Hey All,
Below is Michael’s statement to Bill 21 the Ambulance Services Collective Agreement Act.
Michael has always been a staunch defender of worker’s rights and here he defends paramedics and attacks the governments imposition of a contract.
2009 Legislative Session: First Session, 39th Parliament
HOUSE BLUES
This is a DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY of debate in one sitting of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. This transcript is subject to corrections, and will be replaced by the final, official Hansard report. Use of this transcript, other than in the legislative precinct, is not protected by parliamentary privilege, and public attribution of any of the debate as transcribed here could entail legal liability.
DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
(HANSARD)
HOUSE BLUES
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2009
Afternoon Sitting
HSE – 20091103 PM 002/gtw/1335
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2009
M. Sather: I rise to address Bill 21, 2009, Ambulance Services Collective Agreement Act. As a speaker before me commented, it’s a very bizarre title for this bill — collective agreement act — when, in fact, what the government is doing is gutting the collective agreement and is saying that the collective agreement doesn’t count, saying that all of the negotiations that have gone by so far don’t count, saying: “Your whole process of free collective bargaining that is recognized in a democracy doesn’t count.” [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It’s a troubling day, I think, for British Columbians when a government makes a move such as this, particularly with this employee group, with this group of workers that means so much to the safety and security of everyday British Columbians. All of us depend on the B.C. Ambulance Service and the workers that do the exemplary work that they do for them. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We don’t know whether it’s going to be today, tomorrow or some time down the road, but we do know that most likely we or, certainly, our family members, at some point, are going to depend on that service. It is life and death. As we know, we’re not talking about optional services; we’re talking about essential services. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1450]
It’s troubling to look at what effect this legislation, in imposing a settlement and in the way that it’s been done, is going to have not only on the morale of paramedics [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
HSE – 20091103 PM 017/hbw/1450
in imposing a settlement and in the way that it’s been done, what effect that’s going to have not only on the morale of paramedics but also the future security of our ambulance services. Certainly the trust in the process for those folks must be severely shaken, and I expect they’re mulling over what their options are. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But when the government comes in with a big hammer and they have the power to do that — government has the power to do that — it doesn’t leave these workers with many options, except they have to figure out how to deal with it psychologically. They have to figure out how to deal with it financially, which we know is a big issue for paramedics, particularly in terms of the standby time issues that they have. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What is it going to mean, as I say, for all of us? It’s a dark day, I think. It really can be said without hyperbole that it is a dark day for labour relations in this province when we see the government come through with this bill, and in the way that it’s been done. It’s certainly disconcerting. We know that the health and well-being of those that are the caregivers and caretakers is in many ways more important than the health and well-being of the rest of us, because if we can’t depend on them…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If you go to your doctor and he’s not psychologically in the position of stability that he can act in your best interest, then you know you’ve got something to be concerned about. Yet these workers, the paramedics, deal with considerable trauma all the time, all the time, in ways that we, not having done that, can’t imagine. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I remember talking to a friend years ago. He wasn’t a paramedic, but he was a volunteer with the fire department. We have a partially volunteer fire department in Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows. You know, he would, unfortunately, have to witness some pretty severe scenes at car accidents and the like. I asked him what effect that had on him. I was surprised that his response…. His response actually kind of concerned me, in that he didn’t think it had any effect on him. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Having been a mental health worker myself, I know that that’s how post-traumatic stress disorder creeps up on people. They don’t think that it has any effect on them, and then things start happening in their lives that are…. It could be a number of things: certainly sleep disorders, nightmares, inability to concentrate, sometimes overuse of alcohol or drugs. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
These are the kinds of stresses and strains that we take for granted that these folks are doing for us every day. I don’t think I could do it, and I take my hat off to them and the work they’ve done, and I just feel strongly that that kind of respect we should all have for those workers is not being shown here by the government today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We’re going to talk about other members. I’m going to talk about other members. I’ve already talked about what appear to be some of the overriding or underlying reasons for this draconian measure that the government has taken. One of the things, too, that interested me about this dispute since its beginning…. You know that paramedics certainly have fallen behind in terms of comparability in remuneration and benefits with police forces over the years. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1455]
I wondered what the police departments feel about that, because we know that the police, of course, deal with very difficult situations [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
HSE – 20091103 PM 018/dag/1455
They’re given arms to manage what are sometimes very dangerous situations. So when I started talking to them, I was surprised to hear some of the things I heard. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I remember one officer telling me: “Oh absolutely. They should have parity with us.” I said: “Yeah? Can you tell me why you think that’s the case?” And he said: “Well, those folks are out on calls where they have no idea what they’re going to be facing.” They don’t know when they arrive on the scene whether there’s anybody armed. They don’t know whether there’s anybody dangerous. They don’t know if the person has a gun, has a knife. They have no idea, and they go in there unarmed to a completely unknown situation and a dangerous situation. Those are often in homes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The ambulance, 911, gets called, and there’s a need for an ambulance. Sometimes they’re the first ones there. They may be the only ones that are called in a situation. Yet they have to deal with the situation as they see it, and they don’t have the security that being armed provides to one when you go…. Although, of course, we know that being armed is not a sure fire way to keep from being injured oneself. But they don’t have that security, and I think that that’s been the impression. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The support from police forces for the paramedics has been shown quite visibly. I’ve seen the paramedic signs up at RCMP detachments in several places around the province. So I think we should be aware of what other professionals think about the jobs that paramedics do, because it seems that the government doesn’t value very highly the job that they do. They’re willing to sacrifice the stability of the system — I think that’s what it amounts to — and the future stability of the system for some questionable reasons or apparent reasons. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows we have only two cars, two ambulances, and they have to serve not only our area from Mission to the Pitt River Bridge, but they have to serve outside of our community because they’re often short-staffed. Particularly in a larger call, they’re called out of the community. So when you dial 911 and need an ambulance in Maple Ridge, one of those ambulances may be in New Westminster, and in the kind of traffic congestion that we have most of the time, most of the day and evenings, between New Westminster and Maple Ridge, it can be some considerable time for them to get back. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So people’s lives are at risk. We had a tragic death a few years ago of a young child. She choked to death. We did not have the capability to get there in time to save that child’s life. We know that the capacity to do that, to respond, is dropping. But I know it gives me, certainly, a feeling of security. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Actually just the other morning, Monday, about two o’clock in the morning, I woke up — we happen to live close to the Lougheed Highway in Maple Ridge — and I heard this screeching sound followed by a big bang, and I knew that there was another accident on the Lougheed Highway. I’m waiting and was very pleased to hear within a matter of a couple of minutes…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1500]
An ambulance station, fortunately, is not far from our place, and I was very pleased to hear…. I sometimes have gone out on the Lougheed Highway, because I am close to it, to assist. So I’m wondering: do I get up and go out in the middle of the night to help or what? Fortunately, [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
HSE – 20091103 PM 019/jag/1500
very quickly I heard the ambulance coming to the rescue. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But the problem for us, and it’s even more acute, as we’ve heard from other members on this side of the House before and I know we’re going to hear again…. The situation is even more acute in rural areas. But the response times are not up to what they should be because of the lack of resources that our ambulance services have and that our paramedics have to work with. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So when we look at the breakdown of how this came about or what was taking place, we see that three days before a vote on an offer made by the government on September 28 — three days…. The government pulls the pin on the paramedics three days before they’re due to take a vote. That’s curious. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
You know, apparently the minister said that Mr. Strohmaier, the president of CUPE Local 873, said that, well, the contract was crap, and so that was it — they weren’t going to accept it. Or that’s the supposition of the minister, apparently, that they weren’t going to accept it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Well, it seems to me, in fact, that anyone in labour negotiations would say, and I think most reasonable people would say: why not wait and see what the result of the vote was going to be? But no, Madam Speaker, there seemed to be suddenly a great urgency on the part of this government to…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Point of Order
Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, Member. The member rises on a point of order. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Rustad: Some of the language that has just been used in that speech I believe is somewhat unparliamentary, and I’d ask him to withdraw it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Sather: Thank you…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Deputy Speaker: One moment, Member. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Member, I would certainly caution all members to be cautious in their use of parliamentary language. Please proceed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Sather: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I certainly will take your advice on that issue. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Debate Continued
M. Sather: Clearly, this is a government that each and every one should be ashamed of this day — should be ashamed of this legislation, should be ashamed of treating working people in British Columbia like this. I can understand the government should feel a little bit sensitive about the issues that we’re discussing, because they’re not comfortable for them and certainly not very comfortable for us either in that. It’s just a sad day all around. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The government could have appointed an independent arbitrator months ago. We will remember that back a few years ago, a couple of years ago when the government was thinking about how to have labour peace — I’m sure over the Olympic period was part of the equation — and the then Finance Minister Carole Taylor came up with a package that was acceptable. Any of the good feeling or rapport or, you know, trust that might have been built up by that time by that then minister has certainly disappeared now. It’s gone out the window in a big way. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1505]
This bill, Bill 21…. The minister says that it’s a short time, that it expires March 31 of 2010, which just happens to be after the Olympics. Sure, it’s a coincidence. As the previous speaker mentioned [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
HSE – 20091103 PM 020/bmg/1505
, bargaining is probably going to resume on that collective agreement probably very quickly, before Christmas, certainly, I would expect, or it should in normal terms. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Whether any of the normal terms are going to be pursued in terms of labour relations from this point forward seems to be very much in doubt. But I can’t imagine sitting across the table on the government side as a negotiator in a few weeks, after having pulled this bill out of the hat. It’s going to be very difficult for the sides to come to an amicable agreement, and that’s the problem with this — that it damages, that it poisons labour relations. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
People don’t forget, and we’ve seen already that the paramedics don’t give up. They’re standing strong for the needs that they see in the system that they work in. And who could see them better than them? You can’t expect them…. Maybe the government doesn’t care. I don’t know what future plans they have in terms of labour relations in this province, but maybe they don’t care about what the paramedics think or how they feel. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But that’s a very short-sighted perspective, because we will all pay the price if we don’t have a paramedic workforce that is not only well-trained, adequately paid, but that is able to work and feel respected and to have the psychological support to be able to deal with the trauma of the kinds of situations that they have to deal with every day. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Now, certainly, there is a troubling direction that has been revealed, that has come from VANOC with regard to labour relations, specifically the paramedics and the Olympics saying that VANOC must have a guarantee that no services will be disrupted during the games. Otherwise VANOC will have to invoke contingency plans to avoid cancellation of the games. Whoa. I mean — really? This is what it’s come to? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We get a letter or the government gets a letter. They can deny it, but I don’t think it’s false. They get this directive from VANOC saying: “Well, you know, you better deal with these paramedics or we’re going to have to figure out something, or we’ll cancel the games.” This is like a few months before the 2010 Olympics. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjection.
M. Sather: Well, the member used a word that I guess I probably shouldn’t repeat with regard to my colleagues on the other side being offended, but it certainly does really give cause for concern as to what on earth is going on here and why this has happened now and in such — to use the word that former colleagues have used — a brutal fashion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I talked to a young man not too long ago who was very keen, and he’s in the process of becoming a paramedic. As we mentioned, it takes some time to become a full-time paramedic, but he’s a young man who lives here in Victoria, and they get sent out in the process at various times to other communities for days or a week or more at a time. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1510]
He was spending time over in Tofino, Ucluelet. It’s a small community, right? He loves his job. He wants to be a paramedic [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
HSE – 20091103 PM 021/amm/1510
, but he says: “How do I pay my bills when I’ll be sitting there for days and there may be no calls? A couple of days go by, and there’s no call for our services, so I’m getting paid a standby rate” –– which would barely pay his gas to get there and back. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Now, nobody can build a career on that kind of an arrangement, so we’ve got a big problem. We’ve got a problem with paramedics leaving their profession in large numbers. Recruitment isn’t a big issue for the service. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Again, I just don’t understand how the government can see any wisdom in a precipitous move, apparently to satisfy VANOC, that they would put at risk the future of our ambulance service –– you know? Because if this is…. I certainly would think twice. I probably wouldn’t enter a profession…. If I looked around and saw this is what I’m facing –– this is the kind of lack of respect that the government has towards me –– I would think, you know, there must be somewhere else that I can work where I would be treated better. So that’s a real concern that we all should have. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
You know, it’s not as though there hasn’t been…. The services have been provided lo, these many months –– the essential services legislation that requires, you know, workers like paramedics to not be on a regular strike. Yeah, they had some on-strike signs on their ambulances, but they really weren’t in any real strike situation. So a lot of them ended up working overtime to make sure that things worked, because unfortunately there are not a lot of people, as I say, that are looking to become paramedics these days. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Now, if we look at the proposals that were put forth by the government and by the union, there doesn’t appear to be a mile of difference between the two. We have a 3-percent wage increase in common; a labour market adjustment of 1.2 percent and a similar, not all that different, perhaps, proposal from the government side; expiry time: 17 and a half months from the union, a year from the government side; and some differences around the employment of an industrial inquiry commission, but no signing bonus for the paramedics. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The signing bonus that public sector workers…. I don’t know what the member feels; maybe he feels they don’t deserve it, but you know, other public sector workers…. We’re all for that, but it seems like it’s just absolutely adding insult to injury. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It really makes one wonder if…. I think some workers in British Columbia thought, after the broad collective agreement for public sector workers was negotiated a couple of years ago, that maybe things were getting better with this government. Some of the concern they had about their attitude towards labour, about their attitude towards public sector workers, was changing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Well, it’s gone back to zero and then some, I would suggest, in terms of the confidence or faith that working people can have in this government when it comes to respecting free collective bargaining, when it comes to respecting the work that they do. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1515]
So this will be long-lasting, the effects. They won’t go away easily. People don’t forget this kind of treatment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I wanted to look at some of the things that the union is calling for in the industrial inquiry [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
HSE – 20091103 PM 022/ajb/1515
Commission to look at: staff recruitment, training and retention. Well, those are the big basic issues that they talk about, as well as the resources to do their job. I’ve talked to them many times over the years. They said: “Money is not the big issue for us. It’s the resources to do our job.” And it’s the capacity to do a good job that they have a concern about. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Employee compensation, of course, is part of any negotiation, but what I see as being relatively close to being an agreement certainly doesn’t look exorbitant by any stretch of the imagination. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Staff workload and occupational health and safety issues. And of course, rural and remote deployment and management structures and staff responsibilities and other related matters. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Very reasonable requests that the workers, through their union, have been putting forth. I don’t see that the government couldn’t have come to some agreement with them. Instead, there seemed to be this need to bring in the hammer to, you know, make sure that we have “labour peace.” And it is a quote, because this is not labour peace. This is labour unrest — and long-lasting unrest. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
VANOC may think it’s peace. I don’t know. They’re, of course, focused on the Olympics, as they should be. That’s their job. But it’s not the only job of the province of British Columbia and the government of British Columbia — to ensure that anything and everything is done to ensure that there are no disruptions in any way, shape, or form to the Olympics. We’ve seen that in other legislation before this House and in legislation that we’ve already discussed in this House. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We have to hope that the government has not lost sight of their general mandate in governing the province over these next few months and is going to focus solely on the 2010 Olympics. But if this is any indication, it seems to me that their perspective is really out of whack, if I can use that term. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
You know, the response times are just not good enough, and that’s due to a lack of resources. Now it’s down to 52 percent on average to reach their — the goal of reaching the intended party within nine minutes. That’s dropped from 85 percent in 1985. We need ambulance services every bit as much now as people in 1985 did, and yet we’ve dropped from 85 percent to 52 percent. That should be a concern for each and every British Columbian. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
With that, I’ll take my seat. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
