|
Oral
Questions
April 9, 2008
Home
| In the House | Question
Period
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions again today
are for the Premier, and they are based around the
faulty hormone testing and the information that is
coming forward as part of the public inquiry.
Mr. Speaker,
yesterday’s testimony from the former Minister of
Health, the current Member for St. John’s South, at
the Commission of Inquiry has certainly raised a few
eyebrows. He felt that he was kept out of the loop on
the hormone receptor issue and information was being
directly sent to the Premier’s office without him ever
seeing it.
I ask the Premier: Did
you, your staff or officials in Executive Council, give
any directive that information be sent directly to your
office without the knowledge of your former health
minister?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Absolutely
not, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, it seems rather strange that officials in a
department would bypass their minister and just send
information directly to the Premier’s office, on any
particular issue for that matter, unless there was some
intervention to have that as a practice.
I ask the Premier: Is
there any practice within your government where
departmental officials are asked to oftentimes send
information directly to your office and not directly to
the minister?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: On
the contrary, Mr. Speaker. There is a directive of two
ministers that they be involved - particularly in
briefing notes that are coming to my office. On this
particular instance, I was absolutely flabbergasted when
I found out that the minister was not aware. As a matter
of fact, when it first came up we were in a Cabinet
meeting and the minister had indicated that he had not
seen the briefing note. My comment was, are you sure?
How can you say that a briefing note came from your
department, a three-page briefing note with detailed
information in it, and you have not seen it? He said:
Well, I have not seen it; I had not seen it. Now, that
was beyond belief for me from that perspective. We met
with the officials of the department and the officials
confirmed that they had in fact sent it without giving
the minister the courtesy and the responsibility, of
course, of seeing it.
So, what happened in the
department or how it happened or why it happened, I have
no knowledge, but I can certainly tell you that from our
perspective we would not instruct anybody in the
department to circumvent the minister. On the contrary,
we have asked that the ministers be directly involved in
the briefing notes that come to my office.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Two former Ministers of
Health have already stated that they left it to Eastern
Health and the appropriate physicians to advise breast
cancer patients of their testing results. As we now
know, this process was a failure and the ministers did
not follow up on how the process was proceeding.
I ask the Premier: Why
did government not follow up with Eastern Health and
monitor this process of how patients were being
contacted and informed about information?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr.
Speaker, I cannot speak for those ministers in how they
performed their job and what information they had at the
time and why they made the decisions they made. They are
the only people who can answer those questions. So you
have to walk a very, very fine line here in me putting
my interpretation or expressing opinions and expressing
conclusions on other testimony that occurs before the
inquiry. If there is a follow up of questions at some
point, I will ask the Minister of Justice to speak on
that.
So, you know I cannot
attribute any blame. I cannot pass my own personal
opinion on it. What we have seen is we have seen
instances where Eastern Health had omitted and deleted
information from briefing notes that were being released
under ATTIP requests, and that was done. They have gone
off - they have actually had press conferences where, in
fact, all of the information was not revealed. Those are
actions that are beyond the control of the minister. The
minister cannot be responsible for every single person
all the way down the line in the health care system
because they have no possible, tangible means of doing
it.
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
I ask the hon. Premier to
complete his answer.
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Fine,
Mr. Speaker.
So, from my perspective,
I cannot pass judgment on the circumstances that the
ministers were in at the particular point and time and
what information they had, because I do not know.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, the Member for St. John’s South also made
reference to the fact that if he had known about the
briefing note that was submitted to the Premier’s
office and in the possession of the Premier in 2006, he
would have gone public with the information.
I ask the Premier: Is
there any particular reason, once you were given those
updated numbers at that time, why you did not go public?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr.
Speaker, when I was given the updated numbers in August,
they were just that. It was an update of four pages
long. It is headed up: An Update on Pathology Reports
and Legal Action for Women Diagnosed with Breast Cancer.
The other briefing note
that I had back in October of 2005 informed me, in that
briefing note: Eastern Health is sending letters to the
surgeons and other attending physicians on the sixteen
to twenty individuals whose treatment could be impacted.
When I received the August briefing note, the conclusion
at the end of it said: Eastern Health advises twenty-two
women were impacted. So, basically, it had gone from
twenty to twenty-two in two briefing notes. This was an
update that was provided for information purposes.
With regard to the
minister’s comment on, if he had it, he would have
gone public. Well, I do not know what he had or what he
did not have. He did not have that briefing note. The
following month there was a press conference whereby
Eastern Health disclosed information, even though they
did not disclose all of it, and I have no control over
that, that was in the public domain. Why the minister at
that point did not decide to come to me or go public
with it, he is the only one who can answer that.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, we all know that it is only the Premier who can
remove deputy ministers from departments within a
government.
I have to ask the Premier
today: Was John Abbott removed
as the Deputy Minister of Health in 2007 directly
related to this issue?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr.
Speaker, the Department of Justice has informed me that
when we are passing comments in the House of Assembly on
Mr. Abbott or Mr. Tilley or Mr. Thompson, that these are
people who are witnesses, who are testifying before the
inquiry. When we cast aspersions or we pass comments or
we try to attribute blames through the question, then we
are affecting the creditability of their testimony. Is
that correct?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
PREMIER WILLIAMS: So
we have to be very, very, very careful what we are doing
here. With regard to Mr. Abbott, Mr. Abbott was offered
a transfer. Mr. Abbott was not fired. He was not kicked
out. He was offered a transfer to another department
which he decided not to accept.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, I understand the Premier’s need to be careful
in how he responds to some of these questions and
certainly related to individuals who are testifying, but
we are just simply asking his rationale as the Premier
for removing certain individuals in positions within
government out of those positions.
Now I understand, from
your answer, that you did offer Mr. Abbott another
position as a deputy minister in another department. Would
the reason for wanting to move him out of health at that
time have anything to do with what was happening with
hormone receptor testing?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr.
Speaker, I am responsible for the appointment of deputy
ministers in this government. At that particular time I
felt it was appropriate that a transfer take place,
there were a lot of things happening in the Department
of Health. From time to time I will change ministers, or
I would change deputy ministers, basically, sometimes
just to give them a new portfolio, to give them a breath
of fresh air, to give them a change of position, and
that was what was offered to Mr. Abbott.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, I would also like to ask the Premier as well a
similar question in relation to George Tilley, who we
know was removed as the CEO of Eastern Health in the
spring of 2007.
I ask you, Premier: Would
the removal of Mr. Tilley as CEO of Eastern Health have
any relation to what was happening with hormone receptor
testing in this Province at the time?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday afternoon we
spent quite some time discussing the role and nature of
inquiries. Although I do not expect the Opposition to
accept my version of events, what I termed Inquiries
101, I did offer the Opposition House Leader the
opportunity to read the law. The purpose of an inquiry
is to determine what happened, how it happened, who did
what, and to make findings a fact.
What the Leader of the
Opposition is asking here today is for the Premier to
attribute blame, to make a finding of fact that is
within the jurisdiction of the inquiry. I would suggest,
Mr. Speaker, that this line of questioning is done for
political gain and with an attempt to not only prejudice
the fairness of the hearing but to prejudice the
reputations of individuals, and it is inappropriate.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
The hon. the Opposition
House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate the comments
from the minister. We are, right now, two days and ten
minutes into Question Periods on this issue. So far,
other than a little bit of testiness from one side or
the other, the questions have been above board,
straightforward and for the most part the answers have
been fairly forthcoming, no one denied that.
I can appreciate, if the
Premier has any sensitivities to giving a comment that
might impact or undermine anyone, that is his pejorative
to say, I do not feel comfortable answering that and I
am not going to answer it. That is his pejorative. There
is nothing wrong with these questions being asked,
nothing whatsoever. It is the Premier’s prerogative or
anyone’s prerogative over there, if they do not want
to answer them, not to answer.
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
I ask the member to pose
his question.
Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of
the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, my next
question, again for the Premier, Robert Thompson was the
Clerk of the Executive Council in 2005. The Clerk
usually holds, I think, daily briefings with the
Premier, or regular briefings with the Premier to
discuss issues. We know that Mr. Thompson was advised of
the problems related to the hormone receptor testing on
July 19, 2005.
I ask the Premier: Did
Mr. Thompson, as the Clerk of your Council, ever mention
this issue to you in July of 2005, and if you cannot
recall, have you asked Mr. Thompson regarding that
issue?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr.
Speaker, I cannot recall a conversation with Mr.
Thompson on that particular issue. Mr. Thompson would
brief me, not on a daily basis. It was sometimes on an
extended basis, sometimes it could be as long as a month
when we sat down for briefings. Mr. Thompson and his
staff, I have not made a direct question to Mr. Thompson
as to whether I did have it, but it has been requested
as to whether there were any conversations with Mr.
Thompson, and to my knowledge there were none.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, the e-mail from Mr. Thompson to the Premier’s
office on July 19, 2005, has become a major piece of
evidence in this commission of inquiry. Even though Mr.
Thompson -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
I ask the member to
continue with her question.
MS JONES: If
he has a point of order, you can stand up.
Even though Mr. Thompson
has been subpoenaed to testify, and even though he is
directly involved in this matter, government refuses to
admit there is any conflict of interest by him acting as
the government liaison to the commission.
I ask the Premier: Do
you acknowledge this conflict, and will you remove Mr.
Thompson from the position as liaison officer to the
commission for government?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: I
answered that question yesterday, Mr. Speaker, and the
same answer stands today. So you just read Hansard.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, I think it is important to point out here that
so far we have the Minister of Health, who was informed
of this problem in July, the deputy minister, the
assistant deputy minister, Communications Director in
Health, the Clerk of the Executive Council, the
Secretary of the Cabinet, the Premier’s Chief of Staff
and his Communications Director, and they all knew about
the problem in July of 2005; yet, there is no
recollection of any of these individuals informing the
Premier.
Mr. Speaker, my question
is: What changes, Premier, are
you making in your office to ensure that you are going
to be advised on important issues in the future that are
facing the lives of people in this Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr.
Speaker, all of the people who have just been named, and
all of the other people who are involved in this inquiry
who have anything to do with the government, I have said
from day one, I will accept full responsibility for
their actions at the end of the day. So, whether I was
advised or whether I was not advised, I accept full
responsibility as the head of the Province and Premier
of the government.
With regard to the
125,000-plus communications that come to our office in
the run of a year - and I would suggest it is probably,
if you take the phone calls, it is probably 175,000, but
a 125,000 estimate - with regard to those, if items come
to our office or are suggested that no action is
required then we will not take action on them, because
we do not have the luxury of acting on and investigating
and pursuing 125,000-plus contacts in the course of a
year.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday my colleague,
the Leader of the NDP, raised an issue regarding the
October 2005 Cabinet paper that was tabled by the
commission. In the document, communication strategies
were outlined referencing the ER-PR testing, and how to
deflect negative attention related to this issue.
I ask the Premier today: Was
there any discussion on that issue in Cabinet in October
or November of 2005, and, if not, how did your Cabinet
know what the ER-PR issue was that was so strongly
referenced in this Cabinet paper?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: We
read the Independent, we watched NTV, and we
listened to CBC on their reporting on it, the same as
everybody else in the Province did.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, the other part of my question was: Was
it part of any Cabinet discussion during that time when
this Cabinet paper came to the Cabinet table?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Absolutely
not, Mr. Speaker. There was no discussion of ER-PR. This
was an approval of the Herceptin drug, a very
straightforward approval that comes, as a matter of
fact, as hon. members opposite know, when they are in
Cabinet. Drugs that are of urgency, or very important
drugs that are very important to the people of this
Province from a health care perspective, when they come
to Cabinet, unless there is some major objection,
someone is aware of some health deficiency or some
health problem with a drug, they are virtually
rubber-stamped. Now that may be a very loosey-goosey
term to use but that is, in fact, the case.
The reference to ER-PR in
this particular Cabinet paper was attached to a
communications plan and it was never discussed.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, we know that government had copies of the peer
reviews that were completed at the laboratory of Eastern
Health. We know that major problems were identified by
the pathologist who did the review, and recommendations
were made for improvements. The Premier has stated that
the Commission of Inquiry was initiated to ensure that
this system is improved. If this is the case, I ask the
Premier: Why did government
allow Eastern Health to go to court in an attempt to
block the release of these peer reviews that were
designed to help improve the laboratory?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr.
Speaker, the parties to that particular action, some of
the parties - I don’t know whether other interested
parties were there - were Eastern Health and the
commission. Both sides were presented to the court. It
was a matter before the courts. It was not our place to
intervene.
Equally important, I was
satisfied that the commissioner actually had those peer
reviews. It was about using those peer reviews and
making them public. It was not a question of those peer
reviews not being available to Madam Justice Cameron. So
I took some comfort in the fact that, even if the courts
decided against her using them publicly, that she in
fact had those reviews and could use those to come to
conclusions to make findings at the end of the inquiry.
From government’s
perspective, we were not a party to that particular
action and we just basically stood back and let the
courts do what they had to do.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, at this
stage the Premier must have realized that Eastern Health
had not done a good job at informing patients about this
issue, or at raising public awareness about it, or at
managing it through this process. Here they are now
attempting to file a case in the courts to have
information withheld from the public.
I have to ask the Premier
again - because of that action of Eastern Health, it
delayed the process of this inquiry. Again, I have to
ask: Why wasn’t there some
urgency at this stage within government to at least
intervene and say: Listen, we want to make sure these
documents are going to be available to the public. We
are having a full, open process. We are not going to
allow you to go to court and block the release of this
information.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr.
Speaker, this was more of a moot legal point. These
documents were already in the hands of the inquiry. They
already had the documents. I spoke with Mr. Coffey while
I was being interviewed and he indicated that they had
the benefit of the information already at the inquiry.
This was a legal point about whether those documents
could be referred to or made public. That is a matter
between the inquiry and Eastern Health.
There is also another
issue which is related here. There is the whole question
of peer review and doctors, and how things are handled,
and whether they are comfortable with the system.
If people who are going
to do peer reviews and pass judgment on doctors’
actions are going to be subject to exposure, then the
Medical Association – not ourselves, but the Medical
Association - are very concerned that can then all of a
sudden become public. If that happens, then what
situation do we have with doctors who need to be
reviewed and need to be checked?
So, it is a medical
ethical question as well; but, from our perspective, we
were quite satisfied that that review and those
documents, or those reviews and those documents, were
clearly in the hands of the commission.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
A related question. In
February 2006 the Department of Health received a letter
from Dr. Banerjee, who had done one of the two reviews
of the lab at Eastern Health. In his letter he expressed
concern to the Department of Health regarding pathology
shortages in the immediate future. In the past two
years, I have to ask, what has
government done to address this issue with regard to
pathologists in Newfoundland and Labrador?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr.
Speaker, the current Minister of Health is not here
today because he is waiting to testify. I do not know if
the Minister of Finance has information on this, but
what I do have is three pages here of things that
government has done to make improvements since August
2005 to September 2007. I can go through this list, if
you want, and you can cut me off when my forty-five
seconds are up, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order please!
Before the hon. Premier
goes down that route, I would like to ask the hon.
Premier if he would make reference to the documents that
he has there rather than reading from them. The Chair
has already ruled on that in previous days.
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER WILLIAMS:
Mr. Speaker, there is a list of improvements that
government has done, that can be released through the
Department of Health or through the Department of
Finance, a number of things that we have done in order
to make improvements over there. Of course, obviously,
Herceptin is one of them, but there are three pages of
things that have been done.
Whether there has been
anything done specifically with regard to pathologists,
I would have to defer to the Minister of Health. Perhaps
we could come up with an answer tomorrow for you on
that. At least I will have one of the other ministers
come up with an answer. The Minister of Finance
(inaudible)? Do you know that?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MS JONES: If
you have some information that you want to contribute,
because I have a letter here from the Department of
Health that was written to this pathologist on April 18,
2006. Basically, it was the department taking some
exception to the fact that shortages of pathologists may
have contributed in some way to what was happening with
regard to the breast cancer screening issue within the
Province.
I
would like to have some clarification from the minister
on why this letter was sent, why the offence was taken,
and what has been done to correct the problem with
pathologists in the Province.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr.
Speaker, I do not know the reason that instigated the
letter that you are referring to, but I can advise that,
with respect to dealing with the question of the
shortage of pathologists, the government agreed to pay a
stipend to the pathologists of between $50,000 and
$60,000, similar to the stipend that is being paid to
oncologists.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, my next questions are again indirectly related
in that they concern the mammography equipment in the
Province.
Right now we are aware
that there are twelve analog mammography units that are
located across the Province. Many of them are ten years
or older, and this means that they are either at the end
of their life or past the usage of what is effective for
the kind of work that they do. Anyway, there is a
requirement for newer digital mammography equipment
throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, and I
ask the minister if his government is prepared to commit
to funding for new mammography equipment in our
hospitals in Newfoundland and Labrador?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr.
Speaker, I can inform the hon. member opposite that two
months ago, back in February, we had already approved in
the upcoming Budget – I don’t want to scoop the
minister, but it is important information - some
considerable time ago we have already approved
mammography units. The number I cannot tell you exactly
but it has already been approved.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to pose
questions to the Premier to get clarification both from
my question yesterday and the answer he gave to the
Leader of the Opposition today.
The documents that were
prepared for – at least in relation to – the Cabinet
meeting that was held on November 4, 2005, to discuss
the approval of drug therapies, including Herceptin for
treating breast cancer, they amount to thirty pages. I
guess what I want to know from the Premier is: Are you
telling us that none of these documents were given to
the Cabinet, were not part of the Cabinet’s briefing
documents for having that discussion? Is that what you
are telling us?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: No,
Mr. Speaker, what I have said is that – I have not
said this, but what has happened is - these documents
are part of the Cabinet documentation. What I have said
is that they were not discussed. There was no discussion
on ER-PR at the Cabinet table. We have already checked
with the Clerk, checked with the minutes, and
recollection – not all ministers, I haven’t talked
to all ministers on it – but recollection for myself
is that there was absolutely no discussion, that this
was a very, very straightforward approval and it just
went through with an okay, basically.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Well
then, my question for the Premier is: May I assume that
you read those briefing documents and that you would
have an expectation that Cabinet would have read them,
and was there anything in those documents that put up
any red flags for you, for example the communications
strategy, that you would have wanted to discuss, and if
so, why didn’t you?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr.
Speaker, this is a communications plan that was
attached. It has three paragraphs in it which reference
ER/PR, and they basically talk about what was in the
public domain as a result of the media that occurred on
October 5. The date of draft of this document that I
have before me is October 25, so this was some three
weeks after it first appeared. It talks about the
general preamble, exactly what happened with regard –
not what happened with regard to the tests, it talks
about the tests. Then it talks about Gerry Rogers and
her comments in the Globe and Mail, and it talks
about comments that are attributed to Mr. Peter Dawe. It
also talks about the national media on this matter which
is a CBC story on October 20th as
well. It is an information package that basically
indicates what has been there in the public domain.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
What concerns me, as I
read these documents – and that is why I am asking the
Premier – is that in the strategic considerations that
are described in another part of those thirty documents
we are told that the recent media coverage that the
Premier has just referred to has caused a loss of
confidence in the health system in the public, and that
approving the drug would, in actual fact, help deal with
that loss of confidence.
Doesn’t it disturb the
Premier that a decision around this drug would
strategically be good, because the public will feel
better, and number two, it will help us with
negotiations with physicians who have been lobbying for
these drugs? Both those things are in these papers.
Doesn’t that disturb the Premier, that kind of
thinking?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: It
doesn’t disturb me, Mr. Speaker, that there are
another fifty-odd, I am guessing, items of things that
have been done as well to improve the health care
system. I would suggest, if you go back over the last
five years there are probably several hundreds or
thousands of things that have been done by our
government to improve the health care system, and we
will do it again.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: And
we will continue to do so.
From our perspective, one
important piece of clarification that needs to be
repeated here: The improper testing had stopped, new
testing was being done at Mount Sinai, past testing was
being checked and we were informed that patients were
being notified. It was in good hands as far as we knew.
What was in the public domain, we were certainly aware
of, and we were doing whatever we could to improve the
health care system in this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
The hon. the Opposition
House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday in
Question Period the Premier made a comment someway
through our questions back and forth, that he would seek
the advice or have the Minister of Justice check with
the Cameron Inquiry to decide if the line of question
that was being pursued is indeed appropriate in the
House. It was reported in the media as well this
morning, that that actually transpired here, and Hansard
will show it did.
I am
just wondering if the Premier or the minister can advise
us if they have made that inquiry of the Justice Cameron
Inquiry and, if so, can we have a copy of that
correspondence? If not, when do you intend to get it
done, and would you provide us with a copy?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I can inform the
Opposition House Leader that discussions have, in fact,
ensued, that there has been no ruling by the commission,
that the decision made by the government is that
questions put to us will be asked, but there is a thin
line that I, as Minister of Justice, have to be
cognizant of.
I will specifically refer
to the fact, yesterday the Opposition House Leader said:
Well, I am not referring to evidence; I am referring to
process and procedure. And all I have heard from the
Leader of the Opposition is questions about evidence at
the inquiry.
I will repeat what I said
yesterday, your opinions are exactly that, opinions.
Facts will be decided by the commissioner and the
inquiry. |
