|
Oral
Questions
May 12, 2008
Home
| In the House | Question
Period
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions are for the
Premier today.
Some weeks ago, in the
House of Assembly, the Premier said he was not sure if
he should answer any further questions related to the
Cameron inquiry because it might be seen as
interference; however, recent comments by the Premier
stating that the inquiry has become a prosecution
certainly leads one to believe he has had a change of
heart, I would think. Passing this judgement, Mr.
Speaker, has added nothing to the inquiry other than
being political and having political interference.
I ask the Premier: Why
would you make these statements that are nothing more
than an attempt to undermine the integrity of the
Cameron inquiry that is ongoing?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
First of all, let me
state for the record that there is absolutely no
intention whatsoever to undermine the integrity of the
Cameron inquiry. The reason I make these statements is
out of a genuine concern for the patients, for the
citizens of this Province, and for the health care
system in this Province.
Last Thursday I attended
a meeting, together with the Minister of Health, with
some twenty-eight doctors, pathologists and oncologists,
and came out of that meeting with a very, very genuine
and a very deep concern about where our health care
system was going as a result of this inquiry. You could
see, from these doctors, that particular division of the
health care system was basically a house of cards; that,
in fact, it was in a very serious situation; that these
doctors were reaching out to us for assistance; and, of
course, concerns were actually expressed to me by
doctors in that room that patients were being adversely
affected by the inquisitorial tone - and when I say
inquisitorial tone, it was under the terms of the
Spanish Inquisition - that was actually the term that
was used to me by a doctor in that room. So, I reflected
their concerns and I have decided to reflect them
publicly to make sure that the inquiry was being
conducted in a proper manner.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, we did, this morning, talk to the Newfoundland
Medical Association and other pathologists as well
because we were trying to get an understanding of where
government was coming from. They assured us this morning
that they are very supportive of this inquiry and the
process that it has been taking.
I ask you again, Premier:
Why do you feel that limiting
information, true questioning at this inquiry is going
to be of any help to patients or others that you refer
to at the end of the day?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr.
Speaker, we have to look no further than the top corner
of The Telegram today - and I will not read from The
Telegram, but I will paraphrase what was said in
that top corner. It came from a second year medical
student. He basically said: "Watching fantastic
physicians having their good names and reputations
called into question is not a ringing endorsement of our
province as a place to start a career."
Mr. Speaker, as we stand
here today, there will be forty graduates - forty-three,
I think, if I remember correctly - oncology and
pathology graduates that will graduate in all of Canada
this year. Ontario needs fifty - that is one Province.
So we are a Province here
that is going through this inquiry, going through a
difficult time, under extreme scrutiny. We have three
pathologists that have already left. Perhaps the
indication from these physicians that in fact more are
going to leave, and what we are really trying to do is
to make sure that this service is provided, and the best
possible service in this division is provided for
patients in Newfoundland and Labrador on a go-forward
basis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, I just want clarity from the Premier, and that
is: Are you saying that this
inquiry is now contributing to the factor that there are
less pathologists in this Province, and that is the
reason they are leaving?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr.
Speaker, we called this inquiry ourselves. I stood
outside this House and admitted liability, and a
question that was put to me by a reporter as to whether
we would have a defence on liability in this matter, we
indicated that - I indicated that no, I did not feel
there would be a defence to liability.
So we have done
everything we can here to facilitate the patients, to
make sure that this is wound up as quickly as possible
and as efficiently as possible. If, in fact, this
inquiry now goes on until February of 2009, it will be
delayed even more. These patients will be even longer
getting the answers. The lawsuits that will follow from
that will take even longer, their compensation will take
even longer.
What we are trying to do
is to get the answers as soon as possible, nothing more
than that. There is no other intention here, but what I
am taking advice, or I guess guidance from, was the
meeting that we had with the doctors, whereby these very
doctors, that the hon. Leader of the Opposition quotes,
indicated to me that they are very, very concerned that
if this type of scrutiny continues in the manner in
which it is being done, we will lose even more doctors
in this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I can only repeat what
doctors have told me, and that is that they are
supportive of the inquiry. As difficult as it is, they
know that the answers have to be found and that this
process needs to take place - and I have certainly never
heard them call it a witch hunt in any way.
I ask the Premier - he is
to testify at this inquiry, as I understand: Do
you think it is appropriate that you would be out making
these comments prior to being a witness?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr.
Speaker, I have never backed away from saying the tough
things that have to be said in this Province, if we
consider it to be in the best interest of the people of
this Province. Nothing is more important than health
care, in my opinion, in this Province. As well, you can
certainly rest assured that by making the statements
that I have made, that I have done nothing to endear
myself to the Cameron inquiry and/or its counsel down
there. So what I have, in fact, done is probably made my
own job, my own testimony even more difficult.
Having said that, what we
are going through here - and you need to understand it,
is the commissioner, Madam Justice Cameron, has set
rules of procedure and practice which she herself laid
out for the conduct of that inquiry. What we are saying
is that counsel are not conducting themselves in
accordance with those rules of practice and procedure
which have been laid down by Madam Justice Cameron. I
submit, Mr. Speaker, that we have every right, legally
and practically, to challenge that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier will know
that this is the third public inquiry in our Province
over the past several years. Each inquiry has had a
heated exchange in cross-examination. I am sure the
Minister of Justice would know that. We heard an excerpt
from him this morning on CBC.
Mr. Speaker, I have to
ask the Premier: What is being
done differently at this inquiry that has him and his
ministers so upset, that was not happening at previous
inquiries in this Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: I
appreciate - and I am not trying to be disrespectful. I
appreciate that the learned member of the Opposition may
not understand the legal aspects of this, and I am not
trying to diminish your question in any way.
Rule 29 of the Rules of
Procedure says that commission counsel will adduce the
evidence from the witness. Now, the adducing of evidence
is defined by Black’s Legal Dictionary as bringing
forward, offering or introducing the evidence.
It is not the role - and
the hon. Member for Burgeo-LaPoile who shakes his head,
knows that it is not the role of commission counsel to
cross-examine. It is the role of commission counsel, as
defined by Madam Justice Cameron, to adduce the
evidence, to bring it forward. It would be the role of
Mr. Ches Crosbie, who represents the victims down there,
to cross-examine. It would be the role of other counsel
down there to cross-examine. What is, in fact, happening
down there is a cross-examination of witnesses, and
hence my comment that this is in fact a prosecution.
What has happened, we have had a period where five
witnesses, and only five witnesses have been dealt with
in eighteen days and some of those witnesses are still
on the stand. There is now a request for another eighty
witnesses and an extension out to February. We want to
make sure that, if that happens, it is done according to
the rules established by Madam Justice Cameron.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, I understand that government has their own
counsel at this inquiry.
I have to ask: Why
would it be your job, Premier, or the Attorney
General’s job, in this Province, to be doing that kind
of work? Why is it not being left to the counsel that
you appointed, that you are paying to represent
government at this inquiry?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: That
is exactly what we have done. This morning,
representation was made by counsel for government of an
application which would have the substance, basically,
of just what I said. It is an application to have Madam
Justice Cameron determine whether Crown Counsel Bernard
Coffey, or co-counsel, are able to conduct a
cross-examination without leave from the Commissioner.
In fact, that application
has been made by Ms Jackie Brazil. She did that this
morning. She has been instructed by Madam Justice
Cameron to file a written brief, which she will file
tomorrow, as counsel for the Government of Newfoundland
and Labrador. Opposing parties will have, and co-parties
will also have, another three days to respond; and, at
the end of the long weekend, Madam Justice Cameron will
make a ruling on this very issue.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, just for clarity, Jackie Brazil, who we know is
an employee with the Department of Justice, made the
petition to the Cameron inquiry this morning at the
direction of yourself and the Department of Justice; is
that my understanding?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Ms
Brazil works for the Department of Justice. She is
acting on behalf of the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador. Myself, the Attorney General, and the members
of Cabinet are the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador. She is acting on behalf of the government. She
is representing the interests of the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador; but, more particularly, she
is representing the interests of every patient - past,
present and future - in the health care system in this
Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
If
that is the process and this is the issue, why was Ms
Brazil or someone else in the Department of Justice not
directed to have this intervention prior to yourself and
the Minister of Justice out undermining the integrity of
the Commission in the last three to four days?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: For
those of us that have viewed some of the proceeding
during the course of the hearings, this representation
has been made by several counsels at various points in
time throughout this hearing.
The Department of Justice
felt that it was time to have this formally presented to
the Commissioner on the basis that Crown counsel – or,
I am sorry – Commission counsel, was in fact going
outside the rules.
It was important that we
have this brought to the attention of the Commissioner
and we, in fact, asked for a ruling. There have, in
fact, been objections made and I understand that those
objections have been overruled.
A big concern here is
that if this matter goes on until the end of February
next year, that we are going to have trouble, as a
government, trying to put Humpty Dumpty back together
again.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
My other question is with
regard to the Attorney General’s comments in the
public airwaves on Friday, I think it was. I
am just wondering if he was directed by yourself,
Premier, to make those statements on behalf of
government in your defence.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Justice and the Attorney
General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
As a result of the way
this matter was being portrayed on Open Line on Friday
morning and Friday afternoon, I determined that it was
appropriate to outline for the public exactly what was
taking place, and to bring home the point that the day
before we had received a request to extend the filing of
the report until February 28, 2009. So, I took it upon
myself to clarify government’s position and to
reinforce that the Premier, in my opinion, had every
right to make the comments that he made.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
We have seen a couple of
delays since the Cameron inquiry started. First of all,
there was a delay because of the court case, the
intervention by Eastern Health, then again because of
information being searched in government departments and
new information coming forward. We know that Justice
Cameron has now requested an extension to February, and I
ask the Premier if he is prepared to grant that
extension to allow this process to be completed.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Again,
I want to make it clear, it is certainly not our
intention, under any circumstances, to shut down this
inquiry. I want to make that absolutely clear.
The letter came in last
Thursday from Madam Justice Cameron. July 31 was the
original deadline, a previous extension had been asked
for November, and now another extension has been asked
for February. We are told that eighty more witnesses are
to come. We know that the last five witnesses took
twenty days. If you want to do the math on that, it is
going to go well beyond February.
What we will do is, we
will go back to Madam Justice Cameron and ask her to
give us a detailed breakdown of where it is going from a
chronological perspective, where it is going from a cost
perspective, because we have a situation right now where
one of the Commission counsel to date has billed
$412,000 to the end of March - March 31.
We see these costs being
very high, but if they are justified then we do not have
any problem with that, but we will be going back to
Madam Justice Cameron asking her for a detail
presentation on the reasons for the extension.
As to trying to shut down
the inquiry, absolutely not, we certainly would not.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier will know
that public inquiries are never cheap. We have seen some
in this Province cost anywhere from $7 million to $11
million, in public inquiries. I am not saying that this
would be the same thing, but his own words, Mr. Speaker,
in October 2003 when the Lamer Inquiry was ongoing, the
Premier said that his primary objective was to restore
the public confidence in the judicial system in this
Province.
Now,
Premier, the primary objective in this Cameron inquiry
was to restore public confidence in the health care
system. Based on that premise, based on your own
statements, will you not commit today to give the
extension to Justice Cameron to complete her work?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: That
is just the point. The whole question for us, as a
government, is the restoring of confidence in the health
care system. We are concerned that it may deteriorate,
it may be eroded, it may get to a point where we could
never restore it to even the condition it is in today.
That is why we are so concerned about this Commission
being conducted in a proper manner.
If Mr. Coffey or Ms
Chaytor, as counsel down there, are prepared to play
within the rules and deal with the rules that are laid
down by Madam Justice Cameron, and keep their
examination efficient and in accordance with the rules,
then there should be absolutely no problem; but, when
the rules are set out, you have to play by the rules and
we do not ask for any more than that.
With regard to the health
care system, at the end of this process we want to make
sure that the patients and the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador have absolute confidence in the health care
system.
We are very, very
seriously concerned that if this goes on until February,
and the reputations of half of the other eighty people
that are brought before the Commission is damaged or
tarnished or destroyed, then we will not be able to
recruit doctors to this Province to take care of our
people.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, the most recent comments that we have heard
from the Premier regarding the Cameron inquiry are his
comments, I guess, attacking the testimony of a witness
and discrediting their statements.
Now, I do not know if
there is anything in the inquiry that says that is not a
rule, that witnesses cannot provide whatever information
they choose, but we certainly see this as an
intimidating process for many witnesses that are coming
to the stand.
I ask, Premier: Why
would you feel the need to go out there and attack
witnesses, intimidating statements that could be
provided by witnesses in the future?
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: What
I want to make sure is that witnesses who come before
that inquiry are not attacked, are not intimidated, are
not disparaged, and do not have their reputations
destroyed by Commission counsel who are not acting
within the rules of procedure set down by Madam Justice
Cameron. At the end of the day, she is ultimately
responsible for this Commission of Inquiry and she will
conduct it in the manner which she sees fit.
As a practicing lawyer of
over thirty-odd years I can state here quite honestly
that we have absolutely every single right in the world
to go before that Commission of Inquiry, point out the
rule that she inaugurated herself and ask her for her
interpretation of how her counsel should conduct
themselves within those rules. That is a perfectly
legitimate request. The concern of intimidation is a
concern of intimidation by improper actions of
Commission counsel.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier feels that
those actions are not appropriate inside the Cameron
Inquiry, but it is exactly what he has been doing
outside in attacking the personality of individuals like
Mr. Abbott based on the testimony they have given.
Do you
think that is appropriate conduct, Mr. Premier?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: If
the hon. member opposite or Mr. Abbott or anybody else
says that this government forms policy by what they hear
on open lines, then I will have a say about that. This
government has a long-term strategic plan for this
Province. Whether this government is in power at that
time or some other party is in party at that particular
point in time we are trying to do the best we can for
the long-term interests of this Province. So, what Randy
Simms says or Bill Rowe says or anybody else says
doesn’t matter to us, I can tell you right now.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask
the Premier if he is saying that no one in his
government, him, his staff or his officials, give key
messages to open line callers to call in to influence
public opinion in this Province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh,
oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please! Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER WILLIAMS: I
can assure you that while we are in government there is
no one within our staff in the Premier’s office who
has phoned up under two or three different names and
pretended they were someone else and made representation
as the hon. government opposite did when they were in
power.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Whether it is one person
or ten different people, I ask the Premier again, have
you, your staff or anyone inside your government given
notes of key points to be addressed on open line shows
to callers in order to influence public opinion?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Every
time I get on Open Line I get a note.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Just a final question for
the Premier, and that is: Can
the Premier tell us how much government has spent to
date on Open Line transcripts related to the ER-PR
issue? Can he confirm today whether there is a standing
order agreement to receive those transcripts and if you
would be willing to table that information?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh,
oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: There
is no standing order agreement and I cannot tell you how
much has been spent on transcripts.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the
Minister of Justice.
Minister, you wear two
hats, one as the Minister of Justice and one as the
Attorney General. I heard what you had to say on the
Open Line show on Friday afternoon and I subsequently
stated my opinion, I thought it was absolutely
inappropriate.
I ask the minister: Do
you think it is appropriate that as the Attorney
General, the person who is perceived or supposed to be
perceived in this Province as absolutely fair and
impartial, should be giving any opinions about the
conduct of a commission of inquiry while it is ongoing?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
On Thursday past I
received a letter seeking an extension of time for the
Cameron inquiry. The inquiry was originally meant to
file its report by July 30 of this year. Now, we know
there were some delays. Then in this letter I see
reference to the fact that nineteen witnesses have
testified over twenty-nine days. When I break that down
a little bit further we get eleven witnesses in the
first four days and then eight witnesses in the last
five weeks, the last twenty-five days. Now, Mr. Speaker,
that causes me concern. My role is to ensure that the
justice system works as fairly, as efficiently and as
thoroughly as possible. So like the Premier, I make no
apologies for bringing this to the attention of the
public and I see that as my role, because if not, sir,
at the end of the day, with eighty more witnesses, the
inquiry will never finish.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
This is absolutely
unheard of in the judicial democratic system, that a
Minister of Justice, Attorney General is out commenting
on a judicial inquiry, certainly from a monetary point
of view. Minister, you stood up here and lectured me on
inquiries 101 a couple of weeks ago, and you are
familiar with the phrase that justice must not only be
done but must be seen to be done.
I say to the minister,
again: Are you seriously
suggesting that the Cameron inquiry, which was struck by
government to get at the truth of this situation, might
now possibly be even limited because of time or money?
Seriously.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KENNEDY: I
do not mean to lecture the hon. member, but the quote is
not that justice must not only be done but it must be
manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. That is
the quote, sir.
Now, in relation to what
you are saying. I do not know the Opposition House
Leader’s experience as a lawyer. I do not know what he
did in terms of big trials or big inquiries, but let us
not confuse lengthy examination with thorough, effective
and efficient examination. When I see a witness who is
on the stand again today, who spent five days already
and now he is back for two more. Again, I reiterate,
that as the Attorney General, my role is to protect the
integrity of the system of justice, and as the Premier
has pointed out, there is question as to whether or not
that is being done. Follow the rules.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is again for
the minister. Minister, we heard about how some lawyers
who appear before big night-time inquiries acted. We saw
that this morning or heard it on CBC Radio, namely
yourself. We heard your comments. You did not mind back
then, Mr. Minister, you did not mind then having very
intensive cross-examination of witnesses to the point
where the commission, Justice Lamer, had to bring you up
short.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh,
oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
MR. PARSONS: Now
what has changed, when Mr. Coffey wanting to get the
tough questions so he can get at the bottom and get at
the truth here. What has
changed since 2004 when you did it yourself?
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
First, I say to the hon.
member, my role has changed. Secondly, I say, Inquiries
101, I was cross-examining. That is what my role was. I
was allowed to do that. If Mr. Crosbie were
cross-examining as counsel for the patients, fair
enough. Thirdly, what we saw this morning with that
excerpt is exactly the point we are making. Commissioner
Lamer took control of the proceeding and he put counsel
in their place. So at the end of the day, commissioner
counsel did exactly what he was supposed to do.
Fourthly, I say to the Opposition House Leader, it would
not take me five days to ask questions I never needed to
ask.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
The hon. the Member for
Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Still on the same topic
of the inquiry, many people were very surprised and
disappointed to hear the terms witch hunt and
prosecutorial coming from the Premier last Thursday
evening after meeting with the doctors. Mr. Speaker, the
health care system has been struggling with issues of
recruitment and retention of doctors and other health
care professionals long before the Commission of
Inquiry.
I ask the Premier: Is the
government trying to avoid the fact that it has not
properly invested in recruitment and retention of health
care professionals by laying blame on the Commission of
Inquiry?
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Nothing
is further from the truth, Mr. Speaker. I will give the
same answer that I gave to the Leader of the Opposition.
We called the inquiry. We have admitted liability under
the inquiry. We are extremely concerned about the
continuity and the future of the health care system in
Newfoundland and Labrador. Our concern is the patients;
it is the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Respectfully, you stand
up everyday, or every second day, and you express
concerns about the health care system. How are we to
possibly try and put, as I said, Humpty Dumpty back
together again if that confidence is completely eroded
by an inquiry that is not being conducted by Commission
counsel in an improper manner? When I made that
statement, I had just left a room with over two dozen
doctors in that room, some of whom had expressed to me
their very, very serious concern about the manner in
which that inquiry was being conducted; hence, the
comment in The Telegram today from a second year
student who wonders whether this is a good place to
practice medicine.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the Premier
respectively, there are over 300 women out there who are
also looking for answers. Those women, many of them,
have been saying publicly since Friday that they want
the work of this Commission to continue. They want the
questions to continue as they are.
Will you assure that the
Commission will get to continue its work so that these
women can get their answers, because they too are under
stress?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: We
will absolutely assure that. We rely on Madam Justice
Cameron to form the conclusions to give the reasons,
which is exactly why we asked her to do this in the
first place. We have to make sure that they do it in
accordance with the rules. It is one thing to get to the
bottom of this and get the answers and then it is
another thing to completely destroy fifty reputations on
your way through. That not only affects the people who
have to attend before that inquiry, and very good people
have attended before that inquiry, but they do not have
the right to be completed disparaged on the stand.
Commission counsel does not have the right to do that.
The patients are very competently represented by Mr.
Crosbie, and Mr. Crosbie has the right to cross-examine
and get to the bottom of it.
My concern, as I said
before in earlier questions, is that these patients will
get the answers quicker, they will get their
compensation quicker, they will get some relief quicker,
the more efficiently that this inquiry is conducted and
the quicker that it is concluded. However, having said
that, and I have always said it before, if Madam Justice
-
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
I ask the hon. the
Premier to complete his answer.
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
If Madam Justice needs
more time, then she will certainly have more time. We
are just asking Commission counsel to play by the rules.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I am going to take it on
record that the Premier has said Madam Justice will get
the time.
I am really concerned
about the effect of what you said has had on the women
and the families who have been affected by this whole
issue. I am wondering, Mr. Speaker - I am asking you,
actually - if you will stand and make an apology to the
women and the families for the rash comments.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh,
oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order please!
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: There
is pure, raw politics at its very best, what you are
playing over there now. I would expect a lot better from
you; I really would. You disappoint me so much when you
go there.
I would have expected it
from the previous Liberal government, the previous
Liberal Opposition, because they stoop to that all the
time. It would not have happened in Jack Harris’ day,
I can assure you of that. |
