British Columbian and respect the values of freedom, respect the values of liberty, respect the values of choice, negotiation, coming to agreement. It's about action. It's about real action — not slamming, not hitting, not the negative but about the positive for our future.

Now, I have another constituent, a woman named Karina who is urging us, as well, to use whatever means possible, means like the hoist motion, that would allow the government to pull back from the ledge and not enact Bill 21. Karina says: "I wish to thank you for your opposition to Bill 21, currently being debated in the provincial Legislature. This bill is fraught with" — and then there's a word which is unparliamentary, so I'll substitute "things that are not true" — "and would set a dangerous precedent if passed. Please use all means at your disposal to defeat this legislation."

Karina wants us to support this hoist motion. Karina wants the government to support this hoist motion, so that we can put it aside for six months, let there become a deal so that we can all work together, so that the ambulance paramedics and their employer can do that, can vote on their agreement — as they would be doing today if government hadn't used the legislative hammer to try and strip them of their rights.

I've spoken about how we have a province which is deeply divided. I've spoken about how discussion and respect will build trust and how that is so vital if we're going to retain our health care workers and our paramedics, if we're going to attract more people like Chris and if we're going to respect the wishes of people like Karina, people like Kerry. I think that's vital in this debate and vital for government to understand and listen to.

Now, it's not easy sometimes to come in from a ledge. It's not easy sometimes to lose a little face, admit that you were wrong. It's not easy to be embarrassed and go: "Oops, we've flubbed this one." So I offer to the government today…. I will say the government made a good choice, that I support their actions on this choice, if they vote for the hoist motion, if they vote for discussion instead of division, if they vote for unity instead of rancour.

That is the choice that is before us here today. Do we want our province to come together, or do we want to slam people and divide people and enrage people and take people's training, which they've put in years to gain, and take people's commitment to the health and well-being of all our people and ignore it?

Do we want to support a well-managed health care system, one that unites the province and that's a world leader? Or do we want to support a health care system that is demoralized with further cuts and loss and division? Is that something that we want to support?

I know it's not something we on this side of the House support. We support that unity. We support that well-managed health care system that is a leader. But to be a leader, you need to respect your employees. You need to respect those that work for you. You need to respect the people who set you up there to become leader. Now, each one of us here is a leader. Each one of us has an individual vote. We can vote our conscience. We can vote for our constituents. That is something that I am hoping each and every one of the Liberal MLAs will do.

We've made it quite clear. We support a hoist motion. We support the unity. We support ending the rancour. We support pulling us together and fighting for the better qualities in all of us. We support the paramedics' right to vote on a contract. We support the values of liberty, of freedom. We support our people's right to choose, to choose a contract that's in the best interest of themselves and their families. Would any of us stand for it if we were told: "This is it — blam! You have no right to have a say in your life — bang! Forget it. You're out of luck"? No, we would not.

We would stand up for our families, as the paramedics have been doing for theirs. We would stand up for our communities, as the paramedics have been doing for theirs. They've been standing up for solutions, because they know that it's vital for the health care of British Columbia that paramedics be respected — so that they can do their jobs, so that they can get to the calls in a quick and orderly fashion, so that they can get there, into situations which are often disorderly, situations which are full of and fraught with danger, situations which would make our blood curdle, turn cold.

This hoist motion brings a little bit of sunlight into this otherwise darkened chamber, brings a little bit of hope into a dispute which has been dark, ugly, dismal and depressing. Now the government on that side of the House has a choice to make. Do they support a dismal future for our health care? Do they support a depressing future for our health care workers? Do they support division? Do they support rancour? Do they support people not having the right to decide what's best for them? Are they a government by fiat? Are they a government by "might makes right"? Or are they a government that brings us together?

Now, I know that often we are angry, on the side of the official opposition, with this government for many of the things that I'm asking them if they are. Too often they prove to British Columbians that they do not trust British Columbians, and thus British Columbians do not trust them. This is an option where you can rebuild the trust. It's a first step. I know there's a long way to go, given what we've seen with the budget and the HST, etc., but this hoist motion gives you that option. Take it, government members. Take it. You have that choice.

For each and every one of the paramedics in your communities, for their families, you can vote to support the hoist motion. You can vote to set Bill 21 aside for six months, let them freely and fairly collectively bargain their agreement, or you could do what they've been asking for, for many years, and respect them. You can do that too. Respect them. Give them a choice and stand up for British Columbian values. Stand up for your constituents. Stand up for your communities. Stand up for the health care and the well-being of each and every one of us. That's the choice that the government has today.

Will they take it? I know that there are many who say: "Well, maybe not. I don't trust the government." They tell me: "We don't believe in this government. It's unlikely that they will do this. It's unlikely they will listen." But I cannot give up hope. I'm not sent into this place to give up. We're not sent here to say, "Oh well," throw the hands up in the air and say: "Government will do whatever it wants."

Sometimes, I know, the people of this province feel that way, and they do give up, and they wonder if there's any hope for them. That's why we see — partially, I believe — the turnout at elections diminish and diminish. But the government has a chance to rebuild that hope today, has a chance to bring us together, a chance to respect our paramedics.

A. Dix: Just briefly — we don't want to replay the debate we had last night. I think I'm going to now defer, having stood up and taken my place in this debate, to the very distinguished Opposition House Leader, who will express briefly the position on behalf of the opposition caucus.

M. Farnworth: I note it is 22 after, and here I was thinking that at 25 minutes after there would be a motion, which I gather is now on the floor.

This side of the House will be opposing that motion. We feel that this is, in essence, the same thing that we dealt with yesterday. Our rationale is that we didn't need to be sitting today, that we should come back Monday. But I understand that the government does have the numbers and that we will be voting against this particular motion. Then the rest of the business will flow as it flows.

I think, once again, that this points out the need to recognize that a calendar is a calendar. If we observe that, then business flows much more smoothly. But with that, I note the time and take my place to have the vote.

YEAS — 38
Horne	Letnick	Stewart
I. Black	McNeil	Chong
Polak	Krueger	Bennett
Hogg	Thornthwaite	Hayer
Lee	Barnett	Bloy
Reid	Lekstrom	Falcon
Heed	de Jong	Hansen
Abbott	Penner	Coleman
Thomson	Yap	Cantelon
Les	Sultan	McIntyre
Rustad	Cadieux	van Dongen
Howard	Foster	Slater
Dalton		Pimm
NAYS — 29
S. Simpson	D. Black	Fleming
Farnworth	Kwan	Ralston
Popham	B. Simpson	Austin
Karagianis	Brar	Hammell
Thorne	D. Routley	Horgan
Dix	Mungall	Chouhan
Macdonald	Herbert	Simons
Gentner	Elmore	Donaldson
Fraser	B. Routley	Huntington
Coons		Trevena

Mr. Speaker: The motion is carried. This House stands in recess until 7 o'clock tonight.

B. Routley: It is indeed an honour to get up tonight to defend paramedics and to talk about this hoist motion and to talk about reasons why the motion to hoist — to give an additional period of time, six months, to reflect on this — makes sense.

The reason that it makes sense is…. When you talk to paramedics, one of the things that is first and foremost on their minds is time. Why is time important? It's important because there's a golden hour, and during that golden hour the clock is ticking, and there is very little time to save someone's life. Those paramedics know that when they get the call, they're going to be called on to step into action, and time is the issue for them.

Now, we know tonight that we've only got limited time to talk about this, but during the time that all of the speakers will speak tonight, there are paramedics out there saving lives. There are paramedics out there dealing with the blood-and-guts issues here in the province of British Columbia, and they're not just, "Bag them and move them to the hospital" anymore. Paramedics are clearly a part of the health care system — an important part of the health care system.

The reason that we're talking about this hoist motion is to give the folks on the other side of the House the opportunity to actually listen and to think about what they're doing and to step back from these decisions that they're making.

You know, I talked to my friend Mike Berry a little while ago about what was going on, that we would have this hoist motion and that we're looking for more time for common sense to prevail, for government to come to their senses and to say: "You know what? We can walk away with dignity. We can adjourn this House, and we can have time to give mediation, arbitration a chance — to sit down and allow the MLAs on both sides of the aisle to go back and hear from their constituents on this important matter."

We owe it to those paramedics to listen carefully to their issues. They're not some kind of militant group. They're a very kind and caring bunch.

I want to talk about another one of them. My wife is here with us tonight, and she'll recall this. Back in the 1980s we had a tragedy, and it involved our family. A little girl drowned and lost her life, and there was Keith Chance, the ambulance attendant who came to that call.

We will never forget what that man did when he came in, because he offered hope in what we thought was a hopeless situation. That little girl lying there with a lifeless body, hon. Speaker, and all we could do was pray and hope, and Keith Chance came in, and he did his best for us and for our family. One thing that we'll never forget is that when he took that little girl and turned on the light and went to the hospital, he was giving us hope.

He put his arms around my wife, and he encouraged her. She was beside herself, as you can imagine, along with the rest of the family, in dealing with that tragic situation.

You know, the least I can do is to be here tonight defending those ambulance workers and paramedics who for years have defended family after family just like ours, and we'll never forget them.

Recently we ran into Keith Chance. He's now the unit chief in Mill Bay. Now, all these years he's been working as a paramedic and working for the B.C. Ambulance Service and committing hundreds of hours, giving of his time to take care of ordinary families throughout British Columbia who happened to have an accident or an illness or a heart attack. Who do they get? They've got a wonderful man like Keith Chance that shows up at the door. I know there are literally thousands just like him that have committed their lives to taking care of the injured and the dying, whether it's at a car accident or whether it's….

I hope that nobody on that side of the House has to go through it, but while we're talking about it, I want the people on the other side to think about the fact that at the end of their life they could be dialling 911, or they could be poking a spouse or a family member and saying: "You better call 911."

Who's the first face that they're going to see in their hour of need? It's going to be a paramedic. They're going to be there to do what? They're going to be there to help deal with that crisis, and they're going to be there to give hope — and not just hope. They're going to take action to save lives. They've saved thousands of lives of British Columbians in the province, and we ought to be putting them up on the honour board, not treating them with disrespect. It is absolutely unacceptable.

B. Routley: When I think of this hoist motion and the reason why we're asking for more time and asking the other side to think carefully about the opportunity to have a sober second look…. I heard someone talk about a sober second look.

Has anybody on that side thought about all of the people that these paramedics, day in and day out…? They have to deal with people — whether it's mentally having a problem or alcohol or drug abuse — every day on the streets, some of the most difficult situations that you can imagine, and do they shy away? No, they charge right into that situation, and they take care of those people, and they treat them with dignity and respect.

When I get an e-mail from a paramedic who is saying, "Here's this government treating us with absolute contempt," after all their years of service, they feel abandoned by the very government that is there to deal with their issues.

Instead of mediation or arbitration, what do they get? They get a government that is ramming them through, and they're feeling is that it's all about the Olympics. When I think about this hoist motion, it's giving time to reflect on why we need to take a step back.

When I talked to Mike Berry just now, he told me something that really concerns me and ought to concern every British Columbian. Do you know that there are 12 venue commanders — 12 of them — who have been preparing for months for the Olympics? They're volunteer positions, and time is running out. In fact, it's run out.

My friend Mike Berry tells me that they have all resigned as a result of this government's action because they feel so disrespected and so dishonoured. They're asking themselves: "Why am I volunteering to help out when it ought to be a time of pride for everyone in British Columbia?" That includes paramedics — especially paramedics, the people that we rely on.

You've got thousands of people coming to British Columbia to protect their health and safety, to deal with crises or accidents or injuries that will most certainly happen at these events. I am saddened. That's why we need more time to think about this, and I ask the other side to think carefully about what they're about to do.

They can step back and have their dignity by saying: "You know what? We've still got the heavy hammer, but we can just let this one go for a while. We can take a step back, take a week off, let the Legislature go away, then bring in some mediation-arbitration, sit down with the parties and get serious about finding an agreement."

The one thing that I know about needing time is that it takes time for people to wrestle with difficult issues. If there is a real focus on maintaining the morale of B.C. paramedics, of enhancing the chances that these people are going to stay around and want to improve their careers, like so many of them want to do…. These are special people — very special, dedicated people — very unusual. We need to attract more British Columbians into the paramedic service in British Columbia.

Without time to step back and think about what we're doing, hon. Speaker, we could very well be setting the stage to lose more and more and more paramedics. I've seen the e-mails. I don't know whether it's just emotion on the part of those brothers and sisters who are e-mailing me, saying: "You know what? We're thinking we're out of here." After 30 years or more, some of them are talking: "We've had enough. We really thought that this chance…." They believe that they're fighting….

This isn't just about wages. We need time to take a look and ask the other side to go back and talk to those paramedics and find out what it's really all about. They'll learn that they believe that the paramedics and the B.C. ambulance system is broken, that they need more training and retention work. They need the equipment that they rely on. It has to be top-notch.

I want to talk about what they do when they have a heart attack. There's the ABCs — airway, breathing and circulation. Those are the ABCs, and….

Deputy Speaker: Member, you need to refer to the motion. You are now revisiting second reading debate.

B. Routley: Well, I won't argue. You're right, as usual, hon. Speaker, and you're doing a fine job of it too.

I might add on this issue of the time that we need and the reason that we have this hoist motion, hon, Speaker — and thank you for pointing that out — that the hoist motion is there for a reason, and that's to give time. Part of the way that they give time when somebody has a heart attack is that they are able to resuscitate. They've got the first-line drugs right there in their ambulance, and they've got defibrillators that they can put into action right away to help save lives.

You know, morale is at an all-time low, and that is not what we need in British Columbia. That's why we need to take the time to step back. We can step back from the cliff here and have the MLAs on the other side have a second look at what the opportunities are, the kinds of things that they can do.

I am saddened when I hear the kinds of things that paramedics are saying as far as talking about this hoist motion and what will the future hold for them. Mike Saunders, for example, says:

"I'm having great difficulty understanding how paramedics deserve the level of outright disrespect shown to us by our provincial government. I've been a paramedic for almost 30 years, and I have an impeccable record, as do most other paramedics. The only thing we've ever asked for was respect from our employer and to be treated in a fashion as other emergency professionals."

"Yes, we have consciences, and we understand the role required of us. Why does government feel they need to disrespect us by initiating legislation or not taking the time to step back, as this hoist motion is providing."

"I've provided emergency service to many people over the years that have spit on me, that have tried to harm me with weapons."

They've cursed at him, scratched him, punched him — "other multiple attempts to harm me" — but he points out that those people were sick and injured, and they have an excuse. He was dealing with it with dignity, but this government doesn't have an excuse.

There's no excuse to not give more time through this hoist motion. It's a perfect opportunity. If there was ever an opportunity, we're providing that with our motion to hoist this, to take time.

When you think about it, that time is going to coincide with future negotiations that are coming up. It's not just a one-time event. You can't disrespect people and then think it's going to go away. It's not like a light switch. You can't just turn it on and off like that. People are going to remember for a long time. You're setting the stage for a very difficult situation. We've got time right now, with this motion, to step back and do some thoughtful approach, to go back to the constituencies and listen to what they're telling us.

"My mind does not compute this government's kind of thinking. In my job description, it's to serve the people of the province in their time of need, and I fulfil that obligation. Why" — he asks — "oh why am I treated with disrespect for doing my job?

"The government's obligation is to serve all of the people of the province of British Columbia, yet they hold themselves above the law and do whatever they please with impunity. I just don't understand. The people of this province should be outraged and ashamed to have such persons at this position, to abuse those of us that are there caring for and treating the sick and the injured."

That was Mike Saunders from Vernon, British Columbia, talking about why we should step back and take time. This government needs to listen. We've got time, but time is clicking away, and I fear that this government is going to drive by the scene of the accident and leave these paramedics in the rearview mirror. That's shameful. That's not what these paramedics would do. They wouldn't drive on by; they'd stop, and they'd listen. They'd take the time to go into action.

That's why the opportunity to amend this and to talk about the time, this important amendment, is critical at this juncture — to give the opportunity to step back and take a sober second look.

"Attention: I have worked as a paramedic since 1985 and, yes, I've seen it all. I've treated people with emergencies in their homes, at work, on the streets, in water, over cliffs, under bridges and many other places.

"I've treated children set on fire by their parents, women bludgeoned by their husbands, people hacked by machetes, shot, stabbed, beaten and even raped. I have cared for people when they have become ill with a heart attack, cancer, drug addiction, mental illness and a myriad of other illnesses and disease. As well, I have cared for people when they have accidents — some big, some small.

"I'm a paramedic, an emergency worker. Over the last 10 years the Ambulance Service has fallen behind what it once was."

Again, that's why we should take the time to step back and have a sober second look to review what we're thinking about doing here.

"The population has increased, and the number of ambulances has not. Response times have increased, our shifts are long, and we no longer get the kinds of breaks that we really need. Our equipment is often faulty or missing. Our ambulances are plagued with problems that can be critical, such as brakes and mufflers. Many stations don't have permanent accommodation.

"In Port Moody, where I am currently stationed, we have had Atco trailers for five years. It's not safe, it's not good for morale, and it's not good for our city."

This is most important when we're taking the step back to think about this — through our amendment to hoist this. Take six months to step back. He says: "For me, this strike is not about money. It's about care and the safety of the people of British Columbia."

They care about the people of British Columbia. They care about providing good quality paramedic services throughout British Columbia. They're an extension of our emergency system in the hospitals. That was a report done years ago — that that's what we should have. And they can do a lot more than just beg and run like they used to do 40 or 50 years ago.

Now with the state-of-the-art, first-line drugs that they can put on the defibrillators and all the other things that they can do, they're saving lives. And we want them to continue. We want that service to grow.

We want to encourage young people to be paramedics. How do you think they're going to feel, hon. Speaker, if we don't take the time to step back and think about what we're doing through this hoist motion? How can we possibly think young people are going to be attracted to this when they're looking at what is the heavy hammer of government coming down to force people back to work — while they're voting on an agreement, I might add.

It's amazing, and it's dishonouring to good people, caring people, people that will treat you with dignity and respect every day. They're out there treating people with dignity and respect who are stabbing them and shooting them and biting them. Think about that. It's unbelievable, the outright heroism that is going on. They're heroes in my mind. Every one of them should be brought in and given a hero's award and a parade.

But no, we're going to bring down the hammer. That's why we're asking this government to step back and why we brought in this thoughtful amendment for us to consider this evening. We hope that the government is listening, is thinking carefully and thinking about the options, because these are real issues.

We're not making this stuff up. There are literally hundreds of e-mails coming in. I'm sure that whether you're on this side of the House or the other side of the House, they're hearing from their constituents. That's why we need to take the time to go back home, to do the real work that we're here, and paid, to do. That's to listen, to be democratic and to care about people throughout our community.

"Pressing forward with this action" — he goes on to say — "is going to cause labour unrest and will do nothing to improve the care that the people of British Columbia deserve. Please think about the people of B.C. and vote to get us back to the bargaining table."

Through hoisting this motion, this motion that we brought forward, we're urging the other side to listen carefully and to follow that, to decide: "You know, there's another day. We can fight it another day, but we, today…."

You don't have to die on this hill, to the other side. They don't have to die on this hill. They can go back, take a step back and realize: "You know, this is a mistake."

We're chasing people away from the Ambulance Service. People are quitting. These commanders at the Olympics…. Quitting is a terrible, terrible outcome. I just can't think of anything more difficult than for them to be stepping back.

When you think how the reason that we need this time is also the fact that the government in the past has made some mistakes…. You know, I've made mistakes. I used to joke and say that I tried making a mistake back in 1984, and I didn't like it, so I don't do that no more.

I am a bigger man than that. I know that I make mistakes often. I'm man enough to say that I have made a mistake once in a while. My dear wife — I'm glad she's here to know about it —knows that I've got plenty of mistakes to talk about, but I'm not going to go through that.

But I see that ramming this through is a mistake. They have got an opportunity to step back. We should step back, and the government should listen.

Another one of the paramedics talking about the critical situation that he finds himself in, and this one really is so sad….

I am reluctant to bring a member to order in the presence of their spouse. However, you do know that that is a revisitation of second reading debate. Please confine your remarks to the motion before you.

B. Routley: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I don't mind at all. You're certainly entitled. There's another example of where I can go off-track once in a while. You're right.

There is time for further bargaining if we deal with this hoist motion in an honourable way. That's what we're thinking about. We're talking about taking the time to deal with these paramedics in a way that's respectful.

You know, labour relations issues in the province of British Columbia are always dynamic, but they have far-reaching consequences with these kinds of actions, and that's why it makes sense to take the time at this juncture — this hoist motion, asking for six months — to step back and to consider once again the idea of mediation-arbitration.

That's one option. The other option is to go back, to have all of the MLAs go back and listen to their constituents — not just the paramedics. Go talk to other constituents, because we're not hearing just from paramedics. There are a lot of other people out there that are very concerned about this, saying that we should take the time to step back, let sanity prevail, let cooler heads prevail.

We'll allow everybody some breathing space to sit down at a table and say: "You know, how can we sort this out?" There's nothing wrong with going into bargaining with paramedics, given enough time, and saying: "Lookit, we have got a difficult economic situation in the province of British Columbia."

They understand that. It's not just money. As I said before, mediation-arbitration, a third party…. He's going to look at what's going on in the province of British Columbia and what other employees get paid. He's going to look at all of their issues, including the concerns about equipment and the concerns about safety issues — a lot of the things that need to be addressed and ought to be addressed if saner heads were to prevail.

Hon. Speaker, I can see that the clock is running by, and I have little time left, but I just want to say that it's been an honour and a privilege to stand up and speak in this House. When I think back on the people, those faces that were there to help…. They were there to help, and I think that anybody in this House that has ever had anything to do with any paramedic….

We should take the time to go home and talk to a paramedic, maybe hug a paramedic. You'll get a whole different approach. I know that when I think about people like Keith Chance or Mike Berry, I just want to hug them, because they're the kind of people that are out there saving lives, caring about real people every day.

It's an honour to take a little time to talk about what they do and to talk about this hoist motion and why we ought to take a step back.

I know there's not a whole lot of listening necessarily going on. People have got their minds made up. They're going to ram this through. But in a democratic society, where we have the opportunity to make motions, we have an obligation to bring forward a hoist motion like this on behalf of those paramedics and do everything that we can.

N. Simons: It's nice to be back in the House. I've been away for a couple of weeks dealing with the entire reason this legislation is before the House, apparently — the H1N1.

More seriously, obviously there are other issues that are impacting the government's decision to do this, and I'm not going to revisit the debate. I wasn't here for the debate. Is it possible to revisit it if I didn't visit it in the first place? Oh, all right. I was visiting it. I was watching at home and watching the introduction of the legislation, and I was certainly very anxious to be able to have an opportunity to add my comments to this.

I was disappointed, not just as a representative for a community, but as a legislator. I just have to take issue with legislation that I consider faulty legislation. Maybe I can say at the beginning that every single one of my comments relates to the need to take a second look at this and to give government the time to step back from the brink and try to approach this issue with a cool head and with an open mind.

If at any time it seems like I'm speaking to the original bill, banish the thought, if I may ask. It's purely about making sure that these issues get raised, and perhaps we need time to raise them.

I was very troubled by the fact that ambulance paramedics are being treated in this way. I agree with every statement my brothers and sisters and my colleagues here have said about such an important job they have, one that many of us would find extremely difficult to engage in.

I don't think that we should do this to anybody, regardless of their job, regardless of the stature of their job or the importance we feel the employees give to us as a community. I think, you know, it makes it perhaps more egregious when you juxtapose a profession that is engaged at its essential core in helping people at their worst time and forcing them to accept something they didn't accept, calling it a collective agreement when it's not a collective agreement. This is the kind of thing that needs to be revisited. I think we're in it.

We're at a juncture, I believe, where the entire notion of allowing collective bargaining is being questioned. I see this effort as extreme as defying essential services orders. It's the employer's equivalent of an essential service provider breaching their orders. I point to an article in June, when the minister said that he would not want to interfere in the dispute.

I specifically mention that, because perhaps the minister forgot that at one time he thought it best to stay away from this particular issue. Maybe he needs to be reminded so that he'll take full opportunity of this hoist motion to stand back and say: "Wait a minute. I didn't change my entire philosophy of this overnight."

By any means, this is not a new problem. I believe that when the facts are analyzed…. It's clear to me, and it's clear to my colleagues, and I honestly believe that it's clear to most of my colleagues opposite as well.

I give them the humanity to know that they're under extreme pressures, obviously, to support what they can…. I have friends among the group opposite. I don't think that they have any ill will to paramedics. Yet they, by their silence, interrupted by the occasional desk slap, seem to be tacitly supporting what is essentially the removal of our right to collective bargaining. It's not just the right to collective bargaining. It's during the vote on a contract proposal. It's during a vote.

I would love to have the energy of my colleague from Cowichan Valley today, but I'm just regaining my strength. It's with that passion that I am speaking on behalf of paramedics.

I represent a constituency, Powell River–Sunshine Coast, that happens to have urban paramedic stations, rural paramedic station and a remote paramedic station. I hear the minister, and I think the minister gives justification, in fact, in his comments for the postponement of the enactment of this legislation, for the delay of second reading.

I believe he actually supports that in the words that he says — that they need to look at the issues of rural B.C. They need to look at the issues of remote ambulance stations. But that's not a new issue either.

That issue has been brought up in this House numerous times. In fact, a motion was debated in here in November of 2008, which I believe summarized the need to treat ambulance paramedics with respect. In fact, members who still sit in this House on the government side, in the government caucus, spoke in favour of our motion to support ambulance paramedics.

They stood, and they proudly talked about the paramedics in their community. They talked about the jobs that they did and how it takes a special person to be able to rush out to deal with what most people would not want to or be able to deal with, in terms of the death and disfigurement and tragedy and horror.

They do it willingly, and we respect that. The members opposite on the government side at the time stood and said how much they appreciated it. Now I look across, and I wonder what happens in a place like this, when our words become put in the attic or in a box when the moment arrives where they really have to support the paramedics.

Well, they're silent. They're silent. I think they need time to consider that. I truly believe that every paramedic who's spoken to an MLA on the government side believes that that MLA is going to represent their interests. Their interest is not to support a $2-an-hour pager fee. Why do people in the rural parts of this province…? Why should they expect their health care to be provided by people who have a pager and get paid $2 an hour waiting for a call?

This is the kind of question that would be further examined if we had time to do so, by supporting this hoist motion. For the people in the gallery, we're hoping to make a point that by delaying the enactment of this legislation, we allow due process to occur, due process that doesn't just happen by itself.

A concerted effort and good will need to be part of due process, to respect the boundaries of good negotiation and to respect the results of that good negotiation. We have a vote happening now, and yet we have the backdoor legislation. We're saying with this hoist motion…. This motion that the loyal opposition has put before the House and that deserves serious debate could potentially avert what I would consider, if not a permanent resentment, a very long-lasting and deep-seated resentment between the parties. That's why we need to take time and step back.

I wouldn't put it past…. I would not be surprised if members of the government side agreed with this hoist motion. It's entirely reasonable. It's what people have elected us to come here and contemplate: what is the best way for us to do our job?

If we actually have before us a piece of legislation that isn't good, perhaps the opposition should be…. Not perhaps. The opposition is there to say: "You know, here's your get-out-of-jail-free card. Don't go ahead with this legislation."

It is not what the people of British Columbia want. It's not what the patients of British Columbia want. It's not what the paramedics want. It's not what anybody wants except for a very small little cadre, probably, who wield an authority that's difficult to stand up to — obviously, because we have direct contradictions.

The silence, that consent that the government caucus is giving to the original legislation can be undone, can be corrected. The impasse can be mitigated by the support for this hoist motion. We're providing the government with a mulligan, I think, and I think that they need to use it. I'm one of six kids, and I know how hard it is to sort of have to admit, you know, that you might have messed up.

Perhaps it's unprecedented for government. I don't know. I don't know the history enough, but maybe it's unprecedented for government to change its mind on a piece of legislation. That's a tragedy. To me, that's what the democratic process should be about.

What I see in this debate is 30-some of us standing up and saying "our side…." I was watching it at home before the hoist motion was introduced, and I thought: "Oh, I'm bored. I'm hearing the same thing over." But every one of my colleagues…. I don't mean any disrespect, but it is tiring. You sit there with the flicker, and you have the mute button if you need it.

But what about the other side? If in fact there's a reasonable argument, I would love to hear it, because I consider myself…. Despite rumours to the contrary, I'm rather level-headed. I think that when we have good arguments, we'll contemplate them. We'll consider them.

Hey, this side votes with the government on a number of pieces of legislation. We say: "Sure, we'll agree with that." Sometimes we'll agree with that while our eyes roll and while our fingers are crossed behind our backs, and sometimes we'll disagree with varying degrees of anger or vitriol.

But here we have an opportunity to say that 99 percent of the population of British Columbia does not believe that we should stand with the legislation before us, and we should put it off. I think everybody would see…. Those people who stood against their government's bill and who supported the hoist motion would be seen in a positive light, in a bipartisan positive light. Don't make me repeat that. Bipartisan positive light — yes.

And there's nothing wrong with that. There's nothing wrong with that. In this case…. In fact, especially in this case, this is unnecessary — to have this legislation. We need time to contemplate that.

Everybody has got to step aside. There should be some referee coming along and saying: "Break it up here. Wait a second. This is not how we resolve disputes in the province of British Columbia. This is not how we do it."

My first experience with labour strife was when the teachers were forced back to work in Quebec. I led a walkout of the high school students and got a lecture on anarchy from my principal. But here we have a situation where we have an opportunity to recognize that the hard-fought rights of collective bargaining are about to be vandalized if we don't pass the hoist motion — vandalized, disrespected, trashed, whatever word you want to use.

You know, we need time. We need time to address the other issues that are facing paramedics. In my constituency we had a situation where the unit chief in one place said that she thought she needed to put an "N" on the back of the ambulance because of the driver. She wasn't sure if the driver had actually completed that level of driving. He was, like, 19 years old.

We have people coming from the Lower Mainland up to Madeira Park. They spend $50 to get there on the ferry plus 12 to 20 bucks in gas and a bit of food. They end up paying in order to be providing emergency response to our traffic victims, to our people who are hurt doing household chores. They're coming up and they're spending money to protect my constituents.

What do they get in return? In fact, I should just let that out there: what do they get in return? How does the government treat people like that? Well, it's so self-evident. I find, perhaps, the silence from that side — with very few exceptions…. Perhaps if that silence were broken there would be a flood or an explosion of sound.

I can't see how any member…. I know that there are members on the government side whose family work as paramedics. I just don't understand how it is that they can reconcile their supposed esteem for paramedics…. How can they juxtapose that with their silence on a bill that takes away their rights? That, to me, does not make sense. It does not make sense.

N. Simons: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would have reminded me too, and I thank you for that.

Just simply, as I stated at the beginning, this is legislation that needs to be put in abeyance, in effect. I believe that's the purpose of our motion on the floor, the motion that we're going to debate tonight and the motion that I'm hoping gets passed by members who know that they will have the complete support of their constituents. They will be doing their people's will if they support this hoist motion.

If they are members from Burnaby, or from Kamloops, or from Nechako Lakes — who spoke so eloquently in November in support of the paramedics — where are their voices now in support, when the paramedics need support? It's all well and good to say nice things when, maybe, not a lot of people are listening. But as they say, this is where the rubber hits the road.

It's not going to be very difficult for paramedics to know who supported the hoist motion and who didn't. Obviously, the opposition party will make it quite clear to anybody who will listen that the government had been attempting to pass legislation that was unfair, ill-thought-out and disrespectful to the intended targets.

I have a letter from a paramedic. We imagine what we think paramedics go through. We hear everybody talk about their particular profession. I thought child welfare was a difficult profession. It was a difficult profession, and there were times when we thought we weren't being dealt with, with respect. I'm sure that police officers sometimes feel that way too.

But here it's like the legislation is the proof, and we're offering an opportunity to say: "Put that aside. We don't need that." Nobody wants a government to pass legislation that isn't in the best interest of the public. Put it in abeyance. Put it off.

This is a letter from a paramedic in my constituency. I'll just take some quotes out of that. "I'm shocked that the current government would treat paramedics with such disdain." I want to just point out that I didn't tell paramedics to be upset about this. I did not tell the paramedics to write letters and to get angry and to foment dissent, but I got this letter anyway. Most people only see the paramedics driving around, or they see them in the hallways of the hospitals. I am hoping this can support my argument that we need more time. We need to put this in abeyance.

"Unless you've worked as a paramedic, you can never really understand the scope of our career." She talks about going to families' homes in the middle of the night when someone has suffered a cardiac arrest, leaving children without a father. She talks about suicide attempts of senior citizens who have had a difficult life and who have few supports.

Paramedics, I think, are often the first responders, but they're often social workers, and I think they often have to do an awful lot of mental health work and addictions counselling. I think that the scope of their work is very broad, and they often don't know what they're driving up to when they pull into a driveway in the rural parts of my constituency.

I might point out that when the ambulances get to the homes in the rural parts of my community, they do so because of global positioning systems that they've bought themselves, because they don't get provided those. If they do a water rescue, they have safety equipment that they've purchased themselves, because they don't get water rescue equipment purchased for them.

Deputy Speaker: Member, you will come back to the consideration of the motion.

N. Simons: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm sure you and all my teachers could share notes at some point.

This is my opportunity to say to the government side that this should not be a place where we disagree. This is one of those places where most people with an objective perspective could look down and say: "This is where you probably will agree on things — that paramedics should be properly compensated, that they should have working conditions that are such that they can do the job to the best of their ability, that they shouldn't be paying for their own training, that they should probably be getting paid more than $2 an hour while they're waiting for calls."

That is essentially at the core of the argument that the opposition has put before the House, to say: "Step away from this legislation. It sends a bad message to paramedics."

You know, it sends a bad message to kids. This is not how you resolve disputes. It's not how you resolve disputes, especially after you say that your intention was never to step in.

We're saying to the minister that his back-to-work legislation was premature. There are other methods available. There are other ways of achieving a goal that will result in protecting the best interests of British Columbians. There are better ways.

We're saying: "Put this bill aside." Let's not do second reading. Let's put it off. Let's hope that the sober second thought…. You'd hope that the first thought was sober, just on the record. You'd hope that the first thought was sober. But in this particular case you especially hope that the second thought was sober too. Then you start to wonder. Even after sober second thought, it seems that it's not making sense to the government side, from all indications.

They've got more on their team. They get to pass whatever legislation they want. The government side wins every vote. It's like we're the Washington Generals. You know, at some point it's not about entertainment. At some point we need to see legislation that reflects the public interest. That's everybody's job. Aren't we sworn to do that? I'm sure we swore on something. We did. We swore and affirmed that we would do the best for the people of British Columbia.

Here, with this immense volume of evidence to suggest…. Based on precedents, based on impressions, based on current events, this mountain of information and facts say that this is bad legislation, and we need to put it in abeyance. Despite all that, the government goes boldly forward in a way that…. It's just this bulldozer effect. Maybe once you sit in the bulldozer and you drive over enough things, you start to like it too much and press on the gas. When someone says, "Just a second; can we stop you here for a second?" be careful, or you'll get driven over too.

I'm sure that paramedics in my constituency are horrified that there's a possibility, from news accounts, that the government will not likely want to support the hoist motion. I'm just getting that impression. I'm not a pundit, though, so perhaps I'm wrong. I'd like to be wrong.

I'd like to see ten members of the government's side express to their constituents their true feelings about paramedics. If they don't, I don't think there's going to be a lot of room for interpretation among the people in their community.

There are so many reasons. If you look at the problems facing the Ambulance Service now, the result of this back-to-work legislation or the result of a failed hoist motion will be that those disputes become more intractable. I think that's the word. They become more set. They become deeper, more deeply held. The resentment is worse.

It's unnecessary, and that's why I'm asking the government, asking my colleagues on both sides of the House, to contemplate what it is that their constituents want them to do. There is no urgency to the back-to-work legislation. There is no urgency to that. If you think the arguments used by government were real, read them again.

The hoist motion will allow for all parties to contemplate better ways of resolving disputes.

We need to respect our paramedics, and by supporting this hoist motion put forward by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, members of this House will demonstrate whether or not they support the ambulance paramedics of British Columbia.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for your indulgence. With that, I'll cede the floor to the next speaker.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Columbia River–Revelstoke seeks leave to make introductions.

N. Macdonald: We are joined by a number of guests here — paramedics who've come on a Friday evening. It's eight o'clock. I have some of their names. I just want to introduce them and then let the House make them welcome and thank them for coming here.

The first is Michelle Friberg. She's a paramedic. We thank you for the job that you do and for coming here tonight. I ask the House to make her welcome.

As well, we have Miguel Campo, a paramedic. We thank you for the job that you do and for coming here tonight. I ask the House to make him welcome.

We also have Rick Atkinson, a paramedic. I ask the House to make Rick feel welcome here tonight.

We have Shane Edwards, a paramedic and CUPE 873 regional vice-president. I ask you make him welcome.

We have Aggie Pringle, who is a paramedic from Sayward. I ask the House to join me in welcoming her.

We have Andy Cowie, a paramedic. I ask the House to join me in making Andy welcome.

We have James MacFarlane, a paramedic. I ask the House to join me in welcoming James here.

We have Geoff Waygood, another paramedic. I ask the House to join me in welcoming Jeff.

We have Sara Moffatt, a paramedic. I ask the House to join me in welcoming Sarah.

We have Christine Heatley, another paramedic. I ask you to join me in welcoming Christine here.

We have Tanya Bellagente, a paramedic and CUPE 873 regional vice-president, and I thank Tanya for coming. I ask the House to join me in welcoming her.

Just to thank you for being here and to thank you, as well, for the work that you do.

Deputy Speaker: I will take this opportunity to remind all members that the debate consideration this evening is for the motion before you.

G. Coons: Hon. Speaker, I'm here, and it's an honour and privilege to speak to Bill 21, the "ambulance services imposed contract" act. I don't think we can call it a collective agreement. I think everybody in this room can agree that it is not a collective agreement. That's why we need to support the hoist motion before us.

We need six months to sit back, reflect on what's happened in the last year or the last two years. It isn't just the last year or two. It's a collection of decades where we've allowed our ambulance service to get in a critical condition.

I represent the paramedics in Prince Rupert on the north coast, in Prince Rupert, on Haida Gwaii and on the central coast and Bella Coola. But I don't represent paramedics; I represent my constituents. We in this House represent British Columbians.

This motion before us, this hoist motion, is what we need to do to ensure that we have labour peace in the province, that paramedics are respected for the job they do and that we can move forward in continuing the best ambulance service we have in the country.

We need the six months so that we can reflect on the 3,471 paramedics in the province who work out of about 400 or 500 ambulances, who did 534,000 calls in 2007 and 2008. If you take these numbers in perspective, paramedics made contact with one in eight people living in the province of British Columbia.

If you compare that elsewhere, you can see very quickly that our paramedics, our ambulance service, are not only the busiest in the country but the most dedicated, the best trained. They deserve six months for us to sit down and reflect on what we're doing with this imposed contract.

I'm a teacher, and quite often I become…. I'm overprepared. I get hundreds and hundreds or thousands of letters and e-mails about this situation, and I try to put it in perspective. I come to this Legislature, go to meetings, travel throughout the riding I represent and throughout the province, and I listen, because my role is to learn and represent the feelings of British Columbians.

The last thing I want to do is be in a bubble, be the only one that's in this bubble, all by myself. I think we need this motion to hoist and have an extra six months so that we give a gentle nudge to the bubble that the members on the other side are in.

I would hope — over the next few hours, couple of days, as we debate this hoist motion and move forward with trying to actually have a collective agreement versus an imposed one — that it is our job on this side of the House to just burst that bubble this government is in so that they realize we need six months, at least, to look at where we need to go with our ambulance service in this province.

I'm not too sure if it's the whole opposite side, the government side, that's in the bubble. We have the opportunity to burst that bubble and allow us collectively to have six more months, with this hoist motion, but I have a feeling that the minister is in his own bubble — the ultimate bubble boy, I guess. I think that our job today tonight, and however long it takes, is to get the members on the other side of the House to have their bubble burst so that they can approach the minister and burst that big bubble he's standing in.

There are many reasons, I believe, we need to have an extra six months of reflection. We need this hoist motion. I'm trying to put it in perspective so that I am not getting off the reason I'm talking. I've got some reasons here why we need to hoist the bill before us, this imposed contract. It's a regressive piece of legislation. It's an assault against free collective bargaining. It's a deliberate attack against our valued ambulance paramedics.

Another reason we need to hoist this piece of legislation is because it's not in the public interest. There has been interference by VANOC in the free collective bargaining process. It does nothing. If we pass this and do not hoist it, it will do nothing for the systemic problems that we have daily in our ambulance service. It's an outrageous and callous interference during a strike vote. It will cause undue labour disruptions throughout the province.

This bill before us — this "ambulance services imposed contract" act, which needs to be hoisted so that we have that reflective thought — exemplifies the contempt and disrespect for the people who ride in our ambulances and all of the ambulance workers.

One of the key reasons — I'm going to start off with this — is that basically, not one government member on the other side, except for the Minister of Energy and Mines, stood to defend the reason for imposing a contract on paramedics. There might be some really good reasons. We don't know that.

In my comments, hopefully, I will be able to get through all of the ten reasons why we need to hoist this and delay for six months, because there are many, many reasons.

I've heard from so many people, as we all have, as government members have heard. I hope I have an opportunity to get to some of them, but I have an obligation to acknowledge and recognize a paramedic chief in Port Clements who e-mailed me to talk about the reason we need to hoist this bill before us. I'm going to get to that.

This is Terry Mitchell. He's a paramedic chief in Port Clements. I read part of his letter in second debate. He says he's angry, disappointed and fearful. He's angry because they bargained in good faith, unlike the government. He's disappointed because it gives him no incentive to continue working for B.C. Ambulance. He's scared because if this legislation passes, it truly confirms that the government has "no respect for the job I do" and, more importantly, no respect for the citizens of British Columbia.

Now, that was on the debate a couple of days ago. He's contacted me since the hoist motion. He says: "I am truly amazed that the minister is so narrow-sighted that he thinks this will solve the pressing concerns that the government has fabricated. The hoist motion introduced by the opposition is perhaps the only thing at this point in time that could demonstrate good faith on the part of the government."

That's why we're here. We're here to hopefully encourage the government to vote for this hoist motion and move forward and demonstrate good faith.

Now, I do want to talk about Terry and why he's so dedicated and so inclined to e-mail his MLA to try to get this hoist motion passed in this House. Terry is a very, very dedicated paramedic. He was the first paramedic to ever ride with the Cops for Cancer on the Tour de North from Port Clements. He raised $8,000 for Cops for Cancer.

The ex–Minister of Health, who is now the Minister of Aboriginal Relations, said: "We are very proud of the fundraising efforts of Terry Mitchell and the support the B.C. Ambulance Service provides each year as other paramedics volunteer time to travel. The commitment of our paramedics and others at the B.C. Ambulance Service in giving back to our communities needs to be recognized and applauded."

I agree. That is the Minister of Health two years ago — the ex-minister, the previous Minister of Health. Where is he now? Nowhere to be seen. Where are the members from the other side?

Deputy Speaker: Member. You will bring yourself back to consideration of the motion.

G. Coons: When I talk about the ten reasons, one of the reasons we need to hoist this bill is to give the members on the other side an opportunity to stand and reflect and realize we are going in the wrong direction with an imposed contract.

I'm standing here on behalf of paramedics who are dedicated, who have dedicated their lives to the profession and want to have a negotiated contract — paramedics like Terry Mitchell.

As I mentioned, one of the key reasons we need to hoist this bill that's before us is that we have not heard from the members from the other side. They need an opportunity to participate. They need an opportunity — maybe not to participate here in this House on record. They need to go back into their chambers, perhaps burst the bubbles at their end, sit down and reflect on what this bill is going to do not only to paramedics but to the labour climate in this province and how it's going to impact British Columbians.

I mentioned earlier that one of the members…. I give credit to the member for Peace River South, the Minister of Energy and Mines. He stood up. He stood tall and talked to this bill. But again, he received communications about his comments.

The reason that we need to have an extra six months of delay for reflection, negotiations and for looking at a path forward is so that people throughout the province — not only paramedics but the mayors throughout the province, the regional districts, those at the UBCM who supported our paramedics for the last three years and recognized what the paramedics do in every corner of our province — have an opportunity to get hold of their MLA, whether it's government or opposition, and confirm the direction we need to go. That is why we need to hoist this bill and have a six-month parlay into actual communications throughout the province.

When I look at a note I got from a person from Chilliwack, Michael Topping…. His MLA is the Chilliwack-Hope MLA, and he says: "It's with great disappointment I find myself writing to you. I want you to stand up in the House and explain to your paramedic constituents why you personally support this bill." If we pass this bill, the Minister of Environment, the MLA for Chilliwack-Hope, will not have an opportunity to stand in this House and talk about the bill and explain why this government is imposing this contract on them.

A key reason for the hoist motion is so that there's an opportunity for everybody in the House to go back to their ridings and actually explain why we need this bill passed or why we need to change it and actually have it in a collective agreement versus in an imposed contract.

Another letter I got dealing with hoisting this motion and hoisting this bill was from Peter Smith. His MLA is for Abbotsford South, and he says: "I find Bill 21 an absolute outrage, taking away basic collective bargaining and democratic rights because of some excuse like H1N1. Shame on all you Liberals for not standing up for your constituents. Shame on you." With a hoist….

Deputy Speaker: Member, please take your seat. You will know that I have repeatedly asked members to consider the motion under debate and not to revisit second reading debate. Please proceed.

Again, the reason that we need to hoist this bill is to have the opportunity for reflective debate. If it's passed, if it was passed when this government wanted it to be passed, that would be the end of it. Constituents could not have the opportunity to have input into it, and that's why we need to have this bill hoisted, with an extra six months of reflection and thought.

Also, we look at the MLA for Abbotsford-Mission. "Where are you on this?" says Peter Smith. "Are you going to stand up and tell me why you backed Bill 21 when the ambulance service was in such a dismal state of disrepair for years prior to this?" He's requesting thoughtful debate on this, and that's what this motion we've brought forward, this hoist mission, will allow us.

When we look at this legislation and one of the reasons I said that we needed to hoist this and delay it for six months was because it's regressive. It's a regressive piece of legislation. It's imposed. It's draconian. But we can change that. We can change that if we had time to look at what's in the bill and how we need to move forward.

Again, this piece of legislation was actually presented in the House — to some degree, as a lot of people have informed me — under some sort of false pretence, and we need to alleviate that concern. We cannot pass a bill in here where people think it was presented to us in this Legislature under a false pretence. You know, the minister stood up and said that H1N1 is the real reason that paramedics are being legislated back to work. I'm hearing that's not true.

We've seen a memo from VANOC which says that pressure was put on the government to either settle or legislate. Nowhere in there did H1N1 come into the question, come into the equation. So I think it's imperative — not only on this side of the House, but on the government side — to alleviate that concern of false pretence. But we haven't heard anybody stand up and shoot down that theory.

Leanne Nixon: "I urge you to reconsider Bill 21. Paramedics deserve a fair settlement. H1N1 is not the real reason they're being legislated. If it was, why aren't paramedics even being considered a priority for the H1N1 shots?"

I don't understand. As we look at the purpose of us being here tonight, which is trying to get passed a piece of legislation that is so vital…. It's so significant, at such a significant point in time in the province. We've got the Olympics coming up. We have other issues out there. This should have been dealt with a long time ago.

There could have been an arbitrator, an independent arbitrator. There's still time for that. If we have a hoist motion, then there's an opportunity to rethink how we got here today and put in an arbitrator to get a real collective agreement.

Again, I have to go back to the premise of why they had to pass this legislation — the premise, a false premise that we need to deal with. The only way we can deal with that false premise is by having a six-month delay. John Strohmaier says:

"The government claims that this legislation is necessary in light of the H1N1 crisis. We've been saying the service needs serious attention for more than four years. We warned the government…. The reality is that paramedics are leaving the service in droves because they pay for their own training, they pay for their own travel to and from the job, and they cannot afford to remain paramedics."

There are mixed messages going on here, and to pass a piece of legislation as important as Bill 21, we have to make sure we're doing the right thing. The government, on that side, has to ensure they're doing the right thing. At this point in time, our job in this House is to try to burst that bubble and say: "Think about whether you are doing the right thing."

I remember the debate a year ago, prior to us having a concern about negotiated contracts or imposed contracts or hoisting a bill that needs clarification. The member for Abbotsford-Mission, the Minister of State for Mining, said: "I want to talk about the individual members, the individual paramedics who are out there working in British Columbia. I want to speak for a moment about the leadership that John Strohmaier, the head of the paramedics union, has shown."

So we have a mixed message. We don't have the member for Abbotsford-Mission standing up talking about the premises — or false pretences. But there's a lot of respect on the other side for John Strohmaier. So we need clarification. We need an extra six months to sit back, reflect, burst our bubbles and move forward.

As we move forward, it's a concern not only in this House, where we're debating Bill 21, this imposed contract, and we want to hoist it so that we change that imposed contract to a collective agreement. But there's concern outside of this chamber, a lot of concern. People up and down my riding on the north coast and throughout the province in every riding, every constituency, have concerns.

Again, we cannot rush in and pass a bill that is not in the public interest. It would be a detriment to communities throughout the province.

As far back as 2003 at the UBCM, there was a resolution for support for provincewide ambulance services. Right up until 2009 the UBCM had motions put forward by mayors, by regional districts, by elected officials throughout the province — every corner of the province.

I've got some communications that are concerned about the progress of this bill and where we're going. We have an obligation. We have an obligation to sit back, take this Bill 21 and put it somewhere where we can sort it out either through an independent arbitrator or perhaps back at the bargaining table.

But you know, as far as the latest UBCM…. They talk about a recruitment challenge. In 2008 they talk about standby pay. In 2007 they talk about the ambulance service, where a timely response….

All of these issues are issues that need to be looked at during the six-month hoist. We need to be sure that those mayors, those regional district members, those elected officials throughout the province have confidence and faith in the bill we're passing before us, and we can't do that. We couldn't do that yesterday. We couldn't do that today. That's why the opposition reluctantly put forth the hoist motion — so that we can have that reflective thought and move forward.

We saw the concern about some interference, some false pretences. Again, when we move forward with this bill, we need to have the opportunity to tell British Columbians that we've passed a bill that we are comfortable with, that the paramedics are comfortable with, and that we can move forward with an ambulance service where there's timely response, where their issues about recruitment and training have been dealt with. The $2 wage needs to be dealt with, and that's something where a hoist motion…. We can look at all of these issues and move forward.

A key component that I have a real problem with and a lot of people have is that we need to hoist this motion and change it from this imposed contract to a collective agreement. I mentioned that one of my ten reasons for hoisting and having a delay of six months is because we need to deal with free collective bargaining.

Somebody from Kamloops South wrote a letter, and they said that they're appalled it's being rammed through. "My MLA from Kamloops south said that he was standing by to allow collective bargaining to take its course."

Collective bargaining to take its course? Well, let's go to…. Oh yeah, they've called it the Ambulance Services Collective Agreement Act. But it is not collective bargaining. There's no collective bargaining. It's an imposed contract in the middle of a vote, so we need to hoist this motion — because, I guess, paramedic members of the union were voting on the contract that the government put before them, I believe, last September 28.

How ludicrous is it to be standing in this House and have a bill come before us where we're waiting for the results of the vote on a contract? If it's agreed upon by the union, then I guess it's a collective agreement. Then we can call it that. We need to hoist this bill for six months so that we can see if we can get to free collective bargaining.

I did have ten things here I was talking about, and at first, I thought: "Jeez, it's a top ten, sort of like the Letterman show." But I realize that you can't really equate what's happening in this Legislature with Letterman, except that to some degree what happened to Letterman and his staff is happening to paramedics throughout the province and this government.

On that, I will reiterate: we need six months' sober reflection on this bill. We need collective bargaining. We need to respect our paramedics.

One last thing. A couple of paramedics e-mailed me and said that Bill 21 needs to be shredded. It should not be before this House. That's why we have this motion before us to hoist it, and respecting paramedics, I'm going to do what I think needs to be done with Bill 21. We're going to support the hoist motion, and hopefully, it will be shredded.

Deputy Speaker: Members, and for the member who has just spoken, you know that those inferences are not appropriate when referring to other hon. members. I would ask you to withdraw.

S. Fraser: I'm honoured to stand here today in support of this amendment. It's a hoist motion for Bill 21. I didn't support Bill 21, and I've spoken to that already at length a few days ago. It is Friday night, and we gather here tonight and, if need be, tomorrow night and, if need be, the next night. I've brought my pyjamas, and I'm ready to do this as long as needs be.

I'm honoured to represent the people of Alberni–Pacific Rim and represent their interests. The will of my constituents is what I'm here for. It's what I was elected for. They want me to talk tonight about why we need to use every legislative means to ensure that Bill 21 is not enacted, does not come to fruition.

The method we've chosen — one of the few things we have as the opposition in our arsenal, in our quiver, if you will, Madam Speaker — is known as a hoist motion. That's what we're here to debate tonight.

I'm going to lay out the argument. I have four categories that I've determined sort of override why we need to support the hoist motion. When I say we, I don't just mean us in the opposition on this side of the House, I mean the entire House. We need a majority of MLAs — government MLAs, government ministers and opposition members — to support the hoist motion. I've noted that all of the opposition members that have stood and all of them that are standing today — tonight, tomorrow, however long it takes — are in support of the hoist motion.

The hoist motion, essentially, identifies a bad bill, a bad piece of legislation, and it gives the government a chance to rethink. It gives six months of second thought to do the due diligence that may have been missed the first time around.

So in many ways the hoist motion, in my opinion as a legislator, is not…. It's from the opposition, but it's not an opposition type of mechanism. It is a part of the parliamentary system that complements the government. It complements the government as a check and balance.

The job of the opposition is to try to help change bad legislation, maybe poorly thought-out legislation. I don't mean that with disrespect. I know that my colleague from Cowichan — he admitted to making mistakes. I also will admit to making mistakes. Government members make mistakes also. We're all cut from the same cloth when it comes right down to it.

Our job here in opposition, our job here tonight, tomorrow, tomorrow night, however long it takes, is to ensure that paramedics in this province and the people that they serve — who are the people of British Columbia, who are the people that we serve — get fairness and justice in this bill. And Bill 21 does the opposite of that.

I will give government members the benefit of the doubt that there was no intention to disrespect those paramedics, the ambulance people that save lives and that are a key part of our health care system and have become more and more important with concentrations of health services in some areas. The requirement for transportation of people to those locations has made it more important now, more than ever before, for our paramedics to have a fair contract, to be treated with respect.

Bill 21, as government members know as well as the opposition members know, has been certainly perceived as being disrespectful by paramedics and the people of British Columbia. That is why we have suggested a hoist motion. That is why we are supporting a hoist motion. My job tonight, as my colleagues will also try to do and have been trying to do, is to convince government members to wait, to step back for six months.

This is a very friendly amendment to Bill 21, Madam Speaker. The hoist motion allows for mistakes to be corrected. That's why I say it's a friendly amendment for what is very much perceived by the public as a very unfriendly bill.

I've narrowed it down to four general topics of why we need the hoist motion in place and why it needs to be supported — not just by opposition members but by members, maybe not all, but by members of the government, government MLAs too.

Government MLAs are the first reason that I'm suggesting that we need to support the hoist motion — that they need to support the hoist motion. The hoist motion is about time. It's six months. It's not a long time, but it's enough time to amend a very bad piece of legislation, a flawed piece of legislation, an unfair piece of legislation. So that's why we're here tonight.

The first reason is allowing time for government members to take their place in this House, to prepare. Maybe they need time to prepare for a speech, but there has been very little support from government members for their paramedics that are within their own constituencies and, of course, all of the people that they represent in their constituencies. Since they have not been speaking up, I must assume that they need more time.

They've made commitments. Government members made commitments during the election. I know that on the news tonight government members were mentioned. Island news, this evening's news, showed that 30 paramedics were protesting at an MLA's office. This was the MLA for Parksville-Qualicum. They were upset that they didn't hear from him in the House about this issue. I know the MLA. I'm sure that he wants to represent his paramedics, the people of his riding, of his constituency. Obviously, more time is needed, because we haven't heard from him yet. It was clear on TV that that is the expectation that he has given to the paramedics in his constituency. They're his constituents.

I would suggest this hoist motion would allow the time for that member and others to come forward and stand up and defend their paramedics too. We all have paramedics. We all rely on them, and we all hope we never have to see them. But the scary fact is that sometimes we do, and when they arrive, they are truly the knights on white horses.

Government members need the time so that they can stand in this House. If they're not prepared, so they can prepare to be in this House and represent their constituents, their paramedics and all of those in their constituency that rely on them as a vital part of the health continuum, as a lifeline. That is why I'm urging government members to support this bill.

This is a hoist motion. It stalls Bill 21. It stops it from being imposed against certainly the wishes of the paramedics but against the wishes of all of our constituents, whether they are Liberal or New Democrat. We are one and the same here. We need to support our constituents. Liberal members need time to be able to do that, and six months is what will be allotted. It's plenty of time for that discussion to happen here. This needs to be a discussion that doesn't just involve us in the opposition. This needs to involve all members. That can't happen when Bill 21 is being rammed through.

The hoist motion prevents that problem. It allows government members to stand in this House, to prepare, to go back to their constituencies, talk to their paramedics, talk to those who have been saved by their paramedics and actually take a note of all the signs, all the people that have taken the time to write — they're not just paramedics — from their constituencies so that they can come here and represent them in this House. I know all members want to do that. The hoist motion allows that.

The mandate from the minister is that this bill is a done deal. It's going through now, and we're not going to leave this place until it's through. Well, that's not right. It's not fair to the paramedics. It's not fair to the parliamentary system. I know they have a majority and that they can win every vote. However, in this case this is not in the public interest. The public are saying that it's not in the public interest. We must allow time. That's what a hoist motion does.

I will note that it's not just the member for Parksville-Qualicum. I'm not picking on anyone. Comox Valley, a very short letter — paramedic Steve Bremer. I received this. I know the member representing the Comox Valley did — new member, nice man, elected by his constituents. I know he's pleased to be here. I know he wants to do a good job, as we all do. This is what one of his paramedics is saying. It says here:

"After risking my life yesterday, going on a very scary helicopter ride in a hurricane-type wind to north of Sayward" — this was yesterday, when the big windstorm happened — "to pick up a very sick patient that was in a bad MVA, and then hearing how the Liberal MLAs are threatening us, I feel that I need to pass this on. If you want today, you can let all your MLAs know that if this bill passes, there will be no paramedics in the province of British Columbia that will volunteer to work the Olympics. VANOC will have no paramedic coverage at the expensive party…."

Deputy Speaker: Member, you do know that that is not speaking to the motion underway.

My argument is that we need a hoist motion. We need six months for the members on this side to be able to prepare, to listen to their paramedics and come into this place and speak on this issue.

If they don't support the hoist motion, this is a done deal. Paramedics like Steve Bremer will not get their wishes heard here. They will not have their voice heard here by their MLA.

This is a key part of my speech tonight, Madam Speaker. Not reading these letters — this is actually, I think, the last I have here. I'm showing, as I did with the previous Liberal MLA that I referred to, that their own constituents need them to speak. The hoist motion will give them the time and the opportunity to do that. It would also give them the time and opportunity to discuss these things.

This letter is today, because the windstorm was yesterday. That's why it's essential this hoist motion passes. I don't know if that context will work. I have a paragraph left in this. Will I be allowed to continue with this, Madam Speaker? I believe it's germane to my whole thrust on this….

Deputy Speaker: The member knows that he is now revisiting second reading debate.

Steve Bremer, paramedic in Comox Valley, wants the hoist motion to pass. It allows his MLA to take a stand on his behalf, on behalf of his constituents and his peers. He's informing his MLA that this could affect the volunteerism at the Olympics if Bill 21 goes through.

It is the essence of collective bargaining, of fair treatment for workers, that's at stake here if Bill 21 is allowed to go through. The hoist motion can avert a disaster. This is a piece of that disaster.

We are having a huge world event coming up in less than a hundred days. If the hoist motion goes through, if it's successful, if Liberal members will vote in favour, if they listen to their own paramedics, they can avert a disaster when it comes to the Olympic Games.

I won't continue, Madam Speaker, with this particular letter, but it goes to show that whichever constituency is represented, whether it's represented by a Liberal MLA or an NDP MLA or an independent MLA, all of us are elected to represent their paramedics, their constituents who support their paramedics, and it is most of the people in British Columbia.

A hoist motion will allow the time to do that. To deny the hoist motion will put much at risk. The labour strife and the bad feelings that will be caused by an imposed contract that was uncalled for will do us damage. The hoist motion, if it's supported by enough members here — which means Liberal members — would avert that.

It is key to why we are here tonight. It is why we have moved the hoist motion. It is part of the parliamentary system, the check and balance that can work. It is not a partisan thing. This is not a politically partisan thing. This is about the best interests of British Columbians. This is a public interest issue.

I don't believe the Liberal members all believe…. I don't know why they have been silent, but I believe, I have surmised, that they need time. The hoist motion will give them time, and there is time. There is no hurry for this. There is no burning house, if you will.

That takes me to the second general premise of why we need support on the hoist motion from members of this House. The second reason is that the Liberal government needs time — that's what the hoist motion does — to correct the premise of Bill 21. The information that was delivered by the minister as a reason that Bill 21 had to go through before we leave this place, and the reason, thus, for the hoist motion…. The rationale has proven to be not quite true.

First, there was a suggestion by the minister that there was an impasse. That's not true. The minister's statements, I can prove, were not true. There was no impasse. In a fair collective bargaining process, especially when you're dealing with a group that is considered an essential service, and the natural place to go — if there's a problem, if we're approaching an impasse — is independent arbitration. It's used all the time. It is a wonderful way for everyone to step back. In some ways, independent arbitration is like a hoist motion. It allows the parties to separate. It allows sober second thought. It allows an option for both parties, a way out. It's a venue for compromise.

The government, the minister, never brought in independent arbitration. The union asked for it. The paramedics requested it. Union negotiations, labour negotiations are often difficult. This is a very common practice. The minister never took that option. Therefore, there was no impasse. There was a hammer that came down.

Deputy Speaker: I'm reminding the member that this is visiting second reading debate.

S. Fraser: It's certainly dealing with paramedics in Bill 21, Madam Speaker.

I'm suggesting that this bill, the hoist motion needs to go through to allow six months, because the premise for ramming through Bill 21 is flawed.

We need to go back. We need six months — the hoist motion allows that — to bring in independent arbitration, an option that was never taken by the minister. The minister said it was an impasse, that this is where we had to go. No, there wasn't. They should have gone to arbitration. That's why we need the hoist motion. We don't need to push through Bill 21; we need six months. In that time, an independent arbitrator can help bring a solution to this labour problem.

The independent arbitrator will know the financial problems of the government, and the independent arbitrator will also know the needs of the paramedics and the lackings in their contract. That's what happens. That's how you get fairness in the collective bargaining process, which has been found to be flawed in this case. The trust is gone. That is when you bring in an independent arbitrator. A hoist motion will allow that. To not pass the hoist motion will not allow that.

I don't know why the minister…. The Minister of Health is a new minister. Tough job, huge portfolio — I understand that. Maybe he wanted to leap in and make his mark — I don't know — by coming down hard, showing that he wasn't a pushover. I don't know.

But government members should know that six months could solve this labour strife. The hoist motion will bring that. That debate has to happen. We're trying to make it happen now, but we're the only ones speaking.

The hoist motion will allow time for Liberal members, MLAs and ministers, to take part in this debate and to ensure that every option is taken forward, that every option is explored. Those options have not been explored. The hoist motion will allow it — a friendly amendment, if you will.

It is not contrary. It will help government achieve a fair piece of legislation, and that's what we should all want in this House, regardless of political stripe.

Our parliamentary system is a check and balance. The hoist motion is in order. For the hoist motion to work and give us six months to ensure that paramedics get a fair contract, is in the public interest. It is why it has been brought forward.

The hoist motion gives us time, as I mentioned, for Liberal members to prepare to speak in this House and defend their paramedics and their rights to collective bargaining and fair treatment. The hoist motion allows them that. The hoist motion gives time for the corrections to be made.

The minister said there was an impasse. There was not. We need time. The hoist motion gives that. The correction can be made — the correction being an independent arbitrator. If the independent arbitrator failed, well, then the minister could certainly say accurately that there was an impasse.

Time. The hoist motion gives us time for the Liberal MLAs, for the minister, to correct the basic premise that there was an impasse. Time — six months. It's not too much to ask for those that are a key lifeline in our health care system.

The third thing that it gives us is time to correct.... Well, there's other misinformation. Other members have mentioned it, but you can't bring in a bill and base it on an H1N1 pandemic and then find out that there were memos that went from VANOC, from the IOC, that were directing government to end the labour strike.

Deputy Speaker: No, please take your seat. You know the debate is constrained to the consideration of the motion. Your continued delving into second reading debate is not appropriate.

S. Fraser: I'm the critic for Community and Rural Development, and I believe that the hoist motion reflects the will of local governments. I'm not just saying that lightly. I think probably all members of this House recently attended the UBCM, and I do not believe that with Bill 21 their wishes, the needs of local government and local leaders were taken into consideration.

The hoist motion will allow that. I don't know how many Liberal members actually read the resolutions or attended the resolutions committees, but I know some did. I attended the UBCM, and I think it's very important that the resolutions that were brought forward at the UBCM be reflected on. That does not appear to be happening. They seem to have been ignored.

As the critic for local governments, if you will, I want to refer to those resolutions. They are germane to the hoist motion because the hoist motion allows six months. It will allow six months for government members and opposition members to come up with a solution that is fair for our paramedics and is in keeping with the will of local government. I believe local government is the purest form of government. They are the closest on the ground. They see firsthand what our paramedics do.

If we can get enough government members to support the hoist motion, we can incorporate the will of our local governments in, I think, a very progressive bill as opposed to Bill 21, which is a regressive bill. If the government rams through Bill 21 and does not heed the hoist motion, if the government members do not vote, then it's a done deal. That means local governments have been ignored.

Let me explain. This is a resolution this year, in 2009, at the UBCM just recently. "The Ambulance Service" was the title of the resolution. The resolution says:

"Whereas there are recruitment challenges for paramedics working on-call and standby shifts in rural and remote communities:

"Therefore, be it resolved that the UBCM urge the provincial government and B.C. Ambulance Service to address the recruitment and retention situation by increasing the rate for the standby, on-call and the honorarium for volunteer, part-time ambulance staff paramedics in rural and remote communities throughout the province by an amount that is equivalent to the overall BCAS budget increase over the last five years, noting that 65 percent is equivalent to the increase in the overall BCAS budget over the last few years — an overall increase that is not reflected in remote area on-call pay increases."

This was recommended as an endorsement, and it was endorsed. These go back for years. This was the last UBCM, which should be fresh in everyone's memory. So if the hoist motion were endorsed by enough Liberal MLAs....

We are having a debate on the hoist motion, and every member has the opportunity to speak to the hoist motion.

S. Fraser: I know the members opposite…. To their credit, many of them also went to the UBCM. This is one of the key reasons for this hoist motion — six months to reflect, to come up with proper legislation that would allow for a fair collective bargaining process to occur. The six months — in that time those members that are speaking off the record now could speak on the record defending their own local government's resolutions.

We represent those people in this Legislature, in this Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. We are all here to represent them. When we bring forward a hoist motion — and as I've mentioned before, this is a friendly motion — this is part of a parliamentary system that allows the government to take a sober second thought.

M. Mungall: Definitely speaking to the hoist motion. First, I hope to go back to my colleagues later this evening after these 30 minutes and, as a rookie MLA, have some bragging rights to say that I wasn't reminded to speak to the hoist motion at all this evening — in fact, that I stuck right to it and didn't wave off onto the second reading of Bill 21. So I'm hoping after these 30 minutes, I'll have those bragging rights.

I want to start by explaining what we are doing here this evening, especially for the viewers at home who might be wondering: "What on earth is a hoist motion? What are they talking about at 9:05 in the evening on a Friday night? What are they doing in the Legislature?"

Before I get started, I've already heard members from the opposite side start talking. I would like to take this moment to dare them to get up and speak to this motion. I would like to dare them to get up and speak, because they have not gotten up to speak to Bill 21 or this hoist motion.

They have not told British Columbians what they think about this bill — people in their communities, the paramedics in their communities. They haven't got up at all to be accountable. They think, it seems to me, that they are above accountability.

Well, let me tell you, it seems to me that they think that, and it seems to me that they are dang wrong. They are wrong. No one in this House is above accountability.

So I dare them. I put the gauntlet out one more time. I dare them to get up and speak to the hoist motion. I dare them because British Columbians deserve to hear from this side of the House on this motion.

I will continue on explaining what we're doing, because I know that nobody from the opposite side of the House is going to do it.

M. Mungall: Yes, and going right back to the motion. So I've got one. I might lose my bragging rights.

On the motion, I'm explaining what this motion is for the viewers at home who are wondering why nobody on the opposite side of the House will get up and explain it to them.

This motion is about supporting the people in our communities who get up every day to save lives. The reason why this side of the House has put it forward is so that we can show the people in the gallery and the people at home that we are with our paramedics 100 percent.

What we want the government to do with this motion is vote for it and cool their jets. Slow down. Calm down. Breathe. I'm from Nelson, so I'm even going to put it out that they do some yoga maybe. Relax. Cool your jets, and go back to the table. Go back to the table in the six months that this motion is all about. Go back to the table. That is what they ought to do. Go back to the table with respect for the valued workers who save our lives every day in this province.

That's what this hoist motion is about — cooling their jets, giving them six months to relax, not shoot from the hip, not act ad hoc. Do the right thing and negotiate with the valued paramedics of this province.

Most people my age on a Friday night would not be standing where I'm standing, on the floor of the Legislature working. Most of the people I hang out with on a Friday night are out partying. They're out there at a pub, a bar, a house party. They're having a good time.

I'm having a good time here. Don't get me wrong. But they're out, and they're relaxed and having a wonderful time. They're dancing, they're singing, and they're hanging out with friends. They're drinking. Many of my friends will be having a few beers this Friday night if they're not watching me in the House, watching me on line here speaking to the hoist motion. They're probably wondering: "What the heck is she doing speaking to a hoist motion on a Friday night?"

M. Mungall: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker. I withdraw. I apologize. I'm getting a little bit too relaxed here on Friday night myself.

That's what they're doing. And you know what? What's really tragic is that some of my friends in the past haven't gone home safely on a Friday night after relaxing and having fun with their friends after a few beers.

Some of my friends have been in vehicle accidents. A very good, close friend of my constituency assistant once fell off a balcony, three stories. He passed away, but not after the paramedics came. My friends who have been in motor vehicle accidents — some of them have lived because the paramedics came.

I want the members across the way to think about that when they are thinking about this hoist motion — to think about what paramedics do in our communities, how valuable that is and why it's worth taking six months to think about it, because it's very much worth it. It's very much worth six months to slow down and cool their jets, go back to the table and negotiate with the very people who have saved my friends' lives, the very people who are saving young peoples' lives tonight.

With this hoist motion, we are saying to the government that back-to-work legislation is not the way to solve disputes. So slow down. Give it six months. Go back to the table. Being a bully is no way to solve a conflict with anyone. So stop. Vote for the hoist motion, and slow down.

In fact, the idea that you solve a conflict by talking and through respectful dialogue is something that you learn in kindergarten. I believe somebody wrote a book and said that everything he ever had to learn in life he learned in kindergarten. I think that's a very interesting concept because it's so true in a lot of ways: the idea of sharing, using your words, listening, being friendly, being respectful.

We have a child in the gallery who clearly agrees that's the way you ought to treat people. If that message is so easily understood by toddlers and five-year-olds in kindergarten, I am at a loss why it's completely not understood by members of the opposite way.

The idea that they can put forward Bill 21 and bully our valued paramedics into going back to work in totally unacceptable work conditions is deplorable. It is embarrassing, and it is abhorrent.

I think if the members from the opposite way truly realized the magnitude to which British Columbians find this bill disgusting, they would immediately vote for the hoist motion. They would immediately say: "This is our way out. This is our way out of a minister's doing. It is so reactionary. We don't all have to take the fall for that reactionary position of the Health Minister."

This is the way out. It's this hoist motion. It is the way out — to give everybody on that side of the House an opportunity to cool off, slow down, go back to the table with respect for our paramedics.

They know that's the right thing to do. They know it's the right thing to vote for this hoist motion. They know it's the right thing to do to go back to the table with the paramedics, to solve this dispute.

They know it is because that's exactly what they said during the election. They said — and they promised, several of them, in public — that they would promise to solve this dispute respectfully, that they appreciated and valued the paramedics. That's what they said, but actions speak louder than words. What they're doing is clearly the exact opposite of what they're saying.

Again, we come up with the situation where members opposite, the Liberals, said one thing during the election, and here we are faced with them doing something else. Here we are, after the election, with a proposal beyond anybody's wildest dreams because it is so unprecedented. They know that. They know, and they have an opportunity tonight to follow up on their election promise, solve this dispute respectfully, solve it by voting for this hoist motion.

People of British Columbia feel blindsided by Bill 21, just like they felt blindsided by the HST, because it's so unprecedented. Again, let me say to the members opposite: here's your chance, vote for the hoist motion that the NDP opposition has put forward tonight — or, excuse me, this morning. We've been here a long time.

One of the reasons why I believe the Liberals made this promise during the election, that they were going to solve this dispute, was because every year since 2003 local governments from the Kootenays, interestingly, have brought forward resolutions to the UBCM, the Union of B.C. Municipalities. The UBCM, since 2003, has subsequently adopted every single one of these resolutions.

I want to go through some of these resolutions, just to remind the members opposite of what they are, why they felt compelled to make election promises and why this hoist motion, as they ponder this hoist motion…. They're only pondering it. They're not getting up to speak to it. While they ponder this motion, I would hope that if I put this forward to them, it will give them something upon which to reflect so that they can make the right decision by voting to this motion.

Speaking to the motion, I read this out. This is a resolution, this year, 2009's UBCM, put forward by my neighbours in Kootenay West:

"Therefore, be it resolved that the UBCM urge the provincial government and B.C. Ambulance Service to address the recruitment and retention situation by increasing the rate for standby, on-call and honorarium for volunteer, part-time ambulance staff paramedics in rural and remote communities throughout the province by an amount that is equivalent to the overall BCAS budget increase for the last five years, noting that 65 percent is equivalent to the increase in the overall BCAS budget over the last five years — an overall increase that is not reflected in remote area on-call pay increases."

This is something that was endorsed by the Association of Kootenay and Boundary Local Governments and put forward by the municipality of New Denver.

The reason they put it forward, and I guess the reason why members across the way felt compelled to make promises during the election about solving the dispute with the paramedics, is because we are threatened in rural areas with the loss of paramedics, and that terrifies us.

Because their working conditions are so poor, because they make so little money that they can barely live…. We have received so many letters, an incredible amount of letters, telling us the stories of paramedics who are struggling to survive. Please, let the members opposite think about that while we debate this hoist motion.

Paramedics are struggling to survive in rural areas. We are threatened with the loss of rural paramedics. My friends tonight, after they're done at the pub, can't afford the loss of any more rural paramedics.

I desperately hope that the members opposite are listening at least somewhat and consider that as they ponder this hoist motion and consider that this hoist motion…. Again, I will remind them that this is their way to show that they, too, value our paramedics. They value the work our paramedics do in rural areas; they value the work our paramedics do in urban areas. They know paramedics are saving lives every day and every night and that without them, British Columbia would be worse off.

With that in mind, knowing that, knowing how much we need these wonderful people in our communities and in our province, vote for this hoist motion and go back to the table with respect for these valued workers. Go back.

This hoist motion is about stopping what I feel is absolutely the worst recruitment strategy for paramedics in B.C. I already mentioned how in rural areas we're threatened with the loss of paramedics because of their poor working conditions. Well, after Bill 21 being put forward in this House, how do you think they feel now? How would they feel now? Who's going to want to work as a paramedic in this province when they are treated so poorly?

Deputy Speaker: Member, to the hoist motion. This is not second reading debate.

M. Mungall: My apologies. I was going somewhere with that, which is that if they are not feeling comfortable working in this province, if this is the worst recruitment strategy, that is exactly why we need to hoist this bill and give it a six-month cooling-off period. That is exactly why.

Sorry it took me a while to get there, hon. Speaker. I only got two reminders, though, so I'm still doing better than some of my longer-term colleagues, although I think sometimes I was a bit closer in going up for my third.

Speaking to the motion. This motion is absolutely necessary. It is necessary because so many people have been writing to us, and they felt that Bill 21, in this democratic society, is not right. They felt that in this democratic society, where we honour people's human rights, despite what previous members — especially the member for Peace River North, who really has a disdain for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms….

In this democratic society, where we actually believe in people's human rights, Bill 21 was over the top, and because Bill 21 was over the top, that is why we need to slow down, vote for this hoist motion and allow for the government to cool off. Because my goodness, it certainly seems to me that that's exactly what they need to do.

I know that the government has said several times that this is about H1N1 for them. That's certainly debatable, especially taking into consideration a memo from Dr. Mike Wilkinson, who is the director of medical services for VANOC to Stephen Brown and Lee Doney, other government officials.

Deputy Speaker: Member, this is not second reading. This is the hoist motion.

I'm again just trying to make a point about why the hoist motion is valuable. Certainly, without any members from the opposite side speaking to the hoist motion, whether they find it valuable or not, I'm left standing here guessing, so I'm making the long argument, providing as much evidence as I possibly can on why this hoist motion is valuable.

Speaking to this hoist motion, it's clear that Bill 21 wasn't about H1N1 when looking at this memo. It's clear that it was about preparing for the Olympics and making sure…. It was about getting paramedics on the ground for the Olympics. But here's the thing: there are paramedics out there who have clearly stated that they are not going to be volunteering for the Olympics after a bill like this.

In good faith, to show good faith, vote for the hoist motion, and give the paramedics some hope that they are respected.

Steve Bremer writes: "If you want, today you can let the Liberal MLAs know that if this bill passes, there will be no paramedics in the province of B.C. that will volunteer to work at the Olympics." He speaks for his colleagues. Imagine that: no paramedics at the Olympics.

For that reason, we need to vote for this hoist motion, to show that we will go back to the table in good faith. Having no paramedics at the Olympics could leave British Columbians and our guests from all over the world in incredibly dangerous situations. The paramedics will come in and save their lives, but if they won't be there, who will? To get them there, this Liberal government needs a way out of something that is unprecedented, something that is deplorable for so many British Columbians, and that's Bill 21.

This hoist motion gives them the opportunity to do just that — to get out of the corner that they have backed themselves into, to come out and say: "We respect our paramedics. We respect them. We apologize. We did something wrong. We put forward back-to-work legislation just mere days before the results of their vote on this government's offer were coming in."

They put themselves into a very terrible corner. I can understand that they, therefore, feel the need to defend themselves. To the members opposite — nobody in British Columbia would be ashamed of them if they voted in favour of the hoist motion and said: "It's right. We do need to go back to the table."

In fact, British Columbians would be proud to finally see this government actually listen to the people of British Columbia rather than see this government sit quietly and ram legislation through without any sense of accountability to the people of this province. The people of British Columbia would be relieved because not only would they get their valued paramedics back, they'd get a little bit of hope back in the democratic process.

That's what this hoist motion is about at the end of the day. It's about giving British Columbians hope — hope that this government has respect for them, hope that this government believes in being accountable, hope that our democracy is working, hope that somebody on the other side of the House is actually listening.

That's what this hoist motion is about. It's about caring for our paramedics who care for all of us — who tonight, in just a few hours, are going to be caring for some of my closest friends all over this province and who are going to be making sure that if they got in a motor vehicle accident, they were going to get to the hospital on time so that their families wouldn't have to bury them, so that we wouldn't have to go to funerals.

That's what our paramedics are going to do tonight. Please, I urge the members opposite. It only takes seven of them to vote in favour of this hoist motion. Give that hope back to British Columbians. Give that hope back to our paramedics.

Give us the hope that this democracy is working, that rights are being respected and that the people of this province actually mean something more than dollar signs. I think that if this government voted in favour of this hoist motion, that's exactly how British Columbians would feel.

They would feel, for once, that they mean more than just dollars and cents and some bottom lines on a piece of paper, that they are the human beings who are cared for who are saved by our paramedics, that this government actually values our health care system and wants to ensure that it's the best it can possibly be and that British Columbians get the best possible care that they so richly deserve.

I hope that by the end of this evening somebody from the opposite side gets up and speaks and shows that he or she believes that they are accountable to British Columbians, that they actually believe they have a duty to tell British Columbians why they will vote the way they vote rather than just getting up and doing what their boss tells them to do. It's not an unrealistic expectation. In fact, it's exactly what British Columbians expect. It's their job.

Once again, I urge the hon. members to vote in favour of the hoist motion. Come out of the corner. You don't have to defend yourself any longer. You have the opportunity right here tonight to show the people of British Columbia that you respect them, that you respect...

…that they respect British Columbians, that they respect the collective bargaining process that has been developed over decades in this country.

J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery are two paramedics, Gary Baggott and Jim Stewart. Gary and Jim are here today to watch their rights be eroded in the parliament that they elected representatives to come and sit –– and support and endorse those rights. I want the House to please make them both very, very welcome.

Deputy Speaker: Member, that was…. I would ask you to rephrase that, Member.

Another opportunity to stand in my place and represent the constituents of Malahat–Juan de Fuca and also two guests, paramedics Gary Bagget and Jim Stewart, who have come to join us here tonight to watch democracy unfold in the province of British Columbia.

M. Elmore: I rise to take my place, to speak to the hoist motion on Bill 21. I'm rising to speak in favour of the hoist motion, which would allow the government six months to reconsider the rationale and the reasons behind Bill 21.

I think it's time, I would suggest, that the other side, the government MLAs, have an opportunity, a time that they would be able to take to consult with their constituents, to canvass the paramedics that live in their areas, to hear from paramedics themselves what their situation is, and ample time for government to hear from paramedics in their areas and give the rationale to allow paramedics to engage in the collective bargaining process.

The reason I'm in support of the hoist motion and the opportunity to allow for this time for MLAs on the other side, in the government, to reconsider their Bill 21 is also, I would contend, an opportunity to appreciate the context of Bill 21 and to fully appreciate the meaning and the impact that Bill 21 would have.

This time would allow for a deeper understanding of the impact of Bill 21 and how it would undermine the collective bargaining rights of the ambulance paramedics — 3,500 hard-working ambulance paramedics across B.C. that serve us with dedication and commitment — and certainly, with respect to them, not only for the hard work that they do but also to recognize their democratic rights. This is important.

I think, also, that the six months for the government to consider and maybe study and appreciate the meaning, the rights of collective bargaining — what that means to a free and democratic society, the benefits that that brings to our society and the danger of undermining those rights — would allow the government to appreciate that collective bargaining is an opportunity. Workers are able to come together to meet, discuss and negotiate their work conditions — which ambulance paramedics, on behalf of their union, CUPE 873, have been engaged in.

I think it's time to reconsider and appreciate the full scope and the meaning of collective bargaining and also appreciate the contribution that collective bargaining brings to our democracy. To value that is important.

Coming to a collective agreement is basically a contract…. It would represent a contract between the employer and the ambulance paramedics. The opportunity to negotiate, which ambulance paramedics have entered into in an open way with their employer, is being undermined.

I think the hoist motion allows for a full appreciation of the impact that that has in undermining the rights of these workers, of ambulance paramedics, and the need and importance to uphold the principle of collective bargaining.

Six months is also to take the time to really appreciate the weight of collective bargaining and what that means as a human right. It's something that is not to be taken lightly and to be considered.

The context of collective bargaining as a human right is not just held here in B.C. It's recognized under the Canadian Charter. It's also held on an international level. It's recognized and upheld by the International Labour Organization as one of the eight core principles governing all citizens around the globe.

It's in that context of the International Labour Organization, as one of the core principles — also upheld at the UN under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights — that the right of collective bargaining is recognized and is an important contributing factor to our fabric of our society and to the fabric of democracy here in British Columbia.

I think the process for allowing collective bargaining on behalf of the ambulance paramedics — their attempts to negotiate for not only improved wages, benefits and working conditions but also the benefit that that brings — cannot be taken lightly. Additional time through the hoist motion would allow the government to appreciate that the process of collective bargaining, the process of ambulance paramedics bringing their concerns to the table and entering into a jointly agreed negotiation, contributes towards the strengthening not only of the Ambulance Service but of our health care system in B.C.

That is also a high priority for ambulance paramedics, and the collective bargaining process is a venue for that to take place. It's an important contribution, and it's an important avenue for those discussions and negotiations to take place.

Six months to consider this. I would contend that maybe the government hasn't completely appreciated the value of collective bargaining and the process of engaging in the process with paramedics and the benefits that it brings. It is, I would contend, time to consider that and time for them to go back and talk to ambulance paramedics in their constituencies — their own citizens — to consult on the process, to hear, really, from....

Certainly we've been hearing, I've been hearing, from ambulance paramedics and from citizens about their support for allowing the collective bargaining process to carry on. This hoist motion is designed to also extend that to the government and their MLAs. It's to have an opportunity to also respond to the many e-mails that I know are coming into their offices and to engage in a discussion on this issue.

When we talk about the value of collective bargaining, it's the recognition that collective bargaining is an essential right of workers and that it holds an important place in our society.

There's the need to recognize that this is a very serious principle of our democracy. It's a very core fundamental not only of B.C. society. I mentioned that it's upheld in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, part of the Canadian constitution, and recognized and upheld at the International Labour Organization and through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

On the floor, we're discussing the hoist motion to allow the government six months to reconsider the Bill 21, to undertake, I think, a more comprehensive study and appreciation of the value and benefits of collective bargaining and to recognize the rights that workers have — that it's a right. It needs to be upheld. This constitutes a very serious undermining of that fundamental right and also of the rights of ambulance paramedics by not allowing them to engage in the process.

The six-month hoist would allow, I think, the government to consider that collective bargaining also contributes to…. It brings a benefit to our society. It's not only in the resolution of working conditions, wages and benefits for ambulance paramedics in the work that they do and benefiting the overall health care system, but it also contributes to human dignity, liberty and autonomy of workers.

These are values and characteristics that it's difficult to put a price tag on. This is what I'm concerned that Bill 21.... This is why I'm speaking in favour of the hoist motion. It's for the government to consider the impact to these workers not only in terms of their ability to negotiate their contract but also what it means to them as people. I've heard through e-mails and letters, and it's been read out in the House here today also, about the affront to their dignity and their sense of respect, and that people feel offended by Bill 21.

Those are some reasons that are contributing to my reason to stand and speak in favour of the hoist motion to allow for the other side and government MLAs to also have those discussions and enter into those conversations with ambulance paramedics, some of them with us here, and I know around the province as well.

I think the reason why I'm speaking in favour of the hoist motion is to try and convince the government, and to get the point across, that they need to take this time to reconsider Bill 21. The contention is that we've heard from ambulance paramedics that they feel that it's an affront to their human dignity, that they don't feel respected as workers. It's to allow for the collective bargaining process to unfold and for these workers to be able to practice their democratic rights in our society.

The hoist motion, the six months' consideration that I'm speaking in favour of, is a very important issue and, I think, shouldn't be taken lightly. We have the ability here in these chambers to enact laws that affect the people across British Columbia. It's a very serious responsibility. It should not be taken lightly, and any time legislation is brought forward that undermines democratic rights and freedoms or undermines workers' rights, I think there's a need to take pause and reconsider.

Collective bargaining is a fundamental human right here, and ambulance paramedics deserve that. So it's my contention…. I hope to get the point across to the other side to support the hoist motion, which I think would be an extension and would show support for ambulance paramedics. It would be a measure of showing respect for our ambulance paramedics across B.C. to allow them to undertake the process of freely negotiating their work conditions and benefits here in B.C.

Not doing so is a violation of that social partnership that we engage in, and it's an important recognition. I think it should be fully considered that the fabric of our democratic society is that there are different interests — workers, management and the government — and we need to have an agreement of working together.

The hoist motion will allow time for the government to consider that collective bargaining is an opportunity for all those parties to come together to reach a negotiated settlement, agreed upon by everybody.

The violation of that is very grave, I would contend, and would lead to bad feelings within ambulance paramedics. It's that they're not being respected or listened to — not taken seriously — and that for unnecessary reasons they are experiencing the erosion of their democratic rights. So I think it's important for us to take pause, to consider the amendment and to recognize the importance of respecting our collective partnership with ambulance paramedics.

Also, further to the point of the value of collective bargaining as a democratic right…. The government holds a majority. But I think they should fully consider the outcome of legislating for…. We haven't heard — I haven't heard — many very compelling reasons around why we need to rush through this legislation, and I think that British Columbians would also like an opportunity to hear more compelling arguments.

Maybe we'll hear a little bit more from some of the members on the other side. But also, in six months, with the hoist motion, I would hope that some of these reasons would emerge; that the other side, the government, would be convinced; and that they would hear the compelling arguments from ambulance paramedics, from their constituents.

Maybe they'll be swayed by some of our arguments and points from this side about the need to reconsider Bill 21 and seriously consider the impacts that this would have not only on the ambulance paramedics as they're attempting to negotiate their agreement but also more broadly within society — and to fully consider what kind of message that would send to other public sector workers.

I think that Bill 21…. There's need for the hoist motion to really consider and to appreciate that this is a bill that is also being compared to political tyranny. The other side should seriously consider and have some time to reflect on the impact of bringing down such heavy-handed legislation, and the government should consider that it's also their right and our right here in the chamber to take our responsibility very seriously about our ability to pass legislation. That shouldn't be abused.

I think there's a need to reconsider. The time, the six months in the hoist motion, would allow the government to reflect on the principle and concept that passing regulation or this legislation without representation can also be regarded as a denial of human dignity.

It really is an insult, an insult not only to the paramedics but also to our concepts of democracy and what we hold to be sacred and what we hold to be important principles governing our society and what citizens expect us to uphold — the principles that citizens expect us here in the chamber to uphold.

It can also be the vision of a system, that in terms of Bill 21, we…. I think the reason to hoist and to allow the six months to take the time to consider Bill 21 also contributes to allowing the other side to appreciate collective bargaining and to think of it as a principle or as a civic duty. It's an exercise in the strengthening of our democratic institutions. It's something that brings a very positive force to our society and that cannot be minimized or taken for granted.

I'm supporting the hoist motion because I would like the government to appreciate that Bill 21 is seen as also an attack against ambulance paramedics — that it's not being carried out in the public interest. We've heard from a number of constituents and ambulance paramedics, as well, that they don't support Bill 21. So there's a need to reconsider and to allow the hoist motion.

It would allow the government to reconsider Bill 21 and also to appreciate that this would equate to a very authoritarian enforcement, enforcing this contract on ambulance paramedics. Certainly, having this kind of authority, an unaccountable authority…. The government should — hopefully, by supporting the hoist motion — take time to consider this and also show accountability to their constituents.

It's an opportunity to have that dialogue, to be held accountable by paramedics in their constituency and also to have a chance to respond to the many letters and messages that I know must be coming into their respective offices.

The hoist motion will also allow the government to appreciate and reflect on…. In order for our democracy to thrive, the principle of collective bargaining makes a very important contribution. We've been elected here, and the B.C. government has promised to uphold these internationally recognized standards of human rights. Included in that is the right to collective bargaining.

There's a need to consider the impact — that Bill 21 would effectively renege on that pledge. Therefore, there's need to support the hoist motion and to allow for the government to consider passing legislation that would allow them to comply and live up to B.C.'s and Canada's and also our international obligations. It's opportunity and time to reflect on that and to consider the importance of doing that.

I would urge the members on the other side to also join me and this side in supporting the hoist motion. It's important, also, for the future of democracy in B.C., I would contend. We are seeing that free collective bargaining as a human right is under attack. It's very serious, and I think the six months would allow the government the opportunity to recognize the importance and restore that right.

We've been elected here obliged to protect those basic, fundamental human rights, and six months to consider the impact of Bill 21, which is effectively using legal means to ignore these rights. It's a clear distortion of our collective law-making powers, the law-making powers held in this chamber, with the majority held by the government — their ability to impose laws and legislation.

I would contend that supporting the hoist motion for six months and revisiting the rationale for the bill would allow the government to recognize the errors of their way — to show that they do respect ambulance paramedics, the work that they do, and respect the role that unions and collective bargaining play in contributing to a democratic society. Also, recognizing that for democracy and human rights to flourish, we also have to respect workers' rights and the rights of ambulance paramedics.

Recognizing these rights is an important force for democracy, and I think that allowing for the six months, giving that time, would allow the government to consider some of these issues and the, I think, very compelling arguments that they're hearing from us on this side. I know they're hearing from ambulance paramedics, and I know they're hearing from their constituents. That they would.... I urge them to also support the hoist motion and to take time to really reflect on these principles, to appreciate the value of collective bargaining and to reconsider their bill.

In terms of the reasons for the hoist motion for six months, it also allows time to recognize that this is a very flawed and regressive piece of legislation — it doesn't address the systematic issues or problems that need to be resolved — and also, I would contend, that the government has the ability to allow the process to continue and the collective bargaining process to flow.

We haven't currently heard many compelling arguments or rationales in justifying Bill 21, so on this side of the House we are raising questions in terms of what are the reasons for this bill. It would have helped to have some of the MLAs speak to that. But in terms of the hoist motion, I think it's also important for the government to appreciate that it's very damaging in terms of the labour relations atmosphere in B.C.

It's not in the public interest, and it's undermining the rights of our ambulance paramedics who serve with the utmost commitment and professionalism in B.C. The very least that this chamber can do, and that the government is obliged and expected to do, is to uphold their rights as workers, to value and respect the contributions that they make, and to also recognize that the collective bargaining process strengthens our health care system.

In terms of the hoist motion, there's also the question of why the government is insisting that we have to rush this process. That's a question as well. There are a number of questions and concerns about the speed; the need to enact this very regressive, authoritarian legislation; the lack of respect for ambulance paramedics. I hope the other side will support it.

B. Simpson: I want to start by congratulating the member for Vancouver-Kensington. As a new member in the House to be able to deliver a speech on an amendment and to do it as well as she did, both in terms of content and procedure, is excellent.

I want to start by recognizing the paramedics that are in the House, the paramedics that are at home watching this. Lost in all of this sometimes is the fact that we have a group of British Columbians who do a public service well above and beyond the call of duty in most cases, who keep us safe, give people the opportunity to stay alive and minimize damage in cases of trauma and speed recovery. All of the opposition members have made it clear that we want to recognize and thank them for that.

For the paramedics at home — and I know there are lots watching; we can tell by the e-mails we get that they're watching us — I apologize. Apparently, in question period the other day there, my head was glowing so badly, the staff even mentioned that I might consider powdering it. They can go put their sunglasses on if they want to watch the show, if they've got this big, glowing head.

My brother-in-law sent me an e-mail before I came into the House. My brother-in-law is an advanced life support paramedic with the Air Ambulance Service. He typifies in many ways some of the things that we're trying to address here because he started out as a rural ambulance attendant on call, paid for his own training, went through the system and realized that he could not advance in the system living in Quesnel, where I live and where he grew up. He had to move to Vancouver, and he had to go through all of the training. He had to put his own money on the line and has now worked his way up the system and lives in Vancouver and is part of the air ambulance.

He sent me a text message, and the text message says simply this: "Hey bro, sorry you're stuck in the Leg. because of us little people. Fight hard for us." That says it all. That's what we're doing here.

To my brother-in-law and to all of the paramedics: you're not little people. You're heroes. You're men and women who put your lives on the line and who keep many of us in British Columbia alive, so thank you for that.

As to the "fight hard for us," I'm sure it must be hard for the people who are watching and for the paramedics sitting in the House to understand what it is we're actually doing in here — that we're debating an amendment to a bill. I would like to spend a few minutes trying to describe what that is.

When a bill comes into the House, it goes through first reading. According to the Standing Orders, first reading is simply the presentation of the bill, and the minister gets a few minutes to say what the bill is intended to do and why the government's bringing it forward. It's not debatable. The House concedes to that as a part of due course, and then it goes into the order papers for debate when the government decides it's an appropriate time to bring it forward to debate.

We then go into second reading of a bill, and second reading really is when the government must make the case for the legislation. It's up to the government to explain to British Columbians and to all legislators and, in fact in many cases, to their own members on the government side who are often seeing the bill for the first time, to explain to them why the bill is necessary in terms of its content, its intent and the timing of the bill.

Now, as opposition members, we have a special obligation to take a look at that rationale and decide whether we agree to it or not. We don't have a lot of opportunities available to us to influence the government, but we do have some, and in second reading that form of influence is in the form of amendments that we can put forward.

I want to speak about the three types of amendments that are allowed and how a hoist amendment fits in our ability to try and influence the government. If we don't put amendments forward, if we believe the government's case, if we believe that they've made a sufficient case — and, as many of the members on this side have pointed out, that is most normal in this House — we then move into third reading.

Both sides do their thing in second reading. Both sides generally speak to the bill — the government, why it's necessary; the opposition, why they're either opposed to it or they think it's reasonable but maybe could have been better.

Then we move into third reading. Third reading, of course — as people in here know but people at home may not know — is when you get into the substance of the bill, clause by clause, the name of the bill, etc. As opposition, we don't have a lot of opportunity to influence that except at the clause-by-clause level. We can put an amendment in on a clause.

Now in this bill.... If we allow this bill to go to third reading without doing work in second reading…. If we allow it to go to third reading, then we are actually in an awkward position as opposition because we fundamentally do not agree with the premise of the bill. So there's nothing we can do if it goes to third reading that would make this bill better, because we do not believe in taking away the collective agreement rights of the paramedics. We don't believe the government has made the case.

So we're forced to look at the government's case in second reading and do what we can there, because in third reading — if this goes to third reading, and if the government doesn't listen to us and take this off the order paper for six months — we simply cannot in good conscience say, "Here's how you can make this bill better," because it cannot be made better. That's as simple as I can make it.

So as a consequence, we're forced to use the rules of the House to attempt to get the government to change its agenda in second reading, and that's what we're doing now. There are three types of amendments that the opposition can put forward in second reading to try and influence the government's agenda. Hoist is one of them, and I'll come back to that.

The other is what's called a reasoned amendment. So we put something forward that we believe meets the spirit and intent of the bill, but would make the bill better based on feedback that we have as opposition. Again, if you use the same argument that I just made for third reading, there is no reasoned amendment you can make to stripping collective agreement rights in the middle of a vote.

There is no reasoned amendment that we can make to taking away paramedics' rights for the arguments that the government has made, when they're already under essential services legislation and providing service, and when they're in the middle of a vote. We can't put forward a reasoned amendment to the government, because we fundamentally don't agree with what the government's doing.

The third type of amendment that we can put forward is to refer the bill to a committee. According to the Standing Orders, we're not clear if it's two types of amendments or three types of amendments. Some jurisdictions don't recognize this. Now, we could consider putting it forward to a committee, but unfortunately, we have a Premier who took climate change and made it a secret cabinet committee. Climate change is some secret that cannot be discussed in an open, public forum.

Our Finance Committee is now in debate about whether or not we can accede to the government's agenda. The Sustainable Aquaculture Committee has made recommendations that the government has not acted on. So it's not reasonable for us to consider putting forward an amendment to take this bill to committee stage, because we don't have confidence that the government will actually even act on the committee because of past practice.

So we have one course of action, and that one course of action is to put forward a hoist amendment, which is what I'm going to speak to shortly — about what that means and how that works. There were, according to the Standing Orders, other means by which we, the opposition, could put forward amendments. Even the Standing Orders calls them more dramatic means, and for the paramedics in the House and at home, I'm sure that they would like a little bit more drama around this.

According to the Standing Orders, those now obsolete amendments were two things. One is that we could reject the bill and ask that it be torn up. What the Speaker would do, if the bill was unanimously rejected…. The Speaker would actually physically take the bill and rip it up in the House to show the disdain that the House had for that piece of legislation. I'm sure the paramedics in the House and at home would like to see this bill torn, but we can't put that motion forward.

The second, now obsolete, motion that could be put forward, amendment that could be put forward, is to actually throw the bill. This one is an interesting one, and I'll read the Standing Orders. It says that in this case, even so late as the 3rd of June, 1772 — that ages even me and some of us in this House…. Back then, the Speaker was directed…. A bill was before the House. It was rejected, and it was to be thrown. When the bill was rejected, the Speaker, according to his promise at the time, threw the bill over the table, the Clerks' table, and several members on both sides of the House kicked it out of the House.

Now, that would be interesting, to invite some paramedics to come here and kick this bill out of the House, but we don't have that at our discretion today.

What do we have, and why are we here doing what we're doing? What we have is the opportunity to say to the government: "Take this bill, take a breath for six months, and do some other things instead. Instead of bringing this bill forward, take some time and go and do some more consulting." They could choose to actually put it to a committee, if they chose to do that. But to do some things….

Why are we putting a hoist motion forward? That's the key critical question. Why a hoist motion forward? Well, because fundamentally we don't believe on the second reading debate that the government made its case. What was the government's case? The government said it needed to remove the collective agreement — free bargaining, the collective bargaining rights of the paramedics — because of imminent threats.

We, on our side, have to agree to those imminent threats, to buy that government's argument. The imminent threats, as posed by the government, were: H1N1, the holiday season, the need to get the paramedics back to full capacity. All of those were arguments that the government put forward in the very few speakers that they put forward — the Minister of Health, the Government House Leader, and the Minister of Energy and Mines. The rest of the MLAs have been silent. We can only go from what was said.

We need to examine that and say: "Are those true, imminent threats?" If we believe they are, we don't put amendments forward. If we believe they're not, then we have to make our case, which is….

In second reading, again, the government can withdraw the bill any time it wants to. It can take it off the order paper without an amendment.

We argued back, saying that those were not imminent threats, that the H1N1, that the holiday season, that the need to get the paramedics to full capacity were not the real reasons that were going on. We've been clear in the public, and it's been published that the real reasons that we believe are going on are not being made clear by the government, and that has to do with the Olympics, and it has to do with other things.

Now, we also — and I argued this in my second reading response — believe the government undermined its own argument in the presentation of its case in second reading, and that was when the minister stated that there have been "no adverse patient outcomes" within the period of the strike.

That effectively negates the government's argument of an imminent threat, of the need to remove collective bargaining rights in order to restore a service, because the service was under the essential services act. Services were being delivered, and the Minister of Health himself said that there were no adverse patient outcomes as a result of the strike. We dispute and we do not agree with the government's arguments for why this bill needs to come in now.

What we want them to do, then, because we don't buy that case, is to hoist the bill. Hoisting the bill simply means taking it off the order paper for six months and doing something within those six months to find an alternate mechanism to resolve this situation.

If the government doesn't resolve it within that period of time, they can bring the bill back. It means that the bill does not disappear. The bill can come back if the government proves its case that it's an intractable dispute, that there's been no headway made and now you have a situation where you're more than a year into it. Then they can bring the legislation back, and we can debate it again.

But we dispute that that's necessary, and what we're saying to the government is: "Look, you don't remove collective agreement rights lightly. You don't do that."

We're all wearing poppies because we are remembering the fallen who fought for democratic rights and freedoms. I feel there's a great irony that we're all going to go home next week and go remember our fallen veterans and honour the ones who are still alive and the democratic rights and freedoms that they fought for. It was not just the right to vote and the right to free speech. It was the right to collective bargaining, as well, that they fought for and that many of them died for.

It's a great irony that this government wants to avoid going home, not take the six months that the hoist motion gives them, but avoid going home and hearing directly from the paramedics, which they're all hearing from by e-mail and by phone to their constituency offices, and facing them directly.

They could all, in this six months, go home and put on a coffee meeting with all their paramedics and their families. They could all go home and open their offices and have them come in and directly sit with them.

I believe it is incumbent on every MLA, regardless of political stripe, that if they're doing something to the public of British Columbia, they should be willing to go into the lion's den and confront it directly. If they're not going to do it in this House, they should agree to the hoist motion. They should go back, and they should do it in their own offices. They should invite paramedics in, and they should hear directly from them one by one, MLA by MLA, because they will have a period to reconsider.

I would hope, then, that the government MLAs would then send a message to the Minister of Health and the Premier's office that maybe this is not the best course of action. Why? Because the paramedics are being reasonable. The paramedics are saying that there are other alternatives to driving this bill through the Legislature in the time frame that it's here.

That reasonable approach is basically twofold. First, appoint a binding arbitrator to resolve the current bargaining dispute. The second thing is an industrial inquiry to review all of the issues that are outstanding, to bring the Ambulance Service back to full capacity.

I find there's a great irony in the Government House Leader's reasoning for why we're going to debate this all weekend. That's another set of arcane rules where the government chose to blow past the standing orders. We should have actually all been home in our constituencies. Every MLA should be home and would have the weekend and next week to talk to people, but we're not. We're here.

Why? Because the Government House Leader last night made a case that we needed to argue this over the weekend. That's why we now have put the hoist motion forward. Because not only do we disagree that the bill needs to be put in just now, we also don't agree with the need — and we debated that yesterday — to debate it over the weekend.

But the Government House Leader, in the argument for both the bill and the timing, said that we need to bring the Ambulance Service back to full capacity. You will not do that if the government proceeds through second reading and negates or votes against the hoist motion, because what you will end up doing is exacerbating the situation. You will make it so that paramedics believe that they are simply pawns in a power game that this government is playing with them and with their union. That doesn't resolve anything. It doesn't settle anything.

We are saying: "Take a breath. Go out there. Talk to people. Take six months, and then if you still need to do this, bring it back in." Now, the reason we're asking the government to spend some time and reflect….

I've given talks around the province since I've been elected, about the state of our civilization and where we're at, the state of our environment, our economy, the loss of the middle-income jobs that used to support families, etc.

One of the things I often ask people in advance of giving my main talk is: "What's the difference between humans and other species?" Of course you get the opposable thumb. You get the use of tools, etc.

But the reality is that modern science tells us that the only difference is that we can think into the future, that we have the ability to reason forward in time and to look at alternate scenarios as a result of actions we take now. There's no evidence of any other species that's able to do that. Unfortunately, we don't do that often enough.

In this case, if the government agrees to the hoist motion, they have the ability to exercise the one defining characteristic of humanity and the human species, and that is to think ahead.

I would suggest that there are two scenarios here. The government decides not to agree to the hoist motion, and the government passes this bill. That may be as early as tomorrow. The alternative is the government passes the hoist motion. So if they use that single, defining characteristic of human species and do some forward-thinking and some scenario-thinking, here's what I believe the two alternate scenarios are.

Should the government fail to agree to the hoist motion, this is what I think is going to happen. First off, they're going to undermine the morale of the B.C. Ambulance Service to the extent that they're going to exacerbate the problems that already exist — the problems with recruitment, the problems with retention, the problems with remuneration, the problems in rural British Columbia. They're going to make it worse, not better.

As a consequence, they are going to not achieve full capacity, which is what the Government House Leader suggested they're trying to achieve. They will not achieve full capacity by not taking the six-month pause and driving the bill through.

They will also, I believe, undermine the B.C. Ambulance Service's ability to deliver full and unfettered service to the Olympics and to what's going to happen here in February, because of them driving this bill through on the time frame that they're doing. So they are not going to achieve what they want to achieve.

Some of the paramedics are pointing out to me that operating under essential services legislation, which is what they operate on now…. If the government says yes to the hoist motion, essential services legislation continues, and hopefully, an industrial inquiry is put in place. Then either arbitration or collective bargaining continues, and we get a reasoned resolution that truly does settle this strike.

Failing that, though, what the government has under essential services, as I understand it and have been led to understand it, is mandatory overtime to maintain the capacity of the Ambulance Service. They have mandatory things like training. They've got the capacity under essential services to make sure that the Olympics are fully covered using some of that legislation.

If they go back to the collective agreement, a lot of that becomes voluntary again. Under the collective agreement, the ambulance attendants and paramedics can make a determination of their own free will as to whether or not they're going to go the extra mile. So in the no-hoist scenario, I believe that what the government is actually doing is undermining the Ambulance Service achieving its full capacity. They will undermine the morale of the Ambulance Service so that they will actually achieve the opposite of what the government is intending to achieve.

I ask the government members of the House to reflect on that very carefully and very deeply. I, like others, would appreciate hearing their thinking during this debate. That's what we were elected here to do –– to share our thinking and to represent our constituents. I would appreciate hearing that.

Unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be the case. But think deeply about the fact that what they're doing is actually not going to achieve the government's stated intent, which is to achieve full capacity of the B.C. Ambulance Service.

The only way that the government can do that is to agree to this hoist motion, to take the bill off the order paper, to take the six-month period of time to sit down in a cooperative manner with the B.C. Ambulance Service and with their employer and to actually, I would argue, allow the industrial inquiry to proceed so that they look at the full range of issues, not just the wage, which is what the bill does. It only resolves a small portion of the wage issue. It doesn't resolve all of the other issues that are outstanding.

Do that work in a cooperative fashion, and then, hopefully, they get the issue resolved and they get true full capacity, including addressing the issues of recruitment, of retention, of the remuneration, of the training and development and, of course, of rural B.C., where I live.

Those are the two scenarios. On the no-hoist scenario, on the government rejecting the hoist motion, then I believe what they will end up doing is undermining the paramedics and the B.C. Ambulance Service. As British Columbians need to know, after the big party is over — that's all it gets them: an enforced collective agreement to March 31, 2010, a few weeks after the Olympics — we start this all over again. That is unacceptable.

Now again, as I start to wind this up, I would suggest that there's a couple of things that the government needs to look at. I think all of the government members need to go back and refresh their memories on collective agreements and what collective agreements really are and the right that they are.

The reason I argue that is because it might help them reflect, if they go and do it tonight…. You can just google it. Wikipedia and others have a clear argument for collective agreement rights. If they go and they look at that, then they might come in, in the wee hours, and stand up in this House and stand for that right.

As other members have pointed out, it's not just a democratic right. It's a human right. It's a human right recognized by the UN Charter. It's a human right recognized by the constitution of Canada. It's a human right that every member in this House should protect and defend and not allow to be bowled over by a government for some agenda that they're not being clear on in this House.

According to one of those webpages — and again, for the members' edification, so that they will support the hoist bill, because this is what they're allowing to be run roughshod over: "the right to bargain collectively with an employer enhances the human dignity, liberty and autonomy of workers by giving them the opportunity to influence the establishment of workplace rules and thereby gain some control over a major aspect of their lives, namely their work." That's what they're allowing the government to extinguish and to take away from them.

The second point that it makes is: "Collective bargaining is not simply an instrument for pursuing external ends" like wages, etc. Rather, it is "intrinsically valuable as an experience in self-government." Any government that uses a legislative hammer to take away the rights of individuals to govern themselves, I think, is doing a disservice, not only to the people of British Columbia but to humanity.

The third point it makes is: "Collective bargaining permits workers to achieve a form of workplace democracy and to ensure the rule of law in the workplace. Workers gain a voice to influence the establishment of rules that control a major aspect of their lives."

I challenge each one of the government MLAs to just simply go and take a look at the history of collective bargaining, the importance of collective bargaining, and at what it is that they're being asked to support, by their Premier and by their Minister of Health, if they support this bill and if they reject the hoist motion.

We're just simply asking for the rights of the paramedics to be respected, for that human right to be upheld. I would argue again, in the spirit of remembrance, which we're all going home to, that that is not something that government members should take lightly or in an offhand fashion. It's not something they should simply ignore and do their duty in this House. They should do their duty to British Columbians, do their duty to paramedics, do their duty to the voters who put them in here, do their homework on this bill and say yes to this hoist motion and give the paramedics an opportunity of self-government, which collective bargaining gives them.

J. Horgan: It is a pleasure to rise and support the motion, in the name of the member for Port Coquitlam, that was on the order paper: to hoist Bill 21 for six months to provide an opportunity for the Legislature to contemplate and reflect on the views of our constituents, certainly on the views of B.C. Ambulance Service employees — and, perhaps, even to reflect internally, for those in the government caucus, just what this all really means.

I feel an Aretha Franklin coming on. It's an r-e-s-p-e-c-t night tonight. I'm delighted to see members of the B.C. Ambulance Service in the gallery, and I know there'll be one or two in unit stations right across B.C. with the television on, hopefully. It's a Friday night. It's a rainy night. That's a busy night, by and large, for paramedics.

I'm hopeful that they'll have some time to engage in this debate, although it's odd to say "debate." I know that for most people, when they think of an exchange of ideas, a debate is where one side puts forward a point of view and the other side rebuts that.

My colleague from Cariboo North did a very capable job of laying out for us how a bill becomes law and how we come to this place. But if we were here…. Some of us in the gallery were here not 12 hours ago when our friend the Attorney General critic, the member for Nanaimo, very capably dismantled and dissected Bill 21 prior to the hoist motion that we're debating now.

It all comes down to respect, and it all comes down to putting forward your point of view. In a free and democratic society, hon. Speaker, as you know well, if you have an argument, make it. If it's a good argument, you'll win the day.

What we're seeing, however, is that this side of the House seems to have some fairly compelling arguments. I've been listening to member after member after member stand in this place.

The member for Vancouver-Kensington and the member for Nelson-Creston just in the past hour and a half have stood here as new members, not six months on the job, and given very, very compelling arguments as to why we should hoist Bill 21 for the next six months and provide an opportunity for the public to have their say with government members and with opposition members. We have two members that have been here, collectively, for less than a year, and they stood here for one hour and made the case to hoist this bill.

We've heard during that time not a scintilla of argument from the government side. Not a scintilla. My opposite number the Energy Minister stood today and said, "I'm really sorry" — to the folks back home — "I don't want to do it, but I have to, because I'm a member of the executive council. I'm a member of cabinet, and if I want to keep the job, I've got to do what the boss says, and the boss says that Bill 21 shall pass this weekend." That's why on a Friday night….

Deputy Speaker: Members, please. Will the member withdraw that? Will the member withdraw that comment?

J. Horgan: I'll just thank my colleague from Delta North. I was hoping to get a clean half-hour here.

I know I'm not going to get a heckle from the other side, because they've been sworn to secrecy. Not a word from the government side while we debate this hoist motion or while we debate Bill 21 at second reading.

Aretha Franklin. I made reference to that great singer and her classic song "Respect." I'd tip my hat, if I had one on. If I were allowed to wear one, a fancy one like the Speaker has, I would tip it to the people in the gallery today, and you have my undying respect and admiration. Thank you very much.

Back to the matter at hand, this morning we had the end of a two-hour presentation on the bill that we're speaking to hoist tonight, from my colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway. For two hours he stood in this place and made the argument as to why this bill should not proceed. For two hours he said, articulately and rationally, why it was that the fundamental rights of free and collective bargaining should be paramount, particularly as member after member has said: "We look forward to armistice week and Remembrance Day on the 11th month of the 11th day at the 11th hour."

To stand here now on a Friday night, heading towards 11 o'clock, and being compelled to try and convince the members on the other side…. The government members — elected by people who depend and rely on and respect the very paramedics that we are ordering back to work, the very paramedics whose rights to free and collective bargaining are being taken away from them — need to listen up.

It's a wake-up call, member for Abbotsford-Mission. It's a wake-up call to all the members on that side of the House, to recognize that in a free and democratic society, if you've got a point of view, let's hear it. If you've got something to say, stand and say it.

On Armistice Day, on Remembrance Day, just about every single person in this place will be at a cenotaph somewhere in British Columbia. They will be putting down a taxpayer-funded wreath on behalf of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. I will be doing so this year, proudly having had the opportunity to stand in this place, the Legislature of British Columbia, and defend the rights that my forefathers and the forefathers of every member in this place put their lives on the line to defend and protect.

It's unconscionable that members on the government side.... If they are so convinced of their argument that the rights of these individuals are secondary to these principles that we should all be upholding, they should stand in this place and say so. They should stand here and say it tonight.

The hoist motion put forward by the member for Port Coquitlam provides a glowing opportunity, an excellent chance for government members to reflect on their views on this matter, to reflect on the respect or lack thereof that they want to provide paramedics of British Columbia, to stand here and say why it is that their rights are somewhat less than everyone else's in British Columbia at this time.

We went through, you will know, a whole series of public sector bargaining not a year and a half ago. It's relevant to this hoist motion only in this sense: at that time there were bonus provisions in contracts that were given to every single public sector worker in the province of British Columbia. The mean-spiritedness of Bill 21 is reflected by the simple fact that there is no bonus in this imposed contract.

For that reason alone, for that fundamental fairness aspect that is missing from Bill 21, the hoist motion provides an opportunity for government to go back, to reflect, to look at revenues. Has the treasury been boosted over the past six months? Maybe the money's there now.

Apparently there's going to be a big boom as a result of the Olympics. Billions of dollars are going to be made. I heard the Minister for Small Business say that just the other day. It's going to be coming up roses. We're going to be paving the streets with gold. We're going to put a $500 million lid on an archaic stadium in the middle of Vancouver, but we don't have the resources to sit down and fairly bargain with paramedics and other B.C. Ambulance Service employees in the province of British Columbia.

It's pretty difficult for those individuals to take that, individually or collectively. If we've got half a billion dollars to put a lid on a stadium in a very rainy city…. I freely admit that it does rain in Vancouver. But for those nine B.C. Lions games, one of which is being played tonight….

J. Horgan: They got creamed? That's a shame. There you go. They'll have a new lid next year. It'll all be good. They'll play better.

J. Horgan: I wanted a clean speech, Member. Shut up, would you? Stop heckling me.

For the six months that this will give the government members to reflect and to talk to their constituents, this is a motion that I think certainly deserves their support. With any luck…. If the members who are in the gallery and those who are watching at home stick around long enough, we just might get one more member standing up. That seems to be something that they do like to do now and again.

We had the apologist from Peace River South getting up this morning and saying he was truly sorry. He's a decent fellow. I don't doubt that he was sorry, but when you're a cabinet minister, you've got more than just your sorrys to give. You can sit at the cabinet table and say to the Premier and the Minister of Health: "This is wrong. We shouldn't be doing this." In fact, the member for Peace River South did do that once. He did do that once in the last parliament. Why not now? What's the difference now?

The difference now is that there's an agenda at play. My colleague from Cariboo North made reference to it. I know that as we give the opportunity to the government members to think about this for the next six months, we will have passed the motivation for this back-to-work legislation. That's the 2010 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games in Vancouver and Whistler.

Now, everybody wants that to be a success. Paramedics want that to be a success. Dispatchers want that to be a success. But what they also want is fundamental, basic human rights — a human right that people died for, a human right that we will acknowledge next Wednesday, the 11th — the 11th day of the 11th month at the 11th hour. We will acknowledge that day. I for one, and I know every single member on this side of the House, will be thinking about men and women who wear uniforms, drive trucks and save people's lives on that day, not just our men and women in service overseas and here in Canada but those who work in law enforcement, those who work in protective services and, most importantly today and next week, those who save lives by driving ambulances and getting people in distress to health-care-provision services in hospitals and other primary care facilities right across British Columbia. Fundamental, hon. Speaker.

I don't want to leave Aretha Franklin too far behind, because I think that that's what I'm going to be humming for the rest of the week and into the wee hours. I hope that it is resonating. Even now I can see a toe tapping from my friend from Burke Mountain over there. Absence an opportunity to stand in his place and speak, he can at least think about Aretha Franklin and the respect that the people in the gallery so desperately deserve.

The public interest should be paramount, hon. Speaker, and you know that. When we come to this place…. We were elected not seven months ago to come here and exchange ideas, to try and find ways to improve the human condition in our communities, in our province, in our country and in our world. I fail to see how the human condition is improved by taking away rights from one group and class in society at a time when we have given bonuses, generous contracts and improved working conditions to virtually every other public sector employee in the province. The last group, many of them sitting here today, won't have that opportunity.

J. Horgan: We are talking about the amendment, and I thank the Speaker for bringing me to order. I would have thought only my friend from Delta North could have wrecked my clean half-hour, but now I've done it myself, and I appreciate the reminder from the Chair.

The hoist motion, which we're speaking to today, is intended to provide the government with a way out. I know it's difficult to admit you're wrong. I do it quite frequently, hon. Speaker, in fact, I just did a moment ago to you. I was wrong to stray from the importance of sticking to the hoist motion in the half an hour I have at my disposal. I admit I was wrong. I'm bigger than that. I'm hopeful that there will be members on the other side that are bigger than that as well and that they'll take advantage of this opportunity that my colleague from Port Coquitlam has provided and reflect and support this motion so we can remove this piece of legislation and allow the voting that's going on this week to continue to take place so that free and unfettered collective bargaining can continue.

The labour relations failure of this government is everyone's problem. It's not just the problem of the Liberal administration. It's not just the problem of the wrecking ball that we now call the Minister of Health. It's a problem for all of us.

As legislators, we're providing the government, and as well as ourselves, an opportunity to go back to our constituencies. You've heard, hon. Speaker, from many members about the volume of e-mails and other communications. I was just at an event in my community of Sooke. I had to cut it short to come back to participate in this debate. I was encouraged by the people in attendance at the event to get back here and support the hoist motion, and I do that happily and proudly. I think it's important if a government runs afoul of common sense and runs afoul of the public interest that we have an obligation…. I've said many, many times that the Queen pays us to be her loyal opposition. We are doing not just the government but the public a favour by being here at ten minutes to 11 on a Friday night trying to bring some reason and sanity to a debate that we, sadly, are the only ones participating in.

Again I reflect on what people assume when they mark their ballots at election time. They send people to this place to debate bills, motions and hoist motions such as this. They assume that in a pluralistic society like British Columbia there are going to be different people with different perspectives from different walks of life. We've had lawyers. We've had bus drivers. We've had administrators. We've had principals and small business people. My friend the banker from Abbotsford-Mission…. We come from all walks of life, and one assumes we come with different perspectives.

The whole point of assembling in a legislature or a parliament is to exchange those points of view, to come up with a collective reason to move forward as a society. How do we do that when only one hand is clapping, when only one side of the Legislature is speaking to a point of view?

It's very difficult for the public to have confidence in a government when they don't have the confidence of their convictions to stand and argue the point with respect to Bill 21 or, more importantly, with respect to why they don't believe that this amendment should proceed.

We won't know until the vote is taken I suppose, and it will come as a surprise to many of us on this side when we're only joined by my friend from Burke Mountain, voting in favour of the hoist motion. I know he's been listening intently to the debate, and I sense a maverick in him. He likes the Aretha Franklin. He's tapping his toes over there. I think he's going to pop to his feet when the vote is taken, and he's going to support this hoist motion. So that's one. We've brought one over with the force of our arguments.

I know that my friend from West Vancouver–Capilano has been listening intently to our arguments with respect to the hoist motion, and I'm confident that a man of his experience and depth will take stock of what's been said in the Legislature. He'll reflect on what we've said on this side of the House about the importance of collective bargaining, about the importance of consulting with constituents before we are precipitous in our decision-making.

I'm confident, after he looks and reflects on the perspectives put forward by his colleagues — at least maybe the points of view that are put forward to him privately…. We won't be able to judge what they're going to do based on what they've said — not by their words; only by their deeds. And their deed is an iron fist slammed down on top of the employees of the B.C. Ambulance Service.

Free collective bargaining has been going on. An arbitrator has been requested and rejected. An arbitrator was requested again and rejected. Yet here we are while a vote is being taken — unprecedented — to have to bring forward a hoist motion so that the government will allow that process to proceed. The intent of Bill 21 is to reduce and eliminate free collective bargaining. This hoist motion provides the government with the opportunity to step back from the precipice, step back from the edge.

I know that Burke Mountain's with us. Oak Bay–Gordon Head — we're working on that. We're working on other members. One and two and three and four and five — I can count them off. We only need ten, hon. Speaker — ten government members to come to their senses, to recognize the wisdom of removing this piece of legislation from the order paper for six months.

Imagine what you could do in six months. Imagine what we've done over the past six months. Many of us were elected, as I said — our colleagues from Kensington, our colleague from Nelson-Creston, newly elected. It's been a pretty hectic six months for them. Extraordinary work has been done by them in this House, in their communities.

Imagine what the government could do if they had six more months to reflect on how we can improve our health care system by ensuring that we have recruitment and retention strategies in place so that we can ensure that people want to work for the B.C. Ambulance Service, not forcing them to work for the B.C. Ambulance Service under conditions that were not freely bargained, for wages that were not agreed to collectively. That's the fundamental issue at play. The hoist motion provides the government with the opportunity to let that sink in.

My colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway was talking about the esprit de corps, the sense of camaraderie within the paramedic service. I made reference earlier on, and I'd like to do it again, to my brother who was a unit chief in Mill Bay for many years in the 1980s. I have a nephew who is now a firefighter but was a part-time paramedic for the B.C. Ambulance Service but couldn't stay in the profession that he preferred because of the policies and practices of previous governments, not just the B.C. Liberal government.

The fundamental challenges that exist for people who want to pursue a career as a paramedic are daunting. We've heard in previous debates from members on this side of the House — every single member on this side of the House — how challenging that is and how rewarding it is to know that we have people in our community that are prepared to make those kinds of sacrifices, for the passion and commitment of a career that certainly isn't one that they undertake for riches.

It brings to mind the last piece of back-to-work legislation we had to deal with, which was, again, in the education sector, where it wasn't for love of money that people go down that road. It's for passion and a commitment to a career, and that is certainly what we have with paramedics in British Columbia. They're not doing it for the money, and if you can't give them money, government, why not try a little r-e-s-p-e-c-t? A little bit of respect is what we're looking for here. You don't show respect to people by yanking away their rights.

This opportunity, which the opposition is providing to the government, is one that I strongly, strongly urge government members, aside from my singular friend over there from Burke Mountain, to take up as we go through the night and into Saturday and Sunday, as we proceed with this debate on this motion and other motions that we have in store for the Legislature.

I think that if we had heard even a modest attempt by government to justify why it is that they believe that we need to go down this course…. We've had the theories brought forward by my friend from Cariboo North. There's the notion that we need to be up to full capacity. That was the rationale. As he so ably said, we dispute that rationale. In fact, that's the motivation for us to be speaking to this hoist motion and to have it put on the order paper by our colleague from Port Coquitlam.

If full capacity is the argument, then tell us. To the Minister of Health and to the Government House Leader and to the Premier: tell us how it is that forcing people back to work against their will — without their ability to vote and support that position — gets us to full capacity?

What kind of retention and recruitment strategy is that exactly? "I'll tell you what. Come to British Columbia, paramedics across Canada. Come to British Columbia where your working conditions are not of your own making."

J. Horgan: On the hoist motion. Well, I'd be delighted to do that, hon. Speaker, and again, I thank you very much for bringing me back to the point. I really, genuinely believe that when I say it. There are those here that won't believe me, but I do.

The hoist motion, as we look to next week and we look to the next six months, is an opportunity for the government of the day to do the right thing. Oppositions, as you know, hon. Speaker, have very few tools at their disposal to make points in this Legislature. We have the time available to us in debate, under the standing orders, which I know you are conversant in and learned in those issues, and those are the very tools that we're using today. We're using those tools to make the case to government: "You are the one that writes the book, but we're the ones that read it."

By doing so, all members on this side of the House will be standing in their places making the case that government should support our position, hoist this legislation, take six months to reflect, talk to your constituents, talk to the people in the gallery, answer your e-mails and tell those people at the other end of their computers why it is that you think that their rights should be dragged away from them.

Take advantage of this. We'll give you more opportunities as the weekend unfolds, but you could deal with it right now by standing here and supporting the motion. If we had ten members on that side of the House stand in their place and join the debate, we could get there in no time at all. We could all be home in time for The Daily Show.

Oh, and I see…. I'm not going to tell anyone who just came in, because I'm not allowed to do that, and I don't want to be reprimanded yet again by the Speaker, but I do want to say….

J. Horgan: Oh, is that what it is? Okay. We've got some heckling going. That's a step in the right direction. If you can heckle, that means you can reason, which means you might be able to come to the right point of view, which is: support the hoist motion, go back to your constituents, and defend the point of view that you're trying to put forward here.

J. Horgan: Absolutely, hon. Chair, absolutely. I would be delighted to put all my comments through the Chair.

I had been speaking about the public interest, hon. Chair, before you arrived and how it is my view and the view of members on this side of the House that the public interest is not served by Bill 21 and, rather, is better served by removing this bill through the hoist motion for six months.

Now in the four-year mandate of a government, six months isn't a great deal of time. I had said earlier — you might not have had your microphones on in your office before you took the chair — that we've had members who have been here for less than six months who have stood in this place and made very compelling arguments as to why we should take advantage of this opportunity as legislators to remove this piece of legislation from the order paper and allow free and unfettered collective bargaining to proceed.

It's a simple argument. My colleague from Peace River South disagrees with it. I know that I'm winning over my friend from West Vancouver–Capilano. But the challenge that we all have is that when we leave this place sometime over the course of the weekend, we're going to have to go back home. We're going to have to talk to the people who sent us here and justify our actions. I am quite confident that I'll be able to justify my actions when I go back home. There are going to be people that disagree with me, and I'm okay with that.

But I don't believe that the government is doing anyone a service, save and except the member for Peace River South, who stood in his place and made the case. I don't believe that the members on that side of the House are doing themselves or this place a service by letting the opportunity go by. You weren't elected to do what you were told by the Premier and his staff. You were elected to listen to your constituents.

J. Horgan: I'll shine another day. Thanks, Minister of Labour. I'll do lots of shining some other time. Was that the defence of the legislation?

Again, the opportunity is there for government members. Only one has taken that opportunity. I'm hopeful that as the weekend unfolds, more members will stand in this place and make the case for why one group of society, one class of workers in the public service of British Columbia don't deserve the same thing that everyone else was given not a year ago.

Timing is everything in life and politics, and I guess in collective bargaining, and it's unfortunate that the CUPE 873 had the bad luck of not having an agreement signed prior to the commencement of the 2010 Olympics. That's just bad luck. But I think that you've got to look a little bit past that. This is a group of workers that have been at their posts under essential service designations doing the work that they love to do, doing the work not for greed, not for avarice but because they believe in it. That's why we need to respect what they do.

The member for Peace River South said: "We do respect you. We do respect you." Well, show me. Show me. Let them get back to the bargaining table. That's a demonstration of respect. That's a true demonstration of respect, not: "I'm sorry, I didn't mean to do it."

"I'm sorry, I'm not going to allow it to it stand." That would be a courageous thing to do. That would be a principled thing to do. But instead: "Well, I didn't want to do it. I'm sorry. I'm sorry."

J. Horgan: I'll go back and look at the Hansard. I'm sure my colleague for Peace River South didn't mean to do it. He's not sorry, then, is what I'm interpreting from that.

This is a debate. A debate is breaking out in the Legislature. Stop the presses. It's unfortunate that we don't get to do more of that, and I suppose we will do that later in the week.

Hon. Speaker, I want to conclude my remarks as we get to the end of my time by thanking you very much and thanking my colleague across the way for his attention.

I'm hopeful, again, that when the opportunity presents itself to stand in this place and vote on the hoist motion before us, ten people on that side of the House will have the good decency to think about what they're going to be doing on the 11th day of the 11th month at the 11th hour and think about the men and women who wear uniforms every day, put their lives on the line to save people, to protect their liberties, and do the right thing. Get this thing off the order paper, and let's go on to something that will improve our community, improve our society and make the world a better place.

R. Chouhan: In the gallery we now have another dedicated, hard-working paramedic, Sean, joining his colleagues in the gallery watching us here. Please join me to welcome him.

N. Macdonald: I stand to take my place in the debate to speak to the hoist motion which proposes a six-month delay to reconsider a very poor piece of legislation, a flawed piece of legislation — six months to, perhaps, allow the B.C. Liberal members to gather thoughts and gather information so that they can participate in a debate. There's no question….

N. Macdonald: A B.C. Liberal member has a comment. She says it's sanctimonious to suggest that there's an expectation that a B.C. Liberal member would come to this place and actually speak and explain why they're going to stand and support a piece of legislation that is indefensible.

Well, it certainly seems to be indefensible, because in four days of debate on the main motion and here with this hoist motion, there's been approximately 15 minutes of explanation from this government. The Minister of Labour has not stood in this House and made any explanation to paramedics in this province why he is going to stand and support a piece of legislation like this.

The fact of the matter is that there are huge underlying issues that need to be addressed and should have been addressed over a number of years, not seven months — four or five years. None of these issues are new. All of these issues were created by a B.C. Liberal government that put in place a series of rules that have not worked.

They certainly have not worked for rural British Columbia. They certainly, with the e-mails that are coming in to us….

I just want to maybe stop before I go too much further and just say to paramedics how profoundly we respect the work that they did, and the opportunity that I had to speak to Bill 21. In the original second reading debate I spent much of the time that I had just talking about that job. It is a job that each and every one of these members should be familiar with.

In 2005, when I first ran provincially, I had the opportunity to meet with paramedics. These were people that I knew in my community, that I had dealt with in my community for many, many years, as I lived in Golden a long time — Ron Oszust, Ian Milroy, others that have served as paramedics for a long time.

If you're in a small community, you are familiar with the work the paramedics do and the challenges that paramedics face. In 2005, running for election, we met with paramedics. The issues that they laid out are fundamentally the same problems that exist right now.

With this hoist motion, we set aside a damaging piece of legislation. We set it aside for six months. We give the government an opportunity to go and actually fix problems that have needed fixing for a long, long time.

There is a presumption within this government that somehow wisdom sits with one person and everything, top down, is solved by that one person. That's the presumption that this government has in each and every situation, and it leads to failure after failure after failure.

The reality is that the wisdom on this issue sits with people on the ground who actually do the work. They know what the problems are. They have identified them for four or five years. They have identified them clearly. They have said what the solutions are — what the solutions are to getting the training and the retention, to attracting people to this position.

They have laid out the situation again and again. Everybody understands it except for members of this government. There have been resolution after resolution that have come from local government. They get it.

They have spoken to the UBCM; the UBCM passes motions. All sorts of organizations from local government pass motions that indicate and lay out the problems that exist for paramedics, the problems that exist for the system as a whole. We need to remember that if it's not working for paramedics, if it is not a system that works for them, it's a system that does not work for the wider population.

Why there needs to be a hoist motion, why this legislation needs to be set aside for six months, is because what is at stake is the system, the B.C. Ambulance system. It has being systematically degraded, and the consequences for that are going to be felt. There are consequences to mismanagement — consequences.

In 2005 we used to have an MLA for Cariboo South that actually understood issues, would stand in this House and articulate clearly issues, especially around paramedics. I can remember in 2005, right after we got to this House, where he talked about the Kamloops Dispatch Centre.

The Kamloops Dispatch Centre was responsible for pretty well all of the Interior. It is a critical part of emergency services. Yet there have been problems there that Charlie Wyse and other NDP MLAs pointed out to government, because they were told by paramedics, told by the paramedics union, that problems existed and that unless those problems were fixed, there would be consequences for what we assumed would be the wider public.

I can tell you that in 2006, in May, one of the most difficult days in Kimberley's history was with the Sullivan mine disaster. Of the four victims, two were paramedics. After that there was a push — and it took almost a year by the community, by paramedics, by steelworkers — to get a coroner's inquest.

It points to why you need to understand issues and think about them. Clearly, since there's not one B.C. Liberal…. I guess there were three that put out five-minute arguments, and two of them were completely, well…. You need to understand these issues. The hoist motion gives an opportunity for people to go, B.C. Liberals to go and actually learn something about the issues so that they can understand.

I'll just give you an example of why it is critically important to understand the failings of the Ambulance Service. Paramedics identified the problems at the Kamloops Dispatch Centre. They identified them clearly. But in May what took place? In May of 2006 you had a call that went to the Kimberley station.

Deputy Speaker: Member, if I could please ask you to draw your comments to the hoist motion.

N. Macdonald: Of course. The hoist motion is an opportunity to take six months so that this legislation could be put aside, so that members can go and learn something about the issue. Clearly, if nobody is capable on that side, capable of standing and speaking on the issue….

N. Macdonald: The member chirps again. If she wants to stand up and speak, she has the opportunity. Each person has the opportunity to stand up and make a speech. If she chooses not to, then that's fine. What she can do with the hoist motion is she can take the time to go and actually fully understand what we're talking about here, because these are critically important issues.

The Kimberley station in May 2006 received a call. Two paramedics were dispatched. The issues that were raised by the union at the Kamloops Dispatch Centre were around noise. They were around working conditions. They were around things that this government has ignored and continues to ignore. They feel that somehow it has nothing to do with making the system work properly.

So what you had is information that went to the dispatch centre. That information was not heard properly, so information was sent to the Kimberley paramedic office with incorrect information. You had paramedics Kim and Shawn, 35 and 21, sent to a site believing that they were going to a tailings pond where there had been a drowning.

The information that had gone to the Kamloops Dispatch Centre told fairly accurate information about what the situation was, but because of noise and all sorts of other system problems that had been identified but not dealt with, the information was not heard properly and was instead sent inaccurately to the paramedics.

Now, part of why we need to do the hoist motion is because people need to understand what is at stake here. They need to understand how, if there is a system failure, it affects people. So they went, believing that they were going to a drowning in an open pool, and instead showed up and met somebody who told them that there was somebody inside an enclosed area, a shed on the Sullivan mine site. In those few seconds, arriving with inaccurate information, they were directed into a site which was incredibly…. Well, it had no air, and we lost two paramedics.

When it came time, and when we finally had an opportunity to have a coroner's inquest, there were in total 16 recommendations. Well, four of them were issues that had been raised by paramedics and by the union. There were recommendations that the Kamloops station needed to install soundproofing, deadening material on the walls and ceiling to cut down on the ambient noise in the dispatch centre. Those were issues that people should have been aware of and the government should have been aware of. With the hoist motion, it gives government members an opportunity to go and fully inform themselves on what's at stake here.

It goes on to say that there needed to be actually breaks for the communication centre dispatchers. Those are things that the union had been fighting for, and it takes a coroner's inquest to point out those shortcomings? It talks about the Kimberley station actually getting a full-time unit chief to ensure training and compliance. Well, that's something that the community was fighting for, that's something that the union was fighting for, and that's something the paramedics were fighting for.

All of these issues are laid out as early as 2005 in Kimberley. They are not dealt with, and the consequences are severe, in this case for paramedics. In other cases it makes challenges, you know, for other citizens. We absolutely depend on the system working properly, and it will only work properly if it is managed properly.

It is this government that is responsible for making sure that that proper management happens, and they have systematically failed again and again and again, right up until this point. This bill represents another complete and utter failure — a complete and utter failure. You know, the amazing thing is that paramedics struggle to make it all work. They somehow find a way to deal with the government's incompetence. They put up with working conditions that are completely ridiculous.

I mean, each and every MLA has received e-mail after e-mail. I have my e-mails from my own community and from people that I know, but I have also received many of the e-mails that have gone to each and every MLA, including B.C. Liberal MLAs. While I say that they should inform themselves, part of informing themselves would be to simply read the e-mails that have been sent to them in the last number of days. But they choose not to.

They choose not to actually stand in this House and make a cogent argument for why they would support this bill. I would think that the bare minimum would be to stand and do that. I say with all sincerity that there was a member that stood and made that argument. I doubt he will agree with all the things I'm saying, and I didn't completely agree with the things he was saying, but he stood and he made his case. That is the minimum, the minimum standards that should be in this House — that you stand and you make your case for what you're going to do.

That we would have a bill like this that impacts a labour situation and not have a Minister of Labour actually stand and express an opinion is absolutely unbelievable to me. It's absolutely unbelievable that the full range of argument that the government has over the course of a four-day debate is essentially five or ten minutes of a case. That that's the extent is ridiculous.

In Kimberley the situation with paramedics continues to be problematic. I spoke in my fore speech about things that the people should go and learn about, and that's one of the reasons we have the hoist motion. They should go and learn about it. If they are ignorant about this sort of a situation, go and learn about it. Read some of the e-mails and see what sort of working conditions that paramedics live in.

I went to each and every one of the stations in my riding. There are four of them — four stations. In Kimberley they have an actual, proper station. That's by no means the case in each one of my communities. In Revelstoke and Golden they don't even have a station. At this moment in Golden they're in a motel, and in Revelstoke they have an industrial site. They've gone from a motel into an industrial site, and that's over a four-year period. They're still waiting for a proper station.

At least in Kimberley they have a station. I talked to a gentleman there. He works the equivalent of two jobs. He is described as part-time. He makes less than $50,000. He has one-third of that that's pensionable. It is a ridiculous working situation. How do you retain people and ask them to do the difficult work that we ask them to do? How do we retain people? Why would they possibly do that?

For the past four or five years all of the problems that we need to deal with have been laid out for the government. They have been laid out for them, and still nothing comes of it.

We put in front of the House a hoist motion, which is a tool to slow this down. We promised that we would do everything we could to stop and slow down this legislation, to make sure that nobody could vote on this in this House without having some idea about what they're actually doing to paramedics Yet it's not much of a debate, really, is it?

I went to each one of the stations last month. I also participated in elections, and I know…. While I doubt many B.C. Liberals went around from station to station in their ridings — I mean, clearly they haven't — during the election they could not have missed some of the issues that have been raised over the last number of years. They couldn't have missed it. There were paramedics at each one of the all-candidates debates, and I know that many B.C. Liberals skipped the all-candidates debates, but some must have been gone, and some must have been asked questions about paramedics.

You go back and you look at clippings, and there are even B.C. Liberals that promised to be champions. In fact, there are people that were elected as champions of the paramedic issue. They promised that they were going to come here and solve it, and yet here they are without taking the time to prepare themselves.

Well, I offer a solution: a hoist motion. If you need another six months, I think B.C. Liberals can take that six months. Vote for this hoist motion and learn a bit more about what they need to understand about the paramedic service and about this issue.

Think back on the commitments they made when they were elected. Think back on what they said to paramedics when they were elected. Did they tell them that they were going for treat them this way in the House? Did they say that they were going to support a bill without even speaking to it?

Deputy Speaker: Member, would you please direct your comments to the hoist motion that we're talking about. Thank you.

N. Macdonald: Well, I'm supporting a hoist motion that would delay Bill 21 for six months. It's a bill that deserves to be not only delayed; it's a bill that deserves to be defeated.

It's not only Kimberley that has issues. In the time that I've had, for the past four years we've also had issues in Invermere. In Invermere the issues relate to retention and to making sure that we keep the paramedics that we need in that community there. For them to stay they need proper working conditions. We absolutely depend upon them.

The hoist motion, as I've said many times, gives us an opportunity for other members to inform themselves. There are people that are watching and people in Kimberley –– people who understand the situation there, people who know that this is an important issue. There are paramedics in Kimberley that are watching. They know they have the community behind them. They know that the community understands. There are signs everywhere, in front of every house. In many, many houses you see signs supporting paramedics, on the lawns saying that they support paramedics.

With the hoist motion, it'll give an opportunity to some B.C. Liberal members and ministers to go and see if it's not the same case in their community. I bet you it is. I could not imagine that there is any public support for what's going on here at all. There certainly isn't in Kimberley. There certainly isn't in Invermere. You know, they must be getting the same e-mails that we're getting.

I have one from Canal Flats. The first mayor of Canal Flats sent an e-mail just yesterday. He thinks it's outrageous what the government is doing. He's not a paramedic; he's a citizen, and there are all sorts of citizens.

If the ministers or the members of the B.C. Liberal government aren't ready to speak to this, then the hoist motion gives them that opportunity. If they need six months to understand the issue and to prepare themselves to come here and speak, then this hoist motion gives them the opportunity. I certainly know that in Invermere people understand the situation. I know in Kimberley they do. I know in Canal Flats they do.

In Golden we have paramedics that aren't even in a proper station. They're in a motel. They're asked to work out of a motel. They're asked to protect and deal with situations on the Trans-Canada Highway. They're asked to do all of these things, and with a hoist motion, hopefully there will be members of the B.C. Liberal government that will come to understand some of the problems that are there that haven't been addressed.

You know, the minister, in the one point of clarity that he had, acknowledged that there were rural issues that had to be dealt with, and yet he decided that any work that had been done needed to be thrown away, because there had apparently been some progress made in dealing with these issues.

Deputy Speaker: Member, please restrain remarks to the motion that's on the floor, the hoist motion.

I'll read it for you so that you're aware. It's 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.'" That's the basis of the debate for this evening.

N. Macdonald: Sure. I guess I need to explain the rationale. The rationale is we have the hoist motion. It is a suggestion that we take six months to put in place an opportunity for the B.C. Liberals to understand the issues that are in front of us. I think it makes sense, Mr. Speaker, to lay out that argument without having to say hoist motion every ten seconds. So that's what I'm attempting to do, to put out a full argument about what we're talking about without simply needing to do that.

I mean, it's pretty clear that there is not a full understanding by this government and by government members and that they're not able to articulate it. That we have a Minister of Labour that can't stand and articulate a rationale for supporting it, indicates a need for six months, a need for perhaps an even longer period of time.

In Revelstoke there's not even a proper station. Despite a clear promise from this government that they're going to provide one, they still haven't.

As I've said to the Speaker, I am laying out a rationale for six months. Six months is a minimum. I think other people get it. You know, each one of the MLAs, you're receiving many of the same e-mails that I'm receiving. You cannot be ignorant of the fact that the case that is made by paramedics is a strong one.

The opportunity here with this hoist motion is to take the six months, if that's what you need. But the fact of the matter is that the case is compelling. The case is compelling to not move forward with Bill 21, to delay it at least for six months, to sit down and actually solve the problems that have been outlined again and again by paramedics, by local government, by this opposition — to actually solve some of those problems.

That is the obligation that a responsible minister has — to actually solve some of these problems. It is a critically important service; it is a service that has to function. When it doesn't function, lives are at stake. It is a service where each and every member, each and every paramedic, stands tall in the community. People respect them. People expect a government to treat them properly. People expect the service to work properly, but it can only work if it's managed properly. What we've seen over the past four years, continuing with this piece of legislation, is sheer incompetence.

The very least that needs to happen is that it be set aside for six months. That is the very least that needs to happen. Yet what will happen? Once all the tools that we have are used, what will happen?

Well, I know there are many paramedics that, when they write, talk about the disrespect. Clearly, there's a tremendous amount of disrespect. I don't think paramedics expected anything different from this Premier and from the government that he leads. During the election he flicked a loonie at paramedics that came to speak to him. That's not the act of a respectful person, not really the act of most adults, but it is something this Premier chose to do. So it's no surprise that you get a piece of legislation like this.

It's our intention to try to do everything we can, as an opposition, to slow it down. The reason for the hoist motion is to try to push it aside. But the fact of the matter is that paramedics do have a government that simply doesn't show the service the respect that it deserves.

The opposition knows that. Paramedics know that. The people of British Columbia know that, and paramedics deserve better. The people who depend on the service deserve better.

In Revelstoke it is, again, one of the more difficult places to serve as a paramedic in my experience, but my experience of course is limited by the area that I come from. I'm sure that each and every community would stand up and say the same thing. I know the stories from the people that I represent. I understand the communities that I represent. I'm here to tell their story. That's our job.

One of the reasons I'm asking for an additional six months is to give opportunities for other members, B.C. Liberal members, to stand up and speak. To me it's atrocious. It's unbelievable that we could have four days of debate and approximately 15 minutes of argument from the government. It shows a disdain not only for paramedics. To be honest, you're in good company.

It's a government that shows disdain for pretty well everyone — for seniors, for children that they leave in poverty. It's a pretty long list of people that this government shows disrespect and disdain for, and certainly it's something that is unacceptable.

There is still an opportunity for one more member to stand up and do their job — one B.C. Liberal to stand up and do their job. The very least we expect is to have somebody stand and explain why they're going to vote the way they are, to try to make the case for why they're going forward with this piece of legislation. The fact that they will not even do it is incomprehensible to me.

The fact of the matter is that if this place had a paramedic contract, the B.C. Liberals would be on standby. They'd be getting $2 an hour right now. They're certainly not doing their job, not standing up and expressing the opinions that they must be hearing in their own communities. It's a pretty sad day for a legislature when that happens.

I've stood here this week, and I've appreciated the member that stood and expressed an opinion. I can respect that. I can respect somebody standing and expressing an opinion, and I mean that sincerely. But to come here and vote on an important issue…

J. Brar: It is 11:35 p.m. I feel proud to stand up in this House and support this hoist motion introduced by the member for Port Coquitlam to postpone Bill 21 for six months — just for six months. But first of all, I thank the member for Port Coquitlam for coming up with this very creative idea to postpone Bill 21 and bring together both parties and negotiate and find a solution in a respectful, fair and peaceful manner. That's a very good suggestion to think about.

The members of the official opposition are often criticized by the members on the other side. "No matter what you say and no matter what you do, they will just oppose that." But in this case, the member for Port Coquitlam has proven them wrong by making this proposal to amend this bill.

Excellent suggestion made by the member to postpone Bill 21 for six months — just for six months — and go back to the negotiation table with a commitment to negotiating in good faith and reach a settlement that is workable for both parties. What else can the government hope from an opposition member?

I'm very surprised that none of the members from the other side stood up in the House this afternoon and spoke, either to support the hoist motion or oppose the hoist motion — with one exception. That is the member for Peace River South, who did stand up in this House and speak to this motion. No other member stood up in this House and said anything about this hoist motion.

We're elected by the people of British Columbia to come into this House and debate the issues important to the people of British Columbia. What's happening this evening is that only one side of the House is standing up and speaking to this very important hoist motion.

I feel proud to support this very important motion from the bottom of my heart. I urge all members of this House, from both sides, to stand up in this House and support this hoist motion to avoid this deadlock where we are — to give six months, just six months, to go back and talk to the paramedics, to deal with this issue and to come to a solution that will work for both the parties.

I'm sure there are many members on the other side who would support this motion if they were given the freedom to support this motion. If they are given the freedom to support this motion, they will support this motion. It does make sense to pause at this stage and give six months to go back to the negotiation table and make a deal. It does make sense. It does not make sense at this stage to impose the settlement in the middle of the process when the voting process is taking place by the paramedics.

There are many reasons why this hoist motion should pass in this House today. There are many, many compelling reasons, and I would like to talk about those reasons.

The first one is this. This amendment should pass because it is about respecting the work of life-savers. It is about respecting the work of paramedics who save lives. Paramedics make us proud in the global community.

Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, there are about half a million people from South Asian countries in this country, and I am one of them. Half a million people. When I go back to India to visit my friends, my family members, one of the stories I share with them….

Deputy Speaker: Member, please refrain and direct your comments towards the hoist motion that's on the floor.

J. Brar: We are here to debate the hoist motion, which gives six months to go back to the negotiating table and come up with a deal that makes sense to both parties. What I'm saying is that this is one service — we call it the Ambulance Service — that we are all proud of. What I'm saying is that when I go back to visit India, I share the story about the services our paramedics provide to this country and the people of this country, which are superb.

I tell them that the response time is six minutes. It's very hard for those people to believe that if something happens on the road, then in six minutes those people will arrive. It's sometimes hard for them to believe that this can happen this way.

It's not only myself who will share that kind of story. I think almost every newcomer who comes to this country, when they go back, tells this story to the people — about how great, how timely the quality of care is provided by the paramedics, particularly about the ambulance service. Those stories make us proud in the global community.

Therefore, my point is that we need to pass this motion. We need to pass this motion to show our respect for the extraordinary work these people do — extraordinary services these people provide to the people of British Columbia.

I would like to share a personal story to tell of the extraordinary work being done by these people. By telling that story, I want to make a point as to why it's important at this stage of the game to postpone Bill 21 for six months — just for six months — to find a meaningful solution to this problem.

My mother broke her arm, and my brother called the ambulance. At the same time, he called me as well. My office was half the distance, just half the distance, than the distance the ambulance service had to cover. But when I came home, the ambulance had already come and taken my mother to the hospital.

That's the kind of service that these people provide to the people of British Columbia. That's what makes us proud, and that's why I'm saying it's very important for us, for all members of this House, that we pass this hoist motion to give the time to both parties to come up with common ground, a solution that can work for all the people of British Columbia and can work for both the parties. It does make sense.

Just to come back, the services they provide are rare on this globe. For the majority of the people who live on this earth, it is a kind of dream, a kind of dream that is not even close to reality. These people save lives, and we are proud of them, and they deserve respect. That's why it's very important for us to wait for a moment and to pass this very important motion introduced by the member.

It's also important that we pass this hoist amendment because that will demonstrate that this government respects the collective bargaining process. This gives six months, and that will allow the minister to rethink the implications of this heavy-handed bill. This hoist motion will buy time and allow the minister to go back to the bargaining table and negotiate in good faith. This six months will allow the Minister of Health to find ways to resolve this dispute in a respectful and peaceful manner.

This six months will allow the Minister of Health to go through an independent arbitration process that could be very helpful, which could be meaningful. This hoist motion will buy time and allow the Minister of Health to build on the work done by the former Minister of Health. That's why it's very, very important for this House to pass this hoist amendment, because it will show that this government respects the collective bargaining process.

The collective bargaining process — that is the right of the workers. I think that is something that's respectful for any government to do. That's why we in this country are different than many other countries where workers have no rights. The collective bargaining process must be respected. It is the way we find solutions in this country to the disputes we have in front of us.

So the passing of this motion will send a clear message that this government respects the collective bargaining process. That's why it's important to pass this motion.

The other reason, which I think is important, that this hoist amendment should pass is because it will allow the paramedics to complete the voting process on the offer already on the table. That makes this motion very important because the reality is this. Bill 21 is an untimely act. It's untimely, and we don't need this bill at this time.

The reality is this. The government has already made an offer on September 28, and the members of the unions are currently voting by mail-in ballot on this offer made by the government. That process is underway at this point in time and yet to be completed. The result is expected this week — just this week. How does it make sense to table a piece of legislation before the completion of that process? How does it make sense?

I wish the members on the other side would stand up to explain that. But unfortunately, that's not happening. The government itself made the offer, and the members are looking into it and asking their members to vote on it. Before that process is completed, the Minister of Health comes in and brings in this heavy-handed piece of legislation to impose the same offer which is on the table. That does not make sense.

It is untimely. It does not make sense, and it does not show respect for the collective bargaining process. It's hard for me to understand why you make the offer if you are not going to give the time to the members of the union to complete the process. Why will the workers believe in that offer in the future anyway? It will be hard. This is a wrong message to send.

This point is very important. This was the offer made by the government itself. Midway, a U-turn was made, and the minister came out and said: "No, you can't even complete your process. We will impose it anyway. We will impose this anyway."

When the minister was asked, I think by the media, the minister said: "I don't believe that's going to pass." It is completely irresponsible for the Minister of Health to prejudge the outcome of the voting process of the membership. So that's why this hoist motion is important.

All members of this House should support this, because it will allow time for both parties to go back, relook, reconsider and find a solution through the process given to the people of British Columbia by the people of British Columbia, and that is the collective bargaining process.

Interrupting the collective bargaining process in mid-process is clearly an insult to the collective bargaining process. That's why we need to stop it, and that's why I would urge all members of this House — this side and that side — to stand up and support this motion. It's more important for the members on the other side to stand up in this House, and that's what we're not hearing this afternoon.

We don't know what they think about this hoist motion. I would like to know why they're opposed to it, if there's any reason for that, because this is a motion in front of all of us. We need to debate that in good faith. We need to debate that openly in this House.

People have the right to say they don't support it. That's fine, but they must stand up in this House and say what are the factors because of which they don't support this hoist amendment.

The other factor because of which I think this hoist amendment is important is that this bill does not have any compelling reasons to pass. At least, I don't know of any compelling reason for this bill to pass at this point in time. What I know are the reasons stating that we need to pause at this stage. We need to stop. We need to give time for people to talk and negotiate in good faith.

There's nothing, absolutely nothing, of a compelling reason which forces this government at this point in time to introduce and pass this bill. One of the key claims made by the government for this bill is that this bill is necessary in light of the H1N1 crisis. That's one of the key reasons given for this bill.

Now, the question is this. Is this a genuine reason for bringing down this heavy-handed piece of legislation? Is this the right thing to do? Is there any relationship between the H1N1 crisis and this bill?

The answer is absolutely no. I'm going it repeat. The answer is absolutely no. There's no connection, from my understanding, between the H1N1 crisis and this bill at this point in time.

Let me tell you why. Before I do that, by the way, I have no doubt that the H1N1 pandemic is a serious issue. It is a very serious issue. We know that the provincial health officer is estimating that the H1N1 flu could infect about 20 percent of B.C.'s population. About one million B.C. residents could get the new H1N1 virus during the coming flu season. About one million people. We know that.

Therefore, we need to be more prepared for this. We must take all the important steps to make sure we have the best — and a pragmatic — H1N1 pandemic plan for the people of British Columbia. It's very important. We don't dispute that. But when it comes to H1N1 and when it comes to the paramedics, the minister has offered no clear reason as to why it is important at this point in time to pass this piece of legislation.

That's why I'm saying it's very important to pass this hoist motion — because there's no clear evidence. There's no compelling reason to pass Bill 21 at this stage of the game.

Let me tell you why. The first one: how many people with H1N1 flu have called for an ambulance? That's the question, and that's the important question. I challenge the Minister of Health to show us the numbers to support his claim that this bill is necessary in light of the H1N1 crisis. There must be some numbers. There must be some sort of study done, and the minister should show us that study.

The reality is that from a commonsense point of view, when people get sick with the seasonal flu, people either walk to the family physician or go to the hospital. They drive their cars. People don't call an ambulance if they have a fever. We know that. The H1N1 flu is not different from the seasonal flu.

If somebody gets sick with H1N1, chances are that the majority — I would say the significant majority — of people will not call an ambulance. They will drive or walk to the family physician or to a hospital. We all know that people call an ambulance only when something very sudden and big happens like an accident, heart attack or if somebody fell from the roof. When those kinds of things happen, people call an ambulance, not when somebody has a fever. We know that.

That's why I need to see a compelling reason which shows me the crisis of H1N1 is important and that's why it's important for this government to bring this heavy-handed bill at this point in time. There's no relation which I can see, at least, which this government has put forth.

The other factor to make my point. This minister has not shown any plan to vaccinate the paramedics — no plan at all, and that proves my point. If there's any connection between the H1N1 crisis and paramedics, there must be a plan to vaccinate those people because they are very important to deal with this crisis, and that's not the case. That's why we need to pass this hoist motion, once again, to give the time to both parties that so both parties can sit together and work out a deal.

There's no relationship between the H1N1 crisis and passing this Bill 21. As I said before, we need to ask questions when we talk about the H1N1 crisis. Why has this minister no plan to vaccinate the paramedics on a priority basis? Why? That's a very important question to ask.

J. Brar: My point, Mr. Speaker, is this. One of the key reasons to pass this bill is the crisis of H1N1, and it has been suggested that because of that crisis we need to pass this bill as quickly as possible. What I'm saying is that if we believe in that for a moment, then it's equally important to vaccinate the paramedics on a priority basis, because what happened….

Let us look into a very real situation. Someone becomes really sick with H1N1 flu, and the person calls 911 and says, "My son or my daughter or my sister is sick — has symptoms like H1N1," and the ambulance drives in. It will be hard for the paramedics to deal with that person if they have not received the H1N1 vaccine themselves, because they will be as concerned about themselves receiving H1N1 as anybody else. It's very important that if this relationship is real, that they must get the vaccination on a priority basis.

Since the strike began, paramedics have been subject to essential services orders that have required them to provide 100 percent of the pre-hospital care. In other words, they have responded to each and every call that came in. Therefore, I see there's no crisis as far as the H1N1 is concerned. Therefore, it's very important for us to pass this hoist motion to give time to both parties so that they can sit together and negotiate a deal in a very respectful, fair and peaceful manner — very important at this stage.

The only visible factor that caused this Bill 21 is a memo sent by VANOC to encourage the Minister of Health to pass this legislation. Other than that, I don't see any other compelling reason for this piece of legislation. But on that one, I would like to make a note that the province is in charge to run the government, not VANOC. The key player in this game is the government.

Deputy Speaker: Before we continue, I'd like to remind members that persistent and tedious repetition of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other members in debate is contrary to the rules of this House. I direct the members to Standing Order 43 and invite the members to direct his or her comments in their own novel argument.

G. Gentner: I rise in support of this hoist motion. I think the last time I rose to do so in the late evening, we had a member, Corky Evans, who stood up and actually broke into song. In fact, I think it was three o'clock in the morning, and the lights were turned off somehow. We got through that episode quite well. But unfortunately, the government didn't listen to us that day, and here we are once again.

I begin by thinking about earlier today and welcoming the Prince and his lovely wife here. It was a great day, and it's a great reminder, too, of how important our jobs are here and how important we fit in within the parliamentary system.

I begin talking about the need to hoist the motion, this need to talk about the need to bring collective bargaining back, the need to give collective bargaining a chance. I'd like to thank the member for Port Coquitlam, who gave us the hoist motion today. It's sort of like: "Give collective bargaining a chance." It's kind of like John Lennon giving peace a chance.

I can imagine that the member for Port Coquitlam probably had long, curly hair years ago, and he was, you know, into very positiveness. Here we are, and it's the same sort of thing. It's to give peace a chance; it's to give collective bargaining a chance. That's why I support what the member for Port Coquitlam brought forward here today. I certainly put forward and support this need for this hoist.

G. Gentner: Thank you, hon. Member, or Chair. I think that it was probably much longer than the member would like to admit, but nevertheless.

There are many issues in this province that come and go politically and that have a lasting impact on our social fabric. This is one issue — the erosion of collective bargaining, why we're here today with this motion — that we have to give time to, for reflection. We have to give time to be fair.

In fact, Bill 21 is really a very hard-nosed bill. It's a bill that, I believe, is about to set the clock back on labour relations in this province. I think it's so serious a bill that we ask, as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, and we implore to reconsider.

I look across, and there is hope. The Minister of Labour is here with us this evening, and he is listening. He's giving us his ear, and so I plead to the minister and his government to seriously reconsider this, I believe, hasty Bill 21. That's why I support the member for Port Coquitlam's motion to hoist this thing.

It's a time to be reasonable, it's a time for fairness, and it's a time to be prudent. This is not a time to sledgehammer legislation through. This is a major dispute, and there's no agreement. Just on the title alone, what it's called, I think, gives the wrong impression.

The B.C. government, I believe, is making a mockery of the process of collective bargaining, and that is why the hoist motion is here. It is for this government to look at the decent side of collective bargaining — to refrain, take a deep breath and think about what they're doing.

The government doesn't understand the seriousness of these actions and where we're going when we go into further collective bargaining coming up. It's going to set us back. It's going to set us way back, and that is why I think we have to re-evaluate this position.

Six months, I think, is sensible. It gives us the time to retract, to cool off, and it's a time for us to build a province when we come back here in the spring. When the motion was made today, I think it was done in the spirit of cooperation by the opposition. But I have to say that when the opposition House Leader made the hoist motion for six months, I thought: "Well, why six months?"

I mean, why not a year? Why not three months, four or five? Why was it six? There's got to be some reason here. Knowing the House Leader, there's got to be some reason. Perhaps he's got some numerology here that I certainly don't understand. Maybe he knows something about numbers. Maybe he's a numerologist. But why six months?

That's what this hoist motion is all about. It's six months. How the planets and stars line up, I don't know. Maybe it's all of the above. Maybe it has something to do with anniversaries. Then you know — boom — it hit me. We're dealing with, I think, a very sick B.C. Liberal government patient, a patient devoid of many things.

Six months from today, November 6…. Well, 15 minutes ago it was still November 6.

G. Gentner: It still is — in this world, yes. The Minister of Labour corrects me, and so he should. In this type of world over here in the Legislature, we are still behind the times. So yes, today is tomorrow. And tomorrow, hopefully, will be today.

Nevertheless, when you think about six months from November 6 is May 6, that's a reasonable time. Hopefully, by then, May 6, we'll get a deal done. But of course, how can anybody forget what May 6 is? May 6 is Sigmund Freud's birthday…

G. Gentner: …and the member's son's birthday. That's maybe just a coincidence.

Deputy Speaker: Member, please direct all remarks through the Chair. If I could ask members to refrain from making comment without being in their own seat.

Siggy Freud's birthday is May 6. Now, we shouldn't extend this for six months. This is to commemorate Siggy's 154th birthday, but I really have to be serious. This is a very serious matter.

It brings to mind that it's time, for six months, to put the government on the proverbial couch and do a little analysis. That's what this motion does — a chance for re-examination, a time to recall.

I mean, there are different methods of psychoanalytical aspects. I'm not necessarily a Freudian. I'm not a neo-Freudian. There are Jungians, and there are existential psychoanalytical approaches. We can go down the gamut. I'm more, of course, in support of humanistic perspectives. But six months — that is what this is about. We could have extensive psychoanalytical views, analysis, and see what the problem is.

I think that's fair. We can even put this government under hypnosis for six months. That would really solve the problem, I think. Six months of psycho-politics.

Hoisting is a prescription so doctors can get back to work and find out what's really ailing this government. I mean, six months.

Could you imagine if Freud were here today in this place created in the late Victorian setting here? Could you imagine what Sigmund Freud could do with the group over there? I'd just love to read the case study, when he would be finished, about what he would find — a case study of B.C. Liberal anxiety and why they have to foist so quickly and ram this bill through instead of having a moment of reflection. But I also hate to think of the weird fantasies that could come out.

We've got to give the doctor and the patient time. I think six months is reasonable. They might get to the root of the problem — lose reality, I think. Delusional and a propensity to tell untruths — that's what we've had. A decade of deceit. Giving them six months on this hoist motion not only will give them the time to look at what they're doing relative to this bill but will give them time to reflect where they're going in a larger perspective.

From a psychoanalytical perspective, why are they so hard on the paramedics? I think it's because they save lives. Freud would say: "Well, this is the death instinct. It's about anxiety." They fear their own mortality. Hopefully, by 2013 they'll be gone. But they fear it so much. There's something eating away at their own inner core. Therefore, they must project a sense of immortality and wield pain upon those who are more meaningful to society than themselves. They're here in spite of death.

It's those paramedics that save lives, and the rest of us in society look at our paramedics on a higher level, on a pedestal. That's why we need the hoist motion. It's going to take six months of counselling, true counselling on all sides, to get this done.

The B.C. Liberals, I believe, are weak, and they must compensate for that weakness by projecting their sort of brute-like strength upon others. It's the same way any bully picks on the others. It's usually with the do-gooders, the people who are trying to do their best for society. It's that inner core, where there is something eating away in their inner core. It's the worm inside, and because of it, because of their own insecurity, they lash out at others.

Six months. I think six months is very reasonable, because the government needs six months of therapy — good therapy. We look at this aggression, this need for hostility.

"I've been a paramedic for 14 years and served with pride and enthusiasm during this time. I worked hard and under stressful times to serve the citizens of British Columbia around the clock in all types of settings. This strike has left me feeling worthless and devalued.

You know, that's what this government is trying to do, and that's why we need six months to rebuild that morale.

"There is constant discontent within the ranks and disputes with management. It troubles me that I cannot feel good going to work under such negative pressure from the B.C. Liberal government."

Pressure. We need the time to heal, to re-examine. We need those six months. That's why I support the hoist motion.

"This in turn has affected my desire to care and has caused me for miss work due to stress and frustration. My family has suffered, and I battle my emotions to consider a career change. As a result of this, I have endured sick time above and beyond a reasonable amount, which ultimately costs the taxpayer."

Let's hoist this thing. To the minister: let's hoist it, and let's go under intensive therapy.

You know, Siggy said this about aggression: "Yeah, here is the problem. The tendency to aggression is an innate, independent, instinctual disposition in man.… It constitutes the most powerful obstacle to culture."

Now, he would have gone on, if he'd come back. He'd say: "In the case of B.C. Liberals, this is a very complex and difficult pathos that may not be reversible." Unfortunately, he is not here, but if he were to lay the patient out, I'm sure he would still insist that we have to go through thorough examination.

May 6 is Siggy's birthday — and, of course, a member here's child. It's an interesting coincidence.

I don't know if he'd think that six months would be enough time, since this is Victoria. Maybe it would be, because it could be possible.

I support this hoist motion. The actions of this government are based on something repressed. It's repressed inside. It's repression. And that is now suffering, and it is ugly. It's aggression. It's hostility.

"We trudge along, though, because deep down, as much as we cry and become despondent after particularly gruelling physical and emotional calls, we love this job, and you, Mr. Premier, know this. You have exploited our love and commitment to our job, and all I can say is: 'Shame on you.'

"All citizens of this beautiful province are deserving of respect. So why have you singled out the B.C. Ambulance Service paramedics and continue to treat us with such contempt and disrespect? I am at a loss. I will be leaving the BCAS after almost 20 years of full-time service, and I am leaving due solely to the disrespect shown to all BCAS paramedics by our employer."

Exploited, disrespected and being singled out. That is how a victim feels from a bully. It's that aggression that is pent up inside. It's pent up so severely that it has to find a whipping post. Unfortunately, it is our paramedics who are now feeling the stick.

Why such contempt and disrespect to our paramedics? Why? It's because of guilt, because of their own impotence. They have to be the tormentor. Perhaps after six months they will step back and re-examine what their actions are and why they are doing this.

It doesn't make sense. It really doesn't. I don't see the decency in this. What's the big rush?

You talk about anxiety. They said one thing during the election. They said: "No HST. Hardly will there be a deficit." We're now looking at a deficit that is almost structural. They knew. We're hearing from the letters that people are starting to hate this government. They're starting to hate them. All of this anxiety is now lashing out at others.

They're running hard and long since the election — angry, and they're taking it out on workers. That's why I support the hoist motion. It goes beyond just simply the paramedics, which we have to address. It's the general, ingrained passion. It's not a very healthy passion. Striking out, lashing out — it's hurtful. That's why I agree in six months.

It's deep-ridden. It's eating their insides. I would say it has been a guilt that's been built up for almost a decade, and we're calling it a decade of deceit. Others are questioning their inner selves. I think many members on that side are starting to question themselves.

Of course, I'm not going to get into the ego versus the id, and all that stuff. That was all 19th century stuff. But all this guilt is projected on victims. It's time to heal, and it's time to deal with some anger management. I mean, that's reasonable. That's human nature with all of us, I suppose. Sometimes we get caught in our work, and we're so pent up, we're driving an agenda, that we don't step back. That's why I support the hoist motion.

On the same line, I have another letter that I want to read out from another paramedic.

"I've been doing this job, serving the public of British Columbia, for the last 38 years. When I started we didn't have any protective gear. Over the years I've been exposed to many contagious diseases. My dear wife sat alone many times over the years, eating a meal she had prepared, while I responded to an emergency call. There were many disappointments for my wife and three children, as I couldn't say no to helping someone in trouble.

"I'm not blaming anyone. I chose this profession. Please don't use the flu scare to pass this bill. My fellow paramedics and I have worked through the strike, caring for people in trouble, and we will not stand by and let anyone die. We've worked through the flu many times over the years. The flu doesn't scare us. What does is abuse of power in a free country.

"Remembrance Day is up, and let us not forget what my two uncles died for — freedom and to stop a tyrant."

Passion. There's passion in there. That's the thing that I'm reading in all these letters. There's a sense of passion here. It goes beyond just a political agenda. People are genuinely upset. There whole lives are being stepped on. So support the hoist motion. It's not that hard to do.

"This bullying…." And the word "bullying" is coming up all over the place in the correspondence. I'm sure the members opposite are receiving the same kind of letters. I'm sure when they go back into their constituency…. Maybe it's a godsend that they're here right now, I don't know, to get away from the pressures. Maybe that's how they're thinking.

"This bullying of one of the weaker unions, by ramming this bill through before the vote is counted, is an arrogant act. All the unions in B.C. and Canada should rally behind us, as they could be the next one. How about a little respect?

Now, Bob Kopp also holds an exemplary service medal of honour. I mean, how can you treat our front line that way? It's despicable — absolutely despicable.

I plead and I ask, again, for a little rationality here, to be a little reasonable and support this hoist motion. A little respect: that's what the paramedics are asking. We need a little time for the government to reconsider.

What's wrong with six months? It gives us all November to negotiate, a month of sober reflection. November — well, we're going to have a little rain. I think of Shakespeare: "The quality of mercy is not strained. It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven upon the place beneath. It is twice blessed. It blesseth him that gives and him that takes." A month of mercy and compassion, November. What's wrong with that?

Next week, in rain, we'll stand by the cenotaph remembering and reflecting, November. That is what the hoist motion is about — giving us November, a time to reflect and work towards peace.

"My name is Vanessa Howard. I am a primary care paramedic. I love helping people and enjoy working as a paramedic. In order to do so in British Columbia, however, I work for BCAS. When I applied, I was told that I could only apply to work as a part-time paramedic and would only be able to get hired on to a remote station. My husband I decided to make the sacrifice financially to enable me to work at something I loved."

These people love their job. They love what they're doing. It's a workplace that could be filled with real worth, and it's being ripped apart.

She goes on: "Helping people…." I won't go further. There are so many letters here, hon. Speaker. But helping people…. Give us November. At least give us November so that the government and the union can come and work together. That is why I support this motion.

I support the motion because it also gives us December, a joyous time. Think about it — three good weeks to resolve this dispute in December. While many of us are entering Christmas parties and cheer, the paramedics will be out there in the snow. Many of them won't even see Christmas Eve or Christmas Day. They're there for you and me. Give them December. Let's get this thing done. We can work together. Hoist this motion. Join us.

That's why I support this motion — out of respect for our paramedics. They should get a break at a time when everyone else gets one at Christmas. They're working long, weary nights, giving up their family at a very special time. You know, we get December to hopefully go through the spirit of goodwill. We have a chance for a resolution.

January is another month. Janus, according to the Romans, is the god representing opening the door. Well, here's an opportunity. We can do something in January.

"Quesnel is where I had my first critical incident stress. I was almost blown up by someone who made a makeshift bomb to kill himself. Although I was unhurt, I was just messed up. Taking time off work as a part-time employee means you get no pay until WCB approves your injury. After just a week and a half of being off work with no pay, sleepless nights and no appetite, I lost ten pounds and forced myself to get back to work so that I could pay my bills."

To all the Samantha Wilbur out there…. Imagine a homemade bomb. That's what these people have to deal with. We owe Samantha her January. That's why I support giving six months to build the goodwill and to say thank you.

February. Well, that's kind of a tease during the early spring — isn't it? It's also the games.

"We're not against the Olympics. We don't have any issue with the Olympics. We think the employers are the ones who haven't been negotiating, have been stalling, have brought this fight to the Olympic doorstep, so to speak. There's no plan that we've been made aware of for the paramedics during the Olympic Games. We don't know how many ambulances we have to provide. We're going to and coming from. How many paramedics will be working or where they're going to stay and eat — we don't know."

I want to wrap this up with an appeal again. I don't think it's very unreasonable at all, what we've asked here today. I don't think it's unreasonable at all. I think it's very reasonable. I think it's principled, and I think it's a decent thing to do.

I started quoting Sigmund Freud. I was having a little fun with it, but this is a very serious issue. Like I said, I'm not a Freudian; I'm a humanist.

In the neo-Freudian genre, another famous psychologist once said: "The great question that has never been answered, which I have not yet been able to answer despite my 30 years of research into the human condition, is: if the patient is unwilling to seek analysis or any type of counselling in order to deal with his or her aggression to others, if he or she is unwilling to take sufficient time to consider what is behind their motives, is the patient completely beyond hope and will he or she continue to hurt others?"

R. Fleming: I rise in support of this hoist motion this evening — or morning — for a number of reasons. Before I begin, though, I wanted to introduce a constituent of mine who is in the gallery this evening, Dave Robertson. He is an ambulance paramedic and is watching this debate with interest, as it affects him and his family a great deal. I want the House to please make Dave welcome for being here.

Just from the aroma in the gallery and in the halls, we could very easily be discussing a bill on ambient air quality this evening with the Minister of Environment. But I digress.

I will do my level best to confine my remarks to why I am speaking in support of the hoist motion this evening. There are a number of reasons.

I want to say from the outset of this debate that I very much appreciate the member for Port Coquitlam for introducing this motion. I think that he offers it in the spirit of wisdom and experience that he has as a member of this assembly.

I think he offers it, also, as a way for government and both sides of the House to emerge from an unfortunate situation, a situation that has real repercussions for the province of British Columbia in terms of its industrial relations and labour management regime. I think that very sincerely this is a motion that members from both sides of the House can support.

A number of members have referred to it as a chance for the government to exercise sober second thought on the legislation that they introduced in the form of Bill 21. That is exactly what the hoist motion intends to do. It is a chance for government members to reconsider what is a very bad and dangerous piece of legislation for the province of British Columbia.

The hoist motion, which we're considering and which I'm speaking in favour of, makes Bill 21 completely redundant and unnecessary over the next six months. That's something that both sides of the House should look at very seriously.

By hoisting Bill 21, government members on that side of the House can vote to make completely unnecessary a piece of legislation that makes them and their party appear and actually emerge as hypocritical to principles that they once espoused in this very place and in the public realm.

Once upon a time, the B.C. Liberal Party — hard to believe now in its current incarnation — and leading members of that party, like former House Leader for the Liberals Gary Collins and others, spoke against legislation exactly identical to what is being tabled today. Not identical but legislation similar to what is being tabled today, which the government proposes.

I would invite people who are following this debate to check Hansard. Mr. Farrell-Collins chastised and warned them — when he was an opposition member — that any government that would use imposed settlements, especially on groups of workers designated as essential services…. He warned them that any such action by government would signal that it was abusing the very essential service designation to avert real bargaining.

It would leave workers who already have surrendered, effectively, their right to strike and their ability to withdraw their labour — in this case, for reasons of life safety — with no honest bargaining process available in British Columbia. These are public sector workers. We are talking about the government as the employer who is the party at the table on the management side.

That was a prescient warning from Mr. Farrell-Collins. I have heard no member in this debate so far from the government side take heed of that warning and rise in this house to acknowledge it.

Now, it should be said, for the record, that when Mr. Collins was making these points, the legislation that was on offer was significantly different than what was introduced in the form of Bill 21 — significantly different, because the legislation he was opposing was legislation introduced by the then government, a New Democratic government, that didn't impose a final collective agreement but required in law that there be an arbitration process. That's a very significant difference, and I want to point that out at the outset.

Nevertheless, the motivations, the reasons for opposing even that legislation given by the government are reasons that we are not hearing from the government today. The B.C. Liberal Party in opposition stated very different principles than the ones that they won't even get up in this very House to defend on this evening or morning, or whatever we're in.

Mr. Farrell-Collins warned that political interference could be the result of legislation, even legislation that just recommended an arbitration process. He warned that things like, frankly, laziness could set in, and at worst, abusive high-handedness could set in by a government that did not take seriously free and fair collective bargaining but dangled the threat of imposed settlements over the two parties that happened to be at the table.

Now, it is kind of interesting that a leading member of the B.C. Liberal Party spoke in this House not that long ago and said those very things, and no member of the governing party, his same party, will acknowledge that that in fact is occurring on this very day. In the interest of pure consistency — and for that reason alone I would appeal to members of the government side just to be consistent with what the B.C. Liberal Party has said over many years — they should see ample reason to support the hoist motion that is on the floor of the assembly tonight.

I would be very interested to hear from members opposite, whether they acknowledge that that is, in fact, a principle they hold dear, whether they see the wisdom of those remarks and could come around to joining with this side of the House in supporting the hoist motion.

Now, it could be that the fair warning that Mr. Farrell-Collins and the late Fred Gingell, who was an excellent legislator of this House and whose contribution to the assembly has been acknowledged on many occasions, and other Liberals…. It could be that that's a bygone era of liberal Liberals, a sentiment that doesn't exist within this party anymore — a party that once at least recognized, as most democratic parties across the political perspective and across many jurisdictions subscribe to…. They are enshrined in pretty critical documents, like the United Nations declaration of rights and freedoms, for example.

I go back to the point that when the Liberal opposition at that time was criticizing a bill introduced by the then NDP government, which didn't seek exactly to impose a final settlement that government had solely determined, they were, in fact, criticizing a bill introduced by the government that recommended and would have required a binding arbitration mechanism.

Government had the opportunity to do that in this dispute, and they didn't. They once suggested that that was an appropriate course of action. They quibbled about exactly how it would take place and what mechanism would make that occur — frankly, a fairly semantical argument about what the terms were for that — but they've abandoned that now. They don't speak in favour of that at all.

We've got a very parallel situation to disputes that have occurred in the past that were resolved very differently — very protracted disputes. You could argue, I suppose, that this one is — although I think the circumstances of the ambulance paramedic service and how we got to where we are today are very different than on previous occasions — but they don't. They don't make that argument.

They're seeking a completely different remedy to the dispute between the emergency services — the Health Services employer side and CUPE 873. They're seeking the easy way out, quite frankly. They're seeking a heavy-handed way out. They're seeking a way out that parliamentary jurisdictions generally, almost always, never pursue but, certainly, other types of regimes and states pursue all too frequently, unfortunately, and even some of our trading partners pursue, which we condemn on occasion for pursuing remedies like this.

We're seeing it right here in British Columbia this past week and tonight. That's an embarrassment to the tradition of parliamentary democracy in British Columbia. It's an embarrassment to rights that we hav