MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We will begin the daily routine.
PRESENTING AND READING PETITIONS
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition.
MR. DARRELL DEXTER: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table a petition bearing the signatures of 124 health care workers at the Aberdeen Hospital. The operative clause of which reads, "Therefore be it resolved that we, the undersigned, call on this government to demonstrate their trust in, and respect for, health care workers in Nova Scotia by immediately withdrawing Bill 68 and at the same time, negotiating fair and decent settlements with them." I have affixed my signature.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable member for Cape Breton South.
MR. MANNING MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table a petition, "Therefore be it resolved that we, the undersigned, call on this government to demonstrate their trust in, and respect for, health care workers in Nova Scotia by immediately withdrawing Bill 68 and at the same time, negotiating fair and decent settlements with them."
I have affixed my name to the signatures.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable member for Cape Breton Centre.
MR. FRANK CORBETT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition on Bill No. 68 signed by people from the Pictou area, over 20 signatures. I have affixed my name. The operative clause reads, "Therefore be it resolved that we, the undersigned, call on this government to demonstrate their trust in, and respect for, health care workers in Nova Scotia by immediately withdrawing Bill 68 and at the same time, negotiating fair and decent settlements with them."
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable member for Lunenburg West.
MR. DONALD DOWNE: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table a petition on Bill No. 68. The operative clause is, "Therefore be it resolved that we, the undersigned, call on this government to demonstrate their trust in, and respect for, health care workers in Nova Scotia by immediately withdrawing Bill 68 and at the same time, negotiating fair and decent settlements with them." I have affixed my signature to some 39 signed petitions.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable member for Halifax Chebucto.
MR. HOWARD EPSTEIN: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition signed by some 23 persons who identify themselves as residents of the constituency of Yarmouth. Many of them identify themselves as RTs. The petition has to do with Bill No. 68. The operative clause reads as follows, "Therefore be it resolved that we, the undersigned, call on this government to demonstrate their trust in, and respect for, health care workers in Nova Scotia by immediately withdrawing Bill 68 and at the same time, negotiating fair and decent settlements with them." I have affixed my signature to this petition.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable Leader of the Liberal Party.
MR. WAYNE GAUDET: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table a petition on Bill No. 68, where the clause reads as follows, "Therefore be it resolved that we, the undersigned, call on this government to demonstrate their trust in, and respect for, health care workers in Nova Scotia by immediately withdrawing Bill 68 and at the same time, negotiating fair and decent settlements with them." I have affixed my name to this petition with the names of 52 petitioners.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable member for Timberlea-Prospect.
MR. WILLIAM ESTABROOKS: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a petition on behalf of nine graduates of the Class of 2003, Dalhousie University's School of Nursing. The operative phrase is, "To leave is our choice but you have the opportunity to make us want to stay. Please make Nova Scotia a place where nurses want to be employed not a place to receive the education and then leave." I have affixed my signature to this petition.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable member for Dartmouth East.
DR. JAMES SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table a petition on Bill No. 68. The clause reads as follows, I will summarize, "Therefore be it resolved that we, the undersigned, call on this government to demonstrate their trust in, and respect for, health care workers in Nova Scotia by immediately withdrawing Bill 68 and at the same time, negotiating fair and decent settlements with them." I have affixed my name to the petition with the names of 39 petitioners.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable Leader of the Opposition.
MR. DARRELL DEXTER: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table a petition on Bill No. 68 from 25 health care workers from the Queens General Hospital. The operative clause reads,
"Therefore be it resolved that we, the undersigned, call on this government to demonstrate their trust in, and respect for, health care workers in Nova Scotia by immediately withdrawing Bill 68 and at the same time, negotiating fair and decent settlements with them."
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable member for Victoria.
MR. KENNETH MACASKILL: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table a petition on Bill No. 68. The clauses read as follows:
"Whereas in the Tory Platform John Hamm said health care workers: '. . . will not stay unless they have a rewarding professional environment'; and
Whereas the Tory Platform commits to: 'Working with the nursing profession to make sure the work environment offers a rewarding and positive experience where nurses know they can properly care for their patients, where they know they are valued and where they are empowered to have input into influencing clinical practice outcomes.'; and
Whereas the Premier and Minister of Health have continually shown their disrespect for health care workers, especially with the introduction of Bill 68;
Therefore be it resolved that we, the undersigned, call on this government to demonstrate their trust in, and respect for, health care workers in Nova Scotia by immediately withdrawing Bill 68 and at the same time, negotiating fair and decent settlements with them."
I have affixed my name to the petition.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable member for Cape Breton Centre.
MR. FRANK CORBETT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table this petition with the names of 15 Nova Scotians, to which I have affixed my signature. The operative clause reads,"Therefore be it resolved that we, the undersigned, call on this government to demonstrate their trust in, and respect for, health care workers in Nova Scotia by immediately withdrawing Bill 68 and at the same time, negotiating fair and decent settlements with them."
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable member for Glace Bay.
MR. DAVID WILSON: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table a petition, which the operative clause which states, "Therefore be it resolved that we, the undersigned, call on this government to demonstrate their trust in, and respect for, health care workers in Nova Scotia by immediately withdrawing Bill 68 and at the same time, negotiating fair and decent settlements with them." I have affixed my name to the petition, which contains the names of 39 petitioners from communities such as Millville, Little Pond, Sydney Mines and North Sydney.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable member for Halifax Chebucto.
MR. HOWARD EPSTEIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition signed by some 33 individuals from various places in Nova Scotia, a number of whom identify themselves as RTs, that is technicians from the health care sector. The operative clause on these petitions reads, "Therefore be it resolved that we, the undersigned, call on this government to demonstrate their trust in, and respect for, health care workers in Nova Scotia by immediately withdrawing Bill 68 and at the same time, negotiating fair and decent settlements with them." I have affixed my signature to these various petitions.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable member for Cape Breton The Lakes.
MR. BRIAN BOUDREAU: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table a petition on Bill No. 68, where the clause reads as follows:
"Whereas in the Tory Platform John Hamm said health care workers: '. . . will not stay unless they have a rewarding professional environment'; and
Whereas the Tory Platform commits to: 'Working with the nursing profession to make sure the work environment offers a rewarding and positive experience where nurses know they can properly care for their patients, where they know they are valued and where they are empowered to have input into influencing clinical practice outcomes.'; and
Whereas the Premier and Minister of Health have continually shown their disrespect for health care workers, especially with the introduction of Bill 68;
Therefore be it resolved that we, the undersigned, call on this government to demonstrate their trust in, and respect for, health care workers in Nova Scotia by immediately withdrawing Bill 68 and at the same time, negotiating fair and decent settlements with them."
I have affixed my name to the petition, with the names of the 40 petitioners.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable member for Timberlea-Prospect.
MR. WILLIAM ESTABROOKS: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table a petition of 25 residents that vary from the communities of Hammonds Plains to Lower Sackville. The operative phrase is, "Therefore be it resolved that we, the undersigned, call on this
government to demonstrate their trust in, and respect for, health care workers in Nova Scotia by immediately withdrawing Bill 68 and at the same time, negotiating fair and decent settlements with them." I have affixed my signature to those 25 names.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable member for Richmond.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table a petition on Bill No. 68 on behalf of the hard-working employees of the Strait-Richmond Hospital, which I am sure all members are quite familiar with, and also the Guysborough Memorial Hospital. The petition reads:
"Whereas the Premier and Minister of Health have continually shown their disregard for the rights of health care workers in Nova Scotia; and
Whereas the Minister of Health has now introduced Bill 68 which will remove the right to strike for 9,000 acute care workers, as well as deny them access to free collective bargaining; and
Whereas the right to free collective bargaining is a cornerstone of a free and democratic society;
Therefore be it resolved that we, the undersigned, call on this government to demonstrate their trust in, and respect for, health care workers in Nova Scotia by immediately withdrawing Bill 68 and at the same time, commit to negotiating fair and reasonable settlements with them."
Mr. Speaker, this is signed by employees of both the Strait-Richmond Hospital and the Guysborough Memorial Hospital. There are 14 names on the petition and I have affixed my signature.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable Leader of the Opposition.
MR. DARRELL DEXTER: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table a petition from the Colchester Regional Hospital employees that state, "We, health care workers at the Colchester Regional Hospital in Truro, are appalled at the legislation proposed under Bill 68 as it is regressive and not proactive to the delivery of quality health care in Nova Scotia." There are 44 signatures and I have affixed my signature also.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable member for Cape Breton West.
MR. RUSSELL MACKINNON: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of a number of registered nurses from the Colchester Regional Hospital, I beg leave to table a petition with regard to Bill No. 68. Essentially, and I quote, "Nurses did have a contingency plan in place that management agreed with, where we would provide essential care in the event of a strike."
There are several rather lengthy operative clauses, that would only take the time of the House. I have affixed my signature to this, and I will table it with your permission.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable member for Cape Breton Centre.
MR. FRANK CORBETT: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table this petition on Bill No. 68, which has over 80 names on it. It is from the St. Martha's Hospital in Antigonish. The operative clause is, "Therefore be it resolved that we, the undersigned, call on this government to demonstrate their trust in, and respect for, health care workers in Nova Scotia by immediately withdrawing Bill 68 and at the same time, negotiating fair and decent settlements with them."
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable member for Halifax Chebucto.
MR. HOWARD EPSTEIN: Mr. Speaker, I wish to introduce several petitions in the same terms, signed by a total of 35 people. The operative clause here reads, "Therefore be it resolved that we, the undersigned, call on this government to demonstrate their trust in, and respect for, health care workers in Nova Scotia by immediately withdrawing Bill 68 and at the same time, negotiating fair and decent settlements with them." I have affixed my signature to this petition.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable member for Cape Breton West.
MR. RUSSELL MACKINNON: Mr. Speaker, as I passed through Port Hawkesbury today, I had the good fortune at stopping at a commercial enterprise and it was suggested that I table this petition on behalf of a number of residents from Port Hawkesbury with regard to Bill No. 68 that raised considerable concern with regard to the introduction and implementation of Bill No. 68. I agreed to do so and I have affixed my signature on same.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable Leader of the Opposition.
MR. DARRELL DEXTER: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table a petition on Bill No. 68 from residents of Westville, New Glasgow, Trenton, Stellarton area. The operative clause reads, "Therefore be it resolved that we, the undersigned, call on this government to demonstrate their trust in, and respect for, health care workers in Nova Scotia by immediately withdrawing Bill 68 and at the same time, negotiating fair and decent settlements with them."
There are 99 signatures on this petition. I have, in addition, affixed my own signature.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable member for Cape Breton West.
MR. RUSSELL MACKINNON: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of a number of residents from across Nova Scotia who have provided this petition to me, the operative clause reads, "This note is to voice our opposition to the healthcare bill presently being debated. Be advised that to pass it will cause a critical loss of nurses in Nova Scotia. We are definitely angry and many of us do plan to leave this province. You are making a mistake if you pass it." I have affixed my signature to this particular petition, as well.
MR. SPEAKER: It doesn't mean the honourable member for Cape Breton West is leaving, does it?
MR. MACKINNON: No, I beg leave to table this petition.
MR. SPEAKER: I thought you said that people on the petition were leaving. I thought you were leaving with them.
MR. MACKINNON: No, there are some people that are. Perhaps it is the lateness of the day.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable member for Cape Breton Centre.
MR. FRANK CORBETT: Mr. Speaker, you are just trying to get us to vote for Bill No. 68. I beg leave to table a petition on Bill No. 68 from workers at the Bayview Health Centre. The operative clause is, "Therefore be it resolved that we, the undersigned, call on this government to demonstrate their trust in, and respect for, health care workers in Nova Scotia by immediately withdrawing Bill 68 and at the same time, negotiating fair and decent settlements with them."
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable member for Richmond.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table a petition on Bill No. 68 on behalf of the good residents of Hantsport, the operative clause is, "Therefore be it resolved that we, the undersigned, call on this government to demonstrate their trust in, and respect for, health care workers in Nova Scotia by immediately withdrawing Bill 68 and at the same time, negotiating fair and decent settlements with them." This petition is signed by 23 residents from the Hantsport area and I have affixed my signature to this petition.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable member for Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage.
MR. KEVIN DEVEAUX: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table a petition on behalf of Nova Scotians. It says, "Therefore be it resolved that we, the undersigned, call on this government to demonstrate their trust in, and respect for, health care workers in Nova Scotia by immediately withdrawing Bill 68 and at the same time, negotiating fair and decent settlements with them." There are 10 signatures and I have affixed my signature.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable member for Cape Breton West.
MR. RUSSELL MACKINNON: Mr. Speaker, I have several pages of petitions from the residents of Hantsport, Nova Scotia, essentially opposing Bill No. 68 and the operative clause is pretty much in harmony with many of the ones that have been already stated. Not to delay the House I beg leave to table it and I will affix my signature on same.
[1:30 a.m.]
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable member for Halifax Chebucto.
MR. HOWARD EPSTEIN: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table a petition, again a petition on Bill No. 68. Although this one is signed by 10 persons, I table it separately because each of them identifies themselves as a physician in the metro area. The operative clause reads,
"Therefore be it resolved that we, the undersigned, call on this government to demonstrate their trust in, and respect for, health care workers in Nova Scotia by immediately withdrawing Bill 68 and at the same time, negotiating fair and decent settlements with them."
As I said, it is signed by 10 physicians and I have added my signature.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable member for Richmond.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table a petition on Bill No. 68 on behalf of residents of the Cape Breton Regional Municipality. It says:
"Whereas in the Tory Platform John Hamm said health care workers: ". . . will not stay unless they have a rewarding professional environment."; and
Whereas the Tory Platform commits to: 'Working with the nursing profession to make sure the work environment offers a rewarding and positive experience where nurses know they can properly care for their patients, where they know they are valued and where they are empowered to have input into influencing clinical practice outcomes.'; and
Whereas the Premier and Minister of Health have continually shown their disrespect for health care workers, especially with the introduction of Bill 68;
Therefore be it resolved that we, the undersigned, call on this government to demonstrate their trust in, and respect for, health care workers in Nova Scotia by immediately withdrawing Bill 68 and at the same time, negotiating fair and decent settlements with them."
Mr. Speaker, this is signed by 13 residents of the Cape Breton Regional Municipality and I have affixed my signature to this petition.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable member for Timberlea-Prospect.
MR. WILLIAM ESTABROOKS: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a petition on behalf of 30 health care worker working on the 8th floor of the Rehab Centre. The operative clause is, "Therefore be it resolved that we, the undersigned, call on this government to demonstrate their trust in, and respect for, health care workers in Nova Scotia by immediately withdrawing Bill 68 and at the same time, negotiating fair and decent settlements with them." I have affixed my signature.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable member for Cape Breton West.
MR. RUSSELL MACKINNON: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table a petition on behalf of a number of residents from the Torbrook, Annapolis County community with regard to the request for a complete and public environmental impact study into the suitability of this proposed compost site as proposed and, in the absence of the minister responding to requests
from these particular residents, I have been asked to table this petition in an effort to draw the minister's attention to this issue. I have signed my name to this particular petition.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable Leader of the Opposition.
MR. DARRELL DEXTER: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table a petition on Bill No. 68 from 51 Nova Scotians from various communities. The operative clause reads, "Therefore be it resolved that we, the undersigned, call on this government to demonstrate their trust in, and respect for, health care workers in Nova Scotia by immediately withdrawing Bill 68 and at the same time, negotiating fair and decent settlements with them." I have affixed my signature thereto.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable member for Cape Breton West.
MR. RUSSELL MACKINNON: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table a petition on behalf of a number of residents, anywhere from Dartmouth to Colchester and a number of other communities. The operative clause is obviously with regard to Bill No. 68, "Therefore be it resolved that we, the undersigned, call on this government to demonstrate their trust in, and respect for, health care workers in Nova Scotia by immediately withdrawing Bill 68 and at the same time, negotiating fair and decent settlements with them." I have affixed my signature to this particular petition.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable member for Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage.
MR. KEVIN DEVEAUX: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to file a petition on behalf of 20 Nova Scotians, particularly, I think, from the Nova Scotia Rehab Centre. The operative clause reads, "Therefore be it resolved that we, the undersigned, call on this government to demonstrate their trust in, and respect for, health care workers in Nova Scotia by immediately withdrawing Bill 68 and at the same time, negotiating fair and decent settlements with them." I have affixed my signature.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable member for Cape Breton Centre.
MR. FRANK CORBETT: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a petition on Bill No. 68 from employees of the Colchester Regional Hospital. There are 25 signatures and the operative clause is, "Therefore be it resolved that we, the undersigned, call on this government to demonstrate their trust in, and respect for, health care workers in Nova Scotia by immediately withdrawing Bill 68 and at the same time, commit to negotiating a fair and decent settlement with them."
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable member for Halifax Chebucto.
MR. HOWARD EPSTEIN: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table various petitions signed by a total of 30 individuals, all of whom identify themselves as medical technicians with various specialties. The operative clause reads, "Therefore be it resolved that we, the undersigned, call on this government to demonstrate their trust in, and respect for, health care workers in Nova Scotia by immediately withdrawing Bill 68 and at the same time, negotiating fair and decent settlements with them." I have affixed my signature to each of these petitions.
MR. SPEAKER: The petitions are tabled.
The honourable Leader of the Opposition.
MR. DARRELL DEXTER: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table a petition on Bill No. 68. This is from 25 health care workers at Armview Estates. The operative clause reads, "Therefore be it resolved that we, the undersigned, call on this government to demonstrate their trust in, and respect for, health care workers in Nova Scotia by immediately withdrawing Bill 68 and at the same time, commit to negotiating fair and reasonable settlements with them." I have also affixed my signature.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable member for Timberlea-Prospect.
MR. WILLIAM ESTABROOKS: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a petition on behalf of 42 health care workers from the emergency department. The operative clause is, "Therefore be it resolved that we, the undersigned, call on this government to demonstrate their trust in, and respect for, health care workers in Nova Scotia by immediately withdrawing Bill 68 and at the same time, negotiating fair and decent settlements with them." As I speak, I am affixing my signature to those 42.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable member for Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage.
MR. KEVIN DEVEAUX: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table a petition on behalf of 30 Nova Scotians from the Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre. The operative clause reads, "Therefore be it resolved that we, the undersigned, call on this government to demonstrate their trust in, and respect for, health care workers in Nova Scotia by immediately withdrawing Bill 68 and at the same time, negotiating fair and decent settlements with them." I beg leave to table that.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable member for Cape Breton Centre.
MR. FRANK CORBETT: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a petition on Bill No. 68 and some of the signatures are from employees of the Eastern Memorial Hospital. The operative clause is, "Therefore be it resolved that we, the undersigned, call on this government to demonstrate their trust in, and respect for, health care workers in Nova Scotia by immediately withdrawing Bill 68 and at the same time, commit to negotiating a fair and reasonable settlement with them." I have affixed my signature.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable member for Halifax Chebucto.
MR. HOWARD EPSTEIN: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present various petitions with a total 55 signatures on them, some of the signatures being from persons who identify themselves as RNs. The operative clause is the same as some of the others we have seen, "Therefore be it resolved that we, the undersigned, call on this government to demonstrate their trust in, and respect for, health care workers in Nova Scotia by immediately withdrawing Bill 68 and at the same time, negotiating fair and decent settlements with them." I have affixed my signature to each of these various petitions.
MR. SPEAKER: The petitions are tabled.
The honourable member for Timberlea-Prospect.
MR. WILLIAM ESTABROOKS: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition on behalf of 40 health care workers, one of them prominently displayed as a resident of Timberlea-Prospect and I have affixed my signature. The operative clause is, "Therefore be it resolved that we, the undersigned, call on this government to demonstrate their trust in, and respect for, health care workers in Nova Scotia by immediately withdrawing Bill 68 and at the same time, negotiating fair and decent settlements with them."
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable Leader of the Opposition.
MR. DARRELL DEXTER: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table a petition on Bill No. 68. This is from 25 health care workers at the Colchester Regional Hospital. The operative clause reads, "Therefore be it resolved that we, the undersigned, call on this government to demonstrate their trust in, and respect for, health care workers in Nova Scotia by immediately withdrawing Bill 68 and at the same time, negotiating fair and reasonable settlements with them." I have affixed my signature.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable member for Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage.
MR. KEVIN DEVEAUX: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to file a petition on behalf of 29 citizens of Nova Scotia and, I believe, health care professionals at the Nova Scotia Rehabilitation Centre. The operative clause reads, "Therefore be it resolved that we, the undersigned, call on this government to demonstrate their trust in, and respect for, health care workers in Nova Scotia by immediately withdrawing Bill 68 and at the same time, negotiating fair and decent settlements with them." I have affixed my signature.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable member for Timberlea-Prospect.
MR. WILLIAM ESTABROOKS: Mr. Speaker, I have a final petition, for my part, with 28 names of health care workers from throughout the metro area. A number of them are Nova Scotia government employees, who have signed this. The operative phrase is, "Therefore be it resolved that we, the undersigned, call on this government to demonstrate their trust in, and respect for, health care workers in Nova Scotia by immediately withdrawing Bill 68 and at the same time, negotiating fair and decent settlements with them." I have affixed my signature to this petition.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable Leader of the Opposition.
MR. DARRELL DEXTER: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table a petition on Bill No. 68, signed by 21 health care workers from various parts of the province. The operative clause reads, "Therefore be it resolved that we, the undersigned, call on this government to demonstrate their trust in, and respect for, health care workers in Nova Scotia by immediately
withdrawing Bill 68 and at the same time, negotiating fair and decent settlements with them." I am affixing my signature.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
PRESENTING REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
TABLING REPORTS, REGULATIONS AND OTHER PAPERS
MR. FRANK CORBETT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I noticed when you opened the House tonight that you didn't mention the subject for late debate. Is there going to be a late debate? (Interruptions) Can I ask you why we can't do it now?
MR. SPEAKER: It just arrived at the Clerk's Office. Obviously, they haven't had the draw yet, and I haven't received it. As soon as I receive it I will notify the House of it.
STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS
GOVERNMENT NOTICES OF MOTION
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
NOTICES OF MOTION
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition.
MR. DARRELL DEXTER: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the Standing Committee on Law Amendments provides a vehicle whereby the public can add its wisdom for legislators' perusal during the passage of legislation; and
Whereas the law amendments process is a hallowed tradition in Nova Scotia, now threatened by the Minister of Justice's cavalier decision to restrict the public's access to this committee; and
Whereas the minister's obvious distaste for the law amendments process probably places the Standing Committee on Law Amendments on the Tories' chopping block;
Therefore be it resolved that this House affirm the critical role of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments in the legislative process, and refuse to allow the Minister of Justice to limit access to the committee.
Mr. Speaker, I request waiver of notice.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver.
Is it agreed?
I hear a No.
The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Cape Breton South. (Applause)
MR. MANNING MACDONALD: A sign of things to come, I hope.
Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas Donna MacKenzie, an emergency room nurse at the Cape Breton Regional Hospital for 28 years, is just one of many nurses who are frustrated and demoralized by Bill No. 68; and
Whereas Ms. MacKenzie has stated publicly, "that when Bill No. 68 comes in, we'll be treated like slaves, not servants;" and
Whereas Ms. MacKenzie feels that this government's actions will mark the end of nursing in Nova Scotia;
Therefore be it resolved that this government recognize the chaos and frustration they have caused in the health care system and immediately correct the errors of their ways before it is too late.
Mr. Speaker, I request waiver of notice.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver.
Is it agreed?
I hear several Noes.
The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage.
MR. KEVIN DEVEAUX: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas then-wannabe-Premier Blue Book in 1999 stated to the former Liberal Minister of Health, "there is an estimate that between now and the year 2003, we will need 2,000 new nurses in the Province of Nova Scotia . . ."; and
Whereas then-wannabe-Premier Blue Book demanded to know how the minister planned to deal with this nursing crisis; and
Whereas the shoe is on the other foot and now Premier Blue Book has to explain to Nova Scotians not only how his government's nursing strategy has failed to attract nurses, but how his anti-labour legislation is driving them away;
Therefore be it resolved that Premier Blue Book apply to his own failed nursing strategy the words of approbation he used against the former Minister of Health in describing the effects of the nursing shortage, ". . . ORs cancelled, patients not getting into hospitals, unable to take transfers from other hospitals . . . that is absolutely ludicrous."
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
[1:45 a.m.]
The honourable Leader of the Liberal Party.
MR. WAYNE GAUDET: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas Sylvia Warner is an EKG technician at Soldiers Memorial Hospital in Middleton; and
Whereas Sylvia Warner has provided 30 years of dedicated service at Soldiers Memorial Hospital; and
Whereas Sylvia was honoured on Monday, June 18th, with a reception celebrating her 30th Anniversary at Soldiers Memorial Hospital;
Therefore be it resolved that all members of this House extend congratulations to Sylvia Warner on the occasion of her 30th Anniversary at Soldiers Memorial Hospital.
Mr. Speaker, I request waiver of notice.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver.
Is it agreed?
It is agreed.
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
The honourable member for Cape Breton Centre.
MR. FRANK CORBETT: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the Minister of Health claims he can only maintain our health care system by stripping health care workers of collective bargaining rights secured after years of often bloody confrontation in this province; and
Whereas after 10 years of morale-busting tactics by Donnie Cameron, John Savage and these Hamm Tories, health care workers have reached the end of their tether; and
Whereas stripping collective bargaining rights from health care workers will also strip our health care facilities of their staff, as many of these workers will leave;
Therefore be it resolved that the Minister of Health take great comfort in the fact that as a result of Bill No. 68 he will commandeer a health care system second to none in its shortage of health care workers.
Mr. Speaker, I request waiver of notice.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver.
Is it agreed?
I hear several Noes.
The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Dartmouth East.
DR. JAMES SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the Medical Society of Nova Scotia has expressed publicly that Bill No. 68 should not be passed in this Legislature; and
Whereas the Medical Society believes that this is simply the wrong legislation at the wrong time; and
Whereas their fears are focused around the sad reality that Bill No. 68 will create a climate in the province which will exacerbate the shortage of these essential health care workers;
Therefore be it resolved that this government heed the advice of the Medical Society and find long-term sustainable solutions to the recruitment and retention of health care workers, not shotgun fixes like Bill No. 68.
Mr. Speaker, I request waiver of notice.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver.
Is it agreed?
I hear a No.
The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Halifax Chebucto.
MR. HOWARD EPSTEIN: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the honourable member for Sackville-Cobequid, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas Lisa Hamblin, a laboratory technologist at the QE II Health Sciences Centre, works in the Blood Transfusion Service and has been working for 19 years now; and
Whereas Ms. Hamblin says that the last four years have seen a major increase in her workload, fewer staff, a lot of overtime because of the staff shortages and low staff morale; and
Whereas this government's anti-labour legislation may be the straw that breaks the camel's back, as Ms. Hamblin says, "I feel . . . that this government is giving me no choice but to move my family to a place where I would be valued";
Therefore be it resolved that the Premier, who prides himself on his government's fiscal responsibility, please realize that a mass exodus of health care workers from Nova Scotia because of his heavy-handed legislation cannot in any way be viewed as a fiscally-sound policy to pursue.
Mr. Speaker, I request waiver of notice.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver.
Is it agreed?
I hear several Noes.
The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Victoria.
MR. KENNETH MACASKILL: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the member for Pictou East represents a riding that is home to many of Nova Scotia's health care workers; and
Whereas the member has been silent through the course of debate on the most oppressive and anti-worker piece of legislation, Bill No. 68; and
Whereas that member is almost deserving of pity as his silence on this important issue will almost certainly be his undoing;
Therefore be it resolved that the member for Pictou East be condemned for his silence on Bill No. 68 and consoled on his upcoming election defeat.
Mr. Speaker, I request waiver of notice.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver.
Is it agreed?
I hear several Noes.
The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Timberlea-Prospect.
MR. WILLIAM ESTABROOKS: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas an LPN who is a constituent of Timberlea-Prospect can't understand why this government would "demand a balanced budget on the backs of the front line workers"; and
Whereas she says, "she is very angry, as we have done our part for the cause over the past 10 years"; and
Whereas she asks this government to work toward a more effective solution, as "surely you see that this is bad legislation!";
Therefore be it resolved that this government heed the warnings from front-line health care workers who know bad anti-labour legislation and government when they see it.
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Glace Bay.
MR. DAVID WILSON: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the member for Halifax Bedford Basin represents a riding that is home to many of Nova Scotia's health care workers; and
Whereas that member has been silent through the course of debate on the most oppressive and anti-worker piece of legislation, Bill No. 68; and
Whereas that member is almost deserving of pity as her silence on this important issue will almost certainly be her undoing;
Therefore be it resolved that the member for Halifax Bedford Basin be condemned for her silence on Bill No. 68 and consoled on her upcoming election defeat.
Mr. Speaker, I request waiver of notice.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver.
Is it agreed?
I hear several Noes.
The notice is tabled.
The honourable Leader of the Opposition.
MR. DARRELL DEXTER: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the honourable member for Halifax Atlantic, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas, solitaire, is defined by the Oxford Canadian Dictionary as "a game for one player in which cards taken in random order have to be arranged in certain groups or sequences"; and
Whereas this government wants to hold all the cards in the game of collective bargaining and to play them all by itself; and
Whereas the Oxford Canadian Dictionary goes on to further define 'solitaire' as "either of two extinct flightless birds related to the dodo . . .";
Therefore be it resolved that this House submit to the Oxford Canadian Dictionary the following additional definition of 'solitaire' for its approval, "a game of farce in which the Tory Government of 2001 in Nova Scotia held all the cards but called its labour negotiations collective bargaining, the result of which made Tory Governments as extinct as the solitaire, a flightless bird related to the dodo."
Mr. Speaker, I request waiver of notice.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver.
Is it agreed?
I hear several Noes.
The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Cape Breton The Lakes.
MR. BRIAN BOUDREAU: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the member for Eastern Shore represents a riding that is home to many of Nova Scotia's health care workers; and
Whereas that member has been silent through the course of debate on the most oppressive and anti-worker piece of legislation, Bill No. 68; and
Whereas that member is almost deserving of pity as his silence on this important issue will almost certainly be his undoing;
Therefore be it resolved that the member for Eastern Shore be condemned for his silence on Bill No. 68 and consoled on his upcoming election defeat.
Mr. Speaker, I request waiver of notice.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver.
Is it agreed?
I hear several Noes.
The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage.
MR. KEVIN DEVEAUX: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could be permitted an introduction before my . . .
MR. SPEAKER: Sure.
MR. DEVEAUX: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, in our east gallery there are five members of the health care professionals who are here: Lynn Stanton, who is a staff nurse with the Medical-Surgical ICU, and she is a constituent of Halifax Bedford Basin; maybe they can stand as they are being introduced - Kenda McKinley, who is a staff nurse, 16 years, Cancer Care, from Dartmouth East; maybe Kenda can stand up as well, thank you - Vicki DeGazio, staff nurse, 20 years, Cardiac OR, from Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage, at the QE II Health Sciences Centre; Martha Brown, staff nurse, 26 years, PACU, from Dartmouth North; and Ann Marie Murdock, RN, from Pictou East. They are all here, obviously, to listen to the debate and have an opportunity to talk to some of the members on the backbenches, hopefully, about Bill No. 68. (Applause)
MR. SPEAKER: We certainly welcome our guests to the gallery today.
The honourable member for Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage.
MR. KEVIN DEVEAUX: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the trend over the past five years or more has been to reduce the number of patients who are admitted to hospital and, as many beds and services in rural Nova Scotia have been closed, patients with more serious conditions are being admitted to the metro facilities; and
Whereas many of these patients would traditionally have been placed in ICU but are now ending up on the units, resulting in an increased workload for nurses; and
Whereas the stress and exhaustion and inevitable mistakes from longer hours and increased workloads make nurses fear for their patients and their careers;
Therefore be it resolved that the Minister of Health concentrate on improving nurses' working conditions rather than legislating away the collective bargaining protections.
Mr. Speaker, I request waiver of notice.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver.
Is it agreed?
I hear several Noes.
The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Richmond.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the Strait-Richmond Hospital has gone over six and a half months without emergency room service during the daytime; and
Whereas this government is attempting to sway public opinion to their side by providing misleading advertising; and
Whereas one line in the ad indicates that a strike would close emergency room services in hospitals throughout Nova Scotia;
Therefore be it resolved that the honourable members for Guysborough-Port Hawkesbury, Inverness, and Antigonish meet with the residents that have been without emergency room service in the Strait area for over six months to explain just how a potential strike would mean an actual change in available health care services at the Strait-Richmond Hospital.
Mr. Speaker, I request waiver of notice.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver.
Is it agreed?
I hear several Noes.
The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Cape Breton Centre.
MR. FRANK CORBETT: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the one constant of this government is its obsession with getting its own way, come heck or high water; and
Whereas heck has come because health care workers, tired of being abused and neglected, are bridling against this Premier's plan to toss their collective bargaining rights on the scrap heap; and
Whereas the stressed health care system will start to come apart at the seams as these demoralized workers grab better opportunities elsewhere;
Therefore be it resolved that this Premier take great delight that in getting his own way he will destroy the system he promised to protect and improve - our health care system.
Mr. Speaker, I request waiver of notice.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver.
Is it agreed?
I hear several Noes.
The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Cape Breton West.
MR. RUSSELL MACKINNON: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the honourable member for Cape Breton Nova, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the member for Sackville-Beaver Bank represents a riding that is home to many of Nova Scotia's health care workers; and
Whereas that member has been silent through the course of debate on the most oppressive and anti-worker piece of legislation - Bill No. 68; and
Whereas that member is almost deserving of pity, for his silence on this important issue will almost certainly be his undoing;
Therefore be it resolved that the member for Sackville-Beaver Bank be condemned for his silence on Bill No. 68, and be consoled for his upcoming defeat in the next provincial election.
Mr. Speaker, I request waiver of notice.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver.
Is it agreed?
I hear several Noes.
The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Halifax Chebucto.
MR. HOWARD EPSTEIN: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the honourable member for Sackville-Cobequid, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas Christina Hilchie, a medical laboratory technologist, works in clinical chemistry at the QE II Health Sciences Centre and resents the Minister of Health's insinuation that she would not be professional enough to care for the critically ill or injured; and
Whereas Ms. Hilchie is worried about the future of medical laboratory technology here as "a surprising number of my colleagues are currently exploring the option of leaving this province" because of "this contract struggle and this grossly unfair legislation", referring to Bill No. 68; and
Whereas Ms. Hilchie goes on to explain that more than 50 per cent of medical laboratory technologists are due to retire in 15 years, there have been no new graduates since 1996, and any new ones would leave in the face of this regressive legislation;
Therefore be it resolved that the Minister of Health explain to Christina Hilchie and all medical laboratory technologists why he wants to drive them out of their profession through his medieval, anti-worker legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I request waiver of notice.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The resolution was too long.
[The notice is tabled.]
The honourable member for Cape Breton West.
MR. RUSSELL MACKINNON: Mr. Speaker, again, on behalf of the honourable member for Cape Breton Nova, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the member for Queens represents a riding that is home to many of Nova Scotia's health care workers; and
[2:00 a.m.]
Whereas that member has been silent through the course of debate on the most oppressive and anti-worker piece of legislation known as Bill No. 68; and
Whereas that member is almost deserving of pity as his silence on this important issue will almost certainly be his undoing;
Therefore be it resolved that the member for Queens be condemned for his silence on Bill No. 68 and consoled on his upcoming election defeat.
Mr. Speaker, I request waiver of notice.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver.
Is it agreed?
I hear several Noes.
The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Timberlea-Prospect.
MR. WILLIAM ESTABROOKS: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the honourable member for Hants East, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas rural doctors cry out the need for more technical support such as provided by laboratory technicians; and
Whereas laboratory technicians will soon, with the combination of retirement and short-sighted government policies from the 1990's, be as rare as a worker-friendly Tory; and
Whereas this government is willing to make a bad situation worse in rural Nova Scotia simply to satisfy its right-wing ideology;
Therefore be it resolved that the members of this House demand this government stop blaming the woes of the health care system on collective bargaining for health care workers and acknowledge its own short-sighted and wrong-headed policies are the real reasons health care is in a crisis in this province.
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Richmond.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the member for Guysborough-Port Hawkesbury represents a riding that is home to many of Nova Scotia's health care workers; and
Whereas that member has been silent through the course of debate on the most oppressive and anti-worker piece of legislation, Bill No. 68; and
Whereas that member is almost deserving of pity as his silence on this important issue will almost certainly be his undoing;
Therefore be it resolved that the member for Guysborough-Port Hawkesbury be condemned for his silence on Bill No. 68 and consoled on his upcoming election defeat.
Mr. Speaker, I request waiver of notice.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver.
Is it agreed?
I hear several Noes.
The notice is tabled.
The honourable Leader of the Opposition.
MR. DARRELL DEXTER: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the Canadian Nurses' Association released a report in 1997 that identified a number of contributing major factors to a predicted nursing shortage; and
Whereas those factors ring particularly true in Nova Scotia where we have an aging workforce of nurses who will retire in large numbers in the next decade, an aging population which will require increased nursing and other health care and an adequate number of new graduates; and
Whereas this government's comprehensive approach to solving the nursing shortage is to throw fuel on the fire by introducing the most regressive piece of anti-labour legislation ever conceived in Canada;
Therefore be it resolved this government pull back from the brink of bêtise before its heavy-handed, anti-labour legislation drives health care workers from this province in droves.
Mr. Speaker, I request waiver of notice.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver.
Is it agreed?
I hear several Noes.
The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Cape Breton The Lakes.
MR. BRIAN BOUDREAU: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the member for Kings West represents a riding that is home to many of Nova Scotia's health care workers; and
Whereas that member has been silent through the course of debate on the most oppressive and anti-worker piece of legislation - Bill No. 68; and
Whereas that member is almost deserving of pity as his silence on this important issue will almost certainly be his undoing;
Therefore be it resolved that the member for Kings West be condemned for his silence on Bill No. 68 and consoled on his upcoming election defeat.
Mr. Speaker, I request waiver of notice.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver.
Is it agreed?
I hear several Noes.
The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage.
MR. KEVIN DEVEAUX: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the honourable member for Dartmouth North, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas health care professionals from all over Nova Scotia agree that legislating away their bargaining rights will push many of them out of this province at a time of critical shortage in health care professionals throughout North America; and
Whereas the Tory backbenchers may not admit it publicly, but many must be hearing from their constituents how draconian are this government's and are having second and third thoughts about supporting such legislation; and
Whereas the real threat that this Tory Government will cripple our health care system, must be hard to explain to constituents;
Therefore be it resolved that the Tory backbenchers try to preach reason to the Premier, the Minister of Health and their Cabinet colleagues and convince them to withdraw this destructive anti-worker and anti-health care legislation for the good of all Nova Scotians.
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Dartmouth East.
DR. JAMES SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas all Tory members of the Legislature represent areas impacted negatively by Bill No. 68; and
Whereas those members have been silent through the course of debate on the most oppressive and anti-worker piece of legislation; and
Whereas these members owe it to their constituents to speak out on bad legislation and not agree with it through their silence;
Therefore be it resolved that those silent members be condemned for their silence on Bill No. 68, lest they deserve our condolences for their upcoming election defeat.
Mr. Speaker, I request waiver of notice.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver.
Is it agreed?
I hear several Noes.
The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Cape Breton Centre.
RESOLUTION NO. 1735
MR. FRANK CORBETT: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the honourable member for Halifax Fairview, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas Bill No. 68 raises the question of who is responsible for the delivery of health care in Nova Scotia, front-line health care workers or 12 persons hidden away in the Cabinet Room; and
Whereas the answer is simple and so it is simple to see why those front-line health care workers should be at the bargaining table; and
Whereas when Nova Scotians need health care, they go to front-line health care workers, not to Cabinet;
Therefore be it resolved that the Premier, the Minister of Health and all members of Cabinet come to their senses and not rob health care workers of their right to bargain freely and collectively for their working conditions, wages and benefits.
Mr. Speaker, I request waiver of notice.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver.
Is it agreed?
I hear several Noes.
The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Glace Bay.
MR. DAVID WILSON: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the member for Preston represents a riding that is home to many of Nova Scotia's health care workers; and
Whereas that member has been silent through the course of debate on the most oppressive and anti-worker piece of legislation, Bill No. 68; and
Whereas that member is almost deserving of pity as his silence on this important issue will almost certainly be his undoing;
Therefore be it resolved that the member for Preston, better known as the king of charities or the doorstop in the corner, be condemned for his silence on Bill No. 68 and consoled on his upcoming election defeat.
Mr. Speaker, I request waiver of notice.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver.
Is it agreed?
I hear several Noes.
The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Halifax Chebucto.
MR. HOWARD EPSTEIN: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the honourable member for Halifax Needham, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas health care workers have families and family responsibilities just like everyone else; and
Whereas they work 12-hour-plus shifts and many are forced to work overtime as well, then must go home and care for their families, to do housework and child rearing; and
Whereas they are frequently absent for the important events in their kids' lives, such as school concerts, trips and baseball games and are often too tired and stressed and unable to give their families the quality time they would like to give;
Therefore be it resolved that the Minister of Health act now to improve working conditions for health care workers by ensuring our health facilities are properly staffed before these workers pull up stakes and take up opportunities in places with more family-friendly workplaces.
Mr. Speaker, I request waiver of notice.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver.
Is it agreed?
I hear several Noes.
The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Cape Breton West.
MR. RUSSELL MACKINNON: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the member for the beautiful Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley represents a riding that is home to many of Nova Scotia's health care workers; and
Whereas that member has been unusually quiet through the course of debate on the most oppressive and anti-worker piece of legislation known as Bill No. 68; and
Whereas that member is almost deserving of pity as his silence on this important issue will almost certainly be his undoing;
Therefore be it resolved that the member for the beautiful Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley be condemned for his silence on Bill No. 68 and consoled for his upcoming election defeat.
Mr. Speaker, I request waiver of notice.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver.
Is it agreed?
I hear several Noes.
The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Timberlea-Prospect.
RESOLUTION NO. 1739
MR. WILLIAM ESTABROOKS: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the honourable member for Hants East, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas health care workers and nurses labour together to provide for and comfort the sick and the dying; and
Whereas the public knows the services they provide are invaluable and thanks them for their kindness and comfort during these trying times; and
Whereas this government's current course of lack of respect and appreciation for the priceless work threatens irreparable harm to labour relations and the health care system in this province;
Therefore be it resolved that the members of this House condemn the bully tactics of this government against its health care workers and nurses and hope that this government has not already irreparably damaged our health care system.
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Victoria.
MR. KENNETH MACASKILL: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the member for Pictou West represents a riding that is home to many of Nova Scotia's health care workers; and
Whereas that member has been silent through the course of debate on the most oppressive and anti-worker piece of legislation, Bill No. 68; and
Whereas that member is almost deserving of pity as her silence on this important issue will almost certainly be her undoing;
Therefore be it resolved that the member for Pictou West be condemned for her silence on Bill No. 68 and consoled on her upcoming election defeat.
Mr. Speaker, I request waiver of notice.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver.
Is it agreed?
I hear several Noes.
The notice is tabled.
The honourable Leader of the Opposition.
MR. DARRELL DEXTER: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the honourable member for Halifax Needham, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas health care workers at the Colchester Regional Hospital are shocked that in the year 2001 this government could take away their right to fair contract negotiations; and
Whereas one nurse of 33 years is deeply insulted that this government would also mislead the public by telling them health care professionals would not give essential services; and
Whereas they fear the Premier's only concern is his love affair with balancing the budget and legislating away their bargaining rights is the vehicle by which he will try to accomplish it;
Therefore be it resolved that legislating away the rights of health care professionals as a fiscal measure is the final push they need to head South or West.
Mr. Speaker, I request waiver of notice.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver.
Is it agreed?
I hear a No.
The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Cape Breton West.
MR. RUSSELL MACKINNON: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the member for Colchester North represents a riding that is home to many of Nova Scotia's health care workers; and
Whereas that member has been unusually quiet through the course of debate on the most oppressive and anti-worker legislation, better known as Bill No. 68; and
Whereas that member is almost deserving of pity as his silence on this important issue will almost certainly be his undoing;
Therefore be it resolved that the member for Colchester North be condemned for his silence on Bill No. 68 and consoled on his upcoming election defeat.
Mr. Speaker, I request waiver of notice.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver.
Is it agreed?
I hear a No.
The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage.
MR. KEVIN DEVEAUX: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the honourable member for Dartmouth North, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas health care workers at the Highland View Regional Hospital in Amherst are seething at this government's introduction of anti-worker legislation; and
Whereas they state that, "this bill declares war on labour"; and
Whereas they go on to say, "it does not attract new nurses . . . it drives experienced nurses out of the province . . .";
Therefore be it resolved that this government take its hands from its ears, open its eyes, and heed the sound advice from health care workers at Highland View Regional Hospital in Amherst not to pass anti-worker legislation.
[2:15 a.m.]
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Cape Breton Centre.
MR. FRANK CORBETT: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the honourable member for Halifax Atlantic, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas this government claims nothing in Bill No. 68 will prevent it from freely negotiating collective agreements with health care workers; and
Whereas reserving the power to Cabinet to impose whatever work terms it wants upon health care workers is hardly negotiating collectively; and
Whereas the only thing collective about this heinous legislation is the collective gasp of anger, horror and despair it has evoked in health care workers;
Therefore be it resolved that the Minister of Health retitle Bill No. 68, the Healthcare Services Continuation (2001) Act, as the Shut Up and Take What We Give You and Be Happy About It Act.
Mr. Speaker, I request waiver of notice.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver.
Is it agreed?
I hear several Noes.
The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Halifax Chebucto.
MR. HOWARD EPSTEIN: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas nurses are indirectly being forced to work overtime, adding stress to an already stressful occupation; and
Whereas nurses entered this career because they care about people and have a desire to help people, especially sick people; and
Whereas nurses respond to the call to work overtime because they are very aware of the added workload their colleagues are experiencing and that patients need them to provide care;
Therefore be it resolved that the Minister of Health provide a satisfactory solution soon to the forced overtime nurses work to ensure patients get adequate care before nurses burn out and leave the health care system.
Mr. Speaker, I request waiver of notice.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver.
Is it agreed?
I hear a No.
The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Timberlea-Prospect.
MR. WILLIAM ESTABROOKS: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas in a fax to our caucus office, a nurse from my constituency of Timberlea-Prospect advised that she was alarmed at this government's heavy-handed legislation to force her to work at their whim, saying that "this is not a government, it's a dictatorship . . ."; and
Whereas this nurse, who relocated here from Newfoundland, went on to say, "we strive daily to provide excellent care for the people in this province, and this is how our government says thank you"; and
Whereas, like many other folks in health care, my constituent thinks "maybe it is time I relocate again to a province that pays their nurses what they are worth, not only monetarily but with respect";
Therefore be it resolved that the Minister of Health apologize to health care workers and nurses in Nova Scotia for the profound lack of respect he has shown them in legislating away the last shreds of their dignity.
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Cape Breton Centre.
MR. FRANK CORBETT: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the honourable member for Halifax Fairview, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas, although the number of nurses employed in the province has been increasing slightly over the past few years, there are still fewer nurses than there were in 1996; and
Whereas there has been an increase in the population and an increase in patient acuity, that means sicker folks, so that the increase in the number of nurses is not nearly adequate; and
Whereas the number of casual nursing positions is still unacceptable and many work full-time hours without the same benefits as full-time nurses; another reason recruiters lure them away to benefit-rich areas;
Therefore be it resolved that the Minister of Health rethink his nursing strategy and take timely and more effective action to convert casual nursing positions into full-time positions with benefits before these nurses are lured away from Nova Scotia.
Mr. Speaker, I request waiver of notice.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver.
Is it agreed?
I hear several Noes.
The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Halifax Chebucto.
MR. HOWARD EPSTEIN: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might be permitted an introduction prior to my resolution, would that be all right? I confess to being a little remiss, I had noticed that these people were here earlier, I hope they are still here and we haven't lost them due to the lateness of the hour. (Interruption) Well, we could do that. I believe we have present with us an RN, Doris Ernst, who is a resident of Halifax Citadel, and another RN, Sheila Harvey, a resident of Dartmouth-Cole Harbour. I know we had two paramedics, Peter Lindeman and Danny Cassel. Peter Lindeman, a resident of Halifax Needham, and Danny Cassel, from Halifax Citadel. I wonder if they are all here and if they could rise and receive the acknowledgement of the House. (Applause)
Mr. Speaker, I am happy that we have some visitors here to observe our proceedings this evening.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Halifax Chebucto.
MR. HOWARD EPSTEIN: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the Minister of Health stated in this House to the Leader of the Opposition last week that, "To compare Nova Scotia to Alberta in terms of the ability to pay is not reasonable and the honourable member knows that."; and
Whereas even if that were true, it is no excuse for the minister introducing a bill that will allow the Tory Cabinet to force a unilateral contract down the throats of health care workers; and
Whereas the statement places the blame for his own bargaining woes on conditions in other provinces;
Therefore be it resolved that the Premier advise his Minister of Health to focus on what is happening here in Nova Scotia as opposed to looking to other parts of the country in an effort to excuse the sorry mess his government created here at home.
Mr. Speaker, I request waiver of notice.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver.
Is it agreed?
I hear a No.
The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Halifax Needham on an introduction.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: It gives me great pleasure to rise in my place and introduce to the House Gwen Wolfe who is a resident of my constituency who works in the laboratory over at the QE II in, I think, the Infirmary site. I would ask members to give her a warm welcome. (Applause)
ORDERS OF THE DAY
ORAL QUESTIONS PUT BY MEMBERS
MR. SPEAKER: Question Period will begin at 2:21 a.m. and end at 3:21 a.m.
The honourable Leader of the Opposition.
MR. DARRELL DEXTER: Mr. Speaker, the Premier is forcing health care workers into a position where extreme action like work stoppages is their only option. Work to rule has already started. All the extras which the system has come to rely on like overtime, extra work and flexible duties will be suspended and again, Nova Scotians can thank the Premier. Surgeries are being cancelled, beds are being closed, tests are being postponed and the system is going into chaos. For the Premier, what does this government plan to do to deliver health care in this province in the wake of its own self-inflicted health care crisis?
HON. JOHN HAMM (The Premier): Mr. Speaker, having lived through a hospital strike back in the 1970s, I know that is not an option that any health care worker looks forward to with any kind of enthusiasm. One of the things that will be accomplished by this bill, of course, is to avoid a strike which I believe would be in the interests of health care workers and Nova Scotians. A great number of people agree with me. For example, Jim Smith, the Liberal Health Critic said, a strike by health care workers will have devastating effects on the already strained health care system. The President of the NSGEU, Joan Jessome, indicated even the threat of a strike is causing chaos. It has the capacity to cripple health care. What this bill does is eliminate the possibility of a strike and I think that is a good thing to do. (Applause)
MR. DEXTER: It is this government's actions that are the threat to the stability of front-line health care services. It is this government that is forcing people off the job and is forcing health care workers out of the province. The contingency plan that the unions came up with would ensure that workers were present to take care of emergencies. The Premier rejected that, saying nurses can't be trusted. But all he has done in his arrogance is jeopardize emergency care. The only ones around here who can't be trusted to take care of our health care is the government. Since this government has rejected the union contingency plan, what contingency plans of their own are in place to deal with work disruptions?
THE PREMIER: The member opposite clearly doesn't listen. The President of the NSGEU said even the threat of a strike causes chaos, openly admitting that a strike is not the answer for this kind of a situation. It is not the answer.
MR. DEXTER: You can't tell health care workers, we don't trust you to do your job, we don't trust you to exercise your fundamental rights so we are going to bring in measures to put you in your place and we expect you to sit there and take it. The Premier is leaving health care workers with no way out. Will the Premier stand here today and accept full responsibility for any disruption to health care services as a result of his own draconian measures?
THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite would like to put his own interpretation on what is going on. The intention of the government is to have the collective bargaining process continue, as it has in recent weeks and months, and to reach a negotiated settlement at the table. That is what we are looking for.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Liberal Party.
MR. WAYNE GAUDET: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. Throughout this health care dispute, government has been using nurses and health care workers as scapegoats for the Tory shortcomings. Government is spreading unfair rumours that nurses will abandon their patients and walk off the job. This government is not respecting nurses and health care workers. My question to the Minister of Health is, will the Minister of Health apologize to nurses and health care workers for insinuating that they will abandon their patients?
HON. JAMES MUIR: Mr. Speaker, there is no government in the past number of years that has greater respect for health care workers than this government. (Interruptions) The corporate memory on the other side of the House is very short, they forget about wage rollbacks and freezes and things like this. They forget about that, they forget (Interruptions)
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.
MR. GAUDET: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question to the Minister of Health is, if the government is so concerned with health and safety, why won't the Health Minister at least encourage the unions and health authorities to request binding arbitration and put this labour unrest aside?
MR. MUIR: Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to hear the President of the Nova Scotia Nurses' Union earlier this afternoon saying that they wanted to get back to the table on Thursday, and they are scheduled to go back on Thursday. What the President of the Nova Scotia Nurses' Union said is that, in terms of her organization, they want a settlement worked out at the bargaining table, and the Premier, in that case, encouraged them and thanked her for that offer.
MR. GAUDET: Mr. Speaker, my final question is to the Premier. Yesterday's press conference was proof that this legislation has infuriated labour unions of all stripes. The protest planned for later today is another indication that Nova Scotians will not take this legislation lying down but, in light of all this civil unrest, nurses still guarantee the health and safety of their patients. My question to the Premier is, will the Premier now show some decency and admit that health and safety has always been, and will remain, the number one priority of our nurses and health care workers?
THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, for 30 years I saw the commitment of nurses and technologists and others who worked in the hospital to provide good health care for Nova Scotians. (Interruptions) It is as a result of that (Interruptions)
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order, please. I would ask the honourable members if they would allow the questioners and the answerers to have the floor, because I am sure that the people who are here at this hour of the night would appreciate hearing the questions and the answers.
THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, there is no question about the devotion of health care workers to deliver good health care to Nova Scotians. It is a reflection of that that we have come up with an offer despite the serious financial situation of the province, that reflects the value we put on nurses, that will make them the highest paid in Atlantic Canada, the equivalent or greater than what they would receive in two other western provinces. That, I believe, is a reflection of the value that we place on health care workers in this province.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition.
MR. DARRELL DEXTER: Mr. Speaker, if the Premier truly wants a reflection of the value he places on nurses he should listen to this, because nurses have some interesting news about some of last year's graduates from Dalhousie School of Nursing. Of 79 new graduates, 10 went to California, while just 8 stayed here. Think about that. More Dalhousie nurses went to California alone than stayed in Nova Scotia. This government is spending tens of thousands of dollars educating nurses it cannot convince to stay here. These are people who are not unfamiliar with the Minister of Health's lifestyle that he is so fond of talking about. The hard realities of working conditions and wages have forced them to look beyond our borders for work.
[2:30 a.m.]
So I want to ask the Premier, when will the Premier admit that his nursing strategy is a failure and that his draconian measures will only serve to worsen an already critical situation?
THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Health to describe the nursing strategy for the information of the honourable member opposite.
HON. JAMES MUIR: Mr. Speaker, I am astonished and really appalled that the honourable member would stand in his place and criticize that nursing strategy. That was developed by nurses in Nova Scotia for nurses in Nova Scotia, and he should listen to the nurses in Nova Scotia.
MR. DEXTER: He has a nursing strategy for California, Mr. Speaker, that is who he has a nursing strategy for.
Retaining 8 out of 79 Dalhousie nurses is a miserable result; it means that the Premier's nursing strategy has managed to attract 10 per cent of new Dalhousie graduates. It seems that the Premier is developing a new motto for our province - Nova Scotia, a great place to get an education, but who wants to work here. When asked where nurses go after graduation, one administrator succinctly summed it up: Up north, out west, down south, anywhere it seems but here. So I want to ask the Premier, why is the Premier taking measures that will drive more nurses out of the province?
THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, I believe that nurses want to stay in Nova Scotia, but nurses will only stay in Nova Scotia if, in fact, government is not only able to remunerate them properly, but also to have enough money to properly educate their children, to provide other services that the residents of Nova Scotia want. Nurses won't stay here simply because
they would be the highest paid in the country if, along with that, government could not provide other services. The members opposite have never put any balance into any of the suggestions they bring to government, it is always more, more, more.
MR. DEXTER: And what the Premier continues to deliver is less, less, less. Mr. Speaker, nurses like Joanne Keating are telling us that in the United States they are treated with dignity and respect, but here at home the situation is very different. Now nurses want to know why they should even consider staying in this province. In other provinces, nurses are trusted and respected, so why should they stay in Nova Scotia where the Premier treats them like children who are denied the right to strike and cannot be trusted to do their job? (Interruptions)
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.
THE PREMIER: One of the great values, Mr. Speaker, of being in Opposition like that member, is you can make suggestions to government that you know are entirely impossible. That member knows that it is not in the fiscal capability of this province to pay as much as they pay in the United States, to pay as much as they pay in Alberta. That member knows it, but it is politically expedient for him to suggest it.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member Dartmouth East.
DR. JAMES SMITH: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health. I would like to table a press release from the Minister of Health, dated January 20, 2000. I have several copies here. In this release, the minister stated that paramedics deserve to be treated fairly and paid appropriately, and that is why government introduced legislation to establish the mediation/arbitration process. The minister will remember that release. My question to the Minister of Health is, given that it was important to treat paramedics fairly, why does he not feel that other health care workers deserve to be treated fairly?
HON. JAMES MUIR: Mr. Speaker, it has been the position of this government that all health care workers would be treated fairly and this government has taken steps to see that is being done. In the case of the paramedics, we were talking about a first contract and that was a slightly different situation.
In the case here, one of the interesting things, you talk about the short corporate memory of the former Liberal Government, the people across there - and he was a member - Mr. Speaker, do you remember rollbacks and wage freezes, do you remember that?
DR. SMITH: It saddens me, the quality of ministers we have on that side, that to this very day, two years later, approaching two years later since they formed government and the best answer they can give you day after day, night after night, is that other government did this and that other government did that. That's really a sad state. Shame on them for that.
Mr. Speaker, the Chairman of the Capital District Health Authority, Peter McLaughlin, said: There would have been some advantage to binding arbitration, particularly because it would give employees some assurance that their input went into the arbitrator's decision, as opposed to a contract dictated by a Cabinet. My question to the minister is, given that this minister believes that health care decisions should be made at the local level, why is the minister ignoring the advice of the Chairman of the Capital District Health Authority?
MR. MUIR: Mr. Speaker, people have not forgotten the wage rollbacks, so he wants to know why it keeps coming up (Interruptions)
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Health has the floor.
MR. MUIR: Mr. Speaker, the Capital District was at the bargaining table with the health care employees and I can say that they had four locals involved in the bargaining for the NSGEU and they reached agreements in three cases: two of them were accepted by the members and one was not. Similarly, the negotiations with the NSNU, a tentative agreement was reached there that was not accepted by the membership. What has happened is that there has been bargaining in good faith . . .
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.
DR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the answer to my original question is simple, because decisions are not being made at the local level and the district health authorities are having no say. Nova Scotians believe that if you give something up, you should get something in return. My question to the minister is, if you believe that what you have offered to the health care workers is fair, why would you not legislate binding arbitration in exchange for giving up the right to strike?
MR. MUIR: Mr. Speaker, as the honourable member knows, and the Premier has articulated very clearly and people understand, that our financial means in this province is not as great as it is in other - but I want to tell you that this government did not roll back wages, it did not freeze wages; there were increases in wages put on the table for health care people in this province which were consistent with the ability of this province to pay.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage.
MR. KEVIN DEVEAUX: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier, because the Premier, since they introduced Bill No. 68, is talking about the fact that we cannot afford to pay the nurses what they are asking for. Well, the Premier has been using public money to bankroll a purely partisan advertising campaign. My office has learned that the Premier and the government have been spending $43,000 of hard-earned taxpayers' dollars in the past six days to purchase misleading advertising. That's more than $7,000 a day of public money spent by this Premier to try to ease the political damage caused by his self-inflicted health care crisis.
My question to the Premier is quite simple. I want to ask the Premier whether he thinks that the $43,000 of taxpayers' dollars he has spent on propaganda would have been better spent on front-line health care.
THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly important that Nova Scotians and all health care workers know exactly what was put on the table. The government is making an attempt to make sure that health care workers and all Nova Scotians know what has been offered.
MR. DEVEAUX: Mr. Speaker, back in 1999, when the Premier was the Leader of the Third Party, he introduced a resolution condemning the government of the day for wasting scarce health dollars on partisan advertising. He said this wasteful and offensive use of scarce health care dollars is nothing more than a taxpayer-funded PR campaign. That is what he said in 1999. Now, in an astounding about-face, this same Premier has turned around and done the exact same thing he condemned two years ago. I want to ask this Premier if he thinks it is hypocritical if someone criticizes the use of public money when in Opposition and then, when in government, turns around and does the exact same thing he condemned.
THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the member opposite would do a little research on the difference between partisan advertising and providing information. There is a distinct difference, and that has eluded the member opposite.
MR. DEVEAUX: Mr. Speaker, this Premier knows that what he is doing is a misappropriation of taxpayers' dollars and taxpayers' money. He said so himself back in 1999, when he was here in Opposition. I want to ask the Premier why he refuses to cancel this propaganda program, and spend the money on front-line health care, like he said he would do back in 1999.
THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, it is always so easy for that Party, that never had the opportunity to be government, to come up with solutions. The problem is none of their solutions are ever workable. What the challenge for this government is, is to provide health care and all of the other services at the same time as we provide some fiscal stability to the province. The bank, right now, is financing what we do; they might finance us next year, but if we don't get things under control, they are eventually going to pull the plug. Even the level of service and the raises that we are able to provide now will not be possible under that kind of a circumstance.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Richmond.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice and Attorney General in this province had a previous history of worrying about the rights of workers, granted that only seemed to last while he was on this side of the House. For example, on October 29, 1998, the member for Lunenburg, at the time, introduced an amendment to the Trade Union Act, where the right to strike by police officers would be replaced by interest arbitration. My question to the minister is quite simple, does the Minister of Justice, today, believe that interest arbitration is okay for police officers but not for the health care workers of this province?
HON. MICHAEL BAKER: Mr. Speaker, what the Minister of Justice believes is that it is in the interest of the Province of Nova Scotia to be able to ensure a sustainable health care system. That is what this bill is about, and that is what this Minister of Justice believes.
MR. SAMSON: Ha, and he wonders why we call him the Rambo Justice Minister. On February 1, 2000, this year, the minister said Crown Attorneys perform an important service for Nova Scotia and Nova Scotians. Prosecuting those accused of crimes such as murder, sexual assault, robbery and the like is vital to the public safety, and compensation for doing so should be fair and just. Here is a wake-up note to the Minister of Justice. Health care workers and nurses in this province are also vital to the safety of all Nova Scotians. My question to the minister is, why does the Minister of Justice believe that health care workers should not be entitled to the same type of arbitration that has been offered to Crown Attorneys?
MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member's question is a question that talks about being fair and reasonable. The government's offer to health care professionals in this province is more than fair and reasonable; it would make them among the highest paid health care professionals in the country. It would accomplish everything that binding arbitration is designed to do, which is to determine a fair and reasonable compensation level.
[2:45 a.m.]
MR. SAMSON: Well, how ironic, Mr. Speaker, and what a double standard in this province. Compensation for Crown Attorneys and police, to be fair and just, means to go to interest arbitration, but for nurses and for health care professionals, fair and just is what the Minister of Justice determines that it will be. How can you have a standard for one group of workers in this province and then another standard for the people who are in the front lines of our health care system? My question is, why are the rights being given to one group, while health care workers are considered a threat to public safety by this government and denied binding arbitration?
MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, in simple terms, what we have offered the health care professionals in this province is a fair and reasonable offer, an offer that puts them amongst the best paid in this country and one that will treat them as fairly and reasonably as we have treated all our workers, whether they are Crown Attorneys or anyone else.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Halifax Chebucto.
MR. HOWARD EPSTEIN: This question will be to the Premier. Mr. Speaker, I am very troubled to have to report to this House that our office is receiving a steady stream of faxes and e-mails from nurses and other health care workers who say this Premier is driving them out of Nova Scotia. This Premier would not deny that he was elected primarily to fix the problems facing front-line health care and he cannot deny that he has failed. John Hamm's self-inflicted health care crisis is causing as much damage as any misguided initiative by the former Premier, John Savage. I want to ask the Premier how a government elected to improve health care could have gotten so off track in two short years that it is now driving health care workers from the province.
THE PREMIER: For the last year and a half, Mr. Speaker, health care workers have been speaking out about job-related stress, the inability to cope with the workload. Much of that has been generated by the failure of the province to attract enough health care workers into the province. That is why, for example, we have a nurse-designed nursing strategy to address that particular problem and to improve the workplace situation for nurses and other health care workers.
MR. EPSTEIN: Mr. Speaker, I will now table letters from three nurses at the Colchester Regional Hospital: Debbie McCully, Sonya Salter and Erin White, who all say they may join John Hamm's health care exodus if Bill No. 68 passes. John Hamm has recruited so many nurses for Alberta he should be on Ralph Klein's payroll. My question to the Premier is, is he aware that his misguided bill is causing irreparable damage to health care in Nova Scotia by driving workers out of the province, is he aware of that?
THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to ask the Minister of Health to make the member opposite aware of the true facts. (Interruptions)
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.
HON. JAMES MUIR: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that since the 22 months that we have been in power, one of the things that was concerning nurses in this province was they wanted more full-time positions and there have been a large number of casual positions converted to full-time. Similarly, (Interruptions)
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the people in the gallery to not respond positively or negatively to what is happening on the floor, please.
MR. MUIR: Mr. Speaker, in terms of the actual number of nurses, the number of nurses in Nova Scotia working this year is greater than it was the year before.
MR. EPSTEIN: Well, I hope the minister reads those letters that I have just tabled because Sonya Salter says that she will leave Truro for the United States because of the Premier's Bill No. 68. Theresa Thompson, an RN, says she will simply quit the profession. The Premier backed down on his education cuts last year and he backed down on further cuts to the Civil Service in this budget, but I want to ask the Premier, why won't he do the sensible thing and back down again before he causes irreparable damage to the health care system of Nova Scotia? Do it now.
THE PREMIER: It is the objective of this government not only to have a solution for today, but one that works tomorrow and the day after tomorrow and every day after that. We cannot entertain a solution that does not guarantee the sustainability of the health care delivery system in Nova Scotia. We cannot simply accept that.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Glace Bay.
MR. DAVID WILSON: Mr. Speaker, the government across the floor has acted shamelessly throughout the entire course of this fiasco that they are calling a negotiation with nurses. So, we really shouldn't be surprised by propaganda tactics that are underway. Nevertheless, if not shocking, the advertising campaign mounted by this government is certainly appalling. Major daily newspapers across the province, and radio stations have been beset by a slew of propaganda style political ads. It was 669 day ago that bunch across the floor promised that they would not get into political advertising. Not too long ago, the Premier would not answer any questions on this matter, so I would like to ask the Minister responsible for Communications Nova Scotia, what is the cost of the ads that are currently running in newspapers and on radio stations across this province?
HON. RONALD RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I don't have those numbers at my hand, but I will take the matter under advisement.
MR. WILSON: The government claims that it has offered a fair offer to nurses. If their unwillingness to offer binding arbitration wasn't a clear enough indicator that the offer is far from fair, the amount of propaganda that they are producing certainly is. My question again to the Minister responsible for Communications Nova Scotia, with that in mind, can the minister responsible tell this House please, who asked his department to produce those ads?
MR. RUSSELL: It is the function of Communications Nova Scotia to inform the public of what the government is doing. (Interruptions)
MR. WILSON: Mr. Speaker, that was not my question and that certainly wasn't an answer. The cost of those ads is well over $40,000 and counting, and it is clear that this government has lots of money for propaganda but none to give nurses a fair deal. Again, will the minister commit right now that he will table for the House the complete cost of any communications campaign related to health care contract negotiations?
MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I have no difficulty doing that. The campaign is still underway so it will be awhile before I will have the actual numbers.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Halifax Needham.
BILL NO. 68 - WITHDRAWN
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: My question is to the Premier. The NDP caucus has been flooded with letters and calls from angry health care workers. (Interruptions)
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The honourable member for Halifax Needham has the floor.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the NDP caucus has been flooded with many letters and calls from angry health care workers. Over the past few days we have received letters from across Nova Scotia, from people who are outraged at this government, and that anger is turning to action. Many health care workers are now considering leaving Nova Scotia. Margaret Tsipsti is one of them. A nurse with 35 years' experience, this is what she had to say about Bill No. 68. She says, Dear Premier Hamm: Please do not make me pack and leave Nova Scotia.
Health care workers are telling the government what they are preparing to do, but the Premier isn't listening. My question is, why won't the Premier listen to what Nova Scotians are saying and withdraw Bill No. 68?
THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that Nurse Margaret will encourage her union to get back to the table and negotiate at the table an appropriate settlement with the Government of Nova Scotia, to allow the service to go on uninterrupted and in an affordable way.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, Nurse Margaret is trying to get her Premier to listen to what the impact of this bill will be. It's amazing how two years and a taste of power can make a Party change its tune. In the 1999 election campaign, this Premier promised to address the critical shortage of nurses. Now he is pushing legislation that has nurses, like Debbie McCall from Colchester, promising him, "If this legislation is passed, it's time to look for a safer place to work and live." So why is the Premier supporting legislation that will force our needed health care workers to leave this province when he knows we can't afford to lose them?
THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, I believe we have been listening to nurses; they have made their points over a number of months with the government and with others. It was for that very reason that nurses were offered more than any other group that we have negotiated with, heretofore, and it was a reflection of our appreciation of the difficulties that nurses are experiencing right now and our determination to work with them, as demonstrated by the nursing strategy, to solve the problem.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, if this is the way this Premier and this government show their appreciation for nurses, I would sure hate to see them show their disdain and disrespect. This Premier is breaking his word, pure and simple. Just two years ago this Premier said that with him as Premier, nurses would have a workplace where they know they are valued. When will the Premier stop causing this exodus of health care workers and start treating health care workers with the respect they deserve and the respect that he promised?
THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, nurses will not stay in a province that does not have a sustainable health care delivery system. Already this year we are borrowing $91 million to run programs. Now, the bank will support us this year, they might run the system next year, but if we don't come to grips with our financial situation, they are going to pull the plug and the whole system will deteriorate, and all of those nurses who have been writing in will not have any choice but to leave.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Lunenburg West.
MR. DONALD DOWNE: Mr. Speaker, in listening to the answers to the questions today, one would only say it is a pathetic effort by the Government of Nova Scotia to try to respond to the questions that have been asked; absolutely pathetic, their responses.
The Minister of Health has told us that the reason the legislation was brought in was to protect the health and safety of Nova Scotians. Well, as usual, there doesn't seem to be unanimous consent of that position within the Cabinet. In fact, the Premier, we heard him yesterday, changing his opinion from the issue as being one of safety to one of costs. My question to the Premier is, can he clarify for this House and for those who are watching, which is it, public safety or money?
[3:00 a.m.]
THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, in terms of public safety, it is not in the interests of health care workers or any Nova Scotian to have a strike. That is an issue of safety. We made no secret when we became elected that we would be asking every Nova Scotian, and that includes health care workers, to work with us to come up with a financially stable situation in this province, something that that government and that member, when he was Minister of Finance, could not achieve.
MR. DOWNE: Mr. Speaker, the pathetic answer of this Premier, again, is echoing in this Chamber. My question to the Premier is very simple. If it is the issue of concern for public safety, why won't this Premier do the honourable thing and allow a proper collective bargaining process to continue and be able to pay nurses and health care workers what they deserve in the Province of Nova Scotia?
THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, that question would be more effectively delivered by somebody who was not a member of a government, like that member was, that from 1993 to 1997 suspended bargaining rights in the Province of Nova Scotia for all public sector workers by way of unpaid holidays and a wage freeze. There were no bargaining rights whatsoever; there was no ability of any public sector worker, during the period of that government, to negotiate at the table, an opportunity that we are providing the workers.
MR. DOWNE: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Premier doesn't even want to remember what he said publicly in the last election and how he was going to treat people. He is more interested to know and talk about someone else. The bottom line is that we have all known that has really boiled down not to public safety, but to the fact of finances of the Province of Nova Scotia. We have seen this government, in the last year, have a $249 million increase revenue than what they projected; we have seen hidden tax revenue; we have seen programs to be able to collect additional fees for services in the Province of Nova Scotia. It is projected that the additional revenues could have hired more than 800 nurses in Nova Scotia if properly managed. My question to the Premier is, given his public interest in fairness, why won't he simply do the honourable thing and pay Nova Scotian nurses and health care workers what they deserve?
THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance will explain some issues that this government is addressing in Finance that the previous government chose to ignore.
HON. NEIL LEBLANC: Mr. Speaker, the honourable minister opposite does state some things (Interruptions)
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order, please. Order, please. I had enough of (Interruptions) Hey, order, please! Order, please, the honourable member for Lunenburg West. Order, please! The honourable member for Lunenburg West will stand and apologize for what he just said across the floor. He said he lied. He will stand and take his place and apologize. (Interruptions) It doesn't matter if it was on the record or not, I heard it hollered across this floor, and I would ask the honourable member for Lunenburg West to retract that statement.
MR. DOWNE: I will retract that statement, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.
MR. LEBLANC: Mr. Speaker, in regard to the honourable member for Lunenburg West, who mentioned that there was $250 million more that we have gotten in the last few years; I agree we have had more revenues. What did we do with that? We put it in health care, we put it in community services, we put it in education. This is not only about health care, it's about many different programs. At the same time, we are trying to bring down the deficit, which was $500 million when we took office. We are finding a balance and, at the same time, dealing with the problems of today.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.
The honourable member for Timberlea-Prospect.
MR. WILLIAM ESTABROOKS: Mr. Speaker, my question, through you, is to the Premier. Letters of protest continue to come in to my office from health care workers, pleading with the Premier to stop legislating them back into the Stone Age of labour relations. Many are convinced they will have no choice but to leave. I would like to table one of those letters now. It comes from a young RN at the ICU at the Colchester Regional Hospital. Her name is Erin White and she has practised there for five years. She is one of the many young nurses that we desperately need in this province, as many other nurses are getting ready to retire. Erin writes, and I quote from that letter, Mr. Speaker, "If you pass Bill No. 68, you may very well lose yet another registered nurse because, I too, will definitely consider leaving.". My question to the Premier is, can you explain to Erin why you, the Premier, has chosen to make Nova Scotia the most unattractive place in North America to be a health care worker?
THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, what I could say to young Nurse Erin is there will only be a future for her in health care delivery if in fact the province can sustain the service. We are determined to do that so young nurses like Erin and many others like her will have a long, uninterrupted service delivering health care to Nova Scotians.
MR. ESTABROOKS: Mr. Speaker, I have another letter from Lisa Hamlin and I will ask the Page to table that. I am sure the Premier would be interested in hearing from Lisa. She is a long-time lab technician at the QE II. She works in the blood transfusion service. This government says health care workers can't be trusted. Ms. Hamlin feels very strongly these comments "seem almost slanderous to me and my profession.". Like others, Lisa is angry with the shabby treatment by that bunch over there and she is thinking the once unthinkable thought, she writes, "This government is giving me no choice but to move my family to a place where I will be valued.".
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Question, please.
MR. ESTABROOKS: Mr. Premier, why can't you understand that your arrogance is driving away health care workers such as Lisa Hamlin?
THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, I believe Lisa would have been interested in the answer I gave to the previous question. But, again, I can say that unless we find sustainability in our health care system, there will be no career option for any young lab technician or nurse or any other health care sector worker in this province. The bank might finance something we do this year, but how many years will the bank continue to finance health care delivery? I don't think the health care sectors workers are interested in us providing a solution and then sending the bill to their children, like that member suggests we should do.
MR. ESTABROOKS: Mr. Speaker, earlier in the proceedings of this House, a tabled a petition from nine young nurses from the Class of 2003. They feel they can't pass up the opportunity to move on to greener pastures. Their plea to this government is simple and it was included in the petition, "Please make Nova Scotia a place where nurses want to be employed, not a place to receive the education and then leave.". Mr. Premier, when will you understand that in driving health care workers away from this province, you have become the real threat to the health and safety of Nova Scotians?
THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, I believe the real threat to Nova Scotia is an Opposition Party that every step of the way suggests more spending on education, more spending on community services, more spending on health, even though deep in their hearts they know that bankruptcy is not an option for this province. But despite that, they find it politically expedient to continue to make those suggestions.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Cape Breton West.
MR. RUSSELL MACKINNON: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Environment and Labour. Bill No. 68 is referred to by labour right across this province as being nothing short of a "frontal attack" on labour in Nova Scotia. My question to the Minister of Labour quite simply is, what negative impact does the Minister of Labour anticipate that this new policy shift may have on the future of labour relations in Nova Scotia?
HON. DAVID MORSE: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that this is to deal with a specific situation and a difficulty that we are making temporary in Nova Scotia by virtue of the financial measures that we are taking to bring our budget under control. So, this is specific to address a certain situation and it is not a shift in the government's labour policies.
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Speaker (Interruption) That's correct. We believed in co-operation and negotiation, not legislation. One day the Minister of Environment and Labour appoints a mediator and then the next day supports bringing in Bill No. 68 which does away with that entire process. My question to the minister is, how can the Minister of Environment and Labour expect co-operation from employees in the future when his government has treated health care workers and nurses with such disrespect by the introduction of Bill No. 68?
MR. MORSE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the member opposite, and I thank him for the opportunity to do this, that there is nothing in Bill No. 68 that precludes a negotiated settlement. In fact, it is this government's wish that the parties, as, in fact, they are doing with the nurses, continue back at the negotiating table and reach a negotiated settlement.
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Speaker, either he is perhaps one of the weakest Ministers of Labour we have ever seen in the history of the Province of Nova Scotia or he is nothing more than a cheerleader for the Minister of Finance and the Government House Leader and a few other senior members in the Cabinet. The fact of the matter is Bill No. 68 undermines the collective bargaining process whether he understands that or not. Labour lawyers from right across this province will state that, whether they are labour or management lawyers, and that's a fact. Will the minister confirm that this new policy shift currently imposed on the nurses and health care workers will not be imposed on other workers in this province?
MR. MORSE: Mr. Speaker, as I refer back to my first answer and to be more explicit, this is to address a situation in this province at a time in our history, and it is a health and safety issue.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Cape Breton Centre.
MR. FRANK CORBETT: Mr. Speaker, Shannon Bonn is a nurse in a 23 bed unit at the IWK. Shannon, like many of her co-workers, was drawn to nursing because she cares for people. Shannon agrees with the concept of treating the family, not just the child. However, nursing shortages have resulted in less and less time available for anything but basic physical care. I want to ask the Minister of Health, what do you have to say to Shannon and others who go home from work cold inside with the knowledge that they simply do not have the time to care for the child or the families' emotional needs? What do you have to say to that, Mr. Minister?
HON. JAMES MUIR: Mr. Speaker, I know there are some stresses in the system and we have health care professionals who do their best to cope with it. I want to tell you, in light of what the honourable member has described, this is why we put in the nursing initiative program. This is why, prior to the formal onset of labour negotiations, the government called the unions and the employers together and said that we wanted to address these work/life issues. We are conscious that there are work/life issues out there and we have made a particular effort to have the employers and the unions sit down and address these things. You would note, Mr. Speaker, and I go back to this, this is a health and safety issue. But I just want to point out to the honourable member that there was a tentative agreement reached between the Nova Scotia Nurses' Union and the employers and a lot of that had to do with workplace issues.
[3:15 a.m.]
MR. CORBETT: Workplace issues, Mr. Speaker, that is what collective agreements are usually about. On the other side, this same minister is condoning the chairmen of the DHAs to go and track lost time and go after nurses and other health care providers for innocent absenteeism. Shannon and other nurses like her has a family of her own. She tells us it is becoming harder and harder to spend time with that family she loves because she is exhausted and overworked. Shannon, when she is at home, has the phone ring constantly looking for her to come in on her day off. So I want to ask the Minister of Health, when will you realize that without improved compensation and working conditions, more of our nurses will leave this province and less will want to stay?
MR. MUIR: Mr. Speaker, the current collective bargaining process, the agreements that were talked about, did provide for both of those things, improved wages, as well as improved working conditions. There are a series of about 31 initiatives that have happened in the past 22 months specifically related to nurses to try and, indeed they have, improve some of these things he is talking about. We aren't where we want to be. We know that, but we are continuing to work with the nurses to address their concerns.
MR. CORBETT: I wish this minister would get off his high horse, the nurses aren't worried about you, they are worried about their own conditions. The patients, Mr. Speaker, who are being admitted to hospital these days are much sicker than they used to be. Shannon cares for patients that, at one time, would have been cared for on a one-on-one situation in the ICU where the ratio, as I said, is one to one. Now it is not uncommon for Shannon to have six patients. My question to the minister is, will you explain to Shannon why your government will not address the nursing crisis in this province?
MR. MUIR: Mr. Speaker, this government has done more to address the problems in the nursing profession in Nova Scotia in 22 months than had been done in the previous 10 years. We continue to work with the profession and with the District Health Authorities to improve things for all health care workers in this province.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Dartmouth East.
CONTINGENCY PLAN - MIN. KNOWLEDGE
DR. JAMES SMITH: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. I would agree with that last statement - he has done more to nursing in the last 100 years in this province than anybody could ever have dreamed. The minister has made the ultimate insult to the nursing profession, which won't soon be forgotten. Last week, he stated that he could not trust the health care profession to protect the health and safety of Nova Scotians, leaving him with his only option, Bill No. 68. All the newspaper ads and radio spots reinforces this government's mistrust for true professionals. My question to the minister is, given that the contingency plans were available on May 10th this year, why did the minister not bother to read them prior to embarking on this government's misguided strategy?
HON. JAMES MUIR: Mr. Speaker, there was an ongoing process to try and develop contingency plans. The position of this government is a health and safety issue and, if you will excuse the expression, you can't suck and blow at the same time. This is a member who stands up there and says you have to have more of this and more of that. Things are being compromised because we don't add, add, add.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order, please.
DR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the contingency plan outlined for the Dartmouth General Hospital, and I would like to table that here, indicated the planned closure for 30 beds from June 30th to September 4th. My question to the minister is, why did the minister's print ads insist on blaming the closure of beds at the Dartmouth General Hospital on a potential nurses strike when it was clear that it is part of the minister's normal bungling business plan?
MR. MUIR: Mr. Speaker, a number of the District Health Authorities - in the matter of the summer, actually to try to give among other things, vacation time to nurses - have shut down units. I want to tell him that the 30 beds at the Dartmouth General Hospital were being closed for the summer slow-down to allow nurses to have vacation or other health care workers. Now he wants to reduce the beds in that hospital by another 50 per cent, and how, he can tell me that health and safety is being protected, then there is something the matter with that member.
DR. SMITH: Why doesn't the minister stop fear mongering and recognize that his health policies are putting people at risk, not health care workers?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The time allotted for the Oral Question Period has expired.
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Government House Leader.
HON. RONALD RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, would you please call the order of business, Public Bills for Second Reading.
PUBLIC BILLS FOR SECOND READING
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Government House Leader.
HON. RONALD RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, would you please call Bill No. 68.
Bill No. 68 - Healthcare Continuation (2001) Act.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Lunenburg West.
MR. DONALD DOWNE: Mr. Speaker, I rise to resume debate on Bill No. 68. After listening to Question Period today and the pathetic answers we received, the pathetic attitude of the government toward Bill No. 68 was evident here today. Those in the audience who are there listening to what this government had to say in regard to their position, it is evident that their position is no more than an agenda against health care workers and nurses in the Province of Nova Scotia.
They talked about rollbacks. The first thing the Minister of Health gets up and talks about a rollback, back some 10 years ago or 8 years ago. He forgets about the Donnie Cameron rollback that the Minister of Finance understands all too well, or the Minster of Transportation and Public Works understands all too well. In fact, if they want to talk about
the past, anytime they want to talk about the disastrous administration of the Buchanan era, we will stack that up any day of the week.
The bottom line here is that we have a government that said, we don't believe in the ability of nurses and health care workers to negotiate a fair contract. We are going to dictatorially drive, at them, our agenda. We are going to tell them, this is what we are going to do, and we are going to take away any rights and freedoms that they had before, any kind of democratic right that every other Canadian expects to have in a negotiation. It is appalling what this government is trying to do.
The comment was made earlier, and the more I listened to them, the more this will start becoming very clear to them, that they have misread their position on this issue. Some of them are a little long in the tooth, they understand politics very well, or I thought they did, but they have misread this issue. (Interruptions) I don't even think he started to shave yet did he? He is not that long in the tooth. He acts like he is a little child most of the time, so I don't know. (Interruptions)
Mr. Speaker, this government over here laughs while the people up in the audience are back again tonight. It is good to see you again. That same crowd over there, do you see how they are laughing? They are laughing at this bill; they are laughing at Nova Scotians; they are laughing at nurses; they are laughing at health care workers. That is their attitude. A Rambo Justice Minister; we have a Minister of Transportation and Public Works over there who is making fun; we have a Premier who doesn't have a clue about what is going on in his Cabinet; we have a Minister of Finance who is actually calling the shots, along with some other spectators up on that side of the gallery; we have a Minister of Health over there who thinks this whole thing is a joke.
We will see how much of a joke it is when the people of the Province of Nova Scotia express their frustration at how you have mocked and not cared about what they stood for. The minister talks about messes. We could talk about the Buchanan mess; we could talk about the Cameron mess; we could talk about any mess that a Tory Government has had, any time you want Mr. Minister. Let's be real.
As we were talking about the fact that nurses in this province are considering moving away, and if this bill is brought in - and I was quoting from a conversation I had with Ms. Trish MacDonald - two senior nurses have indicated that they passed in their notices last week. One senior nurse is leaving in August, two nurses are denied the opportunity to take upgrades in ICU and IMCU because of the unsafety of the floor. The hospital is now asking for a nationwide search for nurses for general vascular surgery and general surgery. If they don't find those 12 nurses, then what is going to happen is beds will close. When beds close in those areas, it means people with breast cancer and those with bowel cancer will have longer waits; waits for beds and waits for opportunities to deal with the serious problems they are experiencing.
As I indicated earlier, in the nursing profession today, their roles are changing. There is more responsibility. The same with the health care workers in the Province of Nova Scotia. Their responsibilities are becoming more and more serious and more acute. Yet this government says that they don't want to allow the ability for them to negotiate in good faith. Nurses are responsible for far too many patients; they are short of staff; their workload is greater and the stress is even higher.
I understand now that there are patients on the regular floors who would normally be in the ICU. This is another one of the current government's strategies on sustainability of the health care system. They use that term very loosely. The QE II Health Sciences Centre is surviving on nurses working overtime in order to meet the requirement of a basic health delivery system and some are questioning that.
What is going to happen when these nurses or these health care workers who are working overtime decide they are not going to do the overtime? They are going to say no, we don't want to do overtime. What is the answer to that question by the Minister of Health, or the Minister of Finance or the Premier of the Province of Nova Scotia? They don't have an answer for that. In fact, Ms. MacDonald, tells me that in the last two years she has never had a paycheque that did not have overtime in it. Two years and every paycheque she has gotten has had overtime in it. In other words, she has been responsible to work overtime almost every pay period for the last two years.
These nurses are saying they don't want to do that. They don't want to do that any more. They are tired of that because this government says they don't respect them; they don't care about them; and they are not going to allow a process of fairness to go forward. What they are saying is that they just want them to go and be quiet, don't cause a ruff, we are going to pay you what we think you are worth. Health care workers, we don't want to hear any noise from you. We in the Cabinet will decide how much you are going to be paid. (Interruption)
The Minister of Environment and Labour seems to be lost, he is looking for direction, I assume. The reality is that, Mr. Minister, you don't have to worry about direction, all you have to do is learn to follow the rest of the front bench and they will take you down the garden path.
Mr. Speaker, she goes on to say she came in on a regular basis on overtime not because she wanted to, she came in and worked the overtime, this Ms. MacDonald, because she cared about her co-workers and she cared about the patients.
[3:30 a.m.]
I am sure there are health care workers within the health care system, besides nurses, who are doing the same thing. They care about the stress and the pressure on the health care workers they are working with, the technicians and so on and so forth, as well as the patients. There are 20 nurses who have resigned since the strike vote at the QE II Health Sciences Centre alone, 20 nurses have resigned. In fact, in talking to some nurses, they are saying that there could very well be a larger number of resignations of nurses in the Province of Nova Scotia if this bill becomes a reality.
On top of this, there are 24 vacant, full-time RN positions and 6 advertised positions at the QE II Health Sciences Centre, and not enough applications to fill those requirements. What does that mean? What does that mean when you know you have openings now and they not being filled? That means that more beds will close. The services are going to be less to Nova Scotians. Yet, this government said, I remember all too well, that $46 million would fix the problem. I wonder what the Minister of Finance has to say about that. They spent almost $300 million more in health care since they have been in and they still haven't gotten it fixed. They said $46 million would resolve our health care worries.
A simple attitude for a simple understanding of a very complex problem. On Unit 7.3, Neurosurgery, there are seven vacant full-time positions not even advertised as I speak. There are also eight vacant positions for RNS on Unit 4.1. That adds up to over 45 vacant positions at the QE II Health Sciences Centre. Mr. Speaker, 45 vacant positions at the QE II Health Sciences Centre. For some people that might be hilarious, for most Nova Scotians that is a concern. Yet this government says they are going to try to bring nurses to Nova Scotia.
I can assure you Bill No. 68 will not be the bill to bring nurses to Nova Scotia. This bill will not retain nurses in Nova Scotia. As I have already pointed out, just dealing with the QE II Health Sciences Centre, we have had 20 resignations since this bill was brought in. This government has lost its understanding of what it is going to take to make the health care system work. I feel sorry for the many backbenchers who haven't got a clue what is going on. They are soon going to find out.
On June 21, 2001, a recruiter is coming to town for medical laboratory technologists. I understand that when the notice came out about this individual coming to town there was some interest. It is called, Medical Laboratory Technologists, John Chapman of Dynacare Kasper Medical Laboratories will be holding an information session about jobs in Alberta. It is going to be held at the Delta Halifax in the MacKay Room on Thursday, June 21st at 7:30 p.m. All are welcome. This is the ad; that is the ad that has been posted.
Generally that hasn't had a lot of uptake. That is the ad right there, you have seen that before. I understand there were around four people interested in going. As I understand, as of yesterday there were about 20 people, 25 people who are going to go to this job fair, for
jobs in Alberta. What does that tell you? You don't have to be overly bright to figure out if people are coming here from Alberta and you are going to have 25 people attend the seminar, and maybe you lose those people, that is going to cause even more pressure on an already squeezed situation in our health delivery system in the Province of Nova Scotia.
This morning there are 25 people who are going to attend this meeting. My only hope is that they stay, but I can understand their frustration in staying in a province that has no caring, no compassion, no sense of morale fabric about the negotiated process. They have no sense of fairness. The collective bargaining process is an interesting one. The situation should have been resolved, in our view, through negotiations not through legislation. This government didn't even allow the process to follow its normal course. They jumped the gun. They either got scared or they got weak or they just didn't care.
So what they brought in is this so-called back-to-work legislation that has a lot more meaning than just back-to-work legislation. It is back-to-work legislation and taking away rights of individuals, meaning that the Cabinet will now deem the salary, the benefits, the package, and no matter what the Premier has to say, if the Premier is so self-righteous in his attitude toward what they are being paid, why are so many nurses and health care workers in the Province of Nova Scotia outraged? If this Tory Government thinks they have such a great pulse on the attitude and what they are prepared to offer is being so fair in Nova Scotia, why are there so many people upset?
They are upset not only on the issue of salary, they are upset with the way this government has approached this issue. The nurses have said in their contingency plans that they would leave the picket line if there was a need for help in a hospital. The Minister of Health, the Minister of Finance, the Premier of this province have said we don't believe you, we don't trust you. We don't trust that you will do that. They said that to nurses and they said that to health care workers. These are people who spent 5, 10, 20, 25 years, some maybe only a few years, they are so young but some have been around a little bit longer. How they must feel after giving up that many years of service for the public and to provide health care to Nova Scotians. I think they are devastated; I think they are demoralized by this government's attack on their credibility and their integrity. There are clauses in this bill that are so draconian, that are so wrong.
If the Minister of Transportation and Public Works gets grumpy one morning down in the Cabinet Room and they are negotiating something with some of their employees, that is an essential service all of sudden, maybe, and I am going to tell you what you are going to get. Maybe the Minister of Education has a grumpy morning some Thursday morning in the Cabinet Room and they are in negotiations and says, well, that is enough, I don't want to put up with this any more, I am going to say that teaching is an essential service in Nova Scotia. Bang, I am going to tell you what you are going to get. Maybe the Minister of Justice will have the same attitude with some of his employees, or the Minister of Finance.
Well, they have the ability to do that under this bill. They have the ability to do that in this bill. As was mentioned yesterday, now, time passes by here, the one thing this Tory Government has done, it has united the unions in the Province of Nova Scotia. I don't know if that is what they wanted to do, but that is what they have done. This government talks about how this is a health issue. We heard the answers today that it is really a fiscal issue. It is not a matter of health and safety, it is not a matter of health and safety and sustainability, it is a matter of a fiscal issue.
This Minister of Finance has had over $500 million additional revenue since he has been in power over and above what he had projected. He has had $249 million extra revenue in the last fiscal year, notwithstanding the sale of NSRL and the net proceeds of some $140 million that he is throwing into last year's revenue. The minister stands up and goes on about what he spent the money on. That is the same Minister of Finance who said that they will not have overruns in anybody's departmental budgets, they will manage.
We were saying for almost six or eight months that this minister is having a windfall of profits, and what is he doing with the money? Well, the reality between the $249 million of additional revenue, most of which came from Ottawa; the $140-plus million from the sale of NSRL; the hidden tax revenues they are getting; the user fees they are charging, all this government is doing is setting up these slush funds so they can give it back in a 10 per cent reduction of tax.
In the meantime, the health care workers and the nurses in the Province of Nova Scotia are being told, tough luck; we don't want to negotiate in good faith; we don't want to negotiate with fairness, what we want to do is run a dictatorship approach to their view of collective bargaining, which is not working. Mr. Premier and Mr. Ministers, it will not work. Binding arbitration, there is nothing in this bill, Bill No. 68, that talks about binding arbitration. One has to ask the question, why? Why wouldn't they allow for binding arbitration? In Bill No. 68, there is nothing in here about binding arbitration.
I remember the paramedics, when they were here, after the debate in the House and the fact that the operators were in the Law Amendments Committee explaining what their job is, finally, the Minister of Health and the Premier became born again to the realization and the understanding of what those workers, those health workers were doing for the people in the Province of Nova Scotia. They allowed them to have a process of binding arbitration, and rightfully so.
Now we have nurses and health care workers and they are saying no to that ability. Either they don't know what they have been doing or what these individuals have done or are doing currently, or they simply don't care. They simply don't care. The more I listen to them, I think that is really the reality of where they are.
Mr. Speaker, this government talked and the Premier talked about trust, accountability, transparency and openness. Do you remember that? Do you remember those words? I remember some of the members of the backbench who said the reason they ran is because of, in their view, the integrity of their Leader. They decided to get into politics because they figured he was someone they could trust, somebody who would bring fairness and integrity to their political Party that has been through so much embarrassment over the years.
Some of the members are right here in this Legislature today, who said they would run because of the integrity of the Premier. Well, that same Premier, Mr. Speaker, has lost his moral fabric when it comes to dealing with nurses and health care workers in the Province of Nova Scotia. Either he thought this scheme up or he was convinced by his senior ministers that this is what he has to do, because all the slush funds would be depleted unless they allowed this bill to go forward.
Nurses are upset; health care workers are upset. We have had so many letters that have come in time and time again, to us all, about their frustration. This letter is, "To whom it may concern. This note is to voice our opposition to the healthcare bill presently being debated. Be advised that to pass it will cause a critical loss of nurses in Nova Scotia. We are definitely angry and many of us do plan to leave this province. You are making a mistake if you pass it." This is by a Mrs. MacLean, RN. Now I don't know if anybody is paying attention over there, but there is a nurse who is making it very clear what her position is relative to this bill.
[3:45 a.m.]
We have a Ms. LeBlanc who wrote, "You obviously do not know any nurses personally or professionally if you believe there's even a remote possibility that we, as nurses, would intentionally allow harm to come to our patients. Stop this offensive law, give health care workers what we deserve and then maybe our nurses will stay in Nova Scotia (and maybe some nurses might even be attracted to this province!) All health care workers deserve better treatment. Please stop this legislation before it becomes law!" That is a handwritten letter.
I have another letter from Ms. Lavoie, RN. "I have been nursing for forty-one years and for the first time I fear for the continuation of care for people of Nova Scotia if bill 68 is passed. The younger nurses are not going to stand by and be degraded." - Do you hear the words they are using, be degraded? - "They will up and leave very quickly with all the generous offerings from United States and other parts of Canada. We are a dying profession. It should be a big mandate of the government to retain all nurses we presently have instead of forcing them to choose to go elsewhere. How can we feel respectful of our profession when the government demeans us so?" They are asking them to reconsider Bill No. 68.
I have a letter from Colchester Regional Hospital in regard to being upset with the proposed Bill No. 68. This is from Ms. Keating, an RN. "I have worked over eight years in the United States, in both Texas and Maine. During my entire stay, I was treated with dignity and respect. The United States knows the value of Canadian Nurses and shows it in many ways (i.e.: wages, education, vacations, etc., etc.) It is such a disappointment that my own government does not know this. It is because of your treatment of nurses that I feel I am being forced to once again seek employment in the United States. I will be interested in seeing just what the Nova Scotia government will do when we Canadian nurses leave this province in great numbers. Explain this . . ." - members of the Progressive Conservative Party - ". . . to the public that you say you are so concerned about!!!!" Ms. Keating, who worked in the United States of America and came back home to work in Nova Scotia only to find that her own government treats her with less respect than that of our friends south of the border.
Here is another letter signed by three RNs: Ms. Lewis, Ms. Hutchinson and Ms. Falle. They talk about dictatorship. They talk about how this government has turned into a dictatorship. They talk about the fact that democracy should have been part and parcel of what this Conservative Government should have been bringing forward in dealing with the workers in Nova Scotia. They go on to talk about the Tory platform of John Hamm and he, ". . . SAID health care workers 'WILL NOT STAY UNLESS THEY HAVE A REWARDING PROFESSIONAL ENVIRONMENT.'" How can this Premier, just a few months ago say what he just finished saying, '. . . WILL NOT STAY UNLESS THEY HAVE A REWARDING PROFESSIONAL ENVIRONMENT", and now turns around and says to the nurses, we don't respect you, we don't believe what you are saying is true and we are concerned about the future so we are going to impose our rule of law on you.
It goes on to say, "This is becoming more prevalent everyday. Why would nurses' choose to work in Nova Scotia as there is no incentive now and none in the proposed contract. RN's are leaving to go other places where they are treated fairly and with respect." You hear this time and time again. Fairness and respect. Fairness and respect. Is that too much to ask of a government, to treat its people with fairness and respect? Is it too much to ask a Progressive Conservative Party to treat people with fairness and respect? Is it too much to ask this government to treat its employees with fairness and respect? Is it too much to ask a Premier, who is a medical doctor, who dealt with health care workers and with nurses on a daily basis, that he expected them to respect him and treat him fairly and with respect, to now have a Premier who doesn't want to treat the people who work with him with the same amount of fairness and respect?
"We would like to know which way you plan to vote on BILL 68 and your rational behind your decision." Well, if it is any indication of their rationale in this Question Period, then I don't know if the members in the gallery - I don't know if they are still here, I don't blame them, it is now 3:55 a.m. (Interruption) Are there still some up there?
AN HON. MEMBER: Three of them.
MR. DOWNE: Three of them up there. Just to show you how dedicated they are, here it is 3:55 in the morning and for many of us it's been a long day. It's been a long two days. But you know, we are here and we are the ones who are doing the talking. You guys are just over there sitting down. You are on a 12 hour shift, some of you are on an 18 hour shift. These nurses and health care workers work 12 hour shifts all the time and they don't get to sit around. They are not sitting down looking at computer screens and playing this or that or reading books, they are working providing health care, saving lives every day; 12 hour shifts every day. It is not easy, and they are not complaining about that. They are complaining of the fact that they were asking to be treated with dignity, respect for those jobs they do, and to allow them to have a fair and open process of negotiation. That's not the way this government wants to deal with it.
I have another letter from an RN, Ms. Salter. "I am an Emergency Nurse at Colchester Regional Hospital." I wonder whose riding that would be in? "I am very disappointed at the way the Nova Scotia government is treating the health care workers. Having worked four and one-half years in the United States and treated with the utmost respect, it is such a let down to be treated this way by my own government. I still have many Canadian co-workers in the United States and cannot give them any positive reason to return to this province. Because of this proposed bill I too am currently seeking employment again in the United States for myself and am sure many more will follow."
This will be on their conscience, Mr. Speaker. This will be on the backs of this government. This will be on their watch. This will be their watch and their agenda that will be accountable and they will be accountable for this.
You know, Mr. Speaker, all they are looking at over on that side of the House is how they can run the clock. All they can think about is how much longer they have to sit here and run a clock so they can get this bill passed because they say they have the power in the House. They have the majority of votes and so what they are going to do is wait it out. We are asking, on behalf of the nurses and the health care workers in this province, to listen to what they are telling us to tell you about this bill.
I talked to a couple out in the foyer, in the front entrance here, this evening, or I guess it was this morning. They are saying why won't that group over there, the Tory Government, listen when you people are speaking on this side of the House because what you are saying is what we are asking you to say and tell them? So they see you, they see what you are doing. They see how you are approaching this issue and they won't forget. We talk about recruiting nurses, we talk about the need of more nurses. We talk about the fact that there is a shortage of nurses and health care workers in our province.
Just last month, the Finance Minister from Ontario introduced his first budget. The Health Minister was supposed to allocate $8.4 billion to hospitals. That is $100 million less than last year. The plan didn't last very long. Now that is a Tory Government, by the way, in Ontario. Mr. Clement, who I understand is the Minister of Health, said last week that the hospitals would be given additional money. Now maybe the Tories are smarter in Ontario than they are down here. Maybe we don't have as smart a Tory here as they have in Ontario.
The Minister of Health in Ontario was able to convince the Minister of Finance in Ontario that they needed that additional $100 million to make the health system work. This change was made in response to threats from the hospitals of drastic cuts in services and massive layoffs. How did Mr. Clement and the Minister of Finance and their Cabinet colleagues think the hospital budgets could be trimmed without serious consequences arising? That is the same question we can ask this group over here. How can they think for a moment that there is not going to be a mass exodus or whatever of the health care workers and nurses in the province with a bill such as Bill No. 68?
Mr. Speaker, my time is almost up and now I will turn it over to my other colleagues who are prepared to speak. This is the third time I have spoken on this bill and I will be looking forward to my opportunities to speak on it again but I hope at some point this government will listen to what is being said and pay attention and learn that this is a very serious issue, one that they will be wearing for some time unless they are prepared to accept the reality that change needs to be given and this bill should be torn up and started over again.
[4:00 a.m.]
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Timberlea-Prospect.
MR. WILLIAM ESTABROOKS: Well, Mr. [Deputy] Speaker, it is nice to see you in the Chair again. You know there are advantages to having an all-night debate. You get a copy of The Chronicle-Herald fresh and new. I always wondered what time The Chronicle-Herald or The Daily News arrives in my mailbox out at 4909 St. Margaret's Bay Road but, lo and behold, it is here and I encourage members to have a close look at the letters to the editor because I am going to bring a few of them to your attention. My good friend from New Waterford is here and he wanted me to bring this one to the attention of the members, particularly from Cape Breton, but the tone of the discussion that we have to take place during the next hour should be that we should reflect on this legislation. We should look at it carefully and it should be withdrawn and reconsidered.
Check this letter to the editor in this morning's Chronicle-Herald. It says, "On June 11, 1925, police shot Billy Davis during labour unrest. On June 14, 2001, the Hamm government put a gun to the heads of 10,000 health care workers in this province who are engaging in a
legal collective bargaining process. We've come a long way, eh, baby?" That letter comes from Cathy Mosher, a social worker in Chester Basin.
I know that my good friend, the member for Cape Breton Centre, the member who lives in New Waterford, knows how important Davis Day is and how long and hard the people of Cape Breton and the people of Nova Scotia have fought for the rights of collective bargaining, but that letter to the editor in this morning's Chronicle-Herald says a lot of things. That's the sort of tone that Nova Scotians are ready to go to the wall about and tomorrow night - or is it tonight, what day am I on? - it's tonight at 6:00 p.m., they will be at the wall. There will be the barricades outside. There will be the police protecting us, Mr. Speaker, I don't know from what; they will be protecting us from these demonstrators who are coming here in numbers in honour of things such as Bill Davis, in honour of the long struggle of Cape Bretoners and Nova Scotians for labour rights across this province.
During the next few moments - 57 minutes is all I have left, Mr. Speaker, time flies - I have many things to say. I want to bring to the attention of the House a few concerns that have been brought to my attention because, you know, I am fortunate enough to only be about 25 minutes from my constituency office. So I took the opportunity on the way home to get freshened up and to change my shirt - I hope you notice, Mr. Speaker, it is not the same one and when you wear two different in one day, I know you noticed the difference but when I stopped into my constituency office, lo and behold, there are more e-mails. There are more faxes and, of course, there are more telephone calls which I was fortunate enough to return during the last couple of hours, and I mean by the last couple of hours before midnight.
I want also to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that there has been a question asked time and time again, Nova Scotians want to know what happened to collective bargaining in this province. More specifically, one of the questions that I was asked in the evening hours before returning to this House, what was wrong with compulsory or binding arbitration? Is that not something that this government should have considered and that health workers across this province, I believe, or the health workers who I have heard from would willingly have supported that particular step, but we have gone right by that and so we are at this particular juncture where I would like to point out to the members opposite from this morning's Chronicle-Herald these letters to the editor.
I am not going to read them all, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank the Page for photo enhancing them so that I can read particular sections. Let's begin with a letter that starts from Elizabeth A. McAdam from Wilmot who writes, "Enough is enough"; now, how personal can an attack become, "The government has absolutely no right to remove the right to strike from the health care workers of this province." And here, unfortunately, is that personal attack that Nova Scotians have become so upset that they turn to comments like this. Elizabeth asks, "Is Jamie Muir's middle name, by any chance, Adolf?" That's a personal assault. I know that the Minister of Health finds that a stinging comment, but here it is, it is in this morning's Chronicle-Herald.
Let's look at what Crystal Allan from Apple River writes. Her headline says, "Find it ironic? Does anyone, besides myself, not find it ironic that the provincial government does not trust nurses enough to think they would not provide essential services during a strike, but would allow their families and themselves to put their lives into nurses' hands if they are sick? To be their advocate, if there is no one else to do so?"
I don't want to repeat all these because if some of the members return to the House, perhaps they have a copy of The Chronicle-Herald and I know that in many cases members in the gallery are critical of us during these late debates, or these early debates if I may use that in reverse, of reading the paper. Well, I don't think they would be upset if you read the editorial page and if you read the letters to the editor today.
Let's look at "Tyrannical stand" which comes from Marcia Sutherland and Norm Sabowitz in Halifax. Let's look at "Call to action" from Danny Cavanagh, the vice-president of CUPE Nova Scotia. Let's look at "War on labour" from Bill Gray in Halifax. Let's look at, if you could take a moment, Mr. Speaker, and I will table these for the notice of the members if they wish, it comes from Alana MacLellan, "Why should I stay? I have just completed my second year of the bachelor of science in nursing program at St. Francis Xavier University. I am writing in regard to the government's second offer to the NSGEU nurses. Their first offer was eight per cent, retroactive to November." Of course, this young woman goes on and clearly outlines, she has been following this quite through to where we are now, "Two years from now I will graduate from nursing (with a $50,000 debt). Can you give me a good reason why I should stay in Nova Scotia?"
There is after all the member for Antigonish who stands in his place so often and lauds the wonderful accomplishments of St. F.X., whether it is on the football field or in the academic classrooms, but here is one of your potential graduates, Mr. Minister, from the university in your hometown, who is saying why should I stay? Why should she stay in this province when she sees what has been happening to nurses' rights and to collective bargaining rights in Nova Scotia?
David Phillips, a paramedic and volunteer firefighter from Port Hawkesbury has a letter to the editor. He says, "I am no expert, but I think it could be possible that the government is infringing on the rights and freedoms that are supposed to be fully protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms." He goes on to question, of course, what is happening with this collective bargaining agreement.
Joyce Balcom, an RN from Halifax, "I am an ICU nurse at the QE II Health Sciences Centre and a member of the NSGEU. Last Thursday was a sad day for Nova Scotia."
These letters are from average Nova Scotians. These letters come from people who have concerns and they have taken the time and the courage to write to one of the major newspapers in this province and I suppose The Cape Breton Post has letters to the editor in
it. I am sure The Daily News has letters to the editor in it, but that's the newspaper that has arrived in this House so early this morning. I hope members opposite look clearly at those letters to the editor and I am sure that if there are people in the gallery, they won't mind them reading the letters to the editor or looking at whatever they have in the way of an editorial cartoon, but let's not go there. Let's talk about the fact that this is a serious concern for Nova Scotians and they want some issues addressed.
Nova Scotians aren't going to be fooled. Very quickly they've made the connection between Bill No. 20 and Bill No. 68. Now, Mr. Speaker, I know your memory is good. Bill No. 20 was that piece of legislation which was brought in here recently by this government and it was a reorganization, or was it a real centralization of power into the hands of the inner circle of the Cabinet, and many Nova Scotians, many in Timberlea-Prospect asked me, what's this big deal about Bill No. 20 and what's an omnibus bill?
Now, Mr. Speaker, those are friends of mine who are asking me questions about what we are doing in this historic Chamber and patiently I would try to explain what I thought an omnibus bill was, but also what Bill No. 20 was attempting to do and Bill No. 20 passed. Bill No. 20 went ahead because they have the numbers on that side. Bill No. 20 has now been in power for a very short time, promulgated and ready to be, after all, a new law in Nova Scotia, but what is the connection between Bill No. 20 and Bill No. 68? Bill No. 68 is taking the power of Bill No. 20, concentrating it, and using it particularly when it comes to labour negotiations and how collective bargaining is being affected by the province's health care workers.
Health care workers have a long history in this province, Mr. Speaker. They will remember, many of them will remember the series of events that they have been enduring over the last couple of days, but last week I had the opportunity to meet a nurse from New Waterford. Actually I want the Speaker to know that she admits that she is a friend of the member for Cape Breton Centre and she admits it in public, so that's an accomplishment. She, along with my good friend from New Waterford and myself, sat and had a talk - I actually did most of the listening for a change - and this veteran nurse drew some very serious analogies for me when she pointed out the lessons that she learned from the June 1975 strike of nurses in this province. The lessons that she learned are ones that she said she will never forget because she believes that history is truly repeating itself.
Mr. Speaker, I made a few notes during that conversation. I have kept them and I must admit I made them on a bit of a napkin because we were at a place where we could enjoy an adult refreshment and we were having a conversation about something that meant a great deal to this nurse. I took them off that napkin and I have made notes of them now. That veteran nurse from Cape Breton has said she will never forget the lessons of June 1975, the growth of the profession, the militancy of the profession, but the bitterness and suspicion that has been with her since those events that many long years ago, 26 years ago if my math serves me right. So I don't have to go into the history lesson here and I know the Minister
of Justice was paying close attention the other evening when I was talking about the history of that strike, but 1975 was a watershed mark for nurses in this province.
The militancy, the growth of professionalism, but the bitterness and suspicion that has resulted is something that will not ever be forgotten by that veteran nurse. What is the concern? What is the agenda of the government. The question comes back time and time again, why blame health care workers for the budgetary problems that this group over here inherited from the members of the Third Party? I have heard them many times say that. I have heard the Minister of Finance many times quite correctly point out that many of the problems that this government is dealing with, it inherited from that group there, but why blame health workers? Why blame the long lineups on health workers? Why blame the bed closures on health workers and then why take away their collective bargaining rights?
What is the agenda of this government? Is after all the first target health care workers? Who is going to be the second target? Is it going to be teachers, other government employees, liquor store workers? Those are the sort of questions that Nova Scotians are asking. Those are the sort of questions, Mr. Speaker, that Nova Scotians want answers to.
[4:15 a.m.]
Today at 6:00 o'clock, around this historic House, many thousands of Nova Scotians - not just health care workers but workers in all walks of life - will be here and they will be looking for answers. I can assure you there will be teachers here, there will be government employees here, there will be paramedics here. There were paramedics earlier, Mr. Speaker, as you might have remembered, there were paramedics here earlier in the Chamber as they were, for a few moments tonight, following this debate and listening to what was happening to their fellow health care workers because a short number of months ago they were going through the same bitterness, the same suspicion with this very same government.
Workers across this province, not just health care workers, they want to know what the agenda is of this government. You know it would be a wonderful opportunity, it would be a wonderful opportunity indeed if the Minister of Environment and Labour would stand in his place and reassure Nova Scotians that this is not the first step of an attack on one government employee after another, that this is not the way this government is going to go, that they are going to have respect and faith in workers across this province. Health care workers don't see that. Health care workers are suspicious, they are angry, they are frustrated.
The important thing is Nova Scotians are supporting health care workers. Nova Scotians share those concerns and in spite of these offensive ads, the $43,000 worth of ads that my good friend, the member for Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage, brought to the minister's and the Premier's attention this evening during Question Period, this offensive ad that has run in newspapers - and I just want to bring it to the attention of the members opposite again, it is offensive. In fact, it is misleading where it says, "A strike by thousands of health care
workers would leave Nova Scotians without critical health services - this is an unacceptable risk." Mr. Speaker, that is a falsehood. Essential services, as we have been assured many times, would continue to be guaranteed in this province if there was a labour interruption. That sort of false advertising is inexcusable. It is also inexcusable when you realize that public funds are used to pay for those ads whether it is in the papers or on the radio stations across this province.
Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to your attention, if I may, and I know you are looking forward to hearing from some of these people again, and these are Nova Scotians and health care workers that I have had an opportunity to speak to and listen to. One, in particular, is one that I would like to begin because I know the member for Sackville-Beaver Bank is probably paying close attention to the number of calls that he might be receiving. I was asked to deliver this message. It comes from Kim Pellerine. Kim is a graduate of Sackville High School. Kim and Scott live on St. George Boulevard in Kingswood, an area that the member for Sackville-Beaver Bank and I share the responsibility for, an area that miraculously just received all kinds of new asphalt. That is because they are within the core area, the HRM is showing the initiative there and the Department of Transportation and Public Works had not, under any consideration, taken one lick of the credit for any of that pavement.
Kim Pellerine is a nurse. In fact, she is the daughter of a nurse. Kim works in the intensive care unit at the IWK. She explained to me that she takes care of some of these young children after they have had a major operation, cardiac surgery or some kind of trauma and Kim is concerned; Kim is also very angry. I want you to know that Kim Pellerine, as a student at Sackville High School, an outstanding athlete, real solid student throughout her years at that high school, always wanted to be a nurse. She has now achieved that goal, but frustration and the anger has resulted because of that. This young person and her husband, they are expecting their first child in August, and as they expect their first child, the question Kim asked me is, Mr. Estabrooks, why should we stay?
Now, I mean when I look at the fact that she is polite enough to still call me Mr. Estabrooks, considering my current line of work, she brings the concern to me and I said to Kim, you make sure you call the member for Sackville-Beaver Bank, and you make sure that you express your point of view to the other MLA who is also responsible for the growing subdivision in which you live. There is a young health care worker who has reached her frustration limit and that is a very young nurse we cannot afford to lose in this province. We cannot afford to continue to lose young nurses such as Kim as she considers her future in the career that she wanted to be a member of for so long.
I want also to bring to the members' attention Frances Earle. Frances is a graduate from St. Rita's in Sydney and I just want to read one paragraph from Frances' letter which she sent to me. "I have been registered in five provinces" - and she lists them - Ontario, B.C., P.E.I., Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia. I have obtained multiple and wonderful experiences which enabled me to adapt and work well not only in different cultures but in
different environments." Here is the key part of the paragraph, Mr. Speaker, "I never felt so abused as here, in Nova Scotia, my home province." That letter comes from another constituent who has brought that concern to my attention and I thank her for allowing me to bring it to the floor of the House.
You know I hear from other members' constituents. There is a part of my constituency in Timberlea-Prospect that is often confused with Chester-St. Margaret's. In fact, I am aware that the Minister of Justice was in the Chester-St. Margaret's constituency the other day to speak to the AGM and he went to the Seabright Legion where he spoke on behalf of his Party to the members present, but you know there is part of Chester-St. Margaret's, the Peggy's Cove Road in particular, they think they belong to Timberlea-Prospect because I constantly hear from them, and this isn't a matter of bridges and roads this time, this is a matter for health care.
This young woman, on Sunday afternoon, paid me a visit, on Father's Day, and came to my home apologizing for interrupting the weekend but sat on my front deck with my wife, myself, and my dog and we had a conversation about her concerns. This young woman has taken the time to put her thoughts on paper. Her name is Paula Hodson and Paula is a resident of Chester-St. Margaret's. I encouraged Paula to make sure that she calls her MLA and make sure that he knows that she is not pleased.
So Paula writes, "On a personal note, if this bill does prevail and become a law in Nova Scotia, it will be difficult for me to continue to work under these conditions of dictation. It is already difficult to work, being continually understaffed as there is a critical shortage of radiation therapists in Nova Scotia. You may think the employees will cower and just live with this decision but you are wrong, you are very wrong." She continues, "Leaving the province altogether is another possibility our household has been thinking of. As I still own a home in British Columbia, moving back there will not be difficult." But here is the concluding paragraph from Paula, "In conclusion, I beseech you to rethink your position on
Bill 68. Think about all we have told you. Put yourself in our shoes, in your brother's shoes, in the shoes of your neighbour. Is Bill 68 the legacy you wish to leave to Nova Scotians." Another Nova Scotian who has taken the time to respond, to put her ideas, her opinions on paper. Hopefully, someone is listening to her.
Notice, Mr. Speaker, who does Paula come to? She comes to the MLA in the adjoining riding of Timberlea-Prospect. She comes to him because she doesn't believe that the member for Chester-St. Margaret's is going to listen. That's a challenge for that member. I hope he is in contact with Paula and I will share that letter with him at the first occasion.
Tonight, actually yesterday - if I continue to make that mistake, my apologies - I spoke to Janice Stewart who works at the QE II and Janice drives that Highway No. 101 twice a day. Janice is from, I believe, the riding of Kings South. Now, Kings South, of course, is a way down the road from the QE II, but Janice has taken that effort, as a specialist in the
health care business, with 18 years of experience, she is very concerned about the top-down negotiations; her term, Mr. Speaker. I was speaking to Janice from my home earlier tonight. She is concerned about the top-down negotiations. Well, if my geography serves me correctly, the member for Kings South is the Minister of Environment and Labour. Now it would seem to me, and I pointed that out to Janice, if she has this sort of concern about labour negotiations in this province, she should contact her own MLA. I will share Janice's number with that MLA if he would like to be in contact with her. I wished her the best of luck and a safe drive to and from Highway No. 101 during the many long days and nights that she has travelled that shift work before.
I also want to bring to your attention, and I know that members opposite are listening avidly, here is a veteran from Louisiana. Her name is Jacqueline Morris. Jacqueline Morris is shocked by how uninformed the Minister of Health seems to be. Now I want Jacqueline to be my witness on this. When I had this conversation with Jacqueline from my home yesterday, and when I talked to her about the fact that I knew the Minister of Health in a previous career, I sometimes wonder who is giving the information to the Minister of Health. Is it his high-priced staff who are keeping him removed from the front-line health care workers? Does he actually believe what he says in this place some days? Does he actually believe in the answers that he gives to the media? I mean, who is giving this Minister of Health that information? Is he that badly informed about his own department? Because the Minister of Health, the Minister of Environment and Labour, the Cabinet Ministers have gone too far.
That's the message that Nova Scotians want me, as the MLA for Timberlea-Prospect, to deliver. They have gone too far. It's like going out and beating a hockey player over the head with a stick, when really that is a penalty in more ways than one, when a good elbow would probably do just the same. Now you get two minutes for elbowing, Mr. Speaker, but to continue the sports analogy, you don't have to beat them senseless with a hockey stick. The message can be said just as well. Yes, there were labour negotiations underway in this province and, yes, it looked like there could be the possibility of a labour interruption. Why wasn't the logical step taken. I think many members would have looked at this legislation and said, you know, this is a back-to-work piece of legislation, That is what I expected when I got the call. This is a back-to-work piece of legislation but it is much more than that. It is a concentration of power in the hands of a few Cabinet Ministers. It is allowing a precedent that will not be forgotten by Nova Scotians from one end of this province to the other and that precedent is an interruption to the collective bargaining process.
[4:30 p.m.]
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have other concerns to bring to your attention. I would like to mention Sherri Rose. Sherri is a constituent of mine, from Timberlea-Prospect. She lives in Lakeside and she wants this brought to the Minister of Health's attention. She sent me this e-mail. She refers to him as he but she is talking about the Minister of Health, the MLA for
Truro-Bible Hill. "He belittled health care workers with his comments saying he had 'serious doubts' about emergency workers reporting for work in life and death situations. I believe he is trying to scare the public into thinking there will be no emergency services and make the public think we are putting their lives at risk." That, of course, was the infamous, if we can say that now, interview that the Minister of Health held with Jean Laroche of CBC. That was a public relations disaster.
So who gave the Minister of Health the advice to say those sorts of things? Was it his deputy minister, who we have never met? You know it never ceases to amaze me, and I have brought this to the House's attention before, that during estimates, the Minister of Education brings in her deputy minister and with his New Brunswick experience, I know that he, through that experience of estimates, learned some things of how we do things in Nova Scotia. Other ministers sit in this Legislature - as they are allowed - with their deputy ministers but the Deputy Minister of Health never once has shown up here for estimates, never once has he been accountable in a public way. Now maybe he believes the Minister of Health has all the answers anyway, so I don't have to be there, but I truly believe that the Deputy Minister of Health is giving the minister some very bad advice and that if the Minister of Health would only listen to front-line health care workers, if only he would be appreciative of the fact that the people who really know about the system are these health care workers.
Let's be clear on something. It is more than just what they are getting paid. What is really bothering these health care workers, let's face it, Mr. Speaker, it is the fact that collective bargaining rights for that particular group of workers in this province no longer seem to be in the tradition of an open, democratic way of doing things. Now it is chop, now it is off and collective bargaining for these health care workers is finished until April 2004. What a way to treat these people with the lack of respect and that anger, you are going to see it tomorrow. Again, I apologize, you are going to see it today. You are going to see the streets of this city full of workers, not just health care workers but you are going to see them and they are angry and they have very good cause to be angry.
Now we understand that there is more involved than just the amount of money that they are receiving. Don't fall for that red herring, members opposite. That is not just the issue. The issue is they have gone too far. There are clauses in that bill that if they were withdrawn, if they were amended, if they were changed, that piece of legislation could perhaps be much more palatable to this MLA and to other members on this side of the House. So really it is up to some of those members opposite to make sure that that offensive piece of legislation is changed.
Mr. Speaker, you probably heard me read resolutions earlier this evening. I had the opportunity to read a resolution from an LPN from Timberlea-Prospect. She says, I am very angry, as we have done our part for the cause over the past 10 years - surely you see that this is bad legislation!
If you want further evidence, let me turn to another constituent of mine. This is not a government, she writes, it is a dictatorship. Now, Mr. Speaker, you are a fair-minded politician. You have a long-standing democratic tradition that you represent in your constituency. When people accuse us, and they are accusing us, not just that side, but they are making comments that are disparaging, disrespectful and they are questioning the democratic principles on which you were elected, they are making comments and comparisons that are unfair, are they not? Do we not still live in a democracy or is this a dictatorship?
Mr. Speaker, I have to share with you a quick note that I received. It is an offensive one and it involves a word that truly bothers me, an e-mail which said, "This whole exercise reminds me of a Gestapo state." There is that sort of terminology again. That is offensive to the traditions of this province, and that is offensive to Nova Scotians, no matter what their job, no matter what they do each day.
I have another letter but I am going to save it because, as you well know, when your time runs out it is important to make sure that you finish with a flourish. So I am going to put that one aside and it is one that is of real special significance for me as the MLA for Timberlea-Prospect.
Mr. Speaker, I want to share with you that I received a phone call from a young woman from Thunder Bay this evening. Now maybe you have heard about this young woman from Thunder Bay. She is the daughter of Carolyn Estabrooks; in fact she even admits once in a while that she has a father named Bill. My daughter is working at CBC Radio in Thunder Bay. She has a journalism degree and a history honours degree from Mount Allison University.
She is alarmed when she knows that one of the lead items on the national news is labour difficulties in her home province, so in the middle of the many other calls that I was receiving and returning, I get one of those long distance beeps on my phone, and when I get a long-distance beep, I know it means one thing, send money, dad. I finished off the conversation with the constituent, pressed *69 and sure enough it comes up, Thunder Bay, Ontario. When I called this young journalist from Thunder Bay who just happens, of course, to be my daughter, her concern comes back to the fact how badly it makes Nova Scotians look because this is the same young woman who has a very close friend who is a graduate nurse and is considering offers to move outside of this province.
The Minister of Justice and I had an opportunity earlier today to watch a television special. It was one of the items on the national news in which the CBC was focusing on Waco, Texas. Waco, Texas, is a big-time recruiter of nurses in Nova Scotia and do you know what some of the things they offer Waco nurses? I mean we can talk about all kinds of special delights. We can talk about moving expenses, and if you live close enough to Dallas-Fort Worth, you can talk about - are you ready? - season tickets to see the Dallas Cowboys.
Those are the sort of incentives that young nurses from Nova Scotia and from other parts of Canada are looking at to perhaps consider going to, of all places, Waco, Texas.
As my daughter said, what do you expect her friend to do? Do you expect her friend to say, loyally, I will stay in Nova Scotia because of the quality of life? Yes, that is a key factor. We do have a quality of life here. We do have a special place to live, but I also think that health care workers want to have certain basic rights of collective bargaining that are enshrined in this province and enshrined in this country. It was in 1937, two years before the outbreak of the Second World War, that legislation was introduced guaranteeing the rights of collective bargaining in this province, the very sort of issue that William Davis died for in Cape Breton, the very sort of issue that we recognize historically in this province on Davis Day. Since 1937 we have had the rights of collective bargaining in this province. Now this government brings in a piece of legislation that curtails that right, that makes sure that bargaining rights no longer are going to be open, that no longer are they going to be listened to, that workers in this province are going to say - as maybe that young nurse, my daughter's friend, is considering - hey, I want to have the right to negotiate my salary. I want to have, after all, part of the tradition of this province that can be maintained here, in Nova Scotia.
What is government afraid of? What is this government afraid of? Is this government afraid of allowing this sort of labour dispute to go to arbitration? I heard my friend, the member for Halifax Chebucto, speak at length about some of the many fine people who could step in here and take care of this issue of arbitration. We have examples of it that you and I know of, Mr. Speaker. We have experts in this province, some of them who will do exceptionally well to handle compulsory arbitration, but why wasn't it offered? Why, instead of swatting the mosquito, you have to hit it with a hammer? Why does it have to be so over the top, when you look at labour legislation in this province, when you look at the fact that Bill No. 68 has offended so many Nova Scotians and that it is not just health care workers.
I want to return to this particular theme, if I could at this time, Mr. Speaker. There are other professions that are involved that will be here at the rally at 6:00 o'clock this evening. There are people in the recreation business, there are social workers, there are pharmacists, there are teachers. They will be here because this legislation, in their view, is not just going to affect health care workers, it is going to affect many other people in various other walks of life in this province.
Now I know that members opposite have heard me speak at length on a number of occasions about concerns that I constantly bring to their attention. I am not going to get into the fact of whether they have returned phone calls or how many e-mails or faxes they have received but surely they do have an obligation to address an issue that comes up time and time again. Heaven forbid that someone is at home now watching this but they are probably thinking, my God, he's on his feet again, will he never sit down. They would like to hear from maybe the MLA for Inverness. They would like to hear from the MLA for Preston.
How come whenever they turn on TV, it is either a member of the NDP Official Opposition or a member of the Third Party?
That's the question that comes up so many times, Mr. Speaker, from people who watch this - I was going to say carnival, but let's be serious, this is an important piece of legislation, I don't mean to make light of it, but this particular assembly is based on debate; the pro, the con, the for, the against. I have brought that to the attention of the members opposite many times. That to-and-fro argument does not happen here and people who perhaps don't follow the political process, people here in this gallery are probably saying why don't they stand? Why doesn't somebody, aside from the member for Preston, stand in the corner and have his say?
I have given the offer before. I look at the amount of time I have left and I have many more things to say but I will willingly give up my time to any member opposite to stand in their place and say, I am going to support this legislation because of whatever reason. I believe that this would be good legislation for health care workers and the health care system in this province, Heaven forbid the collective bargaining process in this province, for this reason or that reason, but there are no debates taking place in this House. Instead, it is the Opposition pointing out why we have to do the job, why we have to constantly bring to the attention of the members of this House, why we have to stand in our place in the middle of the morning and the night and have our say on behalf of Nova Scotians, because the government members are not doing their job. I know that there are government members opposite who are under a lot of pressure here, but if I (Interruption) Fifteen minutes is all . . .
[4:45 a.m.]
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Environment and Labour on the offer as propagated by the honourable member for Timberlea-Prospect on a point of order?
HON. DAVID MORSE: I am not just taking him up on his offer, I am not going to take his 15 minutes, I will just say that it is important to have a safety net in place in case the collective bargaining process does not deliver agreements in this case. So it is a matter of public safety and I thank the member opposite for allowing me this opportunity to get up. (Interruptions)
MR. ESTABROOKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing that and I appreciate that. That point of order, however, well, I offered my time and he takes two minutes. Let's look at this very seriously, okay. That comment, if that's the reason that you can respond to that constituent and if that's the reason that you can respond by saying I am so concerned about the health and safety of Nova Scotians (Interruption) What about some of the other things that have been happening recently in labour negotiations but, more importantly - and
I don't need the member for Cape Breton Centre to help me through this, you will have your time later - I am concerned about the fact (Interruption)
Mr. Speaker, bring him to order, please.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I have been requested by the honourable member for Timberlea-Prospect to bring his colleague to order, the honourable member for Cape Breton Centre. So, honourable member for Cape Breton Centre, I would ask you to bring yourself to order so your colleague can hear himself speak.
MR. ESTABROOKS: And he is one of us. Mr. Speaker, thank you, and thank you for again giving me a few moments because my time is quickly disappearing here and, you know, the Minister of Environment and Labour has stood in his place, but I believe the opportunity could have been there for binding arbitration. Binding arbitration would have been a step and I have heard health care workers say this, why didn't it go to arbitration? If this was such a major concern, bring in the arbitration. Let both sides listen to a fair and impartial decision maker. That would be a way to bring this possible labour dispute into some real focus but, then again, why do we have to introduce Bill No. 68 with some of its draconian results.
So, Mr. Speaker, I want to look at this and when we look at that famous Greek from so many years ago, when we have an expert who says that Draco's example has been followed, that this draconian way of dealing with legislation is not the way to deal with collective bargaining in this process. It is not the way to assure workers in this province that they are going to have rights. So I want to turn to this wonderful letter. This wonderful letter comes from Tina Delaplante and it is an absolutely touching letter. I am going to table it when I finish and I thank the Page for making it of such print that I can read it.
"We negotiated in good faith, but were told this is how it is going to be . . . Apparently history is repeating itself." It is going to take me a few minutes to get through this so I will get it to you. I thank the Page for being so attentive. You're much more attentive than some members opposite, I point that out. "I was informed that the highlights of Bill 63 propose to remove our right to strike, that a government designated mediator could impose a settlement if both sides couldn't agree, that our collective agreement could be altered at will by the employer . . ."
She says, "I find it funny that the government is going through so much trouble to tie our hands, for now and with our future negotiations. Never has our Union been in a stronger position to negotiate what has long since been our due, and at the hour when our union might be able to demand our due, the government is attempting to cut us off at the knees again."
Mr. Speaker, another frustrated Nova Scotian. You personally have heard me stand in this House on so many occasions and bring these matters forward. They are not just from Timberlea-Prospect. They are from all areas of this province. They are from all walks of life.
Health care workers are alarmed and what are they alarmed about? They want to know, and not just in a two minute comment - two minute comment, a 30 second comment from the Minister of Environment and Labour - not a comment, a point of order if I remember correctly in your wise ruling, Mr. Speaker, but what they want to know is what exactly is the agenda of this government and, you know, it comes back to the fact that there are members opposite over there who believe that unions are basically not serving workers in this province.
I have said this to you publicly, Mr. Speaker, I have said it on the airways, I have said it is very important to have this out of the way as we make this comment, union is not a four-letter word. Now, you have heard me say that before. One of the rules I used to have in the schools where I was fortunate enough to teach, there were certain four-letter words that were not allowed. Union, I believe, has one, two, three, four, five letters in it and because you happen to be a union member, you are not necessarily bad, destructive of the economy of this province. Unionism is after all something in this province that we should all be proud of and I know there are members opposite over there who have that strong repulsion to anything that involves unions and after all this Party is, and they say it to us many times, we are only a mouthpiece of organized labour.
Well, I want you to know the NDP is more than a mouthpiece of organized labour. We represent workers all across this province, unionized or not unionized, workers organized or unorganized, and that is part of the mandate that we have as New Democrats in this province. That proud tradition concerns and angers us as New Democrats. Members opposite do not understand what this bill has done to collective bargaining. Collective bargaining is a basic democratic right in this province. People have died defending it. Bill Davis is one of them. There were others. We are talking about people who believe that collective bargaining is part of the process that we should democratically have in this House.
MR. DAVID WILSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think the Rules of this Legislature forbid anybody from bringing something to eat into the Chamber. The member for Preston is standing over there defying those rules.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The honourable member does raise a good point, members. I would ask that if you are eating, you do it outside the Chamber.
MR. ESTABROOKS: The decorum of the House, you know, I know we have had a long session here and I thank the member for bringing that up. I understand your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but here we are in the middle of the night, or the middle of the morning now, discussing a piece of legislation that is of real concern. It is a concern that we come back to
time and time again and I understand that members opposite have had some long nights. You know a great way to fill out a long night once in a while, is to get up and have your say, to make sure that you're not just sitting there having something to eat of all things, that you're using your mouth for other purposes than for the fact of just digesting a few pieces of popcorn.
Mr. Speaker, I don't want to digress and go in that direction. I thank the member for Glace Bay for bringing it up. I saw it. I found it to be offensive but then, again, at times I don't know, I find that with this member. I don't know if that member opposite has the courage to stand in his place. I see him come in here, I see him make these comments. I hope he realizes that his responsibilities and what he was elected to do, is not to make light of this place, whether it is 4:54 a.m., or 4:54 p.m. We are discussing an important piece of legislation here, a piece of legislation that Nova Scotians are concerned about.
How many Nova Scotians have I brought to the floor of this House? How many members have brought the concern of Nova Scotians to the floor of this House? They are not all from my constituency. They are not all past students of mine. They are not all people who I know personally that I have contacted and said, you know, Kim, past student that you were at Sackville High, I need an e-mail so I can read it in the Legislature tonight, can you tell me about some of your concerns at the IWK in the job that you do as a nurse? These are people who have contacted us. These are people who have been in touch with us, members of this Party and members of the Third Party, and we continue to bring these matters to your attention, Mr. Speaker, so that members opposite will consider the fact that this piece of legislation must be withdrawn.
Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the late debate topic that didn't happen because of the vote that was called earlier. That late debate topic revolved around the Law Amendments Committee and the Law Amendments Committee procedure. I know there are hundreds of people who are looking forward to coming to the Law Amendments Committee and it is very important that Nova Scotians understand we want them to be here at the Law Amendments Committee and if the Minister of Justice is going to go over the top again and say we'll only give them two minutes and they have to come 24 hours a day, you come, Nova Scotians, you come to the people's House, you have your say here.
This is your opportunity, not just at 6:00 o'clock tonight, but to come to this Legislature, to go into the Law Amendments Committee, to sit there and to make sure that those five government members are sitting there and are awake and they are not sitting there eating popcorn, they are sitting there paying attention. Heaven forbid, at the Law Amendments Committee, if one of those five government members happen to ask a question, wouldn't that be an unbelievable event although, Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the member for Preston.
In the long number of sessions that we have had at the Law Amendments Committee over the past number of months, the member for Preston, I believe on two - count them, Mr. Speaker, on two - separate occasions asked a question at the Law Amendments Committee. Now, I want you to know that my good friend, the member for Halifax Chebucto, and myself, we usually ask most witnesses two questions, but I want Nova Scotians to come. You make sure that when your opportunity is here to have your say about legislation, you come, two minutes, you get in there and once you start talking, it will be very interesting to see if the Minister of Justice can hold you to two minutes or five minutes because as Nova Scotians know, usually it is 15 minutes and that particular process is a valuable one.
We have stood in our place. We have tried to encourage debate and if anyone at home or anyone in the gallery realizes, yes, we did hear from the Minister of Environment and Labour, I made him the offer here 14 minutes ago. I made him the offer I would give him the rest of my time. He got up and only took 30 seconds to make some comment about the health and safety of Nova Scotians and that is why this legislation is here. That was his 30 second contribution. That, Mr. Speaker, is not debate, that is an apology for a piece of legislation that is badly conceived, has been badly received across this province.
Nova Scotians are going to tell this government today, they are going to show it with their feet on the streets around this historic Province House and they are going to show it with the numbers of them who are going to come to the Law Amendments Committee and are going to have their say. They are going to make sure that they are listened to so that they can't say - and I know, yes, there will be people from Timberlea-Prospect there. There will be people from Glace Bay and it is a long way to come and I hope that they can - although many of them are out making a living and working hard - but hopefully they will come.
AN HON. MEMBER: They're coming.
MR. ESTABROOKS: But I want members opposite to understand when you have the opportunity at the Law Amendments Committee, you listen, you listen carefully, because health care workers and workers across this province have had it and they have had it right up to here. Do you know that ad that comes from that guy in New York, who throws up the apartment window and he yells out into the streets of New York, we aren't going to take it anymore? That's the message, tomorrow it will be delivered and it will continue to be delivered at the Law Amendments Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your time.
[5:00 a.m.]
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Glace Bay.
MR. DAVID WILSON: Mr. Speaker, it is 5:00 a.m. and approximately two hours from now my sister, who is a nurse at the ICU in Glace Bay, will just be probably ending her shift and making her way home and still have to continue on with her job as a mother by getting her children up and ready for school. I think the fact that she does that as many times as she has to, the fact that she has taken the time to become an intensive care unit nurse and the fact that she is a caring professional in this province - and she is just one example of the many thousands of health care professionals across this province - is a shining example of exactly what we're talking about and what we've been talking about for the past number of days in this Legislature.
Mr. Speaker, my sister, the nurse, who is about to arrive home in two hours, would not put the life, health or safety of anyone in this province in jeopardy at any time, but that's what this government has accused her, her co-workers and many others of doing and it is just not right. That is not what my sister is about and it certainly is not what nurses and health care professionals across this province are about.
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting also at this time of the morning, as my colleague referred to, that you get an early look at the daily edition of the daily newspapers across the province and what they're saying. Today's is no different than yesterday's or the day before. Today's newspapers are full of editorials and letters to the editor which, if you will take a look at them - and you will get a chance later on - I would say almost 99 per cent are concerning Bill No. 68 and concerning the debate that is happening in this Legislature. I am not about to stand here and read all of those letters to the editors but, you know, sometimes just the caption, sometimes the title of those letters tells it all. I will give you an example of a few of them from The Chronicle-Herald today.
One is called Sad day for N.S., a Step too far is the title of another one. Another letter to the editor, it says Public held hostage. Another one says Call to action, War on labour. Another one by a nurse from Porters Lake, Why should I stay? Draconian measures, Mr. Speaker, is the title of another letter to the editor in The Chronicle-Herald today. Enough is enough is the title of another one, infringes on rights, and I go on and on. Also, Disorder in the House is the title of an editorial in The Chronicle-Herald. Mr. Speaker, from The Daily News today, The Daily News says, and this is a feature in The Daily News, it is "A selection of quotes yesterday about the health-care labour uproar:", that's the headline and that's exactly what this is, it is an uproar in this province.
Before I give you some more of those quotes, let me say that what I have witnessed here today and what I have witnessed outside this Chamber has left me in disbelief. I walked outside this Chamber tonight and saw the Health Minister for this province outside chatting
with a couple of nurses. He didn't go to them. That's not what has left me in disbelief. They came to him and they were talking to him. The Health Minister was standing there, listening intently, shaking his head and saying, uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh, but then when he walked away - and I have seen him do it before - he walks back into the Chamber and he is like one of those, what do you call those lizards? What's the name of the lizard I am looking for? (Interruption) A chameleon. No, no, a real lizard, a slimy lizard is called a Tory, but a chameleon (Interruption) That's what you call a slimy lizard in this province right now, a Tory.
The chameleon Health Minister comes back into this Chamber and he is not unlike the Finance Minister who does it himself because the Finance Minister probably taught him how to do it. The Finance Minister walks outside of the Chamber, talks to a few people, comes in here and puts that smug look on his face - never takes it off - but he walks outside, the chameleon again. Changes the colours, tries to fit in with the rest of the crowd, but when he is in here, with all of his Tory buddies that are now shoving this down throats of the people of Nova Scotia, it is a different person altogether. (Interruptions) I hope it is about Bill No. 68.
HON. NEIL LEBLANC: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. When the honourable member opposite says that we shove things down people's faces - or throats, or whatever he wants to say - and he stands there with his so-called friends on that side of the House, that told these same health workers not that long ago that you will take Savage days and you will take unpaid leave, take a 3 per cent cut and you have your wages frozen for three years. Where was he? And why does he sit with people who did the same thing if he is so concerned?
MR. WILSON: Let me tell you something. I would rather sit on this side of the House, in this caucus right now any day than sit with that bunch of cowards on that side of the House right now. Any day I would rather be over here. Any day.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. As I advised the honourable member for Glace Bay yesterday during his conversation with the honourable member for Cape Breton North, the terminology "coward" has been ruled unparliamentary and I would ask the honourable member to withdraw that statement. (Interruptions)
MR. WILSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I withdraw that statement. Like some of the members over there are uttering in the background, I am sure the member for - well, he hasn't spoken here in so long I have to take out the seating arrangement to see who it is that is over there heckling me. Let me see, that would be the member for Sackville-Beaver Bank, I believe, who hasn't said anything substantial in this Legislature since he got here. The only thing he can say now is to throw me out because I happen to be standing and speaking on behalf of health care workers in this province. If you threw me out right now, it would be like you are throwing out the rights and privileges and freedoms of health care workers in this
province. That member doesn't care. That member doesn't care at all. He doesn't care. If he cared right now he would be on his feet defending his government's actions over there, but he won't do that, like the other members. They are all the same.
There are 18 backbenchers, let me give you another example. The member for Yarmouth hasn't said one substantial thing since he got here to this House. Not one thing on any government bill that has been brought before this Legislature has the member for Yarmouth said anything substantial whatsoever. The member for Shelburne is another example. You know why? Because they have been told, zip it. Zip it, guys. You are not allowed to say anything. Zip, zip, zip. You can't say one thing because you have been told by the terrible trio - the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Finance and the Government House Leader - shut your mouths and don't talk out about this legislation.
As we found out over the last several days, the members - even the backbenchers - have been told by their constituents and they have been told by health care workers across this province, including their own constituents, that they should be saying something about Bill No. 68, that there is something inherently wrong with Bill No. 68, that it is outrageous, that it is all those other things I have mentioned already. (Interruption) It is draconian, that is the most popular word these days.
As I said before, I will, during the course of my next 50 minutes or so, name some of the other backbenchers over there so that we all know who they are because they have never been heard from in this Legislature on anything substantial, so we will make sure before I am finished that everybody out there knows who we are talking about.
What was said in The Daily News today, "A selection of quotes yesterday about the health-care labour uproar:', this is one, "We're considering this as war. The premier has thrown down the gauntlet, and as far as we're concerned all rules are off, all bets are off."
AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?
MR. WILSON: That is a statement from Joan Jessome, the Nova Scotia Government Employees Union President. (Interruption) The member for Preston, with his babbling again, knows full well who the President of the Nova Scotia Government Employees Union is. You know who it is but you have never had the intestinal fortitude to talk to her about Bill No. 68. You have never talked to anybody about this bill and you have no right to be sitting over there right now heckling me when you have not stood on your feet and talked about Bill No. 68. Now if you are going to stand up, you make sure that you talk about nurses in this province.
MR. DAVID HENDSBEE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The honourable member for Glace Bay said I never spoke to anybody about this particular bill. No, I did not have a chance yet to speak in this House and I will be speaking in this House when the time is right for it.
AN HON. MEMBER: When is that?
MR. HENDSBEE: You will see. All good things come in good time. (Interruptions) Just this past weekend, I was on beautiful Cape Breton Island speaking at the annual general meeting of the Victoria PC Association and the number one topic that I spoke on for about 15 minutes was Bill No. 68. So don't tell me I didn't speak to anybody about it. I speak to my constituents at the local Legion, I speak to my people at local bingo halls. I have been talking to people about Bill No. 68. I don't need to listen to this particular member saying I don't talk to anybody about Bill No. 68. I think that honourable member deserves to give an apology to this House. (Interruption)
MR. WILSON: Mr. Speaker, there is no apology coming from me over here to that member and I hope that the two people who showed up at your PC meeting enjoyed your talk, by the way. I hope the two of them enjoyed your talk on Bill No. 68. (Interruption) You want to talk about Bill No. 68 and about what is happening with health care professionals, you talk to the health care professionals in this province. You have the intestinal fortitude to go out there and explain to health care professionals in this province, okay? At least your seatmate over there, the member for Cape Breton North, your seatmate over there, I would like to know . . .
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.
MR. DAVID HENDSBEE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. He also alluded again that I don't speak to the health care workers. I have been speaking to them out here in the lobby, even from the member's riding of Timberlea-Prospect, they even called me at my office on Saturday morning, the person he made reference to. I have been speaking with the health care workers about this particular bill, so that gentleman over there should be apologizing for his assertions.
MR. WILSON: Mr. Speaker, it is funny that in the two times he has been up now he hasn't said what he told them. He told them it was going through, no matter what, whether they like it or not, the same thing as the member for Cape Breton North told the nurses who he met with. This is going through, whether you like it or not. Whether you like it or not, this legislation is going through and that is what that entire government has told health care professionals and nurses in this province. It doesn't matter whether or not you like this legislation. We are going to force it, shove it down your throats. Who is next? That is the question right now. It is health care workers and nurses now but who is next? Who is next for that crew across the floor right now? Who are they going to do it to next, teachers, liquor
store employees, government employees? Who are they going to do it to? They can't do it to us because as Opposition MLAs we get up and we speak in this House. They can heckle from across the floor but it doesn't stop us from speaking, because we have a job to do.
As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, some of the quotes from The Daily News today, one of them was from Joan Jessome, as I read. This is from the Canadian Auto Workers Union, Regional Director Larry Wark, "I've always said that democracy in Nova Scotia on the best of days is fragile. We're on the border of extinction with this legislation." Here is one from the Service Employees International Union, Gerard Higgins, "Do the right thing, John, pull Bill 68." Here is one from Rick Clarke of the Nova Scotia Federation of Labour, the President, "Tory times are sorry times, and the sooner we flush this toilet the better it is for all of us." Here is another one from Brian Forbes, the President of the Nova Scotia Teachers Union, "With Bill 68 . . .", the Premier, " . . . seems to have chosen to kill a mosquito with a sledgehammer." That is a very good quote.
[5:15 a.m.]
Here is one from Roger Neeley of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the Regional Director, "The government is heading down a road of confrontation, and if this bill is passed there can be no happy end to this tale." Here is one from the Finance Minister, the Honourable Neil LeBlanc, "We realize that this is not without controversy. At the same time we have to deal with the financial situation that we have." That is the quote from our Finance Minister, Mr. Speaker, in The Daily News today.
Now you see not all Tory MLAs are cheering this Legislation. We know, as a matter of fact, that there are some Tory MLAs over there - and they have to do this secretly, they have to do this behind closed doors - who have to talk to other people to tell them that look, I am really not happy with this legislation. They can't do it out loud over there right now because they have been threatened by their own Cabinet Ministers. Their own Cabinet Ministers have threatened Tory backbenchers that if you don't go along with this, you are gone, you are out of the caucus, history. That is true, absolutely gone. You know it is true.
The member for Preston shakes his head no but you know it is true. You know it is absolutely true. You know that the backbenchers on that side, on the Tory caucus, on the government side, have been told, you toe the line and vote with us on this or else you are gone. You know that is true. Mr. Speaker, it doesn't actually stop them from thinking because some of them are thinking and some of them know that this legislation is wrong. We shouldn't even be speaking, we shouldn't even be here with this legislation in this House, let alone at this hour of the morning.
Again, outside of the Chambers today, being scrummed by the media, the media asked him the question, what happens if there are negotiated settlements here, what do you do? Do you pull the bill? The Premier answers, yes, we would table the legislation. We would table
the legislation if we reached negotiated settlements. Now what would you call that? Would you call that a threat? Would you call that blackmail and a threat to unionized workers in this province who just happen to be health care workers and nurses?
What you are telling them is that if you don't go along with our legislation, unless you agree, we will continue to ram it through this Legislature and take away your right to strike and impose a settlement on you, whether you like it or not but because we brought this legislation in before a strike even occurred, we brought this legislation in to use it as a hammer and as a threat and as blackmail to force you into negotiating a settlement. That is what it is. There is no other way to put it. That is a threat and that is blackmail by the Premier of this province and that is outrageous, absolutely outrageous that the Premier of this province has resorted to that, absolutely outrageous, but that is what we have.
At the same time, while all of this is going on, they are trying very hard, with propaganda, to sell it to Nova Scotians and they have continued to put ads in the newspapers and they continue to run ads on almost every radio station in this province. Those ads continue to total up and, as we heard during Question Period, well over $40,000 that they have added up to already and by the time this is over and done with, I would say, if you add another few days into it, you will be up around $100,000 without even thinking about it and that is assuming that we are going to get the actual true figure from the minister responsible for this.
The minister happens to be the Government House Leader, who is the Minister responsible for Communications Nova Scotia. If he will actually tell us the truth at some point in his life - this may be the one point when it happens - if he will tell us the truth about how much it is going to cost for this propaganda campaign, you will find out that there is going to be a lot of money spent on advertising to try to get the Tory message across. Well, it could have been spent on nurses, it could have been spent on health care but no, instead it will go into newspaper and radio advertising that will tell us absolutely nothing and just try to put across the government line, about what they say is happening in health care in this province and about what they say Bill No. 68 is all about. That is exactly what we know it is not about.
Mr. Speaker, among the many things that we have been receiving in our caucus over the past few days are a number of faxes and so on that have been coming to us. If I may, this is one from a person who resides in Judique, Cape Breton. Her name is Lorna Poirier and she wrote to the Leader of the Liberal Party. She says in her letter that he is probably, " . . . familiar with the community of Judique, a community who fought so hard to keep their school not very long ago. As the old saying goes, 'you can't go down without a fight'!!" She is writing as a registered nurse working at the Inverness Consolidated Memorial Hospital. The fight, she says, is against Bill No. 68.
She goes on to say that she read the message from the Leader of the Liberal Party in The Chronicle-Herald, that it was very good and she really couldn't add that much to it. But she goes on to say that the Premier, having read the information that said that health care workers would provide excellent essential services should there be a strike, got excited and has tried to make himself " . . . look Good and the Nurses look BAD in the eyes of the Public.
Now Lorna Poirier goes on to say she is very disappointed with that and she mentions the costly advertisements in the media and she mentions that that is an example of that. "Nurses WILL leave the province." she says. "Some have resigned already. Anyone who can, will go!!" She also says, "PLEASE fight for us to STOP Bill No. 68 if you can at all!!!!!! She has had some experience, she says, travelling in an ambulance with patients who were barely alive. "There is not enough money in this world for trips like that but we do it because it is our job! We at least deserve to be equally paid across the country. A Nurse's work does not change from one province to another." Again, that was a letter from Lorna Poirier in Judique, Cape Breton.
Mr. Speaker, I have heard those stories over and over again. As I have mentioned to you myself, I have another sister. I mentioned my sister who works at the ICU in Glace Bay Hospital and I also have a sister who works in the emergency department, in the inhalation therapy department at St. Martha's Hospital in Antigonish.
I understand that one of the members would like to make an introduction and I will allow for that.
MR. SPEAKER: Just before I recognize the honourable member on the introduction, the honourable member for Glace Bay is required to table the letter that he read from.
The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic on an introduction.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I want to introduce four health care workers who are here. First of all, Maxwell Caravan, a nursing attendant, a husband of a nurse, father of two, works at the VG Hospital operating room; Marilyn Perry, an anaesthesia tech, working in health care for 21 years at the VG Hospital site; Ethel Tompkins, operating room tech, LPN, 20 years in health care, presently in the QE II operating room - Ethel indicates she is working a 10 hour shift after she leaves here today - and Heather MacDonald, registered nurse, operating room, QE II, at the old VG Hospital site, nurse for 15 years.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we recognize these health care workers, recognize the commitment that they make to our province and the commitment they make to their profession by coming down here at this hour of the night, either before or after their shifts at the hospital. They come down here to talk to us, to listen to us, to let us know how
opposed they are to Bill No. 68 and what it will mean to them, to their jobs and to their professions. I would like to ask the four individuals who I introduced to please rise and receive the warm welcome of the House. (Applause)
MR. SPEAKER: Yes, indeed, welcome to our guests as introduced by the honourable member for Halifax Atlantic and welcome to all guests in the gallery.
The honourable member for Glace Bay has the floor.
MR. WILSON: Mr. Speaker, I, too, join with other members in welcoming our guests to the gallery this morning.
As I was saying and telling you the experience of my other sister, who works in the emergency department, inhalation therapy department at St. Martha's Hospital in Antigonish, again referring to that letter that I wrote, my sister does many similar trips to Halifax with some very severely injured people at times. Again, as one nurse said to me outside of the Chamber here in the last couple of days, we have put in some long hours and we put in some long days and this nurse in a very nice way said to me, put in a few more days, add on top of that a whole lot more hours and then go to work and try to work with somebody who is dying. Try to work with somebody who needs your attention all of the time. Try to work with so many patients that you simply can't handle the number, you can't handle the caseload. Then, maybe, you will have some slight indication of what it is like to be a nurse in this province and what it is like to be a health care professional in this province at this time.
I think that was a very poignant point that she made. It drove home the fact that what we are talking about here is perhaps one of the most serious things that has come before this Legislature in quite some time. It is not a subject to be taken lightly. It is not one to be laughed at. It is not one to just put aside and forget about it and think that this does not affect a lot of people - it does. It affects everybody in this province because at one time or another, unfortunately, we are probably going to have to end up using our health care system. And that affects you, Mr. Speaker, it affects me, it affects everyone else. I am hoping that no ill health will fall upon anybody in this Chamber, but, indeed, if that should happen, then we would have to put our hands in the hands of these health care workers and professionals that this government is now doing this to. Those are the people we would have to trust to take care of us on a daily basis.
There is another letter that I would like to read to you at this time. This is a letter that was faxed to our caucus and to our Liberal Leader. Actually, it is a copy of a letter that was sent to the Premier. It is from Glenn Legge who is a paramedic at the QE II Health Sciences Centre and he says that he is writing this e-mail regarding the latest tactics by the government to take away the rights of the average working citizen. He is a front-line worker at the QE II Health Sciences Centre in Halifax, as I mentioned, and he is part of the health care bargaining unit.
He goes on to say that he considers himself and all other health care providers in this province " . . . to be professionals. As a professional health care provider I feel obligated to patient care." He is writing to the Premier and says, "Your recent comments about the Emergency Contingency Plan in which you and your government stated, that we, the professional health care providers of Nova Scotia would not provide emergency care to patients was a slap in the face."
Mr. Legge goes on to say that he knows " . . . for sure that if you or one of your members were to become ill and go to the nearest hospital, even if a strike were ongoing, you would not be neglected or refused emergency care. We, as professionals, would treat any citizen with the greatest respect and proficient care that is needed." And, he goes on to say that he feels neglected by the government and tells them that it is time to throw away their ignorance, " . . . and look at the issues facing us today. We have assured you that nobody's life will be endangered by any work action."
Mr. Legge goes on to say, "Furthermore, I would like to say that by ramming a bill, that takes away the democratic right to job action is digging your own grave. The QE2 Health Sciences Centre is the largest employer in Nova Scotia. You have angered alot of the employees of this institution, not to mention employees of other hospitals in the province as well as union members province wide. I am supporting my union in its fight for a democratic process. I never thought communism would prevail in a democratic country." That came to our caucus, a copy of a letter that was sent to the Premier and I will table that as well for the House.
[5:30 a.m.]
Another one, Mr. Speaker, comes from a person by the name of David Phillips who is a P2 paramedic. This is what he wrote, and I think that government members are aware of these letters as well, but I haven't seen any of them tabled by government members. They have been sent out because you can see the billboard from the e-mail that goes to government members, not only Opposition members, I think they've made a point to send it to government members as well. This one says, again from David Phillips, a paramedic:
"I think most Nova Scotians are getting the message now! Bill 68 is nothing less than an attack on every Nova Scotian's fundamental right, the right to strike! I don't fully comprehend the logic behind your decision to even attempt to pass a Bill such as Bill 68. You must think that the people of Nova Scotia are really gullible, to try and pull a fast one, again. You got away with what you did to the paramedics of this province, but rest assured the good people of this province will not sit back and allow this to happen again!"
Mr. Phillips goes on to say, "I really think that Mr. Hamm and Mr. Muir should do what's best for the people of Nova Scotia, and that would be to resign! It's the only sensible thing they can do, and about the only thing I would agree to with them at this time!" There's
a PS here from Mr. Phillips. He says, "Mr. Chisholm, I certainly hope you do not agree to Bill 68!" - my guess would be that he is referring to the member for Guysborough-Port Hawkesbury - and, "Mr. Muir and Mr. Hamm, Shame on you!" Again, it is signed by David Phillips, a P2 paramedic. I will table that copy of that letter that Mr. Phillips sent to our caucus, Mr. Speaker.
So you can see by the letters that are coming into our caucus, you can see by the letters to the editors in the papers and you will see today what's going to happen outside of this Legislature. If there's anybody in this province, with the exception of the government, the front benches and now the backbench, with the exception of them, if there's anybody else in this province who agrees with this legislation, would they please stand up and say so. Where are they? The vast majority of people in this province don't want this legislation. They don't think it's good. They think it's wrong.
Mr. Speaker, I find it baffling why that message is not getting across to the government. I don't expect it to get across to the government front bench, I don't expect it to get across to the Minister of Tourism and Culture, the Minister of Community Services, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Transportation and Public Works, the Minister of Human Resources, the Premier, the Finance Minister, the Health Minister, the Education Minister, the Agriculture and Fisheries Minister, the Economic Development Minister, the Minister of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations, or the Minister of Environment and Labour, I don't expect it to get across to any of those people, because those are the people who bunkered down in the Cabinet and approved this silly piece of legislation to begin with. They put it forward, so none of them are going to change their mind now. Their backs are against the wall and they have dug in. Their main spokesman, the Premier, has said, if there is a negotiated settlement, we will back out and we will table it and we will be out of here lickety-split, we will be gone home. We will be out of here, but I don't think that is going to happen because I don't think that the workers in this province, the health care professionals and nurses, are going to kowtow to that kind of a threat and demand. I don't think they are going to let it happen.
So if the members on the front bench, the Cabinet members, aren't going to do anything about it, then, obviously, the only thing we are left with, heaven help us, the only thing we are left with to rely on in this province to try to bring about some change and get rid of this nasty piece of legislation is government backbenchers. As I have said before, Mr. Speaker - and this is the third time I have been talking on this nasty piece of legislation, but I have said it before - all it takes is one backbencher, one member on the government side to stand up and say, I am voting against this bill. It will start that chain reaction among backbenchers and finally they have the numbers, Mr. Speaker, they outnumber the frontbenchers, there are 18 of them on the backbench, and if that chain reaction started, and again as I have said before, if the Premier lived up to his promises, his blue book promises of allowing more free votes in this Legislature, and that was one of the main promises in the blue book during the election campaign when he snookered Nova Scotians into believing that
he was going to provide better health care and do all of these marvellous things, when he snookered Nova Scotians into believing - he told them, as one of his promises - that he would allow for more free votes in this Legislature.
Well, this is a perfect opportunity, Mr. Speaker, this is not a confidence bill. This is not a money bill. The government of this province cannot be defeated on this bill although I am sure there are tens of thousands of workers in this province right now who wish they could be and are going to see that they eventually will be, but on this particular bill it is not a matter of money. The government cannot be defeated. What that means is that if the Premier of this province, who promised Nova Scotians and who promised every one of those government members - you fell for it too, you fell for the blue book, you helped make up the blue book, and in that blue book there was a promise that said, it promised you - as individual MLAs, that you would get more free votes in this Legislature. Am I right or am I wrong? I am right. It promised you that you would get more free votes.
So if you go to the Premier now, bypass the terrible trio, the dastardly Minister of Finance, okay, he is the kingpin here, Mr. Speaker. He is the one who is calling the shots on this one. He has told the Health Minister, you're not getting any more money. He's the guy. The Minister of Finance is Bill No. 68, let nobody forget that. If you bypass the Minister of Finance and you bypass the Justice Minister, who, for some unknown reason said this bill was okay and it's constitutional, which makes me question what he knows about law in the first place but, anyway, bypass the Minister of Finance, bypass the Justice Minister, and skip over the Government House Leader, who is trying to say that this is a good move, politically, unbelievably, but that's what he is trying to say, bypass those three and go to your Premier.
Go to your Leader and explain to your Leader, Mr. Premier, I am having problems back home. I am having problems in my constituency, because the people in the health care industry who we are forcing this legislation upon are telling me it is the wrong thing and, Mr. Premier, if I don't vote against it I may not get elected again. I may not be able to possibly help you form another government. Now, if you convince the Premier of that and enough backbenchers get together and say, look, Mr. Leader, Mr. Premier, we have problems. Will you allow us a free vote on Bill No. 68? If the Premier is the man he goes around saying he is, Mr. Speaker, if the Premier is the great leader that he purports to be, then he will allow his backbench members - okay, I am freeing you from the chains here and I am letting you have a free vote on Bill No. 68, you can vote your conscience or you can vote what people in your constituency are telling you; the majority of people are telling you that this wrong.
What would happen? I don't know if that would be enough. It might be. It might be enough to defeat this bill, but at the very least what would happen is, come the day, and the day will come, we only have a certain amount of time to debate, the day will eventually get here when we vote on Bill No. 68 for the final time and wouldn't it be great if enough backbenchers stood in their place and voted against this bill with Opposition MLAs. That would be pure democracy in action. A finer example you could not find and, as I said, you
wouldn't be defeating your own government, this is not a confidence bill, this is not a money bill, so your government would not fall, but you would send a message to health care professionals and workers in this province that you believe them, that you trust in them, that you believe in a collective bargaining process, that you believe in a democracy and that you believe in things like consultation, negotiation and being fair; you are that kind of people, you are that kind of a government, that you believe in those principles and you are willing to show it by standing up and voting no against Bill No. 68.
Mr. Speaker, as I said, there may not be enough - although I firmly believe there is - will over there to do exactly that. I believe there are enough numbers on the backbench. As I said, leave the front bench alone, they are entrenched on this issue. They can't see the forest for the trees, but the backbenchers know they can defeat the smugness and arrogance of that front bench by simply going to the Leader, the Premier and asking him for a free vote. It's not something out of the ordinary, it's something that the Premier has promised time and time again, it's part of your strategy, your overall strategy in your blue book, which you said is now your government strategy, to allow for this.
So, there are the two scenarios. One, it could defeat this bill, and the members, the backbenchers who join in defeating it would be treated with the respect they deserve from the people in this province and from the health care workers in this province. The other scenario is that maybe just a few of those backbenchers would be able to vote their conscience, would be able to cast a free vote in this Legislature, and by doing that they would still get the respect and trust of their constituents and of health care professionals across this province. I dare say that by doing that, Mr. Speaker, that they would be elected again. It would be a small, narrow victory for them. They would not have defeated the bill, but they would have done what they were put there to do in the first place, that is to vote what the majority of their constituents want them to vote.
Now, there is another scenario, too, and this is what we are headed for, unfortunately, and that is the scenario that the government backbenchers have been given a story and they have been told a bunch of mis-truths by the government, by the Cabinet, and they have been told that you have to go along with this because this, as the Cabinet would say, is the right kind of legislation and without it our health care is in jeopardy. We don't want to place, as the ads have said, anybody's health at risk, it is too great and so on and emergency room closures and bed closures and all of the things in the ad, which I have already said in this Legislature are already true anyway. Those are not happening because of any threatened strike or because of any health care negotiations, those are happening in our health care system because that government is in power right now, that is why those things are happening in health care.
The other scenario is that you are going to drive this province into the most turmoil that it has been in a very long time, with this legislation. You have thousands of people who are preparing to gather en masse at the Legislature later on today, and that drives a wedge
between any kind of negotiations that you can have between organized labour, between health care professionals or whoever is next, and the government and the people who are negotiating contracts. That wedge may become just too much. Eventually there won't be any kind of talk, there won't be any discussion or consultation. That is going to be a big problem in this province. That is going to be a huge problem.
Mr. Speaker, if the government would respect the process and respect the individuals who are at the table and, ultimately, respect nurses and health care professionals in this province, then none of this would be necessary. As I have said before, this bill should not be before this Legislature at this time. There was no strike on, there was no strike; there was no threat to health care; there was no threat to anyone's life in this province before this bill came. That is why you are seeing, right now, that so many people are angered by this legislation. That is why I don't think it would be difficult at all. If I was a union leader right now I don't think it would be difficult to muster the troops. I don't think it would be difficult at all because they are raring to go.
[5:45 a.m.]
They saw from the outset that this legislation is wrong. Not only is this legislation wrong, this legislation is outrageous. For instance, this legislation will take away the right to strike, it doesn't even offer any such thing as binding arbitration, which was offered before in back-to-work legislation by this government, but not this time. Not this time because, again, let me go back to the kingpin, let me go back to the face behind Bill No. 68 here, the one and only face, the Finance Minister. He is the face on this one, too. He knows full well that if they had included binding arbitration in this legislation that any kind of arbitrator or mediator worth his salt would have given those workers more money to start with.
He is the guy who said that is it, no more money. If we go to binding arbitration, I can hear him now at the Cabinet meeting, listen guys and girls, if we go to binding arbitration, you will get more money, so we can't go down that route. What we have to do here is we have to put a clause in there that says this Cabinet will impose a settlement on the workers of Nova Scotia. The only person on that side of the House who would come up with something as draconian as that is the Finance Minister. The only person over there who would come through with a dictatorial measure such as that, the only person on that side who could come up with an idea like that is the Finance Minister, the Premier-in-waiting, as he likes to think of himself.
Mr. Speaker, I don't know how he is ever going to make that dream come true, because, let me tell you, Nova Scotians will remember this for a very long time. They will remember that the Finance Minister was the key guy, he was the kingpin behind all of this. He was the guy who pushed it through, and they will have some very long memories when it comes to that.
Mr. Speaker, one of the things that bothers me most about this, and one of the pieces of propaganda that the government is putting out there is that nurses are greedy, looking for more money. Health care professionals in this province, this is what the government is saying, they are greedy and they just want more money. That is all they care about, more money. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have talked to nurses and I have talked to my sisters, who are in the health care profession, and I have talked to their friends, and they have told me, and the Premier admitted outside of this Chamber tonight, that there are some other smaller measures that could be negotiated here that could settle this whole thing.
They may seem small to the Premier, but I am sure they are pretty big to health care professionals in this province. They are such things as hours of work, mandatory overtime, and just in general a better quality of working life for nurses and health care professionals, who are stressed out, maxed to the limit and overworked in this province right now. Money is obviously a factor, but as I understood the Premier outside of this Chamber tonight, it is not the only factor and there could be more negotiations that go on here in other areas that possibly would settle all of this.
Mr. Speaker, if that is the case and the Premier is saying it now on this particular day, after we have gone through all of this mess, why wasn't it said at the very beginning? Why wasn't it said on behalf of Health Department negotiators, on behalf of the authority negotiators who are there at the table, that some of these things could be dealt with? If that is the case, once the collective bargaining process reaches the point that you decide to negotiate in earnest, and you are really at it, and you are bargaining back and forth, and you are making offers and counter-offers, once that really begins, then it is amazing how quickly the process can move.
There are talks that go on for months and months and months that are settled, sometimes within hours, because something has been put on the table that will make you start to think, that will make you start to come up with a counter-offer. That was possible, that was possible in this situation. I don't know if it is possible right now, because of where this government is taking us. Where they have taken us is that they have shown a distaste, a dislike for professional health care workers in this province by introducing this legislation.
I can't blame nurses and health care workers in this province right now if they feel as though their backs are against the wall. They are frustrated. They have to demonstrate. They have to let government members know exactly what is going on. I sincerely hope that it would never reach the point where we are into some sort of turmoil that would boil over into any kind of violence whatsoever. I think every member in this House agrees with that.
We also have to be realistic, we also have to realize that the potential is always there for that. But, what we have seen here is because this government has decided to crack down on nurses and health care workers in this province. What we have seen now over the last few days is increased security at Province House, and we will see it again later on today, just the
threat of large numbers of people coming to this House has been enough for the government to dictate that there be extra security measures at Province House.
I hope it is not only the largest but the most peaceful demonstration that this province has ever seen because I think that will accomplish two things. It will show government that they mean business. It will also establish one more time that these are professionals we are dealing with. We are not dealing with people who are going to go out there and start cracking government members over the head. That is not what we are dealing with.
If I may enquire, Mr. Speaker, exactly how much time I have remaining? (Interruption) Mr. Speaker, if I may enquire as to exactly how much time I have remaining please? If you think that I would trust the member for Preston to tell me anything, you have another thing coming. (Interruptions)
MR. SPEAKER: I apologize, honourable member. You have approximately seven and one-half minutes left.
MR. WILSON: Thank you. Again, the member for Preston shows his real stripes by sitting over there or standing over there, as he usually does, babbling on in the corner about absolutely nothing and watching the door to make sure that all the good little Tories are in their seats so they have enough for a quorum. Mr. Speaker, I don't even think he is qualified to do that job, but he is the only one they have to do it.
I have gone through a few of the people who haven't said a thing on this legislation so far and haven't had too much to say on the legislation in this period in the two years I have been here, including the member for Annapolis who hasn't had anything substantial to say. The member for Queens, Kings West, Pictou West. Obviously - and I think it is the most outstanding one - the member for Preston, if there were an Academy Award for having nothing substantial to say, I would give it to the member for Preston.
MR. DAVID HENDSBEE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. This gentleman from Glace Bay has made assertions once again during his hour of dissertation and bafflegab. To say that I have said nothing in this House substantial on any legislation, I should remind the honourable member not only he had a piece of private legislation go through as a bill, I had one too for the Preston Area Housing Fund in the first session. I spoke on that legislation so you had better get your story straight, buster. (Interruptions)
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That was not a point of order. It was merely a dispute between two honourable members. The honourable member for Glace Bay.
MR. WILSON: Mr. Speaker, I think that exemplifies and that is further proof of exactly what I have been saying - that the member has nothing substantial to say. Buster. You know what I am talking about, buster? That is exactly what I am talking about. The member
for Cape Breton North has had nothing substantial to say except the only thing substantial that the member for Cape Breton North has had to say was to call me a coward. That is the only thing substantial that he has said in the Legislature so far, had to resort to that. I would never resort to anything like this. Absolutely not would I take the member's picture and put it on a Web site. That is not my style at all. It has been done (Interruptions) Look, I don't even want to go there. I really don't want to go there. But, it has been done and that is the result of me speaking on behalf of health care - I would like to table this, as a matter of fact, but I will refer to it just for a minute. That is a result of me speaking in my place on behalf of health care workers in this province. To be called a coward for standing in my place, I will gladly be called a coward by that member or by any other member over there. As I said before, the real cowards will come out in the wash. The real cowards will come out in the wash.
This comes with a warning, an explicit warning, you may want to be very careful before you see this or before you take this picture. The last member over there who appeared on this same Web site in the same sort of pose went on to become a Cabinet Minister. So, this may be indicative of things to come. I would warn the government backbenchers, please, when I table this, take a look at it. You know what happened the last time and we have seen what happens there. We have seen what happened with that minister, so this could be a prediction, this could be something to come - because this happened the last time on the Web site, this could be the next Cabinet Minister in Nova Scotia. That could be the lucky Web site and I would like to table that for everyone in this Legislature to have a look at and for it to be on record. The fact that it wasn't referred to that I was the one who was being called the coward, but, as the member for Cape Breton North full knows, and I think you know too, Mr. Speaker, because you were in the Chair at the time, that those comments were directed towards me, because you did the appropriate thing and ruled them out of order and then asked the member to retract them at that time.
Mr. Speaker, again, it's a further example - I haven't finished naming everybody yet, there are members for Chester-St. Margaret's and Colchester North and Eastern Shore, if you wish, because of the fact that you are in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I will skip your riding. (Interruptions) As I said, I am not the type of person who wants to go down that road. There is the member for Pictou East, Dartmouth South, Guysborough-Port Hawkesbury, Halifax Bedford Basin and Kings North. All of those members, not only have they not said anything substantial whatsoever in this Legislature, but they also have - especially in the metropolitan ridings - a very large number of health care workers who reside in their ridings.
Halifax Bedford Basin would a perfect example. I would take it there would be a large number of people who live in that riding who work in the health care industry because of its close proximity to some of the larger health care institutions in this province. I would guess it would be about maybe 600 or 700 people who would live in that riding alone that . . .
MR. WILLIAM ESTABROOKS: A lot of votes.
MR. WILSON: And you better believe it. As the member for Timberlea-Prospect said, that's a lot of votes. That's a lot of votes that are going to be remembered for the next whenever it is how long before we get to defeat these turkeys over there. They will remember just how long it is and they will take that with them, those 600 or 700 people.
Mr. Speaker, as the member for Preston continues to babble on over there, remember the government backbenchers in this instance now hold the key to defeating this bill. If they don't, they will pay for it. Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Timberlea-Prospect on an introduction.
MR. WILLIAM ESTABROOKS: Thank you. At this time of the morning it is refreshing to see that we still have, in fact, some new visitors who have come this morning who have been listening and watching the people's House in action. Incidentally, these are residents of Timberlea-Prospect. Isn't it ironic the number of health care workers that I have the opportunity to introduce or to speak about or receive e-mails from . . .
AN HON. MEMBER: They are probably very disappointed they missed your speech.
MR. ESTABROOKS: No, they heard my speech, I was told this morning, they picked it up through the airwaves, obviously. First of all, I would like to introduce Jean MacDonald, QE II nurse. Jean is here and her husband, Dan, is not with her, because Dan, a good trade unionist who works with Metro Transit, I hear from on a regular basis. We also have Carolyn and Ray Doucette from Greenwood Heights who are here and I thank them. Carolyn and Ray could you stand and I thank them for being here this morning. (Applause)
[6:00 a.m.]
MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. Yes, indeed, welcome to the guests as introduced by the honourable member for Timberlea-Prospect.
The honourable member for Cape Breton Centre.
MR. FRANK CORBETT: I have been here all night and I have been listening to the speeches and . . .
AN HON. MEMBER: Which one did you like the best?
MR. CORBETT: Obviously, the member for Timberlea-Prospect. I could barely contain myself during it.
Mr. Speaker, some of the speeches talked about people within the Cabinet who are to blame for this. I fundamentally disagree with that. The person who has led the attack on these workers is the Premier himself. The Premier has played a game of rope-a-dope with this piece of legislation that would make Mohammed Ali proud. He has dodged everything, he has hurtled back and forth, corralled inside and outside of this House and he has been flacked around; when he leaves here with the people around him, it looks like when the boxers are coming into the ring in a professional boxing fight, that is what it looks like. But, truly, he is, and should be portrayed as, the villain in this whole process.
Someone would say, why would you want to do that? Because, through the process from Opposition into government, this Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party portrays himself as this kind-hearted, friendly, country doctor whose primary concern is the health and welfare of Nova Scotians. Well, as we saw earlier this morning in Question Period, this kindly, friendly country doctor is anything but. His whole act there tonight was, well, we have to be fiscally responsible. That wasn't what he was saying when he was over in the Third Party. He was saying he was going to do this for health care workers.
Someone had joked to me from the NSNU last week that they thought he was on the payroll when he was in Opposition, he was over hanging around their offices so much, looking for information and going to correct the ills of the health care system. Somewhere - and maybe he is the one who can explain it to us because he is a medical doctor - how it is possible when you walk from that side of the floor over to there, you can get some kind of selective amnesia. That is the only way to describe what that Premier is doing. That Premier is anything but this fine, friendly country doctor. What he is, is in a wolf's clothing, because in less than two full years he has been responsible for chaotic incidents with workers in the health care system. It is him and him alone.
He has no understanding. I daresay he would never compare himself to an ordinary Nova Scotian, I am sure that financially he is much better off than most of these people that are being forced into losing their collective bargaining rights. I am sure he is much better heeled financially than them, so how can he even understand their predicament? I think with the lack of understanding of their predicament, he has a laissez-faire attitude towards it.
He says things like, we are not going to allow an increase for the health care workers to affect health care provisions down the road.
Mr. Speaker, again, I have to go back to the fact that that Premier, when in Opposition, said the complete opposite. That is ground zero, you have to look after your workforce. It is different now when he is sitting over there. One thing, I think he would have gained a bit of respect from Nova Scotians had, last night in Question Period, he said, well, I really didn't mean that, I just wanted to get elected. Maybe, begrudging and as distasteful as that may be, people may have respected that. There is no worker in this province who respects that
Premier's leadership tonight, or this morning for that matter, because he hasn't been forthright with them. He is the one responsible for this.
Mr. Speaker, you have to realize, last week when the members from the Nova Scotia Government Employees Union went to mediation with Mr. Outhouse they went in there in good faith. In good faith there was a media black-out on it, but there was also an understanding that at midnight the talks would end. The government knew that, the workers knew that, the Capital District Health Authority knew that, and Mr. Outhouse knew that, but they thought it was an agreement and it should stay as part of the media black-out.
What did this Premier do when these people sat down in good faith to bargain collectively with a mediator? What does this government do? It hunkers itself down with Cabinet and says, okay, we are calling the House back and, in effect, we are going to introduce what we now know as Bill No. 68. Then he has the unmitigated gall to tell the public, by way of the media, that what he was doing was right.
Mr. Speaker, he gave the workers no other choice. He pushed them, he bullied them into this situation. It is all right for this Premier, because he is financially much better off than any of these workers who are here this morning or work in the system. He can absorb loss, he can afford the proverbial hard times. This Premier, as other Tory Premiers from Pictou County are fond of trying to do, is trying to balance the books of this province on the backs of workers.
Now, it is a strange thing, you know, when people find out that the province is in a deficit situation. Do you go, as most right-thinking people would do, to the people who caused the overspending and help them, the people who can financially most afford to get the deficit in order? No, Mr. Speaker. What do governments like this do? They attack the working men and women of this province. They take away their rights. Have they said to groups like Scotiabank, we are not going to give you millions of dollars? No, no, we are going to leave you with that money. (Interruptions) We are going to give Sobeys money for creating work that is already here.
When it comes to looking after workers in this province, we can't trust them. So what we are going to do is take away the few basic rights that you have. There are very few basic rights that organized women and men of this province have, and we are going to take it away from you. We are going to take those away. Then, another thing, after Question Period, he gets scrummed outside and he tells reporters, well, if those workers settle, we may withdraw this legislation. Again, two things are evident here, Mr. Speaker, either he doesn't know what is in this legislation or he is not being honest. So I don't know which one it is. (Interruptions) There we go, the clown prince from Preston has said this, he is being practical. (Interruption) Mr. Speaker, I wish he would come to a microphone and say it because here is the flaw. You know somewhere in this province there is a village without one.
Mr. Speaker, the reality is that there is more than just this union that has to have the tentative agreement. There are other bargaining units throughout this province that are just starting to get to the table that are impacted by this and obviously, the member for Preston understands so little about the collective bargaining process that this goes over his head. He doesn't understand and I would make that same assertion about the Premier if he is making those statements outside the House.
AN HON. MEMBER: He is being practical.
MR. CORBETT: If you call that being practical, I would hate to have you do my books if that is being practical, but yet he is saying that outside this House. So he either doesn't know the legislation or he is not being honest with the people out there, Mr. Speaker. Shouldn't there be a partnership here? The Premier is telling these people the financial situation of the province is such that the people have to make sacrifices.
There was much toing and froing between the Third Party and the government during Question Period earlier this morning about who is responsible for the debt. I guess it was one of those things we sit back and say, well, you both have a good point because you have both driven it. What is amazing is that you folks on the government side almost want to wipe out any memory of the Buchanan and Cameron years and yet they want the workers of this province to help them unburden the province of that financial fiasco by those two administrations. So that is not fair. There is not one iota of fairness in that, but yet the Premier thinks that is all right when he moans outside this House about the fact that he thinks he made a fair offer to these workers, but why should the workers believe him?
Let's go back a short week ago when money wasn't an issue according to this government, it was the contingency plan that was the issue. But when this government was proven wrong that there was a contingency plan because there were two, there was one already built into the collective agreement and there was another ready to be signed off on that said, look, anything we disagree about the contingency plan will be sent to binding arbitration with the ruling within 24 hours. It makes sense to me that they are trying to bargain collectively, but the government didn't trust them on this. The government decided, no, we have to bring in this piece of legislation because we don't trust the workers of this province.
Could you imagine if you were to do a referendum with the workers and see what kind of trust they have in this government, when government after government after government ran this province into the ground financially and then are trying to blame that on the workers. You know, Mr. Speaker, the health care workers in this province didn't buy these automatic toilet seats. The health care workers in this province didn't negotiate a lousy deal with the oil companies over our natural gas resources. As I am fond of saying to the Minister responsible for Sydney Steel, it wasn't the workers who spent $3 billion at Sysco; it was the
Tory Government that spent hundreds of millions of dollars with the Tippins group down in Pennsylvania.
[6:15 a.m.]
This whole idea that for some reason when there is a debt in this province, it is the workers who have got to resolve it for you. There is no such thing as shouldering any blame. There is no idea of going after the ones who aren't paying their fair share of taxes; Heaven forbid, would they ever do a structure that would do that, that would make people pay their fair share of taxes. No, what this government would rather do is take away what little rights workers have in this province and tell them, look, that is it.
Another thing I found mildly amusing during Question Period and some of the Premier's answers were this is about health and safety. We're worried about the health and safety of Nova Scotians. You know, Mr. Speaker, that almost has a slight chance of plausibility, it may be right but, do you know what, I think back to just before the House rose in late May when we were asking this government to move the people of Laurier, Cartier and Hankard Streets in Whitney Pier. Their health and safety didn't matter to this government. Oh, we have to do more testings, we have to do this and we have to do that, we can leave them there. But all of a sudden it becomes paramount to them.
Mr. Speaker, I will come back later and talk more about that. They have a real problem when it comes to believability, because so far we have seen about three scenarios of why they are invoking this legislation and not sitting down with the unions. They pulled the trigger too quickly, Mr. Speaker, on the paramedics. They panicked and brought in a piece of legislation that didn't work. One thing that was going on that's completely absent here, because of the attitude now, is that there was ongoing negotiations to do two things - to get a collective agreement and to change the legislation that would make it somewhat more palatable. This time the government just put this piece of legislation in, didn't bother talking to any of the principals about it, and now they are not willing to move off it one little bit. They are saying to people, that's it. This is what we are going to give you and this is what we are going to do. This is the heavy hand of this Hamm Government.
So, you know, I have to think there is only one person who is to blame for this legislation, and that is the Premier of this province, who has no regard for the working women and men of this province. As a matter of fact, I would go so far as to say that he holds them in distain, that he has no respect, no respect to the value of their work. If he did, if he respected the value of their work and what they do, then he would certainly have said, look, as Leader of this province, I have to take charge of this situation, because the proverbial buck stops with him.
So he would have taken charge of the situation, Mr. Speaker, he would have gone and sat down with the parties and showed leadership but instead he was too busy playing the rope-a-dope game and hiding from the workers and now we see what we have here. We are stuck here with a bad piece of legislation that is not going to do anything to help cure the ills of the health care system in this province. I would make the assertion that it would go much further to hurting it, and I will get into that later on. This Premier bears the blame for what is happening in this province as we speak.
Mr. Speaker, about 12 hours from now there will be workers gathering around this Legislature to voice their disapproval of this. That could be a time when this Premier could, once and for all, show some leadership. He could go out, and if he honestly believes in his heart of hearts that this is good, useful legislation, then he could address that crowd, and they would probably turn around and go to their respective homes. People aren't coming out here tonight, the women and men of this province, and some children probably, to this Legislature because they have nothing else to do and don't have other things to do, like taking their children or grandchildren to soccer games or baseball games.
They are in a fight for their lives, and you have a Premier telling them, well, just wait, the time will come. Again, I have another quote from the Premier, last week, saying even after this legislation people want to stay here. That is a misguided thought. They can't afford to stay here after this bill. Again, it goes to the trust factor, when it comes to this idea of trusting the government, they are going to give themselves the ability to impose a collective - I keep have to correcting myself - an agreement, not a collective agreement, it is an agreement. They are going to impose one.
Mr. Speaker, we don't know what is going to be in that. They can actually give them less than what they have already negotiated. Now, something that the Minister of Justice said last night, speaking on a motion from the Third Party, he said well, we are not going to give them anything less. Well, if we trusted them on that, that may not be so bad, but they have flip-flopped on so many things since we came back in this House last week why should anybody believe them? Why would the workers trust them to get a fair deal? On the other side, they are saying there is nothing in here that prohibits them from bargaining collectively now. Well, again, it shows you, one would only hope, it is naive, but I don't think it is naive I think it is very cruel.
Why would any of the DHAs want to sit down and bargain collectively now, because there is no reason for it? They know they can sit back and the government is going to impose a settlement. They know the government is the ultimate employer and, therefore, this government is going to give them the deal that is going to fall on the side of the middleman, the DHAs.
We now have a bill that will take away all their rights. I think it is also worth commenting on the Minister of Justice's speech from last night, his theory around no matter what the contingency plans were, that wasn't enough. I think those comments spoke volumes. What it tells you, really, is the mentality that emanates from the Premier and goes through the whole Cabinet, what it is is that workers shouldn't have the right to strike. He tried, in his own way, to put forward a convincing story that there would be bedlam if they didn't bring in this legislation. Well, thanks to this government, what started out as an earnest way of trying to get a collective agreement has escalated into a real brouhaha. It has nothing to do with finding a way to get a collective agreement, but everything to do with this government sticking its nose in the collective bargaining process.
Another quote from the Premier is that we are going to make them the highest-paid nurses - the word he uses - in Atlantic Canada, yet when you sit down and you say that is not who your competition is in the marketplace, he shrugs that off. It is astounding. From time to time, when this government purports to be this kind of bastion of free enterprise and understands how markets work, and then realizing that when the markets are forced upon them, they don't like the scale of that market and they bring it back to one that would reflect what they see as their position and not the real world position, only theirs.
Mr. Speaker, again, we see this Premier to be the villain in this. Clearly, he is the one that has caused this problem, and he is going to be the one, whatever happens in the way of labour stoppages or anything else, the person who has to wear this. He is the one who has intruded in a system that was working. He likes to trot out the fact that the workers rejected an agreement. Well, that is democracy. I think they rejected and, clearly, sent their leadership back with a message. It is the fact that before this bill was even introduced, two weeks ago this Saturday coming up, when the NSNU membership rejected it, at that point they already started the wheels going, of getting a conciliator together and getting back to the table.
That wasn't pushed forward by this Bill No. 68. I would say to you that it was impeded; that process has been impeded by Bill No. 68. They want to go and think that this is going to go some way in helping to find a solution to the health care crisis within this province. All this is doing is making a bad situation worse. It is not about safety in the workplace, it is about taking away workers' right; it is about a heavy-handed, dictatorial Premier who doesn't respect workers and who says how dare you, that you would do such a thing as to challenge this province in its offer and, therefore, I am going to beat you down. That is exactly what he is doing. He is a tyrannical, mean-spirited Leader, by doing what he is doing.
AN HON. MEMBER: Is that bad?
MR. CORBETT: Oh, that is bad. It is real bad. Mr. Speaker, we have talked about the workers and their ability to stay focused on their jobs while all this is going on. It almost galls me sometimes when we introduce some of the health care workers, and I see the
government members applaud as if they respect what they do because I get the feeling they don't. If they did, this bill wouldn't be before us. These women and men have agreed that they were not going to endanger anybody's lives or not work to make sure the health care system is going. All they want is to be respected and remunerated for what they do. I don't think that is too much to ask. This government would rather fight them and draw the ire of just about every political analyst from across this country who have decried that this bill is overkill.
[6:30 a.m.]
We have had the Premier's own organization, a member - I am sure he is still a member - of the Medical Society of this province saying that this bill did nothing to help the health care system in this province. As a matter of fact, it will hurt it. I think it seems more like the Premier is trying to settle a score than settle any labour dispute. If this government was serious about bringing in some changes that would help these people, they would take some of our suggestions we put in here when the House was sitting before we were called back, about workers' rights, whether it was the Trade Union Act or the Labour Standards Act because we have eliminated some things here.
Let's talk about how this system is manufactured to abuse part-time workers. Mr. Speaker, these people - and there are many of them in the system - many health care providers are in the system who do not get any benefits whatsoever. They don't have extended health care; they don't have dental, they don't have optical; they don't have pensions. So, why wouldn't the government, if it really wanted to help these workers, why wouldn't it do something and say look, if you work so many hours, you automatically are covered. But no, the government wouldn't do that, so you have got to question the sincerity of the government; you have to question the sincerity of the leadership, therefore you question the sincerity of the Premier who says that he wants to do something about this.
In one instant he is saying, we made an offer, it was a fair offer. The next instant he says oh, we weren't at the table. Well, which we are we talking about? There is so much double-speak coming from the Premier's Office. I wonder if he should go and be checked for multiple personalities because certainly he says one thing and does another. It is like The Many Faces of Eve.
So why this attack on workers in this province, Mr. Speaker? You know earlier today my colleague from Timberlea-Prospect was reading some letter, I think from today's Halifax Chronicle-Herald. He spoke about someone who wrote a letter and talked about the death of coal miner Bill Davis in New Waterford. That was a seminal point for the trade union movement in this province. I think it is what everything else is measured against. I think we have to understand where we were then and put it in the context of today because in some ways there are some similarities. I am not saying that the Premier will have the provincial police, because we don't have provincial police anymore, come in and do anything dastardly.
Later I will get into talking about the heightened security around here when anybody in this province wants to protest.
At that time what you had in Cape Breton was a complete imbalance of the economic system. What you had was a company, a foreign company if you will, the British Empire Steel and Coal Company, that was mining coal from the grounds that we owned. It was a Nova Scotia resource not unlike our natural gas today. We gave the right to that fossil fuel away to these carpetbaggers, and that is the best way they could be described. They have been described in many historical journals as carpetbaggers. When these workers struck and tried to bring balance to this situation because at that time you lived in a company home, you bought from a company store, you burned company coal and that what it was, your life was controlled by them.
I won't go too much more into the exact history of that, but the day that, on June 11th, when William (Bill) Davis was murdered by provincial police, the citizenry of New Waterford had gone out and were in the process of taking over the power plant because this company, the British Empire Steel and Coal Company, had shut off the power to the families in the Town of New Waterford. There was no economic balance here, you had a heavy-handed company and yet, that was the idea. I think most fair-minded people would say, jumpins, I would have to do that if I was there. I would have to go if I had children and I couldn't get water for them to bathe, to cook them a meal and so on. That is what you would have had, you would have had to take things into your hands.
Did the government of the day come to the support of those workers? No, just the opposite, it came down on the side of the employer, it came in and what little dignity those workers had left, they tried to shred. To the chagrin of that government those residents stood their ground and turned that around. I say that because that is important, because we have the situation arising in this province, and it is coming close upon us. The same thing, where we have a government that is abandoning the workers. While these workers may have a few more rights today than they did back in 1925, 76 years ago, this government is trying to take some of those rights away. The government is trying. It is in the legislation, that it will be a full three years before they get any of these rights back.
Why should the workers of this province have any respect for the government if the government doesn't respect them? We all grew up, I would hope, with the idea that you don't get respect, you earn respect. This government is doing nothing to earn the respect of its own employees. It is taking a heavy-handed approach to it. I think, quite honestly, had the government sent meaningful people to the table, and I will get into this again later, but sending a messenger over to the Dartmouth Holiday Inn almost put the tentative agreement on the rails because he didn't know what he was doing, but Mr. Speaker (Interruption) The Government House Leader is telling me you have agreements, but you know that is not uncommon, Mr. Minister, to have them rejected. (Interruption) I didn't hear what he said. (Interruption) No, no, you see you have only one really that was rejected, it was the nurses.
Now let me finish. The other one, I know he wants to go on about the NSGEU that was rejected on Saturday, he is going to say is two. Well, the reality with that, my assertion on that, and I believe I am correct, is that that was a rejection from the heart instead of the head maybe, a reaction to this bill. You have to think of it in those terms, Mr. Minister, but that is what it was. You have pushed them in a corner and they said watch us, because you didn't respect them, and that is exactly what I am saying.
Did anybody - and I know they didn't - but I will say this to you, did anybody of substance from the Department of Health sit down with NSNU, after they rejected by 75 per cent their tentative agreement, saying well how are we going to resolve this? They didn't. You had a knee-jerk reaction and brought in this piece of terrible legislation, and that is why we are here today, Mr. Speaker.
I have often had arguments with the Government House Leader and that is fine, it is fine to have disagreements. I think you, as the point person who brings a lot of the bills and brings the Orders of the Day to this House, I think you are wrong on this. I think you are way off base, and it is as wrong as you were over the EMT legislation. I think if you sit down these people could come to an agreement.
So, you haven't showed the respect, I think, that these people deserve. I go back, I believe this is the handiwork of the Premier and he doesn't understand the situation. He has this, probably, cavalier attitude of what that level provides, where they are supposed to be in the health care strata. There is no talk here about nurses and lab techs and other people within the health care system, what they have to do when they are working 12 and 16 and 18 hours a day and they finally get a day off and they are getting called back in, Mr. Speaker, what that is all about. Does the Premier even care? I don't think he does. If he cared, he would have waited off on legislation until the mediation process was finished.
That is the fly in the ointment here. You can't say that they rejected this agreement on its face value; they rejected that agreement because they were pushed around by a government, and, quite honestly, with good or just cause, I am not sure, but they just said look, enough is enough, we are tired of being bullied by governments. We have been rolled back, we have been frozen, we have been blamed, and enough is enough. We are just not going to take this stuff any more. This government just isn't getting it; it is not getting it that these people are frustrated and that they deserve better.
Mr. Speaker, I may read some letters in a bit, but when we read affidavits and we read compelling stories about people who have been in the health care system, working in it. I heard one quote this morning: 41 years and talking about getting out of it. Not retiring. You would think if you were at a job 41 years you should have a decent retirement package but, quite possibly, they don't. But they are talking about getting out of it and going into some other line of work or going outside this province. There is something fundamentally wrong when you have people telling you that.
[6:45 a.m.]
Whether the government is going to take an attitude of, well, they are just a little angry with us now, give them six months and they will cool off. Well, if that was the case then they would have agreed with out hoist motion, so that, obviously, is not where they are going.
Yet, they don't look at a factor that I like to talk about a lot, Mr. Speaker, and that is the investment - I talked about the older workers, but I am going to talk about the younger workers for a moment and come back to the more senior workers, but they don't even look at the fact that these younger workers - we, as a government, through our tax dollars and as Nova Scotians have invested in their education. We have invested in their education probably 15 to 16 years. So, what do we do? Do we get a chance to recoup the investment? No, we see them go off to Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, Maine and California.
I was talking to my niece on the weekend and she is writing - I forget the technical term for the exam but, basically, it would be the same as writing an interprovincial ticket here in Canada and would allow them to take their skills throughout the United States. I asked her are you going to eventually come home? She says, I will come home for a visit.
Here is a case of a bright, young nurse who got caught up in a system we have in this province where she just couldn't take it anymore. She worked almost three years in the system as a part-time nurse. She was getting, on average, 60 hours a week but she was getting absolutely no benefits. As she said, that doesn't bother me today, I am still living at home, it is not a direct financial burden for me today. She said, what it is, someday, I would like to think about moving out and maybe getting married and having a family and so on, and have benefits, but it wasn't presenting itself. Everyone knows that in any kind of financial planning, the earlier you start to invest for your retirement, the more your money will accrue. This idea of not having any benefits, you don't have access to any kind of pension plan or anything. It is gone.
We have to wonder, how can we trust this Premier who leads Cabinet and they are going to be the ones, after this legislation is passed, to put forward the agreement. That is where it is going to happen. The DHAs are not going to have any interest, or the AHO, as it happens to be, when they are dealing with the NSNU, they are not going to have any concern or enthusiasm to bargain collectively because they know the government is going to do their heavy lifting for them. They are going to come in and say, here is the agreement. That agreement might very well be a series of rollbacks. We don't know because, as I said earlier on Monday, the government said they wouldn't do anything less. We have seen the flip-flop here so often, that you really don't know or can't trust the government as an employer to do the honourable thing.
What we have is, in approximately 11 hours from now, a group of citizens of this province who will be coming to this House, and they are going to tell this government how repugnant they feel, the repugnance they have towards this legislation, how they feel betrayed by this government. Quite honestly, maybe some of these people - not maybe, I would say for sure - who would be outside of this House 11 hours from now will have voted for this government, will have voted for members because maybe some had bought the blue book line, we are going to look after health care. Some others may have, as the case is in this province, voted for the candidate because they find them personable or trusted them as someone who would go to this House and represent them.
Mr. Speaker, that is what is going to be interesting. That latter group I talked about, when the rubber hits the road, whenever there is a final third reading on this vote, what are the independent people on the backbenches of the Tory Government going to do? Are they going to vote Party line or are they going to vote the way the voter voted back in July of 1999? They said that this government - this person, not this government - that this person, that this member I voted for, you know, I am not really a Tory at heart but I know this member from over here I voted for will represent my needs in the Legislature. He is not going to be, or she is not going to be just a duck on the pond, this person is concerned about what is going on in my community, in my workplace, and will represent me.
So that is the crux of what is going to happen here in a very few days time, how these people will react. If they don't do the right thing and represent the workers who voted for them, then I believe that they will have no right to go ask those people for a vote the next time when they go knocking on doors for the next general election, whenever that will be, because they have abdicated the trust put in them.
There is an old saying in politics: none of us are elected here simply because of what Party they belong to, we all got here because people will cross Party lines and vote for you because they feel that you are the best candidate, you are someone of substance who will go and represent the people of your constituency, of your community, reflective of where you live, and your concern is not Party solidarity but your concern is for community. That is what I believe the backbenchers have to come to grips with in a very few days. Is their trust, is their loyalty to the Hamm Government or is your loyalty to the people who elected you? Do you think it is more important that you buy into this notion that the debt and deficit of this province can be in some way be wrestled down and solved by taking away rights from workers? If that is what you believe, then you support this bill.
On the other hand, if you believe that the people, the women and men and students and so on, who voted for you back in your community put you there because they thought you would do the right and honourable thing in looking after their concerns, not the concerns of 12 people in a Cabinet Room but their concerns, then you will vote against this bill.
The government is not going to fall if you defeat this bill, as has been pointed out before, and I would also say to you that what you would do is you would go a long way to regaining the trust of the workers who are in the health care system, Mr. Speaker. These members could then go back and hold their heads up and say, do you know what, I did the right thing, I stood my ground and I am supporting what the ordinary Nova Scotian wanted us to do, not what the 12 people around a Cabinet Table have told us what they wanted done, but you, as my ultimate boss, the voters in my constituency, would want me to do.
It is evident, Mr. Speaker, if not scientific, it is certainly evident that Nova Scotians don't agree with this bill. If you pick up editorial after editorial, letters to the editor, radio show call-in lines, just reactions, it is overwhelming that Nova Scotians see this bill as negative. I have often said in this House, you know, when sometimes members of government want to stand up and say, but you have got to make tough decisions, and that's fair, you have got to make tough decisions. You don't have to make mean decisions and this is one of the decisions that is a mean decision. This is blaming people who have no control over 10, 15 to 20 years of debt in this province.
These are people who have gone to work every day and helped put the broken people of this province back together and all they want is a little time and space to give them what most Nova Scotians, who have joined a trade union, have the right to do and that is to bargain freely and collectively, Mr. Speaker. If you are going to vote for this bill, you have got to realize that you are taking away some fundamental rights these people have. This is not a group of fringe radicals who want to do something here. You are turning them into a radical group because you're failing to sit with them and trying to find common ground.
You're going to impose - and that's what it is going to end up being - a settlement, Mr. Speaker, so you try to impose a settlement which will not help anybody. It will not help a health care system that is not working. It is not going to help the government to balance its books. No, what you are going to do, as we've seen in editorial after editorial, provincially, regionally, nationally, we're being seen as the Nicaragua North when it comes to labour legislation. It is time for the backbenchers and the Tory caucus to stand up and be counted and do it for the people who you represent back home.
There comes a time when you have to put Party loyalty aside and say this is what's best for all of Nova Scotians. This is what's best for Nova Scotians, not what's best for the Tory Party, Mr. Speaker. They have to stand up and vote against this legislation and support the women and men in the health care system. Thank you.
[7:00 a.m.]
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Richmond.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and good morning at the same time I guess. It is 7:00 a.m. now. It has been an interesting few days. The first time I spoke on this bill it was 2:30 a.m. The second time I spoke on this bill was, I believe, around 10:30 a.m. and here again for the third time at 7:00 a.m. I certainly want to commend the previous speaker, the member for Cape Breton Centre, who delivered again quite an eloquent speech and was able to go his maximum hour time.
Mr. Speaker, it is a shame, it is disgraceful that one has to be here again at this hour, that the government backbenchers are once again forced to endure these long nights as the government tries to ram through Bill No. 68. It is simply amazing the amount of different messages that have been given over the last few days from the government. Last Friday when the Premier was asked, because he kept musing, both he and the Health Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Justice, they were hoping that the bargaining process could work and they hoped agreements could be reached before the passage of Bill No. 68. When they said that, naturally the question came up and they asked the Premier, well, if you do get those agreements, will you withdraw Bill No. 68. Well, on Friday his answer was no, regardless of whether they resolved it or not, I will still pass Bill No. 68. Not until this morning in an interview the Premier suddenly now is saying if there are agreements in place, I will not pass Bill No. 68.
Mr. Speaker, health care workers are asking will the real John Hamm please stand up. Which one is it? Is it the Friday Premier who said no, I am still ramming the legislation through, or is it the Monday morning Premier, or Tuesday morning Premier, who says that he will withdraw the legislation. The Government House Leader shakes his head. When I ask which one is it, he says no. It reminds me of my old science teacher I had in Grade 7. When we would ask him, his writing wasn't always comprehensible on the board and we would ask him, sir, is it this word or that word and his answer was yes. So that was about as straight as an answer as what the Government House Leader gives us there when we ask which Premier is it, is it Premier Hamm of Friday or is it Premier Hamm of Tuesday morning who says that they will withdraw this legislation.
Imagine, Mr. Speaker, the new Premier Hamm saying, you know, settle your contracts, take what we have given you and shove it down your throat and whatever it takes to swallow it, whatever drink, whether it be orange juice or maybe Javex in this case, because of the poisonous feeling that I am sure this has for those who have been negotiating here, that if you accept those, then we will withdraw Bill No. 68. That would require nurses and health care professionals involved in this to have trust in this government. I think the Government House Leader, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Justice and the Premier are sadly mistaken, considering the fact that we're in day number three of 24 hour sessions, that anyone would
actually believe the government in saying settle your agreements and we will withdraw Bill No. 68.
The Government House Leader says yes, yes, we will do that, honestly we will. Well, Mr. Speaker, let them put that down on paper. Let them write that to the Leader of the NDP, the Leader of the Liberals, and an open letter to all Nova Scotians saying that. They are making enough advertising as it is. What was it today, a one-half page ad in The Chronicle-Herald? You might be able to fool Nova Scotians into believing that that's not an expensive ad, but the problem is that all members of this House, and I know certainly all members in the Opposition, at least most of the Opposition members, have gone through at least two elections and we know how much those ads cost and they are extremely expensive.
A one-half page ad in The Halifax Chronicle-Herald is not a cheap ad. Yet today a one-half page ad with some graphs, once again, the government still hasn't accepted the idea that they can shout until the cows come home that nurses will be the highest paid in Atlantic Canada. The gig is up. It has already been shown that what nurses are making in New Brunswick and Newfoundland is about to change in the very near future so that their claim to fame that they will be the highest paid in Atlantic Canada today, they know that within a few months that won't even be a factual claim.
Yet today when asked during Question Period, the Minister responsible for Communications Nova Scotia, the Government House Leader, who would know if there was one obvious question, Mr. Speaker, that any member of the government could say, what's the obvious question we are going to get today, okay, can you guys think of one obvious question, anyone with any reasoning would have said, well, they are going to ask you how much those ads cost because they have been talking about those ads. They are on the radio. The one thing they are going to ask you is how much are those ads costing.
You would have thought that a responsible minister, a responsible government would have said, here you go, you want to see how much they cost, I will table them right now. Each day they have been running, here is the cost, here is how many radio ads we have run, here is where we have run them, and here is what we have paid for them.
I don't think that is unreasonable. I don't think you, Mr. Speaker, feel that that is unreasonable. Yet, in a wonderful Tory fashion the minister responsible says, I don't have that information, I will obtain that for you. I would be prepared to predict that it will be the month of July or August before that reaches either the NDP caucus office or the Liberal caucus office, or the government hopes that it will be long gone by then and as far away from Province House as possible.
Yet, they ask for the health care workers and nurses to trust them. The question, as a backbencher on the government side, has really become, how much more can you take? How much more? You have to know that they are punch-drunk by now. You have heard that term
before. It is a very famous term, a boxing term. You can only take so many shots to the head, eventually it starts to boggle your brains a little bit and throws off your balance a little bit, throws off your speech, and you lose a little bit of comprehension. I think with the three days of 24 hours, I think all of us might be a little bit punch-drunk, but I still think that the members on the government side have many more scars and are suffering much more from being punch-drunk than the members of the Opposition.
The members over there are frustrated, they are tired, they have been asked to sit hours for a bill, when most of them don't even agree with what the government is doing. How can you agree? The problem is, as I have said before, it is fine when you are in the House of Assembly, the Government House Leader can sit 24 hours to keep you from having to go home and to protect you from having to be outside talking to Nova Scotians, and he can shield you as much as he can, but look over at the government side. The vast majority of you are from rural Nova Scotia. The House Leader won't be there with you.
The Minister of Justice - what is it today - in one of the articles, which I will quote at length later on, it said, referring to the minister, Baker is notoriously irkable and fast becoming one of Cabinet's least popular ministers. (Interruptions) See, well, it is so early in the morning for the Minister of Economic Development to be making these little shots here and there. I will let history judge, I guess, my own performance in Cabinet. History is the ultimate judge of us all. Somehow, in my time in Cabinet, they didn't cut my budget by 50 per cent, and I didn't lose everything there was in the department from when I first walked in. We will let history be the judge there, because at 7:00 o'clock in the morning it is a little early to be judging what the Minister of Economic Development's performance will be viewed as.
I know how the people of Richmond County view it. I know many other areas of the province that once relied on the government to assist in trying to establish an atmosphere of economic development, it is ironic that he throws that out across the floor. In fact, today is June 19th, I believe it was either today or yesterday that was the very last day for the clerical employee in the Office of Economic Development in Port Hawkesbury. She was just fired, let go. There was only two of them there, and they cut one. He still sees it appropriate to hurl insults across the floor about people's performance, as a Cabinet Minister. In the Strait area, he is just doing wonderfully right now, and they are certainly singing his praises as to how much he has dedicated efforts to economic development in our area.
Mr. Speaker, as I said, it is early in the morning, 7:00 o'clock. These backbenchers all have to go home, and they all have to face the music. We saw earlier today how frustrated the member for Guysborough-Port Hawksbury was. I sympathize with that. I can't tell him it is going to get any better for him. Some of the comments I am getting and the e-mails I am getting from constituency makes it quite clear that it is not going to be an enjoyable summer of doing the barbeque circuit for the member for Guysborough-Port Hawkesbury, as it certainly will not be for the member for Inverness.
One of the e-mails said that the members reminded him of an old period in history where a certain gentleman played the fiddle while a city burned. One of them said that the minister from Inverness is playing the fiddle while our health care system goes up in flames. We will have to see this summer how much fiddling he can do and how much talking he can do to justify what his government is doing, and to be able to stand in front of his constituents and say, yes, I am proud to be a member of the John Hamm Government; Bill No. 68 was the right thing to do, I fully agree with it, I agree with all the provisions. I think the Minister of Justice is just absolutely wonderful and he has brought wonderful legislation to the floor of this House.
Mr. Speaker, I know I don't need to remind the member his victory in the last election was certainly by no means a landslide. In fact, all three in the Strait area; 300 votes in Inverness, I believe; 120 votes in Guysborough-Port Hawksbury; and the landslide winner in Antigonish, 16 votes. Needless to say, those ridings are not safe Tory ridings. In those ridings, if you did polling today, health care would be the number one issue in all of those ridings. I would say unemployment and employment issues would probably be second; housing issues would be up there; education would clearly be a top issue; transportation would certainly be a top issue. If the Minister of Tourism and Culture is doing the barbeque circuit I hope he is quite careful in his driving of the roads of Inverness because, unfortunately, since July 1999, there have been a few bridges fixed, but for actual roads in the county, let me tell you.
I almost feel as bad for him having to explain Bill No. 68 as I feel bad for him having to try to explain the road situation in Inverness, and how a government that said all the tax money from fuel, from gas, from the registering of motor vehicles, license registration, vehicle registration would all go towards new paving. You remember that. My God, if anyone remembers that, it is you. Yet, go to Inverness and tell them just how much money was spent on their roads down there.
Mr. Speaker, already it is ironic, because so many times the government will say, look, it is just the Opposition. The Minister of Transportation and Public Works, the Government House Leader will go back and say, look, guys, I have been here since the 1970's, I have seen it all. It is just the Opposition, they are trying to scare you. Don't pay any attention to them. It will all be alright once it passes, forget about it.
Mr. Speaker, all of a sudden, it is not just the Opposition any more. Open up any one of the daily newspapers, listen to the radio, look at the editorials, listen to what Nova Scotians are writing. You don't have any support for this anywhere. A very few right-wing individuals may think this is the right way to go, that this is a perfect bill, that this is the way legislation should go, the way collective bargaining should go. The majority of Nova Scotians just aren't buying it.
We have proven during estimates, in case any of the backbenchers missed it, that your Minister of Finance misled the House with his budgetary figures. He has continued to do so. We have proven where that occurred; we have proven the additional revenue through the federal income tax bracket creep, through the money which has come from Ottawa. What was more amusing than watching the Minister of Finance say, because the gas prices are approaching 90 cents, it is not bringing any extra revenue for the province? I am not very good at math, my math teacher would be the first to attest that I am not very good at math. Gas prices go up, more tax revenue is collected and the Minister of Finance tells us we are not bringing in any extra money.
Because of the efforts of our caucus, questioning them on their budget, suddenly now he admitted during the budgetary process under those questions, oh, yeah, I have an extra $20 million or something like that. Yet, you sit there and he goes to your Cabinet or caucus meeting and he tells you guys there is no more money. And, you guys believe him. Really. You have to go back to your ridings and you have to defend what the Minister of Finance tells you. You have to ask yourself, just look at the history of events since your government has come to power. Your government - and especially the Minister of Finance - has continually not given the full accurate figure of the finances of this province. Yet, where did they learn that? Where did they learn that? What administration did he learn that in? The same one that the Government House Leader was part of.
[7:15 a.m.]
I am reading a most interesting book right now. Most interesting book. Mr. Speaker, you might have read it and I do suggest that you read it. A certain Mr. Ripley who wrote a book about the Tory days in this province and the heydays of the Buchanan Administration and a look from the inside of how the government operated; The Bag Man. It gives quite an interesting, historical account from someone who is most intimate with the Tory Party during the days of John Buchanan. To lift the veil and to show you what really happened and what kind of government it was and what principles their whole government was based on.
I will tell you if someone were to write a book, I won't say who it might be, I am sure there must be Tories out there who are disenchanted enough like Mr. Ripley to possibly provide us with a book in the next few days that will tell us the John Hamm years. I don't know what they will call it - the bag man, it might be the empty bag by then - and tell us what the principles of this government are. There will be a chapter about who really ran government, I can tell you right now who that chapter will be about. The Minister of Justice, the Minister of Finance, the Government House Leader. Not even the Premier.
Again, when they write the chapter about the fall of John Hamm, these three individuals will be the ones named. You will recall, not that long ago on this side of the House, there was a possible coup - a palace coup, one could say - where the members of the Tory caucus were prepared to oust the now Premier of this province. Ironically, if the
Premier sits there today and looks over to his left and looks over to his right, up and down, it is those same faces that sat behind here that tried to get rid of him, and came on the brink of getting rid of him. The now Premier of this province. And yet, he can't understand why he has image problems. Why it is that the good country doctor which he tried to portray himself as, eating cookies and drinking milk, just ain't selling anymore. Nobody is buying.
The sad part for him is that Nova Scotians are comparing him to Don Cameron - one of the people, I have to say having observed politics long before being elected - and maybe he is the finest gentleman you will ever meet. I can't judge that. I can tell you the impression that came across the TV was one of a mean, nasty individual. Maybe I am wrong, but the history accounts now of his time in power are not very kind to him, to say the least. Especially Mr. Ripley, in his book, is not very kind to Mr. Cameron and the fact that Nova Scotians are now saying - not the Opposition - that Premier Hamm is worse than what we saw under Don Cameron.
Because when you bring a bill like Bill No. 68, this is not just - you have heard of kicking someone when they are down? Well, this is not just - kicking someone when they are down. This is kicking them in the face. Because, when you go clause by clause of this bill, it hits you one after the other. You are not only kicked once when you are down, there are 13 clauses here, it kicks you 13 times. It is not good enough for the Government House Leader, for the Minister of Justice and Minister of Finance to say, we are not going to allow strikes. No, no. That is not good enough. They say, we are really going to show Nova Scotians this time who is in charge. You, the rest of the front bench, you will toe the line. Already the Minister of Finance and the House Leader have told the backbench, this is a vote of confidence; if you vote against Bill No. 68, pack your bags, you are gone out of the Tory caucus. Yet this is the same Premier who said, I will allow for open votes.
I asked the member for Preston to challenge, to see if that will really happen, to just say, I want to see. I ran on the ticket that John Hamm said he would allow for open votes, now the Minister of Finance and the Government House Leader tell me I am going to be booted out if I vote no. Let's see if that is going to happen. I know he used to test Walter Fitzgerald all the time, it used to drive him crazy. He used to test him and say he would not accept being told these norms and you will do this. He pushed the envelope all the time.
Here is a perfect opportunity for him to say, I want to really see who is in charge here; John Hamm told me that I could have free votes; the House Leader, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Justice tell me I can't. So who is running this government? I think there are a lot of members in the backbenches who decided to run because of John Hamm and what they thought John Hamm was going to offer them and their constituents. I think they have to ask themselves, who is running this government? I think that is a question that the Minister of Tourism probably has every day, who is running this government? They put me in a department saying that they wanted a stand-alone Department of Tourism yet they have left me out to dry with that. They haven't given me the support, the Minister of Finance or
the House Leader or the Minister of Justice, to finally be able to achieve the success in tourism they should have. That is not a slight against him personally; I think if he was given the proper supports necessary, considering his own personal talent, musical talent and everything else, his age and everything, I think he could really show that the tourism numbers in this province could soar, which they should. Yet, that wasn't a top priority for the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance is more interested in making sure he looks good, not the Minister of Tourism because he sees himself as the would-be Premier, unfortunately not the Minister of Tourism. Only time will tell how that will all work out.
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, and I have told you before when I hear the government and when I heard the Minister of Justice stand in this House and say if there was any strike action that the Opposition would be to blame for anything that happened; to talk about beds being closed and emergency rooms being closed and the long waiting lists and front-line care not being available. I can accept that in the many times I have spoken on the issue of health care, maybe they didn't listen the first time or the second time or the third time, the idea that I addressed the issue about a dozen times, I would have hoped that at least one would have kicked in, where they could have said yes, there is a big problem down in the Strait, there is a serious problem there; the emergency room is closed, beds are closed, there are long waiting lists, their health and safety are at risk, we have to do something. The Minister of Tourism could have been there at Cabinet to tell the Minister of Health that we have to do something, my God, it has been a month, and then two and then three and then four and then five, now six and a half. The Minister of Service Nova Scotia, who himself was first elected, I believe, in either the 1970's or the early 1980's, could say look, this is unacceptable.
The Liberals dealt with physician shortages in the Strait area, in fact, from the Minister of Service Nova Scotia, I know that he just wanted to be at that announcement when we announced a CAT scan at St. Martha's Regional Hospital to tell the Liberal Government how great he thought it was that we were putting the health and safety of his constituents as the number one priority by putting a CAT scan at St. Martha's Regional Hospital.
I know he wanted to stand up and clap and applaud that and say what a wonderful decision that was, yet he has managed to sit there himself in silence and allow one hospital in Richmond County to go six and a half months with no doctor, yet now they put ads trying to scare Nova Scotians as to what would happen in the event of a strike. It is a shame because for my constituents it is a slap in the face, it is a mockery. They are saying that this government now stands and says what a terrible thing and all the bad stuff that could happen, and yet they have allowed us to go six and a half months without emergency room coverage.
A place like Stora Enso Industries, I think it is safe to say that the member for Inverness has more constituents working there than I do, I think he knows that; also, the member for Guysborough-Port Hawkesbury has a significant number of constituents who work there; the member for Antigonish has a significant number of constituents who work
there. Yet, they are willing to put that all on the line to risk it. The wonderful thing is that Stora Enso has a wonderful safety record when you look at the type of work that they do and the danger involved; and how quite easily a serious accident could occur. In this case six and a half months and yet, when you hear the Premier and the Minister of Health say we did not feel comfortable enough that we could trust nurses to provide critical acute coverage for emergencies.
Imagine, what a message, what a slap in the face. We can't trust you, yet the Nurses' Union provide all members of this House with an essential services agreements document dated back in May of this year. Since May of this year your government has been dealing with this and has been aware of this yet the Premier will go to caucus, the House Leader will go to caucus, the Minister of Justice, Minister of Finance and tell you guys, look backbenchers this bill stinks, it smells. I think stinks was ruled out of order the other day, Mr. Speaker, by yourself, so I will say smells, it smells, if stinks is not an appropriate word, it smells. They said but look there is nothing that we can do, this has come upon us at the last minute, negotiations aren't going well and we have to react and we have to react quickly and swiftly, I think is how they responded.
My God, since your government has been elected, they knew this was going to happen. Yet, you guys are being told to go home and defend Bill No. 68 because, if I could use the terms, the gun was to your head as a government. You had to act and you had to act quickly, this suddenly came up upon you. It didn't suddenly come upon you, it is an agreement that is going to expire. The minute that John Hamm took office he knew this was going to happen. From day one he should have been dealing with this and doing everything possible to make sure that this did not occur. Yet, that is not the Hamm way, that is not the way the Minister of Finance likes to run the show. He likes to say, look I told you there is no more money, you are not going to get any more money and by God you are going to accept that and if you don't, just watch me. Famous words used by, and I don't want to put the two in the same company because clearly it is not a fair comparison to the late Prime Minister to be put in that company but, imagine, that is the attitude.
Yet, this is a government that introduced a budget last year in Education, there is no more money, look we are on a four year plan. That was the message from the Minister of Finance, four year plan, no more money, suddenly he found an extra $20 million. This year another Education budget, no more money, we are on a four year plan, look $91 million deficit, there is not a cent left, we spent it all, then turns around and the Minister of Education in two installments for the Cape Breton-Victoria Regional School Board finds $1.5 million, yet there was no more money. As I said yesterday, mark my words, there is some news that will be coming out, let the backbenchers be aware now, there will be news coming out very shortly that your government has once again mysteriously found an additional $1 million to give out. I will leave you in a bit of suspense, maybe you can go and ask the Government House Leader, what is the MLA for Richmond talking about? You guys told us there is no more money, there is not a cent left, the Minister of Finance said no that
is it, I can't squeeze, it is like getting money out of a rock, there is no more money. You go ask him, if there is no more money, where did you find that $1 million? You said there is no more, which one is it? You told us, yes, the first year, in the Education budget, I said there was no more money and I found $20 million. So there was more money. In the second, yes, I did it again. But no, no, now, I am serious, come on guys, trust me. I am serious this time. Well, you will judge that for yourself before the end of the day as to just how serious that really was.
[7:30 a.m.]
There is no Nova Scotian out there who does not know that the Minister of Finance is building up a reserve, that he has cash that he has been putting aside and that the income tax cuts that he has told you all, hey, don't worry about the nurses, we are going to bring in an income tax cut just before an election. You are all going to be re-elected just on that because Nova Scotians will have forgotten about those nasty nurses being cranky at us. They will have forgotten about the Education cuts and increases to classroom sizes, cuts to teachers and support staff. They will forget all that. That income tax cut, that is our ticket to re-election.
Nobody is fooled, Mr. Speaker, the gig is up. We showed, in this year's budget, that what he will offer to us as a tax break, he is taxing us now for it and he is building up that reserve. No one is going to be fooled, yet it is always said that the voter only has a six month memory. I think you have heard that before, some say a two year memory. So do everything bad in your first couple of years, your tough decisions, and then the next couple, try to do as many good things as you can. The voters won't remember the nurses. They won't remember the paramedics. They won't remember education cuts. That used to be the way.
We have a wonderful thing now called Legislative TV. We have a wonderful thing called media technology and today, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the next election, I can tell you right now, I envision the campaign slogans and the ads in the Strait area already, when the ads will be running on the cable stations in Inverness and in Port Hawkesbury and Antigonish. It will show how your member voted on the paramedics strike. How did your member vote on the nurses strike? How did your member vote on the budget which eliminated 20 teachers in our constituency? That is a good way to make sure they don't forget. That is not just putting it on a flyer and hoping they remember. What better effects than visual effects to show people exactly what their members did when they were in Halifax and how they will try to say, pay no attention to Bill No. 68.
I hear some of the backbenchers saying, make him stop. We don't want to think about our re-election, for the love of God. We don't want to think about that. It is 7:30 a.m. and we have been sitting here since midnight and probably some hours before that. Tell him and make him stop. We don't want to think about our re-election, because they already dread having to go back to the polls. The other wonderful thing we have, Mr. Speaker, is when all
of the new members came into this House, they stood in their place and they gave these eloquent speeches. They gave these speeches about the principles, morals, what they saw in themselves as an elected official, what they saw their goals were, what the positives were, what the negatives were, the vision that they saw for their province, for their people, for the constituency, for the areas they represent. That is all on the record.
I would invite some of them to pull out Hansard, and if they can't find it, just let me know and we will certainly find it for you, and read over what you said when you first came in this Chamber in 1999. Read over what you said your principles and your objectives were, your priorities were and where you expected to go under John Hamm and then look at where you are at today. Because, once again, come election time, let it not be a surprise to you that your words during your first speech in this House will be used to remind Nova Scotians of what you said and what you did while you were here. For a number of members on the backbench, Mr. Speaker, I think their constituents will judge them quite harshly as to what they said when they came here and what they ended up doing in this House. So if they don't care about re-election and they don't care about what their constituents believe and they figure, look, I've got a free ticket in here. I am going to do whatever I want, and pay no attention to whatever I said because I made that speech and then the Premier sat with me and said, whoa, whoa, whoa, what is all this crazy talk about principles and morals and priorities and good government and honest government, whoa, whoa, whoa? What is all that crazy talk? Let's put an end to that right now. Don't be talking like that anymore in this House. You are a Tory.
Haven't you read Don Ripley's, the Bag Man? Haven't your read other such illustrious Tory writers who have talked about the Tory way? It is crazy talk, principles and morals, egad, you're a Tory. What part did you miss about being a Tory that you think you are going to be able to do that, stand in this House and maintain that, and go from election to election and still say, I've got my principles, I've got my morals, I've got my objectives and my priorities. They are all in check. What I brought when I first walked into Province House, well look at me walking out, I have still got them. No, no, not if you are a Tory, not when you were with John Buchanan, not when you were with Don Cameron, and Premier Hamm is quickly showing that as bad as we thought those administrations might have been, his is becoming one the history books will judge quite harshly.
Bill No. 68 is a perfect example. You look at Bill No. 68 and you look at what some of the government members said in their Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne about their principles, their morals, the background of their constituents, what they felt their objectives were, what they felt their personal priorities were as members of government under John Hamm. I challenge one of them to stand and to say, what I said in my Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne is reflected in Bill No. 68. I don't think there is one of them. I will challenge them, whichever one would like to stand, whether it be a backbencher or even a minister, the Minister of Tourism and Culture to stand here and say,
when I first walked in this House, Bill No. 68 is a reflection of where I wanted to go under Premier Hamm.
AN HON. MEMBER: . . . give them the rest of your time.
MR. SAMSON: If I give them the rest of my time? What an offer. Do you think I should accept that? Do you think that is sincere? He wants me to give the rest of my time for him to speak. Well, Mr. Speaker, he knows very well that he can stand in his place and speak an hour. Once again, unfortunately, and nothing personal against him, but considering the fact that he sits in the Cabinet of that government and he is now hollering to me, well trust me. Unfortunately, with Bill No. 68, I can't do it, and that is not a slight against him. I think he might see the light, one would hope, this summer, a few tunes, a few barbecues, a few little jigs. Something might just trigger that conscience to say, wait a minute. What is happening here? I can't be part of this administration anymore. This is not what I expected.
Those people in Inverness told me that politics was such a wonderful thing and Dr. Hamm was such a good country doctor. He only drank milk and ate cookies, all healthy stuff, and he ran every day. He is a good country doctor. A milk and cookies Premier can't possibly do anything bad. Finally, they say, wait a minute, Bill No. 68, oh, what were they thinking, putting the screws to nurses and health care workers? A government and a Finance Minister that have been sitting on this nest egg. I wonder because the Minister of Tourism and Culture wasn't here, Mr. Speaker, he wasn't part of your caucus when you sat here, so he kind of missed out on the dynamics of what happened.
I remember one day, Mr. Speaker, the Premier was sitting here as the Leader of the Third Party and we were sitting across the floor and the Minister of Health, then the member for Truro-Bible Hill, he had appointed him as his lieutenant on the right-hand side. He put him on the front bench. You remember that, I think you were kind of seated almost directly behind the Premier. I remember during a debate, the Premier was jousting with some of the government backbenchers and the Minister of Health, then the member for Truro-Bible Hill, pointed over and he said, John Hamm is not scared of you guys. I remember at the time, without missing a beat, I said, he has got nothing to fear on this side. His biggest fear is the fellows sitting behind him. Remember that? I remember the Premier laughing and he looked at me and just shook his head to say, how right you are. I know I don't have to fear the Liberals across the way, but the ones sitting behind me and sitting on either side me, that is my greatest fear in this House (Interruption). Yet, for the Minister of Tourism and Culture, see he missed that. I don't even know if he was at that annual meeting where they saved the Premier. From the brink of disaster, they saved the Premier.
Mr. Speaker, remember there was even a funny phone call made to one of the daily papers? There was this fellow talking like Elmer Fudd. Remember that? A mysterious call, I don't know if they were able to trace it. It seemed to have been traced to a garage somewhere, but I am not sure if they are actually able to identify who it was. A member of
this House, in fact, was asked to go do some sort of test, a voice analysis, and I think they refused. I always though Elmer Fudd was a cartoon character. I didn't know he was a Nova Scotia politician, but anyway, you learn all sorts of stuff in this business.
That is what happened during that time, for the Minister of Tourism and Culture and even the Minister of Community Services, who happened to miss out on that. Yet, when the Premier sits there, Mr. Speaker, and he looks on his left and he looks on his right and, unfortunately the Minister of Health who used to be his right-hand man and he felt was almost his safety blanket, having him close to him and he is all of sudden moved a little further away from him, now when he looks at who is on his side, he says, wait a minute, what were they saying when they were sitting behind me? Did they say they supported John Hamm for Leader of the Tory Party or were they the ones plotting to get rid of me?
Mr. Speaker, when he looks at the backbenches, those sitting in the last row, not one of them was here to see that. They missed out on that, but I would encourage them to look back through the media reports to see what it was like because I sat here and I saw what happened. I don't know if they were all at the annual meeting where the Premier was saved. (Interruption) I know the member for Preston was there but, at the same time, he was at all the Liberal annual meetings, also. I can't attest for the NDP, but I know the one thing you could be sure of, he was going to show up at the Liberal annual meeting and everyone was going to say, for the love of God, what is that doing here again?
AN HON. MEMBER: Never misses a party.
MR. SAMSON: Well, well, well, it wasn't a party when the member for Preston was there. It was, how do we get rid of this guy? What do we have to tell him to make him go home? But he kept coming. He didn't come to the last few, but I still expect that at the annual meeting, it would be nothing for him to show up and to come out again.
Mr. Speaker, what is happening here? Bill No. 68, I predicted it shortly after the election when I said John Hamm will not lead the Tory Party into the next election. The backbenchers right now have to ask themselves, is there any truth or any possibility to what the MLA for Richmond is saying? Is it possible that the fellow whose coattails we rode to office on will not be there? (Interruption) The member for Yarmouth says that is the Liberal way and that is the NDP way. Well, you don't have the most illustrious history either when it comes to getting rid of Leaders or getting rid of fellow colleagues and that, so I am not going to go down that road. But I think living in a glass house would be best if you don't start throwing stones and I think that goes for all of us.
I said I wouldn't go there, Mr. Speaker, but I am sure the member for Yarmouth and his colleagues will recognize that their own history is not a glorified history either when it comes to some of their Leaders, and especially in light of what I have just told them about what could have happened to their own Premier when he was in the Third Party. Again, I
would say (Interruption) What I am trying to say is that when I told the Premier, then as the Third Party Leader of this province, that you have nothing to fear from the other side of the House, your greatest fear are those behind you and sitting next to you, if the Premier looks across this way now, looking at the front bench, I would tell him the very same, that you have nothing to fear from this side of the House, your greatest fear are those next to you and those sitting behind you and the Minister of Economic Development says, that's right. I would be curious to see where he stood when he was right against the wall here underneath the picture of Gladys Porter, whether he supported the Premier or whether he was one of the ones pushing to get rid of the Premier also, then the Third Party Leader. That is what Nova Scotians have as a government and the backbenchers are led to believe that John Hamm is in charge. Imagine. (Interruptions)
[7:45 a.m.]
Well, Mr. Speaker, we hear musing from the member for Guysborough-Port Hawkesbury and the Minister of Tourism and Culture. I know the member for Guysborough-Port Hawkesbury is sensitive and for me to take advantage of that or to pick on him again, it probably wouldn't be fair.
AN HON. MEMBER: Take the high road.
MR. SAMSON: No, I am going to take the high road. (Interruption) No, I can't see him being in a fighting mood at 7:46 in the morning. (Interruption)
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh-h-h!
AN HON. MEMBER: There is another threat, Mr. Speaker. Another threat. That man lives on threats. That is all he does.
MR. SAMSON: Mr. Speaker, that member, if we put him on the Yuk-Yuks circuit or on Comedy Central, what a career. He is voted the most invisible MLA in the House of Assembly but now all of a sudden, we have found a feisty side . . .
AN HON. MEMBER: Tough guy.
MR. SAMSON: All of a sudden he is the new tough guy and the enforcer of the Tory Party.
AN HON. MEMBER: Stone cold Ronnie.
MR. SAMSON: Imagine, Mr. Speaker, at 7:46 in the morning, the stuff you hear. (Interruptions) Most interesting. (Interruption) Well, you know, let him stand in his place, let him speak to us and tell us what he has to say, if he doesn't like what he is hearing and
he can always stand and tell us, explain six and a half months, no doctor, 48 hours in Cape Breton North (Interruptions)
The justice centre is not built yet plus the justice centre, the mayor wanted it to be a community civic centre at the same time, wasn't able to do that, couldn't deliver on that for Billy Joe. Call centre, all federal money. They like to take credit for that. Well, that is fine, Mr. Speaker. He is frustrated, Mr. Speaker. I can see my colleagues across the way are giving me helpful notes here to assist me in my speech and telling me really, we wonder who the real John Hamm is also. If you read this, who is the real John Hamm, signed a backbench Tory. That is a good question because you have the backbench starting to ask it, really. It says here, PS, is it Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde? That is a good question. I would like to know that myself. I think all the nurses here would like to know that because when they were told July 27, 1999 to vote for the good doctor who jogs every day and drinks milk and eats cookies, he couldn't possibly do anything bad to nurses.
Then again, Mr. Speaker, as I tried to point out to my colleagues in the Strait, try to be helpful to them, try to assist them, is to tell them that your words and your actions in this place can always come back to haunt you. Even the Premier himself is not immune from this sort of thing.
So, you wonder, well, what is he talking about now? What do we have? Well, I want to quote from an article, if you will allow me, just to make my point. When you see Bill No. 68 and you see what the Tories are now doing, and you wonder why the nurses are saying, who is this John Hamm today? Who is the guy we voted for? Where did he go, really, is the question? I am going to quote. What I have here was downloaded by our staff. It is from The Halifax-Herald Limited, Thursday, February 19, 1998. That was during the campaign, that is where I first got elected. I remember that. What does it say here? Well, guess who wrote the article? You wouldn't guess, Mr. Speaker. A gentleman by the name of Dale Madill. I wonder who that might be. Anyway, it says, "Hamm pledges more funds, more staff in health care." The reason I bring this up is because it was interesting in Question Period today how the Premier was saying that a health care strike would be devastating, how it would be terrible, just the mere mention, he was quoting Joan Jessome, he was quoting Jim Smith, oh my God, a strike, what a terrible thing, even the thought of it is why I brought Bill No. 68. I can't even fathom the thought. We have to put a stop to it even before it even becomes a chance of being a reality.
So what did he say about strikes? Well, it says here, talking about the nurses at the QE II, "They are becoming desperate to get the attention of government, to get the recognition they deserve." Mr. Hamm said of the QE II employees. Then it said, "But he hedged when asked if he supports wildcat-strike action." So the Premier, today, this morning, you heard what he said, just the mere mention of a strike, my God, puts shivers up his spine. That is why he is asking you guys to vote and support Bill No. 68. He said, "I don't like wildcat
strikes. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to suggest a wildcat strike, but I certainly am sympathetic to the way they feel, and I think it is genuine."
What else did he say, though? He said, "Somehow, if a wildcat strike brings this government to its senses, then it is good strategy." It is good strategy if a wildcat strike brings this government to its senses, it is a good strategy. It is right here for anyone who wants to see it. February 19, 1998, the Minister of Economic Development was elected that year. That was the campaign. He will remember that statement. He was elected for the first time in that election also. If a wildcat strike gets the government's attention, then it is a good thing. Who, Mr. Speaker, was the gentleman sitting there in the place of the Premier who answered questions this morning about a possible strike? Who was that guy? Who was that imposter? How did he get past security? My God, we have a dozen armed officers here. How did he possibly slip by? It went on further to say, "Health care workers have been abused by this government." Well, well, well. If he thought they were abused, then let him go ask them now how they feel.
Imagine, Mr. Speaker, somehow, if a wildcat strike brings this government to its senses, then it is good strategy. So which one is it? Is it the gentleman who says a wildcat strike might be a good idea to bring the government to its senses, which I would argue would be an appropriate thing for this administration under that logic, or is it the gentleman who stood there today? I am not sure who he was. He sat in the seat of the Premier and people seemed to recognize him, he looked familiar; who said, my God, the mere mention of a strike, people will be dying and those nurses, they won't take care of people, they will be on the picket line with their pickets and the ambulances will go in and there will be nobody there. Imagine.
Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? Come the next election - well, no, because that goes against my theory. It goes against my theory. The Premier, there is no use even trying to advise him of the evils of what he is doing and its affects on him in the next election because, as I said, the Premier will find a way to step down as the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party before those individuals who threatened to get rid of him when he was the Leader of the Third Party finally say, okay, we've had enough, we've painted you with all of these bad government decisions, now you have to go. So that is what is going to happen there.
Now who, clearly, is the replacement? Is it the Minister of Economic Development? I don't think so. The Minister of Tourism and Culture? Well, he could mount a fight; he has the age, he could mount a fight. Is it the Minister of Community Services? I don't think so. Maybe he could mount a fight with the big Bedford vote and the big Bedford money behind him. But, we all know who, in that caucus, sees himself as having the divine right to replace Premier Hamm and lead the Tory Party, and that is the Minister of Finance.
The question is whether the backbenchers who got elected, saying that we are elected, we are part of the John Hamm team and the government is going to be open and accountable and that is why we ran - the member for Kings North, the member for Kings West, the member for Annapolis, Pictou West, they all ran for John Hamm - the question is, do they want to run for the Minister of Finance, a minister who has continually not been up front with them, a minister who doesn't talk to half of them. He doesn't talk to half them. They have to ask themselves, how many times has he invited me out for dinner or given me an extra ticket to a banquet or brought me to this place or asked me over? He doesn't have time for you guys. You are almost a hindrance. You are an annoyance but he needs you. Then he will come at the right time, he will pat you on the back and he will say, hey, how are you, buddy, how are things going and way to hang in there, way to go team. That is what is going to happen. The question is, will someone like the member for Preston, when he pats him on the shoulder say, hey, how are you? Or is he going to say, who do you think you are? (Interruption)
He is going to say, hi, I am Mr. Hendsbee from Preston and who might you be? They might get to meet officially for the first time. That is what the government backbenchers have to ask themselves, Mr. Speaker. I can tell you, how is it they would say in baseball that someone hit for the cycle? I can almost see in this House that I have hit for cycle. I have gone from government backbench to government front bench and now I am on the Opposition side so I would feel it safe to say that I have hit for cycle. When I talk about the government backbenchers, I can tell you I have been there.
The Minister of Economic Development can't tell you that though. He went from Opposition straight to the front bench. He doesn't know what the backbenchers are going through. When the members say, look, we are frustrated, we can't speak, what are we going to do here? Our people back home are wondering why aren't we talking, why aren't we doing this? He can't sympathize with them. He can't say, I know what you are going through because when he was on this side of the House he spoke whenever he wanted to, just as you did, Mr. [Deputy] Speaker. So there is not that level of understanding there.
I don't know if the Government House Leader was ever a backbencher himself. He has been elected for quite a long time and he has held several portfolios. I am not sure, the Clerk would probably know better than I whether he was even a backbencher or not. I think he went straight to Cabinet upon election. Now I think the Minister of Finance, though, might have sat as a government backbencher but I can't be sure because he may have gone (Interruption) Okay, the member for Preston tells me yes, so I am getting a bit of help with history here and that is always helpful. So he sat as a backbencher.
So you have to ask yourself, the Minister of Finance sat as a government backbencher so he knows how frustrating it can be at times. You are not allowed to speak, you are frustrated. So if the member for Kings North or the members for Annapolis or Kings West or Chester-St. Margaret's who are frustrated, you know, look, we want to play a bigger role
in this government, we have a lot to contribute and I think they are sincere. I think there is a lot of talent there that they could contribute to the debate and contribute to the direction and they are saying, look, why won't you let us talk? The member for Preston, all his years on HRM Council, I think he would have something positive, possibly, to contribute yet he is told no, look, we don't have time to listen to you. That is what they are being told.
At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 68 is what this government will be judged on. So will the Minister of Tourism and Culture when he goes back to Inverness, the people of Judique and those who were told they would get a school, or their school wouldn't close. That issue which got him elected, that in itself, could be the defeat. (Interruption) Well, the Minister of Tourism and Culture says it didn't get him elected. I would say it got Charlie MacDonald defeated because I would say that is how that election went, Charlie lost, but that is my own opinion, I could be wrong.
Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, my colleagues in the Strait, I have said it before, that those seats, which combined, all three of them, their margin of victory was less than 450 votes, that come the next election, those seats could all return back to the Liberal fold. Bill No. 68 paves the way for that to happen. If they believe Nova Scotians and people in the Strait will not remember, I assure you, I will continue to remind them as much as possible of what is happening today and who they voted for are not the individuals who have spoken on their behalf in this House.
[8:00 a.m.]
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to speak at second reading, probably for the last time. My opportunity now is to speak on the main motion. I wish to take some time to raise my concerns about Bill No. 68, a bill entitled, An Act to Continue Healthcare Services in Nova Scotia. This bill was tabled in the House on June 14th, last Thursday, with an explanation from the government that they believed that negotiations between the Nova Scotia Government Employees Union, representing nurses and other health care workers at the QE II and other tertiary care facilities within the capital district had broken down, or were to break down, that the negotiations between the Nova Scotia Nurses' Union and the capital district and the tertiary care facilities therein were breaking down or would break down and that they anticipated that strikes, or withdrawal of services by those workers would cause irreparable harm to the health care system in the capital district and that they did not trust the workers to be able to put in place the normal level of essential services required by and expected by the hospital administrators and the unions. So they felt it necessary to bring in Bill No. 68.
Let me say that Bill No. 68 does a few things. Bill No. 68, in Clause 5, removes the right to strike. It effectively removes the right to bargain fairly and collectively, and it also removes the right of the employer to lock out.
Clause 6 of the bill, in turn, gives authority to the Governor in Council, to the Executive Council, to the Cabinet to put in place, arbitrarily, the terms and conditions of a collective agreement between whatever bargaining unit and employer is still subject to an outstanding set of workplace rules and conditions. It is an unprecedented move, in effect. The governments before the Liberal Government under John Savage, in 1993 and 1994, froze collective agreements, prohibited collective bargaining, rolled back, unilaterally, wages, but they did not take upon themselves the responsibility of determining the terms and conditions of a collective agreement.
I don't know if it is all that worthy of any energy that may be required to distinguish whether the measures taken by the Liberals were any less onerous or odious than the ones taken by these Tories, but certainly in this case I would suggest to you that this government is going even a step further in inserting itself into the collective bargaining process, into industrial relations between health care workers and hospitals or, in this case, district health authorities in a way that is unprecedented in this province and, as we understand, in this country.
While health care workers have had their rights trampled on to some significant degree by previous governments, this government, the group opposite, the sponsors of Bill No. 68, have taken the trampling of rights to whole new level; that is clear in the various clause of Bill No. 68. The government has suggested that the disputes at issue are the ones between the NSGEU and its nurses and health care workers and the Capital District Health Authority, the QE II Health Sciences Centre, the IWK-Grace, the Nova Scotia Hospital, and the Nurses' Union and their members and the same employer.
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that as a result of the language in Clause 12 and in Clause 3 this bill, in all likelihood, and I would say, in fact, without question will impact on all health care workers employed by district health authorities, which effectively means all health care workers in the Province of Nova Scotia will be affected by Bill No. 68, those currently in negotiations and those about to enter into negotiations with their employer. Legal analysis of this legislation has even begun to raise the spectre that because of the widespread and extensive authority provided to the Governor in Council, through Clause 6 and the regulatory authority provided in Clause 12, that Bill No. 68 may very well be applicable to all public sector workers in the Province of Nova Scotia.
When you take into consideration these sections in Bill No. 68, together with a bill that we have already dealt with in this House, Bill No. 20, which gives the Governor in Council extraordinary authority over public sector employers in the Province of Nova Scotia, Bill
No. 68 will, in all likelihood, be extended to affect all public sector workers in the Province of Nova Scotia.
You have to wonder what this government is thinking about when it brings in such an expansive piece of legislation, a piece of legislation that so clearly and so thoughtlessly takes away the rights of working people in the Province of Nova Scotia. It takes away the rights of workers in the province, health care workers and, public sector workers; it takes away their rights to bargain collectively, to bargain fairly, and their right, under the Trade Union Act in the Province of Nova Scotia, to withdrawn their labour, withdrawn their services in the event that their efforts at fair and free collective bargaining are not satisfactory. It is a dynamic, it is a process that has been determined over many years in this province to be the most effective at achieving, at maintaining the balance between employers and employees, and for regulating the conditions of work, and the wages and benefits of working in these circumstances.
There has been talk over the years by industrial inquiries, by various experts who have reviewed relations, bargaining in the health care sector, there have been examinations of the whole idea of compulsory arbitration, of going in the direction, for example, that Ontario has gone in the hospital sector, where all matters with respect to the terms and conditions of employment are subject to binding arbitration. The two parties make submissions to an arbitrator, to a board and the determination is made on the basis of those proposals, the arbitrator independently sets the wages and terms of conditions at individual hospitals and health care institutions in Ontario.
In Nova Scotia, it was felt by both the hospitals, represented by the Nova Scotia Association of Health Organizations, and by the unions representing the health care workers, as well as experts in industrial relations who examined the issue, it was determined that, in fact, the best way to maintain the balance between the interests of the employers and the employees, to ensure the freedom of the employees to bargain collectively that, in fact, it was best not to go down the road of compulsory binding arbitration.
Studies have shown that the wages and benefits levels in the health care sector in Nova Scotia have, in fact, maintained a level lower than might be expected under conditions of compulsory binding arbitration, as was the case experienced in Ontario. Therefore, it was a position that this government has supported over the years, and governments before this have supported over the years, rather than subject the issues of wages and conditions of work to an independent third party, who were influenced less by decisions about ability to pay, that they would leave bargaining and negotiations up to the parties involved.
In 1991, there was an inquiry established under the chairmanship of William Kydd that was asked to look into the whole question of collective bargaining in Nova Scotia hospitals. It resulted from some disputes that had begun with negotiations in 1989, primarily in six hospitals in Cape Breton, where health care workers had gone on strike. William Kydd was
asked to examine the whole question of central bargaining, more of a central and collective form of bargaining with the central provincial table across the spectrum in health care, and he was also asked to examine the whole question of compulsory arbitration and those other models of resolving disputes.
[8:15 a.m.]
In the process of his examination, Mr. Kydd looked at the whole question of essential services and how essential services should best be maintained. What Mr. Kydd found, and is reported in his study, is that in the dispute of 1989 and in the dispute of 1981 and in the nurses strike of 1975, what they found was that the parties themselves, voluntarily, were able to negotiate a level of essential service, the provision of essential services, which ensured that the general safety and health of Nova Scotians was not put in jeopardy. He said in his report that there is a difference, with respect to essential services, between work stoppages which affect the safety, security and health of a community, and work stoppages which cause public inconvenience, and that where the parties are able to negotiate circumstances to provide essential services in the event of a work stoppage, that what they determined over the years is that the general safety and health and security of a community was not put in jeopardy, but that what was generated was, in most cases, public inconvenience.
Let's be clear that no one in the health care sector, no industrial relations experts examined the issue, no hospital administrators, no union executives, no health care workers take the issue of work stoppage lightly. None of the people involved in decision making in this area would suggest to you that the decision is not inconsequential, and that the responsibility by all involved is very significant. That is why there has been a history in this province of the parties involved in collective bargaining being prepared to and successfully negotiating proper terms and conditions for the provision of essential services in the event of a work stoppage.
I think that is why many involved in this dispute, in particular on the side of health care workers were so incensed by the Minister of Health when he questioned the responsibility and the professionalism of nurses and other health care providers, that they would not look after the safety, security and health of the community of their patients in the event of a work stoppage.
Mr. Speaker, they have already, both in the case of the NSGEU and the case of the Nurses' Union, the case of all health care bargaining units, negotiated the conditions under which a work stoppage would take place. As I raised here before, in the case of the NSGEU and the Nurses' Union, those people directly involved, right now, in negotiations, the capital health district had already reached agreement with the employer outside of the terms and conditions that had been negotiated in their collective agreements providing essential services, had already agreed to reconcile a major concern of the employer, which was what happens in the event of a dispute over the level of staffing or the level of service to be
provided under those essential services agreements. The commitment made by the unions representing those health care workers was that in the event of a dispute the matter would be resolved by referring the issue to an independent third party arbitrator who would be under an obligation to respond within 24 hours and that both parties would accept the decision of the arbitrator.
Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the kind of recommendation that was made by William Kydd when he deliberated on the issues of collective bargaining in the health care sector back in 1991 in his industrial inquiry commission. Where he said that the experience has been that essential services, the conditions under which essential services will be provided are negotiated, had been negotiated, will continue to be negotiated, but recommended that there be provisions established ahead of possible work stoppage whereby there is a strategy for resolving disputes. This has been done in the health care sector in this particular instance.
So, for the government to say as it tables Bill No. 68 that it is concerned and it is acting out of the interests of the public safety is, to use a term that this government often uses against us in the Opposition, I would suggest to you that they are scaremongering. They are trying to heighten the concern of the public on the whole matter of the potential of a dispute between health care workers and their employers. That is simply - particularly because the evidence is so contradictory to that position - irresponsible in the extreme. If this government were so concerned about ensuring that there is no disruption, then they should be prepared to resource the district health authorities sufficiently so that they can remunerate, compensate health care workers for the job that they do and that is the bottom line in all of this.
We have been through a decade of disruption and dislocation in the health care sector in Nova Scotia. I have talked about how public sector workers, health care workers have had their wages frozen, rolled back, and they have had their ability to negotiate frozen for nearly that full decade. At the same time the previous government and this government - in fact going back to the Tory Government under Don Cameron back in 1991 - have been initiating what they refer to as health reforms at a level unprecedented in the country. I say unprecedented not because they are the only province, we are the only jurisdictions that have engaged in health care reform, not in the least, other jurisdictions, other provinces have been responding to the two-pronged pressures of fiscal challenges and pressures brought on by, I would suggest to you, global and economic circumstances, as well as changes in the population, in the health needs and demands of the population, and in the uncontrollable - in some cases - cost-drivers in the health care system.
There has been an attempt to try to change the way health is delivered in this country to make it more effective and more efficient. What has happened in this province and in other provinces is that while the government of the day has been mouthing the words of responding to the changing needs, to modernize health delivery, to make it more responsive and efficient by being able to meet the needs of the population, they have not, while they have changed, for example, the focus of health care from one based on acute care, to one
based on primary care, from one based on treating sickness, to one based on prevention and treating the symptoms. Instead of doing that, what we have seen this government and the government before it focus on, is trying to deal with fiscal pressures.
We have seen layoffs in the health care sector. We have seen the number of hospital beds in acute care slashed by over 30 per cent. We have seen hospitals closed. We have seen access to nursing training, to doctor training, to training in other disciplines like in medical laboratory technology, restricted. But what we have not seen is the commensurate reallocation of resources to properly accommodate the shift from acute care to primary care.
The result of all of this has been a deepening pressure, a piling on of burden on the health care workers who remain within the system.
The acuity level of patients has increased in hospitals, in homes for special care, mental care facilities and those facilities who care for the physically challenged. We have seen the pressure on care providers increase, that acuity level has increased, this technology has changed and the number of workers in the system has decreased.
We have seen the number of nurse managers and administrators decrease. We have seen the number of support people for the health care team decrease, which has meant a greater number of duties and greater responsibility for duties other than the strict responsibilities of those in the nursing sector, for example, increase. All of this has lent itself to the pressure both emotionally and physically. I know that in the nursing home sector, for example, as well as in hospitals, with a decrease in the number of staff available, with the kind of equipment that is available, with the increase in the pace of work, you see more injuries, more back injuries, more sickness within the health care sector, within long-term care and within the acute care sector.
As workers are being asked to do more with less, they are being asked to do more by themselves. They have been placed as a result in less safe and healthy work conditions and that has shown itself.
[8:30 a.m.]
We have heard about an increasing casualization in the nursing sector where nurses, the number of new permanent nursing positions has not appeared, there has been an increase in the number of casual positions. So what we find is that the opportunities for new graduates from nursing and from other health care programs, their opportunity to avail themselves of permanent positions has not resulted over the past decade. All of these situations have resulted in an increase in work, an increase in pressure on those individual health care workers. At the same time they have seen their incomes either decrease, stay the same or increase only marginally over that decade.
Why should this government, or anybody for that matter, be surprised when health care workers say to them, we are tired, we work our guts out to provide for our patients and we are tired physically. We are tired emotionally because we constantly are asked to do more and we do more without question. But when we ask for some consideration of the impact of those workload issues our employer is silent. When we ask for some recognition through our wages of what it is that we do and the role we play in the provision of the quality of life in this province, we find our employers, and ultimately the government, silent in dealing with those issues. The result is exasperation, frustration and in some cases anger on the part of health care workers who feel that this government, like the government before it and the government before it, is disrespectful to them. It undervalues what it is that they provide to this province.
Mr. Speaker, the reports dating back to 1989, the Royal Commission on Health, the Blueprint Committee on Health, and I don't know if we have received the footprint or not, but I am sure that it says the same thing that all the studies in health care have said. If a government is going to undertake reform, which it should, to shift the emphasis in the health care system from a priority on acute care to primary care, when any changes taking place in such an integral system, in a system where the parts are so integrated, where all of the workers regardless of what they do are essential to the effective operation of that system, that if you are going to change it, if you are going to reform it, you need to have the buy-in, you need to have the involvement you need to ensure that decisions are made on the basis of input of all of those participants in the health care system. It is essential and it has been described as such by all of those who have examined health system reform in this country, in this province, around the world.
While those recommendations were made and have been made over the past decade to governments in Nova Scotia, those recommendations have not been heeded. The governments have gone forward and they have imposed change on the workers in that system, they have given lip service to consultation, but when the rubber hits the road government has not paid attention, has not involved the participants in health care, they have not involved them in key decisions that need to be made.
This move, Bill No. 68, is an indication of that type of attitude. This government has said, as governments before it said, that health care workers are not responsible enough to be left with the right to strike, to be left with the right to bargain freely and bargain collectively their own conditions of work. While on the one hand this government will expect nurses and technicians, others in the health care system, to look after their loved ones, to look after themselves, to see to the health care needs of the population in this province, on the one hand they will recognize the responsibility that they have, on the other hand they won't recognize the responsibility by ensuring that those health care workers have the commensurate rights to be able to have input in and some control over their conditions of work and terms of remuneration.
It is a terrible contradiction. It is not unlike how much parenting takes place, where a parent will say to the child that you must do this and you must do the other thing and that if you don't then you will suffer the consequences, that there is a level of expectation that the child will do what they are told but yet when it comes to asking that child to participate in the rule setting, when it comes to allowing the child to have some autonomy in and take some responsibility for their actions a parent may not allow that to happen. That is much the same way that this government is treating health care workers.
This government feels that it must set all of the rules, that it cannot leave health care workers to their own devices, as they are in other provinces, in other jurisdictions in this country and around the world, this government has determined that only it has - and for that matter only the Governor in Council, only the Executive Council, only the Cabinet has - the real wisdom and the knowledge and the responsibility and the experience and the maturity to be able to determine the level at which health care workers will be paid and the conditions upon which those health care workers will perform their duties.
It is a shocking admission by this government that they have so little respect for the women and men who carry out the duties that make up the health care system in the Province of Nova Scotia. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this sets an alarming precedent in this province and, in fact, across the country. Even in Mike Harris' Ontario, as I suggested last night when I spoke, the jurisdiction that has been described by some as the neo-conservative capital of this country, they have not gone so far to usurp all the rights and responsibilities from workers in the health care system.
Maybe that is down the road, maybe those who believe that workers should not have any rights to bargain collectively, maybe they have gathered together in a small room somewhere or maybe they have a chat room on the Internet, the neo-conservative policy makers in the country, and they have said, well, let's set up a test case. Let's have Nova Scotia be the laboratory for us, determining whether or not we can strip working people entirely of their rights, to gather collectively, to unionize for the purposes of bargaining, to participate in free and open negotiations and to have the right of withdrawal of their labour or their services in the event that negotiations do not prevail, that what we are going to do is we are going to try to outlaw in Nova Scotia the rights of working people, the rights which working people in all parts of this country now have with some conditions in some sectors, in some jurisdictions.
We are going to take away those rights in their entirety in this province, in this laboratory, in this neo-conservative laboratory, where we are going to impose on workers rules and conditions that we, the government, believe are the correct ones. Maybe that is what is going on here. Some have suggested that that is the case.
Let me tell you that working people from one end of this country to the other, as they learn about the contents of Bill No. 68, are very concerned about that very fact, are very concerned that if the Government of Nova Scotia is allowed to get away with this, is allowed to treat a group of workers in this fashion, that it will be the thin edge of the wedge, that it will just be the beginning, and it will provide an opening for other governments. Other governments will be emboldened by the actions of this government to begin a process of stripping away the rights that have been obtained by working people across this country over the past 125 years, rights that have been obtained through great struggle, through great hardship, through much bloodshed.
Mr. Speaker, many of these rights began here in Nova Scotia. We were the first jurisdiction to establish, by Statute, in 1937, the rights of working people to organize themselves, to bargain collectively and to have the right to strike. Those rights here in Nova Scotia which spread throughout the country, were developed as the result of bloody struggles in the coalfields in your community, Mr. Speaker, in Springhill, and in communities throughout Cape Breton.
[8:45 a.m.]
Coal miners fought with their bosses to attain some rights to have control over the terms under which they worked and the level of remuneration that they would receive. I suggest to you here again today, that these are rights which are not going to be given up that easily by working people in this province or in this country. If this government is intent on proceeding in this fashion, that it plans on carrying forward with Bill No. 68 in its entirety, that they will raise the wrath of working people, not just in the health care sector, not just in the public sector, but all health care workers in this province and not just this province, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker.
I suggest the implications of Bill No. 68 are such that they affect all working people who recognize the struggle it took to get their hard-fought rights and workers who recognize that these rights will not be easily given up. The ramifications of this bill don't simply apply to the industrial relations question to the issue of the relationship between employers and unions. It applies to the attitude, to the conviction, to the commitment that all employees have toward their jobs and toward their employer, and in the case of the public sector toward this government.
I suggest to you we have some significant issues in this province with which to wrestle, with which to resolve, not the least of which is the health care system itself and how we are going to meet the promises that have been made by all political Parties, to ensure that we have a health care system that is there when people need it and that is there where people need it. If we are going to ensure that we have such a health care system, we are going to need the participation of everyone in that system to make sure with their commitment, with their conviction, to make sure those quality services are available to Nova Scotians.
You can't continue to kick these workers, to turn your backs on them, to laugh at them in the face, to dismiss them and to dismiss the contribution they make, to put them off, to try to pacify them. You can't continue to act in this fashion and expect those workers, those women and men, to keep coming up to the table and giving 120 per cent, which is what they do every hour of every day, to the people of this province, whom they serve. You can't expect that to continue.
No matter how much people love this province, no matter how committed they are to their profession in health care, there is a breaking point. There is a point at which people say, we are not going to continue to work at this pace, to give up, to sacrifice our lives, our families, in return for this kind of treatment, that we will go down the road, that we will go to other jurisdictions where our efforts are more appreciated and where we are going to be able to do our jobs, to perform the duties of our profession in a responsible, respectful manner and get the level of remuneration that we feel we deserve. We can then, as individuals, as citizens, contribute to our families, to our communities, and to our country. Ultimately, that is what we all want to do, that is what we all want to be able to do.
I suggest to you, that everyone has a point at which they will say, enough is enough, a point at which they will say, we have sacrificed a great deal as a result of our commitment, of our conviction, as a result of our love of the province, our love of the profession. But there comes a point in everyone's life at one time or another where they say and they will be forced to say, enough is enough. What we are expected to do and the way we are being treated is such that we can no longer, as humans, as citizens, agree to participate in our communities in this fashion. I say to you and to members opposite, that you are contributing to pushing these people to that point, as other governments before you have done.
The past 10 years have seen a series of decisions made by government which have pushed those workers, who toil in the health care system, to the limit. I think it has been a testament to their professionalism, to their commitment and to their conviction that many of these workers have continued to struggle on. I am concerned as I listen to the people who come here and visit us. I listen to the workers who call me, who e-mail me. I hear the stories from others here in this House, from friends in the community, from health care workers. I am concerned that many of these workers are being pushed beyond the point of no return.
We are not simply talking about a disruption in services, we are talking about this government carrying on, on the heels of previous governments, affecting the relationship with health care workers to the point where it will impair the quality of health care in the Province of Nova Scotia. In other words, if Bill No. 68 goes through as it is, I would suggest to you that we will feel the repercussions in the short term, in the immediate term, but as importantly I fear the repercussions that will be felt down the road, as workers are faced with making decisions in light of the way they are being treated by their employer, by this government, and that ultimately it is that long-term consequence which will be the legacy of this government.
This government will be known as the government that finally pushed health care workers beyond the point of no return. They weren't the first government to take away the rights of working people in the Province of Nova Scotia. The Liberals did that time and again, throughout the 1990's, but what this government did is they added insult to injury, they took it beyond even what the Liberals had done by promising, in the summer of 1999, health care workers to their faces that they would deal with the problems, that they would recognize the fact that health care workers needed to be properly compensated or that they would leave, that the working conditions under which health care workers toil needed to be improved, that they were the ones led by their Leader, Dr. John Hamm, that they were the ones who truly understood the dire circumstances, the pressures upon which health care workers were functioning, and that only they would be able to come up with the solutions, and they were committed to doing just that.
I will tell you that a great number of Nova Scotians, a great number of health care workers, I believe, bought that line. They heard what Dr. John Hamm said; they believed that Dr. John Hamm understood the medical system, understood the health care system, understood the stresses and strains of health care workers and would respond. He hasn't responded. His government hasn't responded.
The first time that workers say, we have given you two years, you promised us, we have given you two years to respond and you haven't, this government, Dr. John Hamm's Government turns around and says, too bad. We have changed our minds now, we are not going to respond to your concerns, in fact, what we are going to do instead is completely strip you of your rights as working people in the Province of Nova Scotia, completely strip you of your rights to bargain collectively and your right to strike in support of your own demands. That is shameful. The Government House Leader shakes his head. You can call it what you will, the evidence is clear. Bill No. 68 stands out for all to see.
Mr. Speaker, I realize that my time is coming to a close. I want to ask members opposite to consider what it is that they are doing, to consider how it is that Bill No. 68 will impact on health care and on health care workers in the Province of Nova Scotia, and step back from the brink, listen to what your constituents are saying, pay attention to what experts have offered and recommended. This is not the way to go. Pull Bill No. 68, and let's try to deal with these issues in a responsible, mature, constructive manner with respect. Ultimately, that will serve us to the best end for the Province of Nova Scotia.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Victoria.
MR. KENNETH MACASKILL: Mr. Speaker, this is the second time on my feet in less than 24 hours to talk and to remind members of government the opposition we see to Bill No. 68, an Act to Continue Healthcare Services in Nova Scotia.
[9:00 a.m.]
Mr. Speaker, as we dissect the bill or go through it, the very powerful and very strong piece of legislation, there are a couple of sections I just want to briefly touch on. This bill says, "Where there is a conflict between this Act and the Trade Union Act, this Act prevails." That is very strong stuff. Again, on Page 2, "no employer shall declare or cause a lockout of its employees or continue a lockout of its employees declared before the coming into force of this Act;" Again, what do we see before us today? That is why we fight and we will continue to fight this bill.
Mr. Speaker, this morning when I was talking to my wife she mentioned hearing on the news that the Premier had said if there was a resolve, within the next day or two, at the bargaining table, that Bill No. 68 could be withdrawn. That is good news to many of us, and I think it would be good news to many Nova Scotians, if it is true. What we have heard from the Premier the last number of days, indeed, he had no intentions of pulling Bill No. 68.
Mr. Speaker, the backlash from Bill No. 68 is very evident, not only in my riding. I must say and must admit that health services in my riding are very good. We don't have much to complain about, except we have some paramedic shortages north of Smokey. I hope the Minister of Health is working on that. Other than that, we have health care workers that we hold very dear, and we appreciate the efforts they make, the efforts they make to provide a service to the people of Victoria.
Mr. Speaker, I am not talking only about Victoria, I am talking about all of Nova Scotia. As we go through the papers today, we find many letters and many comments from many Nova Scotians, all over Nova Scotia, about the reaction to Bill No. 68. I just want to touch on a few of the comments in the press today. One is entitled, a Sad day for N.S., and it is from Joyce Balcom, RN, Halifax, "Last Thursday was a sad day for Nova Scotia. The bill the government has introduced will make Nova Scotia no better than a communist country by taking away some of our rights . . ." That is a pretty strong statement.
Another letter is from Laurie Malloy, "I am a Nova Scotian at heart and love my province; however, I am finding it easier to live with the decision to leave, given the way this particular government is treating its health care providers." Laurie goes on to say that, "This legislation is raping not only health care providers, but potentially all Nova Scotians of their legal rights given to them through the Charter of Rights and Freedoms."
Mr. Speaker, another letter is entitled, Step too far, from C.A. Crowell of Halifax. I will just read a small portion of it, "With a single, cowardly piece of regressive legislation, these legislators and their bureaucratic 'yessirs' have set in place a process to thwart toward any legitimate adjustments to the compensation and benefits of health care workers - adjustments which would enable their recruitment and retention."
Another letter is from Marcia Sutherland and Norm Sabowitz, "Re: 'Tories strike against unions' . . . The nurses and other health care workers are not the only ones who are hopping mad. Many of us health care consumers are outraged at the astonishing unfairness of the government's bill, . . ."
Mr. Speaker, another letter is from Danny Cavanaugh, "Labour relations in Nova Scotia have hit an all-time low under the Hamm Tories. Trade unionists thought that Bill 20 was unprecedented; then comes along Bill 68, the worst piece of anti-worker legislation this province has ever seen." Mr. Speaker, it goes on and on.
Another letter is from Alana MacLellan from Porter's Lake entitled, Why should I stay? "Two years from now I will graduate from nursing (with a $50,000 debt). Can you give me a good reason why I should stay in Nova Scotia?" The letters go on and on. "The nurses of Nova Scotia provide incredibly good health care to the people of Nova Scotia. They do this even as their work is devalued by the representatives of the people of Nova Scotia."
Another letter says, Come a long way? "On June 11, 1925, police shot Billy Davis during labour unrest . . . the Hamm government put a gun to the heads of 10,000 health care workers in this province who are engaging in a legal collective bargaining process." That is from Cathy Mosher, social worker, from Chester Basin.
Also, from the Medical Society of Nova Scotia, they strongly recommend that, " . . . Bill 68, Healthcare Services Continuation Act, introduced in the legislature on June 14th, not be passed . . . The Medical Society believes that an act that prohibits any group from negotiating a contract through the full negotiation process, including the right to strike, is fundamentally wrong.
Another letter is - and this is all out of today's The Halifax Chroncile-Herald and The Daily News - Enough is enough. "As a retired registered nurse, having given over 44 years of my life to health care delivery, I am completely outraged at the action of our so-called government. When did Nova Scotia stop being a democratic province?" Elizabeth McAdam of Wilmot says, "Workers, stand up for what you deserve - enough is definitely enough."
Another letter is from Crystal Allan of Apple River; she finds it ironic, "Does anyone, besides myself, not find it ironic that the provincial government does not trust nurses enough to think they would not provide essential services during a strike . . ."
Another letter is from David Phillips, a paramedic, "I am no expert, but think it could be possible that the government is infringing on the rights and freedoms that are supposed to be fully protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms." Mr. Speaker, these are all opinions of regular Nova Scotians.
The bill before us, an Act to Continue Healthcare Services in Nova Scotia, is not your average, run-of-the-mill, back-to-work legislation. It is not bad enough this bill takes away the right to strike, but it also gives the government unprecedented power by allowing a small group of people in the province to impose a wage settlement without negotiation, and I am referring to the Cabinet of this government.
The precedent being set here is very dangerous. As we see from the articles I referred to from the newspaper of today, the precedent is dangerous because it will poison worker/employer relationships for years, maybe decades to come. In the case of health care workers, this means that the quality of care will suffer. When the quality of care suffers, we all suffer.
No one can deny that there is no profession with the respect nurses hold in this province today and indeed, all health care workers. This legislation means that already overworked and, many Nova Scotians believe, underpaid workers will know their employer has no respect for their years of training and their years of dedicated services.
Some nurses will put up with a lot to remain in their hometown and raise their children in the fine communities of Nova Scotia. For many, that will be enough. Some health care workers will put up with the assault of this Tory Government, knowing that their families can grow up in the same stability that they did. Some nurses will put up with what Shakespeare called, "The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune . . .", because they know that in less than 10 years they will be able to retire and that is saying a lot when our workforce is looking forward to retiring. In fact, many will be able to retire within 5 years. It is not right, it is not fair, and it is downright mean in the opinion of many Nova Scotians.
What the Health Minister, the Premier and the entire Tory caucus do not realize however, is those few nurses who are graduating, will not put up with the abuse, disrespect and the scorn being heaped on them by this government and by this minister. These new nurses now know that there are opportunities all over the globe, where they will receive a much higher wage than they do in Nova Scotia. So there are opportunities out there for graduate nurses and there are high salaries out there that attract nurses to other jurisdictions.
[9:15 a.m.]
They know that many American hospitals will pay anywhere between $3,000 to $10,000 just for signing bonuses. They know nurses can go to the Eastern Seaboard of the United States and receive over $60,000 in salaries for their services. Nurses know that if they go to the United States, they can work two 12 hour shifts and know that they can't be called back for a third shift without overtime pay. They also know that they can work flexible hours and spend more time with their families, their friends and their loved ones. They know that they can take education upgrades, paid for by their employer, knowing full well that they will have time to study and to upgrade their skills. What else can they look forward to, Mr.
Speaker? They know that if they leave Nova Scotia, they will probably get what they won't get here and that is respect. We firmly believe that is what the nurses and the new graduates will do.
There is no doubt that we will see some reaction on Bill No. 68 before darkness falls this day, but the nurses will vote with their feet. They will leave Nova Scotia and not because they want to, but because they feel they have to because the Nova Scotia Government does not care about the nurses or they don't care about health care service in this province. That is what this bill is all about. It is about attacking the integrity of the nurses and all the health care workers in this province. This bill is the threat to the health and safety of all Nova Scotians, not the nurses, because we believe, Mr. Speaker, by driving nurses out of the province this bill will close beds and it will further increase waiting times and cause elective surgeries to be cancelled on a daily basis.
Mr. Speaker, this government is spending a lot of taxpayers' dollars on advertising the salaries and the great fortunes of our nurses. Huge amounts of money have been spent advertising, but before I get into that issue, let's look at what the Tories promised in the last election in the Tory blue book. "A John Hamm Government will . . . Stop spending taxpayers money on politically-motivated advertising;" Well, what happened to this promise? As I was driving from Fredericton on Sunday, a number of times I heard radio ads sponsored by the Department of Health. Today I heard the former speaker of our Party talking about a huge ad in the Halifax papers today. So what happened to the promise of John Hamm in the blue book where we will stop spending taxpayers' money on politically-motivated advertising?
Mr. Speaker, the advertisements in our newspapers are politically-motivated advertising and this is exactly what the Tories said that they wouldn't do. In typical fashion they have ignored this promise and there were others, but now I want to turn to some salaries for a few moments. This bill before us today, Bill No. 68, is basically about limiting the salaries of nurses, but there are other issues and probably more important issues, but the government says it can't afford to give money to the nurses or our health care workers.
A backbencher told the media yesterday in the scrum the well is dry, we can't afford salary increases for our health care workers or nurses but, Mr. Speaker, let's look at the following employees of the Department of Health and the salaries of senior staff of our district health authorities and others. These are maximum salaries, but that is what the government used as a figure in the House.
Our Deputy Health Minister, a huge salary, a salary of almost $200,000 a year; the Associate Deputy Minister of Health, $100,000; an Assistant Deputy Minister of Health, another $100,000. Pretty comfortable salaries. The Chief Information Officer, another $100,000; CEO of the Capital Health District, $350,000; Vice-President of Human Resources, Capital Health District, $145,000; Vice-President, System Development and Performance, Capital Health District, $145,000; Vice-President, Public Affairs, Capital
Health District, $145,000; Vice-President, Administration, Capital Health District, $165,000; Vice-President, Diagnostic and Support Services, Capital Health District, $165,000. But we have no money for front-line health care workers.
We will go on. What about the Vice-President of the Capital Health District, $200,000? We don't even know what this person does. Vice-President of Medicine, Capital Health District, $260,000; District Information Technology, Capital Health District, $80,500; Director of Finance, Capital Health District, $80,500; Director of Human Resources, Capital Health District, $80,500; Director of Environment Services, Capital Health District, $80,500; Director of Laboratory Services, Capital Health District, $80,500; Director of Pharmacy Services, Capital Health District, $80,500; Director of Diagnostic Imaging, Capital Health District, another $80,500; Director of Pharmacy Services, Capital Health District, $80,500; Director of Food and Nutrition Services, Capital Health District, $80,500; and the CEO, District Health Authority, $126,000.
Mr. Speaker, if any of the above employees missed work for a week, do you think that health care in the province would suffer? Not likely. Now I am sure they are all good people, and probably committed to the system. But let's face it, a public affairs vice-president does not have to deal with life and death on a daily basis, as our front-line workers, such as doctors, nurses and other health care workers do. Many Nova Scotians know and believe that we need fewer spin doctors and more nurses. After this bill, we will have less and less nurses. If this bill goes through, it is a severe threat to the nursing profession in this province.
Mr. Speaker, we need fewer CEOs and more physiotherapists. We need fewer vice-presidents and more technologists. In fact, that is what the government promised; they promised more front-line health care workers and fewer administrative positions. What happened to that promise? What happened to the promise of the Premier when he was campaigning, when he said, fewer bureaucrats and better and more front-line workers?
In fact, to be specific, the Tories said, in their blue book, " . . . the existing structure has focused almost exclusively on the day-to-day administration of hospitals at the expense of long-term, value-added planning. RHBs will be replaced with volunteer/community-driven boards (as opposed to bureaucratically driven) boards." Can you answer that, Mr. Speaker, after I just read the list of bureaucrats and their salaries? What happened to that promise?
What do the community health boards have to say about this bill, about Bill No. 68? It doesn't really matter because community health boards have no real authority in dealing with health-related issues. This bill is a creature of the Cabinet, or some would refer to it as a monster of the Cabinet. It is a politically-motivated, neo-conservative bill that takes away the collective bargaining rights of its workers and our workers. Community health boards have no say in the system, but CEOs do. In fact, the CEO of the Capital Health District
claimed that this bill does not take away the collective bargaining rights. Well, it is pretty clear that the CEO has not read the bill, as we read it.
The Tories made many more promises. In the speech during the last campaign, in the campaign of 1999, the Premier said in Yarmouth, "That is why our health care platform lays out very specific commitments . . . with very specific time frames . . . that include caregivers as an integral and important part of finding answers to our health care challenges." That is what the Premier said. How many caregivers did the Cabinet consult with when they introduced this bill? Did they consult with any Nova Scotians? Did they consult with any professionals in our health care system?
Mr. Speaker, this bill is about telling health care workers that they have no voice. It says that we, the Cabinet, will tell you when you will work and for how much, and if you don't like it, tough. In fact, if you don't like what is in this bill, you have no choice. You have two choices, take it or leave it, because you can't appeal to the courts. In other words, Cabinet is saying we will take away your right to strike, your right to collective bargaining and your right as a human being to work under livable conditions. What is worse is that this bill is being forced on health care workers with the full complicity of the backbenchers.
Mr. Speaker, imagine the member for Halifax Bedford Basin supporting a bill that will impose a contract on nurses and other health care workers, when within that riding there are hundreds, probably thousands, of nurses or health care professionals. We believe that that member owes it to the workers, at least, to explain why she supports such draconian legislation. She, like others, is hoodwinked by Cabinet members into believing that the well is dry, there is no money. There is no money except for bureaucrats. If she won't explain her position to the people of Nova Scotia on the floor of this House, she can explain it on the doorsteps during the next election. If we can't appeal to the humanity, we can at least appeal to our political instincts, if those members have any left.
[9:30 a.m.]
The member for Kings North has become the self-styled conscience of the Tory caucus. He has a column in The Daily News where recently he talked about the power of apology. Mr. Speaker, this member can apologize to nurses for forcing them to take a contract without any negotiations or without any consultations. I am sure this member has a conscience, I believe he has, but I hope he would at least speak or write a column about this bill. The member for Kings North always says that substantial debate never happens in this House. This would be a good time for that member to break that chain and speak about this bill. If there were ever a time to speak in this House, it is now.
This is perhaps the most substantial piece of legislation to hit the floor of this House this year - and we thought Bill No. 20 was bad - not because it protects the safety of Nova Scotians, but because it jeopardizes the safety of Nova Scotians. It means that there will be
fewer nurses and more overworked nurses. It means delays in lab tests, it means delays in surgery and delays for every procedure, Mr. Speaker, and it is already happening, but for some reason or another this government just doesn't get it. There is a nursing shortage throughout North America and I am sure the Tory members understand that. It is very obvious in the media. There are opportunities for all professionals in the nursing profession.
Mr. Speaker, we believe that the Tories are big fans of the marketplace and they are big supporters in the laws of supply and demand, but it is too bad they don't respect the laws of the land by taking away the right of appeal to the courts. Simple supply and demand dictates that this government is going to have to pay nurses what they are worth, but most of all the government will have to ensure that there are better working conditions for our nurses. If they do not do that, nurses will simply go where they will get the price that supply dictates. We may be able to keep our existing nurses, but no nurse will come to Nova Scotia and no new nurse will stay in our province.
The government's default defence is simply we do not have enough money, Mr. Speaker. Well, whose fault is that? It is not the nurses and I don't think it is the taxpayers. If this government is short of money, it is because they are mismanaging the funds of the province. We have heard over the last number of days that this government may not be short of money because the Minister of Education came up with $1 million here and $1 million there whenever she gets under pressure, or when the heat gets too heavy.
Since the fall of 1999 this government has received over $600 million in additional revenue. In fact, if you add up the $140 million on the sale of NSRL, this government has received $753 million in extra revenues and if you can't balance a budget with that kind of money, Mr. Speaker, I doubt they ever will and if you can't balance a budget and you have no money left for health, I don't believe they ever will.
It is not bad enough, according to the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, that this government will receive an additional $600 million in federal transfers - what the government is really saying is that we have to nickel and dime health care workers so we can pay for a tax cut before the next election or just before the time when we are to go to the polls in four years - but it is bad enough that taxes are going up through the back door because of bracket creep and it is bad enough that the provincial portion of the federal tax cut was taken away from Nova Scotians, and now what are they doing but picking the pockets of our health care workers to pay for the tax cut in four years or before the next election.
Mr. Speaker, the nursing crisis is about supply and demand and you know this government is comparing the salaries of Nova Scotia with other Atlantic Provinces, but we are not losing nurses to New Brunswick. We are losing nurses to New England where they get paid $64,000 a year - or it could be better - and we are losing nurses to Ontario where the
maximum salary is $60,000 and we are losing nurses to Alberta where salaries are $55,000 and there is no sales tax.
Mr. Speaker, the government can bury their heads in the sand if they like, but Nova Scotia will lose nurses and other health care workers and we will pay the price for that. The North American shortage of nurses, 126,000 in the U.S. alone, means that Nova Scotia will have to step up to the plate or nurses will continue to leave our province. Not only is there a shortage of nurses, but the United States also needs 46,000 pharmacists, lab technicians, X-ray technicians and physiotherapists.
Mr. Speaker, here is what the Premier said about health care workers on Sunday, June 19, 1999, at the QE II Health Sciences Centre: I applaud the efforts of each and every health care worker, doctors, nurses, technicians, orderlies and cooks. They are all doing their part to provide good health care in this province. What is the Premier saying now? So far the Premier has not spoken about this bill in the House and that is unfortunate. I think it would be wise and I think it would be good for the Premier to stand up in defence of this bill, but the silence is deafening. In fact, the Health Minister has not stood in his place and defended the bill. I noticed in Hansard, on the tabling for second reading, the Minister of Health had little to say or nothing at all. This bill is an attack on health workers and an attack on health care in general.
This government is saying they need this bill to protect public safety. Well, Mr. Speaker, from what I am hearing through the media, television and the papers, this bill is just doing completely the opposite. This bill has nothing to do with public safety. Do you honestly think that a government that would not pass a bill to protect children by requiring them to wear helmets when on scooters, or rollerblades, really cares about public safety?
If this government cared about public safety, it would twin Highway No. 101 with or without federal help, just like the member for Hants West promised before the last election; we will pave Highway No. 101, we will twin Highway No. 101 whether we have federal help or not. If this government cared about public safety, they would not have lowered fines on tobacco smuggling. If this government cared about public safety, they would ban the sale of alcohol in pharmacies as has been promised. If this government cared about public safety, they would clean up the tar ponds and the coke ovens. If this government cared about public safety, it would implement concrete crime prevention initiatives instead of dumb legislation like we have seen in the johns bill that was tabled a number of times.
If this government cared about public safety, they would devote every new tobacco tax to help fight tobacco use among our younger generation. If this government cared about public safety, they would not allow cuts to physical education programs. If this government cared about public safety, they would treat our health care workers with respect and dignity. If this government cared about public safety, they would not require nurses to work four to five 12 hour shifts in a row. Government requires truck drivers and bus drivers to limit their
hours on the road, but nurses keep being forced to work shift after shift without any overtime pay.
This bill is about government flexing its muscle, Mr. Speaker, and this bill is about taking away collective bargaining rights. This bill is about taking the right of appeal away from Nova Scotians and it is about dictating the terms of a contract with no input from the health care professionals. This bill has nothing to do with public safety and everything to do with satisfying the ego of the Cabinet and the Premier.
Mr. Speaker, many Nova Scotians are disappointed in the Premier because people in Nova Scotia voted for a good, kind country doctor who became Premier, but people have a different opinion today as I stated earlier on, as we went through some clippings out of today's paper, but health care workers aren't going to do what this government wants them to do. Health care workers are going to stand up and they will be counted. They will continue to demand that their human rights be respected. The government may not listen, but if that's the case, then they are the ones who are putting public safety at risk.
Mr. Speaker, we have seen in the paper yesterday, The Daily News, that "Health-care workers work to rule" and I will table this. It says, "Nurses and health-care workers are refusing overtime, declining to work through breaks and restricting their work to duties outlined in their job descriptions in an effort to short-circuit the government's proposed anti-strike legislation. The Nova Scotia Government Employees Union - representing 2,900 lab technologists, orderlies, unit aids and other health-care workers and 2,100 nurses at the QE II Health Sciences Centre, . . ."
Mr. Speaker, again we go down in the article a little further and it says that, "'We are not going to be intimidated any-more,' said Andrew LePage, a unit aide at the QEII's ear, nose and throat clinic. 'I'm all for anything that will get that message through to (Premier) John Hamm and (Health Minister) Jamie Muir.'" So that is the beginning of an attack on our health care system and where we are going to see people standing up for their rights.
Mr. Speaker, over the last number of days we have received many letters and many e-mails from health care workers across the province. Many of these are sent to the attention of the Health Minister or the Premier. I am just going to read a few portions of them. If it is your wish for me to table them, then I will, but these letters are already sent to the Premier and to the Minister of Health.
This letter is from Jeanette Stone, Colchester Hospital, CCU, in Truro: Once again I am infuriated by the actions of this Hamm Government. How does this elected government try to banish such a fundamental right as my right to fair negotiations. This country that we live in and are so proud of is based on the concept of democracy, not dictatorship and provides us with a Bill of Rights which I might add includes health care providers. How does this government lead the public to believe that in the event of a strike essential services
would not be provided. This is a blatant and deliberate attempt to scare the public and provide them with misinformation.
Another letter from Margie Douglas, RN, CCU at Colchester Regional Hospital in Truro says: Once again I would like to express my outrage at the action of the Hamm Government. The very fact that this elected government is trying to take away my right to fair negotiations of the new contract is appalling. This government is acting like a dictator and not providing us with a Bill of Rights which should include fair bargaining. How dare this government lead the people of Nova Scotia to believe in the event of a strike essential services would not be provided.
[9:45 a.m.]
Basically, Mr. Speaker, all these letters for the most part are talking about that very thing, that these nurses and health care workers care about Nova Scotians and I am sure that they would not refuse a person in need their services and that is very obvious in all these letters and all the information that we have seen in the paper today and the clippings.
Another letter from Charlotte White, RN, at the ICU Colchester Regional Hospital, says: I find this latest action by the Hamm Government to be unbelievable. Is this the year of 2001? To take away my right to a fair contract negotiation and push on health care workers this dictatorship is truly unbelievable. We are dedicated health care professionals and how dare this government lead the public to believe that we would not give essential services. I have been nursing for 33 years and I am insulted by this. It is particularly hard to take at this time when we are all overworked.
Mr. Speaker, another letter from Barbara Pyle says: I really find this latest action by your government to be demoralizing. It is bad enough you take away our right to strike, but also you, the government, can decide what my salary will be. That is really going to attract nurses to Nova Scotia or keep the few we already have. The nursing shortage is worldwide and new graduates have the opportunity to go wherever they wish. Do you really think they are going to stay in Nova Scotia with such opportunities elsewhere? I don't think so.
Mr. Speaker, a letter from Debbie McCully, a registered nurse at the Colchester Hospital says, "I would like to express my outrage at this government. Do you really think that pushing this legislation through, you will solve the nursing shortage? This legislation will only push more nurses out of Nova Scotia." She concludes by saying, "If this legislation is passed, its time to look for a safer place to work and live."
Mr. Speaker, there are many of those letters and I don't think it is appropriate for me to take up too much of the time of the House to go through all of them because I am sure that the Minister of Health and the Premier are receiving the same letters. So let's hope they read them and let's hope that they understand the message that Nova Scotians are trying to get to
the government. This is a very draconian piece of legislation. This is a piece of legislation that has all Nova Scotians angry, not only our health care workers, but all Nova Scotians. If there is anything Nova Scotians fear, it is the loss or the lack of health services. They are used to good health services in this province and they look for nothing less.
So, Mr. Speaker, I hope that what my wife is telling me she heard on the newscast today, where if there is an agreement reached at the bargaining table within the next two or three days, this bill will be withdrawn, this bill will be pulled from the Legislature. I think that is what a lot of Nova Scotians would want this government to do and I think it would be the right thing for this government to do. If not, this government will pay the price. They will pay the price at the polls in the next election and this government could be a one-term government if this bill is allowed to continue through this Assembly. With that, I will relinquish the floor to another speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Halifax Needham.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place to speak here on the main motion in second reading on Bill No. 68. I would like to start by saying that we have been sitting here for many long hours and I am sure for people at home, for people in the gallery, they must feel some sense of frustration and perhaps even confusion, particularly since the Premier keeps changing his tune with respect to Bill No. 68. It is hard sometimes to really know if there is one train of thought in the government's mind with respect to this bill and what they're doing or if, in fact, as we have seen since the onset of the Hamm Government, that it is a government that's profoundly unsure of what it is doing and is often open to a fair amount of flip-flopping around on what it is that it thinks it is doing.
In the course of the debate on Bill No. 68 I have heard the Premier indicate that this bill is about public safety and nothing else. I have then heard the Premier say that this bill was about money and fiscal responsibility and nothing else. I have heard the Premier indicate that this bill will go ahead regardless of what the opposition might be, not only on the floor of this House, but in the population at large in the province because the Premier indicates it is the right thing to do.
Here last night, in the early hours this morning during Question Period, I heard the Premier say that really what this bill was about was the sustainable health care system that Nova Scotians need. I have heard the Premier say that this bill was about keeping the banks from pulling the plug on Nova Scotia's bond rating and on my way down here for my morning shift, Mr. Speaker, I heard on the radio that the Premier is now saying that perhaps he will consider withdrawing the bill if negotiations proceed and collective agreements are arrived at in the course of bargaining that is going on or is about to go on.
So, Mr. Speaker, if members of the public, who are not quite as intimately involved in this process as those of us participating in the debate, feel somewhat frustrated and confused, there is no great wonder because the message from this Premier, a message that he pretty well consistently fails to deliver on the floor of this Legislature, but does deliver outside of this Chamber when the media can break through the variety of people he has around him attempting to protect access to him, when he breaks that silence and has the odd rumble to say.
Mr. Speaker, I don't think there is anybody here in this Legislature who is any more committed to a sustainable health care system than members of the New Democratic Party. My colleagues and myself, we take some pride in the pioneering of our Party with respect to health care in this country. There is nothing that we want to see more than a sustainable health care system and by that we recognize the importance of having balance in the health care system between the acute care system and a primary care health care system. We recognize that health care restructuring, in theory, was an attempt to redress an imbalance between acute care and primary care, particularly in the Province of Nova Scotia. We also recognize that we are a long way from achieving that balance.
However, I think that the philosophy of the New Democratic Party would differ quite significantly from the philosophy of the current government in our approach to securing a sustainable health care system in that it is our philosophy, our belief, our ideology, if you will, that the only way to secure a sustainable health care system for Nova Scotians is to build a strong and sound foundation that is human-resource based, not based on credit ratings, not decided by the faceless, remote bond managers in New York and elsewhere but one that starts with your human resources and one that values the human resources in your system in that it makes their participation a central part of a sustainable health care system.
Mr. Speaker, I was astonished last night to hear the Premier suggest that really what is driving the approach in Bill No. 68 is that the banks will pull the plug on Nova Scotia's bond rating and the result is that we will have no health care system at all in Nova Scotia. This sentiment that he expressed during Question Period in response to some of the questions was echoed by the Minister of Justice who I must say, by his comments, demonstrated that he knows even less about finances and health care, apparently, than he knows about justice. This is an approach that certainly I reject and members of my Party reject, the idea that health care policy has to be solely, fiscally driven. This will be a very sad day for Nova Scotia if this government continues to pursue that kind of agenda with respect to health care, education, community services, public policy generally.
It is not to say that finances aren't a consideration, they obviously always are a consideration, but they cannot be the sole or primary consideration. There has to be some balance and this government has lost all perspective in terms of balance. The result is this horrible piece of legislation, Bill No. 68.
We have seen this approach in Nova Scotia before. We have seen it far too often. We have seen it in the past 10 years. We have seen it under the John Savage Government and we know the absolute chaos that resulted from that approach. Mr. Speaker, this will be the impact and the outcome of Bill No. 68 if this government is not prepared to really see the error of their ways . . .
[10:00 a.m.]
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I will ask honourable members to take their conversations outside, please.
The honourable member for Halifax Needham has the floor.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: . . . and withdraw this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I have had many conversations with people about Bill No. 68, people who have come here to the Legislature and people who have called me in my constituency office where I try to put in an hour or two every day between my time here in the Legislature. It has been interesting to reflect on not only the bill and the emergency session that we have been called back here for but to look at this bill in the context of what our work has been since March 22nd, really, when we came here for our spring session.
Mr. Speaker, as you will know, the Legislature recessed not long before the House resumed on Bill No. 68. We recessed on June 1st. We recessed following a fairly lengthy session and a period during which we primarily dealt with a budget that members of the Opposition were able to demonstrate contained extensive new user fees. For example, the $50 per day user fee to a person in an acute care facility who was unable to be discharged, the user fees for cancer care or other types of patients at the QE II staying at Point Pleasant Lodge and various kinds of user fees that have increasingly become a source of revenue for the Minister of Finance and the Premier in an attempt to deal with the deficit. In spite of these things, this year we still had a deficit.
Last year's deficit was put onto the province's debt and we went through a period of reviewing the revenue of the province and, in fact, the provincial revenue picture was much stronger than expected or at least than publicly anticipated by the Minister of Finance, partly as a result of a very strong economy, contributed to by Sable and offshore activity, but also because equalization revenues were up, reflecting the strong economic position of Alberta and Ontario.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, in spite of this strengthening fiscal picture, we continue to see Nova Scotians suffer and particular Nova Scotians suffer, Nova Scotians who are often either at the low end of the wage scale or certainly in the middle class of the wage scale. We have seen the school bus drivers, for example, in the Valley regional board, many of those drivers
lose the benefits and their hourly wages reduced. The amount of paid work that they actually had reduced significantly and we saw the same thing occur while we were here in the House with the school bus drivers, with the Halifax Regional School Board. We saw a prolonged and a somewhat bitter labour dispute with the custodial workers, the cleaners, the maintenance people and the Halifax Regional School Board, a strike that can be directly attributed to the unwillingness of the Minister of Education to provide adequate funding to the Halifax Regional School Board to keep pace with the rate of inflation.
So, Mr. Speaker, we see in this government an approach that is very much prepared to put the public at risk, to inconvenience the public and in these cases we are talking about children, we are talking about parents, we are talking about people who are on the lower wage scale and it is clear the level of respect and the level of concern that members of the government, members of the Cabinet, the Premier and members of the backbench in the Conservative Party, the regard that they hold for people in their constituencies and people in this position all across the province.
It is very apparent, votes are taken and we see that of the 31 members of the governing Party, they stick together like Krazy Glue, there are no members who have inhibitions about the direction of this government, the public policy approaches of this government, the impact that these policies are having on people in their day-to-day lives in their communities, no inhibitions whatsoever of supporting the direction of this government. Therefore, it is important, I think, for the public to be very aware of who is responsible for what is occurring.
Yes, the Premier is ultimately the Leader. The members of Cabinet are the people who sit around with the Premier and make these decisions, but they rely absolutely on the support from the other Tory members of caucus, the members who are not in the Cabinet, who don't get to make these decisions, but their decisions would have no force, no effect, no potential without the silent, complacent and dubious support of members of their backbench in their caucus.
So I think that for people - and there are some members of the government caucus - who like to play the game that these aren't really their decisions and that they are very sympathetic and that they really wish that there was something they could do and that they are doing their best to talk to members of the Cabinet about what else they might be looking at. I say to that kind of manipulation with members of the public, don't you be fooled.
There is essentially one thing that you need to look for in the members of the government and that is, when the chips are down, who stands in their place in this Legislature and speaks on a piece of legislation on behalf of their constituents, who knows that their job is not to come here and represent the Premier and the Cabinet but it is to represent the hard-working men and women in your constituencies to stand up to have your say and when legislation is brought forward, to vote on that legislation and if that legislation
is going to have a negative impact on people in your constituency, those are the people to whom you are accountable and don't you forget it.
So, Mr. Speaker, it is important that members of the public recognize that and on Bill No. 68, at some point, we will have an opportunity to test the sincerity of those members of the government Party who like to give a sense to people in their constituencies and people who come here to the House that they are sympathetic. We will see quite shortly just how sympathetic they actually are to the reality of such a horrendous piece of legislation as Bill No. 68.
You know, Mr. Speaker, back in the session, one of the primary pieces of legislation we dealt with was Bill No. 20. During the debate on Bill No. 20, many members of the Opposition raised concerns, as did members of the public, about the real agenda of the Hamm Government with respect to the concentration of power in the inner Cabinet, the fiscal policy agenda of this government, the concern that ultimately this was a bill that would, in fact, be declaring war on public sector workers far beyond the Civil Service and, in fact, would have implications for teachers, for university faculty, for workers in non-profit organizations and, in fact, for workers in the health care sector. Although Bill No. 20 has passed, all of the subsequent sort of reorganizational requirements, the technical aspects of giving Bill No. 20 force and effect have not, in fact, happened yet. I am sure that they will occur over many weeks and months.
But Bill No. 68 now shows us the absolute intent of Bill No. 20 and the fact that members of the Opposition were not at all like Chicken Little crying the sky is falling. We knew full well that this was the real intent of the government. Not a full two weeks later, we see legislation that in fact consolidates an unprecedented amount of power in the hands of the Cabinet. I mean Bill No. 68 is a bill that will allow members of the Hamm Cabinet to impose on all health care workers in the Province of Nova Scotia, a collective agreement. If you think about who makes up the Cabinet, if you think about the performance of Cabinet Ministers in various portfolios, Mr. Speaker, this will give no comfort to the workers in the health care field.
We have a Minister of Economic Development whose department has all but disappeared, who will be part of that decision making. We have a Minister of Education who has seen to it single-handedly that children with special needs in the Province of Nova Scotia have gone without the additional supports that they needed, a minister who had no difficulty suggesting that students bring their own toilet paper and soap to school during a custodial and maintenance workers' strike. We have a Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries that saw the decimation of agricultural technical support services and inspections in his own department who will be there making decisions about what a collective agreement for health care workers should look like. We have the Minister of Health who knows as much about health as my two cats know about the health care system. This person will be making
decisions about the collective bargaining process and about the collective agreements for health care workers.
[10:15 a.m.]
I could go on, Mr. Speaker. We have the Minister of Community Services who, with
respect to poverty and inequality, uses nothing but feel-good jargon clichés, the win-win clichés, the moving forward clichés, and can't provide the fundamental information that people living in poverty need to know about: what the rates will be for food, clothing, shelter, transportation, and how the rules of the social assistance program will actually be starting August 1st so that people can try to make some arrangements and some planning.
These are the men and one woman that Nova Scotians are being asked to trust their safety and the quality of the working life and the remuneration for health care workers in the Province of Nova Scotia.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that I am not the only member of this Legislature, or the only Nova Scotian in this province, who is more than a little worried about what that means, given the quality of the decisions that these members often make in their portfolios for whom they have an enormous staff to provide them with support and have been for two years on the job in these areas but still seem to be performing at a fairly less than optimal level, if you will. I have no comfort in knowing that Cabinet will be making these decisions. This is highly inappropriate and anybody who knows anything about back-to-work legislation understands that generally speaking such legislation places the decision-making with a third party arbitrator who at least has some expertise in the area and who also has a somewhat unbiased approach to imposing or arriving at a collective agreement.
Mr. Speaker, it is quite ironic, I think, that the market forces that have created this situation are now the market forces that this government now wants to ignore or to legislate against. By that I mean that health reform in Nova Scotia has particular features. There has been a huge preoccupation with reducing costs, not about improving service, not about better outcomes necessarily, but really it has been very much cost-driven and that has been fairly well-documented in a number of studies that have been done by various academics around the region, including Dr. Barbara Keddy who is a nurse and is at the School of Nursing at Dalhousie. Dr. Keddy and others writing in the field, Fran Gregor, have indicated that the introduction of more market approaches into public sector settings such as health care settings have had certain consequences.
One of the consequences, of course, is increased competition and competition that initially resulted in the beginning when all of the cuts were made in an attempt to reduce costs and close hospital beds and so on. Between 1993 and 1997, approximately 800 nursing positions were lost in Nova Scotia, and most of those positions were full-time positions. Mr.
Speaker, this resulted in a casualization of nursing, so that a greater and greater number of people doing nursing work in particular were not full-time workers.
There is an astonishing figure, Mr. Speaker, given in an article done on this situation. This is an article called Health Care "Reform" and its Impact on Nurses in Nova Scotia and British Columbia: Market - Dependence and the Exploitation of Nurses' Work, by Frances Gregor, Barbara Keddy, Suzanne Foster and Donna Denny who are all nurses here in the metro area. They indicate by looking at the Registered Nurses Association statistics for the years 1990 to 1995, they found a marked decrease in the percentage of new graduates finding regular full-time employment, from 61.6 per cent to 14.6 per cent, and a corresponding increase in new graduates finding casual work, from 24.3 per cent to 67.9 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, that is phenomenal, but this is the direct impact of bringing market forces into the public sector and creating this kind of rapid and radical change in the work that is available that has a profound impact then on the workers themselves and it results in the kinds of feelings that build over time as people really struggle to get more control and bring back some stability into their workplace that they have been lacking. This is, in fact, the context or the situation in which health care providers find themselves and they have, through their union, gone back to the bargaining table and attempted to bargain in a way that would see a redress of some of these issues that would see that, okay, if you are going to introduce market forces into the health care system, then part of market forces is paying what the market will bear for the labour that is required to provide services. In this context we're not dealing with just a Nova Scotia labour market, we are dealing with a North American labour market.
This is a fundamental result of globalization, Mr. Speaker, the ability for workers, particularly skilled workers, to be able to move not only from province to province, but also to move from Canada to the United States. This is something that this government fails to understand. So you have to ask, is it that they are failing to understand because they don't know? I don't think so. I think that they do know. I think that they choose not to see this because it is not in their fiscal interests to see this because they have quite another agenda and it is a political agenda. It is an agenda where their ultimate plan, as other members have said, is an attempt to balance the budget in the timetable that they said in the election campaign, to provide a 10 per cent tax cut in year four and go back to the electorate and say we did what we said we were going to, re-elect us, and hope that the impact of all of these other things that they have done throughout their mandate will be forgotten, will be forgiven and will be overlooked.
Mr. Speaker, I certainly see that as a very cynical approach to providing good government in the Province of Nova Scotia and clearly they are playing political roulette with the health care system and the fact that you only build a sustainable health care system that is human-resource based. What Bill No. 68 will do, and we hear this over and over again from the people who most know about what Bill No. 68 will do, is that it threatens the very
stability of the human resources that are required to provide adequate services to Nova Scotians in our health care system. It will poison the relationship between employer and worker. It will poison the relationship between government and health care workers, and this is not the kind of relationship or the kind of environment in which we can build a sustainable health care system.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, when I had an opportunity to speak on one of the amendments to the bill, I expressed my regret that there are no members of this Legislative Assembly elected here who are nurses or from the nursing profession, or from the health professions, although as a social worker I am probably a person who comes closest to the health professions, although I make no such claim that that is my profession. It has been very many years since I practised front-line health care in a mental health facility and the bulk of my work as a health care provider, if you will, was really in community-based health care services and more primary health care. But that's not to say that I don't have many contacts throughout the health care field and it is not to say that I don't care very deeply about these professional groups and try very hard to understand what it is that they are trying to deal with in a day-to-day way.
Mr. Speaker, I have nothing but admiration for the work of the Allied Health Care Workers and the nurses, LPNs and registered nurses. I feel very strongly - and I said this before as the NDP Status of Women Critic - about the dimension of this issue that is about women and I think it is very important that is articulated and voiced here in the Legislature as part of the debate, that 97 per cent of nurses are women and 80 per cent of the allied health care workers are women. There is in our society a sexual division of labour, if you will, where women are predominantly the people who end up doing the caring work in our society, both unpaid caring work in the household and paid caring work in the marketplace or in the labour market.
With that, we know that over time there has been this idea that it is a female culture of care, it is an obligation that somehow is attached to being a female in our society, and I must say that I listened to things that the Premier has to say about the health care workers and their obligation to tend to the needs of others and to stay on the job because it is the right thing to do and I get my hackles up a little bit, Mr. Speaker. I think, well, how noble for him to say this, but at what price is he saying this, and at whose cost is he saying this? I think when we start to peel away much of the Premier's misguided and frequently patronizing musings on what Bill No. 68 is really all about, then I have to say quite simply to the Premier, or anybody else, you can't order health care workers to care, you can't order nurses to care.
They have cared and they have cared, and they're tired of caring because nobody seems to be caring about them, not their employer, not their government, and perhaps sometimes not even some members of the public, although I have to say that when you read the letters to the editor and you read comments and hear comments in the media, and we get these calls
in our constituencies and in the caucus office, certainly the members of the public who care about the health care workers and the nurses are running, you know, easily 9 to 1 for the health care workers and for the nurses. So I would say to the health care providers that members of the public do care about you even if this government appears not to care for you and we are hearing your message.
[10:30 a.m.]
Many of us are hearing your message that you understand you have options and one of your options, in fact, is to stop caring and to withdraw your services in an effort to get government, your employer, and the public to care for you. We don't want to lose you. We don't want to see you go someplace else because you will be respected and valued there, we want you to stay and there are those of us here in the Opposition who are certainly prepared to fight very hard to keep you here and to keep you as valued members of not only our health care system, but of our communities and our province. We have in many cases invested in your education through the system of funding nursing education and we don't want to be training nurses for Calgary, California and Texas. We want to be training nurses for Nova Scotia and we believe that we need to do what's necessary to retain you in this province.
So this is a message, Mr. Speaker, that I certainly would like to relay to members of the health care professions. You know last night, I came in for the Question Period that happened at whatever time - I am sort of losing track now of time and what day we're on and stuff like that, but I came in - and there were a number of health care providers here last evening. I had an opportunity to talk to two very fine young men who are paramedics. I have to say we went through a situation where we had paramedics in a not unlike situation that we're in now, a situation where this government prior to their legal right to strike, swooping in and attempting to impose a piece of legislation, force it through as quickly as possible, to take away their right to strike and we know what happened in that situation.
We know that that legislation resulted in binding arbitration. It meant that in some cases paramedics received up to a 99 per cent increase in their wages, not because that was like this unbelievable giveaway, it reflected just how poorly some of those workers, those highly skilled workers, workers who are given an enormous amount of responsibility in our health care system, how undervalued their work was in relation to their counterparts elsewhere and, Mr. Speaker, a third party arbitrator recognized that. They realized wage increases of anywhere between 20 per cent to 99 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, last evening I met these two young men who were here who are paramedics and I thought, mistakenly, that they had come to lend support to their colleagues, other health care workers. In speaking with them I discovered that, in fact, in one of the three bargaining units at the QE II, the bargaining unit that is in a legal strike position as of June 27th, Wednesday of next week, that are in the countdown right now, that in that bargaining unit there are, in fact, 81 paramedics. So not all paramedics in the Province of Nova Scotia
work for Emergency Health Services which I had mistakenly thought would be the case, but these paramedics, in fact, work for the QE II and they do triage in the emergency unit and they also are part of a patient transfer system.
I had an opportunity to talk with them, not for a long time because I was a little tired and I had to go home and get some sleep and prepare for my next shift, but enough time that I got a sense of why they are concerned about Bill No. 68. Neither one of these young men is what you could ever characterize as militant unionists or as radicals. They're good, decent hard-working young men who are trying very hard to provide the best quality health care services they can and they simply want respect and they want fairness. They were very concerned about Bill No. 68.
They had never been to this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, and this was something else that really bothered me when I spoke with them. They had never been to the Legislature before and they were disturbed at the behaviour that they observed here on the floor of the Legislature. They were disturbed that members of the Opposition could stand in their place and speak about Bill No. 68, but members of the government were not standing in their place and speaking. They observed that members of the government were playing games, were reading books, were having chats down in the back corner that often were quite disruptive to the speaker, and they questioned whether or not the bill in front of us and the seriousness of this bill was getting the kind of attention and respect that it deserved here in the Legislature. I said to them, you know, you're right. I know that some members of the government have complained about members of the Opposition, the quality of the comments. They find the comments repetitive and not helpful.
The solution to that is to stand on your feet and raise the quality of the debate, participate in this debate, and have your opportunity to say what it is that you find is important to have recorded here and not sit back and be a critic without offering anything on this debate. When I think about some of the behaviour that I have observed during this debate, exchanges back and forth, I must say I feel a little embarrassed sometimes to be a member and having to go and meet the public and know that people are wondering if this is the level of intelligence or commitment or seriousness that their elected members bring to the important business of running the Province of Nova Scotia and representing the interests of Nova Scotians who have given us, Mr. Speaker, a great privilege, a privilege that the vast majority of people will never have an opportunity to experience. So I think it is incumbent upon us to recognize that we do have a privilege and to treat the matters in front of us with the seriousness that they deserve.
Mr. Speaker, in the next few days, in fact this evening, I think we will have an opportunity and members of the government will certainly have an opportunity to meet face to face with many of the members of the public and many of the health care workers who will be impacted by Bill No. 68. I hope that members of this Legislature, particularly government members, will take every opportunity to meet with the people who Bill No. 68
will be affecting and will actually talk to them about their work and talk to them about their lives.
We have talked a great deal in this Legislature about nurses, which is proper because nurses, numerically, make up the largest group of health care providers in the health care system but, as I said yesterday, there are many other professional groups who are involved in health care provision who are very angry, very frustrated and very concerned about Bill No. 68. Included in this group are laboratory technicians, X-ray technicians, radiation and ultrasound technologists, physiotherapists, pharmacists, social workers, occupational therapists, psychologists, dieticians. I mean to run our health care services, the kinds of professional groupings are quite extensive and there are very many groups that have been affected by these changes.
Mr. Speaker, many of these workers have invested heavily in their education. In many cases they have more than one university degree, they may have two, they may have three university degrees. They have many years of experience working in the health care fields. They have seen, in the last 10 years, an extraordinary large amount of reorganization and change. In some cases, some of these workers have been shuffled from one area of service provision to another. They have had to compete for their own jobs, in many cases, and in some cases over and over again. They frequently participate in continuing education. They may belong to professional associations that require that they do so many hours of continuing education every year to maintain their licence and maintain their ability to practise. Often these requirements cost money and often they do it at their own expense.
In addition, many of these workers are women and men who volunteer, they sit on volunteer boards, they do a lot of really important work in the community. When I think about social work and psychology, for example, Mr. Speaker, because I have some contact with . . .
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. There is too much noise in the Chamber. I would ask the members to take their conversations outside, please.
The honourable member for Halifax Needham has the floor.
[10:45 a.m.]
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: When I see the amount of volunteer work that many of these groups do, for example I know there are some social workers and psychologists who have been active with non-profit organizations around eating disorders, helping to set up networks, support groups and do public education and these kinds of things that go far beyond their everyday work, where they are meeting directly with clients and they are doing counselling and they are doing family counselling and group work and what have you. Quite often many of these people at the end of the day go home, they grab a quick bite and they
dash out to meetings and they lend their expertise and their talents to a whole host of non-profit organizations, be it women's shelters or other organizations that perform really important, valuable work in our society.
I am very concerned to hear the response to Bill No. 68 in terms of work-to-rule and I totally understand it, because people have been contributing and contributing and when they see a piece of legislation like this that orders them to care, that orders them to do what they have so willingly been doing on their own, when no one has been caring for them, then I think our community is going to be worse off as a result of this bill. It is going to do real harm, Mr. Speaker.
I know my time is getting short, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to take the last moments of my time to say to the government that it is not too late to do the right thing with Bill No. 68. There is no shame in saying that you have made a mistake and that you are big enough to recognize that you have made a mistake; that you are prepared to back away from decisions you have made that are wrong decisions; that sometimes people have a lot more respect for someone who is prepared to acknowledge that they were wrong, that they made a wrong decision, that they got panicked, that they weren't thinking clearly or whatever, and I think we certainly have an opportunity to do that here with Bill No. 68.
We do have an opportunity to back away from this piece of legislation, a piece of legislation that is bringing, well it is bringing a kind of, I don't know if you can say shame, but certainly it is casting the Province of Nova Scotia in a less than attractive eye all across the country. The fact that this legislation is here before us and that it is so far-reaching in what it is attempting to do and to whom it is attempting to impose quite draconian measures, it has caught the attention of the national press and we are getting a reputation, Mr. Speaker, as being a bit of a backwater again, when we really had broken free of that kind of image in Nova Scotia.
It is not an image that we have had to contend with since the Buchanan days I would submit, and for all of the faults that you can lay at the feet of the former Liberal Government, I don't think that it would be fair to say that one of their faults was to be portrayed nationally as a bit of a backwater banana republic-style approach to government. I think that this bill, in fact, takes us back to that kind of characterization which, ironically, will harm us economically, financially. It will harm us in ways that the Premier would like not to be portrayed and would like the province not to be portrayed.
So, Mr. Speaker, I think that we have heard the brave, tough words from the Premier but this bill is not for our own good and it will do irreparable harm. Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Just before I recognize the honourable member for Cape Breton The Lakes, the subject for this evening's late debate was submitted by the honourable member for Lunenburg West:
Therefore be it resolved that when it comes to health care, the greatest threat to public safety is the Nova Scotia oligarchy represented by the Premier, the Government House Leader, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Justice, or the lack thereof.
This will be debated this evening at 6:00 p.m.
The honourable member for Cape Breton The Lakes.
MR. BRIAN BOUDREAU: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill No. 68. Normally it is an honour for me to rise in this place to speak on any matter, however, I have to admit today I am a little ashamed of having to stand in my place to debate such a piece of legislation. I have spoken to many of the nurses and health care professionals over the weekend and yesterday in telephone calls. Actually, I am trying to keep track of the newspapers and letters to the editor and I am trying to find where this government is getting support for this bill and I haven't had one, one individual walk up to me or send me an e-mail or a phone call or a letter, not one, who came forward to suggest that they support this government in its action. So, it is rather alarming.
The most common reference that I hear from people is that they are shocked that the comments that a doctor would make toward the nursing profession in particular and all health care workers in this province, when both he and the Health Minister indicated very clearly that they didn't trust the nursing and the health care workers in this province and that is alarming. As a doctor, John Hamm should know that the nurses in this province are among the best in our country and he should be proud of their accomplishments and their efforts. Instead, he lays the blame of the health care chaos that his minister is creating in that particular department and he lays the blame right on the doorstep of the health care professionals in this province.
The attitude of this government, especially of his minister, proves that he doesn't give the health care professionals the respect that they deserve. They don't have any respect for them and they don't have anything. What is more alarming to me, personally, is when I look across the floor and I recognize many of the former municipal colleagues who I had the pleasure of serving with through various meetings as a municipal councillor and I have said this before in this House, a municipal councillor, we all boast that we are the government closest to the people and we are in the community each and every day and a municipal councillor really does play a very important role in a community. They have the advantage because they are in the community every day. As I indicated before in this House, it is obvious that some of those former municipal councillors who are over there, they must have done something right because they certainly wouldn't have been elected to this House if they were a failure in their previous life.
So it is alarming, Mr. Speaker, for me to realize that those individuals allow the Premier and the Health Minister to get away with the comments that they have, in particular to the nursing profession and all health care workers in this province.
Mr. Speaker, the Premier called this legislation less than 24 hours after appointing a mediator to settle the dispute with the health care workers, less than 24 hours. One nurses' union was in the midst of conciliation and the other union was set to begin conciliation this week. It is important also to note that these nurses and health support workers still had over two weeks to negotiate a possible settlement before any strike would take place.
Mr. Speaker, one would think that this government wants all Nova Scotians to believe that this is the nurses' fault, this is the health care professionals, the support team, it is all their fault that I am in this House this morning speaking on this bill, it is their fault that the health care system in this province is in a mess and in shambles. They lay the blame everywhere else but where it should land. It should land right at the doorstep of that minister and that Premier. We must not forget that that Premier is also a medical doctor and if I am correct, I believe he has over 30 years experience in the medical profession in this province. He has the audacity to even suggest that the chaos in this health system in this province was created by the professionals who work within that system. It is very clear when I read the newspaper, the letters to the editor, the e-mails that the government members are receiving, they are receiving the same letters and telephone calls and e-mails that I, as a member of the Opposition, I am sure all 52 members are receiving these from all over the province.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, just this morning, areas that include Pictou Centre, Pictou West and Pictou East have voted 95 per cent in favour of a strike action. Now does that sound like the professionals working in the system have any kind of respect for that minister or any kind of belief in his ability to run the health care system in this province? I would suggest those numbers are extremely high, 95 per cent of those health care professionals voted in favour of a strike action. The chaos continues.
The nursing profession had a plan in place in case there was a strike. In case there was a strike, they had a plan to make sure the patients who were in facilities now would be cared for and that any emergencies that would arise could be dealt with immediately. Now, because of the actions of this government, we don't know where the health care system is, if there is an emergency response plan in place now or not. So the mess gets greater, not smaller, greater and it is because of the mismanagement. I hope that the backbenchers over there are going to listen to sooner or later, maybe one sentence, maybe not mine but another member of the Opposition.
We, on this side, realize that that gang in the front row there, there is no getting through to them. They proved that when they dealt with the steelworkers in Sydney and I spoke to a few of them over the weekend and they feel much better now because they thought they were being singled out but it is obvious now when we see how the teachers and the
education system was dealt with in this past budget process and now the health care and the offshore, you could continue on; the bag is brimming over with problems that are being created by that gang up there in the front row.
What concerns me more than anything is it is obvious the backbench, which is really the nucleus, the real stronghold that can really create and force the government to be the best that it can be, that is not happening over there. Those former municipal colleagues that were elected to this House at the same time I was are not raising the issues and they are not raising the concerns of the constituents that they represent. If they were, Mr. Speaker, that gang over there on the front row would not be operating the province of Nova Scotia in the manner that it is.
[11:00 a.m.]
So it is alarming. It is very alarming and all Nova Scotians, every man, woman and child, should be here today at this protest. This is alarming because it affects each and every Nova Scotian, not only the people who work within this profession are affected by this, Mr. Speaker. In fact, who is next? The nurses were following the process that has been traditional in this province for many years and fought for by our forefathers, and the people who came before us in this House supported those initiatives and the process is clear and fair; conciliation, mediation, arbitration, if necessary, but no, this government seems more intent on operating like a government that we are familiar with that operated in the 1940's where you don't tell people small lies, you tell them large lies and they will all believe you and go away and leave you alone.
That is not going to happen. It is very clear just by the comments, if you read the newspaper, and I am sure they can read. All you have to do is buy a newspaper, any newspaper in the province, in any municipality, anything local. You can buy the provincial ones, locally there are several. Read the letters to the editors. It is clear what Nova Scotians believe about this government. They are out of control. They don't know how to manage. The Health Minister is spending over $300 million in his department in less than two years and what has he got to show for it? If somebody gets sick here right now, we don't know, when we get to the hospital, if anybody is going to be there because of the actions of this government, not the actions of the health care professionals who deliver the service, they are not to blame here.
This government created the confrontation with the health care professionals. It is hard to believe that you would create so much corruption in such a short time. Health care is actually that unstable at the present time, that the minister should be relieved of his duties. It is coming to the point where this is urgent. This is not a funny situation and it is about time those backbenchers over there realized that. There are individuals sitting over there who were in their communities before they were elected here and talked to nurses on a daily basis, just as I have and they know that they put their effort and they are overworked and underpaid.
They know that, yet the Minister of Finance will stand in his place and say, oh, it is all about money.
It is all a