Hansard — House Blues — Friday, November 6, 2009 p.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

Afternoon Sitting

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 and to give an additional period of time, six months, to reflect on this makes sense. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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, they 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

You know, I talked to my friend Mike Barry 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." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I want to talk about another one of them. Years ago…. 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 laying there with a lifeless body, hon. Speaker, and all we could do is 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

girl and turned on the light and went to the hospital, that 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

so disrespected and so dishonoured that 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Deputy Speaker: Member, you need to refer to the motion. You are now revisiting second reading debate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 kind of things that they can do. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

While we're taking the time, we've got another one here. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"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 illnesses 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."

I'm a paramedic, an emergency worker. Over the last ten 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. He goes on: [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"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."

And this is most important — when we're taking the step back to think about this through our amendment to hoist this and 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." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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, you know, 40 or 50 years ago. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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's the heavy hammer of government coming down to force people back to work — while they're voting on an agreement, I might add. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"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." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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…." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

You don't have to die on this hill to the other side — through the Speaker. 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." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

at the Olympics quitting is a terrible, terrible outcome. I just can't think of anything, you know, more difficult than for them to be stepping back. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, please take your seat. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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, and of course…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

You know, labour relations issues in the province of British Columbia are always dynamic, but they have far-reaching consequences with these kind 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 every day out there saving lives, caring about real people. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

caring about real people. 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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

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 if I didn't visit in the first place? Oh, all right. I was visiting. 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

So 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

But 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This is not, by any means, a new problem. I believe that when the facts are analysed, it's [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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… [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

N. Simons: …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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We have a vote happening now, 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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, 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 clicker, and you have the mute button if you need it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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, and I think that when we have good arguments, we'll contemplate them. We'll consider them. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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…. They would be seen in a positive light, in a bipartisan positive light. Don't make me repeat that. Bipartisan positive light — yes. There's nothing wrong with that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

In this case — in fact, especially in this case — we need to put…. 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 [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

in this case, we need to put…. 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." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 world you want to use. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 in doing household chores. They're coming up and they're spending money to protect my constituents. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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…. There's silence from that side, with very few exceptions. Perhaps if that silence were broken, there would be a flood or an explosion of sound. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I can't see how any member…. I know that there are members on the government side whose family works 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Deputy Speaker: And the member is bringing his comments back to the motion? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

N. Simons: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would have reminded me too, and I thank you for that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

If they are members from Burnaby, 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I have a letter from a paramedic. We all know…. 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 respect. I'm sure that the police officers sometimes feel that way too. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

But here we have…. 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Paramedics, I think, are often…. You know, they're 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Deputy Speaker: Member, you will come back to the consideration of the motion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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

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." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 saying your intention was never to step in. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

You know, we're saying to the minister that your back-to-work legislation was premature. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

There are other methods available. There are other ways of achieving a goal that will result in [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

your 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We're saying put this bill aside. Let's not do second reading. Let's put it off. Let's hope, you know, 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. In this particular case you especially hope that the second thought was sober too. But 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 it's about…. We need to see legislation that reflects the public interest. That's everybody's job. We're sworn…. 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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, you know, perhaps is 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. And when someone says, "Just a second. Can we stop you here for a second?" be careful, or you'll get driven over too. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for your indulgence, and with that I'll cede the [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Deputy Speaker: The member for Columbia River–Revelstoke seeks leave to make introductions. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

N. Macdonald: Yes, thank you. 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 and I just want to introduce them and then let the House make them welcome and thank them for coming. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The first is Michelle Freeberg; 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 Aggy Pringle, who is a paramedic from Sayward. I ask the House to join me in welcoming her. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We have Andy Cowie, a paramedic. I ask the House to join me in making Andy welcome. We have James Mcfarland, a paramedic, and I ask the House to join me in welcoming James here. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We have Jeff Waygood, another paramedic. I ask the House to join me in welcoming Jeff. We have Sarah Moffet, a paramedic. I ask the House to join me in welcoming Sarah. We have Tracy Horrocks, and I ask the House to join me in welcoming Tracy. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We have Christine Heatley, another paramedic, and I ask you to join me in welcoming Christine here. We have Tanya Bellagante, a paramedic and CUPE 873 regional vice-president, and I thank Tanya for coming. I ask the House to join me in welcoming her. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Here's to thank you for being here and to thank you as well for the work that you do. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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

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, and that's why we need to support the hoist motion before us. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We need six months to sit back, reflect on what's happened in the last year, the last two years — and 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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

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 that they do, and that we can move forward, continuing the best ambulance service we have in the country. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 2007-08. If you take these numbers in perspective, paramedics made contact with one in eight people living in the province of British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

If you compare that elsewhere, you can see very quickly that our paramedics, our ambulance service, is 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. Now, [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

the best trained, and they deserve six months for us to sit down and reflect on what we're doing with this imposed contract. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Now, 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. The last thing I want to do…. I come to this legislature, go to meetings, travel throughout the riding I represent, travel throughout the province, and I listen, because my role is to learn and represent the feelings of British Columbians. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Now, I would hope that 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, that bubble that this government is in, so that they realize that we need six months, at least, to look at where we need to go with our ambulance service in this province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Now, I'm not too sure if it's the whole opposite side, the government side, that's in the bubble. We have that 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 they can approach the minister and burst that big bubble that he's standing in. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This bill before us — this ambulance services imposed contract act — needs to be hoisted so we have that reflective thought — exemplifies the contempt and disrespect for the people that ride in our ambulances and all of the ambulance workers. But one of the key reasons I'm going to start off with this is, 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

In my comments, I will stick to…. 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

hoist this and delay for six months because there are many, many reasons. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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, and 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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, the only thing at this point in time, that could demonstrate good faith on the part of the government." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I agree. 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? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Deputy Speaker: Member. You will bring yourself back to consideration of the motion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Now, as I mentioned, one of the key reasons that we need to hoist this bill that's before us is 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Now, I mentioned earlier that one of the members…. I give credit to the member, the member for Peace River South, the Minister of Energy and Mines. He stood up. He stood tall and talked to this bill. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The reason that we need to have an extra six months of delay — of reflection, negotiations, 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Now, 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 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." Now, 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

So 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Now, 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We've seen a memo from VANOC that 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. We haven't heard anybody stand up and shoot down that theory. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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?" [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 got the Olympics coming up. We have other issues out there. This should have been dealt with a long time ago. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

There could have been an arbitrator, an independent arbitrator. There's still time for that. 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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: [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"The government claims 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." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I remember the debate back a year ago, prior to us having a concern about negotiated contracts or imposed contracts or hoisting a bill that needs clarification. The member from 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." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

So we have a mixed message. We don't have the member from Abbotsford-Mission standing up talking about the premises — of false pretences. But there's a lot of respect on the other side for John Strohmaier. So we need clarification [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

talking about the 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

As we move forward, you know, 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, throughout the province in every riding, every constituency, have concerns. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Deputy Speaker: Member, that is not referencing the motion under debate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. Chair, we saw the concern about some interference, some false pretences. Again, when we move forward with this bill, we need to ensure…. Have the opportunity to tell British Columbians that we've passed a bill that we are comfortable with, that the paramedics are comfortable with, 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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." Now, collective bargaining to take its course. Well, let's go to…. Oh yeah, they've called it the Ambulance Services Collective Agreement Act. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I'm going to lay out the argument. I have four categories I've determined that 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 the 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The hoist motion, essentially, identifies a bad bill, a bad piece of legislation, and it gives the government a chance [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 six months. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 they need more time. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

They've made commitments. Government members made commitments during the election. I know on the news tonight government members were mentioned. Island News, this evening's news [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This was the MLA for Parksville-Qualicum, and 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 involves us in the opposition. This needs to involve all members. That can't happen when Bill 21 is being rammed through. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I will note that it's not just the member from 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 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: [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"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 wind storm 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

Sayward" — this was yesterday, when the big windstorm happened — "to pick up a very sick patient that was in bad MVA. 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 is not speaking to the motion underway. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

S. Fraser: I'll respect your ruling, Madam Speaker, as always. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

My argument is 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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, or is it…? I believe it's germane to my whole thrust on this…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Deputy Speaker: The member knows that he is now revisiting second reading debate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 wants to know…. He's informing his MLA that this could affect the volunteerism at the Olympics if Bill 21 goes through. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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's most of the people in British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

A hoist motion will allow the time to do that. To deny the hoist motion will put at risk much. 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I don't believe the Liberal members all believe…. I don't know why they've been silent, but I believe, I've surmised, that they need time. The hoist motion will give them time, and there is time. There is time. There is no hurry for this. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

That takes me to the second general premise of why we need the 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. It has been brought into question…. 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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, 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Deputy Speaker: I'm reminding the member that this is visiting second reading debate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

S. Fraser: It's certainly dealing with paramedics in Bill 21, Madam Speaker. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I don't know why the minister…. The Minister of Health is a new minister, and I don't…. 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

But government members should know that six months could solve this labour strife. The hoist motion will bring that. That debate has to happen. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

But government members should know that six months could solve this labour strike. 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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's been brought forward. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The hoist motion gives us time — 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 treatment. The hoist motion allows them that. The hoist motion gives time for the corrections to be made. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 don't know.... I do not believe that with Bill 21 their wishes, their needs of local government and local leaders were taken into consideration. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 — and I believe local government is the purest form of government. They are the closest on the ground. They see firsthand what our paramedics do. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

If we can get enough members, 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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

"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. And 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.... [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We are having a debate on the hoist motion, and every member has the opportunity to speak to the hoist motion. Member for Alberni–Pacific Rim, please continue. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I know the members opposite, to their credit, many of them went to the UBCM also. But 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 fair collective bargaining process to occur. And the six months — in that time those members that are speaking off the record now could speak on the record defending their own local governments' resolutions, [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We represent those people in this Legislature, in this Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. We are all here to represent them. So 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 was reminded to speak to the hoist motion at all this evening. In fact, stuck right to it and didn't wave off onto the second reading of Bill 21. So I'm hoping after these 30 minutes that I'll have those bragging rights. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I want to start off 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?" [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We are standing up. And before I get started, I've already heard members from the [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

the hoist motion. What are they talking about at 9:05 in the evening on a Friday night? What are they doing in the Legislature? We are standing up…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. Because they think, it seems to me, that they are above accountability. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Well, let me tell you, hon. Speaker, that 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

So 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Mungall: Yes. And going right back to the motion. So I've got one. I might lose my bragging rights. On to the motion, 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This motion is about supporting the people in our communities who get up every day to save lives. This motion, at its fundamental…. 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

What we want the government to do with this motion is to 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. Relax. Cool your jets, and go back to the table. Go back to the table and 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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

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, at a bar, house party. They're having a good time. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

And I'm having a good time here. Don't get me wrong. But they're out, and they're relaxed, and they're 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 on 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?" [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Deputy Speaker: Please watch your language, Member, as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

So 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

In fact, the idea that you solve a conflict by talking and through respectful dialogue is something that you learned 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We have a child in the gallery who clearly agrees that 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. Speaker, they know that 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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, and what they're [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

to solve this dispute respectfully, that they appreciated and they 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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: [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. That terrifies us, because their working conditions are so poor, because they make so little money that they can barely live. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

friends tonight, after they're done at the pub, can't afford the loss of any more rural paramedics. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 that our paramedics do in rural areas; they value the work our paramedics do in urban areas. They know that paramedics are saving lives every day and every night and that without them, British Columbia would be worse off. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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, hon. Speaker, 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? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Deputy Speaker: Member, to the hoist motion. This is not second reading debate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Mungall: My apologies, hon. Speaker. 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 Donny, other government officials. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Deputy Speaker: Member, this is not second reading. This is the hoist motion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Mungall: Yes, hon. Speaker. I appreciate that, and I apologize. Again, just trying to make a point about why the hoist motion is valuable. Certainly, without any [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Mungall: Yes, hon. Speaker. I appreciate that, and I apologize. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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's paramedics out there who have clearly stated that they are not going to be volunteering for the Olympics after a bill like this. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

They put themselves into a very terrible corner, hon. Speaker, and I can understand that they, therefore, then 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." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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, just a few hours, are going to be caring for some of my closest friends all over this province, 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 –– something more than dollar signs. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I think that if this government actually voted in favour of this hoist motion, that 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 that are cared for, that are saved by our paramedics, and that this government actually values our health care system and this government wants to ensure that it's the best that it can possibly be, and that British Columbians get that best possible care that they so richly deserve. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I hope by the end of this evening that 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 that they have a duty to tell British Columbians why they will vote the way they vote rather than just get up and do 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Mungall: Thank you, hon. Chair. That they respect British Columbians, that they respect the collective bargaining process that has been developed over decades in this country. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Deputy Speaker: Member, that was…. I would ask you to rephrase that, Member. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

J. Horgan: I'd be happy to rephrase, hon. Speaker –– another opportunity to stand in my place and represent the constituents of Malahat-Juan de Fuca and also two guests, paramedics Gary Baggott and Jim Stewart, who have come to join us here tonight, to watch democracy unfold in the province [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

happy to rephrase, hon. Speaker — 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member. Introductions are introductions, Member. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I think it's time, I would suggest, that the other side, the government MLAs, have an opportunity…. It's 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 what their situation is — 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The reason I think 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, I would contend, also an opportunity to appreciate the context of Bill 21 and to fully appreciate the meaning and the impact that Bill 21 would have. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 — 35 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I think also six months for the government to consider and, maybe, study and appreciate the meaning of collective bargaining, the rights of collective bargaining — what that means to a free and democratic society and the benefits that that brings to our society and the danger of undermining those rights. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The six months would allow the government to appreciate that collective bargaining is an opportunity that 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, and to value that is important. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Coming to a collective agreement is basically a contract between, which would represent a contract between, the employer and the ambulance paramedics. The opportunity to negotiate that 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 — the rights of these workers, the rights of ambulance paramedics and the need and importance to uphold the principle of collective bargaining. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

To really appreciate six months and also to take the time to appreciate the weight of collective bargaining, what that means as a human right. It's something that is not to be taken lightly and to be considered, the context [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

of collective bargaining — 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. It's not just held here in B.C. It's recognized under the Canadian Charter. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It's also held on an international level — recognized and upheld by the International Labour Organization. It's one of the eight core principles governing all citizens around the globe. In that context of the International Labour Organization, of one of the core principles, it's also upheld at the UN under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The right of collective bargaining is a recognized and an important contributing factor to our fabric of our society and to the fabric of democracy here in British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The process for allowing collective bargaining on behalf of the ambulance paramedics and their attempts to negotiate for not only improved wages, benefits and working conditions but also the benefit that that brings, I think, cannot be taken lightly. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I think 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. I would contend that 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.... [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 MLAs, to have an opportunity to also respond to, I know, the many e-mails that are coming into their offices and to engage in a discussion on this issue. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

When we talk about the value of collective bargaining, it's the recognition that collective bargaining is an essential right of workers, and 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 of not only 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

So on the floor we're discussing the hoist motion to allow the government six months to reconsider the Bill 21 and to, I think, undertake 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, and this constitutes a very serious undermining of that fundamental right and also the rights of ambulance paramedics [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

and the very serious.... This constitutes a very serious undermining of that fundamental right and also the rights of ambulance paramedics by not allowing them to engage in the process. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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

These are values and characteristics that it's difficult to put a price tag on, and this is what I'm concerned that Bill 21.... This is why I'm speaking in favour of the hoist motion: 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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, and 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 that there's a need to take pause and reconsider. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Collective bargaining is a fundamental human right here, and ambulance paramedics deserve that. So it's my contention, and I hope to get the point across to the other side to also support the hoist motion, which I think would be an extension and 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 society, 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The hoist motion will allow time for the government to consider that collective bargaining is an opportunity for all those parties to come together on a [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

and we need to have an agreement of working together, and the hoist motion will allow time for the government to consider that collective bargaining is an opportunity for all those parties to come together on a mutually agreed — to reach a negotiated settlement agreed upon by everybody. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The violation of that is very grave, I would contend, and would lead to ambulance paramedics, I think — bad feelings 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, too, to take pause, to consider the amendment and to recognize the importance of respecting our collective partnership with ambulance paramedics. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Also further, on 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 not…. You know, 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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

Maybe they'll be swayed by some of our arguments and points from this side about the serious need to reconsider Bill 21, and also to 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 as well within society — and to consider, to fully consider what kind of message that would send to other public sector workers and also more broadly in society. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I think that Bill 21…. I think 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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

It really is an insult, an insult not only to the paramedics but also an insult 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It can also be the vision of a system, that in terms of Bill 21, we — I think bill…. The reason to hoist and to allow the six months to consider, to take [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 and something that brings a very positive force to our society, and that cannot be minimized or taken for granted. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We've been elected here obliged to protect those basic, fundamental human rights, and six months to consider the impact of Bill 21, effectively, is using legal means [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 the chamber, with the majority held by the government — their ability to impose laws and legislation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

So 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We haven't currently heard many compelling arguments or rationale 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

So in terms of the hoist motion, there's also the question of why the government is insisting that we have to rush this process. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 and hope the other side will support it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

we don't have a lot of opportunities available to us to influence the government, but we do have some. In second reading, that form of influence is in the form of amendments that we can put forward. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 — then 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

According to the Standing Orders, those now obsolete amendments were two things. One, that we could reject the bill [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

House and at home. I'm sure they would like a little bit more drama around this. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 Clerk's table, and several members on both sides of the House kicked it out of the House. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 — it's an intractable dispute; there's been no headway made — and now you have [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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, and if the government proves its case that it's an intractable dispute and there's been no headway made, now you have a situation where you're now more than a year into it. Then they can bring the legislation back, and we can debate it again. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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, whom they're all hearing by e-mail and by phone to their constituency offices, and facing them directly. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 and they should go back and they should do it in their own offices and 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

That reasonable approach is basically twofold. First, appoint a binding arbitrator to resolve the current bargaining dispute, and 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I find there's a great irony in the Government House Leader's reasoning for why we're going to debate this all weekend, and 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Why? Because the Government House Leader last night made a case that we needed to argue this over the weekend, and 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. We don't agree with the need to debate it over the weekend. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

One of the things I often asked 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Unfortunately, we don't do that often enough. And 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 think ahead –– because 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 –– and that may be as early as tomorrow –– and 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

And 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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

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, and they've got the capacity under essential services to make sure that the Olympics is fully covered using some of that legislation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

If they go back to the collective agreement, a lot of that becomes voluntary again. And 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. And so on the no-hoist scenario, I believe what the government is actually doing is undermining the Ambulance Service achieving its full capacity –– that they will undermine the morale of the Ambulance Service so they will actually achieve the opposite of what the government is intending to achieve. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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, and I would appreciate hearing that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 and, as British Columbians need to know, after the big party is over of the Olympics…. Because that's all that gets them: an enforced collective agreement to March 31, 2010. A mere few weeks after the Olympics, we start this all over again. That is unacceptable. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 memory on collective agreements and what collective agreements really are and the right that they are. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 about in this House. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The third point it makes is that "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." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We're just simply asking for the rights of the paramedics to be respected, for that human right to be upheld. And 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I feel an Aretha Franklin coming on. It's an r-e-s-p-e-c-t night tonight. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

B.C. Ambulance Service employees, then, perhaps even to reflect internally, for those in the government caucus, just what this all really means. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 will 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 here 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. So 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Deputy Speaker: Members, please. Will the member withdraw that? Will the member withdraw that comment? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

But 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, and 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." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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… [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

J. Horgan: I wanted a clean speech, Member. Shut up, would you? Stop heckling me. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 day of the 11th month at the 11th hour. We will acknowledge that day, and 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 and drive trucks and [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. Perhaps it's 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Deputy Speaker: Remind the member, talking about the amendment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 free and unfettered collective bargaining can continue. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

As legislators, we're providing the government, and as well 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

J. Horgan: Yes. Yeah, I'm nothing but a faithful individual. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I know 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It brings me 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 one that reads it." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

J. Horgan: It's weak? It's 11:30 or very close to it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

An Hon. Member: A little heckling is as close as they get to speaking. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Deputy Speaker: In all the comments, through the Chair, thank you. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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

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 [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"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." 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This is a debate. A debate's 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

R. Chouhan: In the gallery we now have another dedicated, hard-working paramedic. Sean Joenig and his colleagues are in the gallery watching us here. Please join me to welcome him. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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

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…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The fact of the matter is 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 — I lived in Golden a long time — Ron Osust, Ian Millroy, others that have served as paramedics for a long time. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

There is a presumption with 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 to each and every situation, and it leads to failure after failure after failure. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

You know, what is at stake here…. 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 [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

if it is not a system that works for them, it's a system that does not work for the wider population. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

You know, why there needs to be a hoist motion and 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The Kamloops Dispatch Centre was responsible for pretty well all of the Interior. It is a critical part of the 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 exited and that unless those problems were fixed, there would be consequences for what we assumed would be the wider public. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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? May of 2006 you had a call that went to the Kimberley station…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Deputy Speaker: Member, if I could please ask you to draw your comments to the hoist motion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

N. Macdonald: Of course. The hoist motion is an opportunity to take six months so that this legislation could be put aside and 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…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The Kimberley station in May of 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

So what you had is information that went to the dispatch centre. That information was not heard properly, and 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Now, part of why we need to do the hoist motion is because people [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

system problems that had been identified but not dealt with, the information was not heard properly and was instead sent inaccurately to the paramedics. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. So 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

So 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. So 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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, to me is absolutely unbelievable. 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

is essentially five or ten minutes of a case. That that is the extent is ridiculous. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 station, a proper station. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 of what they're actually doing to paramedics, and yet it's not much of a debate, really, is it? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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, and they promised that they were going to come here and solve it, and yet here they are without taking the time to prepare themselves. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Well, I offer solution: a hoist motion. If you need another six months, I think B.C. Liberals can take 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Deputy Speaker: Member, would you please direct your comments to the hoist motion that we're talking about. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The hoist motion, as I've said many times, gives us an opportunity for other members to inform themselves. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

they need proper working conditions. We absolutely depend upon them. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Deputy Speaker: Member, please refrain remarks to the motion that's on the floor, the hoist motion. I'll read it for you so that you're aware of it: [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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.'

N. Macdonald: Sure. I guess I need to explain the rationale. The rationale is we have the hoist motion. It is a suggestion that it go for –– 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. Chair. I think it makes sense 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I mean, it's pretty clear that there is not a full understanding by this government and by government members. 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

In Revelstoke there's not even a proper station. There hasn't been…. Despite a clear promise from this government that they're going to provide one, they still haven't. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

As I've said to the Chair, 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 the same e-mails, 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

motion is to take the six months, if that's what you need. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 you get a piece of legislation like this. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 paramedics do have a government that simply doesn't show the service the respect that it deserves. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It's a government that shows disdain for pretty well everyone — for seniors, for children 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 would 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The fact of the matter is 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

$2 an hour right now — certainly not doing their job and 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 to vote on an important issue… [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Excellent suggestion made by the member to postpone Bill 21 for six months — just for six months — and suggest going back to the negotiation table with a commitment to negotiating in good faith and reaching a settlement that is workable for both the parties. What else can the government hope from an opposition member? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I'm very surprised that none of the members from the other side stood up in this House this afternoon and spoke either to support the hoist motion or oppose the hoist motion, with one exception, and that is the member for Peace River South, who did stand up in this House and spoke to this motion. No other member stood up in this House and said anything about this hoist motion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We're elected by the people of British Columbia to come into this House and debate the important issues to the people of British Columbia, and what's happening this evening is only one side of the House is standing up and speaking to this very important hoist motion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I'm sure that there are many members on the other side who would support this motion if they are given the freedom to support this motion. If they are given the [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

and I'm sure that there are many members on the other side who would support this motion if they are given the freedom to support this motion. If they are given the freedom to support this motion, they will support this motion. Because 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Deputy Speaker: Member, please refrain and direct your comments towards the hoist motion that's on the floor. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 telling is that this is one service that we call 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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, how the quality of care is provided by the paramedics, and particularly about the ambulance service. Those stories make us proud in the global community. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I would like to share a personal story to tell the extraordinary work being done by these people, and by telling that story, I want to make a point as to why it's important at this stage of the game to postpone this Bill 21 for six months — just for six months — to find a meaningful solution to this problem at this stage. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

and my brother called the ambulance. At the same time, he called me as well. My office was half the distant, just half the distant, 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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, to come up with a solution that can work for all the people of British Columbia and can work for both the parties. It does make sense. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Just to come back, the services they provide are rare on the this globe. For the majority of the people who live on this earth, it is a kind of dream, this 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This six months will allow the Minister of Health to go through an independent arbitration process, which 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The other reason that this hoist amendment should pass, which I think is important, is because it will allow the paramedics to complete the voting process on the offer already on the table. That makes this motion very, very, very important because the reality is this: Bill 21 is an untimely act. It's untimely, and we [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

very, very, 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The reality is this: the government has already made an offer on September 28, and the members of the unions are currently working 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? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I wish the member on the other side would stand up to explain that. But unfortunately, that's not happening. The government made the offer itself, 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It is untimely. It does not make sense, and it does not show respect to 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

So this is a wrong message to send. This point is very important because this was the offer made by the government itself and, 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." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 to 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 and we need to debate that in good faith. We need to debate that openly in this House. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

have the right to say they don't support it. That's fine, but they must stand up in this House and say what those factors are because of which they don't support this hoist amendment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 to people to talk and negotiate in good faith. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 the light of the H1N1 crisis. That's one of the key reasons given for this bill. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The answer is absolutely no. I'm going it repeat: the answer is absolutely no. There's no connection, as from my understanding, between the H1N1 crisis and this bill at this point in time. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 official 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Therefore, we need to be more prepared for this. We must take all the important steps to make sure we have the best, 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 this Bill 21 at this stage of the game. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 the 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 they 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

If somebody will get sick with H1N1, chances are that the significant majority, I would say, 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

That's why I need to see a compelling reason which shows me that the crisis of H1N1 is important. 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Deputy Speaker: Member, please direct your comments to the hoist motion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

in a respectful, fair and peaceful manner — very important at this stage. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. Member for Delta North. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 today the hoist motion. It's sort of like: "Give collective bargaining a chance." It's kind of like John Lennon giving peace a chance. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 on this motion — that we have to give time to, for reflection. We have to give time to be fair. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This is a major dispute, and you know, there's no agreement. So just on the title alone, what it's called, I think it gives the wrong impression. The B.C. government, I believe, is making a mockery of the process of collective bargaining. That is why the hoist motion is here. It is for this government to look at the decent side, I believe of collective bargaining — to refrain, take a deep breath and think about what they're doing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Now, the government doesn't understand, I believe, the seriousness of these actions and where we're going to be going when we go into further collective bargaining coming up. You know, 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

You know, six months, I think, is sensible. It gives us the time to retract, a time 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?" [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I mean, why not a year? Why not three months, four or five? Why was it six? You know, 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. He is, after all…. Maybe he's a numerologist. But why six months? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Six months from today, November 6…. Well, 15 minutes ago it was still November 6. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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… [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

G. Gentner: …and the member's son's birthday. That's maybe just a coincidence. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

But 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I mean, there's different methods of psychoanalytical aspects. I'm not necessarily a Freudian. I'm not 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I think that's fair. We can put this government under hypnosis for six months. That would really solve the problem, I think. Six months, psychopolitics. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hoisting is a prescription so doctors can get back to work and find out [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

That would really solve the problem, I think. Six months of psycho politics, and hoisting is a prescription so that doctors can get back to work and find out what's really ailing this government. I mean, six months. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Could you imagine if Freud were here today, in this place created in the late, late Victorian setting here? Could you imagine what Sigmund Freud could do with the group over there? You know, 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

But 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 their 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 — where they're going in a larger perspective. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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, and hopefully, by 2013 they'll be gone. But they fear it so much. There's something eating away at their own inner core, and therefore, they must project a sense of immortality and wield pain upon those who are more meaningful to society than they themselves. They're here in spite of death. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The B.C. Liberals, I believe, are weak, and they must compensate for that weakness by projecting their sort of a 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"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, Mr. Speaker, pressure, and we need the time to heal, to re-examine. We need those six months. That's why I support the hoist motion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"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, hon. Speaker. To the minister: let's hoist it, and let's go under intensive [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I've incurred sick time above and beyond a reasonable amount, which ultimately costs the taxpayer." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Let's hoist this thing, hon. Speaker. To the minister: let's hoist it, and let's go under intensive therapy. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

You know, Ziggy said this about aggression: "Ja, he is the problem. The tendency to aggression is an innate, independent, instinctual disposition in man.… It constitutes the most powerful obstacle to culture." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

May 6 is Ziggy's birthday, and of course a member here's child. It's an interesting coincidence. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This is what a paramedic writes, relative to aggression and his own view. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It doesn't make sense. It really doesn't. I don't see the decency in this. What's the big rush? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It's deep-ridden. It's eating their insides. I would say it has been the guilt that has built up for almost a decade. We're calling it "decade of deceit." Others are questioning their inner selves [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

you know, it's 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

On the same line, I have another letter that I want to read out from another paramedic. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"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, hon. Speaker, 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"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 Copp also holds an exemplary service medal of honour. I mean, how can you treat our front line that way? It's despicable — absolutely despicable. But 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? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"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 PCAS. 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

get hired onto remote station. My husband and I decided to make the sacrifice financially to enable us 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

She goes on: "Helping people…." I won't go further. There's so many letters here, hon. Speaker. But helping people…. Give us November. At least give us November so the government and the union can come and work together. That is why I support this motion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. That's why I support…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"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 I could pay my bills."

To all the Samantha Wilburs 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"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, 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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, the patient is completely beyond hope and will continue to hurt others." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

R. Fleming: I rise in support of this hoist motion this morning, for a number of reasons. Before I begin, though, I wanted to [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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, who is an ambulance paramedic and who 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 the Environment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

But I digress and 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The hoist motion that we're considering and that 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

By hoisting Bill 21, government members on that side of the House can vote to make completely unnecessary a piece of legislation that actually makes them and their party appear and actually emerge hypocritical to principles that they once espoused in this very place and in the public realm. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

You know, once upon a time the B.C. Liberal Party — hard to believe now in its current incarnation — and members, 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I would invite people who are following this debate to check Hansard. Mr. Farrell-Collins chastised and warned any government — when he was an opposition member — he warned them 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

And 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

withdraw their labour — in this case for reasons of life safety — with no honest bargaining process available in British Columbia — and 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Now 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 to 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. So that's a very significant difference, and I want to point that out at the outset. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Nevertheless, the motivations, the reasons for opposing even that legislation given by the government are reasons that we are not hearing from the now government today. The B.C. Liberal Party in opposition stated very different principals 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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, or 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 , and no member of the governing party — his same party — will acknowledge that that, in fact, is occurring on this very day. So 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I would be very interested to hear from members opposite, whether they acknowledge that that is, in fact, their principle that 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 his 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, are enshrined in pretty critical documents, like the United Nations declaration of rights and freedoms, for example. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

But 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Government had the opportunity to do that in this dispute. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

the government that recommended and would have required a binding arbitration mechanism. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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 and, 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We've got a very parallel situation to disputes that have occurred in the past that were resolved very differently — very protracted disputes, as 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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, frankly, parliamentary jurisdictions generally, almost always, never pursue but that, certainly, other types of regimes and states pursue all too frequently, unfortunately. Even some of our trading partners, which we condemn on occasion for pursuing remedies like this, pursue. And 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 the rights that we have said are guaranteed in our province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

In seeking, through its actions, the passage of Bill 21…. I am proud to be on this side of the House with a number of members who have made this point. In seeking passage of Bill 21, the B.C. Liberal Party, the government side, is showing contempt for the principles of free and fair collective bargaining. Because that is such a serious matter, that is why this side of the House is making a constructive proposal to hoist this motion for six months' time and allow collective bargaining to take place, because we want it to succeed where this side of the House wants it to fail and make it fail in finality through the passage of Bill 21. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We don't want that to happen. We want other alternatives to be pursued, and there is time to do that. I'll return to that point. There are a number of avenues available to this government that they could take that they've so far chosen not to that the hoist motion makes possible again over the next six months. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We're actually trying to help this government be consistent with principles they once said were their own core principles. We're trying to help them avoid the accusation of political hypocrisy. Some members might not believe that, but that's a by-product of the hoist motion that's on the floor for debate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

They once spoke very, in some cases, passionately against political interference in public sector disputes like this one. They spoke against interference like this in industrial relations in the province. But now, today, they introduce legislation that epitomizes the heavy hand of the state and the imposition of settlements that were not freely arrived at. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

On this side of the House, our motion to hoist this bill is offered as a means to make the legislation that they introduced a few days ago completely unnecessary. It also, as I've mentioned, allows the B.C. Liberal Party, if not to find a sole [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

the legislation that they introduced a few days ago completely unnecessary. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It also, as I've mentioned, allows the B.C. Liberal Party to, if not find a soul in itself, at least allow it to be consistent with things that they once said they stood for here — and not even a decade ago. That would be a good outcome. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Now this government, who has shown disdain over a number of occasions over its almost nine years in office for working people and for professionals like ambulance paramedics, could repair itself, and it could repair its reputation, by permitting and supporting this motion which would allow ambulance paramedics and the Emergencies and Health Services employer to find a better solution — a better solution to the draconian and heavy-handed one that they have proposed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I would urge members on that side of the House to listen to the arguments being advanced that would allow government to consider the positive implications of supporting the hoist motion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

There are a lot of reasons to believe that hoisting Bill 21 for six months will actually pave the way to a successful outcome and conclude a collective agreement that is not imposed upon our ambulance paramedics. I would like to give a few reasons. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The first reason is that the parties involved — and acknowledging that they bargained for a relatively long period of time, some seven months, unsuccessfully to date — bargained, nonetheless. They did, in fact, exchange offers and proposals. In fact, each side exchanged and offered at least six different unique proposals, differing from the other. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

So there was bargaining. There was some process of give and take. Probably not as much as there should have been, because quite frankly the management side was always given the encouragement and the political interference from the Minister of Health and others — a nudge, nudge, wink, wink arrangement that they didn't really have to try that hard because post-election a scenario like we are seeing unfolding could happen. They didn't have to really give and take too much. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

All the same, I think there was some sincerity on that delegated management agency, and certainly on the part of the union that represents ambulance paramedics, to engage in collective bargaining. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Now, when you take the cumulative total of the six offers that were exchanged by each party, that is a fairly thorough record of discussion, a very thorough record of talks, that both parties could resume — next week, in fact. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We could pass this motion — I guess it's Saturday now; according to the parliamentary session schedule it is Friday, but we'll use the calendar the rest of the world uses — and bargaining could resume forthwith. In a matter of days both parties could return to the table if the hoist motion was supported by a majority of legislators in this House. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I think bargaining could resume very productively by postponing this draconian, imposed contract legislation for six months. Set that aside and allow bargaining to resume, and we could achieve an outcome. That is one scenario that I think is realistic and is based on experience to date in the bargaining process, that could build upon seven months of discussion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Even if that scenario failed, there are other options that at least one of the parties has spoken in favour of that is an alternative to imposed contract legislation — binding arbitration. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The union has spoken in favour of that. Even the government has suggested that they would, perhaps, consider [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

to impose contract legislation, binding arbitration, Mr. Speaker. The union has spoken in favour of that. Even the government has suggested that they would perhaps consider some form of arbitration, but they have never actually pursued that option seriously. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

They've never said, as is the case in most negotiations: "Let's advance a list of suitable arbitrators we would agree to and exchange them and find a name in the middle that both parties can trust and adhere to." That wasn't done. That could happen — easily — within six months or within the shorter period of time, if the hoist motion enables and unfetters both parties to be able to do that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Now, what would be interesting, Madam Speaker, is if we passed the hoist motion to see whether this more desirable outcome, a normative outcome that is expected of parliamentary democracies, expected of governments independently negotiating with civil servants…. It would be interesting to see if the signal that passage of the hoist motion would send would be a powerful impetus to make that occur. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I'm willing to take the chance on that. I think all the signals in the bargaining process to date support that. I think if you look at the dire implications of what this legislation means — that it is worth us as legislators taking that chance — it is entirely supportive of the hoist motion that we are debating tonight. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

That's a message that the government could send, but it is one that so far, because we've heard so little from the government, they are unwilling to take. That's unfortunate — very unfortunate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

There are a number of reasons why it is important to us as a society, to us a people, to us as a Legislative Assembly, why collective agreements should not be imposed. I think there are some that are very particular and illustrated extremely well by the fact that in this case we are talking about ambulance paramedics. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

There are a lot of professions that fall under essential service designation, but I think it deserves our recognition and respect that in this case we are dealing with ambulance paramedics, who even management and the government acknowledges are underpaid and deserve some kind of parity with other front-line responders. It is an extremely unfortunate circumstance that we are dealing with this group of workers, because they deserve the respect of government. They are facing issues that require serious negotiation and give and take in that process from government in order to achieve a number of public goals that benefit not just ambulance paramedics but benefit all British Columbians. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We need to take very seriously the working conditions that ambulance paramedics labour under. A number of members have talked about the situation for rural paramedics. They've talked about the poor working conditions for those working in urban settings. I have, in second reading debate. It would shock most members of the public to see what passes in this day and age under this government as a certified ambulance paramedic station, where the call-outs to save lives and respond to calls occurs. It would shock people. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I have heard directly from people who work in the BCAS service who don't have access, after servicing trauma calls, to showers or a place to change their clothes properly, who have been punted about in temporary stations for seven, eight years, who have been told that their next temporary station they may serve under is an Atco trailer. Or the station that serves this catchment area by the Legislature, where government [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

who have been told that the next temporary station they may serve under is an Atco trailer or the station that serves this catchment area by the Legislature, where government, in its wisdom, has paid a private hotel to be the ambulance station serving this area, at the price, I might add, of $140,000 in rent a year. Talk about waste of government resources. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

These are things that deserved to be talked about at the bargaining table. They're not straight wages-and-benefit issues, and I think the union acknowledges that. They are things that need to be sorted out that speak to the overall mismanagement of the BCAS under this government. Those are things that the public would certainly benefit from, as would the men and women who wear the uniform and perform the job of ambulance paramedics in B.C. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It's important that a collective agreement for this group of workers — for all workers, but I think tonight we're speaking to this group of workers and their dedication in particular and the work they do. It's important that it not be imposed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Now I think there are a number of reasons — I've illustrated a few; I want to pursue them further — why it is better for this assembly to hoist Bill 21 at this time and allow alternatives to be pursued over the next six months. First of all, imposing an agreement in this manner is an outright admission of failure by the government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I would pose the question to the members opposite. Do they want to make that statement? Do they want to make that admission to the people of British Columbia? Do they want to send a signal to a number of collective agreements that expire next year, in 2010, that cover other essential service–designated workers like nurses, police officers, firefighters, like people who work for B.C. ferries corp.? Do they want to send a signal to them that this is what they can expect from this government? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"Go ahead and bargain but we will always reserve the right to settle a dispute in the manner of Bill 21." That is a dangerous signal to send to tens of thousands of people who work hard, who are dedicated in our public service, and who help British Columbians who work in life-saving occupations, as in this case, in B.C. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This is a precedent-setting bill that shouldn't be taken lightly, and the hoist motion allows government to say, in essence, "We're not taking this lightly. We are not jumping over the cliff this week and going down that road and setting a precedent that will affect dozens of other bargaining units and tens of thousands of other public servants," who are in some cases front-line workers who respond to critical life-safety issues in B.C. Government should consider that very carefully. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Resumption of bargaining can occur next week. It can carry on for several weeks and can expect a satisfactory conclusion, a much more satisfactory conclusion than the one that government is seeking to impose in a one-sided and heavy-handed manner. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

If government fails, upon voting for this hoist motion, to conclude a collective agreement freely between both parties, then they still have a better option than the one that Bill 21 contains. They still have an option of engaging in a venue and an appointment of an arbitrator to seek binding arbitration to end the dispute. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

That is by far a more orderly and, frankly, civilized way to proceed for a democratic jurisdiction like this, than the one that's being proposed. For that reason, we should look at it very seriously. The hoist motion allows government members to do just that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

and for that reason we should look at it very seriously, and the hoist motion allows government members to do just that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Karagianis: I would like to preface my remarks, first, by offering my greetings to those members of the gallery who are sitting through this debate. I thank them very much for being here. We sincerely appreciate their attention to this. And I'd also like to extend a special thanks to all the staff members who have had to extend their hours here to join us, and I deeply appreciate the fact that they're doing this. We're doing it for political reasons and because it's our job, and they've all been forced to sit through the night as well — this protracted Friday, which seems, at this point, to be kind of endless. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

However, I would very much like to offer my very strong support for this hoist motion that we have before us here. I think it does offer us the opportunity to pause and take another look at the rather rash decisions of the government to use Bill 21 to impose an agreement upon the paramedics. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I know that we often think, while we're here in the House debating around the clock like this, in the middle of the night on one of these endless days, that no one's really paying attention, no one's really listening, no one's really watching. But, I think rather remarkably, there are e-mails coming in even now from all over British Columbia, from people who are watching this debate and who are in fact supporting this motion to hoist Bill 21. I have found a number of these letters to be profoundly compelling, and they offer extraordinarily strong rationale for why this motion should be hoisted and why all members of this House should support it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I would like to actually read a few of these comments, because I think that they are very moving. I think that they are very rational and reasonable requests from the public, not just from members here in the opposition who are standing up debating this hoist motion and hoping to convince government to support it. In fact our job is to represent our constituents and all the people in British Columbia, and so I think it's important that when they are sitting listening to this debate now, out there, and sending in their voices, it's important that we listen to that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

A couple of the letters that have come in here in the last couple of hours are deeply moving and, I think, speak very strongly to why government should support this hoist motion with us and give themselves an opportunity to go back to the bargaining table with paramedics and to treat paramedics in a more respectful and fair way. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I have here a letter that was actually sent to our colleague from Fraser-Nicola, who is not in the chambers with us at the moment. But this is a letter that was sent earlier this evening, just shortly after debate started. This was sent from Noreen Park, and she says: [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"In my life as a paramedic I have seen it all. I've picked up a 3 ½-year-old girl who was raped by someone. I have picked up spouses unrecognizable in the beatings that they have sustained. I have been punched in the face. I've done CPR on someone who was dead and ended up coming back to life. I had the most unpleasant honour of going to the scene of a tragic car accident in small-town B.C., where the teenager that had died was a dear friend of my daughter's who had sat at my dining room table the evening before. I had to deal with that scene, and then I had to go and tell her parents and go home and tell my own children.

"I think the job we have been asked to do is one that we do with pride, honour, passion and a lot of tears; that it is a job which is filled with diverse expectations and unknown dangers; that our job has merit beyond monetary gain. We need the support and we need the respect and we need the dignity afforded to all British Columbians.

"I urge each and every one of you to support the amendment to second reading of Bill 21 and to hoist the bill. Hoist it high on your shoulders

and we need the dignity afforded to all British Columbians. I urge each and every one of you to support the amendment to second reading of Bill 21 and to hoist the bill, hoist it high on your shoulders like you do a soldier that you are taking home from war or an athlete winning the gold at the Olympic Games. We truly deserve it."

I think that speaks very strongly to the reason why we should be hoisting the motion here in the House and why government should take the respectful time to go back to the table with paramedics and treat them with fairness and dignity. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I'm going to actually hold onto the comments that this woman, Noreen Park, has made about "hoisting this motion high on your shoulders like you do a soldier returning safely home from war." I think that's pretty profound. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

A couple of hours later we have another letter from someone participating in this debate, and I think that these are really wise words to the government, as well. This is from Antoinette Halberstadt, and these are lessons from a paramedic about a hoist motion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"The first thing we paramedics always have to do when we arrive at the scene is scene assessment. A major part of this assessment is to identify any possible dangers to our patient and ourselves, and to react accordingly.

"Depending on what we find, sometimes we pause and retreat until the scene is safe. For instance, it only adds to the disaster if we don't back off when gas tank might be about to explode or a patient in the room we've just entered turns out to have a gun or knife in their hand. We wait until people with the right expertise rectify the situation.

"The B.C. Liberal government should seriously consider stepping back before rushing in withy heavy-handed legislation that will only turn the present impasse into a disaster, which will utterly destroy the trust and respect of paramedics."

Interesting observation on what a hoist motion means to a paramedic, about scene assessment, and I think wise words about the fact that this hoist motion allows government an opportunity to reassess Bill 21 and reassess their approach to how they've treated paramedics. It offers the opportunity to take that assessment to its fullest extent and sit down and work at the bargaining table to make Bill 21 a redundant action on the part of government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

10:03 p.m. — as the evening has worn on, people are watching and listening. She said: [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"I want to thank all of you for attempting to put the motion before government to allow six months for both parties to work together. I only hope and pray that someone in the back bench will be listening. I fear that the B.C. Liberal Party needs to save face and win this one.

"I would like to say that CUPE 873 has tried to bargain, but when the other side of the table has their hands tied by this government, there really is no middle ground.

The letter did go on to talk about the circumstances of this particular individual. This is Patricia Gilles. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"Below is a letter from my mother, which she took time to write. My mother, who is proud of what I do as paramedic, who has suffered listening to my partner and I being assaulted and rescued, on a radio scanner some years ago…. I am sure that every day she remembers my partner's cry for help and the brave police who came to rush in to our rescue. I know that my job scares and worries her, but both of my parents are supportable."

"My daughter is a very devoted paramedic that cares for all of those that she helps. In the early years we had to help support her so she could follow her dreams. She worked part-time stations from Port Alice, Port Hardy, Chemainus and Prince George. She is now a full-timer."

This mother goes on to ask that this House support the hoist motion and support going back and honouring her daughter and making sure that she is treated fairly. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"My daughter has been shot at, spit on, threatened with knives, needles. She's treated people when the gang members that shot the person did not want him to have treatment.

and making sure that she is treated fairly. She says: "My daughter's been shot at, spit on, threatened with knives, needles. She's treated people when the gang members that shot the person did not want him to have treatment. How can you stand there and say she's not in as much danger as a police, a fireman or anyone else in this kind of job?" The rest of the comments here are difficult to read, Madam Speaker, but it is about supporting the hoist motion, from the mother of a paramedic. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"Hoist Motion" at 10:12 tonight. This is from Stewart Meyers in Nanaimo. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"My name is Stewart Meyers, and I'm an advanced-care paramedic who currently lives and works in Nanaimo. I've been employed by the B.C. Ambulance Service for over 20 years. On April 4, 2009, my wife and I celebrated the best time of our lives when we welcomed into this world a baby boy. Coincidentally, it was close to the time when our union went on strike.

"As I watched this debate with my son sleeping in my arms, I have to wonder: at what time did our democracy in British Columbia become a dictatorship? At what time did we stop using common sense, and at what time did we allow the vested interests and egos of a small minority, bent on protecting the corporate image, overrule what is best for our society?

"My profession has always been about time and the race against the clock — response time, scene time, hospital time. It all comes back to me. It all comes back to time. We respond when time is often the difference between life and death. Heart attacks, trauma, strokes are all examples. Coincidentally, it would appear that the government caucus has suffered a collective stroke, since they appear to have aphasia, the inability to speak, a common and devastating symptom.

"While I sit and watch this debate I can only ask that the government consider this legislation and give their support to the hoist motion. Now is the government's time to speak, to provide evidence to the people of British Columbia that in fact this legislation is critical and that it is not introduced as a result of pressure by VANOC."

At 10:36, another, Tanya Rookes from Fernie, B.C., has e-mailed us. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"I am a paramedic and have firsthand experience meeting paramedics as an injury survivor. I suffered a fractured pelvis, four C-spine fractures, a skull fracture, rib fractures, ruptured spleen, lacerated liver, bruised lungs, massive facial lacerations. I owe my paramedic career to the amazing B.C. paramedics who saved my life in 1993. I owed them for holding my hand and telling me I was going to be okay.

"I felt once again a sense of meaning when I became a paramedic. I followed the path full of passion to work as a part-time medic in a small community in 2002. I loved it and started to work the part-time job for $2 an hour and $10 an hour, with hopes that the pay would get better and that the working conditions would improve. I put in six mandatory years to finally get extended medical health, hoping the benefits would get better.

"I work tonight, a Friday night, for 14 hours at $10 in the Best Western Hotel in Fernie at a cost to the B.C. taxpayers of thousands of dollars, hoping that my working conditions get better, hoping we get better pay."

This individual is asking that we in this House, that all members of this House support this hoist motion and give the government an opportunity for a second sober opportunity to look at the collective agreement for the paramedics. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"To whom it may concern, the government should consider the hoist motion. If they look no further back than September 18, the paramedics were asked to work only their scheduled shifts and not volunteer for overtime, as they've been required to do under the ESO. Once voluntary work was withheld, there was a 40 percent drop in ambulance coverage within six hours of the direction coming from the executive.

"Utter chaos will follow if they force Bill 21 on us. There will be no volunteering for a government who ignores the fundamentals of

within six hours of the direction coming from the executive. Utter chaos will follow if they force Bill 21 on us. There will be no volunteering for a government who ignores the fundamentals of justice and democracy. Support the hoist motion."

Madam Speaker, it seems to me that we do have…. That was 10:38 p.m. I'm sure more letters have come in now. It's 20 minutes after one. I'm sure that the letters continue to come in, and if they're coming in to our offices and our hands, right now round the clock, they are coming into government members' hands as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I think that there is, definitely, a voice of the people at this point being delivered to government members. Hundreds of letters have come in over the past few days regarding Bill 21, but letters are now pouring in regarding the hoist motion, asking for government to please support the hoist motion. This is the opportunity for government to actually hear the people and listen to what's being said by the people. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I know, often, the government likes to turn deaf ears in here to the opposition, and that's unfortunate. But I'm not sure that government would be advised to turn a deaf ear to all the people in British Columbia who are standing behind paramedics. The social networking is abuzz, whether it's Facebook or Twitter. The message is spreading across British Columbia that this is an opportunity, in this hoist motion, to stop the damage that's being done by Bill 21. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I think it's very clear that the people of British Columbia support the paramedics here in the province and are demonstrating that by the kind of mail that's coming in to us right now. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I've been hearing from my own constituents for the last number of weeks, and I think in the time that I have been an MLA, this, for me, is one of the biggest issues, the biggest campaigns, I've seen. I've seen many campaigns, as we all have here, where families, whether they be families protesting autism cuts, families protesting health care cuts that the government has levied…. This has been, for me, an explosion of messaging into my constituency office. I think it's continuing now through the night, even, on Facebook, on any of the tools that I and my colleagues use to stay in touch with our constituents. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The message is very clear. British Columbians are saying to the government: "Support the hoist motion. Take this time. Take this opportunity to use the tools here in the Legislature, this hoist motion, to pause and look again at how the bargaining with paramedics can be resolved in a better and more respectful way." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I know that the kinds of messages I am getting from my constituents tell me that this is the right thing to do. I would hope that government is getting the same kind of messages. Often, we think that the job we do is thankless, but I have had such tremendous support from my community in the debate that we've had opposing Bill 21 and now, the hoist motion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

You know, when people in my community write to me and say, "I want to give you a big hug from all paramedics in British Columbia," that is a good thing to hear, Madam Speaker. It means that I am standing up for my constituents and that they are responding. These are people right from within my community that are involved with or just plain supportive of the paramedics in our communities. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This one, from John Vincer in Colwood, says: "If the government is supposed to represent the people, they the government are not representing me, because I would not act in bad faith and prevent the collective bargaining process between paramedics and the government to continue. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

it says: "If the government is supposed to represent the people, they — the government — are not representing me, because I would not act in bad faith and prevent the collective bargaining process between paramedics and the government to continue." So John absolutely sees the rationale for having a hoist motion and for our efforts to try and convince the government that the right thing to do is to support this motion here. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I know that for people like John in my community, his support is there for there for this hoist motion. That, for me, is very reassuring — that I am, in fact, representing my community and the voices of my community. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Bob Mainwaring says here: "This legislation should be stopped." Bob supports the concept that a hoist motion would give an opportunity for government to spend some time away. I know the hoist motion is for six months, but I sincerely believe that it would not take six months for the government to sit down with paramedics, allow a fair and democratic collective bargaining process to ensue, go back to negotiations here, let the vote be completed and sit down with paramedics and find a way to resolve this in a respectful and thoughtful way. And I think the government has the ability to seize upon this hoist motion now and make that possible. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I think all of us find ourselves at some point, perhaps, having talked ourselves into a corner and looking for a way out. Well, this is that for the government. They have talked themselves into a corner. British Columbians are speaking out and saying they do not support the direction the government is taking with Bill 21. So now the opposition has offered a way out of this — a graceful way out for government, which is to support the hoist motion and take the time to go back and ensure that our paramedics get fair bargaining opportunities, a fair collective bargaining process. Government can solve this without having to use a hammer like Bill 21. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

In fact, that's not healthy for the province. It's not healthy for the future and certainly is not going to be healthy for all of those collective agreements that are going to need to be dealt with right after the Olympics. The chilling message that Bill 21 has sent to all labour unions here in the province and to all those who would want to sit down and expect fair and respectful treatment after the Olympics…. I think the message is very clear. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The hoist motion now offers government a way out — a graceful and respectful way out. They can support this motion and then take the opportunity to allow the process to continue with paramedics and, in fact, send a clear message to all of the contracts that were signed by a previous Finance Minister, who did a very good job here in the province of British Columbia of settling a whole number, a whole wide range, of collective agreements in a manner that was respectful, that was positive, that extended those contracts past the Olympics — all but this one. All but this one got that fair treatment. Unfortunately, under the current government members, they're not being treated in the same respectful manner as the previous Minister of Finance treated the contracts. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I have a number of paramedics that live in my community who have spent extraordinary amounts of time and energy and personal commitment to remain being paramedics, even in the face of the kind of low wages that they're being paid — $2 an hour on call; wages are $10 an hour in the station wages. I've got paramedics that have had to work a full-time job in order to be a paramedic part-time on the weekend, hoping to eventually get to the point where they could earn a reasonable living that would allow them…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Deputy Speaker: Member, you will know that you're revisiting second reading debate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Karagianis: Absolutely, Madam Speaker, I will keep my remarks very strictly to the hoist motion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

So for the individuals who have gone through this entire sacrifice of working towards the goal of being a very proud member of the B.C. Ambulance Service paramedics, this hoist motion offers an opportunity for government to treat them fairly — those people who have put in all the years, all the time, worked through [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

of being a very proud member of the B.C. Ambulance Service and paramedic. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This hoist motion offers an opportunity for government to treat them fairly — those people who have put in all the years, all the time, worked through all of the very, I think, unfair wage structure that they have been given by this government. This hoist motion is an opportunity for the government to go back and take an opportunity to repay these individuals for the sacrifice they've made on behalf of all British Columbians, ensuring that that 911 is there — that the 911 call for all of us is there, is reliable, is providing the kind of safety and emergency treatment that all of us expect. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This hoist motion, I think, is the opportunity for the government now to revisit this issue and to approach this in a reasoned and logical way. Why would we not want to see the government do that? If reason and logic is behind legislation here in the province, then why is that missing from this debate that we are having here? Why would the government not seize upon this opportunity of the hoist motion to undo what I think has been some rash and hurried action on their part around Bill 21? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I think that the government may have an opportunity to see that in a different light now, given the kind of public response there's been. They've been hearing from their constituents. For many of the members — who during the election only seven months ago promised paramedics in their own community that they'd come to this House and stand up for them and help protect their rights and make sure that they got fair and democratic collective bargaining — this is their opportunity, as well, to put pressure on all government members to support the hoist motion because it gives them an opportunity to try and make good on the promises that they made to those paramedics. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I think that the time that's been offered under this hoist motion does give government a chance to rethink this. It's unfortunate that the lack of debate in these current hours while we are talking about this hoist motion…. The lack of debate or defence from the B.C. Liberal members is startling. Silence actually speaks volumes. You know, we have people in the gallery. We have people watching, e-mailing us here in the middle of the night. You only have to look on the social networking to see that there is conversation going on right now about support for this hoist motion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The fact that the government members don't even feel compelled to defend their position is very interesting, because I think that it indicates very strongly that the government is not prepared to engage in this. They are not prepared to be open-minded about this. They're not prepared to take an opportunity for sober second thought, and I think that's really disappointing for all of these people who are watching and e-mailing, for all the families of paramedics out there. It is really unfortunate that the government does not even feel compelled to stand up and defend their own behaviour or to debate this. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I would hope that that means that government is actually being thoughtful about this, that they are thinking that this is their opportunity, that this is their out-clause, that this is their escape route from the unfortunate and, I think, poorly thought-out and poorly planned Bill 21. This is the opportunity for them to stand up and support this hoist motion, give themselves that out opportunity and make sure that then they are better representing both their own communities, all the communities that are expecting the government to support this, are expecting the government to give paramedics a better opportunity to fulfill their collective bargaining. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

So I hope that the silence over there means that government is ready to stand up with us at the end of this debate and support the hoist motion. I know members on this side of the House are keen to do that, and are very hopeful. And I know that paramedics are certainly hopeful — and their families. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

L. Popham: I feel it's necessary at this time in the morning to speak [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

L. Popham: I feel it's necessary at this time in the morning to speak with passion about supporting the hoist motion before us. I'd like to reflect on the fact that it is 25 minutes to 2 a.m. and we're all in a very safe building. We're all patiently listening to each other. At the same time that this is happening, everywhere in British Columbia there are 911 alarm bells happening. There are paramedics responding to people in crisis. There are emergency workers that are keeping this province together. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

And so, although we're probably all getting a little bit tired, it's nothing compared to what our emergency response teams are doing. The paramedics are heroes in my eyes, and this is a small token compared to what they're doing for us. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

So I absolutely think it's important to support the hoist motion. The hoist motion is an opportunity for the members on the opposite side of the House to consider what consultation means, what democracy means, what collective bargaining means in this province. Consultation alone says it all. It's a process by which the public input matters. This input is assessed, and how it affects them is sought out. The results would be sought out. That doesn't happen if you barge through legislation. So the hoist motion gives us time to reflect on those consultation processes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The hoist motion would give time for the members on the opposite side of the House to reflect on what collective bargaining means. Collective bargaining is simply a tool in place that allows workers to meet with their employers and figure out what their workplace will look like, what their wages will be, what the conditions will be that they're working in. A contract is put in place, and it's respected for a certain amount of time. That's what collective bargaining is all about. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The only way to understand what the paramedics need is to go out and consult with them. They've been asking for a fair trial. They want to go to the bargaining table. That's all they want. And so when you cram some legislation through that allows them not to do that, it's slapping them in the face. It slaps democracy in the face, collective bargaining in the face and consultation in the face. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It's not my intention to get up here for 30 minutes and rail against the government, but I have to say that this government is quite guilty of neglecting the consultation process in a lot of areas in British Columbia. This is just one of them. You know, I hope that they understand what consultation means. I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt that they do. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I think that if we were to sit down in a room that was more conducive to having a conversation rather than being in opposition to each other, we would probably be able to sit down and talk about what consultation means in British Columbia and come to an understanding that people need time to do that, and they need respect to do that. And if you give them that, people are happier in their workplaces. They're safer in the workplace. They get to make a living wage. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

And what's the matter with that? We're standing up here supporting a hoist motion that will add six months onto that consultation process. Six months isn't that long. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Part of that consultation process means listening to the people that are writing letters to us all evening. They've been doing it all week. Supporting the hoist motion reflects on those letters, so I'm going to read a letter that I got and shows how much information can be gathered in a consultation process which completely supports the hoist motion: [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I work as a full-time paramedic in Vancouver with 16 years of experience. Last year alone I worked in excess of 70 overtime shifts, and I could have worked more if I wished to.

"I work as a full-time paramedic in Vancouver, with 16 years of experience. Last year alone, I worked in excess of 70 overtime shifts, and I could have worked more if I'd wished to.

"I did so to pay for an advanced life-support course that I plan to take in the near future. In March of this year, the admission requirements changed for the course, and I now have to complete one year of university prior to enrolling.

"I am presently in contempt of the Supreme Court order because I refuse to work or submit overtime availability as I have done historically in the past. I have always worked my regular scheduled shifts, and I will always continue to do so. But now I am expected to work two overtime shifts, study, and try to fit in some time for myself and my family before starting the cycle all over again.

"Many of my colleagues are in similar circumstances for different reasons. It's not our fault that we are short of paramedics on the streets. We have been short historically for years."

That's the type of information you get from a consultation process. That's what you get when you add six months. That's why we're supporting this hoist motion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

There's a lot more information you can get when you support this hoist motion, such as: [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"Paramedics work, for the most part, 12-hour shifts — two day shifts, followed by two night shifts, with four days off. The overtime we are being asked to do isn't an hour or so; it's a full 12-hour shift.

"My overtime rate is 1½ my base rate: $30.01. If my regular shift runs into overtime because of a late call, I receive $45.02 per hour. If I work an overtime shift on my days off, I receive only $37.51 per hour, instead of my true overtime rate of $45.02. That's a difference of $7.51 per hour."

You have to speak to the paramedics to get that information. That's what takes time, and that's why I'm supporting this hoist motion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Some more information you can gather is to take a look at the annual pay cycle: [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"This year through my pay cycle, I am to work 2,340 hours. On my pay form I receive the salary rate of 70 hours and a shift adjustment totalling $2,451.43 every two weeks. I receive 26 paydays in a year, totalling $63,737.18. I consider this to be quite generous. But if I was to be paid my true hourly rate, my pay would be $70,237.44. That's a difference of $6,500.26."

"The B.C. ambulance pay system is complex but somehow has changed over the years and doesn't equal the hours we actually work. On average 15 ambulances are staffed with paramedics, overtime costing the taxpayers approximately $9.8 to $15 million a year, depending on how they are staffed. This doesn't include sickness or injury incurred by working these extra hours.

"To staff these ambulances normally would cost approximately $7.8 million. It makes more sense not to staff ambulances with as much overtime."

How else do you get that information, without spending the time in the consultation process? It's absolutely necessary. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

So there's only one choice, and that's to support this hoist motion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"Paramedics are, for the most part, very busy, especially within the metro areas. I work at a busy station and seldom return to it during my shift. Shift changes are, the majority of the time, while calls are waiting, and there is no time to check the vehicle or its contents.

"I usually go from call to call without a break. If I do, it's to restock the ambulance, organize supplies, clean the station, terminally clean my ambulance and attempt to find time to eat and use the washroom. We are not allowed to eat or drink in our ambulances per WorkSafe B.C. rules."

That's interesting information — information you would only get from a consultation process. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"As embarrassing as this is, there are times that I have almost asked the patient that I am attending to if I can use their washroom. Replacing broken equipment and putting my ambulance out of service to replenish supplies has become commonplace.

"Being pulled off one call while on route and placed on a higher priority call is now the norm."

That's critical information. That's information that members on the other side of the House [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

pulled off one call while en route and placed on a higher priority call is now the norm."

That's critical information. That's information that members on the other side of the House could find out if this hoist motion was supported and six months was granted. They could go into their constituencies, and they could find that out from the paramedics in their areas. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"My travel times have increased because I'm responding to emergency calls in other communities — an average of four a shift. Covering two or three communities at once as the only available ambulance occurs, on average, three times a day.

"A time-sensitive call such as heart attack, arrest, respiratory emergency, abdominal emergency, hemorrhages, births and traumas all require a nine-minute-or-less response. I feel guilty arriving on the scene 20 to 30 minutes later and find myself compelled to apologize that it took so long to respond.

"My patients are an extension of my family while in my care. I expect nothing but the best for them, and I will advocate their issues as best I can.

"There are only 3,471 paramedics in the province, working out of 470 ambulances, including spare vehicles. We did 534,688 calls in 2007 and 2008, excluding hospital waits and area standbys. If you take these numbers into perspective, paramedics have made contact with one in eight people living in the province of British Columbia.

"If you are to compare the B.C. Ambulance Service with any other ambulance service, you will see very quickly that we are by far the busiest."

That, again, is information that you can get if you go into your constituencies in the next six months, if we support this hoist motion tonight. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"Please take a moment to think what you would want if you were ill or injured. It's something we never give much thought of until you need it. Help me and my fellow paramedics provide the best possible care that British Columbians deserve."

That's from a constituent named Alex Worry. I think Alex would appreciate a visit from the opposite side of the House. Maybe let Alex share that information, really sit down and listen. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The only thing that would make you not support the hoist motion on the other side of the House is that you might be afraid of that consultation process. But you know what? I would think that you would find that you would be embraced by your constituencies if you took that time. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

There are a lot of opportunities and different ways to consult. It's easy to do. You can do it if you're in a grocery store. You can do it by organizing an open house, public meetings, forums, debates — all other manner of consultation that will empower the members on the opposite side of the House to fully engage with their constituents and better represent their views in this House. That's what you need to do. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The hoist motion may lead the members on the opposite side of the House to vote against Bill 21, because after the hoist motion has run its course, they will have a more informed perspective, a more balanced view, a more nuanced understanding of the matters at hand, a more enriched education. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Supporting the hoist motion doesn't mean that this side of the House wins. As a new member, it's hard for me to understand why we wouldn't work together on this issue, why we couldn't just agree instead of going through this debate tonight. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Why could we not just agree that…? Sitting down and saying, "Yeah. Okay. Fine, let's support this hoist motion. Let's do six more months, and let's just see where we are when we get there," — I'm sure that would show a lot of respect for the paramedics. It would show a lot of respect for the people of B.C., who are sending us endless and endless e-mails tonight. I don't understand why we can't do that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I'm really hoping, when we get to the end of this process that we're in right now, that we can. You know, there are some things that are obviously partisan and some things that are not. I don't think consultation should be a partisan situation. You don't lose anything by doing this. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

that we can. There are some things that are obviously partisan and some things that are not. I don't think consultation should be a partisan situation. You don't lose anything by doing this. The hoist motion doesn't cost any money, and in tough economic times getting six months for free is actually a pretty good deal. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The hoist motion will allow the time to ensure a proper democratic process. As I stand here, it's hard for me not to think about the paramedics right now that are at work. They're treating people in great pain. They're treating people who are suffering. They're treating people who are in crisis. There are people that are turning to paramedics this very second. All we have to do is agree to listen for six more months and let them get to the bargaining table and figure out with their employer what they need. Let them tell us what they need. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It seems like it's such a simple thing for us to do. It seems like what we need to do is so insignificant compared to what they're doing right now. Yet the decision that's made tonight is so significant. So let's just do it. Let's work together in this House, support the hoist motion and let them figure it out for six months. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It's a challenge as a new MLA. I'm coming in here, and I would like to work with the government. I didn't come in here to fight non-stop. But there are things that we have to do to work together that would help British Columbia be a better place. I know from sitting on this side of the House that I hear a lot about B.C. being the best place on earth. We're having a party in less than 100 days where we want to show the world how amazing we are. Well, that's fine. You know what? Less than 100 days. I'm with you. Let's do it. Let's do it right. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Part of doing it right is making sure people in British Columbia are treated fairly, making sure we have the utmost respect for the democratic process, making sure that we respect collective bargaining and consultation. Because when people come to B.C. to visit us, they're going to want to see happy residents. I know the government wants to be proud when people arrive. As opposition we want to be proud. But if we don't support this hoist motion, I'm not going to feel very proud. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

If we can work together this evening and support it, I'd have to tell you that I would be proud of this government. I don't think that you're probably going to hear that a lot, but I'm going to go out on a limb and tell you that. If we can sit down and agree on this, then I'd be proud of you guys on the other side of the House. Just checking to see if you're listening. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I'll be voting in favour of the hoist motion. I think everybody on this side of the House will be as well, hoping that the other side will. I don't think there's anything to lose by doing that, only things to gain. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I'm going to read you another letter that proves that supporting the hoist motion is the right thing to do. That means that we get six more months to listen to these people, to support them as they go to the bargaining table. That's what they're asking for — support. Why not? Why not some support? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"I'm a paramedic, and I have had firsthand experience needing paramedics. As an injury survivor, I suffered a fractured pelvis, a C-spine fracture, a skull fracture, rib fractures, ruptured spleen, lacerated liver, bruised lungs and massive facial lacerations. I owe my paramedic career to the amazing B.C. paramedics who saved my life in 1993. I owe them for holding my hand and telling me I was going to be okay.

"I felt once again a sense of meaning when I became a paramedic. I followed the paramedic path with my heart full of passion as I started my part-time work in a small community in 2002.

a paramedic. I followed the paramedic path with my heart full of passion, as I started my part-time work in a small community in 2002.

"I loved to start this work, and this part-time job for $2 and for $10 an hour, with hopes that the pay would get better and the working conditions would improve. But I loved it so much I was willing to wait for that. I put in the six mandatory years to finally get extended medical care, hoping that the benefits would get better.

"I worked tonight, a Friday night, for 14 hours at $10 an hour in the Best Western hotel in Fernie — at a cost to the taxpayers of B.C. for thousands of dollars — hoping my working conditions get better and hoping we get better pay."

This is an absolute reason why the consultation process needs to happen, and that's why we're supporting the hoist motion tonight. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This constituent goes on to say that if Bill 21 passes, they're not going to be able to live in their community anymore. That's interesting news. You can only find that out during consultation. The only way we're going to find that out is if we support the hoist motion and we go into our communities for six months and figure out what's going on and support these people. Support them in getting back to the bargaining table, because that's what they're asking us for: support. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I'm really hoping…. Again, I'm going to reiterate to the other side of the House…. You guys are sitting patiently, listening. You're yawning. I know it's tough to listen to us go on and on, but this is the only way we know how to do it. This is the only way we can do it. You know, you were given a chance to listen to the paramedics. You didn't listen, so now we're here, and you have to listen to us, because you don't have any choice. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

But instead of having us go through this, all you have to do is support the hoist motion and give them six months to finish their own bargaining. That's what they want. That's why they're here tonight, because they're wanting to see what happens. Are we all going to support it together? Are we all going to support this hoist motion? I'm really hoping we will. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I'm going to tell you a little bit more about what would happen if you went in and talked to a paramedic who's struggling with the working conditions now, who's hoping for a change, who's waiting for a change. This paramedic is worried that they're not going to be able to stand beside people trapped in mangled cars in ditches and tell them that they're going to be okay. They don't want to stop doing that. I don't know how much more you have to know. Reading that one sentence — absolutely, I'm supporting this hoist motion. How can you not? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"I will not be able to talk to emotionally distraught teenagers who are on a wall. I don't want to stop begging them not to jump, and telling them with pure emotion that I care and that I will cry and be devastated if they die. This is what we're doing."

This is we're saying no to? This doesn't deserve support of a hoist motion? You've got to be kidding me. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"I will not ever again hold hands that are so soft they make your heart melt, as they are over 90 years old and have seen harder work than you and I will ever know. I will never again be able to hold the warm, soft head of a newborn baby in my hands and watch as the miracle of life fills that blue little being that turned pink as I watch him breathe for the very first time."

This is why we should all, in this House, support the hoist motion. There should be no doubt: six months is nothing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

These people are dedicated to us. We sit in this safe House. We sit here, protected. If something were to go wrong, I know that there are paramedics in the gallery who'd be down here in a second, whether it was on that side of the House or on this side of the House, because they're committed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

So just let's show a little commitment to them, and support this hoist motion. I'm asking you. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I'm going to wrap up now. I now move adjournment of this debate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, the question is adjournment of debate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

YEAS — 24
S. Simpson	Fleming	Farnworth
James	Ralston	Popham
B. Simpson	Karagianis	Brar
Hammell	D. Routley	Horgan
Dix	Mungall	Chouhan
Macdonald	Gentner	Elmore
Donaldson	Fraser	B. Routley
Trevena	Coons	Huntington
NAYS — 42
Horne	Letnick	Stewart
I. Black	Coell	McNeil
Chong	Polak	Krueger
Bennett	Hawes	Hogg
Thornthwaite	Hayer	Lee
Barnett	Bloy	Reid
Lekstrom	Falcon	Heed
de Jong	Hansen	Bond
Abbott	Penner	Coleman
Thomson	Yap	Cantelon
Les	Sultan	McIntyre
Rustad	Cadieux	van Dongen
Howard	Lake	Foster
Slater	Dalton	Pimm

D. Donaldson: I rise to continue debate on the hoist motion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

D. Donaldson: I rise in favour of the six-month hoist motion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

First I'd like to acknowledge the member for Saanich South who preceded me in this debate. Like me, it was her first time speaking to a hoist motion in these circumstances. I congratulate her on her performance, on her performance as Agriculture critic, on her performance in that portfolio on aquaculture and in her performance in doing the best to prevent…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Mr. Speaker: Member. I want to remind you, we're speaking to the hoist motion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

D. Donaldson: I'm sorry, hon. Speaker, I acknowledge that's not a great start. Not like my colleague and friend from Saanich South, who wasn't reprimanded once. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I rise in favour of the six-month hoist. That's 180 days that the hoist would represent. Some months have 30 days and some months have 31, so it could be 180 days, it could be 186. I don't think it could be 186, but I can never remember the months, if there's 30 days or 31, depending on…. There's a rhyme that goes with that, but I don't remember that one. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

So I speak in favour of the hoist motion, and let's look at that for a second. Back in Stikine people who might be watching at this time on Hansard television might be wondering what we're talking about here. "Hoist" can be a noun. Back home a hoist is something often times we put a car on and lift it up to look at what's going on underneath the car. It's a mechanism for lifting or lowering a load. We talk about "put it on a hoist." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

But that's not what we're doing here. We're hoisting. It's a verb. "Hoist" the verb can mean something different from what we're doing here. We could have something hoisted up. In fact, I was back home in Stikine about a week ago, and we had some sheep we were slaughtering. After we slaughtered them, my sons and I, they helped me hoist them up to skin them and gut them. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Mr. Speaker: Member. Please, we are talking about the hoist motion. Do you want me to read you the motion? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

D. Donaldson: I wanted to refer to what hoisting is, so that people back home…. We're talking about the motion. It's one of the tools the opposition [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

What we're talking about…. I wanted to refer to what hoisting is so people back home…. We're talking about the motion…. It's one of the tools the opposition has to discuss something of substance, and this bill is something of substance — or this motion that refers to this bill. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

So why the hoist motion? The hoist motion gives a break. It gives a break to reflect, and it gives a break for the government to reflect on what's going on with this bill and with this situation with paramedics. A break is fine, because at this point, there's no dire interruption of service. The paramedics where I live are still working. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

You know, I hear the sirens every day when I'm home. It's a small town, and I don't live right on the road, but I live close to the road, and you can hear the sirens going out. They're undertaking job action — that's for sure — but there's no problem with a six-month hoist. They've been ordered as an essential service by this government, so there's no dire interruption of service. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

They're being responsible in carrying out their duties. They're being much more responsible than this government in his behaviour for not getting up once to speak to the hoist motion. So the service isn't an issue with this hoist motion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

My friend Mike Weiber, who is a paramedic is also a counsellor with the municipal district of New Hazelton. When I was on council with the village of Hazelton for ten years, I got to know Mike quite well. He's written a letter that I'd like to read from, part of, that describes the kind of service that they're providing during this time: [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"Just a quick note to let you know that, as a paramedic, I feel that the province is really letting us down with Bill 21. For the most part, I just don't think that people know what we really have to do in our job. Stuff like picking up dead bodies, young and old…." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Mr. Speaker: Member, I'm not going to remind you again. This is on the hoist motion, please. If I have to remind you again, I'll ask you to sit down. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

D. Donaldson: This is what the government would hear if they supported the hoist motion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I'll continue speaking in favour of the hoist motion, and what I would like to speak about is what could happen during this time. We're talking about the hoist motion here and the six months that it entails — the six months that are part of the procedures of this House and part of the ability that we have to ask the government to reflect on their actions. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

What could happen during these six months? Well, the government could get to the table. They could attempt to bargain in good faith. That's what this hoist motion could do. They haven't been bargaining, to this point, in good faith with the paramedics. They tabled an offer to the union, and while the membership was voting, they ordered them back to work. That's not showing good faith. This hoist motion gives them the opportunity to get back to the table and show some respect. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

That's what we're talking about here is hoisting the bill called Ambulance Services Collective Agreement Act. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

That's a misnomer, because what we're talking about is taking away collective agreement, collective bargaining rights. So it's a misnomer that we're talking about here. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

What we're going to do is talk about hoisting a bill so that true collective bargaining can occur. That's what can happen during the six-month period that we're looking at. I just want to read a letter that directly relates to what could happen during this six-month period while this hoist is in place. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

What could happen is true collective bargaining on behalf of the government with the paramedics. There's a letter here from a paramedic that describes what the [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

and what could happen is true collective bargaining on behalf of the government with the paramedics. There's a letter here from a paramedic that describes what the bargaining has been to date. This is what's been happening: [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"I read with great disgust that the Liberal government would enact back-to-work legislation on us. I also watched the Legislature TV over the past few days. First, I'd like to thank the NDP and the independent MLAs for standing up. Your efforts are appreciated. You raised many great points.

"The Liberals claim this is a result of prolonged, failed negotiations. Well, it's hard to negotiate when one party shows up with the same contract offer over the past seven months. That isn't negotiating. That's forcing your terms."

Deputy Speaker: Member, you're in second reading debate. You need to address yourself to the motion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I'll bring these remarks into context. That's a letter regarding collective bargaining. What this hoist motion does is it gives a chance for collective bargaining to occur. Now, this paramedic was outlining some of the reasons why collective bargaining should occur and why we should have a hoist motion — to give the government some time to go back, show good faith, and overcome some of these situations and circumstances that this paramedic is talking about. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Some of the situations that he describes in this letter about collective bargaining not occurring, collective bargaining that could occur if we had the time that this hoist motion could present to the government…. So that's what we're talking about here — the hoist motion, hon. Speaker. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

What is happening and by not taking the time to bargain in good faith is it's flying in the face of what collective bargaining is and what could be done during this six-month period. What could be done is to undertake the collective bargaining process. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

As we all know, collective bargaining, in a broad sense, is the coming together of workers to negotiate their employment, and that's not what has been happening to date. That's why the hoist motion is important. Because it gives the breathing space for that kind of activity to occur. It lets people cool down. It lets time be taken for the important, democratic principle of collective bargaining. This is a very democratic principle, collective bargaining. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

In fact, as we discuss this motion to hoist…. The hoist motion will give us six months and will give this government six months to get back to the table around collective bargaining. As we discuss it and discuss collective bargaining…. Collective bargaining is one of the cornerstones of democracy, and the hoist motion will allow us to discuss that — allow the government to get down to the table again. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

As we look at what's coming up, we look at Remembrance Day. People sacrificed their lives for democracy, and collective bargaining is part of that. In fact, my mother's youngest brother was lost during the Second World War, and that's the kind of sacrifice that took place so that collective bargaining could take place. That's why we're introducing this motion to hoist — to give the breathing room for the government to get back to the table and talk to the paramedics. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We have many letters coming in, in relation to the hoist motion and in relation to why it's important around collective bargaining. Here's another one from a paramedic, saying — it's very short: "Just wanted to write to thank you for your opposition and support collective bargaining and support the motion to hoist." So there's a letter from a supporter back in my area. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

But this motion to hoist also gives the government a chance to send a signal to the paramedics. What would that signal say? That signal would be a signal of respect — respect to the paramedics. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

What would that signal say? That signal would be a signal of respect — respect to the paramedics. It would be a signal to respect paramedics. If this government would support this motion to hoist, it would send that signal out to the paramedics that they mean something, that they are respected. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Paramedics in Atlin, in my constituency; in Dease Lake; in Hazelton; Gitwangak; Smithers; and Stewart — those are just some of the paramedic stations in my constituency, a very rural and geographically large constituency. But by supporting and voting for this motion to hoist, the government would be sending the message to the paramedics in those communities that they're respected. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

These paramedics are earning $2 an hour for being on call. Tonight it's cold, and it's snowing. Instead of relaxing, they're not at home. They're on call. They're waiting. By supporting this hoist motion the government would say: "We respect that. We respect that, and we want to get back to the table, undertake the collective bargaining process, and address the issues like a $2-an-hour on-call wage, which is absolutely pitiful." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

But if the government members on the other side would rise to support this hoist motion, then they would indicate respect for the paramedics — not like now. Not like now. We haven't seen any member on the other side rise to speak to this motion. If they could at least speak in opposition to it, it would show some respect for the democratic process. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This motion to hoist gives them that opportunity. Earlier in the day a member from the opposite side, from Kelowna–Lake Country, wanted to listen to this debate but told me that he couldn't get the mute button off in time to listen to one of my colleagues from the Cowichan Valley. Couldn't get the mute button off quickly enough. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

All the members on the other side have the mute button on. They have the mute button on, on this debate. They will not get up and speak to the motion. That's not acceptable — not acceptable to the people I represent. I find it hard to believe that it would be acceptable to the people they represent in their ridings. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This motion to hoist allows government members to stand up and explain why they don't want to take a break for six months, 180 days — or 186; we're not sure about that. But for 180 days, for a chance for collective bargaining to take place, collective bargaining that is part of the democratic process, part of the democratic process that was fought for and lives were lost over…. As I said, my mother's youngest brother, the uncle I never knew, 19 years old, was killed in the air over Sicily. He is buried in Tunisia. I've never been to his grave. I hope to someday get to Tunisia to speak at his grave. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Here he was, fighting for democracy, for the democratic right, for collective bargaining, for what this hoist motion gives — the opportunity for this government to engage further in…. What we see here as well is the ability for the government to stand up and support this motion as a means of respect — respect for the paramedics as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We know the kind of tough job they're doing every day, especially in the rural areas where I live, where they're out on extensive stretches of highway coming across all sorts of terrible and horrific accidents, where they're faced with entering situations where there is some [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

stretches of highway coming across all sorts of terrible and horrific accidents where they're faced with entering situations where there are some dire socioeconomic conditions and all the social fallout…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Deputy Speaker: The member will bring his comments back to the motion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

So this is why the opportunity that we're presenting to this government to vote in favour of the hoist motion — the hoist motion that if they support shows respect for the paramedics. This is why I'm explaining what the paramedics face on a daily basis. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Speaking in this House is one of the greatest privileges that we have — one of the greatest privileges and one of the greatest democratic privileges. When I was elected people said: "You go down there, and you speak up for us. You speak up for us in all sorts of ways." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

So I'm encouraging the government, members of that side of the House, to stand up in support of this hoist motion to show respect for the paramedics, respect for this House and a democratic tradition, by taking advantage of the free speech that we enjoy because of the sacrifice that was made in previous decades. And the sacrifice that paramedics are making right now — working for a $2-an-hour wage, an on-call wage. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I encourage the members on the other side to stand up and at least speak to this hoist motion. Yet none of the members on the other side are availing themselves of this opportunity to speak to the hoist motion. That's unfortunate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It's unfortunate, because this is the reason that we're in this House — for this democratic tradition. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I'm speaking in favour of the hoist motion because it gives some time. It gives some time to address the fundamental issues around collective bargaining that have been missed so far. It gives the MLAs the chance, on that side as well as on this side, the time to go to the constituencies and talk not just to constituents who aren't involved in this issue…. Although, I would say that almost everyone is involved because of the service that's provided by paramedics. But to go to the constituency and actually talk to the paramedics, to sit down in an unpressurized situation, not at the bargaining table but as people, one to one in the communities that we have. We have relationships, especially in the smaller centres, direct relationships. If we don't, then we can make those relationships by reaching out, by extending a hand and saying: "You know what? We know that we can come to an agreement without forcing you back to work." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This is what this motion to hoist does. It gives that breathing space for members on the other side to go to their constituents and to their paramedics. They can even go to the stations where the paramedics are working out of. There's nothing like going to the people where they are to show that you care and give some respect. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This issue is worth going more than halfway. In this situation, you could go more than halfway by using the hoist motion that we're presenting here — and with your support that will pass — and gives you, members of this Legislature, time to go and speak with the paramedics. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It also allows time to avoid the negative aspects of what the repercussions could be by not supporting this hoist motion. That would be what we've heard from the members on the other side — to order people back to work. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

So this hoist motion prevents that from happening in the short term, and it gives a six-month break in order to get back to the bargaining table, show some good faith [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

people back to work. This hoist motion prevents that from happening in the short term and gives a break, a six-month break, in order to get back to the bargaining table, show some good faith, create a climate, an improved climate of respect and the ability to discuss this is in a unpressurized, non-pressure cooker way. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I say that it's time to support this motion. I say it's time to take a break, a six-month break that this valid motion, valid procedural motion gives us. It's going to mean no dire impact on services, as I've outlined. The paramedics are working today. They're working tomorrow. They're conducting job action, but it's not preventing them from providing the services in a responsible way. So this hoist motion will not have an impact on services in communities such as mine, in Stikine. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We've heard no rationale to do otherwise than to support this hoist motion. We've heard no rationale about negative implications of this hoist motion. In fact, we haven't heard anything from the other side about this hoist motion. I'm encouraging members of the government to get up and give us a rationale why they would not vote for this hoist motion. Why would they oppose this hoist motion? It gives you the chance to do that as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The hoist motion also gives the opportunity for collective bargaining to take place, which we all know, as everybody knows — studies have shown — is the best way to resolve issues. Collective bargaining is the best way to resolve issues. It gives people a chance to sit down, find the common ground that they have. And when we get to common ground, we get to consensus. The hoist motion allows that space, that time, for people to be able to do that. It's time to support this motion for collective bargaining. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It also shows the respect that the paramedics deserve, that: "Look, we'll give you six more months to sit down and talk. We know you have important issues on your table. We have an obligation as government to sit down and talk about that." The hoist motion gives that ability. The hoist motion gives the time to do that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

And so, at this late time of the night, the time that we have to talk, I believe, is now. The time for members of the government to get up and talk is now. I will be voting in favour of this hoist motion. I encourage them to vote in favour of this hoist motion. I encourage them, if they're not going to do that, to stand up and explain why, and I look forward to hearing that. I look forward to this motion passing. I will be voting in favour of it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Thank you hon. Speaker, and thank you for your tolerance in my first hoist motion address. I've learned a lot from your rulings and will continue to do so and will strive to have my comments be more focussed, with your guidance and with your rulings. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

B. Ralston: Thank you very much Mr. Speaker, and I certainly appreciate, as do all members, your guidance on procedural matters. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I do want to quickly state the position of the opposition in bringing this particular motion, which is formally an amendment. I'm going to quote from Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, the 4th edition. As coincidence would have it, the author, the distinguished Clerk of the House, Mr. MacMinn, is in the House at this very moment. That's a happy coincidence, and I'm able to refer to the text that he's written at this very moment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

On page 201, in the book that I've just quoted the title of, second reading…. We're speaking of Proceedings on Public Bills, Debate and Amendment — Public Bills. Paragraph 2: "Second reading. This stage of the bill is subject to three forms of amendment: (a) six months' hoist…(b) reasoned amendment… (c) subject matter of bill referred to a committee…." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"Debate and Amendment — Public Bills, (2) Second Reading — This stage of the bill is subject to three forms of amendment: (a) Six-months' hoist, (b) Reasoned amendment, and (c) Subject matter of bill referred to a committee." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Now, the six-month hoist — the learned author has annotated that with reference to Erskine May, which is called Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice. He begins with a reference to the 17th edition. I'm going to quote from page 526, which I think expresses very clearly. I think it's significant that the learned author, the distinguished Clerk of this House, chose this particular passage. I think by simply reading from Erskine May and then making some brief reflections on it, the position of the opposition in bringing this amendment to the bill will become clear. I'm quoting from page 526. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"The ordinary practice in opposing the second reading of a bill is to move an amendment to the question by leaving out the word 'now' and adding the words 'upon this day six (or three) months.' The amendment 'upon this day three months' is usually employed in a normal session after Whitsuntide. The question proposed upon such an amendment is that the word 'now' stand part of the question. The postponement of a bill, in this manner, is regarded as the most courteous method of dismissing the bill from further consideration, as the House has already ordered that the bill be read a second time; and the amendment, instead of reversing that order, merely appoints a more distant day for second reading. The acceptance by the House of such an amendment being tantamount to the rejection of the bill, if the session extends beyond the period of postponement, a bill which has been ordered to be read a second time upon that day 'six or three months'" hence "is not to be replaced upon the notice paper of the House."

B. Ralston: I thought I heard some chatter elsewhere, but I…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

B. Ralston: Well, I hope members don't have their earplugs on at this point, and I hope they're open to listen to the debate. That would be commendable, and in ordinary parliamentary debate, one expects a certain exchange. The members opposite seem willing to chirp from their places but don't seem willing to enter into the debate in the formal manner that's required by the rules of this House. That's regrettable. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I'm not quite sure whether it's an individual decision, a collective decision, or just what is going on here, but I will continue. Mr. Speaker, thank you for recognizing me as the speaker and asking me to continue. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

What is clear — and I think this is why the learned author has chosen this passage — is that moving this amendment is a way of, as Erskine May says, "the most courteous method of dismissing the bill from further consideration." In other words, moving this amendment by the device and the wording that's chosen, asking that it be read six months' hence is really in effect — and Erskine May confirms this — a manner of dismissing the bill. So when one comes to discuss this motion, this amendment, the purpose of the amendment is to dismiss the bill, and debate is relevant if it's part of that intention. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I appreciate the guidance of the Speaker, as always, and I will endeavour to follow Standing Order 40, which gives the House the power to and the Speaker the obligation to limit debate where it is irrelevant, but given that the purpose of this amendment is to dismiss the bill, I would respectfully reiterate my understanding, based on Erskine May, that the ambit of the debate would, therefore, accordingly be very broad in the sense that arguments must be marshalled that are in favour of dismissing the bill. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

That would appear to be the conclusion of the learned author of Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia. Since he's here, I'm sure if I've misinterpreted what is in this text, he will certainly advise the Speaker. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

misinterpreted what is in this text, he will certainly advise the Speaker. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I wish to continue in that spirit. The bill that is before the House is Bill 21. What this amendment seeks to do is to dismiss the bill in the most courteous method possible. That is a procedure that the opposition has put forward and that I intend to speak to in the time that's allocated to me. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The bill that's before the House — and I think a number of speakers have reflected on this — has not been supported by substantial argument by the other side. Indeed, in opposing this motion, this amendment, the purpose of which is to dismiss the bill, the government members have not entered the debate, at least as far as I'm aware from quick review of Hansard, the preliminary record of the proceedings of the debate thus far. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Ordinarily, one expects in a parliamentary debate — the very word "debate" implies an exchange of ideas, an exchange of speeches — not necessarily an alteration but some effort, through the processes of debate, to illuminate the subject and come to a mutual understanding of the position of each party. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It's not clear at all, given the absence of government members in this debate on this particular amendment, just why there is such apparent opposition, although one cannot be sure. I somehow doubt that they are sitting silently and merely waiting for the opportunity to vote with the opposition on this motion, but one never knows, I suppose, because certainly the silence could be interpreted that way. But somehow I rather suspect that the government members have chosen not to enter this debate and have chosen not to participate for reasons of their own. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It certainly diminishes the debate, and it diminishes the opportunity to have some understanding of the government's position. It's important in an amendment that seeks to dismiss the bill. One would have thought that the government members would want to stand up in opposition to that amendment and explain why they think dismissing the bill is wrong. But there appears to be no response whatsoever. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This bill, in the measures that it takes, does constitute a blow to some very important principles in Canadian democracy, and those have been commented on by the Supreme Court of Canada in the case that considered Bill 29. This bill, which the opposition proposes the amendment to, the Ambulance Services Collective Agreement Act, proposes to end a process of collective bargaining and impose a contract by legislative means. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

In other words, rather than continuing collective bargaining, this bill imposes a collective agreement and dictates the terms of that collective agreement in the clauses in the bill. The imposition of this bill…. Particularly in clause 6, section 6, the bill really continues the collective agreement only until March 31, 2010, so the time horizon of the bill is very limited. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The motion that's proposed by effectively proposing a reading of the bill six months hence does obviously, in its effect, dismiss the bill. If this motion were to be passed, the entire act would become academic. That's why the opposition has as one of the three [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

does obviously in its effect dismiss the bill. If this motion were to be passed, the entire act would become academic. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

That's why the opposition has one of the three standard amendments, and I suppose we're only perhaps halfway through this debate at least on this particular amendment. There are other amendments at second reading, as the learned author Mr. MacMinn has pointed out, which could be brought at some later date. We shall see what the decision is collectively of the opposition in that respect. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

At this stage the amendment that's before the House would have the effect of rendering the bill completely academic. In other words, the bill would no longer have any validity whatsoever. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It's important in considering the bill and this effort on our part, the opposition, to dismiss it, to consider what it seeks to do and why we seek to dismiss the bill. The bill would end collective bargaining by the union and the employer, and impose a contract on that particular labour relation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The value of collective bargaining is a value which is held very highly in Canadian democracy. Although members opposite may think these are mere platitudes that are being uttered by members of the opposition, in fact, in the Supreme Court of Canada case which considered Bill 29…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

There was a very extensive parliamentary debate here beginning on a Friday and ending on a Monday morning with the Lieutenant-Governor arriving. The entire debate on that particular bill took place over a weekend with some of the debate, as here today, on a Saturday. The bill was introduced on a Friday, second reading was on the Saturday, committee stage was on the Sunday, and the Lieutenant-Governor came in on the Monday morning. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

In that case and that legislative action of the government, the statute that was passed was later considered by the Supreme Court of Canada. That gave them reason to consider the place of collective bargaining, which is the very process which this bill seeks — to give some sense of its place in Canadian democracy and its value as a right in relation to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I'm going to quote from a summary of the majority judgment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"The history of collective bargaining in Canada reveals that long before the present statutory labour regimes were put in place, collective bargaining was recognized as a fundamental aspect of Canadian society emerging as the most significant collective activity through which freedom of association is expressed in the labour context."

That's why that's important in considering this amendment — which seeks to dismiss the bill which seeks to end collective bargaining — to state strongly, in quoting the Supreme Court of Canada, that the value of collective bargaining, the value of the right that is being ended here by this legislation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I want to continue quoting from this passage, if I might. I might just briefly pause to take a sip of water. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"Association for the purposes of collective bargaining has long been recognized as a fundamental Canadian right which predated the Charter. The protection enshrined in section 2(d) of the Charter may properly be seen as the culmination of a historical movement towards the recognition of a procedural right to collective bargaining. Canada's adherence to international documents recognizing a right to collective bargaining also supports recognition of that right in 2(d). The Charter should be presumed to provide at least as great a level of protection as is found in international human rights documents that Canada has ratified. Lastly, the protection of collective bargaining under 2(d) is consistent with and supportive of the values underlying the charter and the purposes of the charter as a whole."

This is again quoting from the summary of the decision of the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada. This is not political rhetoric. This is a legal decision. This is the law in this country. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

and this is again quoting from the summary of the decision of the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada. So this is not political rhetoric. This is a legal decision. This is the law in this country: "Recognizing that workers have the right to bargain collectively as part of their freedom to associate reaffirms the values of dignity, personal autonomy, equality and democracy that are inherent in" the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

What this bill seeks to do and why we move this motion is.... We seek to dismiss a bill which ends what is regarded, in the words of the Supreme Court of Canada, as "a procedural right to collective bargaining, " which is enshrined in the highest legal document — the most authoritative, precedential value, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

That's why.... It's the part, in my view, that explains the passion that members of the opposition feel and — certainly inspired by the situation of the ambulance paramedics, their negotiations and their dealings with their employer — that collective bargaining is a value that has been recognized as a value of extreme importance in the Canadian legal environment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

And so it's something that is not simply a matter of political rhetoric. It's not something that's a question of a political football. It's not a question of making political points. This is something that's recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

So to take a legislative measure that seeks to end collective bargaining, in these circumstances, is something that this motion seeks to dismiss. By bringing this motion — this amendment to the bill — we seek to dismiss this bill. We seek to dismiss this bill because the assault, the attack on the procedural rights to collective bargaining here are, in our view, not justified in these circumstances. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We are not saying that there is never a circumstance when such legislative action might be taken, but legislative action of this type should be used very, very sparingly — very, very sparingly indeed. And this circumstance is not a circumstance where the government has made out a case that supports the legislative action that has been taken by the government here. So that's why we seek to dismiss this bill. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

When one looks at the bargaining that has taken place in this particular context, there are some very troubling conclusions that one comes to. The ambulance paramedics launched their strike on April 1, and they are bound by the Essential Service Disputes Act, which effectively means that they, for the most part, and in some cases provide.... Their service is required to continue, and in some cases they are required by the Essential Service Disputes Act to provide as great if not greater service than they would if they were not on strike. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

So ordinarily, the process of collective bargaining and the weapons that are designed to enforce and bring pressure on both sides to settle — one of those is a strike. But in these circumstances, the operation of the Essential Service Disputes Act gives the employees very little leverage on the employer because, effectively, things continue very much as before with some limited gestures available to the union in pursuing what is legally called a strike, but effectively continues the service, since the ambulance paramedics and their union and their leadership have respected the requirements of the Essential Service Disputes Act, as they've been instructed to do. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Mr. Speaker: Honourable Member. Just as we're going along here, I think that we're looking also at this, and I think the result of passing a hoist motion is to dismiss the bill. The quote does not permit a recanvass of second reading. It does not deal with the scope of debate. I understand where the member is going, but I just want you to be [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

hoist motion is to dismiss the bill. The quote does not permit a recanvass of second reading. It does not deal with the scope of debate. I understand where the member is going, but I just want you to be very cognizant. And I'm sure you're trying to lay the groundwork for future speakers, but it does not deal with the scope of debate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

B. Ralston: Well, certainly I thank the Speaker for that intervention. I'm seeking to follow what I regard as a reasonable and fair interpretation of the learned author himself and of Erskine May. My purpose in speaking is to dismiss the bill, and I've directed my comments to that. I appreciate the Speaker's drawing to my attention the scope of debate, and I'm certainly intending to respect the scope of the debate as I understand it. If the Speaker and I are not in agreement as to what the scope of the debate is, I'm sure that you will set me straight on that, Mr. Speaker. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Mr. Speaker: I'm sure, Member, that you're trying to lay the groundwork for future speakers, and I understand where you're going, but as long as we both understand that it does not deal with the scope of debate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

B. Ralston: Well, I understand that and respect that, Mr. Speaker. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

B. Ralston: We seem to have some other alternate legal opinion here in the chamber, Mr. Speaker. Where did the learned member opposite receive his legal training, I'm wondering. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

B. Ralston: I'm obviously hitting a nerve here. I have the attention of what were previously silent and sleepy members. I obviously appreciate that. They're wide awake and bolt upright in their places, although unwilling to stand and take their place in the debate. Although we may see…. Perhaps we may have inspired some of the members opposite who like to intervene in this fashion but don't like stand and speak on these sort of matters, particularly at this hour. But we shall see. We shall see. But somehow I doubt it. I think that's as far as their willingness to enter the debate goes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

In any event, what that decision also clarified, I think, in cases where government…. And this case is about government action by this Legislature in imposing a collective agreement, very much as this bill does, and was canvassed in legislative debate in this very assembly. It does set out that the government has an obligation, if such action is to survive an ultimate legal challenge…. I'm not sure, given the process that's taken place here, whether there will be a legal challenge to this legislation, but there might very well be. One doesn't know. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

One of the obligations — this is the reason why I support the amendment here so strongly — is that in that case the government…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"A range of options were on the table, but the government presented no evidence as to why this particular solution was chosen and why there was no meaningful consultation with the unions about the range of options open to it. This was an important and significant piece of labour legislation which had the potential to affect the rights of employees dramatically and unusually. Yet it was adopted rapidly with full knowledge that the unions were strongly opposed to many of the provisions, and without consideration of alternative ways to achieve the government objective, and without explanation of the government's choices."

So the importance of that passage and its relevance to the motion that is before the House here, the motion to amend, which seeks to dismiss this bill, is that it is incumbent upon the government to consider and explain alternatives, to consult. It's very clear in the legal environment — and the minister of aboriginal affairs will know this — that the duty to consult on the part of governments is an expanding legal category before the courts. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Minister of Aboriginal Affairs will know this, that the duty to consult on the part of government is an expanding legal category before the courts. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The government here, in this particular case and this particular piece of legislation, is, in the view of the opposition, acting arbitrarily, capriciously and without consulting fully the union involved and without considering other alternatives. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

In fact, the reason that we support this motion to amend the bill and the reason that it is important, from our perspective, that this amendment pass is that there has not been consideration of alternatives — nor of the impact, nor of the damage, that this particular legislation will do, if it passes, to the whole bargaining relationship. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

There is an option, if the government chooses and government members choose to support this bill, not to damage the bargaining relationship. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It is rather remarkable that the logic that's presented to the House in this bill — and the reason that we support this amendment — is that a piece of legislation is going to be passed, it's proposed, imposing a collective agreement. That very agreement will expire at the end of March next year, less than five months away. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The round of bargaining to begin upon the expiration of this imposed collective agreement, should it pass, will have to begin early in January. Really what this bill does, and the reason why we proposed this amendment to dismiss it, is propose to suspend the bargaining process for a month and a half or so, or maybe two months, and start again in January. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The assumption is that nothing will have changed. This won't damage the bargaining relationship. That, really, is a foolish conclusion, completely unsupported by any evidence and by anyone who has any practical experience of collective bargaining. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I see that my time is nearly up. I'm pleased to have been able to provide a few comments in the limited time that's available to me under the rules here. I know there are other colleagues that, as we approach the halfway point in this debate, will want to offer further reasons why this particular amendment that seeks to dismiss the bill is one that we strongly support. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I want to thank the Speaker. I'd like to thank Mr. MacMinn for any elucidating comments that he's provided in the course of this debate through the process. I certainly appreciate that, and I appreciate your guidance. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Mr. Speaker: Just before we continue, I want to remind the member speaking that the motion on the floor is: "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.'" [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I just want to make sure that the member understands to stay within the confines of the hoist motion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

S. Hammell: Again, I rise to join the debate on Bill 21, the Ambulance Services Collective Agreement Act. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Today I am supporting the hoist motion, a motion that will allow a sober second thought of six months on Bill 21, the Ambulance Services Collective Agreement Act, a bill that is intending, in its current state, to impost a collective agreement on the paramedics of B.C.; a bill that is forcing the paramedics to go back to work; a bill that is imposing