My question is to the Premier.

On Tuesday, the courts recognized that Bill 124 was unconstitutional. The decision reads that the government has not “explained why it was necessary to infringe on constitutional rights to impose wage constraint at the same time as it was providing tax cuts or licence plate sticker refunds that were more than 10 times larger than the savings obtained from wage restraint measures.”

If the economic conditions didn’t justify infringing on constitutionally protected rights, why did the Premier introduce Bill 124 in the first place?

Bill 124 has driven nurses out of our hospitals and has created a staffing crisis in our health care system.

The government can start undoing the mess that they made. So will the Premier drop his intention to appeal the court’s ruling on Bill 124 and finally work on a plan to recruit, train, retain and return nurses to our health care system?

Yesterday, the Minister of Labour stood in this House, and instead of addressing the substance of the opposition’s legitimate questions about Bill 124, he opted for talking points about private sector unions, even though he knows full well that there isn’t a union—public or private—in this province that supported Bill 124.

So, with the benefit of hindsight, will the minister tell the hundreds of thousands of broader public sector workers in this province why he backed a bill that suspended their rights to collectively bargain in the first place?