|
Oral
Questions
May 13, 2008
Home
| In the House | Question
Period
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are
for the Premier.
Mr. Speaker, we heard
earlier today in the media from Justice John Gomery, one
of the most distinguished inquiry heads in Canadian
history. Justice Gomery stated that the Premier’s
characterization of the Cameron inquiry as the Spanish
Inquisition conjures images of torture and was very
unfair to Justice Cameron. He also felt that comments
such as witch hunt and prosecution were also
inappropriate.
I ask the Premier: Why
would you want to use such inflammatory language against
Cameron and the inquiry, in fact, undermining the very
process that you set up to restore confidence in our
health care system?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Actually,
Mr. Speaker, the term Spanish Inquisition came from the
doctor who was sat next to me at the meeting that we had
last week. However, I did fully agree with her comment
and had indicated that I personally thought in the same
terms.
With regard to the
inquiry itself and the purpose of the inquiry, I am
totally supportive of it, have been from the start. As
you know, we called the inquiry, and as I said
yesterday, we have admitted liability when it comes to
the issues that are before the inquiry. However, it is
in the best interests of the patients and the people in
this Province that that inquiry be conducted in a proper
manner, expeditiously so that these people can get
answers for the problems that they have suffered and
that they have incurred, and also to get on with the
issue of compensation. As a lawyer, I know that is a
long process and it takes some considerable period of
time. The quicker that this inquiry is resolved and we
get to the heart of it and we get to the bottom of the
causes, then that is in the best interest of the
patients and, ultimately, the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, yesterday in the House of Assembly the Premier
referenced the Rules of Procedure and Practice in
discussing the Cameron inquiry, and I would like to
reference one of those rules. In fact, rule 16, which I
am sure the Premier would know, or ought to know, and it
states: The conduct of and the procedure to follow in
this inquiry are within the control and discretion of
the Commissioner.
So knowing this and
agreeing to this, I ask the Premier: Why
would you even interfere with Justice Cameron’s
judgement on this?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: There
is also a rule, which is rule 18, and also rule 29,
which is the basis upon which we have grounded our
application. That application is to make sure that the
Commission’s counsel conducts itself in a proper
manner. This is not the first time this has been raised.
It was not raised simply by myself and by the Attorney
General. In the brief that has actually been filed with
the Commissioner today for her consideration, there are
examples of other counsels specifically stating that in
fact they felt that Commission counsel, Mr. Coffey, was
in fact breaching the rules of cross-examination. So,
that is there. It is attached to the brief, that brief
will be a public document. You are more than welcome to
have a look at it and get a legal opinion on it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
We have a copy of the
rules and procedure. I just ask the Premier: Does
it not say that on the consent of the Commissioner that
counsel can cross-examine witnesses?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Will
you take that?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
In relation to the
question from the Leader of the Opposition, let me quote
from - I am not allowed to quote, sorry. Let me
paraphrase from a previous report where we talked about
the principles that govern the conduct of a public
inquiry. They are thoroughness, expedition, openness to
the public and fairness. Those are the guiding
principles that must apply, and you must never forget
that the purpose of an inquiry is to determine what went
wrong to determine in this case what happened, how to
prevent it from happening in the future and to educate
the public. Those are the guiding principles.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: I
have no idea how restricting cross-examination by the
counsel is going to interfere with that, I say to the
minister.
Mr. Speaker, in this
Province we have had several inquiries. In fact, the
Hughes inquiry, the Ocean Ranger inquiry, the Lamer
Inquiry, the Turner inquiry and I am sure there are
others, and each of these inquiries use very similar
techniques, if not the same, that are currently being
used by the Cameron inquiry.
I ask the Premier, again:
Why not stay out of the
process, and I ask that you withdraw your application in
fact limiting questions and allow the inquiry to do its
job as was originally intended?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I would like
to reiterate on the part of the government and on behalf
of myself that we are committed to finding the truth in
this inquiry. That is what we want. This government
called the inquiry; we want to get to the bottom of what
happened. However, Mr. Speaker, it must be made clear, I
have been involved myself in two major inquiries in the
last couple of years, Commission counsel examines. They
can in certain circumstances with leave cross-examine.
If Mr. Crosbie were cross-examining, there would not be
any of these questions arising. The Commission counsel,
and as stated in his opening comments, his role is to
prevent a full and balanced picture as efficiently as
possible.
As the Premier has
pointed out, Mr. Speaker, we want to get to the bottom
of what happened. We want to move on with the
compensation process, and we want to ensure fairness for
all parties involved.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
The ER-PR testing is one
of the biggest tragedies in our health care system in
our Province. There is a public inquiry that is ongoing,
and, Mr. Speaker, I feel that government is trying to
stifle that process and stop the important questions
from being answered as part of this inquiry.
I ask you again,
minister, Premier: Will you
withdraw your application and allow this process to
continue as was originally intended?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Absolutely
not, Mr. Speaker.
We are entitled to have
an inquiry conducted in accordance with the proper Rules
of Procedure and Practice. My learned friend, the
Attorney General, and I have been involved in inquiries
before. We have gone through the process; they have to
be done by the rules. I repeat again, we called this
inquiry. The problems that occurred here did not happen
on our watch. They happened while the hon. members
opposite were in government. We were saddled with this
problem. We are trying to deal with it. We are trying to
make sure we get to the bottom of this problem. We fully
support the inquiry, but Madam Justice Cameron has set
down rules of procedure. What we are simply doing is
asking her to clarify her own rules, and as I said
yesterday, once she makes her ruling she will have the
last word.
This matter, as of today,
will be before her. We will not be commenting after
today until that ruling is given on the merits of that
application.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Here we go. The Premier
is going to be judge and jury again today as to who is
to blame and where the blame comes from, Mr. Speaker.
All of those things. I think going out and calling it a
witch hunt is hardly a process to be followed in terms
of dealing with any part of this inquiry.
Mr. Speaker, there are a
number of people out there today, and especially
victims, who want to see this inquiry continue and to
see it completed. We have heard from the medical
association who want to see this inquiry completed, but
yet we have no idea if government will grant the
appropriate period of time that has been requested or
give the resources to have this done.
I ask you again today, Premier,
why let the anguish for those people continue, make a
decision, will you allow for the resources for Judge
Cameron to finish her job?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: I
stated yesterday inside the House, and I stated it
outside the House, we will provide the resources that
are necessary. We are asking Judge Cameron to give us an
estimate of what her time is going to be, what is going
to be involved in dealing with it until February,
whatever costs are necessary, whatever expenses are
necessary that she needs in order to complete that
inquiry accurately will be provided to her. Extensions
that are necessary in order for her to complete that in
a reasonable manner will be provided to her, provided as
well that her own Commission counsel are acting within
the scope of her own rules and her own interpretation of
those rules. The matter is completely in her hands.
There is an excerpt in
the brief which can be read by any member of the press
or the public, which has been submitted by us, which
talks about the Walkerton Inquiry. In the Walkerton
Inquiry, the Ontario Law Firm Commission has commented,
the public benefits of an inquiry must be weighed
against the cost of interfering with the privacy, the
reputation and the legal rights of individuals.
This is about making
sure, as I said before, that at the end of the day we
have a health care system. We cannot turn around and try
and fix a problem in one area and end up with
significant damage to the health care system. That is
the job that I have been tasked with.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order please!
I ask the hon. the
Premier to conclude his answer.
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
That is the
responsibility of the Premier, the Cabinet, and the
government, to make sure that at the end of this process
we have the answers for the victims and the best
possible health care system that we can.
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 Justice.
Minister, we know that
Friday past on an Open Line show you came to the defence
of the Premier concerning his comments about the Cameron
inquiry on Thursday evening. I ask you: Did
you have any discussions with the Premier related to
this issue before the Premier made his statements
Thursday evening?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
First, let me point out,
I did not come to the defence of the Premier. The
Premier does not need to be defended. As the Leader of
this Province he has the right to make the comments that
he sees fit, and far be it for me to tell him what to
say or what not to say.
As for my comments on the
Open Line show, I made those comments because they
needed to be said; they were said, and I maintain them.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank
you.
Maybe the minister now
can address the question: Did
you have any conversations with the Premier about this
Cameron situation before he made his comments about the
witch hunt on Thursday evening?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I can indicate that I did
not know the Premier was meeting with the doctors, so in
terms of his comments about the witch hunt, if that is
the comment that was used, the first I would have heard
about that -
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. KENNEDY: Sorry,
did you say something?
The first comment I would
have heard about that would have been that night.
Myself and the Premier
discuss matters on a regular basis, especially as it
relates to legal issues, and we discussed this issue. In
terms of that night, there were discussions as to what
took place.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I do not mean to be
inquisitorial here, or cross-examining, but I ask the
minister again: Can the
minister tell us if you had any discussions about the
process that you are now following under the rules and
procedure? Did you have any discussions with the Premier
about following that procedure – for example, trying
to question the scope and the procedure that is being
followed at the Cameron inquiry by Commission counsel -
did you have that discussion with the Premier before the
Premier made his comments last Thursday in the foyer of
this House, concerning the witch hunt?
That is all; it is pretty
straightforward.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Pretty
straightforward but a little obtuse, I might say, Mr.
Speaker.
We had meetings that day.
The Cabinet meets on a regular basis. There were
discussions, obviously, in Cabinet that I will not get
into. Myself and the Premier and other members of the
Cabinet and government discuss these matters on a
regular basis.
As to an approach to be
taken, it was only when he became aware of the concerns
of the doctors, if I remember correctly, as expressed to
the Premier, and expressed unequivocally to the Premier
during that meeting, that the comments by the Premier
were made. That is my understanding from discussions
with him.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Maybe I will paraphrase,
because the minister is obviously being evasive.
The Premier and the
Justice Minister made their recent public statements
without following the proper process as outlined in the
Rules of Procedure and Practice of the Cameron inquiry.
I ask the minister: If
you were so adamant that questioning should be limited
at the inquiry - and the Premier has referenced here
again today that it was raised before by someone else at
the inquiry – why wasn’t Ms Brazil, who showed up
yesterday on behalf of the government, why was she not
dispatched to the Commission before yesterday morning
and before the Premier was out calling it a witch hunt
and you were on the Open Line shows agreeing with him?
You have been in
possession of these rules since last August. They are
published on your Web site. Why
did you not follow the rules of procedure, and you only
came about after the Premier made his comments?
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
It was only as a result
– I was driving to the district on Friday and I
listened to the preamble on the Open Line show, and that
was when I heard what I would refer to as the
inflammatory comments of the Open Line host. As those
comments continued throughout the day, and there was
misinformation and inaccurate information being put out
there, I decided at that point that it was time to
address the issue.
There is no magic as to
why or when I addressed it. It became an issue on Friday
as a result of comments made on the public airwaves. I
said then and I say now that the Premier, as the leader
of this Province, has every right to make those comments
and I support him in that respect.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, at least we have
now established that this issue of following process
under this rules and procedure only came about after the
Premier’s comments and not before; it was never a
consideration by the minister at least.
Mr. Speaker, my next
question is also for the minister. At the Lamer Inquiry
– there are lots of comparisons back and forth here
– the current minister and his law firm was paid over
$320,000 in public funds to ensure that justice was
properly done.
I ask the minister: Knowing
how important it is to drill down into the details when
you are at one of these inquiries, why were you
suggesting on the Open Lines on Friday that money might
be an issue? Why are you putting a price tag on justice?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KENNEDY: I
say to the Opposition House Leader, that is the kind of
stunt that he pulls. That is the kind of misleading
information he puts before this House.
Yesterday afternoon, I
gave him all of the information of what people had been
paid at the inquiry. There were seventeen lawyers. My
law firm, I think, was eighth on the list. So, for him
to stand up here today and to utilize that kind of
comment, again, I would suggest to you, is misleading
and it is unbecoming of a member of this House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
For the record, the
minister is referring to Estimates Committee meetings
which happened yesterday and I did ask him if could give
me a breakdown of who was paid what at the Lamer
Inquiry, as I have asked the same for the Cameron
inquiry and he did give me the list.
By the way, he might have
given me his law firm as number fifteen, but they were
not the fifteenth-lowest paid. I do believe he was in
the top third or fourth ranking, if he wants to get into
how much money was spent. Anyway, that is aside from the
point.
My next question -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh,
oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
The hon. the Opposition
House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
It seems like I struck a
raw cord here.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh,
oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
The hon. the Opposition
House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Maybe the Member for The
Straits & White Bay North might want to stand, if he
has a question, but right now I think I have the floor,
based on yourself.
My question is to the
Attorney General. Minster, I submit that your comments
last Friday – I said this on Open Line, following your
comments – inappropriately interfered in the judicial
process.
MR. SPEAKER: I
ask the hon. the member to pose his question.
MR. PARSONS: I
ask the minister: In your
capacity as Attorney General, will you cease and desist
from commentary on the Cameron inquiry, follow the law,
and let the Commission do its job?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
The lecturing ethics come
from the man who said: If you make me a judge, my son
will run for you in my district. Now, there you go! That
is what we are dealing with over there, Sir.
What happened in the
Lamer Inquiry, Mr. Speaker, so that you are aware: the
numbers have been broken down and have been provided.
There was $1 million in fees provided by lawyers
representing the police. There was $950,000 in fees
provided for lawyers representing Crown counsel
including Mr. Bernard Coffey, and there was $550,000
provided to counsel representing the wrongfully
convicted.
There you go, Mr.
Speaker. Why doesn’t he put the full picture before?
Because he doesn’t have it in him, that is why.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions are for the
Minister of Education, and they are regarding a serious
matter of possible criminal misappropriation of funds
from this Province under the International Student
Education Program.
I ask the minister: When
did you, as the minister, and your department first
become aware of this matter and who brought it to your
attention?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS BURKE: Mr.
Speaker, I first became aware of the matter, not in
particular detail but through an official with the
Department of Education. At that time I was advised that
there were some issues. The board handled the issues,
had legal counsel, dealt with the collective agreement
and made their decision. I got further information on
August 30, 2007.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: I
ask the minister: Did the
school board at the time raise the issue with you at
all?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS BURKE: Mr.
Speaker, it was raised to the Department of Education
through the school board through the Assistant Deputy
Minister in March of 2007. It was through the Assistant
Deputy Minister in March of 2007 that I was advised that
an employee had been investigated. The board, at that
time, sought legal counsel, had followed the collective
agreement and the employee was no longer working with
the board. That was the information I received in March
of 2007.
On August 30, 2007, I
received an envelope of documents in relation to some
issues with that particular program. That evening I
contacted the person who sent that information to
government and I arranged a meeting for September 6,
2007. It was on that day that I met with Ms Lisa
O’Neill who was the agent who had submitted that
information.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Minister,
when the school board raised this with your deputy
minister, I think you said, or ADM, at that particular
time were there any discussions between yourself and the
school board, and who would have been representing the
school board in those discussions?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS BURKE: Mr.
Speaker, at that time I had no direct conversations with
the school board over this matter. I talked with the
Assistant Deputy Minister. At that time, just based on
the information, I felt it should be turned over to the
police. However, I was advised that the board had sought
legal counsel on this matter. We are dealing with it in
terms of the collective agreement and that the
individual was no longer working with the school boards.
So I was advised that the school board, having been
tasked with the operations of the school and HR issues,
had dealt with the matter through their own legal
recourse at that time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Did
you seek any direction from the Department of Justice
knowing this was a potential criminal matter and there
was a misappropriation of funds? Was there any direction
sought by the Department of Justice?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS BURKE: Mr.
Speaker, when I received the documents on August 30,
2007, I asked that the police be contacted. I was
advised by the officials that they were going to seek
advice from the Department of Justice as to how we
should proceed. The information was shared with the
Department of Justice and at that time it was determined
that the board had the responsibility to deal with the
issues and had dealt with it through the appropriate
means. I was not satisfied with that response. In
November of 2007, I again approached officials in the
Department of Justice regarding their opinion and felt I
was not necessarily comfortable with that opinion. I
further requested that the information - that the police
be advised that we had this information and if they
required a copy of it or anything that they should
contact the department. So, Mr. Speaker, I personally
felt that the information should be turned over to the
police and it was done so in November.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, by November the minister knows that the lady
who disclosed this information to her department and to
the school board had then flown halfway around the world
and reported it to the police herself.
I ask
you minister, when you said you gave direction back in
August to go to the police, who did you direct and why
was it not followed?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS BURKE: Mr.
Speaker, at that time I spoke with some officials in the
Department of Education who felt the proper procedure
for them to follow was to consult with the Department of
Justice, which they did. They reported back to me and
they also wrote Ms Lisa O’Neil at that time and I
certainly understand the opinion that I was given.
However, I did not necessarily feel it was the
appropriate decision at that time, and I met with
Justice again and I further requested that we write the
RNC and turn the matter over to the police.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it did
not matter to me where Lisa O’Neil was at the time.
That was certainly not even a consideration. Had she
been in the Province or had been in Korea, I still felt
that we had this information in our possession and it
needed to be turned over to the police.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: I
would like to ask the minister to Table the letters that
were circulated between your department and the
Department of Justice, and your department and the
school board on this matter, the one’s you just
referred to.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS BURKE: Mr.
Speaker, any information that we have in relation to
that we will certainly Table in the House. As a matter
of fact, I may have some of it with me here today, but I
will certainly make sure that we go through, look at
what correspondence was there, and make sure a copy is
provided to the House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, going back to March when the school board was
advised and met with officials in your department,
minister, why were you not asking questions and
directing the school board at that time to take this
matter to the police? It was known, very early on, that
it was a potential criminal investigation. Why were
those directions not given, going back as early as
March?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS BURKE: Mr.
Speaker, at the time in March, 2007, I was advised by
the school board, and of course the school board can
certainly speak to their actions - but I was advised at
the time that they had the information, that they had
sought legal counsel, they were following the collective
agreement, they brought the matter to the trustees, and
they made a decision. So I was assured that the issue
was being addressed, they had sought legal counsel at
the time, and that they were dealing with the issue. It
was an operational matter, an HR issue that was within
the board’s domain at that time. At that time, as
well, I did not have any details, nor had I spoken with
the agent, the person who I spoke with on September 6 -
but in March of 2007, I was assured that the board had
dealt with the matter appropriately through the recourse
that they had available.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
My questions are about
the Cameron inquiry.
Mr. Speaker, the fact
that the Cameron inquiry is asking tough questions is
not what will ruin our health care system. Inadequate
investment in health care has done more to damage our
system than will two lawyers asking tough questions that
witnesses may not want to answer.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the
Premier, if he is prepared to invest whatever money is
needed for the work of the inquiry and also to address
the recommendations that come out of the inquiry?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr.
Speaker, I am going to careful. We cannot write a blank
cheque for anything that happens to be requested. I can
certainly tell you though that you have my assurance,
you have the assurance of Cabinet and the Minister of
Health that we will do whatever we can to implement all
reasonable recommendations that come out from the
inquiry. I would suggest to you that we can probably do
100 per cent of those, but I have not seen them, I do
not know them. It would irresponsible for me to even
suggest right now that we could cover them off.
Having said that, the
inquiry is there for a purpose, it is there to make
recommendations. When we see those recommendations, we
will certainly take them under very serious advisement.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask the Premier:
Expecting that Justice Cameron will be a reasonable
Commissioner, as I really believe she is, and expecting
that whatever request may be made from where time will
be, within reason, will the Premier commit that adequate
money will be there for the Commission to finish its
work?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Absolutely,
Mr. Speaker.
I have said that in a question that was asked before by
the hon. Leader of the Opposition, that we are there to
make sure that the Commission does get the time to do
its work, it does get the resources that are available
to do its work. We have indicated that right from the
start. Again, it comes back to the question of
responsibility and accountability. We do have a proposed
budget in now from the Commissioner seeking an extension
to February, 2009. We are going back and asking
questions just about that budget to make sure we have
complete clarification on whatever expenditures are
there, but we will make sure that the Commissioner has
the time to conduct her inquiry properly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
On April 7, the Premier
was chastising the Opposition about their questions on
the inquiry and he said that the inquiry should be
allowed to go its full process so that conclusions are
drawn from all the evidence and not just parts of it.
Mr. Speaker, in order to
give the public an assurance that we have the best
system available, we need to get to the bottom of what
happened with the ER-PR testing.
I ask the Premier: Will
he allow the inquiry to proceed without the added stress
of the Premier intervening publicly with regard to the
work of the inquiry?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr.
Speaker, I have the heavy burden and heavy responsibly,
as does my Cabinet, of making sure that the health care
system in this Province is the very best possible health
care system that we can deliver. Our minister, this
year, and the Minister of Finance in our Budget,
increased health care expenditures to $2.3 billion. We
have increased it by $400,000. We are replacing
long-term care facilities. We are building on to
hospitals. We are building new hospitals, putting new
drugs in place. We are providing more money for human
resources. We will continue to do that. We are meeting
this week with the oncologists and the pathologists, to
make sure that we specifically address this problem, but
we have to do it all within reason and all with the
balance of the responsibilities that we have to a
government, to provide social assistance, to provide
education, to try and grow our infrastructure in the
Province, to try and grow our economy in the Province,
and it all has to be done within that real balance.
I can tell you, we take
that responsibility very, very seriously and we want to
make sure that at the end of this process we deliver the
best possible health care that we can for the resources
that we have available to us. |
