2001 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JUNE 19, 2001

Evening Sitting

Volume 1, Number 1

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Time

Election of Speaker

Speech from the Throne

An Act to Ensure the Supremacy of

Parliament (Bill 1).

Hon. G. Plant

Introduction and first reading

Election of Deputy Speaker

Point of Privilege. J MacPhail

Health Care Services Continuation

Act (Bill 2). Hon. G. Bruce

Introduction and first reading

Standing Order 81 Motion

Standing Order 81 Motion (Speaker's

Ruling)

Health Care Services Continuation

Act (Bill 2)

Second reading

Hon. G. Bruce

Point of Privilege. Hon. G.

Collins

Health Care Services Continuation

Act (Bill 2)

Second reading

J. MacPhail

Hon. C. Hansen

Hon. S. Hawkins

J. Kwan

Hon. G. Collins

Hon. G. Bruce

Health Care Services Continuation

Act (Bill 2). Hon. G. Bruce

Committee stage

J. MacPhail

J. Kwan

Third reading

Royal assent to bill

[ Page 1 ]

The House met at 6:05 p.m.

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.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

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.

[1810]

Hon. members cast their ballots.

[1815]

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.

The House recessed from 6:18 p.m. to 6:33 p.m.

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.

Hon. C. Richmond took his place in the chair.

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.

The House recessed from 6:35 p.m. to 6:42 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

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.

The Speaker: I call on the Rev. Pamela Orman to say prayers.

[1845]

P. Orman: Let us pray.

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.

Pour your light, O Holy Spirit of God, into our hearts and minds.

[ Page 2 ]

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.

Amen.

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.

[1850]

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.

[ Page 3 ]

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.

[1855]

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

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

Law Clerk:

June 7, 2001

E. George MacMinn, QC

Clerk of the Legislative Assembly

Room 221

Parliament Buildings

Victoria, B.C.

V8V 1X4

Dear Sir:

Re: General Election, May 16, 2001

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, by his proclamation issued on April 18, 2001, was pleased to dissolve the thirty-sixth Legislative Assembly of the province, and it was necessary to hold elections to fill vacancies caused by such dissolution. Writs of election were issued on the date calling for a general election on May 16, 2001. The writs were returnable on or before June 7, 2001.

The elections were duly held pursuant to the provisions of the Election Act.

Requests were made under

section 136 of the Election Act for recounts in two electoral districts -- namely, Victoria-Beacon Hill and Victoria-Hillside.

I hereby certify that the following members have been elected to represent their respective electoral districts as set out hereunder:

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

Yours very truly,

Robert A. Patterson

Chief Electoral Officer

[1900]

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.

Motion approved.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO ENSURE

THE SUPREMACY OF PARLIAMENT

Hon. G. Plant presented a message from his Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled

An Act to Ensure the Supremacy of Parliament.

[ Page 4 ]

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

Motion approved.

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.

Motion approved.

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.

Motion approved.

[1905]

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.

HEALTH CARE SERVICES

CONTINUATION ACT

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.

Motion approved.

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.

[1910]

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.

[ Page 5 ]

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 House recessed from 7:14 p.m. to 7:35 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

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.

[1940]

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.

The Speaker: Further submissions 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

[ Page 6 ]

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.

The House recessed from 7:45 p.m. to 7:59 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

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.

[2000]

HEALTH CARE SERVICES

CONTINUATION ACT

(second reading)

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.

[2005]

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.

The Speaker: Government House Leader.

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.

Leave granted.

[ Page 7 ]

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.

[2010]

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."

"To deliver high quality, readily accessible health care services, we need to dramatically improve the supply of skilled health care providers.

"The NDP's cuts to medical and nurse training have created a serious skills shortage that must be addressed."

"First, we have to train more nurses, doctors, specialists and other health care providers.

"Second, we have to help those who are already in the system to upgrade their skills and training and improve their quality of life.

"Third, we have to attract non-practising nurses and doctors back into the health care system through fair compensation and better working conditions that reduce 'burnout.'

"Finally, we must cut personal income taxes to raise health care providers' after-tax income . . . . "

[2015]

"A B.C. Liberal government will expand training programs for care aides, licensed practical nurses and registered nurses, in collaboration with our universities, colleges and institutions." They will:

"Provide assistance and opportunities to help nurses develop the specialized skills needed in intensive care units, emergency rooms and operating rooms.

"Increase training spaces and recruitment of foreign-trained nurses and physicians.

"Launch a massive recruitment drive to bring non-practising RNs and LPNs back into our health care system.

"Develop a rural and remote training program that provides forgivable loans to B.C. students attending accredited nursing and medical schools . . . .

"Establish a leading-edge endowment fund, cost-shared with the private sector to establish 20 permanent B.C. leadership chairs in the fields of medical, social, environmental and technical research."

Hon. Speaker, those promises are very, very clear, and the government seems to be very proud of them. The government received a mandate to deliver on those promises. I would expect, despite the self-congratulation of the government today, that nurses and health care professionals do not feel like they are being provided attractive conditions, fair compensation and better working conditions that reduce burnout.

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

[ Page 8 ]

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.

[2020]

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 . . . .

Interjection.

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.

[2025]

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

[ Page 9 ]

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.

"In a joint statement the provincial government and the nurses' bargaining association today announced an agreement that will lead to a restoration of patient services that have been disrupted, in part, by nurses' job action. At the same time, the agreement will facilitate a return to the bargaining table and negotiations for a new contract for B.C.'s registered nurses and registered psychiatric nurses.

"Under the agreement the nurses' bargaining association will be taking down the overtime ban that has been in effect since April 26, and the nurses' bargaining association will cooperate in working to ease surgical backlogs without jeopardizing nurses' standards of practice, their own health and safety or the care of their patients.

"In return the provincial government will ensure the employers' bargaining committee removes its outstanding concessions proposals from the bargaining table. These include proposals concerning the call-in of casual nurses by seniority, designated days off for part-time nurses and the increase in the number of years nurses must work before being eligible for the top wage gap.

"As part of the agreement the parties announce the formation of a special committee to develop a process for reducing the amount of overtime work by RNs and RPNs in the health sector.

"The five-member committee will be chaired by Chris Mazurkewich, chief financial officer of the Okanagan-Similkameen health region, an employer representative, and will include four other members: two appointed by the nurses' bargaining association and two appointed by the health employers" -- two members from the nurses' bargaining association, two members from the employer -- "with the chair being an employer rep.

"The committee will report back within 30 days, after which negotiations will resume.

"The nurses' overtime ban will end effective 7 a.m., Monday, June 18, 2001. The joint committee will begin its work later in the week."

That's what this government rejected; that's what the Minister of Finance rejected.

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.

[2030]

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:

"We the undersigned believe registered nurses and registered psychiatric nurses are invaluable to the health of British Columbians. Nurses will only stay in B.C. if they are given globally competitive wages and premiums. The hardworking nurses of B.C. deserve respect. This requires significant improvements in their current contract and no concessions. We expect you to commit to providing the financial resources required to ensure we have the nurses we need in this province."

The Minister of Health Services signed that petition. I expect him to rise in the House today and explain how what he has committed to in signing this piece of paper justifies the legislation that he has collaborated with his government to table today. Here are the concessions that he committed to ending. He did it with the full understanding that he would form government. He did it with the full understanding that he would play a major role in that government. He is not a member of inexperience. He is not a member that has ever said a government can take things lightly -- ever.

So today that member of the executive council is here reneging on that commitment. He's reneging on the commitment that people cast their ballot on.

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.

[2035]

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.

[ Page 10 ]

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."

[2040]

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.

[2045]

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.

[ Page 11 ]

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.

[2050]

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.

[2055]

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.

"How will Finance minister Gary Collins' threat to legislate mandatory overtime for nurses be implemented? Will he discriminate only against nurses, or can all B.C. workers expect to work mandatory overtime now? How will it be enforced -- armed guards to take us to work in paddy wagons with the doors locked so we can't escape? Electronic monitoring devices on our ankles, and police can arrest us if we leave our workplace? What will be the penalty if we resist? Fines? (Tax-deductible?) I hope it's not jail time, because then we would have criminal records and not be eligible to work as nurses.

"How will this edict lure nurses to work in B.C.? Can't you see the ads now? 'Come work in beautiful B.C., where overtime is mandatory and those who have a life away from work need not apply.'

"Mr. Collins does not understand that nurses are fed up and that we will not take it anymore. Schools are now taking a hard stance against bullying, and we will stand against being bullied by Mr. Collins. We are not looking for sympathy; we are looking for results."

This is a nurse from Dawson Creek. The member representing Dawson Creek is present -- a rookie MLA, one that I know well, one that represented his community very effectively as the mayor, one that probably wishes the new era of greater community autonomy was being delivered upon first.

[ Page 12 ]

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.

"In response to the open letter to B.C. nurses in Peace River Block News on June 5, 2001" -- I personally feel it was an open letter to B.C. residents and not to nurses -- "RNs across B.C. will vote either to reject our latest contract offer from the Health Employers Association or to accept it. As a community member, a taxpayer and an RN, I ask myself a few questions."

This was printed on June 1, well before the government took this action, hon. Speaker, so they were on notice.

"As a community member I ask: do I really know the state my local health care system is in? Is my community short of RNs? How many hospital beds are closed due to staffing shortages? How many beds are there in my local hospitals? How many RN positions are vacant in my community? How many overtime hours are being worked? If suddenly injured or taken ill, will there be a hospital bed available for me or my loved ones?

"As a taxpayer I ask: what did it cost for HEABC to place the half- and/or full-page ads of propaganda in newspapers right across B.C. -- the 'Dear Nurse' letter? What does it cost each hour, month and year to employ Gary Moser as the executive officer of HEABC? How much will it cost when the contract is settled and bonuses for all the CEOs and excluded staff -- for the work they did during the job action -- are handed out? Why are there so many excluded personnel and so few RNs? Why do we need to pay $53 an hour overtime to RNs to have day-to-day medical services provided in B.C.?

Why is there an average of 2,000 hours of overtime being worked every day in B.C. health care facilities while an overtime ban is in place?"

[2100]

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.

"Why are HEABC and hospital CEOs blaming the bed closures and surgery cancellations on RNs not working overtime on their days off instead of on the mismanagement and nearsightedness? Why are deputy ministers getting a 32 percent increase in pay? Why can't RNs be paid what they are worth? Who would I rather have at my bedside during a medical crisis -- an RN, Gary Moser of the HEABC or a deputy minister?"

Let me just add some other letters here. I'd be happy to table all of them, hon. Speaker. I won't censor them in any way other than for time, because I think these letters have been distributed already.

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.

"Dear Sir:

"In response to recent criticism of BCNU's current contract problems, I reply: registered nurses, by withdrawing overtime, have demonstrated the huge shortage of RNs in this province. To reiterate what has previously been stated, RNs are still working their regular shifts; we are just not working the excessive amount of overtime.

"As the world moves toward free trade and a global economy, skilled labour has the ability to move where they will be treated the best, respected and monetarily compensated. Registered nurses are certainly skilled labour."

I do apologize; the side margin is cut off on most of this, so I'm adding for that.

"The only solution to our health care crisis is to train more, attract more and to maintain registered nurses as well as other health professionals. I don't think anyone in their job is able to function to the best of their ability when they have to work hours and hours of overtime and have the constant stress of being overworked because of understaffing. This is especially true in a job that can regularly mean one's duties are not being properly done.

"Remember, it's not just about the money. There are other issues involved, specifically employers' desire to eliminate casual call-in by seniority and to eliminate days off for part-time workers. I'm sure many agree that it costs less money to recruit and retain registered nurses at a competitive wage rather than to constantly be paying out for overtime wages."

I can go on and on. There is an open letter from Creston. There is an open letter from Aldergrove. There is a very, very detailed open letter from another steward from Dawson Creek. There's a letter from a nurse in Cranbrook. There's a letter from a nurse in Saanichton. There's a letter from a nurse in Surrey. Let me just read this one.

[2105]

"The road travelled has been challenging. I have worked as an RN for years. I have purchased much of my own equipment to do the employer's business: pens, stethoscopes, cars and even bleach the employer would not buy that was much needed to prevent the spread of viral infections. But yes, it's been worth it.

"I will see little benefit from a new contract, as I will retire within a year. I cannot prop up the health system. I see patients wait for care in the community for a long time. These people are discharged from the hospital expecting care that may never come. They deserve better.

"I have never grossed over $58,000. The reality of any wage is what it takes every year and not what another employee earns because of me taking vacation. I am as certain I will need a nurse in the future as I am of death and taxes. RNs in B.C. will cost a price, but not to pay it will be a heavier toll."

There are signed letters of that eloquence from nurses at the Ridge Meadows Hospital, nurses in Coquitlam, more nurses in Coquitlam. There are nurses in Port Moody. The member representing Port Moody makes light of the situation that we face, and that's extremely unfortunate. There's a nurse from Kelowna responding to the situation -- more from Coquitlam, from Vancouver, from Vernon, from Kelowna, from Mission. These are all heartfelt letters of nurses who end their day and have the time to then continue to advocate on behalf of the health care system by taking a strong public stand.

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.

[ Page 13 ]

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.

[2110]

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.

[2115]

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.

Day No. 3, 196 requests, totalling 1,541.75 hours -- all granted.

Day No. 4, 439 requests, totalling 2,480.15 hours -- granted.

Day No. 5, 279 requests, totalling 2,289.5 hours -- granted.

Day No. 6, 285 requests, totalling 2,350.6 hours.

Day No. 7, 198 requests, totalling 1,769.15 hours.

Day No. 8, 204 requests, 1,800 hours.

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.

Day No. 10, 232 requests, 1,829 hours.

Day No. 11, 185 requests, totalling 3,236.7 hours.

Day No. 12, 405 requests, totalling 3,545.3 hours.

Day No. 13, 365 requests of 3,202.15 hours.

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.

Day No. 15, 228 overtime requests, 1,915 hours.

Day No. 16, 240 requests, 1,936 hours.

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

Day No. 17, 234 requests of 2,111.2 hours of overtime.

Day No. 18, 289 requests, 2,396.4 hours.

Day No. 19, 352 requests . . . .

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.

Day No. 20, 239 requests, 1,943 hours.

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. 22, 171 requests, 1,400 hours granted.

Day No. 23, 209 requests, 826 hours.

Day No. 24, 171 requests, 1,282.5 hours.

Day No. 25, 260 requests, 2,226 hours of overtime worked by nurses.

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

Day No. 27, 326 requests, 2,663 hours worked.

Day No. 28, 221 requests, 1,671 hours granted.

Day 29, 200 requests, 1,731 hours worked.

Now we're approaching 61,000 hours of overtime worked.

[2120]

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

[ Page 14 ]

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.

[2125]

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.

[J. Weisbeck in the chair.]

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.

[2130]

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

[ Page 15 ]

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."

Interjections.

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.

[2135]

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.

[2140]

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

[ Page 16 ]

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.

[2145]

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

[ Page 17 ]

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.

[2150]

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.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

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.

[2155]

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.

[ Page 18 ]

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.

[2200]

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.

[2205]

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

[ Page 19 ]

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