|
Oral
Questions
March 19, 2008
Home
| In the House | Question
Period
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, today is the
start of the judicial inquiry into what is the biggest
tragedy to ever take place in our health care system,
the faulty breast cancer testing that has affected so
many women and their families in this Province. This
inquiry, originally scheduled to start in January, was
delayed because of a court application by Eastern Health
to prevent the release of peer reviews, a case that they
eventually lost in the courts.
I ask the Minister of
Health today: Why he did not
intervene as the lead government department to ask
Eastern Health to withdraw their application to the
courts which unnecessarily delayed this inquiry by
almost two months?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I think what is important here today is that the inquiry
has started today with its first witnesses. Justice
Dymond made a ruling on an application before the court
with respect to the information that has been referenced
and some evaluations that were done of a laboratory at
Eastern Health. I think today marks the beginning of a
very revealing process, I say, Mr. Speaker. Today, as
the member opposite has referenced, is a time when the
inquiry will start to hear witnesses from individuals
who have been impacted by, family members who have been
impacted by, individuals who have been involved with
ER/PR testing between 1997 and 2005 and the subsequent
administration of that file since then. I look forward
to Justice Cameron’s report at the end of all of this
because I think it will be a very revealing report and I
think we will all learn something from that, I say, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, ten months ago in the House of Assembly we
asked the Minister of Health why information regarding
the number of people impacted by faulty testing was not
released publicly and in a timely manner. On the eve of
the judicial inquiry the minister finally released a
statement acknowledging that 108 women who received
inaccurate results are now deceased. This is a shocking
and disturbing acknowledgement that should have been
disclosed much earlier.
I ask the minister: Why
did he wait until the start of this inquiry to make the
startling information public?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, would
acknowledge, it is startling information. As I said last
year, as information became available I would make it
available to the public. I had a press conference in
November where I announced the early findings of a
special unit we had put together. We had brought in the
Centre for Health and Information, a unit of individuals
to put together, to reconstruct the data basis; to tell
us exactly how many people we were dealing with. We
realized last year, in May and June, that the
information we had was inaccurate. So, in November I
provided an update of information at that particular
time. In February, I provided another update of the
information. The concluding work of that group of people
from the Centre for Health and Information, they were
wrapping up their analysis and I provided an update at
that time. At that time there were a couple of critical
questions that we did not have the answers to, and I
said then that when it became available I would release
it. Last week we found out what that information was,
and as true to my word, I released that when we knew it
at that time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Hundreds of women
received inaccurate test results, many of whom are now
deceased, as we know, and they will not get the answers
to what went wrong with their tests. However, their
families will be forced to relive memories and sit
through testimony that will be very difficult and
emotional in order to get the answers that they seek and
to find closure in this travesty.
I ask the minister: What
is his department or Eastern Health doing to provide
support services and counselling to these families and
victims as they go through this inquiry?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Mr.
Speaker, the member opposite raised an interesting
question and an important one, as she just identified
individuals and their families will relive a period of
their lives where many of them are trying to forget it
and put it behind them. Many of those individuals who
are providing evidence today and will be providing
evidence in the future and witnessing the evidence being
provided by others, will, in fact, be going through a
very traumatic time in their lives. I would assume, Mr.
Speaker, that those individuals currently being followed
by a physician are being provided with the necessary
support that they would need through this period. Those
individuals who are currently being supported by the
Cancer Treatment Centre would have a network of social
workers and others available to provide counselling
services to them, but I suspect, Mr. Speaker, and I
suggest that if any individuals are finding themselves
in this very precarious spot that they may find
themselves in, a very challenging time, that working
through each of their authorities - because many of them
live in various parts of the Province, I say, Mr.
Speaker, and as they find themselves having some
difficulty coping with what they will be witnessing in
the coming weeks, I suggest that they would deal
directly through their family physician to work with the
respective authorities to provide the necessary supports
to help them work through this issue.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
A very difficult issue
for everyone involved, I say to the minister, and I will
try to switch gears now to actually direct some
questions to the Premier.
Mr. Speaker, the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador signed a
Memorandum of Understanding with the Hebron consortium
back in August 2007. At the time, the Premier said it
would take several months to execute the final
agreements. Then the date was pushed to March 2008. Just
this past February, the Premier was quoted in the media
that the final legal language would be completed by
June.
My question, Mr. Speaker,
is to the Premier, and that is: What
is the status of those negotiations, and will they be
completed by June?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I am happy to report that
the negotiations are going very well, but they are
complex negotiations, Mr. Speaker. We are very hopeful
that we will have them done in the near future, and
hopefully they will be done by June. I can only report
that they are going well and we look to a positive
announcement in the very near future.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Government’s insistence
on a 4.9 per cent equity stake has committed this
Province to a payment to the Hebron-Ben Nevis consortium
of a minimum of $110 million. Since that time,
construction costs have ballooned and oil prices have
climbed to record levels.
I ask the minister: Is
the $110 million still a firm number, or has that sum
changed since the MOU was announced?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Mr.
Speaker, the number of $110 million for our 4.9 per cent
equity is firm, and a good price by any standard
anywhere in the world today.
SOME HON MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, we all realize that $110 million is still a lot
of money, good price or not, especially for a Province
with many demands being placed on it, both in its health
care, education and infrastructure programs.
My question to the
minister is: What account will
this money be charged against? Will it be coming from
the new energy corporation that has been set up? Will it
be drawn down from the surplus budget that we know
exists in the government today, or will it be borrowed
on the capital market?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Mr.
Speaker, the money will be drawn down from the new
energy corp. that will handle all of the provincial
government’s interests in oil and gas here in the
Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, then, my next
question would be: Does the
energy corp. have the monies available or will they be
borrowing it using their legislative borrowing power
that was passed when the corporation was established?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
The funds will be
transferred from the government to the energy corp. to
purchase the equity in Hebron as well as in the White
Rose extension.
SOME HON MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
As the minister knows,
when you are in business you are legally liable when
things go wrong. In oil projects, when things go wrong,
they go wrong in very expensive ways oftentimes.
For example, if you want
to look at the Exxon Valdez accident, it spilled, I
think, some 250,000 barrels of oil and it cost Exxon
something like $6 billion to clean it up, plus the
punitive, compensation and court charges and everything
else that went with it.
If the Province had a 4.9
per cent of that particular deal, the people of the
Province would have been liable for almost $300 million
in expenditure.
My question to the
minister is: Who will be
ensuring the risk and responsibility associated with our
4.9 per cent equity position in the case of a spill, an
accident, or another environmental catastrophe?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
We will have all of the
rights and responsibilities of other partners in these
projects, and we will have all of the protections that
are available to us that are provided by services to the
industry. This is a very positive move for Newfoundland
and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: We,
for the first time, will sit at the table and have a
voice in decision making with regard to our resources in
oil and gas in this Province. The federal government has
been there since Hibernia and it has been a very
lucrative position for them, of which they have realized
a great return to the people of Canada from their
investment. We will do the same for Newfoundland and
Labrador.
SOME HON MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, there is no need for the minister to get her
knickers in a knot. We are not saying that this may not
be a good thing.
SOME HON MEMBERS: Oh,
oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
MS JONES: We
are simply -
SOME HON MEMBERS: Oh,
oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
The hon. the Leader of
the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
We simply asked some
questions to seek some answers and so far, Mr. Speaker,
we are still looking for some answers.
SOME HON MEMBERS: Oh,
oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
MS JONES:
In a letter received by the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, on
September 17, the Premier stated that government
estimated that - and this is a direct quote - as much
topsides work as fabrication yard facilities and
workforce can reasonably accommodate will be completed
here in the Province.
Mr. Speaker, we all know
that when it comes to deals like this, the devil is
always in the details.
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
I ask the hon. member to
pose her question.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I am getting to the
question, and the question is: Who
will be making the assessment, Minister, and what is
reasonably accommodated? Will that be done by the oil
companies or will it be done by government?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Mr.
Speaker, we are on the cusp of such development in this
Province that we have never seen before in our history.
We have a number of potential projects lined up here.
Any one of them, any one of those projects, will fill up
just about every bit of capacity we have in this
Province.
What a wonderful
challenge we have to see how much work we can get in
this Province, because it will be more than we ever
dreamed of.
SOME HON MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: We
have been very careful in our negotiations, Mr. Speaker,
and we are going to ensure that every piece of work that
can be done here will be done here, and the government,
as well as our energy corp., will be monitoring that
very carefully.
SOME HON MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
A critical part of the
economic benefits related to oil projects is the
technology transfers, the minister knows. We want to
ensure that the people of the Province not only do some
of the detailed engineering work, but we want to ensure
that they are the designers and the engineers of these
projects, and that has certainly been expressed by local
suppliers in the industry and the engineering community.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, they took a position that all
front-end engineering and design for oil projects should
be done right here in this Province.
So, Mr. Speaker, I ask
the minister today: Will you
provide the details to the House on what front-end
engineering work design will be completed in the
Province and what will be outsourced to offshore
engineering companies?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
All of that information
is not available to us at the moment. As it becomes
available, I will be happy to make it known.
We absolutely want every
piece of work done here. We want technology transfers.
As part of our negotiations, where work cannot
possibility be done in the Province, we have made
available a fund where businesses can travel to where
the work is being done and can be mentored and taught in
those places, how to do the work and where they can
carve off pieces of the work for their own companies
here in the Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the
Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
Minister, I have obtained
a copy of a letter dated February 29, this year, which
you sent to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
federally, the hon. Loyola Hearn, regarding the approval
of a transfer of 1,650 ton quota of OB turbot from
Seafreeze Foods, which is Bill Barry, to Clearwater
Seafoods, which is Mr. Risley.
Mr. Speaker, this quota
in question was initially allocated to Mr. Barry with
the rationalization that the resource would bring
benefits to the people of Burgeo as part of an
underutilized species allocation. The commitment was
that at least 40 per cent of that allocation had to be
landed and processed in Burgeo. That did not happen.
Once again, the people of Burgeo were left in the cold,
slapped in the face. The town suffers while Mr. Barry
makes off with millions from the sale of the quota.
I ask the minister: What
did you mean in your letter to Mr. Hearn when you said,
and I quote: This transfer was done without adequately
consulting the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
or the provincial fishing industry. What do you mean by
adequately? Was there any consultation, and, if so, when
and with whom?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank my hon. friend
for his question. To be to the point, what did we mean
by adequately in the letter that I wrote to Minister
Hearn expressing our displeasure at this transaction was
very simple. There had been none, N O N E; no
consultation, none with the Province, with the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, with the
industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, as far as I know.
We found out about the event and the transaction after
the fact, and were made aware of it, I guess, by some
due diligence and rumour that goes on in this industry,
as everybody in this House is aware of.
So, there was absolutely
no consultation, prior to the event happening, with the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador; no discussions
with us. Our advice was not sought. There was no
transparency whatsoever.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank
you.
I appreciate the
minister’s very clear, unequivocal answer to that
question because the letter left some room that there
may have been some form of consultation but not proper.
I noticed, minister, that
your letter of February 29 was not cc’d to the Town of
Burgeo, even though I believe the Town of Burgeo was
mentioned about six, seven times in that particular
letter. The residents of Burgeo have suffered deeply
over the past seventeen years, since 1991, mainly due to
this injustice and the transfer of quotas to the benefit
of someone else. First, it was the redfish quota, which
was part of that deal which was taken by Mr. Barry from
Burgeo to Canso, Nova Scotia, and now we have the turbot
quota off to Nova Scotia.
I ask the minister: What
can be done to reverse this process so that the people
of Burgeo, who have been making their case for years for
their survival and their historical attachment to the
fishery, what can be done to get them their just
rewards?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, there was no
malice, I suppose - if that is a good word - in not
cc’ing the Town of Burgeo or the Mayor of Burgeo. The
letter was written in a more general way, objecting and
taking offence, really, and displeasure to the fact that
the Government of Canada and the minister would transfer
quota that had been assigned to a company in this
Province for processing in Newfoundland and Labrador, 40
per cent of it happened to be assigned to Burgeo. All of
that fish, with the exception of 250 tons - which I
believe was sold to the Labrador Union Shrimp Company.
All of that fish has now gone from Newfoundland and
Labrador, Burgeo included, to no benefit to the people
of Newfoundland and Labrador, except to the financial
coffers of a company in the Province. There is no
benefit to the people of this Province and that is what
we took objection to, that happening without our consent
- not without our consent but without at least our
involvement.
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
I ask the hon. member to
conclude his answer.
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Without our involvement,
at least without having the courtesy of making us aware
of it, and having us find out about it through the back
door rather than the front door.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Mr.
Speaker, as we all know, the relationship between the
federal government and the provincial government has
reached an all-time low.
I ask the minister: Is
Burgeo, a hard-working, rural Newfoundland and Labrador
town, suffering due to the consequences of this
intergovernmental feud? Can other communities in rural
Newfoundland and Labrador also expect to be causalities
in this dispute between your government and the feds?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr.
Speaker, it is difficult to answer that question, but
let me attempt an answer by saying this. The people who
were adjacent to that resource - we had historic
presence and usage in it then there had been an
assignment to Newfoundland and Labrador. The people who
were adjacent to that resource, the inhabitants of
Nunavut, were not consulted. They had no knowledge that
this was happening.
They, Mr. Speaker, the
people of Nunavut - I do not know if the Government of
Nunavut has the same battles with the Government of
Canada that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
has, but you would think they do, the way they were
dealt with in this particular instance.
I would have to say, Mr.
Speaker, no, I do not think that is the case, but the
Government of Canada that we have today makes no
privilege of anybody in Canada. They do not care where
you are, what you do, whether you fight with them,
whether you do not fight with them, they are going to
deal with you in the way that they want to deal with you
anyway.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr.
Speaker, in May of last year the government received a
client services officer’s report in relation to the
Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission.
I ask the minister:
In light of this government’s commitment on the timely
release of reports and transparency in government, can
he tell the House when this report will be released to
the public?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Government Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. O'BRIEN: Yes,
Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, I did a media
interview on Friday. I made a commitment to release such
reports as expeditiously as we possibly can, taking into
account that we have to treat each request separately.
It depends on the scope of the actual request. It
depends on the number of requests that is made to our
department.
We are in the process of
having a look at enhancing our data system, but right
now we are dealing with paper and that takes time and
resources. So, yes, we will certainly release them in an
expeditious manner.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I say so much for the
thirty day turnaround. This is going on close to a year
now since this report was released and the public has
yet to know what is in it.
Mr. Speaker, another
issue being raised by injured workers is the need for a
client fairness officer. Such a position already exists
in other provinces, and while in Opposition, the current
Premier called for the appointment of a public defender
for injured workers.
I ask the minister: What
is government’s view on the need for such a position,
and will government be moving forward with anything like
this to protect injured workers in this Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and
Employment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SKINNER: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as this
House is aware there are a number of recommendations
before the government through the Statutory Review
process which is the formal process we have in place to
look at issues regarding injured workers and the
Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission.
That report will be spoken on in the near future by this
government, and at that time members opposite will see
the recommendations that come forward.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr.
Speaker, it has come to our attention that injured
workers are experiencing delays in the review process at
Workers Health, Safety and Compensation Commission
because there has only been one of the three review
commissioners in place recently.
I ask the minister: Can
he tell us how many cases have been delayed and when are
you going to address this problem by putting more
commissioners in place?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister Responsible for Persons with
Disabilities.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SKINNER: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we have a
number of commissioners who sit on the review
commission, we have a number who have recently expired
and we have a number of recommendations that we will be
making, bringing forward, to put people on this. In some
cases we have to make sure that we contact the
individuals for some information that we need from them,
but in the very near future the number of positions that
have expired will be filled and we will have a full
complement of review commissioners.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, my question
relates to the hormone receptor testing. On Tuesday, the
Minister of Health and Community Services released the
information that 108 of the 322 deceased announced on
February 22 had changed ER/PR test results. That is 33
per cent of patients with changed results.
In the minister’s
release on Tuesday past he was downplaying the fact that
these patients may have died of cancer. He also said
that some of the patients may actually have received the
correct treatment in spite of having false negative test
results. He has not presented proof to backup either of
these statements. Surely there are records indicating
why people died and what treatment the patients
received.
I ask the minister why he
didn’t dig further and investigate this issue fully
instead of giving us half answers.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I have
never, in this House or outside this House, downplayed
the significance of the issues in and around ER/PR, nor
would I ever dismiss the significance of having to
report that 322 people are dead.
What I did this week was
I provided an update on those individuals who had their
tests changed. Now, to take from that - and this is the
point I was making: we cannot conclude that because 108
people had their test changed, or because 275 people had
their test changed, that caused their death.
The issue that I reported
on was a statistic. I didn’t deal with the cause of
death of 108 people, nor the cause of death of 320. Nor
did I say the 275 who had their tests changed, that
their course of treatment would have changed had
something else happened.
I was providing an update
on a set of statistics, I say, Mr. Speaker. The cause of
death - and if the member opposite wants to jump to a
conclusion, that is somewhat irresponsible. What I was
trying to do -
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
I ask the hon. minister
to conclude his answer.
MR. WISEMAN: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
What I was trying to do,
Mr. Speaker, in my commentary, was to be responsible, to
responsibly report the information that we had available
to us; not to jump to conclusions, not to make
assumptions.
SOME HON MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister is getting
at the heart of what it is I am looking for. It is not
sufficient for databases to only have pure statistics.
They also can include the reasons and causes for, and
this is what I am asking: why the database is not
including it.
So, I am asking the
minister: If such information - because this information
is important to the families in the present and in
future - if such information is not yet part of the
database, will steps be taken to ensure that such
important information is included?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
What I have said before,
and I will repeat it again in this House today, the
individual families of those 322 people should make
contact with Eastern Health to find out exactly what
happened with their respective family member. That
information would be available to the individuals and
their family – the family members of those individuals
- if they make contact with Eastern Health. Officials of
Eastern Health will be available to have that kind of
conversation on an individual basis, I say, Mr. Speaker.
So, the individual family members of those deceased
individuals need to make contact with Eastern Health,
through their family physicians or through the contact
number provided by Eastern Health, to discuss what
happened with their family member, I say, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: A
quick supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
The public deserves to
know how many people died, may have died, because of
cancer, and how many did or did not get tamoxifin. We
are not asking for the personal information, but the
public deserves to know those numbers.
Is the minister willing
to give those numbers to the public?
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. WISEMAN: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I think the
Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi needs to take a lesson
from the page of the Leader of the Opposition when she
acknowledged that this is an extremely sensitive issue.
Trying to play politics with it in the House of Assembly
or in any other forum is totally inappropriate.
We have a commission of
inquiry that started hearings today. That commission of
inquiry has a mandate to look at what happened with
ER-PR testing between the period of 1997 and 2005. They
have a mandate to look at what went wrong, what
happened. They have a mandate to consider what took
place with respect to how people got advised of what
happened, the communication process between patients,
their families and the health authorities, who knew what
when, and what should have happened, so that we will
learn some things from this, Mr. Speaker, so that in the
future what we witnessed between 1997 and 2005 should
never, ever happen again in this Province.
The 1,013 women who were
impacted by this particular event should never, ever -
the lesson we should learn: we should never, ever have
any other women who have to go through what they went
through, as a result of the recent work that we are now
doing. This commission should lead us to some
conclusions. This commission should give us some sound
advice.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order please!
I ask the minister to
conclude his answer.
MR. WISEMAN: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
This commission, we are
looking to it to provide us with some sound advice and
some direction for the future so we do not have to have
this discussion ever again in this House. |
