2009 Legislative Session: First Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 7, Number 5

[ Page 2113 ]

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2009

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1335]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

D. Routley: Looking around in the gallery, I don't see my daughter or my partner, Leanne Finlayson. They're late. My daughter is displaying a strong hereditary penchant for being late. I'm always teased that my reputation precedes me, because I'm always late. So Madeline is following a strong tradition that goes back to my dear mother.
[ Page 2114 ]

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

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

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

CRISIS LINES ON VANCOUVER ISLAND

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

[1340]

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

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

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

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

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

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

REMEMBRANCE DAY AND WAR VETERANS

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

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

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

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

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

ARTSCONNECT AND THEATRIX YOUTHEATRE

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

For the last 20 years ArtsConnect has lived up to its slogan of "Connecting people through the arts" with projects as diverse as the local art walk and a five-minute film challenge. ArtsConnect also brings an arts element to local events such as Treefest, which is held on the Riverview Hospital grounds each fall. Its members are a welcome presence also at many local festivals and special events.
[ Page 2115 ]

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

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

[1345]

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

richmond chinatown lions club

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

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

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

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

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

new westminster organization
supporting grandmothers in africa

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

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

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

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

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

activities of north shore
fish habitat restoration groups

R. Sultan: Trout, salmon and steelhead have been driven from the fast streams of the North Shore by culverts, highways and development. But I am pleased to report the fish are making a comeback through the efforts of a strong coalition consisting of the Streamkeepers, led by volunteers such as Hugh Hamilton, Michael Ritter and Elizabeth Hardy; the Coho Society, including Jim MacCarthy, Bill Chapman, Heather Dunsford and Tom Boppart; the Shoreline Preservation Society, led by Ray Richards, Chuck Brawner and Jack Wood; BPP — British Pacific Properties — managed by Jim McLean, Walter Thorneloe and the Guinness family; DFO, inspired in years past by Rob Bell-Irving; Adopt-A-Fish led by West Vancouver Library staff, our school superintendent Jeff Jopson, school vice-principal Joanne Wallis and Taylor Nettles; the municipality itself guided by Steve Jenkins;
[ Page 2116 ]
and Paul Berlinguette, who has the knack of making strategic appearances in his very annoying frog costume.

[1350]

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

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

Tabling Documents

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

Oral Questions

CRISIS LINES ON VANCOUVER ISLAND

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1355]

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

C. James: I'd like to remind this minister and every member of this government that they also have a responsibility to listen and consult the people of this province before they make decisions. If the minister had actually consulted these professionals, if he'd taken time, this is what he would have found. These crisis centres save lives. These cuts will hurt the aboriginal population particularly hard. Staff maximize those dollars and provide additional services, and those services now will also be lost because of this decision.
[ Page 2117 ]

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

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

[1400]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B. Simpson: The youth suicide rate is substantially higher than the non-aboriginal suicide rate. That's not a piece of administrivia. That's a stark reality in first nations communities.
[ Page 2118 ]

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

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

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

[1405]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Minister.

WAITING TIMES FOR SURGERIES IN B.C.

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

Interjections.
[ Page 2119 ]

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

Continue, Member.

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

[1410]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

They won't like this next part.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat.

Continue, Minister.

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

[1415]

SUPPLY OF H1N1 VACCINE TO
COPEMAN CLINIC

S. Simpson: The H1N1 vaccine is supplied free to clinics and doctors' offices in British Columbia. In return for that, British Columbians can reasonably expect to go to those facilities and receive that vaccine, if they're on the priority list, free of charge. Colleen Fuller, a type 1 diabetic in British Columbia, called the Copeman clinic and had it confirmed that she in fact was a priority because of her condition and then was told that, no, she could not
[ Page 2120 ]
receive the vaccine there unless she paid a $3,900 membership fee. That is not free access.

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

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

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

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

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

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

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

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

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

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR
KITIMAT FOREST WORKERS

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

[1420]

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

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

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

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

We have brought together all of the people who have an interest in investing in Kitimat. I would never underplay
[ Page 2121 ]
or minimize the personal impact of the layoffs that they're going to experience as of January 31 in Kitimat. It's a big deal. I've said that many times in the House, and it remains a big deal.

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

[End of question period.]

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

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

I remind members that introductions are usually at the beginning.

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

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

Mr. Speaker: Member for Alberni-Qualicum.

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

I seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

[1425]

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.
[ Page 2122 ]

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

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

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

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

Orders of the Day

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

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 21 — Ambulance Services
Collective Agreement Act

(continued)

Mr. Speaker: Member for Victoria-Hillside.

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

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

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

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

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

Thank you, Member.

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

[L. Reid in the chair.]

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

[1430]

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

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

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

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

But it says something about the attitude of the government in this dispute all along. It says something about how they have continued well past the election until the point today, here in November, when we're debating this bill, when they had opportunities to conclude an agreement — opportunities that they chose not to take, deliberately.
[ Page 2123 ]

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

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

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

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

[1435]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1440]

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

The other one that I can think of is temporarily housed in a seniors residential care facility. Again, it's not ideally in the catchment area that it serves. It costs valuable time, life-saving time potentially, for these paramedics and their ambulances to get to where the call-outs are. They've been there for, I believe, five years.
[ Page 2124 ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There was a member who was talking about the silver tsunami, which is a nice way of talking about our aging society. Nobody likes to talk about it, but that demand is more likely to grow in my area, given the population demographics. And we put these people in Atco trailers and rented hotels, and we impose collective agreements like this on them. What does that say about government's basic respect for people in this profession?

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

[1445]

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

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

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

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

You know, who actually believes that we might not be in a situation where we're back here in this very same place debating a bill just as draconian as this after this thing expires? What's to stop a government, if they get away with imposing an agreement like this, from doing it in more and more instances?
[ Page 2125 ]

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

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

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

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

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

[1450]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

M. Elmore: I join to take my place in the discussion and debate on Bill 21, the Ambulance Services Collective
[ Page 2126 ]
Agreement Act. The imposition of this agreement, it's been noted by many of my colleagues, is an unprecedented act in terms of what we would be witnessing. B.C. would hold the dubious distinction of having adopted this legislation and legislated ambulance paramedics back to work while they were in the process of voting on their collective agreement.

[1455]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1500]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recognizing the valuable commitment and contributions of paramedics — I think one of the most important
[ Page 2127 ]
measures of that is to ensure that they have a living wage, a livable wage, and that they have access to benefits, part-time or full-time. I think it's a great contradiction in terms of our health system that the very professionals that we depend on to provide emergency acute trauma care to citizens in times of emergency…. These very professionals don't have access to health benefits or other benefits.

[1505]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill 21. I'm opposed to Bill 21 and this legislated imposition to force ambulance paramedics back to work. The need to recognize their collective rights to bargain fairly and in an open way the terms and conditions not only of their wages, their benefits, their working conditions, the need to improve facilities but also to see a comprehensive investment and strengthening of the ambulance paramedic services…. These are all issues that would be discussed at the bargaining table. Both sides would come together to bring forward their issues and concerns and reach a mutually agreed-upon conclusion to some of these outstanding issues.

[1510]

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

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

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

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

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

I've heard that the call volumes have been increasing in urban areas as well as in rural areas. When call volumes increase, for example, in an urban area, this leaves
[ Page 2128 ]
the city reliant on the nearby communities to help respond to emergency calls into the city, which leaves the surrounding communities left with no ambulance coverage for extended periods of time. We're seeing that it is becoming an increasingly common practice for the response times to emergency calls to increase, as often the responding ambulance is coming from a great distance.

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

[1515]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1520]

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

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

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

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

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

The role that ambulance paramedics play in delivering a quality service that all British Columbians can depend on…. They certainly deserve much more respect than they are seeing with this, which Bill 21 shows them. I've heard from my constituents, from paramedics and also B.C. citizens right across B.C., and I know all British
[ Page 2129 ]
Columbians have a very high regard for the ambulance paramedics of B.C.

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

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

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

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

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

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

[1525]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1530]

We won't be able to manage any kind of natural disaster in any community in British Columbia without the paramedics. They are critical. They are the first responders. They bring their skills. They bring their energy to that kind of program. They're often the people who sit on the committees in communities to plan for a natural disaster, to make sure that things are in place just in case, in hopes that something won't happen but to make sure that we're well planned and we have those in
[ Page 2130 ]
place. Paramedics play a critical role in providing that support.

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

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

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

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

Another letter came in.

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

Another one.

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

Again, well said.

The last letter I want to read:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1535]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's also true that the lack of work that the government has done in the health care system has negatively impacted the work of the paramedics. Is that a good use of time for a paramedic — to have to sit and wait in a hallway in a hospital because they can't get the support they need to move the patient to the next step when it comes to health care supports? But it's an example, again, of how the government has ignored the issues that were brought forward and refused to listen.
[ Page 2131 ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1540]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1545]
[ Page 2132 ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1550]

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

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

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

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

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

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

"As a citizen of Saanich South, I am incensed about the current resolution to legislate the end of the labour
[ Page 2133 ]
dispute between the B.C. paramedics and the B.C. Ambulance Service. This is a slap in the face to all of our hard-working paramedics and to the collective bargaining process."

Absolutely it is.

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

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

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

That comes from a resident in Saanich South.

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

Deputy Speaker: Member, just remember — no names.

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

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

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

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

Absolutely.

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

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

Deputy Speaker: Member, please. No names.

L. Popham: Sorry.

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

[1555]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I cannot sleep.

The silence is pierced by the emergency tone. My heart begins to beat fast.
[ Page 2134 ]

A thousand thoughts rush my mind in an instant.

What kind of terror has shattered this night?

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

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

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

Sirens shatter the eerie silence.

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

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

The doctors tells the parents that their baby is gone.

I walk what seems like a thousand miles.

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

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

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

[1600]

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

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

The rain gently falls.

The night is silent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1605]

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

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

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

This has been years of neglect, years of failure to respond, years of not operating in good faith, which have culminated in this moment that we may not be able to come back from. That's why people on this side of the
[ Page 2135 ]
House are speaking so strongly — because we believe we'll be heard. Certainly people in British Columbia have been heard. We believe we should be heard by the members on the government side, who know the work that ambulance paramedics do in their communities.

As I say, this is a fundamental debate. I want to speak a little bit about where we've come from, how this happened and how this occurred in our province where a service has developed that has brought us together. Certainly, I'll be speaking of this later in my speech.

I know the Clerk and you, hon. Speaker, and members on the government side will be delighted to learn that I am the designated speaker on this bill.

Interjections.

A. Dix: They're delighted over there. I saw delight in their eyes, but I hope to see an attitude of listening and compassion in their hearts, so that they'll say no to the Minister of Health and say no to the Premier. They'll say no and vote against this bill, which will damage a core service in our province.

Let's understand where we've come from. The Ambulance Service has played a critical role in our province for the last 35 years. It was created in 1974. It's an interesting note. Today I received an e-mail from someone, and they said…. I think it's compelling. It talks about the change, and we frequently have heard this.

You hear it often on the medicare issue. People will tell you stories about what life was like in Canada prior to medicare, what people had to go through in their communities, what it meant to people in their communities prior to the development of a public service that united us as the Ambulance Service unites British Columbians — and the pride of people who work in the Ambulance Service in their communities and the effect it has to unite British Columbians.

Here's what the e-mail said from a citizen who e-mailed today. They also e-mailed other members of the opposition. Oddly, they did not e-mail members of the government side, but that may have been an omission.

That's why I'm happy to bring this e-mail to their attention, because it says something very important.

"Back in 1972 our friend, living in what is now a densely built-up area of greater Vancouver, had a stroke during the day. It took the then-private ambulance service 40 minutes to arrive to take them to the hospital. As a result of the delay, they were severely paralyzed for the rest of their life.

"This is what a fractured Ambulance Service does. The doctor at the hospital said that if they had arrived more quickly, they would have recovered most of their faculties in the following few months."

[1610]

They asked me to share that with members of the government side.

What happened in the early 1970s that changed that — that brought us to the Ambulance Service that until very recently was a pride of not just British Columbia but especially of those who worked for the Ambulance Service? Well, in 1970 there was a report. It was actually prior to the NDP government of 1972, which founded the Ambulance Service, that these issues started to come together.

We were a growing province at the time. The province was getting a sense of itself. There was a phenomenon, which many people called province-building, taking place in our economy. Dams had been built. A medicare system was growing and starting. Our public education system was improving. Our university system was improving. There was the sense of a need for vital provincial institutions — not just on the NDP side but on what we might call the centre-right or the right-wing side, on the Social Credit side.

The result of that was a report called the Foulkes report. It dealt with a lot of issues of health security for British Columbians, but one of the issues it dealt with was the need to bring together an ambulance service, to bring together what had been a patchwork of ambulance services that were in operation at the time.

I remember not long ago I talked to someone who said this to me: "I considered myself a bit of a cowboy." He'd had a very interesting life. He'd worked as a medic. He'd done all kinds of different things. He said to me: "It was the great irony of my life that I considered myself independent of government and everything else."

He had worked as a paramedic for one of these independent services. It was one of the great ironies of his life that having lived a life where he would never have imagined himself working for the government, he ended up finishing his career, essentially, as a provincial public servant working for the Ambulance Service.

Because of what happened subsequent to that, the esprit de corps of the service, the coming together of individuals in B.C. to build something great in our province, something that should be valued in our province, something that should be treated with dignity and respect in our province, because of that coming together, that guy who would have never voted NDP in his entire life says this with pride today.

He's been retired for a long time; he's an old man. "I retired from the provincial public service, and I worked for the B.C. Ambulance Service at the end of my career." Imagine that. What a good idea.

That Ambulance Service was introduced by a great member of this Legislature. You think of all the Ministers of Health that we've had in British Columbia. Some you might rate at the bottom of the tier. I'm not mentioning any names right now. Others you'd rate higher up.

I think everybody in British Columbia who has a sense of the history of our health care system and the history of this place acknowledges that Dennis Cocke was one of the great MLAs and one of the great Health Ministers in the history of our province. Dennis Cocke launched the B.C. Ambulance Service.
[ Page 2136 ]

It was very funny. I read the speeches in the Legislature. People don't know Dennis Cocke, and I didn't know him very well. But I heard him speak a few times. I have to say that I went to the Legislative Library and looked for what I hoped was a great second reading speech to quote from, because this was a big moment.

He brought together services around the province. He built B.C. He united B.C. with the sense that in Fort St. John and in Sooke there was a service that would serve everyone — maybe not equally, but everyone. It united us together from one community to another.

He did something extraordinary. The irony of it is that I looked for the great, flowery speech, and that just wasn't Dennis at the time. He didn't give a great big flowery speech. But what he did acknowledge was that this act, the act that he represents, would….

This is the most flowery thing from the speech. This was a man of action, not a man of words. It was that this would "put the provincial government in the position where they can provide an ambulance service to all the people of B.C." That was the NDP government of Dave Barrett bringing people together, building an ambulance service for all of B.C.

[1615]

This is a government, across the way, that is engaging in activities for four years that lead up to this bill that is going in the other direction. It is wrong. This is a proud part of — not the NDP's legacy — British Columbia's legacy. It was wrong.

Do you know what, hon. Speaker? It was the creation of that ambulance service. It was what they sometimes call over there the "nationalization" of some services. It's all terrible, you know — all terrible when that happens.

Do you know who else supported that bill? I'll tell you: Alex Fraser, who was a very famous British Columbian in his own right, a very famous Highways Minister — did a lot to build the province.

Who else supported it? The then Liberal Party. Now, it used to be a liberal party, but it was a different liberal party. Do you know who else supported it? The Conservative Party.

There was no opposition to the creation of the Ambulance Service in British Columbia because, at the time, people recognized that building one ambulance service that would provide services to everybody was a great idea. It was a great idea, and that is what happened in 1974.

You know, we become blasé in this place. The Ambulance Service is always there. You dial 911; people come; they save your life; they save your friends; they help you out. You become blasé about that.

We don't have to treat people with respect. They're not prepared to say: "Yes, sir. Yes, sir. We will follow you, sir." They have some ideas about how the service would be run. Why not? They know it better than anybody else.

Now we have a government that treats those who work for the Ambulance Service with disrespect and with contempt, and we're going to detail how they show them disrespect and contempt in a minute. But it's important to know that at its heart and at its beginning, the Ambulance Service was a service for all British Columbians — NDP, Social Credit, Liberal, Conservative.

All British Columbians thought it was a good idea because too many people had suffered from the patchwork of services that existed before. Too many people had suffered from the privatization of before, and they came together with common sense and did the right thing and created an ambulance service.

Over the coming years after that, the period from 1974 to 1980…. Remember, sadly, the Barrett administration ended in December 1975, and another government came forward that also rejected the view of the government across the way, that also believed in building an ambulance service for British Columbia. The Social Credit government came in. In that period, NDP government and Social Credit government, we had an ambulance service.

What happened? Advanced life-support units were set up. The infant transport team was set up. Specialized teams responsible for providing care for pediatric, neonatal and high-risk obstetric patients were set up. Air Ambulance was set up. Centralized dispatch was set up. People who had never been served by ambulance services before were served by ambulance services. That's what happened then. It's important to know that history.

This is in fact a victory for community coming together with government to make a difference. That is what happened. That was the history of what happened, which is at stake here today. Since then, ambulance paramedics have worked and believed.

If you talk to an ambulance paramedic, you know it. This is not just a service where a group of workers sees itself in opposition to management. There is a sense of ownership of this service. If you've ever talked to an ambulance paramedic of their service, they don't believe that this is labour and management. They are proud members of the Ambulance Service, ambulance paramedics. They believe it to the core of their being, and look what they give up.

Look what they give up in order to become ambulance paramedics. They actually make enormous personal sacrifice. It takes years. The evidence is — and this is evidence that comes from the current government, I might add — that it takes five years as a part-time ambulance paramedic, at least — that most ambulance paramedics, after paying generally for a training process on their own, start at part-time positions.

[1620]

Get this. They believe and want to do this so much — pay for their own training; go and work, sometimes in communities far from their homes, as part-time paramedics; work their way up, and then become full-time paramedics.
[ Page 2137 ]

This is real commitment to the work. It is exceptional commitment to the work, commitment that needs to be applauded, a process — given the shortage of paramedics we see in many communities — that needs to be assisted by the government and not impeded by the government.

Let's consider the stories, because we have to put it in context. You know, the government has repeatedly in this process — in January, in March, when the minister spoke in this House, in the newspapers and in their spin on the introduction of this bill — tried to portray ambulance paramedics as somehow greedy. That is what they have tried to do.

An Hon. Member: Shame.

A. Dix: It is a shame. It's despicable.

I want to read some stories about what the people who are directly affected by this bill have gone through and what it takes to become an ambulance paramedic. I got a letter from a guy named Ken Byrne in Burnaby. It's written to the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon and myself. He says:

"I am a resident of Burnaby who'd like to share a few of my wife's experiences about a day in the life of an advanced care paramedic. Neither of you are my MLA. However, I simply have no faith that my letter will be read let alone considered by a representative of a government which has so clearly flaunted due process and human rights in the interests of its own agenda.

"I am writing to you in a last-ditch effort that some form of democracy will be exercised by you, the official opposition, in the form of being more aggressive in holding the sitting government to account for the myriad of acts it has committed and keep issues such as the paramedics 'strike' front and centre in the media."

Here's what he says about his wife's commitment — what she went through to become an ambulance paramedic:

"My wife is one of approximately ten women advanced care paramedics in the province, and I am extremely proud of her accomplishment. She began her career 13 years ago doing part-time call-out in Princeton" — lives in Burnaby; part-time call-out in Princeton — "while working another job to support her passion for being a paramedic. I clearly remember one of her trips to Princeton, where she stayed for two weeks at the station to serve residents of that community to be rewarded with two call-outs and eight hours' pay at $12 an hour.

"Thanks to her perseverance and initiative to take every opportunity for training to improve her skills along the way, she finally earned a full-time position after eight years of working part-time call-out. Most recently, she invested over $20,000 of her money to complete her advanced care paramedic training and earned her current position three years ago."

So when people get up in the House and they leak to the Vancouver Province and they say that ambulance paramedics are being greedy and they don't care and they don't understand our problems and they won't listen to us and they're being unreasonable…. Think of that circumstance, which…. Some might say, "Well, you've picked the best story of the lot," but in fact, as we all know, it's the typical story.

It's the typical story of people who have fundamentally committed themselves to their community, doing work that a lot of us wouldn't want to do. My colleague from Nelson-Creston, when she spoke on this bill, talked very clearly about the sacrifice being made, the nature of the work, the difficulty of that work.

Just think of two people on that group of people who have made that sacrifice. We met their families as a caucus when we were in Kimberley once. Kim Weitzel, 35 years old, and Shawn Currier, 21 years old, passed away attending what they were told was a drowning at the decommissioned Sullivan mine in Kimberley. We met George, Kim's husband, in Kimberley.

These are the sacrifices people make. They make real sacrifices in their lives. They give up years of their lives to be trained. They work as part-time paramedics for years. They go to scenes that many of us would not want to go to, dealing with circumstances that many of us won't want to do, but they do it because they're committed.

That's why we're standing in this House today. Because ambulance paramedics deserve better than a bill that treats them with contempt.

[1625]

It's not just this. There are other examples. This is another typical example. This is Brent, who is an ambulance paramedic, who wrote to members on both sides of the House:

"I'll start back in 1992 when I was keen and excited about becoming a paramedic. My first posting was in Logan Lake, B.C. The annual call volume was approximately 300 at the time in Logan Lake."

It's higher today — in the riding of my colleague from Fraser-Nicola.

"I worked there for three and a half years, then worked for the B.C. Ambulance Service in a variety of small towns such as Merritt and Boston Bar for many years after that.

"All the while I lived in Vancouver, so I commuted three to four hours entirely at my own expense several times a year. I spent days at a time at the 'station' — which in some cases consisted of a storage room, where we slept on a concrete floor, and an office. Many of the province's stations are in a similar sorry state or worse. I did this at the time for zero dollars an hour."

That's not a typo. Now it's $2 an hour. We all know that. Zero dollars an hour.

"I was only paid if someone called an ambulance. Assigned to a station with 300 calls per year, it was rare to get even one call each day, and if I did, I received four hours pay at approximately $12 an hour. I was not eligible for benefits for the first six years either."

So what we have are a group of people who have sacrificed to become ambulance paramedics. In January of this year, when Mr. Doney and the then Minister of Health and others started doing their attack on ambulance paramedics — implying that they were greedy, implying that they didn't understand, implying that they wanted to deal with some of these issues, and it was unfair, and they didn't understand government's problems, and you know there's an election this year — this is who they were talking about.

They were talking about ambulance paramedics like Brent and so many others across British Columbia. This is their story — not the exception but the rule. In some
[ Page 2138 ]
respects, it's because of that circumstance that we're in the situation of shortage we see today — because circumstances have changed. Communities have changed. How many mills have been closed under this government's forest policy?

N. Macdonald: Fifty-five.

A. Dix: Is it 55? I thought it was 54. It's 55 this past week. So a whole group of people that might be eligible to do this work and live in communities is not available to live in those communities any more. Circumstances have changed.

The ambulance paramedics union has been seeking to resolve these problems with the government, not in this contract negotiation but for years. What's the response we get? What's the response we got from the previous Minister of Health? I'll come back to him in a moment, because he's virtually Prince Valiant compared to the current Minister of Health.

What do they get when we raise these issues in this Legislature? You know, we raise these issues in this Legislature — in estimates, in question period. These were fundamental issues that ambulance paramedics raised across British Columbia and that we raised on this issue — issues about places like Alexis Creek, Anahim Lake, other issues.

The former member for Cariboo South, who did a great job representing his community, raised these issues all the time. Let us hope that they are not lost, that raising issues like that are not lost as a result of this election. He did a sensational job raising these issues. My colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke raised these issues. My former colleague from Nelson-Creston, Corky Evans, raised these issues. My colleague from North Island — yourself, hon. Speaker — raised these issues. My colleague from North Coast raised these issues.

They raised these issues because of what is happening in British Columbia, in rural and remote ambulance stations, and they don't do a scintilla…. We all remember when the Minister of Health — it was just a couple of days ago — introduced this bill, and he gave a speech, and he said in kind of one line: "I care about remote and rural ambulance stations."

[1630]

That's what they come up with. Four years of raising these issues, and now they're saying they care. Well, they imposed a collective agreement that does nothing to resolve the fundamental issues. It's a shame.

We raised these issues. But what was said? What did the government say? What did the government say when we raised these issues, when we raised what were fundamentally service issues and the lack of basic services in stations like Alexis Creek — shut down for months at a time, leaving people in a whole region of British Columbia vulnerable? It's not just in the rural area, because if there was a call-out, people would have to go from Williams Lake. That made people in Williams Lake vulnerable. What did the government say again and again when we raised these issues?

My new colleague from Nelson-Creston is not going to believe what they said. Here's what they said. "I know some want to grind relentlessly to continue collective bargaining discussions in processes like question period."

That's what the Minister of Health said. He said that these issues that were fundamentally, at their core, service issues, issues for which the government was responsible, which ambulance paramedics wanted to participate in and change…. He said: "Oh, that's collective bargaining — can't deal with that now. Can't deal with that in 2006, can't deal with that in 2007, can't deal with that in 2008. In 2009 we're going to impose legislation on ambulance paramedics."

That does nothing to deal with the problem, and they say one line in a second reading speech. That's what they got — one line in a second reading speech. That's what they got for rural and remote areas that are dealing with a crisis in ambulance service in British Columbia, a crisis that ambulance paramedics want to deal with. That's what they said.

What they did in these negotiations was load up these negotiations with every issue. They didn't resolve problems for years. They load up these negotiations in an impossible way and then surprise — creating an impossible problem, they decide they can't solve it. "Oh, it's beyond us to solve. You know, there's an election. We can't deal with this before the election. We can't deal with these fundamental issues before the election."

Well, if they started when Charlie Wyse asked them to start, if they'd started when Corky Evans asked them to start, if they'd started when the member from Cowichan asked them to start, if they'd started when the member for North Island asked them to start, these issues would have been resolved and off the bargaining table.

When you think of that, when you think of that context — the history of the service and then the neglect over the last three or four years…. You know, hon. Speaker, we don't mind. We don't mind that they don't want to participate in the debate. We don't mind that they don't care. The people of British Columbia care about this service.

What was the explanation given for this bill? It's interesting to reflect on this, because as members have noted, the government — a government which, by the way, has been repudiated in the Supreme Court of Canada on similar issues to this…. Repudiated in the Supreme Court of Canada — that's their record, and it takes some effort. You know, it's not easy.

My colleague from Surrey-Whalley who is a legal expert knows. It's not easy to get yourself repudiated in the Supreme Court of Canada. It's not easy. But they
[ Page 2139 ]
did with respect to Bill 29. Why? Because they treated a group of workers that they fundamentally didn't respect with contempt. The Supreme Court of Canada called them to account.

So this government, which clearly has seen another target…. "Oh, we'll attack the HEU. That'll be popular with somebody." I don't know who it's supposed to be popular with. "We'll participate illegally in the largest layoff of female workers in history. Here's another one we can talk about — ambulance paramedics."

Here's what they do. It's unprecedented. They're having a vote on a collective agreement offered by the government. They're having a vote. The government goes on about union democracy sometimes. "Oh, unions aren't democratic." They're having a vote on their contract. Can you believe it?

I think people who are listening and watching this debate right now might not be able to believe that, so I think I'm going to repeat that. We're having a vote on their contract. They offered a contract to ambulance paramedics.

[1635]

That contract was less than they'd offered before. That contract was less than had been offered by the previous Minister of Health. That contract made no improvements to the crisis in ambulance services that ambulance paramedics had for years. That contract did none of that, but it was a contract offer by the government.

I just don't think that people will understand this. I mean, ordinarily you wouldn't understand. They'd say this is the conduct of an irrational government. Make a contract offer. Demand that people vote on that contract offer. Demand it: "You've got to vote on the contract offer. You don't represent your members." That's what they imply.

"You don't represent your members. You got to vote on the contract offer. You got to vote on the contract offer. You got to vote on the contract offer." And guess what. They put the contract offer to a vote, and we have a government in British Columbia that doesn't want to see the results of that vote. It is unbelievable. I think there's another vote in 2013 that they're going to apply that principle to.

Now, this is a fascinating development. What were they saying in March? What was the then Minister of Health, the member for Shuswap, an active participant in the debates in this House…? What did he say in March? He was complaining that they wouldn't put a contract offer to a vote.

Before the election, they were demanding that they put it to a contract negotiation, to a vote. After the election, no vote. "We'll cut off before a vote. We'll impose legislation before a vote. We don't think you represent your members. Have a vote, and then we cancel the vote." That's what they've done. It's unprecedented in labour history.

Think of the governments we've had in British Columbia. Think of the governments we've had in British Columbia over the years. Not all of them have been favourable to the labour movement. I think that's fair to say. I think that's a fair assessment of history. My colleague from Nanaimo, a student of history, probably agrees with me in that regard. This has never been done before. This has never been done before.

Now, if they were a private sector company, of course, this wouldn't be allowed. But they're the government, and they've proven repeatedly, until chastised and sent packing by the Supreme Court of Canada, in the matters of labour relations that this government will do anything.

Here we are in March. They had a contract offer in March. By the way, it was a far richer offer than they have now on the table, a far richer offer than they have now on the table. They've withdrawn things, hon. Speaker. We're going to talk about that process in a moment. This issue of taking away people's fundamental rights to vote is an embarrassment for this government.

It's not just me that says so. It's not just ambulance paramedics that say so. It's not just those who support ambulance paramedics with signs on their lawn — lawn signs that support the Ambulance Service. They're not talking about wages. They're talking about supporting ambulance paramedics and the work they do — all of those people in British Columbia and others.

My colleague from Nanaimo will know this, because there's a newspaper in his town called the Nanaimo Daily News. They summarized the government's role in these negotiations with some aplomb. Now, I don't recall…. Our party newspaper is called the Democrat, so I don't think this is a party newspaper of the NDP. What do they say?

"Surely there is a better way for the British Columbia government to settle its dispute with ambulance paramedics than imposing a contract. The paramedics have been on strike since April 1, and now Health Minister Kevin Falcon says 'the public….'"

Interjections.

A. Dix: My apologies, hon. Speaker. I'll withdraw this. You see, you get into the spirit of it. I'm glad, though. It's delightful to hear that the members are listening.

The Health Minister says, and I apologize to the member for Surrey-Cloverdale there:

"'The public needs certainty that they'll have the care they need in an emergency.'"

The strike started on April 1, and it's only recently been drawn to the attention of the current Minister of Health. I continue:

"What the Minister of Health failed to acknowledge is that paramedics have maintained service during the strike because they are designated an essential service. The paramedics' union had no power and couldn't even stop the government from bringing in an essential services order that forced its members to work overtime during the seven-month strike.
[ Page 2140 ]

"The Health Minister…said that 'after seven months of failed attempts to reach an agreement, and there is no negotiated settlement in sight.' The government was forced to act."

[1640]

Here's what the paper in Nanaimo says, and the member will know this very well, the member for Nanaimo:

"This is completely disingenuous."

Now, I think they're being kind to the government. I think they're being kind to the government, but they're trying to attempt that sense of balance, you know, between the evidence and their sense of not wanting to be too mean to the government.

"The B.C. Ambulance Service tabled a final contract offer to paramedics. Union officials were in the midst of travelling from community to community across the province to explain the details of that contract offer to its members. They were to have the results of that vote back to the Labour Relations Board on Thursday and the minister's assertion that the governments do something to deal 'with the H1N1 pandemic impacting acute care system' defies credulity."

Defies credulity, hon. Speaker.

So let's review what this editorial says about their action:

"…completely disingenuous…defies credulity.

"At every step of the way in its dealing with B.C.'s paramedics, the government has stymied the effort of their union. It's not so much bad faith bargaining as it is just a bad system that needs to be changed."

So that's what the Nanaimo Daily News says, and they're quite right, I think, quite balanced, quite fair in their assessment of where the government has gone on this bill. I think that "completely disingenuous" is really quite a balanced view of where the government is at on this particular piece of legislation.

What did the government say? The strike begins on April 1. What did the government say about their decision to react and act decisively in the week after Halloween? What did they say about that? They claimed two important things, two important justifications for their action. They weren't, by the way, justifications for negotiating in good faith. They weren't, by the way, justifications for not pulling things that they'd offered to the union off the table. They weren't, by the way, justifications for damaging the Ambulance Service, but here they are.

We've been through this period. This is what they've done. For the last month after month of delay and waiting and pulling things off the table and bargaining in bad faith, what do we get from the government? They claim that management is tired. Well, I know, but not as tired as the people of British Columbia of this arrogant attitude. Not that tired.

What else did they say? Well, they made reference, of course, to something that concerns all of us, including many ambulance paramedics — the H1N1 pandemic. They made a reference to that. Even though they have a circumstance where, in many areas, ambulance paramedics are actually operating at higher than previous service levels. I mean, it is simply a phoney argument. If I may quote the Nanaimo Daily News again, an argument that "defies credulity." So this is the argument they've made.

Now, then, sadly for them, sometimes when the government makes statements…. For example, when the Minister of Health says that Saskatchewan asked me if they could buy surgeries for a premium, and they didn't — stuff like that. Sometimes when the government says stuff, people record what they say. So the government said — you'll recall it — that there were two reasons.

Now, you'd think this is a momentous piece of legislation. It's very significant. It affects the lives of thousands of people directly. It affects the lives of their families. It affects the lives of all British Columbians, because all of us, in a way, are clients, are served by the B.C. Ambulance Service — right? So this is an important piece of legislation. This is no small thing. This is a long-standing dispute. This is what they did.

Don't you think that the people of British Columbia — ambulance paramedics, their families, members of the Legislature — that our whole community deserves an honest answer from the government about why they're doing this?

[1645]

Instead, they do not mention that this is connected with the 2010 Olympic Games. Now, I'm not actually sure why they didn't mention it, because that's a significant event, and it's going to have a huge impact on emergency services in British Columbia, but they failed to mention it. They are so used to spinning people that even at this moment, even an argument that at least some people might say, "Well, that's an interesting argument," they keep from people.

But what has it turned out to be? What has the truth turned out to be? Not mentioned in the short speech by the Minister of Health, not mentioned by the government in its press releases and backgrounders, not mentioned in their media spin to smear ambulance paramedics, not mentioned at all, is the Olympic Games. But we know that in September a memorandum was sent from the VANOC director of medical services to Ambulance Service CEO Lee Doney and other government officials.

In that memo…. My distinguished colleague and labour relations expert from Burnaby-Edmonds raised this issue in the House just a couple of days ago. What did it say? It said:

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

Finally the next day, the government comes forward in the House with a major piece of legislation. They say it's about this and this, and it turns out it's about that.
[ Page 2141 ]
This and this, but it's about that. That's what they've done here. So even at this critical moment, when they're bringing in legislation that will damage the B.C. Ambulance Service and permanently damage their relationship with the ambulance paramedics, they are not straightforward.

This is not just one document. You know, one document from VANOC. Oh, that's not it. Here is the testimony. Here's what Michael Sanderson, executive director of the Lower Mainland region of the employer, the Ambulance Service…. Here's what they said before the LRB. They acknowledged that, in addition to the memo, the IOC had been seeking confirmation since June that the paramedic dispute would not interfere with the games.

This is no small event. Heck, this is an everyday thing for the Premier. He kind of is doing his own routine that it's his games. This is a central event in the lives of British Columbians. Tens of thousands of British Columbians will attend; tens of thousands will volunteer. It's a singular event in British Columbia.

Clearly, this decision to bring in legislation is involved with the Olympic Games. Even now, even at this point, even at the 11th hour, as they're bringing in legislation to strip ambulance paramedics of their rights, as they're doing that and damaging the service in the long run, they can't even be straightforward now and even mention that there is a deadline and that VANOC wants the strike to be over.

Now, I might add that maybe that's a good reason — right? Maybe you could argue that's a good reason. It would have certainly been a good reason to bargain in good faith in January of last year.

You know, hon. Speaker, I had a brief and unbelievably small role in the process that brought the Olympic Games to Vancouver and Whistler. We were planning this, believe it or not, in the 1990s. They knew when the date of the Olympics was. Even this government, which prefers the opaque to the sunlight, knew when the Olympic Games was going to be and knew that they would need the participation of ambulance paramedics. They knew they needed to resolve these issues at the bargaining table. They have behaved, through this entire period, reprehensibly.

[1650]

They've done everything they can, in fact, to stop a negotiated settlement — put things on the table one day, and they're off the next day; bonus is on the table, and it's not on the table. Provisions to change the rules of work for ambulance paramedics, issues that have been worked on at the behest of the member for Shuswap, the now Minister of Aboriginal Relations, the former Minister of Health — who is finally looking good in comparison. Issues that they had raised and agreed to and put on the table were pulled off the table. They bargained in bad faith. They bargained in bad faith for months, but they knew when the Olympic Games were.

There were only two dates that mattered to this government in this dispute, as it turned out, and they couldn't be straightforward about either of them. One was the date of the election, and the other was the date of the Olympics. That's what mattered to them.

Now, the H1N1 question is a serious question for everyone in our province. People are participating. Citizens are being patient. I might note that while the government has sought to legislate ambulance paramedics, they are not seeing fit to vaccinate them right now. But set that aside for a moment.

Every day is an important day for the B.C. Ambulance Service. Every day is a day when your family member might be injured. Every day is a day when your friend might be injured — and even if it's not your friend, somebody's friend. The inevitable thing about health care services is that they're important every day. They're important on Boxing Day and on Thanksgiving. They're important during the Olympic Games and during a pandemic. They're important every day, and this government has not behaved in a way that is consistent with an appreciation of that fact.

Yes, the Ambulance Service is important now, during the H1N1 pandemic, but it was important last month and the month before that. It will be important next month, and it'll be important next year, if it still exists in its present form.

So what do we have, hon. Speaker? What do we have? Let's assess, if I may, the approach of the government to this round of negotiations. Their approach has been, from the beginning, to engage in tactics that would avoid a settlement. Now, we all know this. The Solicitor General will know this as well. He'll know this very well.

The negotiations begin in December, so we kick off negotiations. In January the government is leaking things about the union side. They say: "Oh, they're asking too much. We're having a negotiation, and the union is asking too much — right? We're right; they're wrong. They're asking too much."

What happens? Mr. Doney is out in the media. The Minister of Health is out in the media. "They're asking too much." The ambulance paramedics of B.C., who waited for three years to have fundamental service issues resolved, are being unreasonable.

Now, it's interesting. I think it's legitimate. I think it's legitimate for people…. The government's role in a negotiation is legitimate, but so is the role of a union or of workers.

We had a circumstance before the election. My colleague the NDP House Leader, our indefatigable Solicitor General critic, will know that we had a situation before the election that we raised. We spent months and months raising it. The member for Port Coquitlam did. The NDP House Leader did. Other members of the House did. I raised it — around sheriffs. They were actually given an adjustment consistent with a new appreciation of the
[ Page 2142 ]
value of their work and the fact that we weren't able to keep people being sheriffs.

So it's not unprecedented for workers to say: "Our work is fundamentally, given what it is today, not represented by what we're being paid." That doesn't mean that they get what they want, necessarily, but it is legitimate for them to ask. You know what the government cared about? We all know what they cared about. "Oh, you know, this could be an election issue, so let's get out there and smear them for doing that" — for legitimately representing the position of their members, some of whom are on a call-out rate of $2 an hour.

By the way — and the member for Surrey-Whalley, who is more thoughtful on these things, will no doubt correct me on this — on $2 an hour, even 30 percent is only 60 cents. That's what the ambulance paramedics were saying. They put these issues on the table. It is legitimate for them to put these issues on the table.

What was the response of the government? "Well, we've got to work through these problems, I guess, sit at the bargaining table. We've got to through these problems — these workplace problems, these recruitment problems, these training problems, these salary questions. We've got to work with ambulance paramedics, work towards a settlement, because April 1 is the settlement date. The contract expires on that date." That is what a government that cared would have done.

[1655]

A government that didn't care, that was just campaigning for re-election, would have gone out in the media and tried to smear the union. That's what they did in January of 2009. That's what they did. Then, in March, they were complaining. You know, they put the "i" in irony. They were complaining: "Well, we put this offer on the table, and there's no vote." The union had a mandate for a strike, they went together with the strike, and the government was demanding there be a vote. "There's got to be a vote. Listen, there must be a vote."

We're debating legislation that was introduced before the results of a vote, but that's what they were saying then. Because guess what, hon. Speaker. It was before the election. It was before the election. These aren't my words, but the words of the Nanaimo Daily News. Perhaps they were "completely disingenuous." But I wouldn't go that far. I would just note that those things took place before the election.

What do we have here? What do we have? The election happens, and in the brief period, it's like a light shining down. The Minister of Health, who would soon be replaced as Minister of Health, phoned the union. He phoned the head of CUPE, and he said: "You know, we've got to get to work on these issues. We've got to get to work solving these problems. These are fundamental issues for our health care system. People in my constituency are negatively affected by it. People in every constituency are negatively affected by it."

So what happened, hon. Speaker? The union…. And it's important to note this. I think there were 17 or so meetings in that brief period of light between the results of the election — I think it was just before the election — and then that period, the new age of darkness that seemed to descend at the time of the cabinet shuffle, certainly in these negotiations.

What happened? The two sides worked together on some fundamental things and came to an agreement, hon. Speaker. Can you believe it?

The ambulance paramedics — oh, you know, the members across the way say they're all about the money — sat down and worked through critical issues about their workplace. I don't doubt…. And I'm not one. I'm more one to view historical forces as more important and not to give too much emphasis to the value of individuals in history, but I should say this. I think if those negotiations had been allowed to continue, there would have been a collective agreement in the month of June. We wouldn't be here today, and the Ambulance Service would be better off. They would have come to that collective agreement.

What did they come to agreement on? Well, they came to agreement on a fundamental issue, an issue that was raised by the member for Cariboo South, Charlie Wyse. In the period prior the election, he brought it to the UBCM. The UBCM supported the ambulance paramedics in this. It involved better integration of paramedics into community health care. The role of paramedics in the health care system, especially to deal with this issue of recruitment in rural areas, was critical.

They came to agreement on that question — an agreement that was a difficult agreement to come to. It involved Mr. Brown, the ADM in the Ministry of Health; it involved Mr. Doney, who after the election was talking about these issues; and it involved Mr. O'Neill. So there's an agreement on this issue.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Now, I've read the legislation. Then I read it twice. Then I read it three times. Then I read it four times. Then I read it five times. There's nothing about that agreement in this legislation.

Then what happened? They also dealt with the issue of benefits for part-time paramedics, a pretty fundamental question for people who live in the riding of the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke. Why? Because they have coverage issues in his constituency, as they do in many constituencies. Members all over this House are affected by these coverage issues in rural and remote communities.

So what did they do? Not just in rural and remote communities, but they improved…. They came to an agreement on issues and improved benefits for part-time paramedics.

A third thing they came to agreement on…. And, hon. Speaker, I remind you — I think I may have said this
[ Page 2143 ]
before — that I've read through this legislation, and I haven't seen this in the legislation.

[1700]

They dealt with issues of staff training, issues that go directly to retention and recruitment. How can we give supports so that local people can be trained? How can we deal with some of the direct costs which require subsidy — not just the direct costs, if they're subsidized, of the training itself, but the costs of going and getting the training? How can we address some of that in a small way that will allow us to address the fact that in large areas of this province, sometimes for months at a time, there are large holes in our ambulance system?

There may be some people in the House who think that I'm exaggerating those holes. Again, I will bring the evidence brought forward at the Labour Relations Board by the Ambulance Service itself. In March 2009, as the government was preparing to go to an election, what was the staffing level in Blue River? Fifty percent. What does that mean? That 50 percent of the time the community does not have any ambulance. In Fruitvale in March 2009 — staffed at 45 percent, meaning more than half of the time they don't have an ambulance.

Look back at some of the historical data. In Nakusp in March and April of 2008, that ambulance station was staffed 60 percent of the time. New Denver, March 2008, staffed at 16 percent of the time. Alexis Creek — all of the work by the hon. member for Cariboo South — in March 2009, staffed 30 percent of the time. In Field, April 2008, staffed 10 percent of the time, meaning once every ten days. That information didn't come from me. It comes from evidence from the Ambulance Service itself.

What else did they work on? Local-hiring provisions, which are key in communities across B.C. to make sure that we deal with these fundamental questions of retention, these fundamental questions of recruitment. They worked on reworking the hour and payroll status for on-call paramedics. On all these issues they came to agreements, and then something happened. Something happened in June 2009, and those agreements were not heard of on the government side again.

I don't know what happened. I'm not one to speculate on these things, but in any event, we had a new Minister of Health. So all of those agreements brought together by the two sides at the behest of the former Minister of Health were thrown away. Forget those agreements. Forget those fundamental agreements on issues of central importance to ambulance paramedics in B.C. — thrown away.

We have an agreement now that we're voting on in this House, which contains none of that. It's all gone. None of it is there. Issues that would improve the Ambulance Service, the bonus that they offered — not there. The only set of public sector workers in the whole government — and I include in that the management of the Ambulance Service — who didn't get a bonus are the ambulance paramedics. Off the table.

You want to poke someone in the eye? You know my advice to the government? If you don't want to poke somebody in the eye — my best advice to the government — don't poke somebody in the eye. That's my best advice to the government.

The fact of the matter is that they made real progress. What that says to me is that there are people in the government who understood. In that period when the government was kind of at rest — when the government had a Minister of Health who had some respect for the ambulance paramedics; I'm not that happy with his record, but he had some respect for them — there was an effort to resolve what was a difficult dispute, which had real issues for the service. Ambulance paramedics were prepared to work on those issues for the sake of the service, and they did so.

All of that work was thrown away in this collective agreement, and I hold the whole government responsible for what I consider bargaining in bad faith in that regard.

[1705]

So here we are. Here we are after all of this time. This is what they've done. We have an explanation from the government that these critical issues….

Look, there is no question that anybody who reviews what's going on in the Ambulance Service today…. Whether they live in the centre of Vancouver, whether they live in Surrey, whether they live in Victoria — and we heard the views of the member for Victoria–Swan Lake earlier — whether they live in Columbia River–Revelstoke, whether they live in Alexis Creek, whether they live in the north, whether they live in the south or whether they live on Vancouver Island, everybody understands that the Ambulance Service is in crisis in many parts of our province.

Everyone understands that. It's an issue that's not easy to resolve, and it's an issue that will only be resolved if people in good faith come together to resolve the problems. That attempt has been made. The union went more than halfway on those issues, which they've been working on four years to get at. What we had in that case was an Ambulance Service which, as I say, in rural and remote areas is in crisis and in urban areas is in crisis as well.

The average response time — very interesting. You know, hon. Speaker, these issues of average response times are something that I've learned about since I've become a Health critic, but that everyone who's actually waiting for an ambulance cares about intimately.

These issues of response time are more difficult in our cities and towns today. It is harder to get around in our cities and towns. It's a lot easier for the head of TransLink to go from Vancouver to New York than it is for someone to drive from Vancouver to Delta. It is
[ Page 2144 ]
difficult. This is the truth of the matter. Urgent response times in urban areas are eight minutes and 56 seconds.

Now, the standard is nine minutes. Again, the member for Surrey-Whalley taught me a lot about averages. That basically means that if you're waiting for an ambulance…. The international standard is nine minutes — right? If the average is nine minutes, it stands to reason that, more or less, half of the response times are within the standard and half are above the standard. Stands to reason.

In fact, that's the case. The member for Surrey-Whalley, who spoke earlier on these matters, knows that's the case. It's around 52 percent of the time — under nine minutes. Again, people may say we're being unfair to the managers of the Ambulance Service, unfair to the B.C. Liberal government. But it's not just us that says it. If we just talk about the Lower Mainland for a moment — and we'll come back to talking about the rural and remote question in a moment — in June 2008 there was a crisis situation in ambulance response in the Lower Mainland.

What happened? There's been case after case, year after year of joint committees where paramedics are not listened to. So a committee of paramedics and managers recommended staffing levels be increased by 96 hours per day in the Lower Mainland — an additional 24-hour ambulance in each of four different areas.

Why did they say that? They didn't say that to meet the standard 90 percent of the time, which is the goal of the government. You know how I know it's the goal of the government? It's in the Health service plan. Ninety percent of the time within nine minutes — that's the goal. Fifty-two percent is where we're at — okay?

Critical collective bargaining question: how we deal with those issues. But in this case, the ambulance paramedics worked with management. They said: "We've got to resolve this problem." So they said: "Ninety-six hours per week, four ambulances to help deal with the most serious problems we have."

Problems can be quite serious. We all know this. There was a terrible accident involving a wedding party, I believe in Abbotsford a number of years ago, and the whole Ambulance Service of the Lower Mainland converged on Abbotsford. It left the rest of the Ambulance Service extraordinarily vulnerable.

In my community of Vancouver-Kingsway there's an ambulance station just near my home, actually, on Crowley Drive. It's on Ormidale in my constituency of Vancouver-Kingsway. The member for Vancouver-Hastings knows well these locations, as someone who grew up on the east side.

In Vancouver-Kingsway, it's on Ormidale right near the B.C. Tel building. You kind of see the B.C. Tel building. So 773 calls a year in New Westminster — right? I used to work in New Westminster. You imagine driving from near the Joyce SkyTrain station down Kingsway and into New Westminster. For me — in fairness, I've been called one of the slowest drivers under 70 in the world — that's a 25-minute drive in good times.

[1710]

These are the coverage areas of ambulance paramedics, who are, in particular…. So 25 minutes, 14 minutes, 17 minutes, 15 minutes — you get the list of the response time of particular incidents because the growth of the Ambulance Service in the Lower Mainland has not come anywhere close to meeting the growth in demand.

What that means on the ground for ambulance paramedics is increased pressure, increased frequency of not getting to critical incidents in time, pressure on getting to incidents. It means increased pressure, and the government knows this.

The figures are not just held by the ambulance and paramedics. The government knows this. This is, in fact, the life that ambulance paramedics are living. These are critical issues involving the Ambulance Service in our urban areas. Response times are very difficult.

You may say: "Well, I shouldn't just focus on NDP ridings." So what do you think the response times are in Mission, for example, which for the moment is a Liberal riding?

Interjection.

A. Dix: Only for the moment. When you consider the response time in Mission, consider the fact that the government is planning, in its wisdom, to close down the emergency room in Mission nine hours a day — an emergency room that takes 19,000 visits a year, that takes 3,500 visits between 11 p.m. at night and 7 a.m. in the morning.

That's what they're going to do. They've decided, in their wisdom, to make the task of ambulance paramedics in Mission more difficult, which is an interesting comment. That hasn't quite happened yet, and the people of Mission are going to fight the government on that. That hasn't quite happened yet.

But average response times in Mission…. I just can't wait to hear the members from Mission speak out in this debate and say: "I think we should be addressing these problems with our ambulance paramedics." So 10 minutes and 49 seconds — that's the average. As the member for Surrey-Whalley knows well, if the average is 10 minutes and 49 seconds, then probably more than half of the calls are even longer than that. It stands to reason.

Port Coquitlam. Our distinguished colleague the House Leader for the NDP, the member for Port Coquitlam, knows this well. Average response time in Port Coquitlam is 11 minutes and 24 seconds. That means, if that's the average, there are lots of response times considerably slower than that in urgent cases.

In Richmond — because Richmond for the moment is represented by very distinguished Liberal MLAs such as you, hon. Speaker….
[ Page 2145 ]

Interjection.

A. Dix: Very distinguished Liberal MLAs. So 11 minutes and 50 seconds — the average response time in Richmond. That means, as my friend from Surrey-Whalley has explained, that more than half the calls have a longer response time than 11 minutes and 50 seconds.

In Langley, which for the moment has a Liberal MLA — for the moment — average response time is 12 minutes and 12 seconds, which means that if that's the average response time, the regular response time is very lengthy.

In other words, for people in that region, that is why these issues of recruitment — these service issues that have been central to what the ambulance paramedics union has been doing for years — are so important. It is all very well to say that we can't afford to deal with these problems now, but explain that to someone waiting for 9 minutes, then for 10 minutes, then for 11 minutes, then for 13 minutes — on average. Imagine what they think, and you'll get some understanding of the situation, I think.

Now, it so happens — I was speaking of Maple Ridge and Mission earlier and the eastern suburbs — that I received a letter from an ambulance paramedic who serves that area and serves the eastern suburbs. Here's what he says about the circumstance, which I think shows why the government ought to have gone down a different path than they went down.

Here's what he says:

"While on strike, we the paramedics of the B.C. Ambulance Service have been subject to an essential service order that supersedes our collective agreement by ordering us to work overtime on our days off and provide ambulance coverage to events such as the Olympic trials, even though the public is not allowed on the site.

[1715]

"While the ambulances are on site covering a couple of hundred athletes for the trials, the people in your own riding" — and this is a letter to the current member for Maple Ridge–Mission — "quite often have only one ambulance sitting at Highway 11 and Clayburn Road to cover the communities of Abbotsford and Mission.

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

"One ambulance for how many people? That doesn't sound very concerned to me. This is only one example. Things like this are happening every hour of every day all over this province."

That's signed by an ambulance paramedic who works out of Maple Ridge.

When we talk about the reality of a patchwork service in rural and remote communities and then talk about the reality of growing wait times in urban British Columbia, we begin to understand why a service and a group of people such as ambulance paramedics, so committed to their service — so committed that they would spend years earning poverty wages to become ambulance paramedics — have been working so hard to resolve these issues and why that group of people deserve so much more from a government than they have received from this government over the last few years.

Now, what do we know about this? That deals a little bit with the urban problem. Just a review for the member for Juan de Fuca. We have wait times in urban areas that are unacceptable. We have the government with a targeted on-time rate of nine minutes 90 percent of the time, meeting it 52 percent of the time, and we have a government wasting time, criticizing ambulance paramedics, not resolving this dispute, bringing in destructive legislation that will damage the relationship and the esprit de corps of the ambulance service.

In urban areas this bill makes no sense, but it makes even less sense in rural areas. As people know — people have mentioned this in the debate — in remote stations…. What communities are we talking about here? The member for Surrey-Whalley was asking me: "When we're talking about remote communities, what communities were we talking about?" We're talking about communities that are part of what the government used to call — what did they call it? — the heartland.

They call them the heartland — communities like Elkford, communities like Field, communities like Fruitvale, communities like Gold River, communities like Greenwood and Hudson Hope and Kaslo, communities like Rossland and Sandspit and Sayward, communities like Sparwood and Stewart and Tahsis and Ucluelet and Wells and Winlaw and Zeballos. I'm talking about those communities and many more like them — 66 communities like them, 66 remote stations in B.C. all with a skeleton staff out of service on a regular basis.

I think someone else may have been in the chair, hon. Speaker. We told you that stations such as Fruitvale, which is one of the examples I just gave, were staffed in March 2009, two months before the provincial election, during these negotiations for this contract, at 45 percent — meaning that it was staffed less than one out of every two days. Imagine if you need an ambulance. Well, you'd better get the right day, hon. Speaker.

This is a fundamental problem — out of service on a regular basis. The ambulance paramedics have been trying since 2004 to convince the government that they are on and are going down the wrong path — no recruitment, no retention and no plan. Paramedics are getting tired of delivering that message, but they made every effort — including after the insults of this negotiation, including after the government withdrew the bonus from the table — to resolve these issues at the bargaining table. With 17 meetings and an agreement….

[1720]

That agreement was torn apart by something that happened in June of this year — a change in government. It seemed to us to be the same government, but there
[ Page 2146 ]
was a change in government. Again, I'll remind members that I don't know what happened in June of 2009. I don't know why the things that were agreed to between the government and the ambulance paramedics were torn up at that time. I don't know why things that would have improved the Ambulance Service were withdrawn from the table. All I can report is that in June of 2009, we had a new Minister of Health. That's all I can report. But that's what happened.

Paramedics are tired of delivering this message. But they continue to do so this, and they went the extra mile in these negotiations. They went the extra mile even after they had been insulted, even after the Premier had flipped a dollar bill at them during the election campaign. Even after that, they went the extra mile.

There is no evidence — none in this bill — of all that work, all those agreements, the four years of effort to improve our ambulance service. It is not here in the bill. I've read the bill once. I've read it twice. I've listened to speeches. I've heard the minister. It's gone.

He has one line in his speech that says: "I care about rural and remote communities." What a farce. We had agreements on the table. They should be in any collective agreement that we have. They should be part of any collective agreement that we have, and they're not.

We are in a government that wants to make the decisions. Those decisions happened in that period of détente, which was so short-lived for ambulance paramedics, where discussions were underway about serious things. After four years of straight-arming, when the negotiations were underway and agreements on not the small issues but the big issues — the integration of paramedics into community care, so important in rural and remote communities, the ones that I mentioned here earlier and the many others….

Agreement was come to, and those agreements were torn up — a scrap of paper for the government. It is not good enough, and it is not without consequences.

You know, you put forward a piece of legislation like this, and I think the government believes that, "Oh, we're going to impose this collective agreement and ram it through the Legislature, and we're going to do it whenever we want. We're going to change the rules of the Legislature maybe. We'll see what happens. We won't allow the debate to continue on. We won't answer questions. We won't respond in the debate. Then we'll pass the bill, and they'll come in and give it royal assent. The collective agreement will be in place, and everyone will forget about what went on."

We know this, because all of us have worked in more normal workplaces than the one we're currently working in. When you treat people with contempt, when you treat people with disrespect, when you treat people as if they didn't exist, when you sign agreements with people and then pull them away, when you offer people bonuses and pull them away and then you say: "Oh, back to work today. Let's all go back to work…."

When you don't make any improvements to a service, when you create a service that for many ambulance paramedics is dangerous because wait-times are too long, when you create a service where there are big holes in the service, when you don't listen to ambulance paramedics when they say we can make specific detailed improvements that would improve Ambulance Service and not cost money….

When you take all that, and they make that case to you, and you say: "We don't care because we're the deciders, and none of that is evident…. But we're going to go back the next day, and you're supposed to go back to work the next day, and all of this action isn't going to have any consequences."

We all know that in the real world of work, that doesn't happen. This is going to cause fundamental damage to the service. You can't act in bad faith every day during a collective bargaining process, treat people with contempt, not tell them the truth about the reasons for the introduction of the legislation, have to correct and amend your reasons the next day and then think that that is a neutral thing….

I think it is not a neutral thing. It is why we believe so profoundly that the government should withdraw this terrible piece of legislation and go back to the bargaining table and come to a collective agreement.

[1725]

It is a matter of dignity in the workplace. Workplaces work well — and this may not be something that any member of the cabinet understands — when people who are more junior in a workplace are listened to by the top guys. If you've been in this cabinet too long, you may have lost sight of that fact. You may have lost sight that that value exists.

The truth is that for ambulance paramedics, it's a real thing. It's a real consequence. When we read the letters — and I read the letter earlier from Ken Byrne — you get a sense of this. You get a sense that this won't be forgotten. We've heard from ambulance paramedics in the last few days who are thinking of leaving the profession over this disrespect. And we need them. We need them and more like them. This is a relatively aging workforce. We can't afford to lose our best ambulance paramedics, not least of which we may need one someday. Beyond that, we can't afford it.

It is nutty public policy to treat this group of workers in this way. It is not neutral. It is not a neutral thing to not bargain in good faith, to not have a process where people can protest, to not have a process where workers can express their grievances, where anything they say matters. These are the thousands of ambulance paramedics who deliver this service on the ground, in real time.

An Hon. Member: Not pretend time.

A. Dix: It's their lives — as the former Minister of Health says, not pretend time. In real time, they're providing the
[ Page 2147 ]
service. When you destroy that relationship, it has real consequences.

I remind the members of this House of what ambulance paramedics go through to become qualified. It is an extraordinary sacrifice. Sometimes I hear this story. I've met ambulance paramedics in every part of this province, and they tell me the story of why and how they became an ambulance paramedic. It is incredibly moving.

Of course, it's incredibly valuable work. But the sacrifices they make to achieve that status, the sacrifices they've gone through — not as exceptions, but as a group — to become full-time ambulance paramedics or to stay as part-time, the training and the work and the bumping and the time and the other jobs they work…. And then to be treated this way — what does it say? What does it say about a government and about a piece of legislation?

Well, it says to me that it's time for a second look. It says to me that the government should return to the bargaining table with the ambulance paramedics of B.C. and come up with an agreement. It says to me that the agreements they signed in the past and the offers that they made in the past should be on the table. It says to me that this group of workers should be treated with the same respect as other public sector workers. If Mr. Doney can get a bonus, these workers should get a bonus. That's what it says to me.

It's important fundamentally, because when you come to a collective agreement…. My colleagues who represent Nanaimo-Cowichan and Duncan and Ladysmith — my two colleagues — who understand and have negotiated collective agreements understand that when you negotiate a collective agreement, you don't get all you want. You don't get all you want. It never happens that you get all you want. If there was a world where that could happen, that might be a good thing, but you don't get all you want. You never get all you want.

What you get when you negotiate a collective agreement and it's offered to the membership and the membership votes on and approves that collective agreement, even if it's with a small majority…. What you get when that happens is the kind of buy-in that makes any workplace successful.

This workplace is a complicated workplace. It's a workplace where things have to happen instantaneously. Call goes in; dispatch goes out; ambulance paramedic goes to scene. Things have to work well. They have to work well.

[1730]

So when you have a collective agreement signed, when you respect people, when compromises are made on both sides, when people come to an agreement, when workers vote on an agreement, when workers approve an agreement, then the next day, the day after that happens, there might be some grumbling — it's happened before — but also in a workplace there is buy-in. There is a sense of esprit de corps. There is a sense that we're all going in the same direction, and when you're talking about something so central to our health care system and the life of the province as the B.C. Ambulance Service, I think that's worth fighting for.

I think that's worth the current Minister of Health and Mr. Doney and whoever else it takes going back to the bargaining table. I think that's worth maybe a couple of 24-hour shifts. I think it's worth building on the work that was done in May and June.

I think that's worth doing to avoid this catastrophic result of sticking people in the eye, poking people in the eye, and doing it with intent of forethought. That's what I think. That's what members on this side of the House think. That's what ambulance paramedics think.

This is the reality. I talked a little about Ken Byrne earlier, who wrote a letter about his wife. He wrote a letter to us. He's from Burnaby. He wrote us a letter, and here's what he said:

"I would like to share a few examples of the kinds of things my wife has to deal with as a matter of routine in her job. Can you imagine what it is like to tell the father of an otherwise healthy man that his son is dead and then have the father fall down in a heap, explaining that he cannot live without his son, in front of his other children?

"What would you do for the frantic parents of an unresponsive baby who, upon arrival, you realize is dead, whose rigor mortis has already started to set in? I can tell you that my wife emptied her kit and gave the baby every possible medication and treatment, then drove to the hospital with lights and sirens to at least provide comfort to the parents that everything in her power was done. She then had to end her shift early because the baby's name sounded very close to our own son's name.

"I challenge the government to legislate that back to work."

This is what people do every day. This is what people do every day in the Ambulance Service. This requires an incredible sense of effort. When we started this debate….

The Leader of the Opposition said it well. For anyone who has met an ambulance paramedic, you know that there's an uncommon sense of esprit de corps. There is a sense that's a little different.

It's actually a little different than some of the traditional labour-management relationships I've seen. There's a sense in which they're part of something bigger. You get that same kind of sense when you talk to police officers. You get the same kind of sense when you talk to firefighters.

It's a sense in that community of people that they're working for something bigger, and that makes them bigger and proud — a belief that sacrifices need to be made. That's what we need in our Ambulance Service.

What we have is a government that ultimately believes in the lowest common denominator, believes ultimately that none of that matters. Like volunteer people on a crisis line, they're just extra bureaucracy. They don't cost anything, but they inhibit our great ideas about how to make things better. People who have probably never
[ Page 2148 ]
been near a crisis line in their lives or near an ambulance station….

The reality is that they don't know better, and their treatment of ambulance paramedics in this case is reprehensible. It's absolutely reprehensible.

Now here is another example. This is an example of another class and a number of ambulance paramedics. There are full-time, there are part-time, and there are ambulance paramedics who work in rural stations, in remote stations. All of them are in different ways facing very difficult challenges today.

Here's a note I got from a paramedic named Glenda.

"Here is my reality. I might have four days off in a month spread out over the month. I work 70 to 90 hours a week, and I still can't make enough money to pay basic bills such as rent, groceries, hydro and phone. I don't own my own house. I have hand-me-down furniture, no big-screen this or fancy that."

By the way, government, which legislated in this House a pay increase for the Premier of 54 percent, has been lecturing this paramedic and other people about being greedy with the public purse. That's what they've been doing.

[1735]

"Even if I had money for a down payment, I can't get a mortgage from a bank as I have no guarantee of income. I was in Costco the other day and wanted to buy $129 pair of snowshoes, and I had to put them back because that is an extra expenditure that I just can't afford. I will be driving on bald tires this winter, putting my life and others at risk because a bill for $1,000 for new snow-rated all-seasons is unattainable for me.

"I can't go to the dentist — haven't been in over five years — or to an optometrist — haven't been in two years because I can't afford the exam or new contacts or glasses. If I am sick, I have no benefits, no sick days, which forces me to work sick, putting both my health and the health of immune-compromised patients I come into contact with at risk.

"I have been in the service for 4.5 years. I have another 2.5 years before I am entitled to part-time benefits. If I take a week off, not only do I lose that week's worth of work but my percentage of shifts for the remaining three weeks will be decreased by 25 percent as well.

"Our shifts are assigned by the amount of availability you put in, which means to get enough shifts to survive, 27 a month, I have to offer every day and every night — 24-7, 365 days a year — to my employer. That makes it impossible to have a relationship with anyone or be there for your friends and family.

"Your 3 percent raise will only be applied to the hours that I am paid my full wage. That will make about a $400-a-year difference to me."

These are difficult times. I think what is required in difficult times, especially, is a sense of respect. Surely Glenda and other ambulance paramedics should get the bonus that every public sector worker, manager, executive in the public system in British Columbia got. Surely they should.

They signed a collective agreement. They extended a collective agreement in 2004 that continued to March 31, 2009. The government didn't bargain in good faith. They put an artificial deadline of March 31, 2009, to get the bonus, and now they pulled it away on the bargaining table.

If they'd imposed an agreement back then, they would have at least got the bonus, and that action would be as legitimate back then as it would be now — in fact, not very legitimate.

These are the people this government is chiselling with this piece of legislation. This is chiselling. It is so disrespectful.

The last ambulance paramedic offer, by the way, to the government was 3 percent and the bonus. That was the last offer.

When you look at that behaviour, that conduct, and when you put it in the context of the sacrifices of ambulance paramedics to become paramedics, the sacrifices paramedics have made, which we know they've made — sometimes sacrifices that go as far as people losing their life in the cause of saving others — this is not worthy of our province. This is not worthy of our government.

This government — what are they doing next week? I have a suggestion for them. Pull this bill, and sit down with ambulance paramedics. Wouldn't that be a good idea?

You know, if they did that — if they did what they ought to do, what the process suggests that they do — what might happen? What might happen is ambulance paramedics and the government could come to an agreement to move the service forward and improve it.

There are some people in British Columbia who think that the government might have, in this regard, a hidden agenda to break up the Ambulance Service and distribute it amongst the health authorities — to break up that esprit de corps because they don't like the fact that ambulance paramedics have ownership of their work.

Most employers, I think, who are using good common sense would love to have workers who are totally committed to their workplace and go above and beyond the call of duty in their workplace. But apparently, that is not a positive for this government, because they have a sense of ownership.

Apparently, there's only one group of people that can have a sense of ownership over this service, and that's the people over there. It's their ownership they're concerned with. This is a group of working people who have a sense of ownership.

[1740]

The question is: why would the government engage in these tactics? I don't usually like to speculate as to the government's motives, because I think, to some degree anyway, that it's irrelevant.

After all, their behaviour is damaging to the Ambulance Service. It's leaving rural areas exposed. It's leaving response times too long in urban areas. It will damage the people working for the Ambulance Service. It will lead veteran ambulance paramedics to quit. It will make it difficult to retain and recruit ambulance paramedics.

So what does it matter why they're doing it, why they're being destructive? In a way, this is not the most important question. The most important question is what they're doing. The most important question is that
[ Page 2149 ]
they're in fact damaging an ambulance service that parties of all political stripes, working with the ambulance paramedics and with management, have spent these last 35 years building, until about four or five years ago, when the relationship changed.

What could they possibly have in mind? Do they want to wrest control of this process and tear up a jointly organized agreement so that they can impose their own vision of the world? Is that the purpose of this process? Is the purpose of the process moving from a jointly agreed-to industrial commissioner to a singularly agreed-to industrial commissioner? Is that part of the process?

I don't know. All I know is that we've seen, without consultation, the contracting-out of Ambulance Service work over the last few years. We've seen that in all the health authorities. We've seen the imposition on the health authorities, the off-loading onto the health authorities, of costs by the Ambulance Service, which has forced that contracting-out. We've seen threats to the integrity of the Ambulance Service.

Just so we're clear, on this side of the House we think that the B.C. Ambulance Service is a great success, and we think it should be kept whole. That's the difference between this side of the House and that side of the House. We think that they should negotiate a collective agreement that respects ambulance paramedics, and they respond with this nonsense legislation. That's the difference between this side of the House and that side of the House.

You know, over this period of negotiations I have heard members on the government side and management of the B.C. Ambulance Service complain about Mr. Strohmaier, the president of the local, complain about the union. "We don't like who they've elected," they say. Well, as I like to say, from my point of view, I don't particularly like that Phil Hochstein is the executive director and runs the ICBA, but it's not my business. I'll meet with Mr. Hochstein any day. It's not my business who runs the ICBA. It's the ICBA's business. And it's not their business who is elected president of the Ambulance Paramedics of British Columbia.

But I'd say this. The ambulance paramedics are so committed to this service, and they have proven this again and again — at the table in December; back at the table after being insulted in January; back at the table at the behest of the then Minister of Health in May and June, putting this offer, the offer that is actually more than exists in the legislation.

Get this. They make an offer. The ambulance paramedics vote on the offer, and they introduce legislation that's less than the offer. That's what they did. Let's be clear.

Even after all that, the ambulance paramedics have put forward significant and good ideas to improve the service, none of which are reflected in this legislation, and I think that is scandalous.

One of the suggestions that's been made — and it's reflected a little bit in the way this strike has gone…. What's happened? The government has decided, because they're the deciders. They decided what their position is — right? "It's going to be this way, and you know, we don't really care too much what you think. We're the deciders. It's going to be this. You've got to do it by this date, or you're going to lose part of this." This is the perspective that they've brought forward.

We have a dispute that's carried on for months, where ambulance paramedics will tell you that the service levels are higher than they will be once the dispute is over if this government makes the mistake of imposing this draconian bill. That's the circumstance.

[1745]

I think it's fair to say that that's not very good process. The ambulance paramedics have not been able to exert very much pressure on the government by the withdrawal of their work. In fact, I think all of us — the people of British Columbia, all the members of this Legislature — should thank ambulance paramedics that while they are on strike, they have not stopped saving lives, have not stopped helping people. They have worked with great dedication to their task, and all of us know people in our community who have benefited from that.

Even as they're being disrespected, even as the government won't negotiate with them in good faith, even as they're having the threat of legislation, even as their views are being treated with contempt, even as things have been withdrawn from the bargaining table, ambulance paramedics have been working every day at their jobs, saving lives in British Columbia, and they deserve the applause of everybody in British Columbia.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

They have made suggestions, because surely we can do better than this process. Surely we can do better than this process. What do we do? It's apparent that if you have an essential services order that takes away the meaning of any strike….

I have a sense of anticipation. I don't know what it is. They had said that there are other ways to resolve disputes like this in a fundamental sense.

How do we do this in the case, for example, of the Fire and Police Services Collective Bargaining Act? How do we do it in that case? Clearly, it's the case that while the right to strike exists to the extent that people can put the word "strike" on an ambulance, it hasn't really existed very much, in fact. It continues to not exist very much — in fact, so much so that there's an argument that there will be less service once the strike is over than there has been during the strike. There's an argument about that.

Maybe a better process is in order. You'll recall, hon. Speaker, because we were having some of these debates
[ Page 2150 ]
before and were having these debates during the election campaign, when we were all meeting voters, and ambulance paramedics were meeting some of us. They met the Premier, I think. It wasn't a formal meeting. It wasn't a formal meeting. They went and talked to him about $2 an hour, and the Premier flipped them a loonie, and all that happened.

They met with some of us at that time, met with the Leader of the Opposition. She said that given the circumstances of the dispute, given the centrality of ambulance paramedics to our health care system…. Given all of that, we need to go down a different road. We need an arbitrator. The government reacts to that as if this is an idea that has come down from Neptune, or maybe a moon of Neptune.

What are the circumstances of the Fire and Police Services Collective Bargaining Act? It's a very different act in spirit than this act. It's a very different act than this act. In this act you have a government actually poking a group of workers in the eye. That's what the government's doing in this act. Under the Fire and Police Services Collective Bargaining Act, which I think the ambulance paramedics would probably be fine in dealing with, what does it say? It says:

"The minister may direct that the dispute be resolved by arbitration, if (a) a mediation officer has been appointed under section 74 of the Code and has conferred with the parties, and (b) the associate chair of the mediation division of the board has made a report to the minister (i) setting out the matters on which parties have and have not agreed, (ii) stating whether in the opinion of the associate chair the party seeking arbitration has made every reasonable effort to reach a collective agreement" — it would be a little dodgy with this government — "and (iii) stating whether in the opinion of the associate chair the dispute or some elements of the dispute should be resolved by applying the dispute resolution method known as final offer selection."

Now that is the way it works for fire and police.

We have a process here where the government in fact doesn't listen for four years. For four years they didn't listen to ambulance paramedics. They didn't listen to them about the disastrous situation in rural and remote communities. They didn't listen to them. They didn't listen to the former member for Cariboo South, who raised that matter repeatedly in this Legislature. They didn't listen.

They didn't listen about the challenges of recruitment and retention for part-time paramedics. They didn't listen about remote communities. They didn't listen about rural communities. They didn't listen when issues were raised. They didn't even implement their own management strategy to deal with wait times in urban British Columbia. They didn't listen.

[1750]

Then the negotiations started, and they didn't listen to ambulance paramedics. They treated them with contempt. They printed out little press releases and leaks about what they said at the bargaining table. They didn't listen.

Then in June they came to an agreement on key issues, and they tore it up, because something disastrous happened in June. Something terrible happened in June. We got a new Minister of Health. That is what has occurred, and there is a different path, because the impact of all this disrespect, the impact of all this negligence, the impact of all this contempt, the impact on real lives of real people making real sacrifices to help fellow citizens is too profound.

Surely members elected to represent the people of British Columbia can't settle for this nonsense. They can't settle for this nonsense. Surely the elected members of British Columbia should say to the management of the B.C. Ambulance Service and the Minister of Health: "Go back to work and sign a collective agreement for these workers." Surely things they offered on the table before should be put back on the table because they'll improve the Ambulance Service and save lives in rural and remote communities.

That is what we should expect in British Columbia from a government, not this lazy, contemptuous piece of legislation, not this piece of legislation that takes the easy political way out for that and leaves damage to the Ambulance Service, a piece of legislation from which many ambulance paramedics will not recover.

People will leave the profession. People will be in more jeopardy in British Columbia. The esprit de corps of the service will be damaged. All that we built together…. Social Credit, Liberal, Conservative, people from all regions of this province have built together an ambulance service for 35 years. It will be put at risk. It is not acceptable. The people on that side of the House should listen to ambulance paramedics.

It is not the way to go. We've had this week all of the explanations that have been given, all of the disrespect of this bill. We received last night…. I received it, and the member for Fort Langley–Aldergrove. This person, who I believe is a constituent of the member for Fort Langley–Aldergrove, said the following. I'll read this to you, because this isn't just about ambulance paramedics or about us or about the ego of government members or about the service itself. It's about families and the people served in our communities.

Here's what this e-mail says:

"My name is Hannah, and I'm five years old. My mommy is typing this, as I can't. My daddy is a paramedic, and he tells me and my brother that he has been doing this job for 19 years. My daddy comes home late from work. Daddy will call mommy just before dinner and tell her that he got a late call. Daddy misses lots of dinners. Daddy even missed my birthday once.

"My daddy likes being a paramedic but has to work lots of days. He says he has to so he can pay for swimming lessons for me and my brother. Why is the government being not nice to my daddy and his friends? All daddy wants to do is help people and pay for my swimming.

"Please help my daddy work in a safe place so he can help other little kids, especially the ones that like swimming. I wanted to talk to you on the phone, but mommy said you'd be too busy."

[1755]

Now, at its core, that's what this is about. This is about people going to work, taking pride in their work,
[ Page 2151 ]
supporting their families, respecting the rules of their work. Sometimes the call comes in late, and you have to make real sacrifices. People in the community are depending on you. That is what the work of ambulance paramedics is about. They deserve better than this. They deserve better than a Legislature ignoring their views.

All of the moms and dads who work for the Ambulance Service deserve better than this. The Ambulance Service is a great pride in British Columbia. It helped bring our province together. It was a great initiative of an NDP government, which was enhanced by governments of other political stripes.

It is enhanced by a community of ambulance paramedics who got trained and delivered a high quality of health care in our communities, who believe in our communities. That's what it is. That's what it's about. That will be fundamentally and irreparably damaged if we continue down this path.

I ask the government to read what they're hearing from ambulance paramedics, to read the impact that will come on all of the Ambulance Service and on all ambulance paramedics if they continue down this reckless path. I ask them to do the right thing and withdraw this legislation. I ask them to do the right thing and return to the bargaining table.

I ask the Minister of Health, the Minister of Labour, the Premier, the Attorney General — whoever will listen — to do that. I ask the back bench of the Liberal caucus, who represent communities all across B.C., to defy their cabinet and speak out for ambulance paramedics.

Surely these voices of ambulance paramedics…. If not their voices, then their work, their commitment, their faith that if you do your job well, if you work hard, if you support your family, if you get trained in the best possible way, if you're committed to your community, if you make sacrifices, then you will be treated by your government with respect….

That's what this is about, and I think everyone in British Columbia — people in communities across British Columbia who support their ambulance paramedics, just like they support other emergency service workers, just like they support firefighters and police…. People across British Columbia are with ambulance paramedics. They understand the value of this work.

I think the government should reflect. They should take a moment. They should withdraw this legislation before this irreparable damage is done. It's a key moment, and people have a choice before them. Members of this Legislature have a choice before them. They can go down one road, which is damaging to a fundamental service in British Columbia, or they can go down another road, where that service is irreparably damaged.

Hon. Speaker, I reserve my right to continue on and move adjournment of the debate.

A. Dix moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that the House at its rising stand adjourned until 9 a.m. on Friday, November 6, and sit until 1:30 p.m. on that date in order to accommodate the royal visit to these precincts tomorrow.

On the motion to adjourn.

Hon. M. de Jong: I have some remarks. I'll try to keep them brief. The motion I've just presented to the House is obviously a departure from the norm and a departure from the standing orders, which would, under the standing orders and the sessional order we have before us, see this House adjourn for ten or 11 days, next week being a previously scheduled break week.

[1800]

I think it is appropriate to take a moment and offer to the House the government's rationale for why this motion is appropriate and worthy of consideration and, ultimately, support. We in British Columbia today are confronted by a critical and serious situation. The Ambulance Service is critical to providing emergency health services, and now, more than ever, it needs to be operating at full capacity. Not only do they transport patients to emergency departments — those that incur acute difficulties related to H1N1 — but they are responsible for the transportation of patients between local facilities and regional health facilities. In those circumstances, of course, every second counts.

I am aware, and I think the House may be aware as well, that the incidence of cases, those afflicted with H1N1, is on the rise, and almost half of those cases have taken place over the course of the last week or so, the last few weeks. So there is an increasing seriousness, and we read about that and see that in the papers and the media.

It coincides with what the provincial medical health officials are saying. They are, we're advised, severe cases. In the Lower Mainland, as just one example, the number of ambulances out of service due to staffing shortages before the strike was an average of just 12 per month. That has gone up considerably and has jumped to about 150 presently. Those two facts are difficult to reconcile.

Managers have been backfilling, but there is severe stress. This Legislature is charged with the responsibility of addressing the situation and safeguarding the health and welfare of British Columbians. It would, in the government's view, be irresponsible and unwise to wait ten or 11 days, to when this House is next scheduled to sit, to complete that work.
[ Page 2152 ]

The decision to alter the sitting schedule is never taken lightly, and I do want to assure members of that. The decision to alter the sitting schedule is never taken lightly. In truth, I can also advise members of the House that had the Legislature been scheduled to resume our deliberations this coming Monday, we might not be having the discussion that we are going to, I'm sure, have tonight, but that is not the case.

The House is not scheduled to resume sitting for I think another ten or 11 days. Leaving the situation we are confronted by unresolved until beyond the middle of November would, in our view, expose too many British Columbians to an unwarranted risk, and that is not something the government is prepared to do.

As I wrap up my remarks, I just want to highlight for members what this motion is not. It is not closure. I haven't agreed with much of what I've heard lately in the House, but it is the right of the members to make their contributions to the debates that occur here, and the public will make their decisions about the value of those contributions. It is also, and I want to emphasize this, not a unilateral edict requiring this House to sit into the wee hours of the evening or around the clock. Others may decide to do that. It is, in fact, the opposite of that.

It is a motion that would have the House reconvene tomorrow, Friday, to continue the debate and the work that we are undertaking in this chamber. It would be a special sitting — that is clear — but a special sitting to address extraordinary public health circumstances and, at the same time, be mindful of a special visit that is occurring in the precincts tomorrow.

[1805]

I hope that members will take the factors I have alluded to into account when considering the motion before us.

M. Farnworth: I rise to speak to the adjournment motion, which is not our usual adjournment motion in that it is a debatable motion, because what it seeks to do is to allow us to sit tomorrow — when normally we would be returning to our constituencies, where we would be able to meet our constituents, hear the issues of the day, hear what they have to say on the legislation that's been before us over the last number of weeks and the legislation that currently is before us.

This is an unusual motion — not a common, everyday motion or a common, everyday occurrence. It is occurring because the government has made a decision that they want a piece of legislation passed. They want a piece of legislation passed that orders paramedics back to work. It orders them back to work at a time when they're not even able to vote on a contract. That is a draconian move, we believe, on the part of the government. They tabled the legislation, knowing full well that we have a calendar, and we have a calendar in place that runs to the 26th of November.

I say that because one of the hallmarks of this chamber is supposed to be that we function on that parliamentary calendar, that legislative calendar. It was this government that implemented that. It was this government that implemented the calendar with the schedule that we're on, and they know what weeks we're off, what weeks we are on, and when the session will end — on the 26th of November. They also choose the dates on when to table legislation, when to table bills, when to table motions, when to table resolutions. That's all in their control, in their power.

They control, in many ways, the timing of passage of a piece of legislation. They decide when to call it for debate. They have those powers and those tools available to them. Our job as opposition is to scrutinize, to hold to account, to question and to ask questions, and to see is that, you know, justification of the legislation. But the bottom line is that government has the overwhelming bulk of the power in this chamber, and they have the ability to set the schedule.

So we're dealing with a piece of legislation that has a profound impact on a group of working people in British Columbia. It's introduced on Monday, and it's being debated on Tuesday. Then on Wednesday the government decides: "Well, we're going to be sitting here until it's passed." In other words, we're going to sit Friday and, if necessary, Saturday or Sunday or Monday. Or if the government chooses, they could move a motion that we'd sit all around the clock, as we have debated pieces of legislation like that before.

At the same time, we are on a calendar. We are off next week, but then we are back the subsequent week with two weeks of debate. The government has introduced — what? — 18, 19 bills in this session.

Hon. M. de Jong: Twenty bills.

M. Farnworth: Twenty bills. As I said — see? — the government decides which bills are being introduced. But the point is: with 20 bills, we have two weeks to go, and we have got through most of those bills. Most of those bills have been dealt with in an orderly fashion, where the government has had the opportunity, not often taken, to stand up and justify those pieces of legislation.

[1810]

The opposition has had the opportunity, which we have taken at every chance, to hold this government's feet to account for the legislation before them and to do it in a timely, responsible fashion that ensures that the business of government, which is their right, gets done but that the role of the opposition to question is also done.

We've dealt with legislation this session that has covered a range of issues. We're looking at a new Lobbyists Registration Act. We've done a bill around, you know…
[ Page 2153 ]

An Hon. Member: Body armour.

M. Farnworth: …body armour. We've done a bill around the use of wood. We felt it should have been B.C. wood. The government disagreed. But that's their right. That is their right to do that. We've had votes on bills. Sometimes we've actually even agreed that it was a good thing — for example, the body armour bill. Both sides agreed.

Then there are bills where there are fundamental differences in approach and fundamental differences in how the legislation should proceed. The bill that we have been debating this afternoon has been one of those bills. The government says that they need it, and they want it passed right away, because they're concerned about the H1N1 issue.

Well, it's somewhat ironic that that is used as a reason that we need to sit tomorrow, because at the same time that they've been saying that, they haven't exactly been out immunizing the very people they sought to send back to work to deal with the H1N1. So to suddenly say, "Well, we need this, and we have to sit tomorrow because of that" — I think the government's actions on that issue to this date ring hollow.

Really, by sitting tomorrow to hasten, when really what needs to happen is for the government to recognize that…. You know what? We come back in just over a week, on a Monday, and there are two weeks until the 26th. We have six bills to deal with. We had four bills up till this time last week. Two of those have completed second reading. Two of those haven't. They have committee stage to go through. But there was nothing unduly problematic in those bills. They would be disposed of in a timely and orderly fashion.

The government has made it clear that this is an important bill as far as they're concerned, and it's the bill that they choose to call, as is their right. We are debating that bill, and we will continue to debate that bill. We will debate that bill, and we will debate that bill until every member in this House has had an opportunity — certainly every member of the opposition has had their opportunity — to say how they feel about the legislation.

Hon. Speaker, there's no reason why that cannot take place in the existing calendar. That existing calendar that the government has put in place has worked this session. When the government follows that calendar, this House works very well. The only time that it doesn't work the way it's supposed to is when the government starts messing about with a calendar to pursue its own agenda, and we see it year after year. Are we going to have a fall sitting? Are we not going to have a fall sitting?

It comes back to…. If you've got a calendar in place that allows full time for fulsome debate by both sides of the House…. I know on many bills the reluctance — I don't know if it's reluctance; I don't want to say "muzzling," but maybe it is — of government members to stand up….

[1815]

The opposition, both the official opposition and the independent member are quite…. We will take advantage, as is our responsibility, to hold this government to account, to make sure that all those questions that should be asked need to be asked.

The government is asking that we sit tomorrow. The only part of this, I think, that I approve of is the fact that 9:00 to 1:30, as the motion states, is because there is the royal visit tomorrow. But that's our Friday, and we will take full advantage, if this motion were to pass. I don't know if it will, because I imagine that it could be close. It could be close, you know, especially if some members suddenly realize at two o'clock in the morning or three o'clock in the morning, if that's how long we go…. They decide that, you know: "I'm maybe not so sure that this is such a good idea. Maybe I might want to sort of…." They may fall asleep and miss a bell or something.

They may think, "You know, maybe it really is a wise thing that the opposition is saying" — that really, what the government should do is to say: "You know what? Let's take this extra week, this week that's off, and negotiate with paramedics." That would be a positive idea that works within the framework of the existing calendar that we have before us. It…with us.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: I hear comments from the member for Port Moody–Coquitlam, and that does not surprise me. That does not surprise me. He was Minister of Labour at a time when this dispute was underway.

I know that we are debating the adjournment motion, and I am keeping my remarks within that context.

But I think it's important that we recognize that the calendar that we have before us today provides a unique opportunity on the week that we are off for the government and its members to go back to the bargaining table, to go back and hear what paramedics have to say, to realize that there is another way of dealing with this issue other than trying to drive through a piece of legislation by changing the calendar, by changing the hours that we are sitting because it suits their individual needs as opposed to the needs of the public, as opposed to the needs of workers, as opposed to the needs of fairness and, I would say, the respect that this chamber and their own calendar deserve.

Since this bill was tabled, we have not had a rational explanation. My colleague the Government House Leader has given an indication of the government's view as to why. One of those is H1N1. The other is concern about coverage.

I think one of the biggest ways to ensure stability and to show that you're really concerned about the issue is
[ Page 2154 ]
by sitting down and talking with the representatives of the workers affected by this draconian piece of legislation, which the government now wants us to change the calendar for instead of taking advantage of, as I've said — and I think it's worth emphasizing — a unique opportunity of a week away from this place to step back and to say: "You know what? We don't need to take this step. We don't need to ram this through."

[1820]

If a government extends an olive branch, it's amazing the reception with which that olive branch will often be received. It takes a big step to admit that perhaps you've acted in haste.

I'm always an optimist. I always look for the good in human nature, and that's why I'm convinced….

I see the member for Port Moody–Coquitlam, the former Labour Minister, is chuckling. Maybe he's smiling because he realizes the mistake that this government is making, that at two or three o'clock in the morning when we're debating, there is an opportunity to say: "You know what? We are making a mistake here. We should step back and recognize that there's an opportunity at this particular point."

Along all these decisions, at every step of the way, you can look back, and you can always see a point in every discussion, in every disagreement, in every negotiation, in whatever form of transaction — business transaction. There are certain points where you can make changes, points that create opportunities, opportunities in a positive sense or opportunities in a negative sense. You can take advantage of those opportunities, or they can become missed opportunities that just tend to entrench and to ensure that the wrong approach is taking place.

In speaking to the adjournment motion, as to whether or not we should come back tomorrow, I think that this is one of those points. That calendar that we have put in place which says that we don't normally sit in this House on a Friday, that we don't normally sit on a Saturday or a Sunday, some think, is that opportunity. We don't have to proceed with that.

We can say: "You know what? Maybe we can step back a second. Maybe we can take advantage of an opportunity here, extend an olive branch. Maybe we can ensure that we've looked at every option, that we can resolve an issue without the House having to be recalled back on a Friday at nine o'clock and sit to 1:30."

You know, that means four and a half hours of debate. Where we are in the speaking order, where the member from Vancouver-Kingsway, after what I might say is probably one of the most eloquent, well-reasoned and well-thought-out speeches that has occurred in this chamber in many, many years….

We will pick up on second reading. We would continue that second reading debate through the time available to us tomorrow, which means that the House would start at nine, and it would adjourn at 1:30. That's not a standard. One of the things that does take place, if you were to look at amending the calendar to sit on a Friday, is that you could come in at ten, and you would sit till 12, and then you would sit again till six or 6:30 or seven — however the Government House Leader or the government chooses to make the motion.

But as we all know, there is the royal visit of Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall tomorrow, and that takes place at around, I think, four o'clock. But there are some issues that need to be addressed about the ability of Hansard to operate and also protocol issues, which are probably best resolved by the House having adjourned at 1:30.

So I understand and appreciate the time of the motion — from nine to 1:30. I do appreciate and understand that. But it does come back to the fundamental question, which is amending the calendar and moving an adjournment motion that would have us sit on a Friday, which is something that we don't normally do.

[1825]

I think the government, in order to do that, needs to present a much stronger and effective case than it has already done or than it has done this evening.

I think the arguments, as I said earlier, around H1N1…. It's a very important issue. But at the same time, if your intent is to deal with legislation tomorrow that sends people back to work because of the H1N1 issue and dealing with the H1N1 issue, and we've had significant issues around the fact of those very individuals not being vaccinated, that raises some really interesting issues in itself.

B. Ralston: Very contradictory.

M. Farnworth: Very contradictory, as my colleague from Surrey-Whalley rightly and learnedly points out. I think those are the types of things that are worthy of further discussion.

I think that discussion best take place in a context of us going back to our constituencies, being able to talk to our constituents as the regular calendar would have us do, as opposed to tomorrow, and then coming back, I think, refreshed, invigorated after that week in our ridings, after hearing directly from constituents.

An opportunity for governments, executive, to realize that this is one of those points that they should take advantage of — and for backbenchers, government backbenchers who, I think, as much as anybody else in this House, want to see a fair and reasonable approach taken, and I think who, if you ask most of them, would recognize that there's nothing wrong with taking a second look at things.

There's nothing wrong in taking the time that's available to us in the calendar, the time that has been scheduled since we came to this place in August. It's not like this hasn't been known. It's not like events haven't
[ Page 2155 ]
been underway for quite some time that we could have dealt with and could still deal with legislative issues in a fashion that respects both the needs of governments and opposition but, more importantly, the public and the people that that legislation that we pass in this House impacts. I think that's a very important concept.

I can tell by the clock that my time on this motion is coming to a close. There will be other members who will speak on this particular motion.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: My colleague says six more minutes of pointed argument. Who am I to deny the member for Juan de Fuca more logic and reason that may yet sway the members of the other side — if not members of cabinet, then at least members of the back bench, for whom I am sure the idea of having to stand up and justify the government's decision at three or four or five o'clock in the morning is not something that they look forward to?

I will do my best in the time remaining to me to try and convince them of the error of my ways, as my colleague from Juan de Fuca says.

Some Hon. Members: Their ways.

M. Farnworth: Their ways.

Interjections.

[1830]

M. Farnworth: We have agreement already. If we can agree on that, then surely we can agree on the fact that a rational, reasoned second look to step back and to recognize that the week that is available to us to go back and talk in our constituencies is a right and proper thing to do — as opposed to saying arbitrarily that it is the government's intention to have us sit on a day that we do not normally sit, to continue to try and impose a piece of legislation at a time when a group of workers can't even vote on it. There is something fundamentally wrong with that.

What's required is for this House to recognize that and for this government and for some of those backbenchers to stand up and recognize that when they were elected, there was a calendar in place. There was a set of standing orders in place that allowed for the proper and orderly passage, discussion and debate of legislation. By doing what the government is doing, we are moving away from that. We are moving to the approach of arbitrariness and to….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: My colleague from Surrey-Whalley says "capricious." Those are words that….

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: Actually, hon. Member, you're wrong. It shows that you can't spell the word.

Like the member's spelling of the word "capricious" is wrong, so is this government's approach to this bill wrong, and so is this government's approach to changing the sitting hours wrong. We will be voting against that — whether it is at one in the morning, whether it is at ten, whether it is at five, whenever that occurs.

We will vote against what we believe to be the wrong approach at a time when we have ample opportunity to debate. We have ample opportunity, under the existing standing orders, under the hours of debate that are available to us, to be able to go through a second reading debate and all its stages, to go through a committee stage and to pass a piece of legislation or defeat a piece of legislation according to the calendar and the standing orders that were in place at the beginning of this session.

I know that I have some other colleagues who have words that they would like to say, that they would like to convey to the opposition to convince them, because somehow, looking across the way, I may have convinced some. I can see some. They are smiling, and they recognize the error of the government's position. I can see it. I feel it, and I sense it.

There are others who may feel the same way, but they may yet falter if there are not words of encouragement. I can think of some of my colleagues who can provide those words of encouragement so that they will steel themselves against government members who may try and convince them otherwise. But there is no need to sit tomorrow. There is no need to bring this motion and pass this motion, because we will be able to deal with this legislation in the allotted time that is available to us.

[1835]

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I gave the Opposition House Leader a lot of latitude. This is very specific to the adjournment motion.

L. Krog: Hon. Speaker, very conscious as I am of your comments, I wish to compliment the member who preceded me in this debate.

When I was first elected to this chamber in 1991, I must say that I learned very quickly that the old phrase, "The government opened, but the opposition closed," was how this place ran. Sometimes it ran and it ran and it ran and it ran, to the point where many of us who had young children didn't get a summer holiday or you had to beg special leave from the Whip. The point was that it wasn't a very civilized way to operate this place.

Hon. Speaker, you've sat here a long time, as many of the members have, and there are other members no longer in this chamber who remember what a very uncivilized place the British Columbia Legislature can be on occasion.
[ Page 2156 ]

So the rules got changed. A fixed calendar was put in place, a fixed schedule. People could plan their lives. Constituency events could be dealt with. Members could actually function, I suspect, much more effectively under that fixed sitting system than under the old system. What it meant was that it encouraged a discipline in government and a discipline in members in terms of the presentation of legislation.

What we're talking about tonight is a government that says to the members of this House that we have to sit beyond the normal sitting schedule because there is something so important that that sitting schedule has to be tossed aside. I was here when this bill was introduced, and I heard the Minister of Health when he spoke to second reading.

I'm a lawyer by profession. I am used to listening to people argue. I've heard lots of arguments in various courtrooms in my time, as has the member for Surrey-Whalley. Sometimes they're cogent. Sometimes they're not. Sometimes they're relevant. Sometimes they're not. But generally speaking, even the worst argument presented has some basis in fact, has some basis in a reality, has some basis upon which you can say to the presiding judge: "I've got a point, My Lord" — or "Your Honour," depending on your level of court — "and you should hear it and listen to me."

Mr. Speaker: Member, it's got to be relevant to the adjournment motion, please.

L. Krog: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

The purpose that I have heard from the Government House Leader is that we have to meet tomorrow. We have to abandon the fixed sitting schedule because there is some crisis, if you will.

The Minister of Health, in second reading debate on this bill, I think spoke for no more than five minutes. The Government House Leader tonight, the Attorney General, spoke for about five minutes. This strike, which is the focus of this legislation, commenced on April 1, April Fool's Day. It is now over seven months old, and I have not heard one word from the Minister of Health or the Attorney General….

Mr. Speaker: Member, I want to remind you that we're talking about adjournment of debate. We're not rehashing second reading — okay?

L. Krog: The point of adjourning the debate is that the debate is to be adjourned because we have to abandon the fixed sitting schedule. The point of that is because there is some crisis that requires this House to meet beyond the time that is in the fixed sitting schedule.

Hon. Speaker, I think it is reasonable to ask of the government: what is the evidence of that? Why should we depart from that fixed sitting schedule? Why is it that we should be compelled back into this chamber tomorrow as opposed to following that fixed sitting schedule? That is the basis of the government's argument. That is the basis of their point.

To my recollection, only two ministers have spoken to this, and I'm not sure that anyone else actually has. I would have expected that if we are to depart from that schedule, we should have before us numerous arguments satisfying this chamber as to why that should occur. So far we haven't heard that.

[1840]

Simply because the government has the power by way of majority to impose a bill on this Legislature because of its majority does not mean that what it is doing is right. We're seven months into this. There's no crisis. There is nothing dramatic about tomorrow that requires us to attend. I heard nothing from the Attorney General, speaking as the Government House Leader tonight, that says to me that when this bill was introduced earlier this week — we are now at the end of the week — it required us to sit.

If it was such a compelling crisis that required this House to reconvene tomorrow, I would have expected this bill to have been introduced in August, when we first commenced sitting, or in September or in October. Instead, it was introduced in November, when the fixed sitting schedule comes as no surprise to any member of this chamber.

Everyone knows what the fixed sitting schedule is. We know that we continue in this House until November 26. There are two more weeks of sitting after today, unless the government motion to adjourn until tomorrow in fact passes.

Where is the reasoning for this? Where is the reasoning? What is it about this piece of legislation that makes it so important that we return here tomorrow? The many events, the appointments that all members of this chamber no doubt made and have made, in some cases, for several weeks prior to the coming of this weekend, and next week, potentially…. What is it that's so important that we have to abandon all of that?

To reorganize the schedules and the schedule of the meeting place of this very chamber in order to accommodate a government that, with the greatest respect, if it had this compelling argument about need…. If it had this compelling argument about the requirement that we sit until this bill is passed, where is it?

Not one word. I have not heard one word from the government side that convinces me or indeed, I suspect, actually even convinces any of the members of the government back bench.

In order to depart from the schedule, there has to be something. So what is it? I have followed the Opposition House Leader in speaking to this tonight. I didn't hear anyone jump up from the government side to defend the position of the Attorney General. I didn't hear anyone
[ Page 2157 ]
say or explain either in this chamber or outside of this chamber.

Lord knows, we have an active media in this province. We've got television cameras all over this place when the House is sitting. We've got numerous media members. I didn't hear anything inside or outside of this chamber that said, apart from the fact that this government wanted to get it done this week, that there was any reason for it to be done this week. Where is the fire, so to speak? Where is the fire that requires this Legislature to be the firefighter and put it out? Where is it?

If I had heard something from the Attorney General that if this matter wasn't dealt with, there was going to be death and mayhem or that there were deaths and mayhem already occurring or if there was an agreement by VANOC that required this to be dealt with previously…. If that's the reason, then I would have expected the Attorney General to state it. But I didn't hear that argument.

Everyone in this chamber knows that the strike, which is the subject of the bill, which is the subject of the debate adjournment, has gone on for months. We know that the rules governing that strike are so strict in terms of it being an essential service that it is often difficult, if not near impossible, in order for someone to be absent from the job.

Mr. Speaker: Member, relevance, please.

L. Krog: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I'm doing my best. I'm sure that if my mother wasn't in a hospital bed now without a TV, she'd be listening and she would be very proud to know her son was still doing his best.

[1845]

But if I'm doing my best, I wanted to know that the Attorney General is doing his best, and the Minister of Health. When they're asking this chamber to depart from its fixed sitting schedule, was that the best they had to deliver? Was that it? What was the compelling reason?

When I hear someone speak for five minutes, as did the Attorney General tonight, the signal I get is that it just isn't that important. We know that members in this chamber, on serious matters, will go on for an hour and a half, two hours, and yet a departure from the schedule, a requirement that we sit tomorrow, only managed to elicit five minutes from the Attorney General.

Now, I was here in 1991 to '96. I was here when the Attorney General was first elected in a by-election. I have heard him speak, and I have listened to him for the last 4½ years on many, many occasions. If he had the reasons, I know — as do you, as does every member sitting in this chamber tonight; we all know — that he would have been able to state it and state it at great length and state it with some powerful arguments behind his position. But I didn't hear that.

This chamber is not some plaything for the government. This is not some toy. This is the opportunity for the people of British Columbia to voice their views on important matters. What we do inside this chamber is extremely important, but so is what we do outside this chamber. When we arrived at a fixed sitting schedule, which no one has departed from since it was instituted….

An Hon. Member: Oh wait. No fall sittings.

L. Krog: One member pointed out: "No fall sittings."

That's true. The government has exercised its power not to call this House back into session, which is shameful, but that isn't relevant to what we're talking about tonight. The lack of fall sittings plays no importance in this discussion tonight. What is important is to depart from it once you're into it.

We're going to celebrate the Olympics here. We're going to have athletes from all around the world, and they know that when they compete, there are rules. When you jump in the pool, you know you get to swim to the other end but you don't get to glide into the other swimmer's lane — if it's the Summer Olympics. And in the winter, you don't get to throw your bobsled in right behind the guy just in front of you, because if you can't rely on the rules, it isn't fair and disaster may follow. It isn't right.

We've started into this fall process. Indeed, we started early, and opposition members and government members have been working hard to try and keep the Legislature turning over and doing what it does best, which is examine legislation, pass bills and look after the interests of the people of British Columbia.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

The opposition's prepared to play by the rules. We're prepared to play by the rules. Why isn't the government? Is it too much to ask that the government that introduced these rules, which were accepted by the then much-reduced opposition, the Dynamic Duo…. Is it so wrong to ask this government to remain on schedule?

You know, the government's always talking about getting B.C. on the right track. So we get this place running on the right track. We get this place running on a fixed sitting schedule.

It disciplines all of us. It disciplines us in what we have to say. It disciplines the government in the kind of legislation it brings forward. It disciplines members in the motions they bring forward. It disciplines debate, and it is, hopefully, effective in the results of this chamber. When the government steps in and says that we have to depart from it, that we have to do something so extraordinary….

[1850]

This government has been in power, need I remind the members of this chamber, for 8½ years. We have to
[ Page 2158 ]
do something so extraordinary that we can't take a week to go back to our constituents? The government can't take a week to reconsider its position?

Where is that argument? Is it hiding under the Attorney General's desk? Is it locked away in the brains of the members opposite, ready to escape through their lips? Is it a voice crying in the political wilderness? Is it being whispered somewhere where, in middle age, I can't quite grasp the words or hear them? I don't think so.

Everyone has liberty to stand in this chamber and speak on behalf of their constituents — every person in this chamber. Yet I don't hear the members opposite. I don't hear the government benches standing up and saying: "We have to sit tomorrow. Chaos and mayhem will follow if we don't debate this bill tomorrow, if we don't get it done this week."

It has the ring to me — I hate to say it — of childish behaviour. It's this: "It's mine. It's mine. It's mine." Which one of us hasn't been near children when somebody grabs something, whether they've got ownership at law or not, and hangs onto it and just screams over and over again: "It's mine. It's mine. It's mine."

Interjection.

L. Krog: Well, the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca is always filled with interesting contributions to debate, and I know he will take his place in this chamber when I have finished. But until then, the floor is mine.

Apart from the fact that the government says they have to have or want this bill, what's the reason for it? I mean, is there any reason whatsoever? I am begging someone on the government side to stand up tonight and give even a short five-minute address, just like the Attorney General did less than an hour ago, and explain to the members of this assembly what it is that requires us to sit tomorrow.

I will settle for almost any excuse. But on behalf of my constituents who sent me here and on behalf of the citizens of British Columbia who sent all of us here, who extended to us the great honour and privilege it is to stand and speak in this chamber on behalf of our constituents, I think they would like to hear from the government side: what is it that requires us to sit tomorrow and potentially, if you are to believe what I've heard, perhaps Saturday, perhaps Sunday, to get this bill done?

I remember sitting in this chamber once, being hauled back on a weekend to deal with a strike, a teachers strike. Kids were going to go without teachers. Now, I voted in favour of that bill with some reluctance. That's history, and we're not going to go back there, but one could at least argue and one at least heard reasons as to why the House had to sit on a weekend — why it had to deal with a matter of some urgency, something that was pressing. There was debate. We heard arguments — both sides. People spoke.

But I've barely heard a peep out of the other side — not a peep from the Minister of Health, apart from the opening remarks on second reading of the bill which is under debate in this chamber, the adjournment of which the member for Vancouver-Kingsway moved earlier tonight. Then the Attorney General, the Government House Leader, stood up and moved that the House adjourn only until 9 a.m. tomorrow — not until the next sitting date, which would be ten o'clock a week from Monday, not then but only until tomorrow morning at nine o'clock.

[1855]

You're given an opportunity to be heard in this place. It is the great fundamental principle of justice that you hear both sides. If one side chooses not to make its argument…. In fairness, a court hearing that is probably drawn to the conclusion that they don't have a good reason or a factual background to support their position.

It's not an illogical thing for a court or here or any proceeding to decide, to come to that conclusion — to accept that if you're not saying anything, maybe you've got nothing defensible to say. Maybe you have nothing to support your position. Maybe you've got nothing to support the relief for which you're asking.

So when I hear the Attorney General — in a unique position in our parliamentary system, a lawyer by profession himself — stand up and speak for five minutes and not give any cogent argument, I must tell you…. I've never had the privilege of being a judge, but I'd be compelled just on the basis of the length of discussion to award the opposition the case, so to speak.

Sometimes you can be very clear and so precise in your argument that, as the old saying goes, size does not matter, length does not matter or the number of words doesn't matter. But we're not there. We on this side of the House heard nothing from that side of the House that says we have to be back here at nine o'clock in the morning — not one thing.

If I had, I perhaps wouldn't have stood up tonight, but it's my duty. When we have that fixed sitting schedule and I hear nothing from the government benches that indicates why we need to come back here tomorrow, I have to stand up on behalf of my constituents and say: "Why depart from the rules that run this chamber?"

This is supposed to be a civilized place. It's not the will of that side. It's the will of this chamber whether it sits tomorrow morning or whether it sits the week after. The will of this chamber has been expressed in the rules that govern our behaviour here, that require us to be relevant to the debate, that require us to meet at certain times, that require us to adjourn at certain times — all to make our democracy function.

This is not a place where just because one side has more seats than the other they get to run roughshod over the rules. So far, that pretty much appears to be where we're at. The government wants to run roughshod
[ Page 2159 ]
over the rules. The government isn't happy. The government's been told that they can't have the bill on their time. They're screaming, "It's mine," and we're saying: "No, it's ours."

It may be a government bill, but when that legislation is passed, if it passes, it's ours. It's the people of British Columbia who own it. It's the law of the province of British Columbia. Like it or lump it, we all take a sacred oath when we come into this place to uphold the law. We can debate it vigorously. We can argue strenuously. We can cackle, we can yell, we can scream, we can heckle, and we can stamp our feet, but at the end of the day, what we pass in this chamber is the law of the province of British Columbia.

So that law gets passed by this chamber collectively. One side wins; one side loses, usually. But as the Opposition House Leader pointed out, on many occasions bills are supported by both sides in this chamber — both sides. That happens more commonly than the public watching debates would ever believe — far more often.

The rules of this place say that we rise at six o'clock on Thursdays and we come back on the Monday of the week following, unless there's a break. The rules say there's a break. The rules are very clear. One of the reasons is because, during the middle of next week, we are going to attend — all of us in this chamber, I am sure — the solemn observance of the signing of the armistice on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month.

[1900]

It's not a rule, but we're going to observe it. It's a civilized convention, if you will, of our society to honour those who have fought for the right to establish democracy, to maintain our precious freedoms.

Part of that is how we behave in this chamber, how a government behaves, how it reacts to legislation, how the members are respected in this chamber. Ultimately, the opposition in this case has a great deal to say, and the government — with great respect to the government — needs to think and consider its position. If we observed the rules of civilized conduct that govern this chamber, it would take the next ten, 11 days to consider its position.

The people of British Columbia who have watched this debate this week, who have sent numerous e-mails and letters to the members of this assembly, are pretty clear about this. They don't understand what's the rush. They don't understand what the rush is.

There's a vote. It was finished today. I don't even think the ballots have been counted. Yet because the government introduced the bill this week and says, "We want it," they think they should have it. And by golly, they're going to get it, they say.

They're going to get it regardless. "We're going to break the rules of this place, and we're going to force you to sit tomorrow. That's really what they're saying. "We're going to break the rules because we want it."

I'm sorry. It isn't enough just to say: "We want it." It is incumbent upon the government and its members to stand in this chamber and explain to me and the member for Skeena, the member from Esquimalt, the member for Cowichan Valley, the member for Surrey-Whalley, Merritt-Nicola — you name it. It is incumbent upon them to stand here and explain why we have to meet tomorrow.

This is a free chamber. Once you're in here, subject to the rules, you get to speak. So I'm going to politely suggest to the members opposite…. Two cabinet ministers have spoken on this bill, one in second reading and one on the adjournment application — only two to my knowledge. If I'm wrong, I apologize. But everyone is free to speak, so I invite the members opposite to stand up and convince the opposition and convince the member for Nanaimo why we have to come back here tomorrow to deal with this matter tomorrow.

I want to hear from their lips the arguments that could have come from the Attorney General but didn't tonight. I would be delighted to hear those words. I would like to hear what is the real reason, because I suspect there must be a real reason. There has to be. But I want to hear that reason from the government side. I want to hear that point, that bit of fact, that story, that compelling argument that will convince me that I'm wrong, that the rules of this House are wrong, and that we have to sit here tomorrow.

Deputy Speaker: Just to remind the members that the debate is restricted to the consideration of the adjournment motion.

J. Horgan: I am pleased to operate within the restrictions you've just laid out for me. In fact, it's probably in everyone's interests that you laid it out for me, and I'll do my level best to stay there. It is interesting, however, that here we are. We're hearing so little from the government side that I'm even heckling the member for Nanaimo just to liven the place up.

[1905]

So we can't even get the government side…. Beyond the Government House Leader and his very brief words on this motion to adjourn and reconvene tomorrow at 9 a.m., all we got — as I've heard from the member for Nanaimo, as I heard from the Opposition House Leader — as a rationale was a concern about a pandemic, the H1N1 flu that is running through North America, through the world, as if this was something that had just recently occurred, as if this was something that had just happened in the past week or, in fact, perhaps even today. Perhaps today was the day that the government woke up to this pandemic and felt a sense of urgency and a need to push forward with Bill 21.

Within the confines of the debate, hon. Speaker, I do think it's important that we do expand just a little
[ Page 2160 ]
bit, because the motivation for coming back tomorrow, as I look at the Orders of the Day, No. 52, from today, November 5, there are a number of bills on the order paper that we could debate tomorrow, but we were advised by the Government House Leader that we won't be debating, for example, committee stage of Bill 14. We won't be coming back to debate committee stage of Bill 19. Instead, we'll be coming back to debate second reading of Bill 21. Specifically, to come back for one piece of legislation — specifically to come back to debate that legislation because of the urgency of a pandemic, the H1N1 flu.

I then have to ask myself…. This is the same Government House Leader who, I recall, when he changed the standing orders on a temporary basis in the last session in the 38th parliament, he changed the rules so that we could spend more time with our families. That was one of the reasons he used: so that we could be more healthy. "We want to be healthier," he said, hon. Speaker. He said: "We're going to change the rules. We're going to truncate debate in the Legislature so that we can get out of here, get back to our constituencies and spend time with our families."

Well, tomorrow we're going to be meeting from nine in the morning until 1:30 in the afternoon. I'm going to miss lunch, and I know that that's a concern to many on this side of the House. I'm hopeful, and I know my friend from Port Moody is concerned about it as well, and thankfully, someone on that side of the House has my best interest at heart, and I know I can always count on him….

Interjection.

J. Horgan: He's a giver, that's right — to stand up and help me out.

But the rationale for changing the standing orders in the last session of this place, according to the then and current House Leader, was so that we could spend more time in our constituencies, so that we could be healthier people.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

We'd have a more regular regime. We would be able to be certain that we were going to be here on a given day. We could plan our schedules. We could ensure constituents…. Tomorrow I have a meeting with high school kids from Belmont high school to talk about how parliament functions. I'm going to have to miss that if this adjournment motion passes, and we reconvene again tomorrow morning. I'm going to have to adjust my schedule. I'm going to have to disappoint people in my constituency, and I suggest that's going to happen to members in every corner of this House.

We have before us a motion. I note one of the women who is in the gallery, who has been here for many, many hours now, is probably wondering: just what's the point? Why are we trying to live by these arcane rules, and why, if these arcane rules are so profoundly important to parliamentary democracy, can they be changed at the whim of the government?

We have the Queen's son coming tomorrow, hon. Speaker, an exciting time for many people. A very exciting time. [Applause.]

Hear, hear. I'm happy to give a shout-out to the Prince and his consort. I'm looking forward to seeing them, but it's ironic that we have the Queen's son, representing her tomorrow on these grounds in this precinct when we, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, are paid every fortnight to defend the rights of parliament? And on Guy Fawkes Day — isn't that ironic as well? Here we are — "Remember, remember, the fifth of November" — and we're here amending rules — unbelievable.

Unbelievable, hon. Speaker, but whenever I have an opportunity to stand in my place and represent the people of Juan de Fuca, as you know, I'm happy to do so. And even within the constraints of the debate — which I'm sure I was going to be reminded about at any moment — the important thing for us to remember is that we have rules so we can, in an orderly fashion, debate the legislation brought forward by government or legislation and motions brought forward by all members of this place.

We don't stand here isolated from each other. We have a government, and we have an opposition. Prince Charles will be here tomorrow. If I get an opportunity, I'm going to be able to tell him a little bit about what goes on in this place, and I'm confident that he'll be interested in what I have to say. I'm confident. But in directing us, the hon. Speaker advised that we have to keep our remarks to the substance of the motion, and it's difficult to do that.

[1910]

Normally, the Government House Leader is very long-winded in his remarks. He likes to take partisan opportunity when he sees it. I know that in his dual role as Attorney General and House Leader that's quite often difficult. You have an Attorney General who's supposed to be impartial and above all of the fray, and as the House Leader, he's right in the middle of it. But in giving us his rationale as House Leader, the government's rationale for our presence here right now debating this motion — and tomorrow, and perhaps Saturday and Sunday and Monday — is the H1N1 flu pandemic.

Now, I'm not sure if I'm correct on this, but I can remember watching the evening news in the summer and being told in August that we were facing, perhaps, a deadly influenza season like we have not seen since my grandfather was taken in 1918. That's what we were facing in August.

We have the new Minister of Health, the former Bulldozer Boy from the Transportation Ministry, who
[ Page 2161 ]
probably has been briefed since June on this issue, who's probably been carrying the file on Bill 21, which is, I'm advised by the Government House Leader, the reason for coming back tomorrow — to debate Bill 21. That was the motivation; that was the rationale. I would suggest that — and my colleague for Vancouver-Kingsway will help me out on this, I'm sure — that is why we're coming back.

The government had two pieces of information well before the six o'clock adjournment today. They knew full well that we were in the midst of an H1N1 pandemic, and they also knew that we had a collective agreement that had not yet been signed between paramedics and their employers, the B.C. Ambulance Service. So those two pieces of information have been known for some considerable piece of time.

In fact, we can go back to August when this House sat. The 39th parliament began. All of us were here in our places with bright shiny faces, ready to represent the public, ready to do the bidding of the government, and we on this side to make sure that Prince Charles's mom is getting good work from us, as her loyal opposition. We were here doing that.

Since the 25th of August, when the new calendar, revised again, by the government…. I've been here now four falls — four autumns, as it were — and each autumn, there's been an amended calendar, and again today, the fourth autumn, we are amending the calendar one more time.

What I've heard from others who've participated in the debate — the member for Port Coquitlam, the member for Nanaimo; I've heard from them both — is that the need for rules and structure is very important. I heckled the member for Nanaimo when he talked about children having objects in law. I looked at the Solicitor General, and he was just as bemused as I was that somehow we were talking about whether the child can have the teddy bear, in law. I mean, I know our critic, the Attorney General critic, would focus on those issues.

But what we need to focus on, hon. Speaker, as I know you're about to remind me, is the motion before us. I'm quick to bring back to that point. I believe, as the night progresses…. I'm actually comforted that I'm early in the debate. My blood sugar is a little bit low. You know that I can get a bit goofy as time goes by. I'm encouraged that I'll be able to eat something about 20 minutes from now that'll manage all of that.

It's also important…. I look over at my friend from Port Moody shaking his head, not in an affirmative fashion.

Deputy Speaker: Member, please keep your remarks to the motion. Thank you, Member.

J. Horgan: I'll do my level best, hon. Speaker.

I'll bring it back to the H1N1, which is the motivation for adjourning the debate tonight and returning tomorrow. As you may well know, I was off ill earlier in the week, and I was concerned that I had succumbed to the pandemic. While I was in my bed with fever, I wasn't concerned at all about this place and the rules, because I knew that they would withstand the test of time. I was positive.

I was convinced that the standing orders would stand the test of time, and the government would, instead of abusing those rules on Guy Fawkes Day…. Instead of doing that, I was of the view that they would take this week that we have coming up, the Armistice Day week, where we all have an opportunity to go back to our constituents to reflect on the work that we've been doing here, to reflect on the legislation still to be passed. I've made mention of some of the bills that are on the orders of the day, which we still have to finish in the two weeks remaining in our calendar.

We have done good work since August — all of us, on both sides of the House, governmental and opposition. We've gone through a number of the estimates of the various ministries. We've debated and passed legislation. Some has been divisive; some has been cooperative. We've had unanimous support for some motions.

[1915]

I don't believe we'll have unanimous support for the motion before us now, and that's, of course, what I'm speaking to at this point in time. The challenge that I have, standing here representing the constituents of Juan de Fuca, is that they sent me here with the expectation that all of us would act within the rules of the place. We would be orderly. We would be thoughtful in our deliberations.

With Bill 21 — which is why we are coming back tomorrow, which is why there is a motion before us for debate today — wouldn't it be better, as the interventions from the Opposition House Leader and the thoughtful remarks from the member for Nanaimo, wouldn't it be better, government Members, to go back home and talk to your neighbours, talk to your constituents, look at the mail that's been piling up as we've been here busy doing the work of the Legislature?

Take a sampling of community opinion. Maybe go down to the mall or the corner store. I know that the rural member for Peace River South may want to go down to the centre of town in Dawson Creek and maybe just talk to people. Ask them what they think about the legislation that's before us.

Our colleague from New Westminster has been a Member of Parliament and has served in Ottawa. She often turns to me — she sits just in front of me — and she says: "What's this now we're doing?" Now, she's an experienced legislator. She sat in the House of Commons for three terms, I believe, starting as far back as the 1980s. She's an experienced legislator. Yet, she comes to this place, the provincial Legislature for the province of British Columbia, and she's not quite sure what the heck
[ Page 2162 ]
we're doing from day to day because the rules seem to always change.

What we're debating today is yet another rule change. The member for New Westminster has been here four months, and she turns to me regularly now and says: "Why are we continuing to change these rules?"

In Ottawa they have a Senate. As much of an abomination as our Senate is, it is an opportunity for sober second thought. It provides our Members of Parliament and the government of Canada with the opportunity to have someone else review the work that they're doing. We don't have that luxury here in British Columbia.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: "Hear, hear," says my friend from Kingsway. That may well be a good thing. But what we do have in British Columbia, thank goodness, are constituents who can provide that sober second thought, who can give us an opportunity to reflect on what's happening here, who can tell us their views. Of course, the electronic mail — this new phenomenon. I'm a bit of a Luddite, but I've been using the e-mails and the Internet and all of that for some time now. I'm getting a lot of mail on the issues before us now — concern about those issues.

I would suggest to the government, as my colleagues have, that rather than support the motion before us, they side with the opposition, defeat this motion and take the opportunity to go back to their constituents. Take the opportunity, Member for Peace River South, to go to the town square, to go stand at Mile Zero and see who stops by. I know you're a thoughtful fellow, and I know that others will come to you and say: "What's going on with this Bill 21"?

There's a pandemic, I understand. There's a pandemic, and that's leading you to change the rules of the Legislature. You've known about it since at least August. You've known there's been a labour dispute since at least August, but yet here we are on Guy Fawkes Day in the Legislature, saying we need to change the rules because nothing could be more important than coming back here tomorrow to continue debate at second reading of Bill 21.

That's the motivation, the rationale. That's in the few words that we were given from the Government House Leader. That's all we have to go on, here as legislators in this place. That's the motivation. What are we to do with that? Well, what we're to do with it is to speak for our entitlement of half an hour.

That's what we have on this side of the House. I'm certain that there will be government members that will stand and justify amending the standing orders, amending the rules of this place and taking the calendar that we have agreed to and throwing it out the window. I'm certain that government members will be quick to do that.

They've been quick to participate in…. Well, actually that's not true. I was going to suggest that they'd been quick to participate in earlier debates, but that hasn't been the case. Maybe we won't get more from the government beyond the explanation and rationale that we received from the Attorney General, the Government House Leader.

That rationale, as I said, was a pressing matter of great urgency. He made reference to management at the B.C. Ambulance Service and potential stress levels there. I have no doubt…. I'm quite genuine. I have no doubt that there's significant stress within management at the B.C. Ambulance Service.

[1920]

There is significant stress within the paramedic ranks. They're voting. I believe today is the final day for voting. I look to my colleague, the critic….

Deputy Speaker: Member, would you please continue talking about the motion in front of us.

J. Horgan: I am talking about the motion, hon. Speaker. I'll do my level best to stay within the parameters that were laid out by you and the Speaker. Again, all I've got to go on is the information that was given to this place by the Government House Leader, which is the rationale for amending the rules.

Now, I seek your guidance. If the rationale was Bill 21, how is it that we couldn't make the point that…? Why not go back to our constituents? Why not take the week off that is scheduled in the standing orders — the fixed calendar? Why not take that week to reflect upon the motivation for the bill, the motivation of the participants — whether they be management at the Ambulance Service, whether they be paramedics — the stress levels, H1N1? There's a lot of stuff going on.

Now, if it was of concern since August but not pressing concern until Guy Fawkes day, I'm thinking that perhaps the government, in their haste to change the rules, has maybe misstepped and overstated the case.

A. Dix: No question.

J. Horgan: I get a "no question" from my colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway.

I'm certain that as other members join the debate, as I look down the opposition ranks, they're going to be speaking to the motion before us, and they're going to be speaking in the negative.

I know that when we do come to a vote later tonight or into the early hours of the morning, I'm going to be voting against this, and I'm going to be doing so quite confidently, knowing that we are in the right on this side yet again.

The government issues the standing orders. We agree on them. There's debate. There's usually discussion, for those watching at home, between the Government House Leader and the Opposition House Leader to ensure that this place runs smoothly. We cooperate, to an extent.
[ Page 2163 ]

Again, I look to my friend, the lone observer now, who has been here for many, many hours. You may well be surprised to learn that there is a level of cooperation in this place that makes it run fairly effectively. Certainly, the support staff that are here like to know that they can get home to their families as well. So we try and manage the affairs of the place to the best that we can with these two leaders — the House Leader for the opposition and the House Leader for the government.

In this instance we have been progressing through the week on the expectation that come Thursday night at six o'clock the House would adjourn and we would return after the armistice week break. That was what we were operating under on this side of the House, and I'm confident the government members were operating under those same principles.

Fixed calendar. We can make decisions that are prudent for our constituency, for our families, for our caucuses, whether they be opposition or government. A plan could be laid out for the year. We can manage our affairs as you would expect a $40 billion corporation to act. That's in fact what the government of British Columbia is. Why wouldn't you have rules in place where you can go back and forth?

The Prince is coming tomorrow to this House. We're all going to be here now, as it turns out, to welcome him, if this motion passes. I hope security has been alerted that there are going to be opposition members milling about at 1:30 tomorrow when he arrives. I know that comes as a shock to the Olympics minister. Maybe you've got a couple of extra bucks in the security budget that you can throw towards that. I don't know.

I look to other government members, backbench members, who I know are probably not comfortable in that position. I heard my friend from Nanaimo and also the Opposition House Leader appealing to the backbench members. I'm making eye contact, and it's a beautiful thing. This is your opportunity to stand out amongst the crowd. This is your opportunity, hon. backbencher, to stand out, to make a difference in the 39th parliament.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: That's right. We have a living example of the defiant member who came to sit at the executive council.

This motion before us, motivated by the H1N1 pandemic and driven by a desire to pass back-to-work legislation in a fashion that really defies logic is the motivation for the debate we're having right now. I explained that to our lone gallery member.

An Hon. Member: How does it defy logic? Please explain.

J. Horgan: I'd like to do that, hon. Member, but I have to keep it within the confines of the motion.

[1925]

I have been saying to other members assembled that the rationale to having a fixed calendar is so that we can plan, so that we can live our lives happily.

I didn't believe…. I have to confess this, hon. Speaker, and it may come as a surprise to you, but when the Government House Leader stood in this place and said that he was concerned about my health, when we put in the changes to the standing orders, I wasn't certain that he was sincere about that. I wasn't certain.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Well, no, no. I doubted his sincerity about being concerned about my health by changing the hours of debate, reducing the opportunity for opposition to hold government accountable. I thought: "Maybe there's an ulterior motive, and it's not just about my good health." I was told to eat more fruits and vegetables, but as members know, I eat a bag of carrots every day. My health is as good as it can be.

So when….

Interjection.

J. Horgan: B.C. carrots. I don't know where they come from. I have to confess that, although my friend from Saanich South is going to hear…. They come from Metchosin — Metchosin carrots.

When the Government House Leader stood up today to change the rules again…. I believe that we're on about five or six. My friend from Kingsway will review the Blues to see how many times we've changed the rules since we first sat here in May of 2005. But today we're changing the rules, and I'm going to miss lunch. How is that good for my health? It's not good for my health. I'm probably going to be quite stressed out about it at around quarter to 12, maybe 12:15.

We're going to be sitting here…. According to the new rules that we're voting on right now, I'm going to be here till 1:30. There are going to be a lot of grumbling bellies on this side of the House, in this corner of the House. I don't believe that the Government House Leader really took that into account when he stood in this place today to change the rules yet again.

Have I got a number for the number of changes to the standing orders?

A. Dix: Quite a few.

J. Horgan: Quite a few, I've been told. There have been quite a few changes to the standing orders. The new members of the executive council over there won't be aware, but this is the second change since the 39th
[ Page 2164 ]
parliament sat, and it will actually be the second time I'll be voting against those changes.

I firmly believed when I was elected that we had a set of rules and we had guidelines. I'm a sports guy. We heard the member for Nanaimo talk about people diving into the pool with their bobsleds, and that's just not part of the rules. You don't take your bobsled into the pool unless it's frozen. Everybody knows that. Even in law, everyone knows that.

I'm just coming to the end of my remarks, and I know that will be a disappointment for my friend over there, who was going to be different. You can defy the government and get into cabinet. Ask the member for Peace River South — living proof. You have to abandon your principles to do it, but you can do it.

I know we're running short on time, and you have been very good at keeping me within the confines of the motion, but as I told you earlier, I have been sick this week with the H1 portion of H1N1, and I only came back to this place so that I could debate and make known my opposition to Bill 21. Now here I am. I have a second opportunity to demonstrate my opposition to the government.

Prince Charles is coming tomorrow. Happy Guy Fawkes day to everyone out there in television land — and of course, to our lone observer in the gallery, thank you very much for your time.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

[1930-1935]

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, the motion is to adjourn the House until tomorrow from 9 a.m. until 1:30.

Motion approved on the following division:

Hon. M. de Jong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 9 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 7:38 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); J. McIntyre in the chair.

The committee met at 2:33 p.m.

On Vote 19: ministry operations, $1,394,139,000 (continued).

M. Karagianis: Just prior to the break we were canvassing the reports that had come through from the representative for children and families, and I had asked the minister about a question that the representative had posed on training.

The minister had asked for a clarification on that. This actually comes from the report From Loss to Learning. One of the things that the children's representative had discovered in her investigations of that was, perhaps, some disconnect with training.

[1435]

The question that I had posed to the minister was — the representative had very specifically asked about some kind of annual report on supervisory training within the ministry — just whether the minister can, perhaps, update me on whether that is occurring, has occurred, may occur in the future, and perhaps just address the issue
[ Page 2165 ]
of training that was covered in this report from the children's representative.

Hon. M. Polak: The Loss to Learning report is one that we have responded to in full and have presented that report. It is available publicly.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

Of course, the question of training was dealt with in our response. We'd be happy to provide that to the member if she requires a copy. However, I do think that the appropriate place to canvass response to recommendations by the representative is really the select standing committee and not the estimates process.

M. Karagianis: I was particularly canvassing just a few of these questions because they very specifically had to do with plans out of the ministry. I know that there was an expectation that a plan for training, especially around aboriginal social workers, would be a part of the ministry plan and would be tabled in April in some form.

[1440]

I'm just looking to see what kinds of perhaps ongoing costs the training components of the ministry responsibilities might have and what the agenda is — what the plan is, I suppose — for continuing training to meet the needs not only of this report but generally of the quality assurance information that the minister talked about yesterday — the quality assurance team and the information that goes to the front lines.

All of that must result in some kind of new training. Really, I wanted this to be a broader question about that specific aspect of staff responsibilities.

Hon. M. Polak: I'm happy to say that in terms of our budget for learning and development for MCFD staff, that remains intact at $3.7 million this year.

In terms of going forward, again, this is part of our Strong, Safe and Supported plan. As we look to developing training in the future, we see that as aligned within that context. We need to be looking at training that is much more integrated and that in fact supports the move we have to greater responsibilities in the regions and to having staff able to take part in many of the innovative ways in which the Strong, Safe and Supported work will support families.

M. Karagianis: The children's representative, in this particular report, goes on to look at issues around reporting. I think one of the recommendations came out of the study here around audits, the audit program. There was a recommendation about an external contract to complete a comprehensive evaluation of the current case practice audit program. I wondered whether that was something that the ministry had undertaken and if that is either in a final stage or completed in any way and whether the minister could comment on that.

Hon. M. Polak: Actually, it wasn't a recommendation from the rep. It was in fact an evaluation of the case practice audit program undertaken by our ministry through the direction of our deputy minister. We'd be happy to provide a copy of that report when it's finalized. I understand that we've already been through a draft and briefed the representative on that and would be happy to provide it to the member when it is complete, which should be shortly.

M. Karagianis: Great. Thank you very much.

Will this be one of the kinds of practices that changes under the new practice framework, or is this going to be something that's in place? Right now the way that the case practice audits are done could change, presumably, under this new practice framework.

[1445]

Again, I know that we're going to get into a briefing on that, but just to touch on that briefly coming out of this discussion. How much is that going to change in the future, and what will replace it?

Hon. M. Polak: As I know the member will appreciate, given her involvement on the committee and with this file, the ministry over the years has been through many changes that have been undertaken sometimes in rather swift fashion. It's our intent….

As we go through what is the most substantial and, I think, probably the most potentially impactful change — and that is, change to practice in the ministry — we're trying to ensure that we have everything built from the ground up in a solid foundation. This report will form part of that guidance of change.

Primarily, we are guided by Strong, Safe and Supported. But when it comes to how these practices will change…. Yes, they will change. They will change in line with the needs that we evaluate and determine across the ministry, and they will change as we see the need to support those out in the field who are engaged in the real day-to-day practice change.

Again, I do think that we are straying more into the realm of what would be appropriate at the select standing committee as opposed to canvassing in estimates.

M. Karagianis: Under the new practice framework, then, how will reporting be done in the future? What will be the accountability mechanisms under the new framework?

Hon. M. Polak: Just a clarification. Are you asking about accountability to the minister or accountability to the public? I'm not sure which reporting the member is inquiring about.
[ Page 2166 ]

M. Karagianis: I'd actually be interested in both, so that would have been two sides to the question. Obviously, in the current procedures within the ministry…. Previous to this new practice framework being initiated, there have been reporting processes. We're just talking right now about case practice audits. But in the future, certainly, how is the reporting going to be done out on the new practice framework, as far as within the ministry and then to the public as well?

[1450]

Hon. M. Polak: Of course, all the statutory reporting requirements would remain intact. What we're moving to, though, is actually outlined fairly well in our Strong, Safe and Supported document, and I'll just read briefly from that.

In terms of key actions, there's implementing our integrated quality assurance approach. We've talked a bit about that, about now having an integrated team that is able to work across the ministry.

"Increase the reporting on quality assurance indicators and outcomes for children and youth." That's important because currently our system tends to report more so focused on outputs as opposed to outcomes for children.

"Develop and strengthen internally and externally based evaluations of and research into programs and services." That work is already beginning, as evidenced by the report that we just spoke about in terms of evaluating case practice.

"Increase child and youth participation in decision-making."

We also want to know from families, for example, what their experience has been with the ministry. "We expect increased effectiveness, efficiency and accountability of supports and services for children, youth and their families served by the ministry." In terms of indicators of success, we want to see an "increase in comprehensive and accurate information used to inform continuous service improvement" and an "increase in the use of evidence in policy and practice changes."

One of the things that is extremely important about this pillar of Strong, Safe and Supported is that we want our social workers, our child protection workers, those in the field able to really act according to their profession and to be able to use their professional discretion in the best way possible. That means best practice around continuously evaluating what it is they're doing, taking a look at the outcomes of that and then revisiting decisions and continuing that feedback loop. So I hope that gives an appropriate flavour to the member.

M. Karagianis: When and how will that, the reporting out, actually be done?

Hon. M. Polak: The process has already begun, and as we canvassed yesterday, with the development of the new practice framework and of Strong, Safe and Supported, that takes us out to 2012. We are planning currently that in the year '11-12 we would have a review of where we are at in that process and whether, in fact, we need to continue work in some areas or whether or not we have completed that transition.

Again, we're working with approximately 4,300 individuals employed by the ministry, and the key piece that we want to ensure is that we are not moving from one step to the next until we have properly completed the foundation for those next steps.

Again though, I have to say that I do think that what we're canvassing currently is really more appropriate for the select standing committee and not really appropriate for the estimates discussion.

M. Karagianis: I didn't actually get a clear idea of whether there would be annual reporting on these various outcomes, but I'm sure that I'll be watching for those to see exactly when and how that's actually reported out — throughout the year or on a yearly basis.

That does kind of move me into the next piece of questioning that I have here, which is around first nations and aboriginal authorities. There was a concerted effort made — a very well-known and public effort — to move towards more aboriginal authority over aboriginal children.

Recently, I believe, Haida Gwaii was given the responsibility for their own children in that community. Could the minister talk about the aboriginal authorities and where we stand today, because there was a process where a lot of activity was underway and then there has been a period of sort of static progress. So I'd just like an update on where we stand now on the creation of aboriginal authorities.

[1455]

Hon. M. Polak: Certainly we all agree, I think, that the best thing that can be in place for aboriginal children is for them to be cared for by their own aboriginal community. In fact, that that has huge benefits beyond the individual child and family — but on, again, to the community itself.

The aboriginal authorities were disbanded as of last year, when the legislation did not go through. Instead, we have now signed a protocol. As of March 2009 we are currently working not only with the Interim First Nations Child and Family Wellness Council, but in each region there's a chiefs council. Through that process, we have developed and have commitment not only from our ministry, but from all the first nations, to work together in a nation-to-nation process.

That has been going along, to my mind, rather successfully, and I've had very good feedback from first nations about that. There are currently 13 nations and groups of nations that are working directly with us to be
[ Page 2167 ]
able to establish the way in which they will take authority over their children.

In terms of delegated agencies, we currently have 24, of which Haida is one. Eight of those are now fully delegated, so they take on the entire range of services that MCFD would have provided in the past, including child protection.

M. Karagianis: Is the protocol taking the place of the initiative to create these authorities?

[1500]

Hon. M. Polak: I think it's worthy of note that the authorities were always meant to be an interim step as we worked toward supporting the ability of individual nations to take over the responsibility for their children and the services to them. Nevertheless, it's also important to note that there is no replacement for these authorities. That opportunity or that initiative is absolutely off the table. That is something that has come directly from the leadership of the first nations.

This in no way replaces that. In fact, one could argue that this has allowed us to jump forward a step to a place that we are now working with those leaders to ensure that we are moving to their full and complete authority being recognized by the ministry.

The role of the chiefs and their communities, as we work with them in the regions, is to provide, then, an opportunity for them to create and establish what is in line with their own vision for their own nation at the community level. Then, through the wellness council, we're able to continue a dialogue around things of a provincial nature. That continues, ongoing, as we work toward establishing more delegated agencies and greater ability for different nations to take on different aspects of looking after their children.

M. Karagianis: So in creating these new protocols or supporting the eight agencies that are now responsible…. What does that look like as far as funding goes? Obviously, the responsibility goes with it, but how does the funding go? How will that affect your budget?

[1505]

Hon. M. Polak: We really are talking about two different processes when it comes to the 13 nations and groups of nations with whom we are in ongoing nation-to-nation work through the chiefs in the regions and also through the interim child and family wellness council. The budget that we have in terms of that work around those 13 is about $8 million.

When it comes to the delegated agencies, the total budget there is about $65 million, understanding that there is not an evenness with which the responsibilities are distributed amongst those agencies. Different agencies are at different stages of developing and, therefore, have different aspects of responsibility that they have taken over. So their funding reflects that. But in a general sense, as responsibilities transfer to the delegated agencies, then staff and funding also transfer to them.

There is, however, a difference with respect to the level of federal versus provincial funding when one gets to discussing which ones are on reserve and which ones are off. But essentially, there is no new money involved. This is a matter of money that is already within the system.

M. Karagianis: One of my questions was going to be: what component of that is federal money? In fact, who retains responsibility for that budget? Does that stay in the hands of the minister or, in fact, when that responsibility is shifted to first nations communities, do they then have control over their budget as well?

Hon. M. Polak: The federal component of the funding is over and above the $65 million that we provide to the delegated agencies. The 21 that are on reserve receive direct funding from the federal government. We have no way of knowing how much that is. When it comes to the three urban delegated agencies, they are entirely funded by the Ministry of Children and Family Development. The $65 million — there is then some of that going to the three urban.

There is also, though, some of that going to the 21, because, of course, beyond the work that they do that would be federally funded, there are also contracted services they provide that MCFD provides them funding for. So again, that's something that when they have their budgets, they have control over their budgets and make their decisions based on the financing that comes into them.

M. Karagianis: Perhaps we could just go back and clarify. In discussing this, the minister said the three urban agencies are fully funded. But earlier you did talk about 24 agencies, eight of which have full responsibilities. So only three of those are fully funded from MCFD? Or how do you break that out? You talked about three and 21 versus 24, with eight being fully…. Perhaps you could just clarify the different numbers there. It doesn't quite make sense to me.

Hon. M. Polak: Yeah, the eight only refers to their delegation status, so "fully delegated" means they have no more stages to go through. They are then, at that point, delivering all of the services themselves. But the same would apply to those eight if they are on reserve. Then they are collecting significant — in fact, the bulk of their — funding from the federal government, and we would have no way of knowing what that is.

[1510]

Then, if they were to have contracted services that they are delivering on behalf of the ministry, we would provide them funding for that. Again, that would be
[ Page 2168 ]
different depending on each delegated agency. Then, of course, the breakdown of the 21 to three is simply which ones are on reserve, which ones are off.

The eight simply represents where they are along the delegated agency road, and it represents those that are now fully delegated and completely through the process. The others that are not fully delegated would each be at different places down that path.

M. Karagianis: Obviously it's quite complex on how funding flows to those various agencies, whether it be from federal, whether it be on reserve, off reserve, whether it comes from the ministry fully, whether it's a combination of those.

How is that all evaluated by the ministry? Is there, you know…? As far as evaluating at what stage communities are completely responsible for their own child care, child protection, where is the break-off point between the money and the actual responsibility for children in those communities?

Hon. M. Polak: I should reflect, too, that much of this depends on what the community itself wishes to achieve. There are some for whom the goal is always to get to the end piece where they are taking over the responsibilities for every part of this, including child protection.

There are others for whom their involvement stops at the early stage, and they're quite pleased to simply remain there, providing only part of the services. Maybe it's foster parenting services, etc.

We conduct this through trilateral agreements between the federal government, the province and the first nation, the delegated agency involved…. In terms of standards, we apply the AOPSI, the aboriginal operational and practice standards indicators. That is the guidance that we follow in terms of the service that's delivered. But again, it really does depend on the individual nation or group of nations as to how far down that road they wish to proceed.

M. Karagianis: So do I take it from the minister's comments here on this issue that there is no longer a desire on the part of government to actively pursue full on responsibility for all aboriginal communities for their own child care?

I mean, that was the goal at the beginning, with the creation of aboriginal authorities. That is, obviously, I think…. At this point, first nations communities have determined that they are not particularly interested. So what are the next steps for government in this issue of first nations' responsibility for child protection?

[1515]

Hon. M. Polak: I would have to say that, if anything, we've actually intensified our work with aboriginal communities to ensure that they are able to fully exercise their authority over their own children.

I would just read pillar 4 from Strong, Safe and Supported. The belief statement there is: "Aboriginal people will be supported to exercise jurisdiction in delivering child and family services."

The difference now is that aboriginal authorities were really government's idea as to how first nations ought to organize themselves. Instead, now we are working intensely with first nations, through the regional chiefs councils and also through the Interim First Nations Child and Family Wellness Council, to ensure that each and every nation or group of nations is able to now develop the type of model that they feel would best suit their community.

In many cases that will be a delegated agency. In many cases it might take on a completely different form. We are open to that, and we are being guided by the nations themselves as they tell us what level of involvement they wish to see and what model they would like to establish in order to see that come to life.

M. Karagianis: Where does kith and kin fit into this, then? I canvassed it a little bit earlier, but it's certainly not included in the ministry's report on caseload. Where does that fit in now, especially under what looks to be a fairly mixed bag of authority over first nations children? Perhaps the minister could explain exactly how this component is part of all of that.

Hon. M. Polak: Kith-and-kin agreements really don't directly relate to aboriginal communities any more than foster parents and the foster parent program would relate to aboriginal communities. Kith and kin is an out-of-care option which those in the mainstream community can afford themselves of or, indeed, those in the aboriginal communities could avail themselves of.

[1520]

In the aboriginal communities these tend to be referred to as extended family arrangements. Nevertheless, they are still kith-and-kin agreements. But it isn't directly related to aboriginal or non-aboriginal. Although these are out-of-care options — so they are not part of our children-in-care caseload — they are reported out, and we can provide numbers, with respect to aboriginal and non-aboriginal, of those who are within kith-and-kin agreements.

M. Karagianis: I would appreciate that report. It would be good to see exactly what the numbers are there.

I would like just one more reference in this discussion about aboriginal children in care, because, as we know, it is a significant concern that there are a disproportionate number of aboriginal children in care to non-aboriginal. In the latest Auditor General update on reports there is a page here that is dedicated to Management of Aboriginal Child Protection Services. I'm sure the minister is aware of that.
[ Page 2169 ]

I just wanted to talk in particular about the list of responsibilities here and the one where the Auditor General has recommended that the ministry "in consultation with first nations and aboriginal organizations, obtain provincewide community-by-community knowledge of aboriginal child protection needs." The Auditor General has listed this as having had no action taken.

I would expect that the ministry would…. This would be a significant component of what we're talking about here, in this mixed tapestry of services and how they're delivered. Could the minister comment on this, please?

Hon. M. Polak: First, just to the numbers on kith-and-kin arrangements. We're just hunting down the aboriginal numbers here, but for non-aboriginal, the total number for this year, '09-10, is 210, and the monthly average — those that we see being taken into kith-and-kin agreements — is 17½.

When it comes to the Auditor General's recommendation to take a look at this community by community, it is one that currently we don't see ourselves having the appropriate infrastructure to engage in on that level. Still, I would disagree with his characterization that no work has happened.

[1525]

Instead, what we've attempted to do — and we have talked a bit about some of the work — is try and use not only our communications through the delegated agencies and our knowledge of those areas, but also the work that we have underway with the chiefs councils in the regions to develop the kind of knowledge base that we need in order to assess the kind of service gaps that may exist and also to assess the capacity of those nations and those agencies to be able to provide service and what kind of support we may need to provide to them.

It is true that we have not taken the action in exactly the way that the Auditor General would have presented in his report. Nevertheless, we're feeling very confident about the road that we are travelling down, in part because we are doing it based on the feedback and the leadership that we're receiving from the first nations themselves. We believe, in our ministry, that that is the appropriate way to go about this and, indeed, the way in which we are most likely to meet with a successful construction of how our relationship works with first nations in the end.

I would simply point out that that is our role in this. In evaluating it, it is somewhat different from the Auditor General in that the Auditor General's view and scope is much more narrow than ours in terms of how we build those relationships with first nations.

M. Karagianis: Is there going to be an attempt made, then, to perhaps have the Auditor General reconsider his current position on this?

Hon. M. Polak: As with other ministries who receive reports from the Auditor General, we've followed a similar practice. We have responded to each one of the recommendations with descriptions of work that we have had underway, and we would see that…. Well, it's similar to any other ministry, which then provides that to public accounts, and it's considered along with his report.

M. Karagianis: I note that the Auditor General does talk about partial implementation of two other items here, and perhaps the minister could speak to those.

One that we've talked around a bit here is the recommendation that "the ministry, in consultation with first nations and aboriginal organizations, determine whether transfer of all child protection services to aboriginal agencies is still viable and, if not, adjust the service delivery approach to support some continued ministry service that meets the needs of aboriginal children and their families." The minister may want to elaborate a little bit on some of the comments she's already made.

The second part of this is: "We recommend the ministry, in consultation with first nations and aboriginal organizations, determine the resources, including social workers and support services, required to meet those needs in a culturally appropriate way." Certainly, that would have a huge impact on the budget, if that's only been partially implemented at this point.

I would appreciate the minister responding to those two recommendations coming from the Auditor General.

Hon. M. Polak: I'll answer to the second recommendation mentioned first. Basically, that is precisely the work that is underway with delegated agencies. Again, we've responded to the evaluation of the Auditor General to provide for him the information around what work is underway with the delegated agencies. That has been tabled.

With respect to the first recommendation around aboriginal agencies, we have responded to the Auditor General to describe the transition that's taken place. This is the second time the Auditor General has examined actions around these recommendations. Of course, they were developed at a time prior to the failure of the aboriginal agencies and the legislation related to it.

In describing our work now, in our response to the Auditor General, we have canvassed very similarly what we've discussed here in estimates and that we, in fact, now are not proceeding down the road of aboriginal agencies…. Sorry, aboriginal authorities. Anywhere I've said aboriginal agencies like that, it should be authorities, and I apologize. There are a lot of names to remember.

We are not going down the path of developing aboriginal authorities. That initiative is no longer underway. Instead, we are now moving directly into the phase where we are supporting aboriginal communities to
[ Page 2170 ]
take over responsibility for their children, be that as a delegated agency or in some other form that we would work out with them.

[1530]

M. Karagianis: I think that this actually is a place to segue, while we're talking about aboriginal communities, into the last issue that I wanted to touch upon at this point, which is the issue of child poverty. Certainly, we've talked here in estimates about the number of children in care and the fact that there is a concerted effort by the ministry to reduce the number of children in care. I think that there are even some declarations to that effect in the September updated budget and fiscal plan.

I would have to ask the minister: given the current circumstances around child poverty, is it realistic to think that we would not see growing numbers of children being taken into care as more working families reach the stress point or as the current employment numbers put those pressures on families?

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Has the ministry a plan for this? Is this something that has been discussed? Is part of the current new framework around thinking about what the repercussions will be of child poverty on the ministry's services?

Hon. M. Polak: Just to get back to numbers we promised to provide around kith and kin for aboriginal, unfortunately, with our system, we cannot pull a total for the aboriginal for the year. I can tell you that the September number of new kith-and-kin agreements for aboriginal was 17, so that compares to the non-aboriginal. I believe that the number I gave there was 17.5. We can pursue getting you a total, but what we're able to pull at this point is only the month-by-month numbers.

When it comes to the impacts of an economic downturn with respect to our caseloads, I should be clear that even in this fiscal year, during the height of much of the unemployment, we have not seen an increase in our caseloads, following them month by month, and we have been monitoring them very closely.

I should also say that there isn't a…. No, I'll back this up. Just because a family loses its job — loses, you know, a portion of their income — just because they get into a difficult financial state doesn't mean that they are going to be turning from a functioning family into a dysfunctioning one.

[1535]

Certainly, we recognize the need to provide supports to communities that are struggling, and we have increased the amount of out-of-care support that we provide for families who are struggling in many ways. We see part of the success in keeping kids out of care, which is hugely important, is a result of an increased focus on prevention. The work that our front-line workers are engaged in is much more focused on prevention and providing supports to families prior to there being a problem that would cause us to take a child into care, and also an increased use of out-of-care options.

We're making much greater use of extended families and close friendship relationships of those families when we go through family group conferencing, mediation, etc., such that we don't have to go to that additional step of taking a child into care. So we are not anticipating a huge influx of children into care as a result of the economic circumstances.

Nevertheless, we do monitor those numbers month by month, and to date, for this fiscal year, we have not seen an increase. In fact, the numbers are consistent with the decline of children in care that we've seen over the last ten years or so.

M. Karagianis: I know that the minister is talking about, really, the impact of the economic downturn, but in fact, the Ministry of Housing and Social Development is looking at a considerable growth in the number of individuals seeking income assistance. That will most certainly have an impact on families and on the number of children that will be caught within that.

They're now currently, possibly, on employment income assistance from the federal government but will be moving from there as those unemployment insurance benefits run out. They'll be moving to seek more income assistance. Has the ministry looked at the issue of that growth there, through the lens?

You know, earlier this year the children's representative talked about a very unfortunate case where a young family was unable to obtain enough funding for emergency housing, ended up living in an unsafe family environment in a first nations community and ended up having their baby taken into care by the ministry because they were unable to put together the pieces they needed to find housing.

That, I think, should be kind of a stark lesson for government to say that we have to really be careful that a circumstance like that doesn't happen again, where simply the issue of a poor family, unable to find their way through the complicated process of obtaining emergency housing care…. Then their child becomes a responsibility of the ministry. That particular report, and that particular episode, I think, is particularly chilling because the family ended up having their baby apprehended by the ministry because the family was poor and couldn't access emergency funding from another level of government.

That kind of circumstance, I think, is not going to be unusual, given the growing concern around poverty — intergenerational poverty as well as transitional poverty. In the case of economic downturn and people leaving employment assistance income and having to seek income
[ Page 2171 ]
assistance from government, that's a transitional kind of poverty, which is different from the kind of deep-rooted intergenerational poverty that we've seen in first nations communities.

This is not a new topic. It is, I'm sure, on government's mind as we've hit the threshold, yet again, in British Columbia of having the highest rate of child poverty in the country. Has the ministry looked at child poverty and the impacts that it will have? How has that, in any way, I guess, helped define the new framework? How has that defined the planning out through the rest of this fiscal year and beyond?

Certainly, we see no expected increase in ministry funding after this fiscal year. So is there a child poverty plan? Is it something that is talked about within the ministry? Has it in any way helped to determine how you move forward with any of your new plans for how the ministry will function in the future?

[1540]

Hon. M. Polak: Firstly, to the individual case that the member references. That's something that, obviously, was a tragic circumstance that the representative has recently reported on and that we continue to review and prepare an appropriate response to, which we will review with the select standing committee and provide to them.

I want to emphasize that contrary to some of the statements that have been made both in that report and in other places, the ministry does not ever remove a child as a result of low income. We remove a child when it is felt that they are in unsafe circumstances.

I have to say that it's kind of inconsistent to have a concern expressed around that when at the outset the member was saying that as a result of increases in caseloads and HST, we would certainly see an increase in children in care. I actually don't believe that. Just because a family becomes poor doesn't mean that they suddenly become dysfunctional. The evidence just isn't there to support that.

Our requests and our responses when it comes to service have remained consistent month by month over the last fiscal period. In fact, the numbers of children in care continue to decline over that period of time in this fiscal.

I do want to say a word about child poverty, too, because I think we can all become…. We can all get to a point where we feel as though this is a challenge that somehow, as a society, we're unable to solve, that it's something that will always be with us. We actually have some very recent, very good news from Human Resources and Skills Development Canada.

They have their market-based measure that they produce. They produced a report in September of this year — so, very recent — their 2009 report. What it shows is a very dramatic decline in the rate of poverty in British Columbia, down from 22.6 percent in 2000 to 13.4 percent in 2007. We also note that in the period from…. Sorry, that's the LICO.

If you use the market-based measure, we've actually seen in the year from '06 to '07 — one year — an 18 percent drop in poverty rates overall and, for children, a drop of 17 percent in that one-year period in British Columbia.

[1545]

It still puts us at 0.1…. When we talk about being last in Canada, which is a distinction we don't like, we still need to talk about the numbers, and some of the differences between provinces amount to a degree of only 0.1 percent. So while we're tracking at last, I would argue that the recent market-based measure shows that the initiatives that we've been undertaking across government have shown tremendous success, and we intend to continue that.

We work together under our integrated framework for children and youth. We as a ministry are the lead in that, to work together with ministries to put a children's lens to all of the things that we do. As we develop through Strong, Safe and Supported, we intend to strengthen that and be able to see those numbers decline even more profoundly.

M. Karagianis: I take it from the minister's comments that there's not a poverty plan. There is no specific focus on looking at intergenerational poverty and how we resolve that for aboriginal communities primarily, but not exclusively. Certainly, the minister sees that poverty issues will not affect the number of children in care.

Certainly, in the case of the family that I referenced, the child was removed from those parents because they were in unsafe housing. The reason they were in unsafe housing is because they couldn't access housing and adequate funding in order to live in a safer environment.

So the issues around poverty are certainly complex, and we can't isolate simply the ministry's role in the apprehension of a child to say: "Well, the child was in an unsafe environment, and that's why the child was apprehended." You have to actually look one step broader than that and say: "That family was in an unsafe situation because they were poor, and they couldn't access adequate resources to find safer housing for themselves at that point in time."

I'm just really disappointed that the government hasn't picked up the issue of child poverty as part of the ongoing, multi…. If we want to talk about across all ministries….

We want to talk about how we look at children through the lens of not being siloed, look at all of the ministry responsibilities in the various ways that children in care or families needing assistance at some point touch on the government and make contact with the government and why poverty and the reduction of poverty…. Deep intergenerational poverty is, I think, the most challenging. But, certainly, the issue of poverty and the growing concern about the working poor….
[ Page 2172 ]

When we have a government that actually directs families to food banks as a way to make income assistance stretch from one part of the month to the next, I think we've failed miserably in our ability to come to grips with the reality for families. So it is very disappointing.

Noting the time, I feel that this is a topic we probably could explore at great length. I am surprised that the ministry hasn't adopted more of a poverty strategy that they want to be very public with and say: "We are going to tackle poverty. We're going to tackle it in first nations communities" — where it is often the most deeply felt, and it is intergenerational poverty — "and we're going to tackle it for the working poor. We're going to look at transitional poverty, and we're going to actually make that part of our mandate: to provide the best care for children and families in the province of British Columbia — and that we would actually address that."

I haven't heard that from government, and it's too bad. I would hope that they would see that part of their responsibility is to address that.

We don't have a lot of time left here today, and I know that my colleague has many questions around child care, which is equally important. So I will cede the floor to her and let her ask some questions at this point on child care, if I may.

Hon. M. Polak: First and foremost, I have to say that poverty does not occur in isolation. The idea that government would form a plan and say that we're going to have a plan that only resolves around child poverty is, in fact, creating another silo. We do have a very public initiative that has been published in our Strong, Safe and Supported plan. I've spoken about it in the chamber, I believe, on a number of occasions, and it's called the integrated framework for children and youth.

What it represents is our cross-ministry work that recognizes that supporting families is not just about alleviating a financial strain. Supporting a family means determining what we can do to support them in terms of their finances, but also in terms of the various needs that they might have as a family, as a whole. Because, again, poverty does not happen in isolation.

[1550]

Nevertheless, as evidence of the concern of government, it is obvious from the evidence before us — and that is, the poverty rates in British Columbia and how they have been declining over the number of years; the dramatic decline that we've seen in a one-year period from '06 to '07 — that the initiatives that government has undertaken across ministries, be it the rental assistance program or the eliminating of MSP premiums for those with low incomes…. The list goes on to various initiatives that have supported those families.

We have continued to recognize that there is a need to address families' difficulties in a very direct way. In terms of the development of Strong, Safe and Supported, the integrated framework for children and youth is a key component of that.

In terms of our children's lens that we want to bring to this, that really brings us to considering poverty amongst other things that should take us to considering the UN convention on the rights of the child and how important it is for us to think of outcomes for children beyond just what we would claim as poverty alone.

Finally, while we will deal with the particular report that the member mentions at the select standing committee, I do want to re-emphasize the fact that the only time the ministry takes a child into care is when there is an unsafe environment in which that child is living.

That is not something that is done on the basis of merely an unsafe household. That has many components to it and is certainly not a decision that any social worker takes lightly. But this ministry does not take children into care as a result of poverty.

M. Elmore: I'll be asking some questions on the topic of child care. I guess my first question to the minister is: can you just outline for me the budget allocated for child care?

Hon. M. Polak: The budget for child care is about $300 million this year. That's an increase of about $8 million.

M. Elmore: Would I be able to get a breakdown of the different components of the budget in terms of…? I know it's usually broken down by the program; it's been broken down in the past. It's usually designated as child care, ECD and special needs. Is it possible to get a breakdown on those areas?

[1555]

Hon. M. Polak: For the purposes of this — and the member can ask a further question if I'm incorrect — I believe the member was considering supported child development when she mentioned special needs.

I'll start with early childhood development, because that actually isn't included in that $300 million. That amounts to $23 million. In terms of child care subsidy, which is a part of the $300 million, that's $148 million. The child care operating funding is $65 million, and the supported child development funding is $57 million.

M. Elmore: Thank you, Minister.

My question is…. I understand we are still receiving funds from the federal government for child care. It should be $33 million that's been promised for the last couple of years, and continuing as well. Does the minister have a breakdown for those funds as well?

Hon. M. Polak: For '09-10 we received from the federal government — the member is correct — $33.61 million. That breaks down as follows. Some $14.35 million goes
[ Page 2173 ]
to subsidy, $9.16 million goes to the operating funding, $9.3 million goes to resource and referral, $160,000 goes to major capital, $200,000 goes to child care operations and administration, and $440,000 goes to supported child development.

M. Elmore: My question is to the minister. It says here in the service plan that for 2007-08 the total number of ministry-funded licensed child care spaces was 87,538, that the actual for 2008-09 was 92,751 and that the target for 2009-2010 is 91,000.

So I was just curious if the minister could explain — it appears that there's a drop — the numbers from 2008-09 of 92,751 to a drop for the 2009-10 target of 91,000. That also carries through to '10-11, a static target, as well as to '11-12 for those spaces.

[1600]

Hon. M. Polak: In part, this is because it isn't the ministry that actually creates spaces — right? It's the sector out there that creates the spaces. When they do, we provide them funding.

We are anticipating that due to the fact that we are not providing a major capital budget for this year, we will not see an increase in spaces. We are on track to meet that 91,000-space target, and essentially, the performance measures targets are consistent with what we anticipate in terms of year-over-year growth and looking at the historical trends.

What we have done over the last number of years…. You recognized some of that in the previous numbers. Since '01 the major capital funding that we've provided has actually enabled us to create or to assist in creating more than 6,500 spaces in that time period.

We are not at this time, given the current economic circumstance, able to provide a major capital funding program. Nevertheless, we are at a very high level in terms of the numbers when compared to past years, and we expect that to remain consistent and not see a reduction.

M. Elmore: Minister, can you tell me: what is the budget line for the minor capital grants and what percentage of the budget that makes up?

Hon. M. Polak: The amount allocated for minor capital this year is $500,000.

M. Elmore: What was the amount for minor capital grants last year, last budget?

Hon. M. Polak: It was $1.2 million.

M. Elmore: So my question is with the reduction. Maybe you can talk about the reduction in the minor capital grant program. Certainly, I've heard a number of concerns come forward, and a number of facilities talked to me about the difficulties that they're facing trying to meet the needs of maintaining their facilities in terms of meeting the provincial regulations that they are required to.

The difficulty of the reduction in the minor capital grant program from a maximum of $5,000 to $2,000 is that it falls short. Many child care providers, facilities, are having difficulty making the necessary renovations, meeting the regulations and upgrading their facilities. So maybe you could just explain to me some of the reasons behind that reduction.

[1605]

Hon. M. Polak: Essentially, this is a result of economic pressures and our attempt to ensure that funding we are providing is focused primarily on direct services to children.

This has been difficult, certainly, for those operators who were expecting to be able to receive funding up to the $5,000 level. I made the decision that it was better to move to the $2,000 maximum in order to allow us to not see a number of operators receiving no funding but instead for them to all be able to receive a small amount of funding.

The minor capital funding, though, was never intended to cover major renovations. If there are major renovations that are needed in order to be compliant with licensing, it would be something that would be more appropriate when we have a major capital fund. We do not have that this year.

Minor capital funding was never intended to cover things that would be of a significant nature in terms of renovations. Rather, they would be minor repairs. Again, a difficult decision to make, but we felt it necessary in order to protect the subsidy program at its current level, and also the child care operating fund.

M. Elmore: Does the minister have a percentage of the cut that that represents to the overall child care budget, just as a reference?

Hon. M. Polak: It represents approximately $700,000 less out of that $300 million budget, which is, to my mind, although I have to say it's late in the day, and my brain is tired…. I think it's less than half a percent.

M. Elmore: I've got correspondence, and I'm sure the minister and the staff have heard from a number of facilities that are experiencing hardship, certainly, in recognition that the minor capital grants are not for major renovations but just for the upkeep, for minor repairs.

I have a report from the Esprit child care centre in Gibsons. I can forward this on if you haven't received it as well.

The Esprit child care centre in Gibsons is an on-site child care centre at Elphinstone Secondary School. The
[ Page 2174 ]
repairs that they have done there are by the school district maintenance staff. They say that they're having a hard time making the necessary changes and minor repairs to their facility to meet the regulations. Due to the cut, they are experiencing hardship. That's a report from that care centre in Gibsons.

I also have a submission from the Quignas day care. They talk also about the hardship of the reduction in the grant. They take a little bit more of a historical view. The coordinator there has been working in the field since 1979 and has seen that very little has improved.

[1610]

They characterize the cut to the minor capital grant as a money grab from the child care field, putting undue hardship on the facility trying to meet the regulations and make the necessary changes, and the reductions in the child care grant…. Actually, they would have to pass those fees on to parents, and they would be forced to offset the costs of making the necessary upgrades. That would be translated into higher parent costs.

That's certainly the story I've been hearing and painting in terms of the situation of child care here in British Columbia.

Number one, it represents such a small percentage of the overall budget. Also, in context of the lack of investment in major capital, one component of a sustainable child care system is the necessity to invest in infrastructure, not only in major capital funding but in terms of the minor capital, in making those necessary upgrades. It's an important aspect of our child care system, and it's to meet the provincial regulations that they're required to do that.

Child care facilities are reporting that it's putting a hardship on them. They have to make these changes, these upgrades, and it's resulting in having to transfer those costs onto parents. They're having to raise their fees, and that's a concern from child care providers.

Since I've been talking to and meeting with a number of child care providers, I've been struck by their concern in terms of wanting to offer quality service to kids and also for parents and families. That also is quite touching in terms of their commitment to the field. They take it very seriously — providing quality child care.

I think they take it personally in terms of wanting to be able to provide quality child care for kids to ensure that kids have the appropriate environment. Also, they want to have their services accessible to families. They feel bad — because they often know these parents, and they're in the community — when they have to raise their fees and parents have to take that burden.

Just recognize the hardship that's put onto these child care centres in their efforts too. They also have a very high…. I found that they take it very seriously and that they want to meet all the provincial regulations. They are committed to doing that. So that's a hardship on them that they feel they have to pass on to the parents.

My next question is just….

M. Karagianis: How can they meet the regulations?

M. Elmore: Okay. Maybe I can phrase that into a question. Thank you.

Yeah, just how would these child care providers be able to meet the provincial regulations in making these minor upgrades?

[1615]

Hon. M. Polak: First and foremost, I want to emphasize that this was not an easy decision to make. We had to take a look at what we felt was important to protect. Certainly that was the child care operating fund and the subsidy. Of course, the subsidy protects affordability for those children who are in some of the most vulnerable circumstances, and families that are experiencing income challenges.

But it was also an important decision to maintain the minor capital funding rather than having a more complex major capital funding. We eliminated that for this year and focused on our minor capital. The decision was made later in the year, so we do have 25 applications that were approved at the previous $5,000 and $10,000 level. Then there are a further 80 — it's actually probably a little bit more now, but the latest numbers we have are 80 — at the $2,000 level.

In terms of licensing. The licensing folks who are involved in the inspections, in our experience, have been very reasonable with the operators in terms of providing them with reasonable timelines when we're not dealing with any kind of extensive safety…. You know, those types of violations. Ordinarily for these kinds of funds, we're dealing with very minor matters, and licensing is able to work with those agencies.

To date we're not seeing any increase in the kind of licensing complaints that we would see if, in fact, they were having a difficulty with licensing. So we're hopeful as we try to get through what will be a difficult time for agencies, that, in fact, we will be able to get through this, maintain our support for child care operating funding and for subsidy and be able to see brighter days ahead, hopefully, economically, when we can provide more in terms of major and minor capital.

M. Elmore: Yeah, I wouldn't also expect to see a lot of reports coming down in terms of violations of regulations or having those reports come in just in terms of the time frame.

So how do you think these centres will be able to make up the difference, with having to…? That's what I've been hearing. I've been hearing they have to make these investments, they have to spend money, and there's a shortfall. They're in deficit.

Hon. M. Polak: I think it's important to note at this juncture that child care is not a service provided by gov-
[ Page 2175 ]
ernment. It is a service provided by the private sector, and we support that through the child care operating fund and also through providing subsidy to make it more affordable for parents with low incomes.

[1620]

When it comes to the minor capital funding — and, in fact, even the major capital funding — in most cases, the vast majority of them, the funding that we provide through minor capital is only a portion of what those agencies will need to spend on different projects that they might have before them.

So while this will be less funding than they were anticipating this year, it is not the only funding source for the vast majority of agencies, and I'm sure that they are experiencing difficulties in other areas as well. We all are — government, private agencies. Again, we anticipate that the agencies will do their very best to maintain services and maintain cost levels at a place where parents can afford it, but that is their decision to make as private agencies.

We continue not only to support child care at an unprecedented level in this province, but in fact this year, even in tough economic times, we've increased the overall spending on child care by $8 million. Again, a difficult decision but one that focuses on protecting the child care operating fund and protecting the subsidy program.

M. Elmore: Recognizing that it's in the private sector, and these child care centres are often operated out of family homes or group care homes that are non-profit. There are very limited funding sources to support the provision of day care, and the minor capital grants are a small but substantial part of that. Is the minister suggesting that it's up to the families and that the child care providers have to pass those costs on to the families?

The reason is… I have a letter from the Windermere Valley Child Care Society. They're running a non-profit child care centre, and they're finding that the financial issues they're being faced with…. They're running a deficit over the years, so it's accumulating, and it's insufficient to cover their costs. From this letter, the parents are receiving the brunt of the shortfall. Some families can handle it, but some can't.

I would just like to be able to report back to the letters that have come in to me, in terms of some relief for these facilities that are providing child care and their efforts to meet the provincial regulations.

[1625]

Hon. M. Polak: The child care operating fund is provided to agencies at a rate of about 12 to 14 percent of what it's costing to them to run their facility. You can add to that the subsidy that's provided for low-income families, which is up to the full amount of what they are charging.

The money that comes through CCOF is no-strings-attached money. If they chose to, they could certainly make an internal decision to have moneys like that go to minor capital.

These are private agencies, and it is up to them to manage their budget appropriately and determine whether or not they have other places they could look to within their budget, whether those are administrative efficiencies or other actions they may decide not to take this year. Again, that's over to them as a private agency.

Our decision was based on difficult economic times and on our desire to protect what we felt was the highest priority, and that was the operating fund and also the subsidy. Certainly, we would love to be able to not have to make any of those decisions. Nevertheless, we were able to see our spending on child care increase this year by $8 million in the midst of some very difficult economic times.

Unfortunately, we're not able to maintain funding for everything that we do, but we felt that the priority should be on maintaining the CCOF and the subsidy for low- and moderate-income families.

M. Elmore: I'd just like to have on record that a number of child care providers have expressed that it will have quite an impact on them and their ability to make the necessary renovations and improvements to meet the regulations, and that they'll have to pass those costs on to the families.

I was wondering if I could just go back. You gave me the current number for this budget — $300 million for child care. Do you also have the numbers for '10-11 and '11-12 projected for the child care?

Hon. M. Polak: As I've said in previous questions, if I'm fortunate enough to be the minister in '10-11 or '11-12, I'll be happy to canvass forecasted amounts or actual amounts at that time.

M. Elmore: It's a math question again. Just in terms of the overall MCFD budget, the investment of $300 million in child care — what does that represent in percent of that budget and in percent of the overall budget just roughly?

Hon. M. Polak: It's about 21 percent of our overall budget.

M. Elmore: Could the minister explain to me the trend in the subsidy allocation? I notice that it's about half of the current budget.

[1630]

Hon. M. Polak: Last year we spent about $144 million, and this year we'll spend $148.2 million.

M. Elmore: The subsidies — I recognize that they comprise nearly half of the overall child care budget.
[ Page 2176 ]
I have a submission from the B.C. Government and Service Employees Union in terms of subsidies — that subsidies are simply giving money to individuals. It's not a substitute for quality child care, and just pouring money into child care subsidies doesn't address the need for more spaces in the province. There is a need for spaces, and also the issue of affordability.

If I can just hear the minister's response on that.

Hon. M. Polak: In fact, the ability of this province…. I shouldn't say the ability. The decision of this province to provide for subsidy as a significant portion of this funding is what provides parents with choices that they don't have in other places. Our province is the only province that allows parents to be subsidized for in-home day care, which they may choose to have.

We believe that affording parents that choice is an important thing. It's also important to note that most provinces have a hybrid model of funding, where there is some money going to subsidize and some money going to daily operating funding.

In terms of spaces, as I've already said, through our major capital program we have provided for the creation of over 6,500 new child care spaces since 2001. That's quite significant.

I would add that I believe personally — and I think I would be joined by my government colleagues — that the provision of subsidy for low- and moderate-income families is yet another component of assisting low-income families to be able to get out of a level of poverty. I think it's an important component of that.

M. Elmore: I've been hearing reports about the long wait-lists that parents have in terms of trying to get their infants, toddlers or young children into day care spaces and just the lack of spaces that are available.

The question to the minister is about…. Certainly not contradicting the role that subsidies play, but in terms that subsidies don't address the need to alleviate wait-lists and to provide spaces for much-needed child care spaces….

[1635]

Hon. M. Polak: It is unfortunately difficult to assess wait-lists coming from day care centres or child care centres, because in very many instances it is most common for parents to register in a number of different day care centres. Then when they would be successful in acquiring a space for their child, they don't tend to follow up and remove their name from the other four or five centres that they may have registered for. So it is very difficult to assess properly what the wait-lists mean in terms of demand.

For our purposes, though, we have certainly been great contributors to the creation of spaces. Since '07-08 we've contributed $14.5 million in major capital funding. Again going back to what's happened since 2001, our major capital program has seen the development of more than 6,500 spaces around the province.

We recognize that child care is always in high demand, and we continue to provide a child care operating fund to those facilities that are constructed and qualify for it under the proper licensing. We certainly recognize the need to support those spaces, and we do so on quite a substantial level.

M. Elmore: The minister has raised the challenge of determining what is…. We know the current number of spaces that are provided. Certainly I hear, and child care providers tell me, that there are huge wait-lists. They characterize it as a system in crisis. There are not adequate spaces to accommodate the requests, and affordability is also a challenge.

So the question becomes: is the ministry looking at ways to actually document and quantify what the wait-list is in the community to be able to better inform plans going forward in terms of addressing the needs for child care spaces?

Hon. M. Polak: We don't plan for where child care spaces should be or how many there should be. What we do is provide funding to those that are created. I believe the number right now is 4,800 providers throughout the province. That makes it, as you can imagine, being that they are private agencies, difficult to track exactly what is going on in each community.

Nevertheless, our role is in providing support through not only the child care operating fund but also through subsidy. It is the private sector's role to create those spaces, and we respond with funding support when they do.

[1640]

M. Elmore: I believe there are a number of child care resource and referral facilities undertaking a survey to try and determine precisely, in more of a scientific way, what the wait-lists are and what the need is. It's difficult to quantify that, and you need to have that data in terms of being able to plan how you're going to…. You have to identify what the needs are in terms of more effectively being able to plan to accommodate those needs.

I have a submission from a family in the West End just talking about their difficulties in accessing child care and the wait-lists. They've been on a wait-list for 2½ years. Their child is three years old. They got on a wait-list, and they still haven't gotten a space. They went on the wait-list in July 2006, more than three years ago, and they're placed at over 300 in order of priority.

That's one report in terms of the wait-lists, and that's what I've heard on an anecdotal level in terms of the wait-lists at facilities that I've been to certainly in the West End. I was wondering if the minister had heard
[ Page 2177 ]
about or what knowledge you have in terms of reports of wait-lists for child care around B.C.

Hon. M. Polak: Again, it's very difficult to maintain accurate wait-lists or be able to access accurate information about wait-lists for precisely the reasons that I outlined, in that parents tend to register at multiple different sites. So it's very difficult to come to grips with what the accurate information might be.

With respect to determining what is out there or what is available, that is what the child care resource and referral agencies do. We provide a $9 million budget for that. There are currently 38 agencies providing child care resource and referral services in 41 different locations around the province.

Again, this is up to private agencies to determine where and how many spaces they wish to invest in and create. Our role as a province is to support those spaces that are created, and we do that to the tune of 91,000 spaces in British Columbia this year that we estimate. We respond, as spaces are created, to provide them with operating funding and also with subsidies to low- and moderate-income families so that they can afford the fees associated with that.

M. Elmore: Besides these facilities, I've also had meetings up at UBC and at SFU with their child care facilities there. They've reported to me that their wait-list is also in excess of the hundreds and also many years' wait-list.

The problem — it's a little bit of a different constituency in terms of the needs of students and families pursuing their graduate and post-doc and post-graduate work at these institutions — is that besides the faculty and staff, the students also need that support. If they're young parents and have small kids, they need to access child care to have that support in terms of pursuing their educational programs.

I was just wondering if you're aware of the backlog and the wait-lists at UBC and SFU in terms of the requests for spaces and the needs for that.

[1645]

Hon. M. Polak: While I cannot speak directly to the SFU situation, I have met with the Alma Mater Society about UBC. I think it's important to identify the support that's already been provided to UBC in '09-10.

This year they've been provided with $240,000 in child care operating funding, and already this year, about $8,000 in minor capital funding has been provided to UBC child care services, as well as approximately $267,000 provided in child care subsidy payments for those that are attending there.

Currently, in terms of licensed child care on the UBC Point Grey campus, there are seven group day cares that take in the under-36-month crowd, with a total of 96 spaces. Last year's total spaces was 84. There are seven group day cares for 30 months to school-aged, with a total of 264 spaces. Last year's total spaces was about 216, so an increase there as well.

Two group day cares, with a total of 110 spaces for out-of-school care, and one kindergarten program and one kindercare with kindergarten program. There are also seven registered licence-not-required child care providers listed on our ministry website, and they are within seven kilometres of the UBC Point Grey campus.

While I recognize that they are struggling, as well, with increased demand, nevertheless I would have to say that in comparison to other areas of the province, the UBC Point Grey area is very well served.

M. Elmore: I also met with the UBC alma mater. Did they raise to you the wait-lists and the need for spaces and the wait times? Did they give you an indication of that?

Hon. M. Polak: Yes, they did. They acknowledged the similar circumstance that I have outlined, which is that it's very difficult to judge anything from the wait-lists that are provided, given that we have no way of knowing whether or not parents have registered at multiple sites or whether, in fact, they have already located child care somewhere else and their name simply remains on the list. It's very difficult to assess.

Again, we understand they're experiencing issues around demand — high demand for their programs. But that is an opportunity, hopefully, for someone to see the need and then decide that they wish to invest in creating child care spaces, which we then would be funding through our child care operating fund, should they qualify, which we would expect they would.

M. Elmore: Certainly, responses for the need, the pressing need, for more spaces out at UBC and also a number of other post-secondary institutions.

The need there, as well as the need for more spaces — which I've been hearing in terms of the wait-lists — is support for young families, particularly young mothers. It's not as much as in past years. You know, there is shared parenting of parents — mothers and fathers — but certainly it often falls to the mother.

One of the aspects, as well, that I heard is that the lack of child care spaces, particularly at UBC and SFU, is resulting in a barrier for young women who are seeking to complete their degrees and pursue their education, their academic careers. It's a barrier in terms of pursuing their academic work. So that's one of the impacts of lack of spaces at post-secondary institutions.

Also, in the community, it's young families and often the working mothers who face the greatest challenge of needing to find reliable child care for their kids when they're trying to work and also support their family. So if the minister could speak to that.

[1650]

Hon. M. Polak: We recognize, certainly, the very important role that appropriate child care plays in the life of a student or a student couple who would be dealing with children. That's precisely why we felt it was important for us to protect the child care operating funding. Those spaces certainly depend on it for their existence. When it comes to, very often, single mothers who are pursuing post-secondary education and struggling in terms of their income level, the subsidy is extremely important to them in terms of ensuring affordability of child care.

We would hope that the increased demand they are seeing at the university would motivate a provider to establish spaces at the site. Certainly, we would be there with our operating funding to be able to support that. But that is part of the challenge we face — that we depend upon the private sector to develop appropriate spaces. We then provide very important funding and support to them and subsidize low- and moderate-income families.

M. Elmore: Certainly the CCOF and the subsidy address supporting parents and families when they're able to access the spaces. But the need to address the wait-list and for the creation of more spaces is, I think, a pressing…. I've been hearing it's a pressing concern that's needed at these institutions — from community child care providers and from parents, young parents, and from my colleagues who have young children. They're not spared the challenge of trying to find adequate child care for their kids.

There's a need — certainly that's what I've been hearing in terms of a need for spaces and for the creation of more spaces. I was concerned that this year there wasn't a provision for investment in the creation of new spaces. I've heard the rationale about the economic difficulties, and I recognize that. But I also recognize the role that investment in child care can play and, in terms of investment in infrastructure, that it has a recognized multiplier effect.

I'm concerned, and I think it's really too bad that we're not seeing the creation of more spaces this year and that it hasn't been projected into the plan. So if the minister could speak to that.

[1655]

Hon. M. Polak: The role of the private sector is to create spaces. They do that. We are there to support them with operating funding, which provides stability to the system — maintains the existing spaces. Certainly, as a result of that, we came to the decision that it was extremely important to maintain the child care operating funding and the subsidy.

Although the target for this year is 91,000 spaces, that doesn't necessarily mean that there might not be providers who come along in the interim and build or open new spaces. If they were to do that, then we would be providing them, as well, with child care operating funding. But, again, that is not the role that the ministry plays. We do support spaces at times when we have finances to run and operate a major capital budget, and we have done that over the years to the tune of 6,500 spaces since 2001.

Nevertheless, as we fall on more difficult economic times, we've increased our budget for child care by about $8 million this year. We felt the important priority was to maintain the child care operating fund and maintain the subsidy. Certainly, if you are to speak to any of the providers out there, they depend on that fund for stability and for money that they can count on. Indeed, the existence of that fund is an incentive to providers to develop spaces, because they know that that fund is there to provide support for those spaces.

M. Elmore: I think that the dependence on the private sector can be identified as one of the problems in terms of relying solely on the private sector to create child care spaces. If you look at it in terms of quality child care assistance that is offered in other jurisdictions, other countries, market-based models have not been shown to deliver the spaces because the profit margin is small. Also, the other problem is that it tends to drive up costs — costs that comes out in terms of fees for parents. Also, it drives down wages in terms of wages to the child care providers.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

I think that maybe exists as a philosophical difference in terms of the role of government supporting child care and, also, regarding it as an investment to create child care spaces and to identify child care as a public service that's offered and benefits society as a whole. We reap those benefits for providing universal, affordable and accessible child care for all citizens regardless of their ability to pay and according to need.

Maybe the minister can speak to that.

Hon. M. Polak: I suppose there is a philosophical position to take that says that government should fund every aspect of child care, from building of spaces, to operating and all the way through. Nevertheless, throughout British Columbia's history, regardless of which government has been in power, the system in place now that relies on private operators has remained the same. It is not new with this government. It has been the same throughout, regardless of which political party was in power.

[1700]

This is indeed a choice that one has to make between whether the priorities are around capital or around operating, and we believe that the best support we are able to provide to parents is through providing operating funding to agencies that provide child care, to provide subsidies to make it affordable for low- and moderate-
[ Page 2179 ]
income families and, when our budget allows, to provide for capital support toward the construction of new spaces. As I've mentioned before, that has resulted in the development of more than 6,500 spaces since 2001.

Nevertheless, I would emphasize that this is not a new system. It's one that has been in place throughout our history in British Columbia, and I would venture to say that the move away from supporting operating would also present a significant challenge to those who are in the business at this point.

M. Elmore: Recognizing that I've heard and it's been characterized as a crisis in the child care system — the lack of spaces, the long wait-lists for parents, to get into facilities — another issue that has also been raised consistently is the issue of affordability and the rising costs of child care.

I have a letter, a submission from a family who was on a wait-list for over three years in the West End. The child care costs are continuing to rise, and it's out of the reach of many families, even with the subsidies. They quote here the cost of child care. It's recorded now that child care costs are the second-highest expense for a family after they're paying for their home, shelter.

One is a lawyer, and the other works at UBC. Their fees are $1,290 a month, which works out to $23,500 gross net income. Those are the fees they are having to pay, in addition to the high wait-list. That's the situation. It's very grave for families and young families. I think I'd characterize them as desperate in terms of needing to find places to look after their kids while they're going to school. There's a need for more spaces in our system.

If I can just ask the minister to comment on what she heard in terms of affordability of child care for families here in B.C.

Hon. M. Polak: Certainly, we recognize that affordability is a challenge. That is why, when faced with difficult decisions this year due to tough economic times, we felt that it was important to make the decision to prioritize child care operating funding and subsidy, because that is the very most direct way that we can help parents with the affordability question.

Again, back to our priorities, they were chosen based on the recognition that affordability is a significant challenge for parents out there.

M. Elmore: Thank you to the minister for recognizing that affordability is a big challenge for families in B.C. — trying to access day care, off and on, with wait-lists.

I'd like to just move on to a different area of questioning around the rationale behind the elimination of the Minister of State for Childcare and moving it into MCFD.

Hon. M. Polak: That would be appropriately canvassed in the Premier's estimates.

M. Elmore: Can I ask why?

[1705]

Hon. M. Polak: The ministry is not responsible for making the decision as to the existence or non-existence of the minister of state position. That is a decision made by the Premier.

M. Elmore: Can the minister tell me how that will affect the provision of child care in B.C.?

Hon. M. Polak: There should be no change in service. There's simply a change in responsibility.

M. Elmore: If I'm to understand it, basically child care would be administered off the side of the desk and not have the dedicated resources and focus put onto child care.

My question is in terms of restructuring and how restructuring within the ministry will affect the delivery of child care.

Hon. M. Polak: I have to say that I actually take offence at the suggestion that any department in my ministry runs off the side of my desk. It doesn't. In terms of the minister of state position, as is true for any other minister of state, they do not operate as a separate ministry. They operate under the auspices of an overall ministry, in this case the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

The staff that were the complement for the child care department remain. They simply are under the authority of my ministry as a whole now, without the minister of state. In fact, our executive positions and, indeed, my ministry office have been constructed in such a way as to pay adequate attention to the addition of that workload to our ministry.

In fact, even the ministerial assistant who was working directly with the minister of state is now one of my ministerial assistants. In my ministerial office, rather than having a ministerial assistant and an executive assistant, the typical complement that a ministry would have, I have two ministerial assistants and do not have an executive assistant.

That, in part, is to recognize the very expansive workload that is represented in our ministry. But there's no way, ever, that any department of our ministry operates off the side of my desk.

M. Elmore: It's my understanding that there haven't been any staff reductions with the transition. You still have all the dedicated staff.

Hon. M. Polak: That's correct. The only staff reductions or changes that would have taken place would have been directly at the minister's office level.
[ Page 2180 ]

M. Elmore: Can I ask where does child care fit in the new practice framework?

Hon. M. Polak: As I mentioned, it has never been the case that the minister of state was separate from the Ministry of Children and Family Development. In fact, it did operate underneath the auspices of the Ministry of Children and Family Development, and child care is a part of pillar 1 of our Strong, Safe and Supported. It's an extremely important part of the continuum. In fact, it's the beginning of the continuum that we see with respect to the importance of early childhood development.

[1710]

If I could quote from Strong, Safe and Supported in pillar 1: "Government will place a primary focus on preventing vulnerability in children and youth by providing strong supports for individuals, families and communities." That, of course, involves providing quality child care and quality early childhood development to those children and families.

M. Elmore: I have a question for another cut. Maybe the minister can tell me about the "supported child development." In that line, what's the trend there?

Hon. M. Polak: Did you mean in terms of the budget for it, or did you mean in terms of the number of children?

M. Elmore: Yeah, in terms of the budget. I've got reports that child care centres are reporting that they've lost the supported child care portion in terms of the component that goes to support children with special needs into their facilities.

Hon. M. Polak: There have been no reductions there. In fact, there's been an increase. In terms of trend, in '04-05 we had a budget of $37.7 million, and this year we have a budget of $57 million. There have been no reductions there.

M. Elmore: Okay, thank you. Maybe I can follow up with the facility, and I can inquire at a further time.

I have a question in terms of the early childhood educators. If the minister could just explain some of the supports and programs that are available to support the professional development and, also, the licensing of ECEs here in B.C.

[1715]

Hon. M. Polak: Certainly, we recognize the need to train and recruit more early childhood educators. They are the backbone of our system. So a number of different supports.

One is a grant that we provided to Vancity for bursaries of $1.5 million. Our incentive grants this year — we had 50 applicants, and 21 ended up being eligible. For our loan assistance program we had over 100 applicants, and 42 ended up being eligible. The total that we spent on those was $116,000.

Then, we also provided $500,000 in '04-05 and another $660,000 in '06-07 to the University of Victoria, where we continue to support the School of Child and Youth Care at the university. The purpose of that is looking forward. We really want to identify and support good practices that exist in terms of early childhood education and to share those kinds of strengths across programs so that we really can be developing the best way to incent those we would want to see train to be early childhood educators.

We should also recognize, though, that this is a challenge that is being faced not only in British Columbia but in fact North America–wide. We'll continue to pursue whatever means we can to improve the recruitment rates for early childhood educators.

M. Elmore: The minister mentioned the program at UVic. I'm wondering if you're aware also that the University of Victoria is facing great pressure for child care spaces and looking to alleviate that. They've had a proposal submission from Kids and Co., which is a large corporate child care — also referred to as big-box child care — which is unanimously opposed across the board by all the child care providers and advocates here on the Island and also across B.C.

I was wondering if the minister had a comment. We don't have currently in B.C. large corporate child care — if the minister can comment on that.

Hon. M. Polak: Certainly, the decision around the acceptance of that proposal would be the purview of the University of Victoria, not the ministry. In terms of the ministry's role, it would be to ensure that any new child care provider would meet our standards for licensing. But the decision whether or not to employ the services of an organization such as that would be the decision of the University of Victoria, not the decision of government.

The Chair: If I can remind all members that they should direct their questions towards the budget Vote 19 for the ministry for the years 2009-10.

M. Elmore: The previous minister of state is on the record as opposed to large, corporate child care in B.C. I was just wondering if the minister is also going to go on record about that in terms of this current budget.

Hon. M. Polak: I'm not familiar with the particular quote that the member references. What I can tell the member is that our consistent position has been that our role is in terms of ensuring that any provider would
[ Page 2181 ]
meet our licensing standards. In terms of this particular proposal that the member describes, that would be a decision for the University of Victoria. It wouldn't be a decision for government.

[1720]

M. Elmore: I do have the quote in here, because I pulled it off. It's from the previous estimates procedure: "I know the question has been whether or not British Columbia will be home to large, corporate child care. The answer to that is no. We have small, independent operators today, and there has been no interest in having anything else come to British Columbia." That's what the previous minister is on record as saying.

Hon. M. Polak: Again, I don't think that my comments are inconsistent. She's responding to the fact that we hadn't had any requests at that time, and it wasn't a direction that she saw the province going. The fact of the matter is that the decision that the member is referencing would be one for the University of Victoria.

It isn't a decision for government. Our decisions are around whether or not there are appropriate standards being met and if, indeed, a facility is meeting those standards and should, therefore, be licensed. But the decision as to whether or not to accept this proposal is the purview of the University of Victoria. It's not the purview of government.

M. Elmore: I understand that the minister isn't prepared to take a stand on this pressing issue that's of concern, pretty much, to the entire child care providers and advocates and organizations in B.C.

I have another question in terms of the early childhood educators. One of the concerns, certainly, is ensuring that these professionals, who are very dedicated to their careers, are able to make a living wage in their profession. Often we see that there is downward pressure on wages in terms of trying to meet affordability for parents. I'm wondering if the minister is in support of…. There's a campaign calling for a living wage for early childhood educators, a $20 an hour wage. I'm wondering if the minister is in support of that.

Hon. M. Polak: The role of the ministry is to provide for financial support to day care providers. We do that through the child care operating fund. It is the providers who set the wages for their employees. It is not government who has a role to play in that.

Certainly, though, the operating funding that we provide can be used by the day care providers in whichever way they choose, and if that would be to increase the wages for their employees, that's their decision. But again, our role is to provide financial support through the child care operating fund and, in addition to that, through subsidy for low- and moderate-income families.

M. Elmore: My next question is: is the minister interested in looking at adding a wage subsidy for early childhood educators as one of the line items — besides providing the subsidy and the operating funds and the minor grants and those different lines, adding a line in terms of supporting the wage subsidy for ECEs?

Hon. M. Polak: No, we have not considered a separate wage subsidy. In fact, the child care operating fund can be used by providers to increase wages for their employees if they see fit, but that's their choice. Our role is to provide financial support for them through the child care operating fund and also through subsidy to low- and moderate-income parents. It is their decision to make as to how they support their employees and at what wage.

[1725]

M. Elmore: I just have a couple of more questions to wrap up, and then I'll pass off to one of my colleagues, who has some more questions. It's around the plan, or if there is a plan, for child care in terms of addressing the need for more spaces and, also, the issue of affordability. Is there a plan?

Hon. M. Polak: As I've said before, we have in the past provided capital funding to the extent that we have been able to support the development of well over 6,500 spaces since 2001. We will continue to provide a major capital program when there are finances available, but in this fiscal year, given the economic challenges, we felt it was important to focus our dollars where they would, first and foremost, meet the needs of children in a very direct way, and that's through the child care operating fund, the subsidy, and also by maintaining at least a portion of the minor capital funding.

M. Elmore: So I take it, then, that there isn't a plan. We don't have a comprehensive plan in government to expand child care.

It's striking when I meet with a number of the advocates and people very passionate about child care and the need to have a comprehensive, universal, affordable, accessible child care plan. Many of them are women. When I sit down with them, they say that this has been a fight they've taken on when they themselves were young mothers. They had young children, and they were trying to find child care spaces for their kids. They say they can't imagine, you know, 30 years later that now their kids have grown up, their kids have had kids, and they're grandparents now, and they are still fighting for a comprehensive child care system.

I think it really speaks to the need for a plan, in terms of how to systematically address the needs and concerns that I know…. Certainly, many people in this room, if you've raised kids, are familiar with that and have heard
[ Page 2182 ]
about the need for a comprehensive, universal child care system. There is need for a plan to address that.

Hon. M. Polak: Again, the decision we've made as government is to protect and enhance the child care operating fund and the subsidy through an $8 million lift this year to our budget, which is now $300 million. It is not our role to be providing the spaces. We provide the support for the spaces and, as I've mentioned, since 2001 the capital support that we have provided has resulted in the creation of more than 6,500 new spaces.

Should there be new spaces created in the sector, we would then be providing our operating funding to those as well. Again, it's just a difference in view with respect to the role of government. But, as I have also mentioned previously, throughout British Columbia's history it has been the private sector that has provided the child care with government providing the operating funding.

It has not changed, despite changes in government. That has been true throughout British Columbia's history. It did not change with this government. Again, our role and our goal right now is to protect what we feel are the priority areas — the child care operating fund and also the subsidy.

M. Elmore: Just to conclude my remarks, and then I'll pass it off. Certainly, I've been hearing from parents and child care providers, reporting that parent fees are going up and wait-lists are growing across the province. Also, low wages for the child care providers, the early childhood educators, are forcing them to leave the field. A child care action plan that actually looks at implementing and addressing some of these issues in a systematic way is what is needed to move the burden of child care funding from user fees to public funding; to set targets and timelines for lowering and capping parent fees; and to raise wages to a fair wage, a living wage, for early childhood educators. Also, to promote building of community-owned spaces to meet everyone's needs.

So that's what I've been hearing, and I think those are the priorities that I'm hoping to see more commitment from the government on. Thank you very much.

[1730]

Hon. M. Polak: Just to finish off, I appreciate the member's concern and focus on child care. Certainly, we see the early years as the very most important, and that's why we will continue to invest in supporting quality child care. As new spaces come on-board through the sector, we will be there to provide the support for them through the operating fund, as well, and also through the subsidy for low- and moderate-income families. We are hopeful that the private sector will continue to step up and continue to improve on the number of spaces as we go forward.

J. Kwan: I would like to ask some questions about a particular situation in my riding related to child care. They've actually made a plea to the minister or to the government for assistance. Let me just outline some background around the issue for you, Mr. Chair, before I ask the minister some questions.

This is premised on a report that has been done in my community by Clyde Hertzman. The research, of course, shows that…. In the 2004 data, it shows that the children in the Strathcona community have fallen far behind from where they were in 2002, increasing vulnerability in each of the developmental areas. In 2004-2005 this data confirmed what the community parents and organizations had already known, and that is that there is a desperate shortage of child care spaces.

To that end, the community began to work to save a hundred-space child care centre at 717 Princess Avenue, which is located in Strathcona. At that time, that child care centre space was on the market. It is a project that the community had worked hard on and finally came to realization. It's called the Phil Bouvier Child Development Centre.

When the centre opened, it had over 200 children on the wait-list. Over 90 percent of those 49 children in the child care program are eligible to receive child care subsidies due to limited income. As the Chair may well know, and the minister may know, this is one of the poorest neighbourhoods in all of Canada, the area which I represent.

Of the 49 children taken off of the wait-list, 34 children have a range of medical and developmental issues that require additional staff resources for quality, safety and to help the children meet developmental milestones and be school-ready.

The support needs of the children have been documented and have been recorded by a number of professionals from other systems. Having just three staff — in addition to regular staff ratio required by the community care licensing for a typical child care setting — all children, of course, benefit.

Several children on the wait-list for a one-to-one and one-to-three staff support ratio also exists in our community. In the current system, they would be excluded from our child care centre and put on the supported child care wait-list until they were assessed and a support worker or funding assigned to them so that they could participate in regular child care programs.

The situation at 717 Princess is, really, a reflection of the larger reality of the community that I represent and, particularly, of the inner city. That is to say, for 717 Princess Avenue, this could be as many as five to 12 extra staff that would be required for this centre to support the children, based on the supported child care criteria if it were to apply in terms of the guiding principles of it. Unfortunately, there is no funding in place for the children on the wait-lists, and they must wait until funds become available.
[ Page 2183 ]

The current system excludes these children from supports and enrichment environments that will give them opportunities to develop and to thrive despite the challenges that they face.

[1735]

Two issues are at hand that bring us relevant to this set of estimates, Mr. Chair. I know that you're sitting there wondering what I am going on about. But it is totally relevant.

The community currently has received partial funding — that is to say, enough to sort of keep it going but not enough to really do the job that it needs to do. The cost of the building is approximately $70,000 a year, and the extra staffing that's needed for this society is a requirement as well.

We need that for the safety of the children and for the quality of care of the children as well. With such a high ratio of children with special needs supports, we need to ensure that there is more staffing on hand. So my question to the minister is this, first of all: is the minister aware of the situation at 717 Princess Avenue?

Hon. M. Polak: For clarification, can I ask: is that the Phil Bouvier Centre?

J. Kwan: Yes, it is.

Hon. M. Polak: I'll try to provide a brief history of our interaction with the Phil Bouvier Centre to perhaps give some clarity to what is occurring at this time.

Initially, the government provided a million dollars to help construct the facility, and on an ongoing basis we provide about $85,000 in annual operating funding — that covers 49 child care spaces — in addition to around $420,000 each year that flows in subsidy funding to help offset the child care costs for the parents who are accessing that.

When it comes to the Phil Bouvier Centre, though, we also recognize some of the unique challenges that the member raised, and we provide an additional $75,000 annually to the Vancouver Native Health Society at the Bouvier Centre, through which they're able to provide a key worker position to assist parents in accessing necessary services.

Nevertheless, when it comes to the Downtown Eastside and the challenges that they face, there are also other ways in which we provide support. Currently, the Ministry of Children and Family Development…. If you total up all the early childhood development funding that exists there, it comes to a grand total of about $9 million. Since '05-06 our capital investments have seen the creation of about 127 new spaces, and, in fact, coming in January 2010 we will see the opening of three more child care centres: the one at Woodward's will be 37 spaces; the Citygate one, another 37 spaces; and the International Village one will be 47 spaces.

I would await if there are further questions from the member.

J. Kwan: I appreciate the information that the minister is providing, and that's great that there is support there. But having said that, I want to go back to the background that I was laying out for the minister's information, and that is the situation in the inner city.

I appreciate that there are 49 spaces that are being funded, but the reality is that for that very centre, just that one centre alone, we have over 200 children on the wait-list. And because it's an inner-city environment, we also have a disproportionately high number of children who have special need requirements. To that end, extra support is necessary in order for the centre to be safe and for the environment to be optimal for the children where they could learn.

The extra funding provides some support but, unfortunately, not enough support. The reality of the centre is such that they are still in need of support for the space itself and to ensure that it is actually an affordable space, and to that end they're not asking the province for all the assistance. They are turning to the city of Vancouver to assist in making that space more affordable for the children and for the community there.

Then the other aspect of it is, though, that they need three additional qualified staff to address the ratio of special needs kids or kids who need special support in that centre. So the $75,000, while it is some additional support, is not enough for the centre to do the work it is necessary to do.

[1740]

Otherwise, the centre is going to have to turn away these special needs kids requests. If we do that, of course — I think the minister can appreciate…. By not providing these early childhood development opportunities for, particularly, children who are in special needs, it will just further set them back in terms of the future and their future development, and ultimately it would be a heavier burden on the system itself. Of course, it would be missed opportunities for the children in terms of their opportunities to maximize their potential in the future.

So I'm asking whether or not the minister would consider…. First of all, has the minister had a discussion with the operators of the centre around additional funding for these three additional qualified staff that they're requesting?

Hon. M. Polak: In fact, our ministry has been working very closely with board of the Ray-Cam Co-operative Centre, who operate Phil Bouvier. We have been working with them for some time. One of the challenges that we face in working with them is the need to have a system whereby these children are being properly assessed so that they can qualify for supported child care dollars.
[ Page 2184 ]

We continue to work with not only the board at the Ray-Cam Co-operative Centre but also with the city of Vancouver and other partners, like the Native Health Society, to ensure that there is a plan in place that would enable the centre to proceed and enable them to qualify for the additional funding that would come with supported child care dollars if they were able to complete those assessments.

My understanding is that that work is ongoing, and we're hopeful that the centre will be able to be viable when they are able to complete these plans.

J. Kwan: When did the minister's staff meet with them last?

Hon. M. Polak: The latest information I have is from September, at which time we had a meeting with them on September 22. We've also communicated with them through correspondence our willingness to continue that work with them, again, to ensure that they have every possible assistance in meeting the requirements to be able to qualify for supported child care funding and also to assist them in some of their budget planning that they've been challenged with.

The Chair: Member, noting the hour.

J. Kwan: I thought we go to quarter after six?

The Chair: No, six o'clock on Thursdays.

J. Kwan: Oh no. Oh dear.

On that note, thank you for that, Minister.

I wonder if the minister, then, can assign whoever's staff that's been working with the centre so that I can communicate with them. I have received correspondence from them since that time, and just to catch up on the situation to date, and to see how it is that the ministry can assist with that process in an effort to work out an arrangement that would support the centre.

It would be a tremendous loss to our community if nothing could be worked out, and the loss is not only, of course, for the centre itself but, more importantly, for the children who rely on those centres.

I all of a sudden lost 15 minutes. I'm very distracted by that. I have one other quick thing that I just want to raise, Mr. Chair, if you indulge me.

I received some time ago…. It was this month, actually — October 22, more precisely. A woman named Tracy Lynn Skomoski from Kelowna…. The minister might be aware of this case. It was brought to the Minister of Housing's attention. I thought it was his responsibility. It turns out that it fell under this minister's responsibility. It is the case where she actually needs child care subsidy support. She's a woman who was working full-time, and then she got laid off. Then she was on UI, and then she got cut off UI because it ran out.

Then she was on income assistance and continues to be on income assistance, but she ran into problems with respect to that because she lost her child care subsidy for her granddaughter, for whom she has full custody. There were some issues around that, because the ministry was simply saying they did not pay for child care so that she could job search. But if she didn't have child care, it would be a bit of a problem, because she couldn't otherwise job search, and it would cause problems on the income assistance end and so on and so forth.

[1745]

So this case was brought to the minister's attention. I know that there isn't much time. It's not a constituent of mine, but she just wrote me, and I just felt terrible about her situation. I said I would assist her as best I can.

I want to bring this to the minister's attention, and I wonder if the minister can direct her staff to look into it. I'd be happy to work with her. I have a consent form here to release the information and, hopefully, to resolve her problem and ensure that she can continue to care for her granddaughter but at the same time meet the requirements of income assistance and get the child care subsidy that is needed for the family's well-being.

Hon. M. Polak: On both counts, with respect to the Phil Bouvier Centre and with respect to the question regarding this individual, I'm happy to connect you with staff. In particular, with respect to the Phil Bouvier Centre, I'm happy to keep you updated as to any progress that we might make in that regard.

Vote 19: ministry operations, $1,394,139,000 — approved.

Hon. M. Polak: I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the Ministry of Children and Family Development and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:47 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2009: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175