Hansard -- Volume 1, Number 1 -- Tuesday, June 19, 2001

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
			Time

Election of Speaker			1805

Speech from the Throne			1850

An Act to Ensure the Supremacy of Parliament (Bill 1). Hon. G. Plant
	Introduction and first reading		1900

Election of Deputy Speaker			1900

Point of Privilege. J MacPhail			1905

Health Care Services Continuation Act (Bill 2). Hon. G. Bruce
	Introduction and first reading		1905

Standing Order 81 Motion			1910

Standing Order 81 Motion (Speaker's Ruling)			1945

Health Care Services Continuation Act (Bill 2)
	Second reading
		Hon. G. Bruce	2000

Point of Privilege. Hon. G. Collins			2005

Health Care Services Continuation Act (Bill 2)
	Second reading
		J. MacPhail	2005
		Hon. C. Hansen	2140
		Hon. S. Hawkins	2200
		J. Kwan	2210
		Hon. G. Collins	2240
		Hon. G. Bruce	2300

Health Care Services Continuation Act (Bill 2). Hon. G. Bruce
	Committee stage		2330
		J. MacPhail
		J. Kwan
	Third reading		0120

Royal assent to bill			0130

This being the first day of the first session of the thirty-seventh Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia for the dispatch of business, pursuant to a proclamation of the Hon. Garde B. Gardom, Lieutenant-Governor of the province, hon. members took their seats, after having taken the prescribed oath and having signed the parliamentary roll.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, having entered the House, took his seat on the throne.

Hon. G. Plant: I am commanded by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor to announce that he does not see fit to declare the cause of his summoning you at this time and will not do so until you have chosen a Speaker to preside over your honourable body. His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor hopes to be enabled to declare, later today, his reason for calling you together.

Election of Speaker

Clerk of the House: Members of the Legislative Assembly, pursuant to the standing orders of this assembly, it is my duty to call upon you to elect one of your members to preside over your deliberations as Speaker. The following members have declared their intention to stand as candidates for the election to the office of Speaker, and their names have been posted in the corridors and appear on the members' desks. Those names are Paul Nettleton, MLA, Prince George-Omineca, and Claude Richmond, MLA, Kamloops.

Members on the left side of the chamber are requested to go to the left of the table and members to the right likewise, to the right of the table, and vote for the candidate of their choice by printing on the ballot the first and last name of the candidate. The ballots will be picked up when you come to the table. We would ask each member, before picking up a ballot, to place their initials next to their name on a seating plan. The ballot box will be directly in front of the table.

Would all members who wish to vote please stand and come forward in the order suggested.

Clerk of the House: Hon. members, if there are members who have not voted and wish to do so, would they please vote now.

The Clerks will retire with the ballot box and come back shortly with the result after the ballots are counted. If you would be good enough to remain in your seats. . . . It shouldn't take long, but please be patient.

Clerk of the House: Members of the Legislative Assembly, I wish to announce that you have elected Claude Richmond, member for Kamloops, as your Speaker.

The Speaker: Hon. members, I'd like to humbly thank the members of this assembly for the great honour you have bestowed upon me this day by selecting me to be your Speaker. In keeping with the tradition of this high office I will endeavour at all times to carry out my duties with fairness and integrity. I now ask for your patience while I declare a short recess in order to assume the appropriate attire.

Hon. G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, on behalf of the government I want to congratulate you on your election. As you know, you are presiding over the largest parliament in the history of the province of British Columbia. We intend, as government, to open parliament up, to make it a place where people can see the debates that are taking place and can understand the issues that are before us as we strive to come up with the solutions that are so critical to meet the needs of the people of British Columbia. I know that your history, your experience and your understanding of the importance of this institution will stand us all in good stead, and I look forward to your guidance in the days ahead.

J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I join with the Premier to welcome you to that revered chair and to congratulate you. It is a very important chair. Most of the people who have assumed that chair have been tall and full of stature, and I expect you will do exactly the same and fulfil that role greatly. It is particularly important in the circumstances in which we find ourselves today.

Yes, indeed it is the largest parliament. It is going to be a parliament, I expect, of great change and great debate, and it is your job to make sure each and every voice is heard, no matter what that voice is about to say. I have great faith that you will do that and that you will do it with all of the aplomb and decorum and protocol which has always flowed from that chair.

I look forward very much to working with you on behalf of my colleague from Vancouver-Mount Pleasant and with all of my colleagues in the Legislature to make sure that democracy is upheld.

Almighty God, you have given us this good land as our heritage. May we prove ourselves a people mindful of your generosity and glad to do your will.

Bless our land with honest industry, truthful education and an honourable way of life.

Save us from violence, discord and confusion; from pride and arrogance and from every evil course of action.

Defend our liberties, and give those who we have entrusted with the authority of government the spirit of wisdom and a clear vision of the work you have set before them.

Make us, who come from many nations with many different languages, a united people.

When times are prosperous, let our hearts be thankful. And in times of trouble do not let our trust in you fail. Guide us by your holy spirit so we may work for justice and peace.

O most gracious God, the author of all good things, we humbly ask you to direct this Legislature of this province and to prosper their counsels to the advancement of your glory and the safety, honour and welfare of all your people. We ask this in the name of Jesus Christ, our Lord.

The Speaker: Hon members, I am advised that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precincts and will soon be entering the chamber. I would ask you to remain seated.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor re-entered the chamber and took his seat on the throne.

The Speaker: May it please Your Honour, the House of Assembly has elected me as their Speaker, though I am but little able to fulfil the important duties thus assigned to me. If in the performance of those duties I should at any time fall into error, I pray that the fault be imputed to me and not to the assembly whose servant I am, and who, through me, the better to enable them to discharge their duty to the Queen and country, humbly claim all their undoubted rights and privileges, especially that they may have freedom of speech in their debates and access to Your Honour's person at all seasonable times, and that their proceedings may receive from Your Honour the most favourable interpretation.

Hon. G. Plant: Hon. Speaker, I am commanded by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor to declare to you that he freely confides in the duty and attachment of the House of Assembly to Her Majesty's person and government, and not doubting that their respective proceedings will be conducted with wisdom, temper and prudence, he grants, and upon all occasions will recognize and allow, their constitutional privileges.

I am commanded also to assure you that the assembly shall have ready access to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor upon all seasonable occasions and that their proceedings, as well as your words and actions, will constantly receive from him the most favourable construction.

Speech from the Throne

Hon. G. Gardom (Lieutenant-Governor): Mr. Speaker, hon. members, it is a pleasure to address you on the opening of the first session of our thirty-seventh parliament and to welcome many new members to our Legislature. May I also join the many in congratulating you, Mr. Speaker, upon your election and assumption of office. I wish you every fulfilment with your duties and, of course, with as many nemine contradicentes as possible. Also, my thanks to you, Mr. Attorney, for your kind and thoughtful words.

British Columbians have elected a new government to serve them and lead their province, and I wish also to express my appreciation to returning and new members as you take up your duties, which always will challenge and reward you as you serve the public. Our citizens are entitled to your best, and I'm confident you will meet their expectations.

My government has made many commitments to British Columbians. It has said that over its term it will restore business confidence in British Columbia and attract new investment, that it will improve our education system and that it will protect the environment and make the processes of government more open, responsive and accountable. Also, it is committed to an aggressive 90-day agenda of change.

No commitment, however, represents a greater challenge than the improvement of health care. Like other provinces, and indeed other countries, British Columbia faces the need to provide better patient care to meet the requirements of our growing and aging population. Properly targeted resources, a long-term health care plan, improved public services and better community and mental health care are all part of my government's agenda. These issues and more will be addressed in future legislative sessions.

There is, however, a more urgent health care issue that is facing British Columbians and my government: the long labour relations dispute between the nurses' bargaining association and the Health Employers Association of B.C., which has brought British Columbia's health care system to a point of crisis. Patients requiring immediate care cannot get beds, and their treatment is deferred. An accumulating backlog of people requiring care will burden the system for many months to come.

In recent weeks another dispute between the employers and the Health Sciences Association threatens additional delays and more backlogs. My government recognizes the issues that have led to these situations and believes they must be addressed. All British Columbians, including those who work in the health care system, want and demand a successful system.

However, the underlying problems that have built up over many years cannot be addressed in weeks or even months, and a joint effort requiring the best of my government, our public servants, the health authorities, the health professionals and the health care unions will be required. Our citizens demand nothing less.

In the short term, though, my government must address the immediate problem. Sending seriously ill patients to hospitals in Washington, while necessary, serves only to assist those in critical need. What British Columbians want to see is a full restoration of health services -- and now.

My government intends to act decisively and will present legislation in this session to restore health services. In doing this it will provide time for the health unions and employers to explore solutions to the most pressing issues that are preventing agreement. My government regards the protection of services that are essential to the well-being of the people of British Columbia as a primary obligation, and British Columbians know there is a need for action.

My government believes the calm of reason will allow it and us to move forward caring for patients while supporting health care professionals and that most British Columbians will understand the need for this action.

I leave you, therefore, hon. members, to the important business of the session, confident that you will fulfil the heavy responsibilities to which British Columbians and the electorate have placed upon you.

The Speaker: Hon. members, in order to prevent mistakes, I have obtained a copy of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor's speech.

Hon. G. Plant: Hon. Speaker, I move that the certificate of the chief electoral officer of the result of the election of the members be entered upon the Journals of the House.

Introduction of Bills

Hon. G. Plant presented a message from his Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled An Act to Ensure the Supremacy of Parliament.

Hon. G. Plant: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. G. Plant: The introduction of this bill prior to the consideration of the throne speech expresses the established right of parliament, through its elected members, to deliberate independently of the Sovereign. As such it is an important part of our parliamentary democratic process. This right was first asserted by the Parliament at Westminster in 1603, during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I.

Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 1 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Collins: I move, seconded by the member for Vancouver-Hastings, that John Weisbeck, the member for Kelowna-Lake Country electoral district, be appointed Deputy Speaker for this session of the Legislative Assembly.

Hon. G. Plant: I move that the Votes and Proceedings of this House be printed, being first perused by the Speaker, and that he do appoint the printing thereof, and that no person but such as he shall appoint do presume to print the same.

J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, this being my first opportunity, I rise to reserve my right to raise an issue of privilege respecting the status of our members as official opposition and the seating assignment for the official opposition members.

The Speaker: The hon. member has reserved her right to advance arguments concerning the status of her party in this House and related matters. Pending an appropriate legislative occasion permitting the matter to be argued fully, I would advise all interested parties that I am prepared to receive submissions, orally or in writing, in an attempt to resolve this matter short of rendering a formal decision from the Chair. To that end, interested parties may wish to contact the office of the Speaker to arrange a mutually convenient meeting time.

Hon. G. Bruce presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Health Care Services Continuation Act.

Hon. G. Bruce: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. G. Bruce: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and, if I may, I'd like to offer my congratulations to you as the new Speaker of the House.

It is with considerable regret that I rise to introduce Bill 2, the Health Care Services Continuation Act.

Since job action taken by health care professionals began in April of this year, more than 6,300 British Columbians have had surgeries cancelled. The situation was exacerbated by the decision of the province's health science professionals to stage a series of walkouts across British Columbia, starting on Monday of this week, that would have continued to escalate. Yesterday my colleague the Minister of Health Services informed me that these combined actions posed an imminent threat to the health and safety of British Columbians. Because of this it is my responsibility as Minister of Labour to bring this bill forward.

This bill provides that the Minister of Skills Development and Labour may prescribe a cooling-off period or consecutive cooling-off periods of up to 60 days for the current strikes in the health care sector involving nurses and paramedical professionals. It also provides that the parties must resume collective bargaining and make every reasonable effort to conclude a collective agreement during that time.

The Health Care Services Continuation Act does not impose a collective agreement. It ensures that bargaining can resume in an atmosphere that is not antagonized by ongoing strikes in health care. I want to be clear this is not an action I take lightly but rather one I am compelled to take in order to protect the health and safety of British Columbians.

The Speaker: Hon. members, I would ask you to just remain in your seats for a few moments while the bill is being circulated.

Standing Order 81 Motion

Hon. G. Collins: The government wishes to seek today, under standing order 81, that Bill 2 be moved through all stages in one day. The reasons for that are threefold.

First of all, discussions with the BCNU and the employer went on at what looked like an optimistic pace up until Monday morning, yesterday, at which time they reached an impasse, and it was clear that there was no further opportunity to move. Yesterday, as well, the Health Sciences Association started full-scale job action that was to escalate up until Friday at which point there would be a full strike.

The Minister of Health has informed members of the government that over 6,300 surgeries have been cancelled, put off, etc., over the last period of time that this job action has been underway. It now appears that we have escalating job action on two fronts, and the Minister of Health advises that a system that had been under severe crisis is about to collapse.

That is why the government has called the Legislature back at this point in time and believes that, given the urgency of the issue, this legislation should be put through this House at the earliest possible opportunity to ensure that health care is there for people when they need it.

J. Kwan: I respectfully request a 20-minute recess so that we may take the time to understand the intent of the government's bill. Also, at that time we would have an opportunity to respond to standing order 81.

The Speaker: The request for a 20-minute recess is granted. We will ring the bells at the appropriate time to call the members back to the chamber. The House is in recess for 20 minutes.

The Speaker: Hon. members, we are considering a submission for the government to advance this bill through all stages under standing order 81, and we will now hear further submissions on that.

J. Kwan: First of all, I'd also like to recognize the emergence of the need to ensure there is good patient care for British Columbians. It is important, certainly, for the patients as well as for the families to ensure there is good health care in the system.

The Government House Leader makes three points with respect to the need to invoke standing order 81. There are essentially three points, and I'd like to address each of the points respectively.

On the first point the Government House Leader suggests there is an emergency need to ensure that bargaining resumes. The fact of the matter is that all of the health care professionals have been at the table and have been wanting government to engage in constructive bargaining in that process. Both parties have offered to do that. In fact, we have information here from both the BCNU and the HSA offering the government to get back to the table to engage in that process. The fact is that their action has been rebuffed by government. Therefore the emergency that's been created by this situation has not really been invoked by the health care professionals but rather by the actions of the government itself.

On the second point, in terms of ensuring that the impasse can be overcome, that impasse can easily be overcome by the Premier. The Premier can simply demand that his ministers responsible get back to the bargaining table and negotiate and engage, in good faith, in fair collective bargaining with the respective health care workers and resolve the issue. It could be easily resolved simply by the Premier demanding that his ministers take action.

The third point I'd like to make with respect to the legislation that's being proposed. . . . The legislation that's being proposed does not improve the situation. I would hazard to say that there is really no incentive to ensure that there is a good collective bargaining process. If anything, I fear and I worry that it would exacerbate the reactions by the health care workers and therefore prolong the debate and the dispute. That would not be in the best interests of the health care system of British Columbia, and it would certainly not be in the best interests of the patients and the families who need their care.

We don't need the legislation, in my view, to proceed. Once again, the Premier and the ministers responsible could simply get back to the bargaining table and engage in fair bargaining with the respective health care workers.

Only today, for the first time, the paramedics went to essential services. That was a reaction, once again, to the government's action. Again, that could be rectified easily by the government without legislation -- that is, for the government once again to acknowledge the issues that have been raised by the paramedics and then get back to the bargaining table and negotiate once again in good faith, in a constructive manner, to resolve the dispute.

The government, I would submit, has in fact created and provoked an air of emergency here in British Columbia. There is no doubt that families and patients need good health care and that the only way to ensure that there's proper health care delivered to the families and the patients in British Columbia is to ensure that we have a sustainable process of collective bargaining and that we have an approach that will reach results. The legislation that's being proposed today does not do that. It will, I believe, worsen the situation and drive the divide perhaps even further, and that would be damaging to the patients, who are the priority in this instance. So, hon. Speaker, I would urge you to consider these matters in your determination.

I would also say that I understand that this is your first act as the Speaker. I would like, also, to congratulate you for assuming the role of Speaker of the House. It is an important role -- one that, as you have mentioned, comes with a high level of integrity. I think it is a role that demands independence from the members of the House. It's a role that comes with, of course, extreme importance.

In that light, I suspect that it may be of some concern to you that your first act is to address the issue and determine standing order 81 in this instance. Therefore it would require a lot of thought and careful consideration in these matters to make sure that the interests and the issues are carefully contemplated. So I would ask you, hon. Speaker, when you retire to your chambers to make that determination, to give these matters serious thought.

I would ask that the House now be adjourned so that it would give you the time to make those determinations in your chambers, and we can resume tomorrow and continue debate on this matter.

Hon. G. Collins: I don't want to enter into a debate, but certainly the suggestion made by the opposition member, the member for Vancouver-Mount Pleasant, that the House adjourn and come back tomorrow would defeat the very purpose of the request of the government to move this under standing order 81.

Second of all, I must say that with all due respect, it's a little hard to take, when this government's been in office for I think 13 or 14 days, to say that this government has created a state of crisis in health care. It's a little hard to take that. It's true: the government could solve this entire crisis by simply having the employer offer everything that the other side is demanding. But that simply wouldn't be wise or prudent. Nor would it be what that party did when they were in government.

So, Mr. Speaker, I think none of those solutions suggested by the member opposite advance her argument at all. This is a

crisis; this is an issue. It is escalating as we speak. I think it's important that this House get on with this business and make sure health care is there for the citizens of British Columbia who rely upon it.

J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, the point the member for Vancouver-Mount Pleasant makes about you adjourning to your chambers and giving due thought to standing order 81 is that for you to not do that defeats the purpose of you determining the ruling. You can adjourn, recess to your chambers, think about it and give a ruling, and therefore make the determination on your own and not have the government make that determination.

The Speaker: Are there any further submissions on this matter? Hearing none, the Chair will ask for a short recess while I retire to my chambers to consider this matter.

Standing Order 81 Motion
(Speaker's Ruling)

The Speaker: Hon. members, I have now had an opportunity to consider the arguments presented in relation to Bill 2, and I have examined previous decisions of this House relating to standing order 81. I am fully aware of the stringent guidelines which apply to any application to advance legislation more than one stage in one day, but I am persuaded by the precedents and the arguments presented that this bill fits that narrow class which fills the requirements of standing order 81. I therefore rule that this bill may be permitted to advance all stages this day.

Hon. G. Bruce: I rise to now move the bill a second time. In so doing, I have a few comments to make.

As I stated in first reading, it is with regret that I have to introduce Bill 2, the Health Care Services Continuation Act. Neither I nor the government wanted to introduce this bill, particularly it being our first piece of substantive legislation in the House. However, the job action by B.C. nurses, combined with the planned and current walkouts by health science professionals, posed an imminent threat to the health and safety of all British Columbians, and this threat to the health care system has compelled me to act.

Nurses, health science professionals and employers have said they do not want to imperil the health and safety of British Columbians in order to reach a collective agreement, but they do want to reach a new negotiated agreement. This bill will facilitate that objective. The Health Care Services Continuation Act will provide for the Minister of Skills Development and Labour to order cooling-off periods totalling up to 60 days and during which a health care employer must not lock out nurses or health science professionals. Similarly, nurses and health science professionals must not engage in strike action.

During any cooling-off period or periods prescribed under this act, every employee must resume his or her duties and work schedule of employment with the employer. Any declaration of a strike, authorization of a strike or direction to go on strike given before or after the cooling-off period becomes invalid, and officers or representatives of trade unions must not in any manner impede, prevent, or attempt to impede or prevent any persons from returning to his or her duties. Likewise, an employer must not seek to prevent any person from continuing or resuming his or her duties. An employer must also not discharge or discipline a person because they were locked out or on strike before this act came into force.

Within 72 hours of this act coming into force, the bargaining associations and the Health Employers Association of B.C. must continue or commence good-faith collective bargaining and must make every reasonable effort to conclude a collective agreement.

Mr. Speaker, the act calls for an extension of the last collective agreements in force between the HEABC and the various health care bargaining associations until such time as collective agreements are concluded or until the act is no longer in force. This bill expires on August 31.

I want to make a few comments about this bill's implications with respect to the nurses' overtime ban. The bill requires the nurses to abide by the terms of the current collective agreement, which allows nurses to refuse overtime if it is unreasonable -- for instance, if their physical condition might jeopardize patient care. This bill does not require nurses to work excessive amounts of overtime.

I also want to remind this House that we are also here to address the job action by the province's health science professionals. The HSA planned to escalate job action over the course of this week so that their members would be working at essential service levels by Friday. This planned job action and their across-the-board walkout today have placed the health care system in peril. I have appointed a special mediator in this dispute, and he must bring both of these parties back to the table.

We know there are significant and critical challenges facing the health care system. We want to cool off this situation so that parties can get back to the bargaining table and successfully conclude a negotiated agreement. It is imperative for our health care system that all parties that are in this dispute understand the significance and the degree of concern that's been expressed by the Minister of Health in regard to the situation in our hospitals today. We must ask them to come back to the table through this act to once again resume negotiations so that we can settle this matter.

Point of Privilege

Hon. G. Collins: In view of the point of privilege that the member for Vancouver-Hastings reserved today, I want to offer unanimous consent from the government's side if she would like to take the full two hours of her time to speak tonight -- if that's what she'd like -- pending the decision of the Speaker.

J. MacPhail: I want to open my remarks by congratulating the government on its election, congratulating all of you for joining us in the Legislature. It was a clear and decisive victory. It's wonderful to see old colleagues in the chamber with us today. It's also wonderful to see new colleagues who the member for Vancouver-Mount Pleasant and I know well, but you are new to the chamber. Then there are new faces that we do not know, but we certainly look forward to hearing from you and to your taking a rightful place in the debate. Certainly the government has set a very ambitious agenda, both publicly and here in this chamber. It's defined by the government as a new era, and here we are discussing exactly what that means.

I have never been on this side of the Legislature, so it is a new experience for me. It's one that I take very, very seriously. It does prove to be challenging, looking across and around at a sea of faces that perhaps each and every day will not agree with our opinion on many, many matters. I do remember my very first time sitting in this chamber. I was nervous, perhaps more nervous than I am today. I was extremely proud. I understood that there was a very steep learning curve and how that steep learning curve became even steeper as I realized the tasks facing us as a government. I expect some of you are feeling that way today.

I remember being moved by the throne speech and the pomp and the circumstance. The Speaker of the day held a reception for us. I'm sure some of my colleagues will remember that. She held a reception for all of us -- for our friends and our families. My son was three and a half at the time, and he started a game of hide and seek in the library stacks. The only person who would join him in that game was Emery Barnes. Some of you may remember Emery Barnes, and he was a man of stature. Emery was the only MLA that would engage my son -- well, that my son could persuade to play.

I expect that many new members today are being denied those same feelings. There are so many new MLAs. I'm sure many are wondering why their first day of work in this chamber is one of such contention. I'm sure that many are wondering why it is that friends and families couldn't join them today, why the gallery remains empty, why the floor of the Legislature remains empty and why it is that the first throne speech of this government lasted exactly four minutes -- the shortest ever.

Are they anxious? Have they had their full say on drafting today's agenda? Are they a bit embarrassed by such an inauspicious beginning to their new era? Would they not have preferred a celebration? I'm wondering about the member for Burnaby North or the member for Vancouver-Kensington. Perhaps they would have wanted to celebrate a new era of multicultural diversity as their first act in this chamber. How about the member for Alberni-Qualicum, who has worked long and hard over many years to arrive in this chamber? Perhaps she wanted to hear the introduction of a new community charter as the first act of government. The Minister of Sustainable Resource Management probably had hoped for a new era that was different from the turmoil of his days in 1987. The member for Richmond Centre probably didn't expect to have his relatively solid record on stable labour relations now thrown into question on his very first day in this chamber.

Yes, the new government members, all of you, are 77 strong. But I wonder if any of the 77 members thought that their first exercise of power would be so controversial. If the 77 members strong of the government did know that it would be so controversial, why was forewarning not given to the rest of British Columbia? Why is it that the rest of British Columbia is only hearing about this now, after such a vigorous election that we just went through?

Some will think -- and I think that the Minister of Finance has already hinted at this -- that it's necessary to look backward and, in so doing, justify the current actions of the government. Some will expect that there should be no voice raised in opposition because to do so in some way would contradict the past. Well, we've all been through an election. The election was exhausting and decisive. The voters examined and judged the past, and they voted in judgment of that past. They also voted for a future based on promises made. I would submit, hon. Speaker, that it's an examination of those promises made that must form the basis of the discussion today.

The Liberal government has promised a new era. I want to just very briefly read from those promises and the new era. It's called "A New Era for Health Professionals."

I expect that nurses and health care professionals would wonder dearly at today's launching. Is this today's launching

of a massive recruitment drive to bring non-practising RNs and LPNs back into the health care system? Is this a day that health care professionals can say to this Liberal government: "It's a day that you've delivered on your promise to support health care professionals in this province"? I expect that health care professionals today would say that this throne speech begins the process of qualifying, altering and even reneging on those promises. I would also suggest, hon. Speaker, that this legislation continues down that same path.

The legislation, upon quick examination, does several things. It orders a cooling-off period of 60 days. It orders that the cooling-off period can be renewed. It basically says to all health care professionals that they don't have the right to free collective bargaining.

If indeed the new members of this Legislature think that it does anything other than that, I would welcome them to stand up and describe how free collective bargaining prevails in this legislation, because the legislation also does two other things. It first orders a cooling-off period that doesn't permit the nurses or health care professionals to take any form of restricting their job activities. Then the second thing it does is that it mandates the health care professionals to return to the bargaining table. It doesn't say "if you so wish to return to the bargaining table"; it mandates them to return to the bargaining table.

Then there's a third thing that it does. It says that bargaining must take place, that you have no right to in any way assist in adding value to your labour by perhaps withdrawing it or working only the regular hours of work, but it provides absolutely no avenue for resolution to bargaining other than complete capitulation by the health care professionals. I would be happy to have the members opposite stand up and tell to all of us, to the world, to the health care professionals that we're trying to recruit to this province, how that is free collective bargaining. I'd welcome that to occur.

So what we need to do is contrast the rhetoric of the election, the rhetoric of the government's new era for health care professionals, their concern for the health care system and what I would describe today as their autocratic, dictatorial treatment of health care professionals.

Let's examine, if we could, what has taken place to date in the bargaining under this government. I know that already there are many, many MLAs who probably want to rise and condemn the actions of the former government. Well, let's put this to rest right now. Maybe to paraphrase an old associate of mine, there was an election, and that's why you're on that side of the House -- because of the promises you made. And that's why we're on this side of the House.

Yesterday I heard the Minister of Labour, who preceded me on Rafe Mair, say that this was no laughing matter and that the government was taking these actions after very, very serious and thoughtful consideration. I think perhaps the actions of several members of the House belie that right now.

Let's look at what has happened to date in the bargaining with this new government. And believe you me, this new government has not failed to insert itself in the bargaining process. Only by word of the grapevine and the reporting of the media do we know that several ministers have met directly with the bargaining agents and have inserted themselves in the bargaining process. What has become clear by reports from one of the bargaining agents, the nurses. . . .

Let's look at the nurses' bargaining first. The nurses had proposed they would end their overtime ban, but in return they asked the government to instruct health employers to drop their discussion demands that would have made the nursing shortage even worse. So one of the. . . .

J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I will only say this once. The Government House Leader seems to want to bargain right now, and I don't have that experience to bargain. Even though he assumes that he's not inserting himself into the bargaining process, he can save his comments for justifying their actions when he gets up to address the bill.

The nurses are extremely disappointed the provincial government was ready to turn down a solution that could have restored normal levels of nursing care for patients across the province and that could have paved the way to a negotiated settlement of the nurses' bargaining dispute. They took the government's position to indicate that senior ministers put a higher priority on supporting the health employers' demands for concessions than on restoring patient care and treating nurses with dignity and respect. This is their words.

Debra McPherson, president of the B.C. Nurses Union, said that the message that they were getting is that the government would rather bully and bulldoze nurses through legislation. Apparently they would rather force nurses to work overtime than reach a negotiated settlement through free collective bargaining. She went on to say that British Columbians would be very disappointed, because this is a government that promised to fix the problems in the health care system through open and honest consultation and dialogue. Instead they seem to be placing a far higher premium on satisfying the short-sighted preoccupations of the health employers who helped create the problems in the first place.

While the government members were cheering their new era of health professionals, I would actually talk beyond the government to the public who may be watching tonight and ask the public to consider the order in which this government has chosen to meet and deliver on their new era for health professionals -- what their first actions have been. What the government did was turn down an offer by the nurses' bargaining association to end their overtime ban. In return they could have instructed the Health Employers Association to remove their demands for concessions from the bargaining table so that negotiations with nurses could proceed toward a final settlement. The nurses were prepared to make a counter-offer if agreement was reached on the removal of the concessions.

As part of the nurses' proposal rejected by the government, a special joint committee would have discussed ways to reduce nurses' overtime and report back in 30 days -- not a crisis, hon. Speaker, but a solution. That was what the nurses proposed.

Instead the government chose to introduce legislation today which not only takes away free collective bargaining but basically orders the nurses and health care professionals to capitulate -- to have a 60-day cooling-off period, which may be repeated, and then to capitulate.

The nurses' union said that legislating an end to nurses' job action is no solution. "Ultimately, if the government uses

legislation to end the overtime ban, our contract will be determined by individual nurses making individual decisions whether or not they will work overtime."

It's interesting. I'm sure this will come as a surprise to some members sitting in this chamber, but there was a draft announcement ready to go, a draft announcement of an agreement -- I'm sure this will come as a surprise to the public who need and want a health care system functioning here -- and there was also a draft letter of understanding ready to go.

I'll just read that, hon. Speaker. This is a draft. This is what had been proposed to the ministers who inserted themselves in the process.

This government and, I'm disappointed to say, the Speaker, ruled that this is an emergency -- the actions of today. I'd like someone to stand up and tell me this emergency was not created by this government, when the solution was sitting right there and, in fact, the overtime ban would have ended 36 hours ago. Bargaining would have resumed. Two of the three requirements of this legislation would have been achieved by the government agreeing to this proposal.

That is the reason why this debate and this legislation only exacerbates the problem, because the intent of the government is not to have nurses work properly, work safely and work in conditions that will bring more nurses to this province. The intent of this legislation is for the government to impose a settlement, eventually, on nurses, who have no other choice, if they act legally, but to capitulate.

It is interesting to note that the nurses were very active in this election. They were active in my riding. They were active in every single riding around this province to discuss their issues. They had giant agreements that we all, as candidates, were asked to sign. And each MLA sitting in this Legislature needs to look into their hearts today and try to remember whether they signed that request. The Minister of State for Women's Equality needs to rise up and say why she signed that accord and why today she sits here with the government to renege on her commitment.

Hon. Speaker, I will apologize for misnaming the government members, particularly of the executive council. And I do mean that seriously. I am trying very hard to memorize the names, so I will. . . . Clearly no one's going to help me.

If I could just look here quickly to refer correctly to the Minister of Health Services, I believe it is. Let me read to you what the Minister of Health Services signed during the election:

Here's what exists in the way of concessions by the Health Employers Association of B.C.. Eliminate the system of calling in casual nurses on the basis of seniority. The proposal from the employer replaces it by call-in by management discretion. Secondly, eliminate the two designated days off per week for part-time nurses, on which they're eligible for overtime pay when they're called in. Why are these concessions important for nurses to resist? Well, management downsizing in the 1990s reduced and cut full-time jobs to the point where more than half of B.C. nurses now work part-time or casual.

The third concession is to increase the number of years nurses must work to achieve the top pay step from the current six years to nine years. This would remove B.C.'s competitive edge in being attractive to nurses from elsewhere seeking to move to a new position. It's especially unattractive to new nurses.

The silence is deafening. The silence is deafening from when these Liberals, these Liberal government members, applauded their new era. The silence is now deafening from the government benches who made what I can only determine as a false promise. And the silence is deafening for the applause these government members. . .for these concessions on the table.

Let's look at what the actions are in the Health Sciences Association for bargaining -- what has happened there. The Health Sciences Association is a group of health care professionals that sometimes -- sometimes -- go about their work with little recognition. They're the lab technologists, the professionals that draw blood, the professionals that counsel families when a family member is in deep crisis and needs a social worker. They attend in the operating room; they provide services in the emergency room. And they go about their business in a very, very concerted and contributing way to our health care system.

They also face some very, very challenging shortages. I have a binder full of examples from merely one area of the province -- a survey of paramedicals employed at Royal Jubilee Hospital, Victoria General Hospital and Gorge Road Hospital conducted from June 10 to June 17, 2001. The survey from just one jurisdiction says that there are vacancies of almost 20 percent and that the casuals represent 44 percent of the shortage and over 50 percent of the current vacancies. I have a binder full of examples of the shortages of cardiac sonographers. I have a binder outlining the shortages of cardiovascular technologists. I have a binder showing the shortages of counsellor educators in the hospice program. I have a binder demonstrating the shortages of nuclear medicine technologists. And on it goes.

These are the issues that face this government. This is the shortage that this government declared in the election they would resolve. Instead of addressing the shortage first and foremost, this government has done everything possible to say to these health care professionals and those who would wish to become one of these health care professionals: "Not only do we not see the first actions of our government to be to resolve this health care shortage, but we're going to throw the system into disarray and make sure there's never an opportunity to recruit and retain health care professionals and paramedicals."

They have said to the health care professionals of the Health Sciences Association at the bargaining table: "The shortages that you face are unimportant, and we will offer you a wage increase that's less than is offered to any other public service worker to date. The Health Sciences Association complied with all of the laws of this land. They have not taken any action that violates the laws of the land. In fact, all health care professionals have followed all of the rules and laws regarding essential services in this province.

Essential services are an issue that this government takes very seriously. It's one that they wish to expand. Clearly they must be very familiar with how the essential services system works in this province. But let me describe it for you as it perhaps relates to the Health Sciences Association workers that are now being denied their right to free collective bargaining as the first act of the Minister of Labour. Let me explain it, perhaps, to the new members. The essential services law says that when matters of health and safety are at risk, an employer has a right to proceed to the Labour Relations Board to determine whether essential services must be mandated. It's a well-established practice. The employer can make that request, and they can appear before the Labour Relations Board. The Labour Relations Board makes a determination of essential services, and an order is made.

In the case of the Health Sciences Association, they attended at the Labour Relations Board, along with the employer, and agreements. . . . It was a long process, and in some cases agreements were made about essential services, and in some cases orders were made.

But that's not where the process ends. If there's a dispute about essential services, either party has a right to return to the Labour Relations Board to have that neutral body make a ruling on essential services. It's a speedy process, and it's one that's given highest priority. Every single employer has the right to do that. Every single hospital and every single community facility has the right to do that, and it will be treated with absolutely expeditious action by the Labour Relations Board.

Here we are today because the government claims that the health care system is in crisis and is about to collapse. Well, not one single employer -- not one single employer -- has made an application to the Labour Relations Board to have a determination made on greater essential services. So who is this government taking its advice from? How is it that the Premier can make a determination today that the system is in crisis when no one has even taken the opportunity to use the laws of the land that are available to them today? I await the rising up of the Minister of Labour, who is responsible for the Labour Relations Board, to explain how that crisis has occurred and how it is that he has abdicated his responsibility to advise employers of what's available at the Labour Relations Board.

I'll tell you why. I'll tell you why the Minister of Labour hasn't had to do that, and I'll tell you why the Premier is misleading the public on there being a crisis in the health care system. It's because each and every time an employer has suggested to a health care professional that more work is needed, that health care professional and her union resolve the matter at the worksite, and work continues. Never once has a matter remained unresolved. And somehow that forms a crisis today? I await the Minister of Labour rising to respond to that, hon. Speaker.

If we cast our minds to other disputes that have existed in our health care system, only once has there been a violation of essential services. And it was only a moral violation; it was not a legal violation. The only health care professionals who failed to provide essential services were physicians. For the benefit of the new members of this Legislature, physicians aren't covered by the Labour Relations Code.

When they withdrew their labour -- they called them, in the most recent rendition, reduced activity days -- they failed to provide essential services. They withdrew their labour, they took strike action, and they made no provision for essential services. And if the doctors are out there listening, I know you'll be standing by your TV screens saying, "Yes, we did; yes, we did," but it was only by your own choice that you provided those essential services. It was on a voluntary basis, and it was on a basis that didn't give any assurance to the public that the services would be there.

Those reduced activity days were not condemned by anybody other than New Democratic Party MLAs. They were not condemned by Liberal MLAs, hon. Speaker. There was not a call for even an emergency debate, let alone for emergency legislation -- not a call. What there was, was an urging by the now Premier, by the now government members to just give them the money. Just give them the money. Don't worry about any due process. Don't worry about essential services. Just give them the money.

Here we are today, where the Health Sciences Association -- whose work is vital to match the work of those same physicians -- is saying, "Please give us the money," and what they have instead is a government that's saying: "Get back to work. We're going to take away your right to free collective bargaining, and we expect you to capitulate within 60 days." There is no other way of reading this legislation.

I've addressed the substance of the legislation, and I want to put that in context on two different levels. In a moment I'll put it in the context of what the government's proposed legislation means in real terms for our health care system. But I want to spend a moment putting it in context of what this action means in comparison to the other actions taken by this government in their first days.

The first action of this government was to fire some career civil servants who had worked hard for several governments, thereby losing a great deal of expertise. Their next action was to offer deputy ministers pay raises of almost 40 percent. And they offered those pay raises on the basis of saying that in order to get highly qualified, well-trained civil servants and keep them here in this province, that kind of pay raise was needed. The government then went on to award pay raises that made our senior bureaucrats the highest paid at any provincial level in this country.

Their next action was to appoint a new cabinet. And yes, we are a small group, a very small group on this side. But the size of that executive council bench is unprecedented in its girth, hon. Speaker. It requires many of the government members to sit on this side simply because there is no room because of the cabinet size. In that cabinet there are four ministers of Health -- four ministers of Health. And if you take into account the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development, there are four and a half people responsible for the health care system. The cost of running this new government, this new executive council, will add $26 million to the bill that taxpayers must pay for government services.

The next action that this government took was to introduce a tax cut. That's good news. There's no question that that's good news, and the Premier delivered on a promise made during the election. What the Premier promised was to have a tax cut for low- and middle-income families. He also said he had no idea what the size of that tax cut could be until he had a chance to look at the books. He appointed a committee, a panel of people -- people I'm sure he admires greatly, all from the corporate sector -- to examine the books of the province.

During the election he said that we would need to wait to find out the state of those books in order to figure out the size of the tax cut. I heard him say that over and over again. But no, it was with incredible haste that this Premier received accolades from the business and corporate community internationally -- international acclaim and accolades for his great haste in giving the tax cut. He had decided he didn't need to wait to see the state of the books. The panel of corporate experts that he had appointed, I guess, was no longer necessary. He could proceed with the tax cut.

And he could proceed with the tax cut beyond what he had even promised in the election. He could now proceed to give a tax cut that for those of you earning more than $100,000 was 35 times greater than for the low-income people in this province. He could proceed to do so because all of a sudden running a deficit was okay. It had come back into vogue to run a deficit. So the Premier of the province felt quite comfortable. He was overjoyed, along with his colleagues, about awarding this huge tax cut to perhaps those that need it the least, and he felt no compunction to in any way even suggest that the books needed to be balanced. He felt no compunction to wait perhaps a couple of more weeks before he awarded the tax cut to see what impact that would have on other things.

Then the next action of this government was to meet with nurses and health care professionals and say to them something that I think perhaps might be the undoing of restoring respect and credibility to our health care professionals. It was to say to them: "Be good kids. We gave you a tax break. Now go home and work your butts off." That's what this government said to nurses and to health care professionals: "The cupboard is bare. Be happy you got a tax break and go back and work as hard or harder than you ever have before in your life."

They didn't say that to the deputy ministers. They didn't say that to the Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, the president of the B.C. Liberal Party. They didn't ask him to be grateful for his tax cut, and they didn't take that into account when they raised deputy ministers' salaries to an unprecedented level. They only said that to nurses and health care professionals. These are nurses and the health care professionals that are now going to be forced to be grateful kids. They're now going to be forced to be compliant. They're now going to be forced to capitulate, and these are the health care professionals this government wants us, the British Columbia public, to rely on for good health care.

In order to make the point even more vigorously and perhaps sharpen the stick that's being poked in the eyes of health care professionals, they are now bringing in legislation that will solve a problem only of their own making.

Let me just read to you -- maybe I'll start with the human side -- the letters about what this will mean for nurses that are now being ordered to do this. Let me just read some of what this will mean. This is from a nurse who works in Burnaby.

I expect he's sitting here extremely worried he will not have any nurses left in his community in the next few weeks. Nevertheless, here's one of the nurses from his community writing.

This nurse, who is a woman, goes on to ask some other questions. I think I'll read them, because I'm not sure that the new member has heard this.

Let me just read this one. It's from Nanaimo. I think we have a new member here representing Nanaimo. In fact I can guarantee we have a new member here representing Nanaimo.

You know, hon. Speaker, the government would say that one of the solutions is to recruit more foreign nurses and help solve our nursing shortage in that fashion. Certainly every nursing organization is assisting in that taking place. Just today the Registered Nurses Association of B.C. revealed that in the first five months of this year there's been a huge increase in the registering of foreign-trained nurses and that that process is working extremely well. But they also went on to point out that the Registered Nurses Association of B.C. also has the responsibility and the requirement to confirm the credentials of nurses who wish to leave the province to work elsewhere. The applications of nurses who wish to go elsewhere are unprecedented -- over 900 of them.

Let's examine what could be a potential solution in this new era, the new era promised by the Liberals. In their "New Era" document, they promised, which they applauded vigorously and with great glee -- and it was glee -- that they will launch a massive recruitment drive to bring non-practising RNs and LPNs back into our health care system. I expect the public took them at their word. I expect there were many British Columbians who cast a vote in favour of that promise.

Instead, here we are today -- the government delivering a different new era, one that isn't revealed in this B.C. Liberal campaign document.

Here's the new era. Not only are they unable, as promised, to stem the flow of nurses leaving this province, not only are they unable to solve the problem by recruiting foreign-trained nurses -- because that isn't a solution; we know that -- but they have completely, one could say, reneged on their promise. I'll say reversed their promise.

Indeed, what they've said is: "Don't you dare come to British Columbia if you want a life. Don't you dare come to British Columbia if you have a family to look after, because if you come to British Columbia to practise your profession, you will have no right to have any say in your work conditions. You will have no right to have any say in how you're paid. You will have no right to refuse overtime, and you will have no right to work safely and in a healthy manner, because you will work as long as we say you will work." You tell me how that is a recruitment strategy for health care professionals who can choose their place of employment.

I want to spend a few moments examining what the situation of overtime has been during the overtime ban by the nurses. Here are the documents that are the records kept by nurses about overtime worked during the overtime ban. Here are the documents that actually belie the claim that the health care system is in a crisis.

I know the public is demanding improvements in the health care system, and I accept that. I accept that was a promise during the election. I accept the government of the day won the election because they told everybody, as far and wide as they could, that improvements were needed and that they would deliver those improvements. No one needs to stand up and remind me of that; I admit to that. I accept the outcome of the election.

What we need to say today is how it is, in making that promise that this government made. . . . I assume, with the understanding they've been waiting five years to deliver on the promise, they were fully informed. I assume they had a plan and were going to deliver on that plan. And I assume they understood what their plan would do for health care professionals in this province.

Instead of us arriving here today and it being a day of celebration for the new government MLAs, we're here today to have them renege on that promise. We're here to have the Minister of Health Services stand up and say that the system is in crisis. The system is in crisis because of actions that have occurred, I guess, in the last few days.

Let's look at what the nurses have been doing to provoke this crisis. Here is the list, day by day, of what the nurses of our province have agreed to do in working overtime.

Day No. 1, there were 169 requests for overtime, totalling 1,513.75 hours, and 169 requests were granted, totalling 1,513.75 hours.

Day No. 2, 164 requests for overtime were made, totalling 1,389.25 hours -- all granted.

We're now at a total, in the first eight days, of 15,134 hours of overtime granted. This is during an overtime ban, hon. Speaker. I would hardly think, then, that it's the nurses' action throwing the system into chaos.

At the end of the second week of the overtime ban another 219 requests, totalling 1,858.5 hours. So by the end of the second week 30,428.5 hours of overtime were worked. That's the equivalent of about 15 full-time nursing positions given in overtime, during an overtime ban, in the first two weeks of the strike.

Hon. Speaker, I'll inform the House when any request was denied. My silence suggests it was not denied.

I can hardly wait for the members opposite to stand up and suggest how this overtime ban is preventing the functioning of the health care system.

At the end of the third week, 110 requests, for 931 hours. Now we're at a total, at the end of the third week, of 44,886.98 hours of overtime worked by nurses in our province.

Day No. 26, 340 requests, 3,038 hours -- 3,038 hours the nurses worked in one day during an overtime ban.

What does the Liberal government do? Somehow they suggest that their solution to this health care crisis -- a health care crisis by their own definition, one that requires legislation some would say is draconian. . . . What is their solution? It's to suggest that nurses should work even more overtime -- not

to suggest any other solution, not to come into this Legislature and first of all propose their solutions that they campaigned on in other areas, that they applauded so vigorously for earlier on, not to come in here and give hope to the British Columbians they've now put into a state of hysteria. Their solution is to come and say: "You're not working enough overtime on your overtime ban."

In the first month of the nurses merely following their rights under the laws of the land, nurses worked almost 60,000 hours of overtime, and this government has said: "It's not good enough. We're not going to give you any hope of improving your work conditions. All we're going to do is say to you that it's not good enough. Get back to the bargaining table immediately, and we'll offer you no solutions."

No one has stood up and said publicly or in this Legislature: "Nurses, health care professionals, don't worry. We've given the employer a new mandate. Don't worry. That tax cut is going to stimulate the economy so vigorously, like we said each and every day of the last five years. Don't worry. The coffers of the province are in good shape because of our economic policies. The new era, the new bright shiny economy has been turned around and the coffers are filling up, so don't worry. We're going to provide you with the resources needed to make you stay there." Not one single person on the government side has linked their economic policies to the well-being of nurses, other than to say in a completely denigrating way: "Take your tax cut, and go home and be happy."

No, the nurses and the health care professionals are being ordered back to the bargaining table with no new mandate from the employer -- none, absolutely none. And if I'm mistaken, the Minister of Labour, who's sponsoring this bill. . . . I have no idea why the Minister of Labour is sponsoring this bill, but he is. Perhaps it's a signal to what the future holds -- that this will be the role of the Minister of Labour. Nevertheless, the Minister of Labour has not signalled in any way that he has any solutions to the bargaining problem. His only solution is to say to nurses and health care professionals: "We're going to shackle you to the bedside. We're going to disregard any family matters you may have. We're going to make you work overtime. We're not coming into this Legislature and saying that you're right, you have family concerns, and if you would please work overtime, we'll make sure that you have proper child care." No, that's not being offered.

There's no solution to be offered to recruitment and retention, even though they've heard from the nurses that the nurses fear this will harm recruitment and retention. Their only solution is to say: "This overtime you're working each and every day is not enough, and we want you to do more." That's what the Minister of Labour is saying.

I wonder what the Minister of Labour will say to other working people in this province about our great economy and what that means for overtime. I wonder what his next act will be in terms of the economy, which is what he talks about when he's asked what his solutions are for the nursing shortage. It's to have a good, growing economy. I've heard him say that; it's from a nice little message box. Then he slides right on. I wonder what the Minister of Labour will say to the next workers who want to exercise their right to free collective bargaining. I wonder what he'll say about his new mandate for mandatory overtime.

I fear that in their newness as a government, this legislation got it wrong anyway. That may be the ineptness or the inexperience of the government, although the Minister of Labour is back for a second round. I hold out only hope that the ineptness or newness of this government in having gotten their proposed solution wrong will benefit the health care system.

What the government proposes in their legislation is to, in a very inept way, turn back the clock and say the collective agreement is renewed and now applies. Perhaps, in their shiny newness -- although I expect it's more to do with amateurish application -- they don't understand the collective agreement. They understand heavy-handed partisan politics, but they don't understand what the collective agreement means. Now British Columbians will be faced with a situation where essential services legislation doesn't apply, and none of this overtime you see here that has been worked by nurses will happen.

None of this, not one hour of this overtime, will now happen, because the collective agreement says the amount of overtime will be determined by the nurse herself. I hope this isn't true, but I expect, because I've talked to enough health care professionals, that their stress has risen in the last days to an unprecedented level. I expect the lack of certainty about their wages and working conditions has put stress on their families. And I expect nurses will put a higher priority on their families and may not be in a state of good health to be able to work overtime.

That's why I'm saying that perhaps in their ineptness the government has imposed a situation on our health care system which will not be tolerated and that this government will have to revisit their actions. This government will actually have to put forward a solution that meets the needs of health care professionals in this province, and they will have to set aside their legislation and actually have to give a mandate to the employer to settle this collective agreement. They'll have to withdraw their inept legislation, and they will actually have to negotiate a collective agreement. They will actually have to deliver on their promise of a new era, on which they campaigned so vigorously -- so vigorously.

I am nervous about the future of health care in British Columbia. I am nervous because today was a day when we had health care professionals in a high state of frustration -- a day they've spent protesting the anticipated government actions, a day they had to face the new Premier in what should have been a moment of celebration of his first calling of the Legislature, of his first greeting of the Lieutenant-Governor. Instead what health care professionals were compelled to do was to be outside the Legislature in a state of extreme anxiety, extreme frustration, extreme emotion, suggesting that the health care system was going to fall into further disarray and further trouble.

They posted solutions to this government. They offered those solutions once again, because the health care professionals had already tabled the solutions. I have read them into the record.

We're faced with a situation where I guess one could say we snuck into the Legislature at 6 o'clock at night. We've had a

four-minute Speech from the Throne. It's hardly the shiny, bright, dazzling new era we had all been promised -- the dazzling new era of economic recovery they claimed just days after assuming office.

We're now here saying the health care system is in such crisis that we have to reverse hard-working, well-established laws of the land governing collective bargaining. We have to say to lab technologists, to nuclear medicine technologists, to social workers, to nurses, to ICU specialists, to community nurses: "Our first act as government is not only to take away your right to free collective bargaining but to give you absolutely no outlet, no avenue to bring about a fair and just wage settlement, to strip the system of all dignity, of all respect for health care professionals -- and to basically say that you're not welcome to stay in this province, because to stay in this province means that you will have no right to refuse overtime, no right to demand proper working conditions."

J. MacPhail: The new era is exactly the new era. The members opposite will stand here each and every day -- as do the media -- and ask me: "How is this different from the actions of the past?"

Well, an election occurred, and people like the Minister of Health Services signed a pledge. Actually, the Minister of Health Services signed a petition saying there would be a new era. That's what the election was all about. So save your concerns about the past, because you know what? You won the election. You won the election, and you made promises on what you were going to deliver. Now it's up to you to deliver those promises. It's up to you to actually put meaning behind your signature. It's up to the Minister of State for Women's Equality to actually live up to her promise of what she signed as an accord. It's up to the Minister of Labour to deliver on his promise to take a balanced approach to things -- something I think he has been forced to renege upon by his own government today. It was a sad day when the Minister of Labour was forced to do that.

We will examine in detail each and every clause of the legislation. There are many questions that need to be answered at this stage on the real intent of the government -- why this government thinks this is a solution, why they feel the heavy-handed approach is so necessary when indeed there was no necessity for this at all. The health care professionals had offered a proposed solution that would have worked just fine, that would have had all professionals back working as early as yesterday morning at 7 a.m.

What's different from yesterday today? Not what's different from five years ago or five months ago but what's different from when the Minister of Health Services signed this petition and what's different from three or four days ago, when the nurses' offer of returning to work was rejected out of hand by the Minister of Health Services and the Minister of Finance.

I can hardly wait for the government to rise and explain why each and every one of these approvals of overtime that occurred during the nurses' overtime ban is now at risk. Are they going to interpret, under the new era, what the right to refuse overtime is? Does the new era mean that not only will there be a turning back of the clock and an imposition of the old collective agreement but that the government will interpret that collective agreement? How it works now is that the nurse herself determines the amount of overtime she works.

Can we expect to be in this Legislature on Thursday evening, on Friday evening, on Sunday morning saying: "Oops, we got it wrong. We didn't go far enough. The legislation wasn't draconian enough. We need to actually change the collective agreement, and we need to order you, nurse, to work overtime. You no longer have any say in that. We need to say to your family, nurse, that you are of secondary importance. We need to say to you, nurse, that you will work at this wage for this amount of hours."? Is that what we can expect on Sunday, on Monday, when finally the new Minister of Labour figures out that the legislation doesn't solve the problem?

Hon. Speaker, I see the Deputy Speaker has taken the chair, and I wish you well in your duties. You have a very, very interesting job. It's with disappointment that I see the beginnings of the Legislature. But I accept the ruling of the Speaker, and I accept what needs to be done here. Hon. Speaker, it is your job to keep this debate focused and to keep it on the real issues. And the real issues that are facing British Columbia today are promises made, expectations raised, commitments signed and solutions offered with glib frequency.

That's what this debate is about today. It's about how we are going to move forward in a way that meets the needs of patients, that meets the needs of every single person in this province who wants the health care system there when they need it. I submit to you, hon. Speaker, that nothing which has occurred today, this very first day in this Legislature of this new government, delivers on any of those commitments -- delivers on any aspect of the bright, shiny, new era, and delivers on any of the needs of health care professionals to do their jobs properly and to stay in this province.

I wish you well, hon. Speaker, and I expect that over the course of the coming hours there will be many British Columbians who will not feel reassured by this legislation but will feel a much higher level of anxiety and will feel that the health care system has been thrown into greater crisis simply because of these recent actions of this government.

Hon. C. Hansen: We are here tonight in this exceptional sitting of the Legislature for just one purpose, and that is to deal with the crisis that we have in our health care system. I don't use the word "crisis" lightly, but it is a reality in terms of what we are faced with in British Columbia today. I think it's vital that British Columbians understand the gravity of the situation we are facing as a government.

It was two weeks ago today that I became the Minister of Health Services. It was two weeks ago today that this executive council was sworn into office, and what we inherited from the previous government was the makings of the crisis that is before us today. In the two weeks that I have served as Minister of Health Services, my primary concern has been patients in British Columbia. They want to be able to rely on our health care system to deliver the services that they need for themselves and their families. I feel just as strongly about the men and women in British Columbia that we count on to deliver that health care.

There have been warnings about the looming shortages in health care for many years now. I know that in the early

part of the 1990s the nurses' associations across Canada started to warn governments of the looming shortage that we were going to be facing in terms of nurses in this country and in this province. What we saw over these last ten years was a government that ignored those warnings, a government that had every opportunity to make sure there was a human resource plan in place that would actually ensure that British Columbians would have the health care professionals that were necessary to deliver the services we all want to count on for ourselves and our families.

What we have seen over these last number of years is a total lack of long-term planning in health care. In fact, from my perspective as an opposition health critic over these last number of years, it was something that. . . . We never saw any evidence of that long-term planning for health care. It was one of the things that we went around this province and talked to individual British Columbians about: the lack of planning. I always felt that the government probably was actually doing some planning; it just wasn't evident. One of my big surprises in the last two weeks of serving as the Health Services minister was to realize that there was no long-term planning. This was a government that simply reeled from crisis to crisis in health care without trying to anticipate what we needed to be doing next month or next year or five years from now to make sure that health care services could be delivered in a stable way in this province.

It is shameful that in this province our health care system has been brought to its knees by nurses in British Columbia who are simply withdrawing overtime. Think about that. Here we have a health care system that prior to this job action by the B.C. Nurses Union had its stresses -- enormous stresses. What the B.C. Nurses Union did was to ban overtime in this province, and that brought this health care system to the crisis that it's in today. I think it's shameful that we got to a state in this province where the inadequate level in which our health care system was operating before this job action started depended on nurses and other health professionals working hours and hours of overtime.

This new government was elected with a mandate to improve the health care system and make it work better for B.C. patients. Whenever we experience a disruption in health care delivery it is the patients who suffer. I found it interesting to listen over the last two hours to the speech by the member for Vancouver-Hastings. She talked a lot about health care professionals. She talked a lot about the nurses, and I know those frustrations that she talks about, because I've talked to nurses who are on the front lines of health care delivery, and I know the burnout that they're going through. I know the price they are paying today for the lack of health care planning in this province, the lack of a human resource plan and the lack of adequate education programs for student nurses in British Columbia.

What I found interesting in that member's presentation was that in the two hours she didn't talk about patients. She didn't talk about the families that are suffering because of the cancelled surgeries. She talked a lot about the professionals, and I share that concern. But I also, as Health Services minister, have an obligation to be concerned about the families, the individuals who are counting on those health care services to be there.

The one thing that is clear to me, from what I have learned about our health care system over these last two weeks, is that patients are suffering. As of today, the tally of surgeries cancelled as a direct result of the various job actions in this province has swelled to 6,306. There were over 500 surgeries cancelled today alone across British Columbia, and that's an astounding statistic. But I think you've got to relate to the fact that there are 6,306 individual stories. There are 6,306 individual British Columbians who have had additional suffering imposed upon them by their inability to get the health services they require from British Columbia's health care system. Also consider the fact that among those statistics there are 91 recent cancellations involving children, children from all over British Columbia, who have waited for specialized care that they need at Children's and Women's Health Centre in Vancouver.

There are dozens of British Columbians who have been sent out of our province for urgent medical treatment. There is no question that this situation that we face and have faced increasingly over these last couple of weeks was greatly compounded by the escalation of job action by the Health Sciences Association. A single day of job action by the Health Sciences Association has resulted in 500 MRIs, CT scans and ultrasounds being cancelled in the Simon Fraser health region alone. In the Kootenays, for example. . . . Yesterday I was talking to the CEO of the Cranbrook Regional Hospital about his estimate that the HSA job action was going to result in a daily cancellation of 200 procedures. In the capital region here we're talking about the daily cancellation of 1,000 procedures.

Those are statistics, but in those statistics we're talking about individuals where a doctor has said that somebody may have suspected cancer, and they need a diagnostic test to tell them whether or not they need that urgent care or whether in fact it's not the serious cancer that perhaps the doctor was fearful of. Today that job action is being felt in every single region of British Columbia.

Behind these statistics -- every cancelled surgery and diagnostic test -- is a British Columbian: an elderly man in Prince George anxiously waiting for cardiac surgery, a pregnant woman in Kelowna concerned about the health of her baby, a grandmother in Fort Nelson whose doctors suspect she may have breast cancer.

Last night the parents of a child waiting for cardiac surgery at B.C.'s Children's Hospital were informed that the surgery was cancelled. This morning a family from northern B.C. was in tears when they realized that their child would not be receiving a diagnostic test at that same facility in Vancouver. Today children, some of whom have waited 14 months for an appointment with an occupational therapist and physiotherapist at Sunny Hill Hospital for Children, found their appointments were cancelled. This is not the kind of health care that any child, never mind any British Columbian, deserves from our health care system.

Nurses and other health care workers deserve better, and B.C. patients deserve better. Finding the solution to this situation will demand the cooperation and the commitment and the energy of everybody over these next four years. There are no quick fixes to the fundamental problems underlying our health care system.

You know, last fall the official opposition of the day -- many of us are still today serving in this Legislature -- did a tour of the province which we called Dialogue on Health Care. We went into 28 communities around the province, and we looked at ways to improve the health care system. The thing that I found most interesting from those discussions was

the input that we got from nurses who were working on the front lines of the delivery of health care. They told us their stories of burnout. They told us about the frustrations that they've had trying to care for their patients in communities around this province.

We had many other discussions throughout British Columbia in our travels, some totally informal. We've had letters from nurses, and I've had fruitful meetings with the Registered Nurses Association of B.C. and the B.C. Nurses Union looking at some of those issues that are causing the enormous frustration nurses are facing. Nurses made it clear to us that they want to see a better, safer working environment. They want to see more opportunities to advance their careers and a bigger role in health care decision-making.

We need to find new creative ways to draw young people into the health care professions and support them in their career of choice. We need to give nurses and other health care providers new educational opportunities and look at alternative employment options for older nurses through mentoring and other roles. We need to consider new approaches to shift scheduling so that nurses aren't constantly and continually asked to work the excessive overtime hours that have been demanded of them in recent years.

At the end of the day, we know that we cannot and will not solve this crisis alone. We need the nurses and the paramedical professions to work with us to achieve those goals. We need a continued dialogue to address the issues that have led us to this point.

Last Monday, a week ago last night, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Health Planning and I flew to Vancouver to meet with the leaders of the B.C. Nurses Union. We offered them a partnership to sit down and address the fundamental issues that are causing the enormous frustration that nurses are facing today.

The point that we made then is that if somehow we could wave a magic wand and find the hundreds of millions of dollars that would be required to give the nurses what they were asking for that day -- if there were some secret dollars from heaven that would allow us to do that -- it still wouldn't solve the problem. We could agree to every single one of the demands that the Nurses Union had on the table, and a collective agreement could have been signed. But you know what? We would still have the nurse shortage; we would still have the issues in the workplace in terms of workplace safety; we would still have the requirement for compulsory overtime, required overtime, on the part of our nurses. So the collective agreement itself and the issues that are on the bargaining table are not going to lead to some kind of a panacea of solutions for nurses.

When we were at that meeting, the three of us, we made it quite clear that we were not there to negotiate their collective agreement. That is the role of the HEABC. There were times that issues came up that properly should be addressed at the bargaining table, and we referred the Nurses Union back to that bargaining table with those issues. But we were fully prepared to talk about all of the other issues that we needed to address, and we offered to do that in a partnership with the Nurses Union. The point we made is that the partnership has to go both ways, because we have an obligation to the patients and the families of British Columbia to make sure that health care service is there for them when they need it.

That particular discussion, I thought, was quite fruitful. It was a cordial meeting. It was a meeting in which I think everybody at that table had an opportunity to put some constructive ideas forward in terms of how we could address some of these broader issues. I was very disappointed the next day when the public response that we got from the Nurses Union was one of rejection.

But then, as the week went on, we started to get some indications that maybe there were some issues. . . . On Friday afternoon the Minister of Finance and I again met with the leadership of the Nurses Union, and they had some suggestions to make in terms of how we could tackle the very same issues that were being addressed in these so-called concessions. I thought that was quite encouraging. Again, we made it quite clear that we weren't there to negotiate but that would be a very. . . . There were some excellent ideas that they could take back to the bargaining table in the way of a counter-offer.

Let's put this in perspective. The employer made an offer, the Nurses Union took it to their membership, and it was resoundingly rejected -- 96 percent. That was a very large percentage rejection of that offer, largely driven by this larger frustration and anger that nurses have. But the ball was in their court at that point.

You know, if you want to follow what I understand is normal collective bargaining procedures, it would be for the union to come back to the bargaining table with a counter-offer. We were not going to bargain those issues in the discussion the Minister of Finance and I had with them, but we thought it was excellent that they got some other ideas, and we encouraged them to take those back to the bargaining table as a counter-offer. We offered a way to facilitate some of that interaction that would actually help them to structure that particular counter-offer.

The other thing that happened last week was a meeting on Thursday afternoon with the Health Sciences Association. It was the Minister of Health Planning and I who met with the president and one other representative of the HSA. Again, I thought it was a very constructive meeting. What we tried to focus in on was: what are the solutions? What are the ways of dealing with the crisis that we have? Not simply the quick fix that's going to pretend that somehow we can solve this by throwing a whole bunch more money at the problem, but rather how do we deal with the education programs, the amount of training for paramedicals in our education facilities? How do we deal with issues in terms of workplace overtime requirements, morale in the workplace? Those were all issues that I know are important to the membership of the HSA.

Again, we offered that partnership. We offered to ensure that we work through these solutions over time. Again, I was very disappointed to see that that partnership was rejected by the HSA.

I want to clear up some of the misconceptions that the public may have about what the overtime issue, in terms of nursing, is all about in British Columbia. I want to put some numbers before you to put this into perspective. You know, I appreciate the fact that there are nurses who are being burned out by overtime. The perception that has been created is that all nurses are facing this kind of burnout.

First of all, over the last year, 25 percent of nurses in British Columbia did not work any overtime at all; 50 percent -- half of all nurses -- worked less than 12 hours of overtime in the past year. So of the 75 percent of nurses that worked some overtime last year, two-thirds of those nurses that worked some overtime did not work more than 12 hours of overtime in the entire year. Ninety-five percent of all nurses worked, on average, less than 40 hours a week including the overtime that they put in.

Let's put that in perspective. The workweek for nurses in British Columbia is 36 hours, which is the shortest full-time workweek of any nurses in all of Canada. Forty percent of overtime is worked by part-time employees. So when we talk about overtime, we've got to realize that this is the issue around the designated days off, where nurses who are working permanent part-time have the opportunity to identify two days a week that would be their designated days off. Even if they haven't worked at all during the other five days, if they work the two designated days off, they're entitled to double time. So 40 percent of overtime that was worked in the province by nurses was worked by part-time nurses.

I guess the last number that I want to put before you is that 3.6 percent of total nursing hours worked in a day are overtime hours. So you're probably asking: why is it that the health care system in British Columbia can be brought to its knees when only 3.6 percent of total nursing hours are overtime hours?

Most of the overtime is not spread evenly across the health care system in British Columbia. What we see is that most of the overtime demands that are being put on nurses are, first of all, primarily in the lower mainland, and they're primarily in our tertiary health care facilities. It's those nurses who are in critical shortage around British Columbia, more so than other nurses -- those who are working in intensive care, those who are working in operating rooms and those who are working in emergency rooms in the lower mainland. That's where we see this problem manifesting itself in a way that is so crippling to the health care system in this province.

I followed the comments of the member for Vancouver-Hastings with interest. Before I close my comments, I just want to put before the House a couple of quotes which I think perhaps give a perspective on where we're at. This is a quote which I think is quite interesting in that context. "I would also say that the delivery of health care services -- and the continuous delivery of health care services -- to meet the needs of patients in this province is our highest priority, even in the context of labour relations." That was a quote by the member for Vancouver-Hastings on August 15, 1996. That quote is so true today.

If I could share with you another quote from the member for Vancouver-Hastings. This is a quote from Voice of the Province on June 7, 2000, so it's just a couple of days over a year ago that the member for Vancouver-Hastings said: "Boy, we would have loved to have avoided having to order workers back to work. And frankly, we tried to do everything we could to avoid that. I say this coming from a labour background, where a government must govern beyond just the foundation of your own party or perhaps where your own views are most comfortable. And we had to continue the education of kids."

That was in response to the action of the previous government to bring in legislation to force the resumption of education services in this province. Not just a legislated cooling off or a legislated resumption of services so that the collective bargaining process could continue, but that was actually the legislative imposition of a collective agreement on a trade union in this province.

I would ask the members of the opposition to consider their own words from those past years, because what we are facing today is a denial of urgent and emergency services to patients and families around British Columbia that I as a Health Services minister cannot stand by and say is acceptable. The system has come to a crisis level that requires the emergency and definitive action of this government and this Legislature.

I thank you very much for supporting this legislation. I hope we can get through this tonight, get on with the resumption of negotiations and the delivery of patient care in this province and, more importantly and in the longer term, get on with solving the problems in our health care system so that we do not face these kinds of ongoing crises but rather bring some stability and confidence to the system so that it's there for British Columbians when they need it in the future.

Hon. S. Hawkins: Let me first off offer my congratulations on your election to Speaker. I wish you all the very best in your presiding over this chamber.

Hon. Speaker, the decision to bring in this legislation was not an easy decision. It took into account a variety of factors, not the least of which was patient safety and the health of British Columbians. Providing access to patient care is a priority for our government. I understand that for the sake of hundreds and hundreds of B.C. patients -- including children, cancer patients, cardiac patients waiting for treatment and urgent and emergency surgeries, some of whom who have seen their surgeries cancelled not just once, not just twice, but up to three times -- this decision today was deemed necessary. I recognize that this legislation is about stabilizing our health care system for the short term, to give us some time to focus on some of the long-term issues we now face.

Had there been a plan, had there been any kind of health care planning in the last ten years which focused attention clearly on the long-term needs in our health care system, on the needs of both patients and health care providers, British Columbians might not be facing the crisis that they're facing today. Our government values our health care professionals. Our government has a genuine desire to work with all our nurses, with our paramedical professionals and with all our health care providers. That is the message that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Health Services and I took to the groups when we met them. We offered them that partnership; we told them we had a genuine desire to work with them.

We want our health professionals to stay in B.C. We want them to stay and work in B.C.

We are committed to providing opportunities for our health care providers to work with us to create a health care system that they will be happy to work in again and to be a part of. We want them to be proud of this system.

We understand that they have been under intense pressure. Part of the decision to have this bill introduced today is to allow time for a cooling off and to step back, take a breath and look at measures that will help us support our health care

professionals, to give us time to work with them to come up with short-term and long-term solutions. We know that we simply can't move forward without them.

We are willing and we want to work in partnership with our health care providers. We want to develop human resource long-term strategies in our health care system, strategies that will result in a workforce that is ready and able to meet the growing demands that we as patients will place on it in the next ten years. We haven't had that kind of planning in the last ten years. What's happening today didn't just come about yesterday. It's a culmination of a lack of planning, a lack of human resource planning, a lack of looking forward ten years ago and seeing what the demands were for health care in the future.

Patient care is a priority for our government, as I said. That is why so much energy has been devoted over the past few years to develop clear priorities and commitments to address the pressing challenges in our health care system. That's what's in our new era, and that's what we are committed to delivering.

Tonight I want to take a few brief moments to mention a few of those commitments, because I think they speak to many of the concerns of working nurses and other health care professionals across this province. The Minister of Health Services has mentioned some of them, and certainly he has offered, as well as I have offered, to work with our health care professionals to deliver some of those.

We are committed to developing a long-term plan for health care. We are committed to developing a long-term human resource strategy for health care. We are looking at one that looks into the future, one that addresses the health challenges of rural and remote areas, because we know that poses special challenges. We want to look at a strategy that incorporates a program that provides, say, forgivable loans to B.C. students attending nursing and medical schools who agree to practise in our province. We intend to expand educational opportunities for registered nurses, for care aides and for licensed practical nurses and allow them more opportunities for career advancements in all parts of British Columbia.

We are looking at ways -- and we have offered this to our nursing professionals -- to increase the number of porters, clerks and care aides in our hospitals. We know that it's important to reduce the amount of time our nurses spend performing non-nursing duties, and we did offer a partnership in helping develop those kinds of strategies to assist them with that.

We will increase the number of registered nurse graduates and medical school graduates over the next four years. The Minister of Advanced Education and I have met already, and I know she is very supportive of this initiative. The new chair of our health committee, the member for Saanich South, and I have met, and we've discussed the need for expanding training in those areas.

We have a caucus full of talent, full of energy and full of vision, hon. Speaker, and we have all looked at the new era, we've all committed to it and these initiatives certainly are contained in it. They are commitments that we plan to carry out.

All of these commitments have the well-being of both the health care provider and the patient in mind. And if we've learned anything in the past ten years, it's that you can't solve these problems in our health care system just by ignoring them. They have been ignored for way too long. These problems didn't just happen yesterday. They were ten years in the making -- at least ten years in the making.

We recognize that we need to move forward. We need to move forward with a common vision. Despite the action taken today, our commitment is to work in partnership with health care providers, and that commitment remains strong. Notwithstanding what's taking place tonight, we still are extending that opportunity to those providers to work with us in a partnership to deliver these commitments. I know that our government, together with the health care providers, share a common priority, and that is providing access to patient care, providing safe patient care and providing good patient care across the province. We need to improve the way we deliver health care to the people of this province.

Certainly in the last few weeks, as we formed government and watched what was happening, we knew that the crisis was coming down to us and that we had to act to protect patient health care and safety. It is my sincere hope, and I know it is a sincere hope of the members in this House, that we return to this common ground of finding solutions, of providing safe and effective patient care, of making sure patients come first, and we hope that does happen during the cooling-off period. It is our government's desire to build the kind of health care system British Columbians deserve. I think I'll close with that.

J. Kwan: I too am honoured by the people who have re-elected me to represent them in this House. I think we are engaged in an extremely important debate around health care services and how health care services are being delivered to British Columbians.

I have many points that I would like to make, so let me first start with some of the points that have been addressed and pointed out by the Minister of Health Services.

In the new era of the Liberal government, the Liberal government says that they want to ensure that health care services are delivered to British Columbians. They say that's one of their top priorities. The current Minister of Health Services has signed petitions recognizing nurses and health care professionals as invaluable to the health of British Columbians. He says he recognizes that the nurses and health care professionals will only stay in British Columbia if they're given globally competitive wages and premiums. He says he recognizes that the hard-working nurses of B.C. deserve respect.

He signed a petition that recognizes the requirement for significant improvements in their current contract and no concessions. He signed a petition committing to providing the financial resources required to ensure B.C. has the nurses we need. The Minister of Health Services heckled earlier in the debate that he had stood up for the nurses for a long, long time. I ask the minister: where is he now for the nurses?

There were letters -- many, many letters. I have piles and piles of letter that have been written from community members, constituents all over British Columbia -- letters to the Minister of Health Services, letters to the Minister of Labour, letters to the Premier, and so on. I'd like to read one into the record. This one is addressed to the Minister of Health Services, and it reads as follows:

You know, when the member says he cares about health care services being delivered to the people of British Columbia, you must recognize that the people who deliver them. . . . You must recognize their needs as well. A petition was signed during the election campaign from the then minister suggesting and agreeing that these things are essential to addressing the health of British Columbians. Today we are faced with legislation that violates, I believe, those pledges that the minister made, yet he says that he cares very much about the health care of British Columbians.

You know, the employer suggests, in order to make sure health care services are being delivered, that they actually work towards requiring nurses to provide non-nursing duties, as an example. What are some of those non-nursing duties? These duties are phone duties, portering duties, clerical duties, housekeeping and cleaning duties, food duties, miscellaneous duties, pharmacy duties, stocking duties and maintenance duties. The employer is asking nurses to perform those things in their capacity for patient care.

If the members in this House really do care about health care services being delivered to British Columbians, especially at a time when there's a shortage of nurses in British Columbia, why would the employer make nurses perform non-nursing duties? Surely you can find some other approach to ensuring that those duties are met and making sure that the skills that the nurses and the health care professionals offer to our system are being used in the area where they are most needed -- that is to say, providing health care services to the people, the patients and the families within our system.

During an election lots of promises do get made. In this new era, I'm anticipating that a lot of these issues and challenges that the community has raised will be met.

I have another letter from another member of our community who raised promises that were made by a member of this House. The member who made the promises to support nurses and support the health care professionals is the member from Port Alberni -- the newly elected member, although not a new elected official, having been in the community as an elected official for quite some time. Let me quote this letter. It reads as follows:

On the one hand, you say that you want to draw nurses to British Columbia. You gave the tax cuts so that nurses will come flowing in from everywhere to British Columbia. But then, on the other hand, after the tax cuts are made, you're saying to them: "No, we will not recognize the wage request that has been made by the nurses and by the health care professionals, and we will not recognize the right to collective bargaining. In fact, we will go as far as to say that if you don't want to work overtime, we're going to legislate against you and make you work overtime."

You cannot on the one hand say that you want to support the health care professionals -- the nurses, the people who provide the care -- and also that you care about the people who receive the health care services, utilizing these kinds of tactics. On the other hand, you simply ignore their request. You know, if the government really wants to ensure that there is settlement and that their services are being provided, then I ask the question: why did the government turn down the nurses' proposal for a speedy settlement? It could have been done. The Minister of Health Services actually said that he supported the taking away of the issues of concessions. Well, why didn't that happen? If that was accepted, the overtime ban would have been lifted, health care services would have been delivered at the same rate as prior to the dispute, and they would be back at the bargaining table trying to find a fair resolution to the dispute.

Hon. Speaker, before the election the Minister of Health Services said one thing, then after the election he took another approach. That cannot help expedite and resolve the dispute that's before us.

Health care professionals, nurses -- the ones that I've spoken to and many of the letters that I have received -- all want to deliver services to the community. They entered into the caring profession because they care about people in their communities. There are many, many letters from people urging the government to get back to the negotiating table and to make sure that there's a fair approach to negotiations, a constructive approach to negotiations, not the approach that says: "Unless you do what I want you to do, then there is no discussion."

The shortage in health care professionals is a worldwide shortage. It's taking place throughout Canada in different communities all around us. In order to recruit and retain nurses, it's recognized that we must be competitive. The concessions on the table right now. . . . The nurses are advising they must be removed in order for a fair and just settlement to be reached. This must be done in an environment of cooperation and respect, not by legislation. If we want to expedite the process of bringing the health care professionals back to work, then I believe that's the approach we must take.

The proposed solution by the Minister of Labour. . . . As I mentioned, I have a lot of anxiety around it, in that it would not help to bring the workers back to the table. It would not help to ensure that the services are being delivered and that

the patient care and the patient needs and the patient's families' needs are being met. The best way to ensure that health care services are being protected is for us to move forward and engage in constructive bargaining to resolve the dispute.

Even doctors agreed that that is their approach. I recall that prior to the election. . . . Those members who have been re-elected to the House on the government bench will remember their stance on the issue around the northern doctors. I'm sure the newly elected member from Dawson Creek will recall the need for northern doctors to be compensated. They argued vigorously to make sure there were more dollars on the table to prevent, quite frankly, the job action that was taken by the doctors. We actually have doctors at this juncture supporting the health care professionals and asking the government to take action to resolve the dispute.

I'd like to read this letter into the record. It's actually addressed to the Premier. It reads as follows:

I find it very curious, though, that the Minister of Health Services almost verbatim takes the same positions as the employer has in offering at the table and in terms of the points -- even on the points that they make around overtime in terms of how many nurses don't work overtime and how many nurses do work overtime and so on and so forth. All of those points are exactly the same points the employer has brought to the table, notwithstanding that there may be disagreements with respect to those numbers.

When my colleague the MLA for Vancouver-Hastings brought with her the statistics of the nurses in terms of numbers of hours that have been requested for the nurses to work in terms of overtime and how many of those requests have been met, you just need to look. Some 60,000 hours of overtime is being provided by the nurses. Yet the legislation before us calls for not allowing for an overtime ban. A lot of the overtime is being provided right now as we speak by the health care professionals, by the nurses. Some 60,000 hours of work is being provided by the nurses in this arena. To suggest that somehow the nurses are at fault because they don't provide enough overtime is, I think, erroneous. I think it's unfair to the nurses, to the people who are providing services and who work very hard in our communities to care for the patients and for the families.

A couple of weeks ago, when the government made the announcement on increasing deputy ministers' wages significantly, the government made the argument at the time that we need to ensure that the wages are competitive, that we attract and retain qualified people to perform the tasks required. If that logic applies to deputy ministers, I would ask: why wouldn't the same logic also apply to health care professionals and to the nurses? Do we not value the skills they bring to our health care system? When we say we care so much about patient care, then we must care too about the workers that provide for that patient care.

When we say that deputy ministers deserve a significant wage hike in order to attract and to retain them, one would make the same argument then for health care professionals and for nurses as well. You have to apply the same logic. You cannot, on the one hand, apply logic to one group and one sector and not the same logic to another group in another sector.

The government talks about the need to reduce the size of government. In their first act as government they've created the largest cabinet ever in the history of British Columbia, the most expensive cabinet ever in the history of British Columbia. They say this will ensure that better services are being delivered to British Columbians. There are $26 million in additional costs to support the large cabinet. That's about, in my estimation, maybe a quarter of the need in terms of providing for some resolution in the dispute before us. The members know that. And if health care services and health care are a priority for this government, then I would urge the government to take action in that regard. It doesn't make. . . .

J. Kwan: Yes, that's the reason why you're here. The member for Langley, the Minister of State for Women's Equality, signed the pledge supporting nurses during the election. I would urge her to rise up now to speak in support of the nurses, to say that this piece of legislation does not help women in the workforce, does not help the family in the workforce or the family members and the patients in the workforce in ensuring that health care services are being delivered to them.

Your action in supporting. . . . I assume that she will be supporting this bill. By her action of supporting this bill, she's

contradicting the statement she signed that said she would support the nurses and the health care professionals. That is a simple fact. I would urge the member to rise up and speak her heart now and tell the people and the nurses who are probably watching and observing every action of the members of this House how they will address this issue.

At the beginning of this sitting the Government House Leader said this is of the utmost emergency, and therefore we have to invoke standing order 81. I accept the ruling of the Speaker. But it befuddles me that the member also, at the same time as I speak, makes light of the seriousness of the situation, attempting to laugh and making a mockery of the situation that we're faced with. When I offer suggestions in terms of how to address the issue, the member -- all of the members, in fact -- heckles and laughs and just makes light of the situation that's before us. Then just minutes before, they said they care very much about the families and the patients who are in need of the services.

When we look at proposed legislation. . . . The members I know from the government side aspire to be just like Alberta. They very much want to be like Alberta, very much want to be like Ontario. We have a situation here in British Columbia where we have nurses and health care professionals who are respecting the essential services requirements.

If there was such an urgency and a need for the government to address this issue in terms of ensuring that there are more hours of service being performed by nurses in the health care sector, I wonder: why didn't the government take action by going to the Labour Relations Board and requesting an increase in essential service hours, as opposed to taking this step before us today? Why didn't they exercise that option? That option would have engaged the health care professionals and the nurses in a far less confrontational approach in terms of resolving the matter. It offers a far more cooperative approach and signals, I think, a far more positive approach towards negotiation by ensuring that there is an outcome of settlement of the dispute before us -- as opposed to immediately taking, I suppose, the recommendations of staff to come before the House with a piece of legislation.

When I look at the legislation, I don't see the solutions that would actually enhance health care services to British Columbians. I do not see that. Judging by the reaction of health care professionals to date -- the nurses and the HSA and their supporters out on the front lawn of the Legislature, where they were very, very emotional, very frustrated by the actions of government. . . . That really, I think, would cause a further breakdown in building a relationship towards negotiations and finding permanent solutions to this challenge.

When the members suggest they have not escalated the situation today, I would argue, quite frankly, the contrary. HSA took job action to essential service levels only after they'd been given notice that this legislation would be tabled. I would suggest that if the government wanted to ensure job action did not escalate to this level, they might have actually taken the approach of engaging the health care professionals and the nurses in finding a fair settlement and moving towards that.

The first request they have made, from the nurses' side, is taking off the concessions, which the Minister of Health Services actually signed on to. So, too, did the Minister of State for Women's Equality. They have made these pledges. Why can't they follow through with that action now, after the election?

The members from the community had great hopes that the health care challenge British Columbians face would be resolved. The Liberals promised they would resolve this issue. Yet the first action in the House has actually triggered quite a contrary response from our community. To read another letter into the record. . . . It is addressed to the Minister of Health Services, once again. The letter reads as follows:

With that, hon. Speaker, I thank you for the time and the opportunity to speak. My colleague and I will no doubt have further questions as we enter into committee stage.

Hon. G. Collins: I want to take a few moments to follow up a little bit on the comments by the member for Vancouver-Hastings and the member for Vancouver-Mount Pleasant. I found their comments interesting. They gave speeches I would think any member of a party that wasn't in government would make in attacking a government that had been in power for some ten or 11 years or so. They laid out in front of us all of the problems in the health care system, all of the problems the nurses face, the challenges nurses and health care professionals face in British Columbia -- the demands they've had, the stresses they've been under, the excessive overtime they've been forced to work, the fact they've been attracted outside of British Columbia because the government hasn't paid attention to their problems and their challenges and their frustrations for the last ten years.

They made great speeches about the downtrodden and how difficult it is and how hard those health care professionals have been working for the last ten years and the stresses they've been under. What the two members failed to tell us was that they were in government for the last ten years. They were in government. We've been in government for 13 days.

If ten years from now we're sitting in this chamber and the health care system is in exactly the same situation it's in right now, then I would give those two members every opportunity to speak at length and to challenge this government for its abysmal management of health care for the previous decade. But they should have been giving those speeches

down in their offices, in the mirrors, to themselves, because it's their record and it's their actions that have put us in this position we're in today.

I want to spend a few minutes just refreshing the record a little bit, if I may, because I heard the member for Vancouver-Mount Pleasant and particularly the member for Vancouver-Hastings almost breaking out in a song of solidarity forever. They're joined at the hip with the labour movement and their desire to protect workers' rights at all costs, with no end to free collective bargaining.

The member for Vancouver-Hastings was the Minister of Health for I don't know how many years. Somebody can remind me of the actual figure. She was the Minister of Labour for a period of time and the Minister of Education for a chunk of the time she served in government. They were a government that didn't just legislate a cooling-off period for 60 days; on three separate occasions they came into this House and legislated workers back to work and imposed a collective agreement -- on three separate occasions.

I think at the time those were the right things to do. They were the right things to do because students in all three cases were being thrown out of their classes and weren't able to get the education they needed. The minister saw the wisdom of those actions when she was minister. Both those members voted in favour of them. Both those members stood up in this House and talked about the need to protect the rights of students -- that we had to make sure that the students had a right to get in their classes.

We're not just talking about students getting an education. We're talking about patients getting emergency health care. It's far more important. This government has every justification in coming into this House and legislating not a settlement but a cooling-off period so that we can talk and try and find some solutions and come to a realistic conclusion.

I think it's amazing how 13 days change someone's perspective on these issues. If the tables had been turned, it would have been a much different speech by those two members, I suspect.

I heard the member for Vancouver-Mount Pleasant speaking, and it was difficult to take. She kept asking, in her tone to members opposite, pleading with us: why aren't we settling the dispute? Why is it that we're not listening to the cries from the nurses and other health care professionals? Why are we not doing everything possible to give them whatever they need to settle this dispute?

Thirteen days ago that minister sat around the cabinet table and could have done that if she had wanted to. But the offer she and the member for Vancouver-Hastings put together when they were ministers of the Crown was rejected by 96 percent of the nurses. So the solutions of those two members don't ring with a lot of credibility in this chamber.

The member talked about bullying tactics. I'm not used to being on the government side. The member for Vancouver-Mount Pleasant talked about bullying tactics. I want to outline for the House and the public a little bit about what's happened in the 13 days that we've been in government.

The Minister of Health Services related the gist of a conversation we had, at the request of the nurses, a week ago yesterday, Monday, to sit down and talk about the problems they faced. We made it clear to the BCNU that we weren't there to negotiate the items that were on the table for a collective agreement. If we were to meet, we weren't going to discuss those issues. But we felt there were a whole bunch of other issues that have built up over the last decade that are creating an awful lot of justifiable emotion in nurses in British Columbia -- an awful lot of the frustration that they have.

I respect that they have that. They do work under some very difficult situations and conditions. We thought that we could sit down and talk about those items that weren't on the bargaining table and look at midterm and long-term possible solutions, get some input from the nurses' union, get some input from nurses, bring that together and see if there wasn't some way we could start to deal with the long-term problems we face in health care around nursing shortages.

We had that meeting, and I thought it was a pretty constructive meeting, a pretty collegial meeting. We went away. They wanted to bargain, and we said: "We're not bargaining." So we went away, and a little less than a week later, on Thursday, we heard they wanted to talk to us again. We weren't about to turn them down if we wanted to talk about those solutions. We thought they had some good ideas, and we'll meet with them anytime to talk about the solutions anybody in British Columbia has to deal with some of the problems we face in health care.

The Minister of Health Services and I met again, and we had another good discussion. One of the items the nurses' union brought to the table was that they wanted the employer side. . . . Again, we told them, "We're not bargaining," but this is what they wanted to bring forward. They wanted the employer side to take down all those items that they call concessions, that were on the employer's table, which from the employer's point of view are put there in an effort to try and deal with some of the overtime problems and the scheduling problems we have with the way nursing time is allocated. The nurses wanted those to be removed.

The employer had already removed, I think, 30 concessions -- demands that were on the table. They were down to two. They had offered the nurses a wage package that was the best in Canada. What the nurses were asking for was Alberta; they offered them Alberta, essentially. In that intervening period, this new government had rolled back personal income tax rates, which amounted to about a 5 to 8 percent increase in take-home pay for nurses, on top of the agreement they'd rejected.

What the nurses were asking us to do was this. They wanted us to instruct the employer to remove those demands from the table -- all their demands -- so that the employer now had no demands on the table whatsoever. Then the nurses would get rid of their overtime ban, and then they'd talk money.

There's not a lot of balance in that, and I think the public can see it. The employer -- and, in this case, the taxpayers of British Columbia -- would have ended up paying $38 an hour for nurses in British Columbia, which is miles ahead of anywhere else in Canada. If we would have paid that and settled this dispute, given the nurses everything they wanted on their agreements and avoided coming here today and avoided talking further and avoided trying to grapple with this problem in any meaningful way, we would have settled the nursing dispute. It would have cost us about an additional

That's the issue. Not only would we not have solved them, we would have been further behind. Because all of the money that's out there in government would have gone into salaries, and none of it would have gone into trying to solve the real problems we face there. We would have ended up paying nurses $38 an hour -- as I said, miles ahead of anyone else in the country -- and we wouldn't have solved any of those long-term problems.

I didn't believe at the time that was a sincere proposal, and the Minister of Health Services and I spoke after the meeting broke up and tried to find some creative way we could try and engage this and start to deal with some of those solutions. We knew what was motivating employers on the side of their demands, their alleged concessions, was trying to deal with the overtime ban and the midterm and long-term problems.

The minister and I were talking, and we said: "Well, maybe if we can engage the nurses, and if the BCNU can come to the table, we can appoint an independent chair, get a small working group of employers and nurses together and take some time -- maybe 30 or 45 or 60 days -- to stop their job action and take that period of time to work on some of those problems." Then if we could get some measurable outcomes at the end that we were going to shoot for, something we could agree was achievable and they could agree was achievable -- some of their ideas, some of the employers' ideas, other ideas we could find. . . .

If we could put that together and if, at the end of that period -- 30, 45, 60 days, whatever it would take to do that -- we could come to some agreement where the employers and the government were assured that we'd actually see some changes on the overtime problems and the demands and the nursing shortage, then the need for those concessions goes away. At that point in time we could remove the concessions and talk on the money side.

That was what we offered to the nurses. To be honest, they looked at it and. . . . Initially, I think, some of them on the bargaining committee looked at it as a real opportunity, something that was perhaps a little creative, a little different, a way to try and approach this. They went away and. . . . They have a cumbersome structure. It took them some time, back and forth with their councils and their people, to discuss this. There were some calls back and forth between myself and people with the BCNU bargaining committee on clarifying how we thought that might work. On Monday morning they called us. Early yesterday morning I got a call and was told that the decision was no, they wouldn't engage in that. They wouldn't stand down their job action in exchange for us standing down those concessions for a period of time while we could look for the solutions. At that point it became very clear to us we had reached an impasse. There was no movement on either side at this point, and there was nowhere we could go.

Now, I don't characterize that as bullying. I characterize that as trying to be creative and innovative and come up with a solution. That's what we've been trying to do. I think nurses do work very hard, and I have a ton of respect for them. I can tell you, any time I've been in the hospital, it's great to have them around. I sure know how hard they work and the demands that they work under. I know how hard it's been for them over the last number of years as the shortage has crept up on us and built and built. But we've got to try and find some solutions, and unless we can find some long-term solutions and have the nurses and their unions and their representatives be part of that, we're not going to solve the problem long term.

This is a cooling-off period. This is trying to deal with the crisis that's hitting us today, tonight, tomorrow and the next day. That is the fact that people are sick in British Columbia. They can't get the care they need, and it's getting worse every hour. That's why we're here tonight. Despite all of us getting all clogged up in the negotiations and what this clause means and what that clause means, there are a bunch of sick people out there that need to get health care. That's why we're here tonight. If we can try and work towards restoring some of the system that's out there and is in such difficult straits in the short term and get back to the bargaining table and rethink some of these solutions, maybe there will be some room to manoeuvre. But as I've said repeatedly, there's very, very little room to move on the monetary side. There are pressures in the health care budget that I know the member for Vancouver-Hastings is aware of, because she sat around the cabinet table when they built the budget last year.

The previous administration, just so everybody knows, budgeted for 2 percent growth in Pharmacare for this year. Well, the Pharmacare budget hasn't grown by 2 percent ever. It's usually double digits -- 15 percent, 20 percent. I mean, it was a ridiculous estimate to put into the budget. So when you have pressures on Pharmacare and pressures on physicians and pressures on the capital budgets and pressures on all of these things, there has to be a bit of realism around what those wage offers can be and what the parameters are within which they can operate. The employers have a mandate to negotiate within that. You can't put all of the money into solving the demands of one group of people working in the health care system to the detriment of long-term solutions and to the detriment of every other employee that's in the system as well. There has to be some balance. That's what government is dealing with.

I might add, Mr. Speaker, this was an astounding comment that came from one of the members of the nurses' union when we were sitting around the table on Friday night. I couldn't believe it, because I was shocked this had actually happened. They said to me. . . .

You'll recall when the employer made an offer; it was during the middle of the campaign. The employer made an offer -- Alberta -- and it was a final offer which requires, under the Labour Code, that there be a vote. I was told by the nurses that the then Minister of Finance told the nurses that there was $20 million to $30 million left on the table from the offer that had been made to what the government had put together as a mandate. Now, if that isn't somebody abdicating their responsibility to the taxpayers of British Columbia, I don't know what is.

So when I hear the two members opposite tell me how hard we should be trying to settle this dispute, I say: "Thank you very much, and thank your colleagues for the way they behaved when they were in government in the middle of an

election campaign, more concerned about saving their hides than saving the taxpayers and the nurses and the patients of British Columbia the pain. . . . " We are trying to solve this problem, but we've been in office for 13 days.

You know, I hope the member for Vancouver-Hastings takes the "New Era" document and wallpapers her office with it. She can tick them off as we deal with them, but give us more than 13 days. It took you guys ten years to get us here; give us at least a couple of weeks to start to solve it.

I think what the Minister of Labour is doing here today is answering the calls of the people of British Columbia who are ill, who need that service, who are counting on health care service and who need to know the government's there to make sure it's delivered the best way we can with the constraints we're under and the time frame we have to operate under. It took us more than a decade to get where we are today. It's going to take us more than two weeks to get out of it. It's going to take us five years or six years or ten years to solve some of these problems -- if they're even solvable. Every other province in the country is dealing with some similar problems.

We do want to work with the nurses. We do want to work with the health care professionals. I understand their frustration. I understand how angry they must be. I understand how hard they're working, and I understand how distrustful they are of governments in general, given what they've gone through for the last ten years. But give us a chance; give us a chance to try and solve some of those problems. Give us a chance to sit down, to talk, to try and find some solutions so that we can work together to make sure this system is improved and the nurses' lifestyle is improved and the way they work and the conditions they work under have been improved as well. Those are the goals of this government. It's what we've been talking about for all these years in opposition. It's what we're committed to in government. Come help us; let's solve this problem. Let's get to work; let's see if we can't make it a little better a year from now.

Hon. G. Bruce: We've heard much tonight. This is a very measured bill in an effort to deal with a very, very difficult situation. We're here tonight because of the urgency of that situation. I had hoped the members opposite, the opposition, would join with us in trying to tone down the rhetoric and the concern that's out there in the general public as a whole.

However, I'm still hopeful that as we leave the House tonight, after this bill goes through third reading, the two members in opposition will join with us in encouraging all of those that are involved in this negotiation to come back to the table. I heard from the two members tonight that what they wanted us to do was to bring the parties back, to get back to the table and get the negotiations going. In fact, that indeed is what this bill does.

Bill 2, Health Care Services Continuation Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

J. Kwan: No, I simply rise to request a 20-minute recess before we proceed to committee stage.

J. Kwan: Hon. Speaker, we've been in the House for a period of time. It's so that some of us could take a few minutes to use the facilities and take a few minutes' break from the chamber, and then we'll be back to resume our duties and engage in committee stage.

The Speaker: Order, please. The question is that leave be granted for a few moments to allow the members to leave the chamber.

Hon. G. Collins: Given the fact that this bill is moving through all stages, if the members require some time, that's fine. Hopefully, in the future most bills won't need to go through the House this quickly. If they're requesting it, I think it's fine.

The Speaker: Thank you. If it pleases the House, we will have a 15-minute recess.

J. MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could begin by introducing the staff who are with him.

Hon. G. Bruce: I have my deputy minister with me, and I have my assistant from the ministry and Patrick Stanton.

J. MacPhail: I note that there's a distinction amongst the definitions of "employee," "nurse" and "paramedical profession." Could the minister explain the distinction amongst the three?

Hon. G. Bruce: The definition of an employee -- I take it that's what you're looking for -- covers the nurses and the paramedical professionals. Of course the paramedical professionals are all of those who are in that unit. I think there are seven union bodies in that altogether.

J. MacPhail: My apologies. I'm having trouble hearing, so I'm not sure what the situation is.

Hon. G. Bruce: Is the terminology of the employees what you're. . . ? What an employee is as it applies to the definition or a person? What the terminology "employees" covers is the nurses and the paramedical professionals. Of course, in the body of the paramedical professionals are the seven bodies that are part of that unit.

J. MacPhail: Sorry, maybe the minister misunderstood. Why is it necessary to distinguish. . . ? The definition for employee defines what the employee is. Then you have a further definition defining the various categories of nurse and paramedical professionals, which is the way in which employee is defined. Why is it necessary to have three separate definitions when it seems to be targeted toward two groups?

Hon. G. Bruce: We're reflecting the language which is in the Health Authorities Act.

J. MacPhail: It's important to understand clearly why the separation amongst three definitions, because that will define how the act is applied. And I am curious to understand if indeed there are three definitions here, because the act is intended to apply in a way that's different than nurses and paramedical professions. Does employee take on a meaning that's different than nurse or paramedical profession? If not, why are the other definitions necessary?

Hon. G. Bruce: We're using the definition of employee in the broad context here. We too want to make sure that it's very clear to everyone, so the others are used. You'll see it as you go through the bill -- the necessity for clarification of the other definitions that are here.

J. MacPhail: So if there is a distinction between employee and nurse and paramedical profession, which definition prevails in application of the act?

J. MacPhail: Is the act restricted to employee, or is it restricted to paramedical professional as defined here and nurse as defined here?

J. Kwan: I have a question with respect to section 2(1)(c). When the clause says ". . .every employee must resume his or her duties and work schedules of employment with the employer. . . ." Could the minister please explain duties in that context?

J. Kwan: Hon. Chair, I've tabled with you an amendment to section 2(1)(c), and I trust the minister has received a copy of it.

I move an amendment to section 2(1)(c) to insert after the words "his or her" the words "direct patient care" so that the section would actually read: ". . .every employee must resume his or her direct patient care duties and work schedules of employment with the employer."

J. MacPhail: I think the rules of the House still apply, so I'm going to speak to it, if the member doesn't mind. The part of the issue facing nurses in this strike now being affected by this legislation is that they have had the legal right to withdraw their services for non-nursing duties. The member for Vancouver-Mount Pleasant addressed that issue in her remarks and had a list there of the non-nursing duties that the Labour Relations Board said was a legal withdrawal of services.

To put into the record some of these non-nursing duties that aren't direct patient care duties. . . . Emergency department: acting as a switchboard; carrying cell phones in acute care and long term care facilities; portering duties, such as delivering lab specimens to the lab during the day, in-hospital portering of patients for routine procedures; clerical duties, such as faxing, couriering, collecting of money and valuables, clothing lists, restocking and thinning out patient charts, filing lab work and histories, chart audits, obtaining charts for phy-

sicians, registering patients, retrieving charts and admitting patients after midnight, making appointments for patients or residents, completing payroll, monthly mileage handed in for leased vehicles, referring of volunteer scheduling at clinics to management; housekeeping duties, such as cleaning bathtubs and beds, making beds and folding laundry, rinsing linen, cleaning shelves, cleaning floors unless there is an immediate hazard to the safety of patients and staff, emptying garbage tins, emptying linen bags, transporting linen bags, moving furniture, changing sharps containers, cleaning the fridge, filling soap dispensers, cleaning any equipment, setting up cots for visitors; food duties, such as handing out and picking up meal trays, heating meals; miscellaneous duties, such as responsibility for building security, quality checks on equipment, routine EKGs, completion of management data collection tools -- management duties should not be performed while the manager is on duty, even if the manager is unavailable, unless an in-charge premium or team leader premium is paid -- relieving unit clerks and receptionists on their breaks, having to cover off management's responsibility for unpaid meal breaks; pharmacy duties, such as checking for outdated pharmaceuticals, checking and ordering stock drugs and supplies; stocking duties, such as checking outdated sterile supplies; maintenance duties, such as changing lightbulbs, arranging maintenance such as snow clearing, building maintenance. These are non-nursing duties and non-direct patient care duties.

The Labour Relations Board has ruled that these are legal activities. Withdrawing of doing these services is a legal action under the Labour Relations Code, and in fact the Labour Relations Board has ruled on that. Is it the minister's position that his legislation now orders nurses to do all of this work?

Hon. G. Bruce: What we're talking about here is that they'll go back to their duties, as it was, prior to any job action being taken. Your amendment is limiting in scope, so we wouldn't be supporting that amendment.

J. MacPhail: I do apologize. I am having a huge amount of trouble hearing, and I don't know whether it's the adjustment or the mike. Did you say you would be supporting the amendment?

J. MacPhail: Well, all right, then. Perhaps the minister could address my question. Is his position, then, that nurses will now be required to do the list of duties that I have just read out -- yes or no?

Hon. G. Bruce: What I said -- and I know you would love that I might support your amendment, but that's not what's happening here -- was that the nurses would be required to do what it was they did prior to any job action.

J. MacPhail: I've asked the question and not received an answer. Is the minister refusing to answer my question? I've read out a list of non-direct patient care duties that nurses have been required to do and are now permitted to withdraw this service by a Labour Relations Board decision. Is it now the minister's suggestion that nurses will be ordered to do this work?

Hon. G. Bruce: The nurses will be required to undertake the same work they were to do prior to any job action.

J. Kwan: If the intent of the bill is to expedite resolution and ensure there is provision of patient care to the patients and their families, then. . . . In the case of non-patient care duties and their application per this section of the act, section 2(1)(c), it includes duties such as switchboard responsibilities, cleaning up of garbage cans and the like. Wouldn't it make more sense for other staff or employees to be providing those services so that the nurses can provide direct patient care?

J. MacPhail: Sorry, I didn't realize the minister was not going to answer the question. Perhaps the minister could explain how ordering nurses to do non-nursing duties and mandating that by legislation contributes to improving nursing care and ending the nursing shortage.

Hon. G. Bruce: What we're saying, again in this context, is that we're asking all the participants to do that which they did prior to any job action.

J. MacPhail: So the aspect of this legislation is to order nurses to do non-nursing duties and to work overtime. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Bruce: I'll try one more time. It is those duties that they were doing prior to the job action, within the collective agreement, that they are being asked to undertake again.

J. MacPhail: Let me just put it on the record that the minister has, in his inability to answer the question, left it to say to nurses in the province today that not only are they having their rights taken away around free collective bargaining, but that they will also be forced to do the work I read into the record earlier. The minister expects them to be forced to work overtime, and nurses will be forced to do the duties that are not about direct patient care. And the minister refuses to answer the question about how that would contribute to improving the nursing shortage. It leaves nurses, I would expect, in a complete dilemma about how they can possibly do their duties in a way that meets the needs of patient care and that also permits them to do it in a healthy and safe manner. The amendment put forward by the member for Vancouver-Mount Pleasant is to address that issue specifically.

The minister has said that they don't want to get involved in bargaining but that they want to take a balanced approach. I would suggest there is nothing balanced about this whatsoever. The government has stripped nurses particularly of every avenue they have available to do their job and to do it properly and to do it with the ability to affect the contribution of that service as is their right under the law. That is the intent of the amendment, hon. Speaker: to provide nurses with some sort of ability to control their work conditions in the face of this kind of legislation. Those that would vote against that amendment are saying to nurses that really, we don't care. It's not about patient care, as the Minister of Health Services tries to make out. It's about taking away every ability of a nurse to provide that patient care and giving them no avenue for recourse.

J. Kwan: I would also like to add to the comments my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings has made with respect to the focus being on patient care. The reason why the words "direct patient care" are critical to amending this section is to

clearly define, in a time of shortage of nurses, in a time where the overtime demands on nurses are strenuous, that their time and their duties ought to be focused first and foremost on direct patient care and not on other miscellaneous duties, as my colleague had read out earlier.

I continue to assume. . . . Again, the question was posed to the minister in terms of focusing on direct patient care, with another option of relieving those duties by way of providing for other staff members, so you can therefore focus more on patient care by the nurses who are on duty and who are working overtime.

The minister has refused to answer that question, which is most unfortunate. I can only assume that with this section as posed, it is an assault on workers' rights and also an assault on patient care, which the government members make out as most critical.

J. Kwan: The Government House Leader asks: "How do you make out its being an assault on direct patient care?" Well, it's quite simple. When you have workers, health care professionals, who are providing for direct patient care and their time and their efforts are taken away from that to do other duties such as garbage duties and the like at a time when there is a shortage of nurses, at a time when there is a demand for even more overtime by the government members to ensure that there is patient care, then it is contradictory. It is contradictory in its message, it is contradictory in its approach, and I would submit that there is a better approach in terms of options in addressing the issue.

Hon. G. Bruce: You know, what's before us is an extremely serious matter, and I hesitate to get into the politics of it all, because I don't believe that's what the people of the province of British Columbia wish us to do. At this point, they would like us to restore patient care in the province. That, in fact, is what this bill does.

J. MacPhail: I understand lots of us are new here. You asked if the amendment passed. You heard ayes, and then you declared it defeated. I wonder how that happened.

J. Kwan: I move the amendment to section 2(1)(d) that has been tabled: to delete the words "becomes invalid" and to replace them with "remains valid."

Hon. Speaker, this section causes me grave concern when I read the words "becomes invalid" in the bill. It is unprecedented in back-to-work legislation to nullify a strike vote. Strike votes are typically a time of very high emotion. It makes no sense to force that process on those parties -- in other words, to reconduct their strike vote -- particularly after the imposition of a cooling-off period, which is what's being proposed here. It also imposes a significant financial penalty on the unions, given the size and complexity of the bargaining.

Therefore to delete the words "becomes invalid" and replace them with "remains valid," I believe, is critical in terms of respecting the rights of the unions with respect to strike votes. Even more significantly, this government has promised British Columbians -- wrongly, in my view -- to require a secret ballot vote in union certification drives even where a clear majority has signed union cards. But in this case, the government is striking down the votes of health care workers. In this instance, the health care workers have voted with a large mandate -- 96 percent -- to reject the offer that has been tabled. If we proceed with the clause as stated -- to nullify a strike vote -- then the message to the workers would be: "Your voice doesn't count. Your voice is null and void, and it is unimportant."

I would also ask the minister: is it his intention to signal to organized labour that they would not respect the collective bargaining process? A strike vote is critical to that process. Respecting it is essential. To nullify and make invalid their vote in back-to-work legislation is, as I mentioned, unprecedented.

Therefore I'm moving to delete the words "becomes invalid" and to replace them with the words "remains valid."

J. MacPhail: Speaking to the amendment, hon. Chair, I would ask the minister several questions, the first of which is: are there any other jurisdictions where this kind of revoking of a secret ballot has been put into effect?

Hon. G. Bruce: This is very typical language in respect to British Columbia. We haven't researched other jurisdictions outside of British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: I put it to the minister that it doesn't exist. We have researched this, and it's a brand-new provision that has not existed ever before. There's a reason for that. The flow of this legislation is that it has a sunset clause: August 31. There is also, by the government's own admission, no desire to interfere with collective bargaining, although we dispute that.

By the government's own admission, the government doesn't want to interfere with collective bargaining. Then why is this provision there? If the cooling-off period ends and if, indeed, the intent of the government isn't to have the health care professionals capitulate, then why is it necessary to make the strike vote invalid? Why is it necessary for a secret ballot, which the government campaigned on in the election. . . ? Why is it necessary for the government to have a secret ballot made invalid when there is every opportunity, by the government's supposed admission, that a collective agreement may not be reached?

Why is the government taking away the right of health care professionals to exercise a legally valid strike vote, a secret ballot? Is it the government's intention to further weaken the rights of workers by forcing them to take another strike vote when the legislation expires? If not, why is this clause necessary? Why would you not support the amendment tabled by the member for Vancouver-Mount Pleasant?

Hon. G. Bruce: As I've said, what we're doing is taking the situation back to prior to the job action that was taken. But it's not unreasonable that as they get near the end of the 60 days, they would reaffirm their position if they felt they needed to.

J. Kwan: There are issues in relation to this. I do believe that it is unreasonable to impose a significant financial penalty, really, on the unions, given the size and the complexity of the bargaining process -- to have and legislate the nullifying of a strike vote. Essentially, you're legislating that process to be repeated over and over and over again. There is a financial burden to that.

Having said that, the other important issue, which again goes to the intent of wanting to ensure that there is cooperation and to expedite the process of resolution of the dispute. . . . This would speak negatively to that. It would simply signal to the people -- the nurses, the workers -- who voted in support of the strike vote that their voices don't count and that their vote is null and void. So therefore the voices of the workers who voted and wished to be heard would not be respected in that manner. Would the minister not agree that that is the signal he has sent to the workers and thereby created a negative impact on future negotiations?

Hon. G. Bruce: I am confident that there will be good-faith negotiations taking place during those 60 days, and I'm also confident and hoping that we'll have a resolution. But if it comes to the point near the end of that where they need to take a further vote, they would take a further vote.

J. Kwan: What is the incentive for the workers to engage in the bargaining process when the bill is clearly indicating to the workers that the government's intent is not supportive of the collective bargaining process?

Hon. G. Bruce: Sorry, did you say that the bill's not supportive of the collective bargaining process? Could you just repeat that for me, please?

J. Kwan: To clarify for the minister: clearly, the bill in its intent and the way in which it is written without the amendments as proposed indicates to the workers, to the unions, that the government is not supportive of free collective bargaining. Striking down a strike vote in an unprecedented way indicates that and signals that very clearly. So in that light, what is the incentive for the workers to engage in and believe that the government's intention is to engage in a free collective bargaining process?

Hon. G. Bruce: This is a very measured bill in respect of what we're attempting to achieve here. What we're basically doing is bringing the two parties back to the table to negotiate a settlement. I'm sorry, I just disagree with how you see it.

J. MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could explain what's measured about making invalid a secret ballot. And perhaps the minister could explain how that jibes with having a sunset clause in this bill. Perhaps the minister could explain what avenues are available during the 60-day cooling-off period to ensure a settlement which would not require, then, the bargaining units to use a strike vote. In the consideration of his answer, perhaps the minister could explain where the bill covers off a potential failure in reaching a freely negotiated collective bargaining settlement and therefore doesn't further erode the rights of working people.

Hon. G. Bruce: You're quite right; you could go much, much further. I believe you know that, in fact, as a government in the past did that.

What we're trying to do here is bring in a bill to effect a cooling-off to try and lower the rhetoric and to get the parties back to the table to negotiate a settlement. I'm confident we're going to do that.

J. MacPhail: Could the minister point to what incentive there is in the legislation to reach a settlement?

Hon. G. Bruce: You know, the nurses are a professional body. They are individuals that care greatly about what hap-

pens in our health care system. They want to reach a settlement; we want to reach a settlement. As you have mentioned in some of your discussion and as other ministers mentioned here, there are some solutions out there. The difficulty was finding the way in which we were going to get back to the table to reach those solutions. This will bring us back to the table.

And the incentive? The incentive is the professionalism and the care that the nurses of the province of British Columbia have for the patients and the concern they have for the health care system.

J. MacPhail: The minister misunderstood my question. I didn't ask what incentive there is for nurses to reach a settlement, but he presumed that's for whom I was speaking. My question was about what incentive there is for the employer to reach a settlement. We have heard various ministers stand up and take the side of the employer, both by reading from their documents and misquoting nurses in meetings that they had with the government. The nurses now face. . . . There is no incentive for the nurses to reach a settlement. The government has removed all of those incentives. The government has removed their right to withdraw their services. The government, by defeating a motion put forward, has ordered the nurses to do duties that have nothing to do with direct patient care. Now the government has also invoked an unheard-of amendment to revoke a secret ballot.

J. MacPhail: Hon. Chair, I hope that in the course of doing your duties, you'll ensure order here.

J. MacPhail: You have taken away the nurses' right to take any action if there's a failure to reach a settlement. The bill contains absolutely no mechanism for a settlement. It takes away the right to strike; it takes away the right to refuse overtime; it takes away the right of nurses to do only nursing care. What is the impetus for the employer, minister, to reach a settlement?

Hon. G. Bruce: I want to be sure of it, then. Your question was: what's the incentive of the employer to reach a settlement? Is that the question?

There are five million people in this province who are concerned about health care in British Columbia. They're concerned about what they've seen for the past ten years and the deterioration of the health care service. There are five million very good reasons why there's an incentive for the employer to negotiate in good faith with the nurses and the paramedicals and to reach a negotiated settlement.

J. MacPhail: And why is it that somehow this government thinks that that same bargaining in good faith does not apply to the nurses and the paramedic professionals?

Hon. G. Bruce: I believe we have parties, in the situation today, that because of past actions, because of a very poorly handled negotiation and because of the political input that was there as we ran up through an election that set the whole thing askew. . . . I believe that all of those parties want to resolve the health care situation in British Columbia. We've had 13 days -- excuse me, 14 now -- to do just that, and we're working hard to bring those parties together to resolve the health care situation in the province. We've had 13 days -- excuse me, 14 days now -- to do just that. We're working hard to bring those parties together -- all of the parties. This isn't a question of one group wanting it more than another or that there'll be a winner or a loser. This is for the people of the province -- that we will have a good health care system.

J. Kwan: If it's the wish of the government to expedite the free collective bargaining process, to address the needs of the millions of patients in British Columbia, then why did the government turn down the nurses' proposal for speedy settlement? Under the plan the nurses would have ended their overtime ban, while the government would have instructed health employers to drop their concession demands that would make the nursing shortage even worse.

Hon. G. Bruce: We're not going to negotiate the settlement on the floor here.

J. MacPhail: I need to understand clearly, and perhaps the minister understands that it's not us that he's solely speaking to but the people out there in British Columbia, and particularly the nurses and the health care professionals who need to make decisions about what they do tomorrow morning. I have watched the news and understand that paramedical professionals are about to make decisions in the morning.

I think they need to understand -- not us. . . . All of the rhetoric that is espoused by this side and the behaviour of using brute strength with a substantial lack of good grace and magnanimity. . . . You need to speak beyond us and to the people who are actually making decisions around this.

I would like the minister to answer the question for the paramedical professionals and the nurses. When they make their decision about how this legislation applies, what will they add on the plus side for the employer to reach a settlement? They know full well that they not only had their free collective bargaining rights stripped away, but despite all the promises made by this government during the election about the sanctity of a secret ballot, they now, with this legislation, have to go out and take another strike vote when there's no impetus at all that I can see for the employer to reach a settlement -- not one.

Hon. G. Bruce: I believe you've already answered the question. I'm having a hard time discerning whether you actually have a question there or if it's just a speech. I make that with all due respect, but I think there's great impetus for all of the parties.

And yes, I'm very concerned about speaking beyond the House here today -- to the people of British Columbia, to the nurses, to the paramedicals, to everybody that's affected by it -- and to come back to the table. I understand the difficulty. I understand the positions that people have found themselves in and taken, and that's what happens during the course of a negotiation. That's also why you bring in a cooling-off position. You're trying to change that dynamic and say: "Look, take the step back."

I can watch the news; I can see what's going on. But I'm appealing to those people, and I'm appealing to the employer, to come back to the table and work out a negotiated settlement for everybody.

J. MacPhail: Can the minister guarantee if and when people affected by this legislation take. . . ? After they've had their strike vote, which currently stands, made invalid, and if and when they go out and take another strike vote, will this government guarantee that they will not interfere with the validity of that strike vote?

Hon. G. Bruce: I'm very confident that all of the parties working together in an atmosphere of good faith will resolve this issue. We have professional, highly trained people who care that work in our health care system. They want it to come back and to be operating with a degree of normalcy and to be part of the solution of rebuilding our health care system, which has sadly been neglected in the past few years.

J. MacPhail: I don't think anyone would suggest that the minister answered the question. Will the minister guarantee that if and when this legislation fails and paramedical professionals and/or nurses take another strike vote as demanded by this, that the strike vote will be a secret ballot and this government will not declare it invalid? Will the minister guarantee that -- yes or no?

Hon. G. Bruce: That's been the problem around here the past few years. There's always this negative -- no faith in the people of the province to be able to make their own good, sound decisions. It's reflected in what you're saying here again today on an issue that is so vital to every single one of us. Move on. Let's rebuild this province. Let's rebuild our health care system. Let's make this place the place it ought to be -- make the province of British Columbia number one again in Canada.

J. Kwan: I have a question with respect to section 2(2), the cooling-off periods. Am I correct in understanding that the cooling-off period would be to a maximum of 60 days, which 2(3) indicates? Does that mean to say that you cannot have consecutive cooling-off periods of 60 days each?

Hon. G. Bruce: I hope I heard you correctly. It's up to 60 days for the nurses and up to 60 days for the paramedicals.

J. Kwan: My question is: could there be an imposition of consecutive cooling-off periods of 60 days each, or is it just to a maximum of 60 days and then that's it?

J. MacPhail: I have several amendments to section 4, hon. Chair. I move the first amendment standing at the table:

J. MacPhail: This amendment wouldn't have been necessary if the minister had explained to the public and to the people affected by this legislation what the impetus was for the employer to settle this collective agreement. He failed to do so. He stood up, and he made some broad rhetorical statements but failed to give specific answers to the people who will be affected by this agreement about what the impetus is for the employer to settle this collective agreement.

This bill adversely affects the people who work in our health care system. It does not adversely affect the employer. When I asked the minister specifically what impetus there was, the minister had none. He said it would be bargaining in good faith but that bargaining in good faith doesn't apply to the workers in the system.

So this amendment adds the impetus for the employer to settle. It is to promote good faith bargaining equally and equitably. Apparently the government feels it absolutely necessary to go as far as it has to take away the rights of people to withdraw their labour. So this is to add balance to the legislation and do what the government says it intends to do, which is to promote a speedy settlement.

There is a drastic imbalance created in favour of the employers, and the only party being deprived of rights in real

terms is, of course, the bargaining agent for the employees. They're being deprived of the most important right at this stage, which is the right to strike.

There is no quid pro quo, and that is, of course, the heart of real collective bargaining. Because the minister was unable to suggest what the impetus is on the other side for settlement, there is a requirement for this amendment. I would expect that the members sitting in this chamber would see that. Lockouts are, in theory, prohibited. There's no question about that. But we've never seen one in the history of this sector, and there hasn't been one at this time. So for this legislation to work, if it ever does, it has to establish a quid pro quo, or a balance, as the minister says he wishes to happen.

I think it also is important, in order to reach a quick and speedy settlement, that the employer be required to give up as important a right, in some fashion, as the unions are required to do in this situation.

As the minister is aware, not because we stand up and articulate it but because the nurses and paramedical professionals have told the government this directly themselves, concessions are at the heart of these disputes. One of the issues here is that the concessions be removed for good faith bargaining to have any possibility of success. So I think this amendment merely balances the legislation in a way that doesn't take away any of the interests of what the minister has expressed and perhaps would be a signal to people who are making decisions about their future -- about exactly what actions they should take tomorrow.

Hon. G. Bruce: I'd like to reiterate one more time that the legislation we've brought forward is cooling-off legislation. We're not negotiating a contract here. What you're suggesting in this is just that.

I would like to give you your answer, because we had a little bit of work done in regards to section 2(1)(d). You asked me if that had been found anywhere in any other jurisdiction, and it was. It was in 2(1), actually, in British Columbia. I'd like to read what it is that's in Bill 2. It reads: "any declaration, authorization or direction to go on strike given before or after the coming into force of this Act becomes invalid." That's Bill 2, the bill that we're debating here.

What we have found in this other bill. . . . I'd like to read it to you. It says: "any declaration, authorization or direction to go on strike given before or after the coming into force of this Act becomes invalid by reason of this Act."

Hon. G. Bruce: That is exactly the same wording. I would just like to pass it through. I believe it is Bill 7, 2000. It's called the Public Education Support Staff Collective Bargaining Assistance Act.

J. MacPhail: The important aspect of that bill, of course, is that there was an avenue for a settlement to be reached that was fair and equitable. The industrial inquiry commissioner. . . .

J. MacPhail: I thank the member for that, and I'm sure that the people who are affected by the legislation will examine closely what happened in the year 2000 compared to what's happened now. I'm sure that the minister bringing that to the attention of the public will contribute to how they are bringing about a fair and equitable settlement. Perhaps then, if the minister wishes to refer to past legislation, they might want to also take into account that legislation that allowed for a settlement, that allowed for a fair hearing to be heard and the appointment of an industrial inquiry commissioner with binding powers. Perhaps they would take that, or they could vote in favour of the amendment to section 4, or they could vote in favour of the amendment to section 4(2), which provides for an avenue.

J. Kwan: I ask the question again to the minister with respect to this bill and with respect to the cooling-off period. What is really important after this period, of course, is fair settlement. What is in this bill that would ensure that there is a fair process with respect to reaching settlement as the end goal of ensuring that nurses and health care paramedical professionals are back at the workplace in terms of the negotiations?

My other question to the minister with respect to that is: is the minister's intent to direct his staff to enhance the mandate in terms of the negotiation process? That would be essential in expediting the process of resolving the dispute.

The Chair: The question is the amendment to section 4 by the addition of a new section.

J. MacPhail: I move the amendment tabled in my name to add a new section 4(3) that reads as follows:

J. MacPhail: Hon. Chair, I'll be interested to meet with you and find out how that's beyond the scope -- what did you say? -- without even. . . .

J. MacPhail: No, no, I'm not challenging the Chair. I thought perhaps you could hear about the amendment before you ruled it out of order. But if that's going to be the nature of this Legislature, I guess we'll have to adjust and find other ways of making the points.

J. MacPhail: The intent of the legislation is articulated by the government side. It is to build a better health care system and to deliver patient care. I expect that the acknowledgment of the government would also be that that can't be done by compulsion. If this amendment is not passed, in the absence of this amendment, the only means of enforcement will be, first, by resort to the Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Code for an order, and then section 135 to file that order in court.

The trend in progressive labour relations in recent decades has been to exclude or dramatically reduce the role of the courts in labour disputes, and of course this legislation without this amendment is directly contrary to that trend. In addition, the trend in the courts is a distressing tendency to resort to imprisonment in contempt cases, most noticeably in this province with the long jail terms levied against protesters in the Elaho, in which the same nature of the law would apply without this amendment. I wonder whether that's the intent: to resolve the nursing shortage by the spectre riding over nurses' heads of their possibly being jailed. The penalties for contempt are unlimited in terms of fines or jail terms, and nothing could be more contrary to the cooling-off philosophy that the government is purporting to advance today.

The intent of this section is very clear. It is merely to ensure, as has been the trend in all labour relations matters, that the penalty in the provisions of section 158 shall apply and shall be the exclusive means. I would find it very hard to understand why the government would object at all to this innocuous but clarifying amendment.

Hon. G. Bruce: The section that you're referring to in section 5 is virtually word for word from this act, Bill 7, 2000, Public Education Support Staff Collective Bargaining Assistance Act.

J. MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could actually deal with the bill at hand and explain why this amendment isn't appropriate.

Hon. G. Bruce: I'm sorry. I'm not trying to be argumentative. It's just common practice. You've used it; we've used it. It's right there.

J. MacPhail: Could the minister explain how they would see their legislation unfolding in practice, please?

Hon. G. Bruce: I'm very hopeful that all the parties, as I mentioned, will cool the rhetoric. They've been asked to come back to the table within 72 hours to sit down to negotiate the contract. I believe that all the parties will do that, because I believe that deep in their hearts they understand the importance of this, not only to themselves as those involved in the negotiation but to every single British Columbian. This legislation affords them the opportunity to do that and to come forward with a negotiated settlement. That's what we're trying to achieve here.

J. MacPhail: Because there is no avenue for settlement contained in the legislation, which makes this legislation unique, can the minister advise us whether the intent is to proceed to court on violations?

Hon. G. Bruce: You're indicating that the people that will be affected by this legislation are going to go and break the law. I don't believe the nurses of this province or the professional people, as paramedicals, will go and break the laws of British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: I'm actually not taking a side in this. Every time the minister rises he refers to nurses and paramedicals and leaves the employers out of the equation. Is it the intent of this government, failing any provision for a settlement mechanism which makes this legislation unique in British Columbia, to proceed to the courts for any penalty, whether it be nurses, paramedicals or employers? Is it the government's intent to proceed to the courts for final resolution or to the Labour Relations Board?

Hon. G. Bruce: If I heard you correctly, I believe you said that through this bill there was no mechanism to reach a collective agreement. The whole essence of this bill is to have the parties come back quietly, to sit down as two and three parties in a negotiated instance and work out an agreement. Tell me, what would be so wrong with the two parties having to come to the table to negotiate a settlement that they both could live with? What's wrong with that? That's in fact what we're talking about here.

With respect to your other item, given that you think everybody in the province will break the law, it will be via the LRB.

J. MacPhail: So the penalties imposed would be pursuant to section 158 of the Labour Relations Code.

Hon. G. Bruce: I want to say one more time, because you gave me this advice and I'm going to take it, that we're speaking tonight well beyond everybody in this chamber. We're speaking to the people involved in this issue, in this dispute, and we're speaking to the people of the province. So I want to make it clear, first of all, that it's not our intent that these people will go and break the law. We don't see it that way. We believe that they will negotiate a settlement. You seem to have it that this whole thing is designed to force people into a situation where they'll go and they'll break the law. In fact, we don't believe that is going to happen.

With regard to the mode of the other spec, if there were a reason and a penalty -- and I pray and hope that that will not be the case -- it would go through the LRB in the normal process.

J. Kwan: I think the thrust of the question from the member for Vancouver-Hastings, with the amendment, is the issue around the consequences -- or the options, if you will, or the outcomes -- which workers have the right to know so that they can make an informed decision in terms of understanding, in the event of a violation, what the consequences might be. People have the right to know what they would be faced with in that eventuality. There's no implication whatsoever from the member for Vancouver-Hastings that people would violate the law, other than to say that people have the right to know. That's part of the intent in terms of the amendment -- clarifying that. So would the minister please answer that question?

Hon. G. Bruce: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say again that I consider this a very measured bill. We could have put in penalties. We could have gone along and drawn all sorts of lines in the sand. We could have set up the dynamic so that there would be a winner and there would be a loser, as has been the case in the past in this province.

That's not what we're trying to do. We're trying to bring people together. We're trying to get people back to the table to negotiate a settlement. We're trying to resolve an issue that is on our table and that has been the making of others who have put it on our table. We're trying to bring back to this province a health care system that works. And we'll be the first to say right here, as the Minister of Health Services and the Minister of Health Planning have said, that it won't be at a snap of the fingers. The damage that has been done has been long coming and deep, and it's going to take us a while to fix it.

All this legislation does is ask once again to bring the parties back to the table, to try and take that half-step back from where you're at and take a look at that bigger picture and how important it is for every single individual in the province that these two issues be resolved. Not that there be a winner or a loser but that there be peace here in British Columbia in our health care system, and that we can build a vital and good health care system for everybody. That's what we're trying to do.

Tomorrow morning people in the health care system are going to be waking up and trying to figure out how this legislation applies to them. I'm sure employers are going to be looking to see how it applies to them, and nurses and health care professionals are going to be looking to see how it applies to them. That's why I think specific answers from the minister are necessary.

If we actually look at the situation in British Columbia, you won't find situations where there has been this kind of disruption in the health care system before -- not in the last ten years, despite the rhetoric from the minister opposite. But you will find that this kind of disruption has existed in other jurisdictions in Canada. I know that the members surrounding me would like to say that this is a problem that exists only in British Columbia. Of course they all know that that's not true.

If I could just say why this issue is so important for people who are going to wake up tomorrow and look at this very unique legislation. . . . Despite what you try to purport, it is absolutely unique in the absence of provisions in this bill. When nurses wake up tomorrow morning and say, "My God, I've been told last night; I've been ordered (1) to work over-time, and (2) to perform non-nursing duties," and there is absolutely no provision whatsoever for a mechanism for settling the contract. . . .

A nurse may have family obligations that don't permit her, in an easy way, to meet the test of the legislation.

I read out letters from nurses who speculate how this may affect their lives. There were no answers forthcoming from the minister on how the legislation would be applied. Unintentionally, or perhaps through family obligations or community obligations, nurses and paramedical professionals may find themselves inadvertently in violation of this law because of the fact that there is no outlet for settlement -- none -- or any outlet for balance.

That is why this amendment is here. If there is some inadvertent inability to meet the test of this very, very restrictive legislation, what is the penalty that they may face as a family? What is the penalty that they may face? Is it that the government intends to take nurses and employers and paramedical professionals to court, with the full weight of that? Or is it the longstanding application of penalties listed in section 158 of the Labour Relations Code? It's a simple question.

Hon. G. Bruce: We're coming near to the end of this legislation and this debate. I'd like to compliment both members for the job that you've done in bringing forward this debate. It's difficult that there are only two of you. I don't mean this disrespectfully; I mean it very respectfully.

At the end of the day, this legislation is going to pass. You can choose to help us, to be part of this settlement, to encourage those people not to break the law that you're so sure they will go and break so that then we have to have all of these penalties lined up so that they can see what penalty they're going to be faced with. Or you can work the other way with us and encourage them: "Don't break the law. The law is there." The spirit of this is to bring people back together again. You've done your duty. You've done what you need to do as opposition. You've opposed it. Perfect -- the day is done.

We're going to pass this legislation. I'd ask you, just as I'd ask those that we're asking to come back to the table, to be part of the solution.

J. MacPhail: It is not the member for Vancouver-Mount Pleasant or me who will be explaining this legislation to people who wake up tomorrow morning and are affected by it. It is not us that will be deciding the future of collective bargaining in the area of health care, and it is not us who will determine how the legislation applies to the nurses and the paramedical professionals for whom I read letters into the record tonight. It is not us.

It is bewildering why the minister would stand up and somehow suggest that my colleague or I assume that someone will break the law. That is not it at all. It is what the public -- the nursing professionals, the paramedical professionals -- are saying to the government, are saying to the Premier, are asking questions about the intent of the legislation and what it means to their lives.

You know what? The questions haven't been answered tonight. Whether you like to stand up here and use the brute strength of which you have received a mandate and refuse to talk to the people who are actually affected by that. . . . Somehow, if you think that you've done your job. . . . Well, tomorrow morning you'll find out -- that's all. My reading of it is that you haven't answered the question, that at best -- at best -- there will be confusion tomorrow morning in the health care system. And at worst, the situation will be made more ineffective by this legislation and by the confusion. In that confusion, some nurse or lab technologist may break the law. That's all I'm saying. Because of the confusion.

This government refuses to limit the damage that may be done by their inept, ineffective legislation and the consequences it may have.

When the minister cannot help to clarify the limitations of this bill, then those who are affected by it may assume the worst. Not me and not the member for Vancouver-Mount Pleasant but the people affected by it may assume the worst. By the minister's and the government's refusal to accept this innocuous clarifying amendment, they're putting the system into further confusion and further damage.

J. MacPhail: What is the government's intention if we reach August 31, 2001, and there is no resolution to the dispute?

J. MacPhail: Let me try it a different way. Why did the government choose August 31? What is magical in the date August 31? It's actually not 60 days.

J. MacPhail: Hon. Chair, I can count as well, and it's not 60 days. So what is the intent of that date?

Hon. G. Bruce: It's just very close to the 60 days. There was nothing untoward in that. We're just trying to leave a little bit of room there, that's all -- just 60 days. We didn't know whether you would carry on the debate longer than this, and again, we don't know. That was all it was -- just really 60 days.

J. MacPhail: It perhaps would not meet the test of people who are deciding how to approach collective bargaining that they're mandated to do to say that it's future policy after August 31. I don't expect that the public or the people waiting for health care or the people giving that health care would understand that concept. It's the government's view that employers and the bargaining agents for health care professionals would go back to the table. What is the plan for unfolding that which would encourage people to complete that collective bargaining by August 31? If that bargaining fails, does the system revert to how it was previously designed?

Hon. G. Bruce: We're confident that through the process of negotiation, they will reach a negotiated settlement, and everybody will be working very hard to achieve that. So I'm quite hopeful and think that the case will be that as things start to settle down, we'll get to the table, we'll get a negotiated settlement, and we'll go on with rebuilding the health care system so that it's viable, great and good for everybody in British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: To clarify for the record, the sunset clause of this bill means that upon its expiry, the collective bargaining regime in this province returns to the situation that existed prior to the introduction and passing of this legislation.

Hon. G. Bruce: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 2, Health Care Services Continuation Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on division.

The Speaker: Hon. members, the Lieutenant-Governor is on his way to the chambers. I will call the members back when he arrives.

The Speaker: Hon. members, I would ask that you please take your seats. His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precincts and will be joining us momentarily.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to this act.

Hon. G. Collins: I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of the Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet or until the Speaker may be advised by the government that it is desired to prorogue the first session of the thirty-seventh parliament of the province of British Columbia. The Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied or has been so advised, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and, as the case may be, may transact its business as if it has been duly adjourned to that time and date. And moreover, in the event of the Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order.

Electoral District	Elected Member
Abbotsford-Clayburn	John van Dongen
Abbotsford-Mount Lehman	Michael de Jong
Alberni-Qualicum	Gillian Trumper
Bulkey Valley-Stikine	Dennis MacKay
Burnaby-Edmonds	Patty Sahota
Burnaby North	Richard T. Lee
Burnaby-Willingdon	John Nuraney
Burquitlam	Harry Bloy
Cariboo North	John David Wilson
Cariboo South	Walt Cobb
Chilliwack-Kent	Barry Penner
Chilliwack-Sumas	John Les
Columbia River-Revelstoke	Wendy McMahon
Comox Valley	Stan Hagen
Coquitlam-Maillardville	Richard Stewart
Cowichan-Ladysmith	Graham P. Bruce
Delta North	Reni Masi
Delta South	Val Roddick
East Kootenay	Bill Bennett
Esquimalt-Metchosin	Arnie Hamilton
Fort Langley-Aldergrove	Rich Coleman
Kamloops	Claude Richmond
Kamloops-North Thompson	Kevin Krueger
Kelowna-Lake Country	John Alan Weisbeck
Kelowna-Mission	Sindi Hawkins
Langley	Lynn Stephens
Malahat-Juan de Fuca	Brian J. Kerr
Maple Ridge-Mission	Randy Hawes
Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows	Ken Stewart
Nanaimo	Mike Hunter
Nanaimo-Parksville	Judith Reid
Nelson-Creston	Blair F. Suffredine
New Westminster	Joyce Murray
North Coast	Bill Belsey
North Island	Rod Sanderson Visser
North Vancouver-Lonsdale	Katherine Whittred
North Vancouver-Seymour	Daniel Jarvis
Oak Bay-Gordon Head	Ida Chong
Okanagan-Vernon	Tom Christensen
Okanagan-Westside	Rick Thorpe
Peace River North	Richard Neufeld
Peace River South	Blair Lekstrom
Penticton-Okanagan Valley	Bill Barisoff
Port Coquitlam-Burke Mountain	Karn Manhas
Port Moody-Westwood	Christy Clark
Powell River-Sunshine Coast	Harold Long
Prince George-Mount Robson	Shirley Bond
Prince George North	Pat Bell
Prince George-Omineca	Paul R. Nettleton
Richmond Centre	Greg Halsey-Brandt
Richmond East	Linda Reid
Richmond Steveston	Geoff Plant
Saanich North and the Islands	Murray Robert Coell
Saanich South	Susan Brice
Shuswap	George Malcolm Abbott
Skeena	Roger Brendan Harris
Surrey-Cloverdale	Kevin Falcon
Surrey-Green Timbers	Brenda Locke
Surrey-Newton	Tony Bhullar
Surrey-Panorama Ridge	Gulzar Cheema
Surrey-Tynehead	Dave Hayer
Surrey-Whalley	Elayne Brenzinger
Surrey-White Rock	Gordon J. Hogg
Vancouver-Burrard	Lorne Mayencourt
Vancouver-Fairview	Gary Farrell-Collins
Vancouver-Fraserview	Ken Johnston
Vancouver-Hastings	Joy MacPhail
Vancouver-Kensington	Patrick Wong
Vancouver-Kingsway	Rob Nijjar
Vancouver-Langara	Val Anderson
Vancouver-Mount Pleasant	Jenny Wai Ching Kwan
Vancouver-Point Grey	Gordon Campbell
Vancouver-Quilchena	Colin Gordon Hansen
Victoria-Beacon Hill	Jeff Bray
Victoria-Hillside	Sheila Orr
West Kootenay-Boundary	Sandy Santori
West Vancouver-Capilano	Ralph Sultan
West Vancouver-Garibaldi	Ted Nebbeling
Yale-Lillooet	Dave Chutter

YEAS -- 76
Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
J. Reid	Bruce	Santori
van Dongen	Barisoff	Nettleton
Roddick	Wilson	Masi
Lee	Thorpe	Hagen
Murray	Plant	Campbell
Collins	Clark	Bond
de Jong	Nebbeling	Stephens
Abbott	Neufeld	Coleman
Weisbeck	Chong	Penner
Jarvis	Anderson	Orr
Harris	Nuraney	Brenzinger
Belsey	Trumper	Sanderson Visser
Mayencourt	Long	Chutter
Bell	Johnston	Bennett
R. Stewart	Hayer	Christensen
Krueger	McMahon	Bray
Les	Locke	Nijjar
Bhullar	Bloy	Wong
Suffredine	Brice	Cobb
K. Stewart	Lekstrom	MacKay
Sultan	Hamilton	Sahota
Hawes	Kerr	Manhas
	Hunter
NAYS -- 2
MacPhail		Kwan

YEAS -- 2
MacPhail		Kwan
NAYS -- 75
Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
J. Reid	Bruce	Santori
van Dongen	Barisoff	Nettleton
Roddick	Wilson	Masi
Lee	Anderson	Jarvis
Penner	Chong	Coleman
Neufeld	Abbott	Stephens
Nebbeling	de Jong	Bond
Clark	Collins	Campbell
Plant	Murray	Hagen
Thorpe	Orr	Harris
Nuraney	Brenzinger	Belsey
Trumper	Sanderson Visser	Mayencourt
Long	Chutter	Bell
Johnston	Bennett	R. Stewart
Hayer	Christensen	Krueger
McMahon	Bray	Hunter
Manhas	Kerr	Hawes
Sahota	Hamilton	Sultan
MacKay	Lekstrom	K. Stewart
Cobb	Brice	Suffredine
Wong	Bloy	Bhullar
Nijjar	Locke	Les

YEAS -- 2
MacPhail		Kwan
NAYS -- 74
Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
J. Reid	Bruce	Santori
van Dongen	Barisoff	Nettleton
Roddick	Wilson	Masi
Lee	Thorpe	Hagen
Murray	Plant	Campbell
Collins	Bond	de Jong
Nebbeling	Stephens	Abbott
Neufeld	Coleman	Chong
Penner	Jarvis	Anderson
Orr	Harris	Nuraney
Brenzinger	Belsey	Trumper
Sanderson Visser	Mayencourt	Long
Chutter	Bell	Johnston
Bennett	R. Stewart	Hayer
Christensen	Krueger	McMahon
Bray	Les	Locke
Nijjar	Bhullar	Bloy
Wong	Suffredine	Brice
Cobb	K. Stewart	Lekstrom
MacKay	Sultan	Hamilton
Sahota	Hawes	Kerr
Manhas		Hunter

YEAS -- 2
MacPhail		Kwan
NAYS -- 73
Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
J. Reid	Bruce	Santori
van Dongen	Barisoff	Nettleton
Roddick	Wilson	Masi
Lee	Anderson	Jarvis
Penner	Chong	Coleman
Neufeld	Abbott	Stephens
Nebbeling	de Jong	Bond
Collins	Campbell	Plant
Murray	Hagen	Thorpe
Orr	Harris	Nuraney
Brenzinger	Belsey	Trumper
Sanderson Visser	Mayencourt	Long
Chutter	Bell	Johnston
Bennett	Hayer	Christensen
Krueger	McMahon	Bray
Hunter	Manhas	Kerr
Hawes	Sahota	Hamilton
Sultan	MacKay	Lekstrom
K. Stewart	Cobb	Brice
Suffredine	Wong	Bloy
Bhullar	Nijjar	Locke
	Les