May 23, 2007 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 17

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit Strangers.

This afternoon we are very pleased to welcome to the House of Assembly a

former member of the House and former Member of Parliament, John Efford. Good to

see you.

Welcome to the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I am pleased to see in the gallery as well, a good friend of

mine and retired Judge, Gordon Seabright.

Welcome to the House as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the

hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, the hon. the Member for Conception Bay

South, the hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, the hon. the Member for

Topsail, the hon. the Member for Humber Valley, and the hon. the Member for St.

John's West.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to extend

congratulations and thanks to eight-year-old Alana Drover from Badger, who made

her own decision to have her hair cut and donated towards the making of wigs for

cancer patients.

This little girl stepped into L'Oasis Hair and Body Spa and Alana's

mother, Courtney who works as a hairstylist, had the honour of giving her

daughter her new look. In the span of ten seconds, she looked like a different

person. She cut her hair to donate it towards the making of wigs for cancer

patients.

Mr. Speaker, this little girl said she saw the idea on TV and had been

talking about cutting her hair for some time. She thought it would be nice to

help people who get sick and lose their hair and her only concern was that her

hair would make a good wig. As a result of Alana's kind gesture, her cousin

recently had her hair cut to donate as well.

Penny Pardy, community resource coordinator at the Canadian Cancer Society's

Grand Falls-Windsor district office, said that for a child of her age to care so

much about other children, especially sick children, and to cut her hair for

such a cause, is amazing. She was more concerned about kids helping kids.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in

extending congratulations and thanks to eight-year-old Alana Drover on her kind

gesture to donate her own hair toward the making of wigs for cancer patients.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate the Conception Bay South Fire Department on

their thirty-fourth year of community protection to the residents and visitors

of our town. On April 28, I had the privilege of attending their Annual Ball

that was attended by over 170 firefighters, family and friends.

We can never underestimate the contribution these members and their families

make as they are always there when we are in need. When most of us are running

away from fire these men and women are running towards it. In the Conception Bay

South Fire Department, we have a paid and a volunteer core of firefighters. It

is because of the leadership of Chief Richard Murphy, Deputy Chief Dennis Morgan

and Assistant Chief Ralph Fagan, Captains, Lieutenants and the unwavering

support of all firefighters that permits this department to work as one cohesive

group.

Also, during the event Sean Nugent was awarded his thirty-year service pin

and I had the privilege of presenting Mr. Kevin Whelan with his twenty-year

service medal and certificate.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join with me in acknowledging the

contribution the members of the Conception Bay South Fire Department have made

for the past thirty-four years.

Thank you, Mr, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize Alec D. Moores, a Harbour Grace businessman and

eighty-seven-year-old fishing pioneer, who just marked seventy years in the

workforce.

Mr. Moores was born in Blackhead, Conception Bay on December 30, 1919, and

started work at age seventeen with the Bank of Nova Scotia in Fogo. He worked in

branches at Twillingate, Grand Bank, Harbour Grace and St. John's before

leaving the banking world in 1944 to work for importer/exporter Steers Ltd. in

St. John's and Montreal.

In 1947, he started what would become six decades in the fishing industry

when he returned to Newfoundland to work for Northeastern Fish Industries Ltd.

where he served as vice-president and general manager.

These days, Mr. Moores makes the drive to Bay Roberts every morning, where he

is still active in the operations of Harbour International and Alec D. Moores

Ltd. Harbour International Ltd. operates a warehouse where frozen fish - mostly

shrimp and turbot - is landed, stored and graded for transshipping all over the

world. The firm also buys blueberries and ships them to the U.S. and Japanese

markets.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Moores served two terms as president of the Fisheries

Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, and was a director of the Fisheries

Resource Council of Canada and a member of Memorial University's Board of

Regents. He also served a s a politician in the capacity of former mayor and was

elected to the House of Assembly in 1966 as the Liberal MHA for Harbour Grace.

In 2002, he was inducted into the Newfoundland and Labrador Business Hall of

Fame.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in recognizing

Mr. Alec D. Moores, a Harbour Grace businessman and eighty-seven-year-old

fishing pioneer who just marked seventy years in the workforce.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Topsail.

MS E. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand in this

House today to recognize an individual from my district who has devoted so much

of his time to the Scouting Movement in the Conception Bay South area.

Mr. Bob Dunham has been the Conception Bay South Lions Club representative

for the 1 st Topsail and the 1 st CBS Scout Groups since the

year 2000. As the Lions Club sponsors both groups, it is his duty to act as

liaison between the two groups. The support he has received in carrying out his

duty for the past seven years has been outstanding to the Scouting Movement in

this area.

Mr. Speaker, this year the Boy Scouts Movement celebrates its one-hundredth

anniversary. On February 28, the Conception Bay South Lions Club hosted a dinner

for the leaders of the scout groups and an appreciation certificate was

presented to each leader from the Conception Bay South Lions Club.

At this event, Mr. Speaker, Lion Bob Dunham was presented with a

Commemorative Centennial Medal from Scouts Canada. Mr. Speaker, this was the

first time this medal was presented anywhere in Newfoundland and Labrador. Bob

was very touched by this acknowledgment and expressed his thanks to Scouts

Canada for bestowing upon him such an honour. Bob also received a ribbon and a

certificate signed by the Governor General.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my hon. colleagues to join me in congratulating Mr. Bob

Dunham for his outstanding contribution to Scouting in our area and on his

receiving this very prestigious award from Scouts Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to recognize a

constituent from my district, Sarah White of Deer Lake. She recently received

three prestigious awards at the 55 th Annual Ceremonial Review and

Inspection of the Royal Canadian Sea Cadet Corps # 73.

Sarah - a Level II student at Elwood Regional High and a fifth year cadet -

received the Instructors Award, the Commanding Officer Award and the Royal

Canadian Legion Medal of Excellence Award.

Mr. Speaker, Sarah's successes represent another example of the youth in

our Province. She is a dedicated student and a committed member of her

community. She was one of six youth from Elwood Regional High who were recently

chosen to represent my district at a Leadership Conference in Ottawa which is

scheduled for September.

She is a member of the school Enviro-thon team and will be among fifteen

youth from her high school to travel to Kill Devil Camp this weekend to

represent her school. She is involved in the student council, the Wellness

Committee, the Students Against Drunk Drivers Committee and the Human Rights

Group. In her spare time, she also works part-time at a local grocery store.

Sarah is the younger of two children of Dorman and Wanda White of Deer Lake.

She hopes to further her education at Sir Wilfred Grenfell College upon

graduation in 2008.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join with me in extending congratulations

to Sarah White. This exceptional young lady is a great example of the talent we

have in our Province's youth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, recently I had the pleasure of attending the awards ceremony for

the Newfoundland and Labrador finalists in the 2007 Canada Day Poster Challenge.

The poster challenge is an annual event where students, aged eighteen and

under, are encouraged to design original posters, based on a given theme, that

demonstrate their creativity and their pride in Canada. This year's theme is:

A Portrait of Canada: Celebrating 140 years.

Mr. Speaker, the contest takes place in each province and territory where

winners are selected in four age categories. An overall provincial winner is

then selected to represent the Province at the national competition in Ottawa.

The winners in our Province this year included: six-year-old Julie Pink,

ten-year-old Jane Qi, thirteen-year-old Stephanie Tucker, and seventeen-year-old

Sonya Hass.

Sonya was also selected as the overall provincial winner and she, along with

a guardian, will be given an all-expense paid trip to Ottawa to attend the

Canada Day celebrations on Parliament Hill.

Mr. Speaker, the quality of the artwork submitted from across this Province

was outstanding, and we should all be very proud of our talented students.

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating the participants and in

wishing our provincial finalist, Sonya Hass, the best of luck in Ottawa.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and

Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this afternoon to advise this hon. House, and the

people who live in the tiny Labrador communities of Norman Bay and Williams

Harbour, that my department recognizes the challenge of isolation facing these

communities. At this time of year, ice conditions are such that snowmobile

travel is impossible. In many parts of Labrador, people depend on their

snowmobile just as most of us rely on our automobiles.

At present, the bays where Williams Harbour and Norman Bay are located are

relatively ice free. This means there is enough open water to operate a ferry;

however, the ferry MV Challenge 1 , which serves these communities, is not

available until the scheduled start of the service in early June.

Mr. Speaker, so that the good people of Norman Bay and Williams Harbour can

conduct business and ship freight, the Department of Transportation and Works

has responded to their call for interim service. We are providing a weekly grant

of $1,500 so that two local vessels can operate up to two times a week, weather

and ice permitting, between these communities of Port Hope Simpson and

Charlottetown.

This temporary service will remain in effect until the forces of Mother

Nature allow the MV Challenge 1 to reach these ports.

Mr. Speaker, this government has taken a proactive approach to ferry service

in this Province, as we are currently in the midst of a vessel replacement

strategy. In addition to building new ferries, we are reducing costs to users.

In March, this government reduced passenger and vehicle-plus-driver fares on

provincial ferries to bring them in line with road equivalency costs. We also

cancelled the 5 per cent, across the board, rate increase for all fares that was

scheduled to take effect April 1. This initiative is the first phase of our

ferry rate review, and the annual cost to government will approach $1.5 million.

Phase II will focus on commercial vehicle and freight rates. Government will

gather further data on commercial traffic and freight rates, further analyze the

customer impact of changes and develop criteria for the design of a new

commercial vehicle/freight rate schedule. Phase II will take place over the next

year.

Mr. Speaker, this government is committed to the people of Labrador and those

who rely on ferry travel, and we will do whatever we can to provide services

they need and deserve.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the hon. member for an advance copy of his statement.

Mr. Speaker, I only want to say one thing on the ferry rates in that part of

the region: It has taken the government four years to do an analysis and to come

up with a new rate system. I think it is high time it was done, and that it

happen, but I won't say any more about that.

Mr. Speaker, what the minister is doing here is responding to a very

legitimate transportation need in a part of our Province, in one of the ruralist,

most remote communities in Newfoundland and Labrador. Through probing my office

and others in the district last week, we were asking for helicopter service to

go in and out of those communities. Maybe the minister is not aware, but the

ferry service he talks about today, and put in place for Norman Bay, has been

hampered by ice in terms of being able to operate.

Minister, since Friday they have had no way to even run a vessel in and out

of that community, so maybe today what you should have been announcing was a

helicopter service to allow for the real movement and transport of people and

services in that particular area.

Mr. Speaker, the government here says they recognize the challenge of

isolation faced by these communities but they certainly do not, Mr. Speaker, or

are not concerned about it; because, if they were, they would be building a road

into Williams Harbour today and not cancelling it as they did in the fall of

Mr. Speaker, the pleas of the people in Norman Bay -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has lapsed.

MS JONES: By leave to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MS JONES: I clue up with this comment, because the pleas of the people in

Norman Bay to this government for road access has fallen on deaf ears. The only

thing that the government has produced in terms of a real transportation

connection for these communities in the last four years was a report that says

we will not build roads to communities where it is not economically viable.

Maybe, Minister, this is an indication that there is a need for a service in

a rural isolated area of this Province and it is time that government address it

seriously and build roads there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.

I certainly will not add to what my colleague from Cartwright-L'Anse au

Clair has said. It is her purview to speak to the communities in her district,

and I really appreciate what she has said.

I would like to point out that the minister has to have many concerns about

travel in Labrador, and I am really interested in finding out whether or not the

government and the minister have made any headway with the federal government on

getting the cost-sharing for the Trans-Labrador Highway, because that is all

still up in the air as well.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we heard the shocking news that a

radiologist on the Burin Peninsula was suspended on May 10 after other employees

at the Burin Peninsula Health Centre questioned the decisions and

interpretations of this radiologist. The CEO of Eastern Health said these

concerns were raised in late February.

I ask the Minister of Health: What is the protocol for investigating

situations like this, and did you ask Mr. Tilley why he waited almost three

months before suspending the radiologist and acting on these concerns, and

another two weeks before making the news public?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The member wanted to know the process here. Clearly, when this individual was

hired back in November, that individual was credentialed through the

Newfoundland College of Physicians. So it went through a very stringent

credentialing process, and was then recruited by Eastern Health to work on the

Burin Peninsula.

When those issues came forward back in February, the first thing they wanted

to do was to get an understanding of the nature of the complaints. They have

done that investigation. As a part of that review process, they had a sampling

of this physician's tests that they had read, reviewed by another group of

radiologists, who came to a conclusion that there were some problems in the

reporting. The process clearly is, once there is some sense that there is a

problem, has been brought forward by some of this physician's colleagues on

the Burin Peninsula, they then proceeded to get a good understanding of the

nature of the complaints and the degree to which there was some validity to

them. They have been able to verify that and they have now moved forward and

taken appropriate action by suspending the privileges of this particular

physician.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, what the minister has just said is absolutely

incredible! That this individual, having been identified as doing something

wrong, was allowed to stay and practice even after that was identified back in

February. Six thousand reports would have to be every report that radiologist

did while he was in the employ of the Burin Peninsula Health Care Centre.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister said the mistakes by this radiologist

were picked up through the health boards quality assurance initiative. Mr.

Tilley said the concerns were raised by hospital staffers which prompted the

board to act.

Minister, the inconsistencies in your account and that of Mr. Tilley only

raise more questions and cause more concerns. How is it that 6,000 reports could

be done by a radiologist before any action is taken?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of the things that the member needs to be very careful of when she speaks

publicly and asks questions in this House, when we look at our health system,

Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about electrical or mechanical systems, we are

talking about people. We are talking about real people providing real services

to real patients, I say, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: Anytime there is a concern raised around the quality of

health services being provided, what has been brought into question is the

credentials, the qualifications, the abilities of individual physicians, other

practitioners who are providing services. Anytime that an issue gets raised by a

health authority, or within a health authority, it brings into question the

quality of care being provided. The immediate response is not just start firing

people, you need to understand exactly what has taken place here. In this

particular situation there was an issue that was brought to the attention of

Eastern Health. They needed to understand what the extent of that was. They

needed to have some of those tests rechecked to see the nature of the errors

that were being made, and they followed the normal protocol and have done just

that.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the minister is coming from.

Obviously, he has a new way of thinking because this is the same minister who

understood that the board had to be concerned about the possibility of

litigation, at the same time trying to balance the interests of the patients

concerned. Mr. Speaker, this is ridiculous that we have a Minister of Health

stand up and try and defend the board because of litigation, and here he talks

from the other side of his mouth about the concerns of patients.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about 6,000 reports and 3,500 patients. Mr.

Tilley is on record as saying that the Department of Health was briefed at every

step of the way with respect to the breast cancer issue that surfaced at Eastern

Health recently; yet, we are led to believe by the minister that the first time

he was made aware of this issue with the radiologist that impacts the lives of

3,500 people was this past Friday.

I ask the minister: Was anyone else in the department briefed on this issue

prior to Friday?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I understand from my officials, the first time anyone in the Department of

Heath and Community Services became aware of this issue was on May 10. I became

aware, as I shared with you yesterday, on Friday of last week. I got the details

last week.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Now we are getting some information, Mr. Speaker. We will get a

bit more as the time goes on. It tastes like pulling teeth, but we will get it

out of them yet.

Mr. Speaker, there is yet more bad news for the people on the Burin Peninsula

who depend on Eastern Health to deliver quality health care services. There is a

delay in the opening in the dialyses unit because the board does not have the

nurses to operate it. The people who were assured that this service would be

available once the equipment was in place cannot believe that more planning did

not go into this by either the board or by the department. After convincing the

people on the Burin Peninsula to fund raise for their portion of the money

required for the dialysis unit, now they are being told: Sorry, but we don't

have the nurses to operate the unit.

I ask the minister: What is your department doing to correct this and when

can we expect to see this turned around?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that the member opposite asking

the questions represents a district on the Burin Peninsula and all I have heard

in the last two days is fearmongering about the health services in the district

that she represents. I heard her this morning on Open Line talking about how

deplorable this issue was and that this was a reflection of poor quality of care

being provided. Now today she is talking about the absence of dialysis services.

What the member does not realize, and if she had been listening in this House

would fully understand, the commitment was made to have the service from the

date of the announcement, within eighteen or twenty-four months the service

would be up and running. As it turns out, the service will be up and running

within eighteen months. The staff who are going to work in that service have

already been identified. They know they are going to work there.

The issue is, the person who is going to work in that area is moving from

another location within Eastern Health on the Burin Peninsula and just needs a

transition for the summer vacation. The person who is going to work there has

been identified. They know they are going to work there. As it turns out, the

service will be up and running consistent with the normal timelines that we

committed to in the first place.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health and Community Services led

the House of Assembly to believe that all hormone receptor testing for women

affected by breast cancer was being done in Newfoundland and Labrador. However,

Eastern Health confirmed today that the only testing now being completed is that

for patients in the Eastern Health region. In fact, testing for Labrador,

Western and Central continues to be done at Mount Sinai Hospital in Ontario.

I ask the minister: He stated on May 17 that we have a Centre of Excellence

at the Health Sciences Centre serving the women of this Province, so what is the

reason these tests are being sent out of the Province and not done at this new

Centre of Excellence in St. John's?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, the member uses words like, led to believe.

What I had indicated in this House and publicly, with the lab, was now reopened

in February 2007, pure and simple. I had indicated the lab was reopened in

February, 2007.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, the Chief Pathologist at Eastern Health has

indicated that he does not have the staffing complement to be able to complete

all the hormone receptor testing for the various boards in the Province.

Yesterday, the minister said that they have made a tremendous enhancement to the

compensation package. However, clearly, this has not been successful.

I ask the minister: What other initiatives are you doing to put the necessary

supports in place to allow this testing to take place for the entire Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I had indicated, clearly, yesterday that we

have made some major improvements in the compensation package for pathologists.

That has been a recent announcement. I indicated, clearly, that the Eastern

Health were continuing with their recruitment initiatives to be able to recruit

additional pathologists for the Province and that is an ongoing effort, I say,

Mr. Speaker.

I had indicated to him yesterday in the House that there are some twenty-one

approved positions with Eastern Health for pathology positions and we will

continue to endeavour to have those continuously filled.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. BALL: Well, that will be another booth, I am sure.

Mr. Speaker, the government reduced the number of health care boards in the

Province from fourteen down to four in 2004.

I ask the minister: Has the decision to make the health care agencies so

large, restricting the level of attention, that important issues like we hearing

about today are not receiving the proper attention on a daily basis?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, when this government made an announcement to

merge health authorities in this Province, we now have four regional health

authorities. We believe that they are appropriately staffed with good senior

people who have the abilities and skills to manage the health system. We have

been able to actually create some economies of scale. We have been able to pool

resources to provide a better health care service for the system.

What is very critical about this, Mr. Speaker, is that when we made that move

we made an integration. We now have a totally seamless health system. We span

the institutional side. We span the community side. We have now provided

integrated services, whether you are in the community or you are in the

institution, whether patients are making a transition from the community into an

institution or from an institution out into the community. We now have a

seamless movement of patients and provision of services across the community and

the institutional sector, I say, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is a huge seam, I think, especially in hormone receptor tests, and I

just identified that.

Mr. Speaker, with the problems that we have identified with the Eastern

Health Authority with inaccurate hormone receptor testing of women affected by

breast cancer, many people are questioning what has happened and the extent to

which these problems exist across the Province.

I ask the minister: Have you, your department, or the health authorities

across the Province, been made aware of any other problems or potential problems

that may impact the health of individuals anywhere in Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: I am confident that each of the four authorities, through

their quality improvement initiatives, are evaluating the programs and services

they provide on an ongoing basis.

They are always looking for opportunities to improve, to enhance and to build

on what is now being provided, so I would assume that each authority out there,

not only in this Province but throughout the country, would be continuously

re-evaluating what they are doing, continuously looking at how they provide

programs and services, and if at any time they identify a better way of doing

it, then they do so. If at any time they find that there is a problem in the way

in which they are delivering the service, or the quality of that service, they

take an action and improve it. That is what the whole process of quality

improvement is all about.

I am not going to stand here today and suggest to you that every single thing

that has been done and every single nook and cranny today in this Province could

not be improved upon. I say they could be, Mr. Speaker. That is the definition

of continuous quality improvement, and that is a term that is continuously being

used in the health sector, I say, Mr. Speaker, and something the member opposite

should be very much aware of.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe we can see if we can get something of substance out of this minister.

The false results of the breast cancer testing continues to raise concerns

today, and I would like to continue to probe who knew what, when, because you

are pretty good at hiding stuff.

At the briefing of Eastern Health care today, we were advised that this issue

was first brought to the attention of the former Minister of Health in July

2005. Another Minister of Health, the current Minister of Justice, was given a

briefing in November of 2006. Meanwhile, between that time period, July 2005 and

November 2006, ongoing briefings were provided to the various Health Ministers

on this issue. That was made known to us this morning, and confirmed by Eastern

Avalon Health. At no time during this period was the public made aware of these

problems.

I ask the Minister of Health: Why was the public of this Province left in the

dark for sixteen months? That is the issue here. Why were they left in the dark,

Minister? You all knew.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I say to the member opposite, he did not need

to go to that briefing to find that out. All he had to do was listen to me a

couple of days ago, because I gave him that answer a couple of days ago.

With respect to the whole issue of process here, I just want to bring the

member back to a comment I made the other day in the House. This is important, I

think, Mr. Speaker, to understand how this unfolded.

Back in May 2005 when the Eastern Health Authority recognized that they had

an issue here, they started to evaluate the extent to which it existed. When

they realized that they had some 900-and-some-odd tests that had been done, that

had been tested negative, at that particular time they pulled together, Mr.

Speaker, a subcommittee of their ethics committee which consists of people from

the community - physicians and others who are experts in this field - to look at

how they might do this, how they start to deal with the issue that they had

before them.

One of the things, the advice that Eastern Health was given at that time,

rather than create alarms among 900-and-some-odd people who may not have any

change in their circumstance whatsoever, they decided at that time, and the

advice that they received at that time from that group, was to do the tests

first rather than to alarm 900-and-some-odd people, to do the tests first. When

the test results were done -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair appreciates the co-operation of all members in keeping their

questions and their answers roughly to a minute.

The Chair will pass it back to the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not mind the minister taking all of the time in the world if he is going

to give the people of this Province an answer, but I have no time, and they have

no time, to listen to a bunch of guff, and that is what we are getting out of

this minister.

I say to the minister: We know where you stood in The Telegram when

you put the cost of litigation ahead of lives in this Province. That is what you

did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: My question is pretty simple and straightforward. Never mind

what Eastern Health did. Why did you, as the Minister of Health, not inform the

public of this Province of this issue? Why not?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Let me continue, Mr. Speaker, because this is important. It

is important for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to understand this.

As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, in the summer of 2005 Eastern Health sought

advice, sought advice from an expert group of people, as to how to handle the

900-and-some-odd test results that they had to deal with. The advice that they

were given at that time, rather than create undue anxiety for 900-and-some-odd

people, let's do all the tests first and then we will decide how we are going

to manage it then.

I say, Mr. Speaker, when the test results started to come back in October

2005, the people whose tested were impacted were contacted. As we indicated

earlier, there were 117 people who had their tests come back different. They

needed a change in their treatment regime, and that happened.

The remaining people who were impacted - and this is important, something has

been lost on the members opposite - those other 200 people whose test results

had changed were contacted either directly by Eastern Health or through their

family physicians. Those individuals whose tests were impacted by those results

had contact made to them and appropriate action taken with respect to their

treatment, I say, Mr. Speaker.

For the members opposite, what is very important in this, those people who

were impacted by this had knowledge. Those people who were impacted were

informed. The mass media of Newfoundland and Labrador may not have known -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, the Chair asks all members for their co-operation.

The Chair recognizes the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate that you ultimately

have to cut this minister off, because he says absolutely nothing.

Mr. Minister, I will ask the question again, a different tact, because you

obviously do not want to discuss this issue: Did you, as the Minister of Health

- a pretty straightforward question - at any time, as the Minister of Health,

when this matter was brought to your attention - you knew it was very serious -

did you discuss this issue or seek any legal advice from anyone in government or

the Department of Justice?

That is pretty straightforward.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, what is really important here is an

understanding of the facts. What is really important is an understanding of the

facts -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: I say, Mr. Speaker, as I was saying a moment ago, when these

test results started to come back in October of 2005, the people who were

impacted, contact was made with them. As those results came back in October

2005, and February 2006, those individuals who had their test results changed

were contacted. So those individuals who knew had contact made with them.

The issue here, in terms of legal opinion, Eastern Health have their own

solicitors. Eastern Health sought their own legal advice, from their own law

firm who provides advice to them. They, in turn, got their legal advice directly

from their own solicitors. Any reference I have ever made to legal counsel has

always been referenced to what legal advice Eastern Health received. Eastern

Health received their own independent legal advice from their own law firm and

any legal advice on this issue has been provided by their firm.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The people of this Province, I say to the minister, will not be fooled. You

are not ducking this issue. I will ask you again. Never mind a BS answer. I

asked you a straightforward question. The people of this Province deserve an

answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. RIDEOUT: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A point of order has been called by the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: I am the last one in this House to get up during Question

Period on a point of order, but I am not going to allow the Opposition, the

Opposition House Leader, or anybody on the other side to take this House on

their back. I do not care if we run through every minute of Question Period, BS

- everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador knows what BS is. BS is out of out of

order, Your Honour, and I would ask that the hon. member be directed to withdraw

it forthwith.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Wishing to speak to the point of order -

MR. PARSONS: No, I withdraw the comment, BS, Mr. Speaker. I withdraw it,

not a problem. It is unparliamentary. I said it and I withdraw it. That does not

detract from the seriousness of this issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair appreciates the co-operation of the hon. member.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Like I said, I did withdraw it and I will withdraw the

remark. This is an important issue and this minister cannot duck the issue.

Now my question, again, to this minister - never mind what legal advice

Eastern Health had. My question to you, the Minister of Health, have you at any

time, in your capacity as Minister of Health, sought any legal advice or

discussed this matter with anyone once it was brought to your attention in the

Department of Justice of this Province or anyone else to seek legal advice? Now

that is pretty straightforward, minister.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: If members opposite are going to ask questions they need to

listen to the answers. I had said - just reflect on what I said a moment ago. I

said any legal opinion provided on this issue has been provided by Eastern

Health's own private legal counsel. Any legal opinion provided on this issue

has been provided by Eastern Health's legal counsel, their own independent

legal counsel. Their lawyers are the only individuals who have been asked for or

provided a legal opinion on this issue. How much clearer do you want to have the

answer?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I put to the minister, we know now the results of the briefing this morning

that the legal counsel involved here, the law firm of Stewart McKelvey are the

legal counsel to the insurance company which insures Eastern Health. That is who

gave advice to Eastern Health. They are not the legal counsel to the government

and to the minister. It has also been confirmed by Mr. Tilley, because I asked

the question of him this morning, when you brought this attention to the

minister, do you know if any of the ministers that you talked to this about went

to Justice? He said: I do not know, we have our own lawyers. So, they do not

advise you, minister.

My question again to you, minister - Stewart McKelvey is not your law firm

because you distanced yourself, by the way. You people only took moral

responsibility for this, at this point. You do not want any legal

responsibility. But my question is the same and it is very straightforward. Have

you, knowing about this serious issue, once it was brought to your attention,

did you ever think that it might be important, it might be necessary, it might

be an obvious step that you should consult with somebody in Justice? I am asking

you, did you do that, and if not, why not?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I will make it a little clearer for the member

opposite because obviously, when I said the only legal advice was legal advice

provided to Eastern Health. He did not understand or did not conclude that that

was the only legal advice provided on this opinion. The Department of Justice

has not been asked for a legal opinion on this issue by the Department of Health

and Community Services.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

I, at least, now know that this minister did not take it upon himself to get

any advice. That is fine, thank you, finally. Pulling teeth again.

I ask the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs: When he was the Minister of

Health and it was brought to his attention back in 2005, did he, at any time,

discuss this matter with anyone in the Department of Justice and seek a legal

opinion regarding this issue when it was brought to his attention on his watch

as early as July, 2005? That is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, the member opposite asks a lot of questions but he is not really

listening to the answers. I do not know how much clearer I can make it again,

but let me repeat it. Let me repeat it, I say, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

All members of the House know that it is the responsibility of the Opposition

and other private members to ask questions. The government will decide who

answers.

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me repeat it again. I ask the member opposite to pay attention this time.

I had said clearly that the Department of Health and Community Services, as a

department, has not asked the Department of Justice, as a department, for a

legal opinion on this issue. Period. That is crystal clear. It identifies that

the department has not sought legal advice. Hopefully, that satisfies the

member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

My question, too, is for the Minister of Health and Community Services.

Mr. Speaker, when the MHAs had their briefings over the past two days with

Eastern Health Authority, we learned that in order to maintain proficiency and

quality control in the laboratory that does estrogen and progesterone receptor

testing, Eastern Health must have a stable team of specialists devoted to breast

cancer treatment. Pathologists form an essential component of this team. I

understand from the head of pathology that there has been a 100 per cent

turnover of staff over the past number of years which is affecting the stability

of the team. The head of pathology has indicated that poor retention of

pathologists is an ongoing issue that has been brought up to government over the

past three years.

My question for the minister is: Is this government ready to offer

remuneration to pathologists competitive to that in other parts of Canada in the

same way that it already offers stipends to oncologists in order to attract and

keep the specialists we need?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, let me correct the member opposite in her

question. She made a reference to the last three years, but I want to extend

that. Since 1997, long before we formed government, until 2006-2007, I told you

yesterday that there are twenty-one positions at Eastern Health. They have been

occupied by some thirty-seven people. That is a turnover of one point seven, and

that has occurred since 1997 up to now, so it is not a new issue, I say, Mr.

Speaker, as I mentioned yesterday in the House.

The whole issue of supply of pathologists in this entire country, we are not

generating enough as a country to satisfy the supply we have in this country, so

it is not just unique to this Province. In fact, it is not just the last three

years; it has been a long-standing issue.

To the second part of your question, it is a very specific question in terms

of what exactly are we going to pay the pathologists. The question you have

asked, we are, in fact, doing that. That is exactly what we are doing. We are,

in fact, providing for them a stipend consistent with that of the oncologists in

the Province.

I made that comment here yesterday in the House, that we have now enhanced

the compensation, and that is the manner in which we have enhanced it, I say to

the member opposite.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Then I need the minister to tell me when that happened, because I have been

told, as of this morning, by the head of pathology, that is not the case. I had

a pathologist sitting in my office two hours ago telling me the same thing. So,

if it has happened, when has it happened? When was the announcement made?

Because the pathologists do not know they are getting the stipend.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is an arrangement that was negotiated between government and their

association. That information has been communicated directly to the Medical

Association, who in turn will communicate it directly to the pathologists

involved; because we have, in fact, communicated directly to Eastern Health as

well, who are the employer here in this case.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, time for one

brief supplementary.

MS MICHAEL: I still did not hear when, Mr. Speaker. It was the head of

the Association of Pathologists this morning who said that the stipend has not

been approved yet, so when is the head of the association and the head of this

department at the Health Sciences going to find out?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: The decision was made, I think, last week. It has been

communicated directly to the Medical Association.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Colleagues, we will have to recess the House if members do not co-operate.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day have been called.

The Chair understands that there is a private member's motion that was

presented to the House yesterday and is standing in the name of the Member for

Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. The Chair will not read the WHEREASes but we will

read the THEREFORE, quoting as follows:

"THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly support the

appointment of a judicial inquiry that is: independent, has broad terms of

reference established with input from all parties in the House of Assembly, and

has the power to investigate the actions of Cabinet Ministers and Department of

Health officials into circumstances around faulty Estrogen and Progesterone

receptor testing for breast cancer patients and the release of this

information."

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present this private member's motion in the House of

Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, this motion is being presented, I guess, at a time where we feel

that there is a very serious issue that has developed with regard to testing for

breast cancer in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and, Mr. Speaker, the

treatments that thus followed those particular tests.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution, initially presented by myself a week ago, was

calling upon the government to do a judicial inquiry into this very issue.

Just to give you some background, for the record, the issue that I refer to

is a situation, Mr. Speaker, in which ER and PR testing - that is Estrogen and

Progesterone testing - in the Province for women who had been impacted by breast

cancer, to determine what further therapies they would require to be able to

deal with their disease, it was discovered, Mr. Speaker, in 2005 that there were

probably some samples that had been reported in the lab in Eastern Health care

in St. John's that may have been misread or had errors.

It was determined at that time that over 939 individual samples that were

reported as negative would be sent out for retesting at another hospital, the

Mount Sinai Hospital in Ontario. Mr. Speaker, 736 of these cases were reviewed.

The reason the remaining 176 cases were not reviewed was because those patients

had since been deceased. As a result of those retesting, the Eastern Health

Corporation had decided that 117 individuals, in total, would need recommended

treatment changes.

Mr. Speaker, those statistics and this information, while it has been in the

possession of government since July 2005 and has been an ongoing issue within

the Eastern Health Care Corporation, the full magnitude and scope of this

particular issue has only surfaced in the broader perspective of the public

within the last ten days.

During that ten day period we, as an Opposition, were totally alarmed, as I

am sure many people in the Province were, to be notified that there was a 42 per

cent error rate in the over 2,000 tests that had been conducted through this

laboratory since 1997 and, in fact, had affected the lives of so many victims of

breast cancer in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, what we attempted to do was to hold Eastern Health accountable

in terms of finding the answers and the information, as well as holding the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador accountable through the Department of

Health and Community Services.

Last week, as an Opposition, we spent our time probing the government for

answers, and I was absolutely alarmed and astounded at the minister's initial

response to this issue as it broke on May 15 in the media.

Mr. Speaker, you have to realize that not only have we already ascertained

information that indicated that 176 of these women have since been deceased, but

we have also been told that thirty-six of these women in particular would have

received the alternative treatment, had they been still alive to do so.

That kind of information, no doubt, provides one to want to probe deeper into

an issue and find out the real result of all of this.

Mr. Speaker, when we begin to question the government and the minister in the

House of Assembly, the minister in a scrum outside made this comment to the

media - and I think this is probably a comment that made all of us stand up and

take notice a little bit more about what was happening around this issue. The

minister said this: I understand and appreciate the dilemma they found

themselves in, trying to balance their responsibility to the patients who needed

a change in treatment and their responsibility to protecting the interests of

the organization in the event of litigation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, any government that wanted to take a moral high ground

would not be making a statement like that. Any government or minister who wanted

to ensure there was accountability and confidence in the health care system

would be probing into this particular issue and looking for as much information

and as many answers as possibly they could obtain. So, it was because of those

statements that we knew we had to move immediately to call upon the government

to do a judicial review into this particular incident and what was happening

here.

Mr. Speaker, it has taken lots of questions. It has taken lots of probing and

it has taken a lot of media coverage in order for the government to finally,

this week, decide that they would, in fact, proceed with a judicial review.

Then, Mr. Speaker, we had to call upon the government to have the ministers who

were involved and had knowledge of this issue, going back some as early as 2005,

to remove themselves from the Terms of Reference that would be the basis of this

entire judicial review.

So, Mr. Speaker, that is basically the history of what has transpired in the

last few days since this particular information has come to light. The ministers

have agreed to remove themselves from the involvement in the Terms of Reference

simply because of conflict, which was very evident for anyone who was looking at

this with a public interest. How could you have a judicial inquiry into an issue

that affected the very Department of Health and Community Services, along with

the Eastern Health Care Corporation, and have the very people who are involved

in those departments be the people that determines the Terms of Reference for a

judicial review?

Mr. Speaker, it was only a very sensible and logical move that the ministers

would not be a part of this but, instead, it had to take consistent pressing and

probing on behalf of the Opposition in order to get them to see what a conflict

this would be, and, in fact, that the only logical, right thing and moral thing

to do would be to remove themselves from that particular process.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the fact still remains: How much involvement has the

Cabinet had in this particular issue? Has the Cabinet been engaged in this issue

since 2005? Have they had knowledge of it and, as well, had decided to keep this

information in the privacy of the government domain and not allow it to be

leaked out to the public? We do not know the answer to that question. We do not

know that yet. I am sure we will get to it in the days ahead, but my concern is

this, that if this was a Cabinet discussion, and having been in Cabinet and

knowing how Cabinet works - if I was a minister in a department and I had

received information like this, it would definitely have reached the Cabinet

Table and it would have done so in very short order, in terms of raising the

issue, not only with the Leader of the government, the Premier, but also with

the rest of the ministerial Cabinet that makes the decisions to govern in this

Province, because it would have been an utmost concern and priority, and

therefore it would have definitely been a discussion of Cabinet.

If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, and one would think that it may be the

case, then we have to be careful that government is not, indeed, designing a

Terms of Reference for a judicial inquiry that is going to probe into their very

own affairs. We need to be very careful of that. That is why this resolution is

here today, because we have finally dragged the government to the point where

they are prepared to take a moral high ground on this issue and do a judicial

inquiry. Now we have to ensure that an inquiry is going to be open, it is going

to be transparent, it is going to be independent and it is going to be done so

under Terms of Reference that will allow it to examine the full scope of this

particular issue and get all the information that will be required.

Mr. Speaker, in order to do that, in order to ensure there is independence

here and that there is full openness here, we feel that as an Opposition Party

here - and I do not know if the NDP shares this sentiment. I guess we will find

out today - we should, indeed, have some input into those Terms of Reference. We

feel that whoever the person is, who is to be appointed as a judiciary to do

this inquiry, that they, too, have input into those Terms of Reference; that

they be permitted to develop and have input into a Terms of Reference that will

allow them to do the job in which they are being appointed to do.

Furthermore to that, Mr. Speaker, we want to ensure that the individual who

is appointed to do this is, indeed, a person who is independent of government

and of the Eastern Health Care Corporation. Only a few weeks ago in this

Legislature we had another person appointed to an independent office by

government, and that was the Conflict of Interest Commissioner for government

members, for House of Assembly members. The Commissioner of Members Interests, a

person who was supposed to be very independent, non-bias and supposed to carry

out his responsibilities in just that manner, but the individual that government

chose to appoint to that position was not an independent individual. In fact, on

the day of their appointment they were members of a PC executive association

right here in the City of St. John's and had been an active participant in the

Progressive Conservative Party of this Province up until the day of their

appointment. I do not know if they still are or not, Mr. Speaker, but I know

they were up until the day of their appointment. So, that was not, in my view,

an independent appointment to a position in which a person is supposed to be

non-bias, non-connected and completely independent of government and of the

Legislature.

We want to ensure, Mr. Speaker, that the person who is being appointed to do

this judiciary review is an individual who is independent of government, first

of all. Secondly, independent of the Eastern Health Care Corporation in order

for them to carry out their responsibilities, not just in a manner that is seen

to be open and transparent and non-bias, but, in fact, in a way that actually

is. We want to ensure that this is the case. That is the reason, Mr. Speaker, we

bring this motion to the House of Assembly today.

I will have to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is probably, in the time

that I have been in this Legislature, one of the events that has shaken me the

most in terms of all the issues that I have seen arise throughout the Province.

I think the fact that the information that was provided, the numbers of women

who were impacted, the number of these tests that resulted in errors, the number

of women with breast cancer who had to go back and seek alternative treatments,

the number of women who have since deceased since this whole thing has

transpired, that kind of information around this issue has to be probably the

most detrimental issue that I have dealt with in the time that I have ever been

in this Legislature. What really upset me was the nonchalant attitude towards

dealing with this initially by the Minister of Health and by the government.

Mr. Speaker, I know that members opposite are not going to put a lot of value

in the comment that I am going to make now, but I make it with great sincerity.

That is: When you deal with issues like this, political parties are irrelevant,

the places that we hold in this Legislature are irrelevant. The real relevance

here is the many women and families who have been impacted by something that has

erred in our system.

I do not care if it was in 1997 or in 2007. I do not care who was in

government and who was not in government. When these events occur in our history

that affect the lives of women, of families, no government should ever be hauled

kicking and screaming to deal with an issue like this. It should be the top

priority. It should be the number one concern, because governments are elected

to protect the interests of the public and the people, not to hide information

from them, not to renege on their responsibility and not hold accountable the

proper authorities to deal with these particular issues.

Mr. Speaker, I will make no joke about it, it upset me, the minister's

comments; the minister whom I have dealt with, in his time in the Department of

Health, and who seemed to be doing a proficient job up until this issue arose. I

was never so disappointed in my life than I was to read what his comments were

in the paper. I had to read it two or three times because I could not believe

that these were the words coming from this minister. I have to be honest with

you in saving that. I have to be honest, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that her speaking time has expired.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know I will get a chance to speak when we close the motion on this

particular issue. It is a serious issue.

I invite my colleagues in the House of Assembly to participate in this

debate. I am sure there are many people here who have remarks they would like to

add.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to say a few words on this particular

motion before the House today as leadoff for the government side.

I have to say that it was kind of sobering to sit back here and listen to the

introductory remarks of the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair in proposing

this resolution. I say that because this is a very serious piece of business.

I know that, from time to time, in the forum that we are in, things get laced

politically and politics bubbles to the surface, and I suppose that is

inevitable. Our system is inherently adversarial; that is the way it is built.

That is the way our democracy works; but, conveniently, the hon. member says we

should rise above that - and we should, I believe - but then falls back into the

trap, if you want to call it that, of proceeding to make remarks that can only

be attributed as political.

For example, her remarks related to the lack of independence of a judicial

inquiry. Mr. Speaker, the very words, judicial inquiry, encompass within the

meaning - plain, simple language meaning, everyday meaning - judicial inquiry

encompasses within that phrase the very epitome of independence.

What judge or retired judge worth his or her salt is going to take on

responsibility under the Public Inquiries Act, to carry out a judicial inquiry

under the Public Inquires Act, and be subject to somebody? Be anything less than

independent? Be subject to the political whims of the government? - which was

the insinuation. Not the insinuation - clearly what the hon. member was trying

to say - that somehow or another, depending on who this person is, unless there

is clear direction under which the Opposition participates, that somehow or

another this person, this party, this judge or retired judge, is going to be

somehow or another coloured by partisan politics.

I mean, that is an affront to the person who eventually will be appointed to

head this commission, to head this inquiry. I do not know who the person is

going to be yet; Cabinet has not decided.

By the way, under the law, it is the prerogative of the executive branch of

government, the prerogative of Cabinet, not this Legislature. The law has

designated the executive branch of government, the Cabinet, the power to

empower, under the law, under the Public Inquiries Act, a commissioner, and we

shall. We shall take our responsibility seriously and we shall find the best

person in this Province or outside. If we have to go outside to find the best

person to do this job, Mr. Speaker, we will do it, but that person will be

appointed under the law, under the Public Inquiries Act, and that person will be

totally independent.

We will give that person - the Cabinet, the executive branch of government,

will give that person - a suggested Terms of Reference. We have already spelled

those Terms of Reference out publicly. How much more open can you be? But,

again, under the terms of the Public Inquiries Act, that commissioner is not

bound solely by the Terms of Reference given to him or her by Cabinet. As a

matter of fact, that commissioner, like Commissioner Lamer in the Lamer

Commission, can come back and ask for an expanded mandate or he can tell the

Cabinet or the government to go shove it, I am going to do this anyway, I have

independence under the Public Inquiries Act and I am going to do it. You can

give me permission to do it, or I will do it anyway.

Whether or not that person - because I do not know who the person is going to

be yet - has any partisan politics to park will depend on where they came from.

I will tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker, they are going to come from the

judiciary. It may well be the Chief Justice, I do not know, who is a former

partisan, a former Premier of this Province. It may well be, I do not know,

Judge Barry, who was a Tory and a Liberal, but he had partisan connections at

some point. It may be somebody from the mainland who has never had partisan

connections, I do not know. The point, though, Mr. Speaker, is that the person

will be totally independent. The person will have total independence under the

law, not subject to the whims of this Legislature or the whims of this

government, but subject to the law, and will be totally, absolutely independent

and will be able to act independently, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member, then, trying to slough that aside goes on to accuse the

government of being hauled kicking and screaming and wanting to hide something

and only doing this because we have to. Mr. Speaker, this became a public issue,

in the context of which we are debating it now, last Thursday. It was raised in

this House, and in the public, last Thursday. Monday happened to be a public

holiday. On Tuesday we announced a public inquiry, a judicial inquiry. Well, I

say, some kicking and some screaming.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I did not utter one word of interference when the hon.

member was speaking. I never even whispered -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: I only have a very short time, so I do not want to deal -

because this issue is so important, I do not want to be dealing with

interruptions.

I say, again, Mr. Speaker, that this government was not hauled kicking and

screaming to appoint a judicial inquiry. The matter was raised in the House on a

Thursday, it was a weekend, Monday was a holiday, and on Tuesday government

announced its decision to appoint a public inquiry. We are, as we speak, looking

for the best person to carry out that mandate, to carry out that work, and we

shall find that person. Whether we find that person here in the Province or

outside of the Province, we shall find that person and we shall appoint them,

and we shall give them the tools and the Terms of Reference and the resources to

do an independent broad based inquiry. Call who you will, call ministers, call

officials, call members of the House if they have something to add, subpoena who

you will because you have the authority under the Public Inquiries Act to do it,

but you are not going to do it, and we do not expect you to do it, for political

partisan reasons, which was the tone and tenor of the hon. member's comments,

and more particularly, is the tone and tenor of her resolution.

Now, there are a lot of good things in this resolution and we want to support

it. I am going to propose, seconded by my colleague, the Member for St. George's-Stephenville

East, I am going to propose a couple of amendments that will hopefully take the

politics out of the resolution and make this resolution acceptable to all of us,

because the issue is too important for it not to be acceptable to all of us.

The first piece of the amendment I am going to propose, Your Honour, is that

we delete all of the words in the second

whereas. Let read the second

whereas

for anybody out there who wants to know what it says. It says, "AND

WHEREAS

Cabinet Ministers were made aware of the problems being experienced with these

tests at Eastern Health and may be in a potential conflict of interest in

establishing terms of reference for any inquiry..." Well that is redundant,

that is moot. The ministers who held that portfolio and who hold it today are

not going to be involved in determining the Terms of Reference, and they are

subject to being called to the inquiry. They will testify under oath, just like

anybody else. So there is no need of having that little political twist to it.

So, I am proposing, Your Honour, if you rule the amendment in order, to delete

that particular

whereas.

Now, the Be it Therefore Resolved

section of the resolution, I am proposing,

Your Honour, again, that we delete the following words in the Be it Therefore

Resolved, "...established with input from all political parties in the

House of Assembly and has the power to investigate the actions of Cabinet

Ministers and Department of Health officials into" and we substitute the

following words for the words that I am proposing that we take out. I quote

again, "...and has the power to investigate the actions of any and all

individuals...". That is Cabinet Ministers, that is officials, that is -

God forgive me, I hope I am not being anti-anything here - the Lord himself if

he has something to offer and can appear, can be called. So, all individuals

"...into circumstances around faulty Estrogen and Progesterone Receptor

testing for breast cancer patients and the release of this information."

So, therefore, Your Honour, the

Be it Resolved will read as follows, "Be

it Resolved that this House of Assembly supports the appointment of a judicial

inquiry that is independent, has broad terms of reference and has the power to

investigate the actions of any and all individuals into circumstances around the

faulty Estrogen and Progesterone Receptor testing for breast cancer patients and

the release of this information."

That, Your Honour, I believe takes out the political phrases, makes this a

resolution that is non-political in context and in words. Makes it more

acceptable, I believe, to a larger number of people in this House, which is what

an amendment is supposed to do if it is to be in order but, at the same time,

does not detract or take away from the pit and substance of the resolution

because the pit and substance of the resolution is that there be an independent

judicial inquiry with broad powers appointed to look into the failure here and

to report upon those matters.

I believe, Your Honour, that the resolution is in order. I move it, seconded

by my colleague, as I indicated. I have a copy here, if Your Honour would like

to have a look at it, and then let me know whether or not it is in order. If I

have any time left, I would be happy to speak to the amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The House will take a brief recess while the Chair consults with the Table

Officers to deem whether this particular resolution is in order.

This House is now in recess.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The Chair has had an opportunity to confer with the Table Officers. The

amendment, as put forward by the Government House Leader, reads: "delete

all of the words contained in the second

whereas; delete the following words in

the "Be it Resolved" "...established with input from all

political parties in the House of Assembly and has the power to investigate the

actions of Cabinet Ministers and the Department of Health officials into"

and substitute the following, "... and has the power to investigate the

actions of any and all individuals into circumstances around faulty Estrogen and

Progesterone Receptor testing for breast cancer patients and the release of this

information".

So that the "Be it Resolved..." will now read: "Be it Resolved

that this House of Assembly supports the appointment of a judicial inquiry that

is independent, has broad terms of reference and has the power to investigate

the actions of any and all individuals into circumstances around the faulty

Estrogen and Progesterone Receptor testing for breast cancer patients and the

release of this information."

The Chair deems that this amendment is in order.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I have any time left.

I will be guided by the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: The Government House Leader has three minutes left.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will clue up pretty quickly. I am not going to seek leave, because I know

there are many people on both sides of the House who want to speak to the

resolution that is before us today.

All I want to say in

summary, Mr. Speaker, in addition to what I have said in

making the case for the amendment, is simply this: There are none of us, on

either side of this House, none of us, who have not been touch in some way or

another by the essence of this resolution and the scourge of cancer. None of us

have been left out of that equation, so none of us have any monopoly on

feelings. None of us have any monopoly on wanting to see anything covered up,

least of all those of us who are part of the government or part of the House at

all.

The word coverup should never be part of this. What should be part of this

and what we all should be able to wrap our arms around here is finding some

appropriate independent person to lead a judicial inquiry under the law, under

the Public Inquiries Act, which is set up for that purpose, appointed by the

executive responsible to the House, because that is how our parliamentary system

works, and have that person have the broad authority of the Public Inquiries Act

to be able to call witnesses, no matter who they are, to be able to subpoena

witnesses, no matter who they are, and to be able to force those witnesses,

ministers, or laypersons, on high or below, whatever the appropriate language is

- anybody, in other words, who has anything to offer, that they may think have

anything to offer - can be called before this independent judicial committee and

be forced, by law and the power of subpoena, to tell what they know. That is

what this is all about, and that is why we support it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to speak to the private member's motion.

This is a serious issue. I think no one would question how important this is,

not just to the women who have been impacted by this, but to their families, to

everyone in this Province, in fact, who has been touched by cancer.

I have great difficulty with the Government House Leader suggesting that, in

amending the motion, that somehow they are not playing politics with this; great

difficulty in having him stand and point a finger at my colleague and suggest

that her remarks are, in fact, political and his are not.

What we have asked for in the motion that we put forward is to have a

judicial inquiry that is independent, has broad terms of reference established

with input from all parties in the House of Assembly. Now, what is wrong with

that? I have great difficulty understanding what is wrong with that, since none

of us have all of the answers. This is a serious issue. It is a serious disease.

Yes, it has impacted, I would say, most of us in our Province.

This is an opportunity for the government to do what is right here. To

suggest that it is the executive that makes the decision and has the authority

here to go down the path of where they will decide the Terms of Reference, he is

absolutely right. The Government House Leader is absolutely right, no one

questions that, but what we are saying - and in sticking to the Government House

Leader's own words - since we have all been impacted by this, then why not

draw on those of us who are in a position to share information with you and

those of us who are in a position to have some input into this?

Of course, I do not question that whoever is going to head up this will be

independent. That is not the issue for those of us here in this House, and those

of us particularly in Opposition. That is not what we are saying. What we are

saying is that we have something to add. We can make a contribution. All we are

asking is for a chance to make a contribution, to make sure that the Terms of

Reference will be all-encompassing, that maybe something that the executive,

thereby the government, did not think about will be something that we in the

Opposition will think about and want to add to the Terms of Reference.

Of course we agree with the judicial inquiry; and, contrary to what the

Government House Leader has said, that this is something that was raised May 15

in the House of Assembly, and they acted on it as soon as they could have, I

disagree. I do agree with my colleague who said they were brought to this

conclusion kicking and screaming.

Why didn't the government reach this conclusion on its own, that a judicial

inquiry was warranted? Why did it have to come from those of us in Opposition

who had to raise the question, who had to ask for this to happen? Why, when the

ministers were made aware of what was happening here, when they apprised the

Premier of the seriousness of this situation, why wasn't an automatic response

from the government that this warrants a judicial inquiry?

No, we had to ask and ask and ask that this happen, and we are doing it on

behalf of the hundreds - hundreds - of women and their families in this Province

who have been touched by cancer, those whose results came back to be something

other than what they were initially told, the women who were diagnosed wrong.

These are serious, serious issues.

For the Government House Leader to suggest that by amending this motion it is

within keeping with the intent of the motion, then nothing can be further from

the truth. My question is why? Is there something being hidden? A simple

question. Is there something being hidden here? I cannot understand why the

government would object to having all parties in this House of Assembly included

in this initiative; why you would object to having input from those of us who

feel that we have something to offer, and we do. We have been there. We have

been touched by this and we do have something to offer. Just to brush us off as

if our input does not matter, is sad.

It is a sad day when I look across the floor at members of government - and I

assume they all concur with this amendment. It is a sad day when I look across

the floor and have to accept that you cannot see what is wrong with what you are

proposing. This judicial inquiry is meant to answer any and all questions. There

is no one who has all the answers, but at least by putting our heads together -

and it is not unusual, by the way. It is not unusual. We have had all-party

committees in this House before. We worked on issues - all-party committees

worked on FPI, brought it back to the House of Assembly and acted on it. So, we

are not asking for something that has never been done. The seriousness of this

issue is such that I will never understand how the government can look at this

and say: Sorry, this is determined by the executive. We have the authority and

we are going to say that this is the way it is going to be.

Well, in doing that you are playing politics with a very, very serious issue

here because we all know that the majority today are Progressive Conservatives

in the House of Assembly. Those of us who sit in Opposition want to make an

input. We want to be part of the process, and people need to feel confident.

People in our Province today need to feel confident that this judicial inquiry

will get to the bottom of what has gone on here. Right away, by the actions of

the government today, you are raising a red flag. Whether you believe it or

understand it, by your actions today you have raised a red flag. All of a sudden

the questions are going to be asked: Why not include everybody? If this is

non-political, why not include everybody?

So, not only have you done yourself a disservice in amending this motion, but

you have done everybody who has been touched by cancer a disservice. It is done,

Mr. Speaker, and I cannot believe that you can sit idly by and not take

exception to what has happened here this afternoon. Yes, you agreed to a

judicial inquiry, but it did not come easily. It did not come easily. You came

around to that but what a thing to do this afternoon, to limit who can have

input into this judicial inquiry; to take away the opportunity for anyone, other

than the government and the Commissioner to determine the Terms of Reference. I

know that whoever heads up this inquiry would welcome input from all of us in

this House of Assembly. Unfortunately, your actions today are precluding that

from happening and I think you are constraining. I think by what you have done

today you are constraining the Commissioner.

Mr. Speaker, the government will have to live with this. It will become an

issue. It will become a very public issue, the fact that, for whatever reason,

the government has decided not to allow all parties to have input in this very

critical process when we are trying to get to the bottom of what happened here.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to stand and speak today for a few moments about this particular

private member's resolution, and I just want to make a couple of comments.

I just want to read - because I think it is important for the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador to understand what we are now debating, what the

motion now reflects with the amendment. One of things, as you listen to the

member opposite talk about, you would believe that this amendment, and this

resolution rather - in this resolution today we are going to, in fact, define

the Terms of Reference of the Commission. We are going to define the Terms of

Reference for the judicial review. We are going to - in this resolution we,

today, somehow or other, have an ability to define what a judge might do. We are

going to have an ability, through this resolution today, to handcuff a judge and

be able to basically hijack a commissioned process. Nothing, Mr. Speaker, could

be further from the truth, but I think it is important to realize what we now

have before us.

Here is the resolution that we are going to be voting on, with the amendment

as proposed, sometime before this day is over. We are going to be talking about,

where it says - it starts off with:

WHEREAS it has been revealed that there were

error rates of 42 per cent in receptor testing of breast cancer patients

conducted by Eastern Health. Very basic, straightforward. Everybody has

acknowledged that. We are not debating that. That is a statement of fact. We

have been talking about it in this House for the last week.

The next one will be: Therefore

Be it Resolved that this House of Assembly

supports the appointment of a judicial inquiry that is independent, has broad

terms of reference and has the power to investigate the actions of any and all

individuals into circumstances around the whole issue of the receptor testing

for breast cancer patients and the release of this information.

Now, what is restricting?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: What has been restricted here? That sounds pretty

straightforward. Then at the end, I say -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation.

There is a very serious debate taking place here this afternoon and members,

up until now, have been very quiet, listening to speeches as they have been put

forward. I ask members if they could continue in that vein, and I ask for their

co-operation.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Then, at the end, here is what the

Be It Resolved will read. The motion will

conclude by saying, "Be it Resolved that this House of Assembly supports

the appointment of a judicial inquiry that is independent...." - anyone

question that? It seems pretty straightforward - "....has broad terms of

reference..." - again, pretty straightforward - "...and has the power

to investigate the actions of any and all individuals into

circumstances..." surrounding this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I am not certain that anybody in this Province would object to

anything that I just read. No one in this Province would object to the

appointment of a commission, the appointment of a judicial review process. No

one would object to ensuring that person is impartial. No one would object to

the notion that this person will have a free rein to delve into this issue, ask

questions, subpoena witnesses, subpoena documents. This person will have a

tremendous amount of power, the power vested in them with the legislation that

currently is in the books of Newfoundland and Labrador providing for a

commission of inquiry. They will have that full power to be able to compel

people to give evidence, to compel people to present documentation, to compel

me, to compel anyone on this side of the House, to compel the Premier, the

Cabinet, any Members of the House of Assembly, members opposite, members of the

public; this person will have the ability to compel any of us to come in, under

oath, and tell our story, to tell him or her exactly what we know. So the

commissioner, at the end of the day, will know exactly what I did, what other

people had done, what information we had, what we did not have, and our

contribution to this whole process. They will have that information, I say, Mr.

Speaker. They will have that.

What is ironic about this, Mr. Speaker, what is very ironic about this, this

process of appointing a commission has been the way of doing things forever and

a day in this Province. Mr. Speaker, a speaker earlier today acknowledged a

former MHA in the gallery. People would recall that many years ago that former

member was the subject of an inquiry, the Steele inquiry. Who appointed that

inquiry? I say the government of the day, the very government that member was a

part of at that time, appointed a commissioner to do a review. They did not, at

that time, if I recall - I was not here, but my memory of the news coverage of

it at the time - I believe they did that independently. They did not get in a

room and say to the Opposition and all other parties in the House: Why don't

you come in and help us define the Terms of Reference? That did not happen, I

say.

What about the Lamer Inquiry? The Opposition House Leader today talks about

his role and their role, and I am certain he will stand and speak later today -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: - about wanting to participate in this process, but I am

certain, Mr. Speaker, when he was the Attorney General, when he was a part of

the former government, when that government appointed the Lamer Inquiry, did

they say: Hey, listen, the Minister of Justice should not be involved in that

process.

They did not remove themselves. They did not do that. I cannot recall at all

the government of that day saying to the rest of the parties in this House: Why

don't you come and join us and help us determine the Terms of Reference?

That did not happen. That has never been the case. The Hughes Inquiry, the

same thing. It was not an all-party decision and discussion around the Terms of

Reference. The same thing with the Warren Commission that looked at education in

this Province. The former government, the people who are out there today talking

about what we should be doing, selected a former colleague of theirs, a former

minister of their Cabinet. They selected someone like that to be a commissioner.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: They did not stand here and ask anybody else.

What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, there are a couple points that I think are

very important. The resolution that we are going to be voting on as amended

later today very clearly lays out a process where we, at the end of the day,

will have a commissioner appointed, and that commissioner will have the full

authority under the act, the authority to call witnesses and to get every single

bit of information that commissioner needs to do the job; that commissioner will

have access to that, with the resolution that we put here today.

The only thing the Opposition is objecting to is that they are not a part of

government. They want to be part of the government today so they can help frame

the Terms of Reference. The reality of it is, Mr. Speaker, they are not a part

of the current government and they are not going to be part of the next

government. Because they are not a part of a government today, they want to play

the role that you would normally play while you are in government, which is to

make decisions, which is to make policy decisions, which is to make decisions

such as this, I say, Mr. Speaker. This government has made a fundamental

decision here. This government has made a decision to do the right thing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Leader of the Opposition, as I said, is jealous today because he is not a

part of government. He wants to be a part of the decision-making process but he

knows he cannot. He is asking us to do something today that, when he sat in

Cabinet, he knew full well that the government of the day would never, ever do,

never did do, and now he is trying to play cheap political politics with a

significant issue affecting Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. All I have heard

from the member opposite is a lot of tripe and very cheap political politics

around something that is very serious, impacting the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

MR. REID: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to sit here this afternoon and

listen to the Minister of Health talk about playing politics with this issue

when all he has talked about since he stood here ten minutes ago was where we

stand in the polls, or who is going to get elected this time, and who is going

to get elected the next time.

Mr. Speaker, if the man was serious about the issue, he would do as his

Government House Leader suggested when he stood earlier this afternoon and said:

Let's leave the politics out of this.

We are all seriously concerned about this issue, and this individual, the

Minister of Health, I might add, who refused to give the information - knew

about this, refused to give the information to those individuals who were

affected - is now lecturing us on how he is the government and how they are

going to continue to be the government after the next election. He should be

ashamed of himself.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The member opposite is pretty sensitive today, considering that we are in

this House debating a very significant issue today, a very significant issue

representing the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, impacting many women in

Newfoundland and Labrador, and many families in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Rather than sitting in his chair, listening and participating in this debate

attentively, he sits in his chair heckling the people who speak on this side of

the House. I say, Mr. Speaker, if he genuinely was serious about this issue he

would pay attention and listen to what is taking place.

The issue that we are going to vote on here today, I say, Mr. Speaker, I want

to repeat it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: I think it bears repeating, because here is the substance of

the resolution, I say, Mr. Speaker. We are going to be asking this House to

support the appointment of a judicial inquiry that is independent, has broad

terms of reference and has the power to investigate.

What more do the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want? What more would

they ask for? At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, when this commissioner

finishes their work, they will have the answers, they will an understanding of

what happened with ER/PR testing in the Eastern Health Corporation between the

period of 1997 and 2005.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: That is fundamentally at the crux of this issue, Mr.

Speaker, and continuing the debate, continuing to talk about this issue, I think

I have contributed what is important in this discussion today, which is

fundamentally creating clarity around the motion that we have before us,

creating clarity around what this government is proposing to do, and creating a

clear understanding of the benefits that will come from having a clearly

independently appointed judicial inquiry, having that person having the power

and authority to do this independent.

This resolution - and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador really do not

care about who participated in drafting the Terms of Reference, whether we had a

crowd of people get together, whether we had five people get together, or ten

people get together. The critical issue here is that the person who is appointed

as commissioner will have the power to do this independently, will have broad

Terms of Reference, will be independent, will be capable and very competent and

very qualified to do the job. So, at the end of the day, when the commissioner

produces the report that we, as a government, will want to embrace it and we

will want to move and action the recommendations that are laid out in that

commissioner's report, I say, Mr. Speaker.

I ask members of this House to join with me in supporting the resolution, as

amended, because it provides for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador the

type of commission, the type of inquiry that is critical, that is important, and

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador rightfully deserve.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For me, I guess, being relatively new to the House of Assembly and having

somewhat limited knowledge of private member's motions and amendments and

judicial inquiries and such, I find it a little bit disturbing today when we

hear some of the comments that we make on this being somewhat political versus -

and how we make our decisions. I know I have a fair amount of experience, I

guess, on the whole health care issue in my previous life.

I can remember last week when we were preparing for Question Period, I can

remember as I was putting the question together in the room and walking down -

and I know when we walked into the House that day the House was very up tempo,

upbeat House that day for the first four or five questions. I can remember

standing on my feet and when I asked the first question on this issue, there

seemed to be - the mood of the House changed significantly. I think that is kind

of indicative of the way we feel about our health care system.

In subsequent days following that, we heard comments about how this is

shaking the foundation of our health care system and so on. When I heard

comments like that, my mind went back to a few years ago when I had the

privilege to attend a health care conference in Vancouver at the time. There was

a Newfoundlander there that we all know, and I will not say who the person was

right now. The person happened to be a keynote speaker, and as he was talking

about health care issues - and he was not a health care professional at all. As

a matter of fact, I did not realize, when I saw him introduced, that he had much

of an understanding of health care at all, but he really shocked me in some of

the words that he used and how we identify ourselves as a society.

He spoke at great length about Newfoundlanders and how we identify

Newfoundlanders. He talked about Newfoundlanders being hospitable, being kind

and being friendly. All words that we have heard before, and how we are very

able and we like to be inclusive. So we use words like - that is how we identify

Newfoundlanders. That is like an icon for us. He went on to say, to take it to

the next level on how we identify ourselves at the national level, being

Canadian. He went on about a number of things. He talked about the flag. He

talked about maple syrup, and you name it, hockey, sports. There was a whole

bunch of things that the gentleman talked about. He made some comments about

what was a real, true identifier for us as Canadians. What he said was, we

identify ourselves or people identify with us based on our health care system.

That is what we do different.

So, it is today, as I listened to some of the comments in the debate, I see

health care as a different level. I have been through the debates that we have

had and the Question Periods that we have had over recent weeks on other issues

but I really see health care as being different. I really see the way we treat

health care as being somewhat different. So, if it is somewhat different and we

need to include everybody, I see no reason in the motion here that we would

exclude all members from this House of Assembly. I think we all, all of us, can

have some degree of input, and why not? Why would we not want to include as many

people as we could? The Terms of Reference says that, so why not include us as

well?

This important issue, Mr. Speaker, of the hormone receptor testing, when you

look at it in the specific issue that we deal with today, we talked about - we

heard this week about Doctor Lang. She made comments about diamonds and women

and then she made comments about a pathologist is like that to an oncologist.

That kind of resinated with me and it really showed the importance of what this

meant to her. So, that brought it back to me, I guess, of how important that

would be for all of us.

Then, when I thought about the politics of all of this, we have heard

comments back and forth in Question Period: Are we making this political? As a

matter of fact, the minister, on the first question that I asked, accused me of

making it political. As I thought about that in the last few days, I guess -

because, to be quite honest with you, I have no interest in making this

political. The difference for me would be, where do we draw the line between the

politics of the issue and the responsibility of the issue? Because, do you know

what? I feel somewhat responsible because, given the opportunity to make a

difference, as an elected official, I think I should do it and I think I am

responsible to do it. I do not see the need to be excluded from the process if

there is any way at all that we can contribute. Is it political or is it

responsible? To me, it is about the responsibility; it is not about the

politics. As I looked back at it, and I thought about the questions that have

happened outside the House, the various news releases and everything else that

has happened, the communications piece of it, really, it is not about who scores

the political points on this.

It was on the weekend, when I was actually home on Saturday, when I got a

call from one of the ladies who was affected by this. I think that really

brought it home to me, because what she did is really put the human face to it.

She told me the story of her grandkids, and she told me the story of her

daughter. To be quite honest with you, not only is it the person I spoke to who

has had to deal with breast cancer but, guess what? Her daughter as well. She

was one of the people who was retested. She was one of the people who actually

was not notified.

It is important that we get this out, in my mind, that there are some gaps,

and we need to include ourselves to try and fix this problem. Because, for quite

some time now we have been led to believe that, especially on health care

issues, we need to take ownership. All of us, as individuals, need to do what we

can to take care of our personal health. If there is anything that happens in

the system that excludes us from the ability to take part and to take

responsibility for our personal health, then we need to fix it. There is no

question, in this particular case here, that happened. There are quite a few

people who should have had the opportunity to take part and to help in their own

health care decisions that were excluded from the process.

As a matter of fact, I was reading something there just a few days ago and it

said that today it is more important than ever that you take more responsibility

for understanding your care and the communication with your health care

professional. Taking ownership, for all of us who take ownership, that is our

responsibility as well. So, getting control of our information is important to

all of us as individuals.

With this particular private member's motion, the fact that is it

independent and has broad terms of reference, I support all of that, but the

fact that this House of Assembly, all Members of the House of Assembly, need to

be excluded from developing those terms of reference, I do have some problem

with that. For a minister or a member to say that you are just upset with this

because you are not part of government, well, guess what? I have never been part

of government. It is not just simply because I am not part of government

because, guess what? I don't know what it is like to sit over there. I am not

part of government, but I do know that I think I could have some input into how

those terms of reference could be developed. I think, if I was in that minister's

chair today, I would have no problem going across this House and saying: You

have experience on this issue. Do you want to have some input?

Why not? What would be the problem? What is the problem with including all

members? The Leader of the NDP, I have spent some time with her over the last

few weeks and listened to her yesterday as we went through the briefing sessions

at Eastern Health Authority. I listened to her comments that she was making at

those meetings, and I could feel the compassion and I could feel the desire that

she had to make a difference. So, why not include the Leader of the NDP?

When you look at somebody and say the only reason why you want to be included

is because you are politically motivated, that does not speak for me. I can

honestly say right now that I would love to have the opportunity to be involved

in the development of the terms of reference. I would certainly support that all

Members of the House of Assembly, no matter what political party they are

affiliated with, should be included in this.

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks today by saying that we put forth

what I think is a good private member's motion. This issue has impacted all of

the Province. We are elected to represent the people in the Province, so why

would you exclude thirteen representatives who represent the entire Province

when you include the members opposite. I don't really see the need to exclude

anybody from this development of the Terms of Reference. I would say today that

I will not support the amendment based on the development of the Terms of

Reference, Mr. Speaker, and I would really ask the members opposite to support

me and others on this side in not supporting those changes.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Topsail.

MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to have this

opportunity to speak to the matter regarding the faulty testing of the breast

cancer patients. I am sure everybody in this House, on both sides, have had

relatives or friends who have battled breast cancer in the past. I have had two

relatives, one who survived breast cancer and lived to be very old, and one

relative who did not survive breast cancer. Mr. Speaker, we have all been

touched by breast cancer.

Mr. Speaker, I have been following the events of the past week with a great

deal of interest. I have been listening to the media reporting, listening to

what the minister said, reading the press releases, and, yes, I have even been

listening to the Opposition, trying to piece together myself what happened that

would lead us to this.

Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, Eastern Health, in an effort to provide some

disclosure and some transparency, did meet with the MHAs of the House of

Assembly from both sides of the House, and it was very much appreciated by all

MHAs. The CEO attended the briefing as did three physicians. They gave us an

overview of testing procedures and provided us with an opportunity for

questions. The briefing itself, Mr. Speaker, was quite technical, so they were

quite agreeable to having a second session today and, of course, that went ahead

this morning.

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to members from both sides of the House,

and I am struck by some of the things the Opposition say. One of the points I

would like to make is that I have respect for the opinions of all Members of the

House of Assembly regards of what side they sit on, but I would like to make it

quite clear that the Opposition does not have a monopoly on having concern where

this matter is concerned. We all want to know, Mr. Speaker, what went wrong, who

knew what and when did they know it. We do know some issues around the problem.

We know that some information has been publicly disclosed. I am sure probably

once the commission, the public inquiry, gets underway there will be more

information provided. We have been told that some tests were wrong. We have been

told that tests back to 1997 were reviewed; almost 3,000 tests.

Mr. Speaker, to be honest with you, I spent the weekend going over a lot of

the material. I took the newspaper articles, I was reading information from the

government side of the House, things the Opposition had said, trying to piece

together even the numbers involving the tests, and quite frankly, I found the

information to be quite confusing. I do say, that there is a need to go back and

systematically review the problem and that is what the public inquiry will do.

It will do a number of things, Mr. Speaker. It will review the problem, it will

look at the action that was taken in the past, and it will determine whether

further action is required.

One of the things, I am sure, that a lot of people will be very interested in

seeing, Mr. Speaker, is a chronological sequences of events, and we also need to

know that the present system as it exists now can withstand some scrutiny.

Mr. Speaker, one of the other areas I would like to raise is the issue of

communication, and I know this was reference in a press release by the minister.

I did find that communication was confusing to people. It left a number of

questions unanswered. So, there is a need to reestablish confidence and we do

need a inquiry to look at the problem. Of course, I wholeheartedly support an

independent inquiry. I think, Mr. Speaker, that is partially because of my

background. I was a public servant for many years, since 1979, but the last ten

years of my career were spent as Auditor General for the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador. My primary responsibility was to go back and do

independent reviews. I would be the first one to stand up and say: Independent

assessments of problems is something that we all need.

We do have to acknowledge that the department, and of course the board, even

though they have gone back to look at their role in this incident, that they are

not independent of what has transpired over the last number of years. So, of

course, we needed somebody to go back and look at it independently.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I think it is incumbent on all organizations

to go back, review what they are doing and come to their own conclusions and

make the changes that are necessary. Again, it does not replace the independent

review. Whether you call it an audit or a public inquiry, an independent review

is necessary.

Mr. Speaker, the Terms of Reference have not been determined yet for a public

inquiry, but there are a number of areas that have already been identified, and

I would like to just briefly go through these so people can have an idea of the

area that is going to be reviewed.

The first point, Mr. Speaker, is: What went wrong with the tests? The second

question is: Why was the problem with the tests not detected until 2005? The

third question is: Once detected, did the responsible authorities respond in an

appropriate and timely manner? Once detected, did the responsible authorities

communicate in an appropriate and timely manner? Are the testing systems and

processes currently in place reflective of best practices? And: Does Eastern

Health currently employ an effective quality assurance system? Those are

questions, Mr. Speaker, that will be answered by the public inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about commissions of inquiry. Now there is

legislation that governs commissions of inquiry and it was legislation that was

passed in the House of Assembly. That outlines exactly how a commission of

inquiry is put together and how it operates, and it is quite clear. I would like

to make the point -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS E. MARSHALL: I have been in government for quite a lengthy period of

time. There have been a number of inquiries which have taken place during my

time with the Public Service. The Minister of Health and Community Services

referenced a former minister who visited here today and said there was an

inquiry at that time whereby that minister was called to testify. I remember

that inquiry. It was called the Steele Inquiry and, in fact, I was invited to

testify at that inquiry. Of course, when you are invited you do appear and you

testify. Of course, when I was Deputy Minister of Social Services the Youth

Inquiry was ongoing. So, Mr. Speaker, there has been a number of inquiries over

the years, and the commission -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS E. MARSHALL: The Public Inquiries Act clearly outlines -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS E. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, for the member across the way who keeps

interrupting me, each time this member stands to speak I sit in my seat and

listen to what he has to say. I would appreciate it very much if he would

provide me with the same courtesy that I extend to him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the Public Inquiries Act is on the

government's website and it very clearly outlines how a public inquiry is put

together, what their responsibilities are, and who lays out the Terms of

Reference.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS E. MARSHALL: It says: 3.(1) "The Lieutenant Governor in Council

may by order establish a commission of inquiry...." and that is what has

been done. It says: (2) "Where a commission is established under subsection

(1), the Lieutenant-Governor in Council shall, in the order, (

a) appoint the

members of the commission in accordance with

section 21; (

b) establish the

jurisdiction of the commission by setting out terms of reference for the

inquiry..."

It is quite clear who lays out the terms of reference before the inquiry, Mr.

Speaker, and it is laid out in legislation that was approved by the House of

Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the main motion that was put forward by

the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. The second paragraph where it

states, and

whereas Cabinet Ministers were made aware of the problems being

experienced in these tests at Eastern Health, I agree with the Government House

Leader that the politics should be taken out of the motion. I do agree that this

should be removed, so I will be supporting the amended motion. I think that the

involvement of Cabinet Ministers, or really any member of the government, or any

member of the department, any official of the department, any official of the

health care corporation - we should leave that issue to the commission and let

them identify what the areas of concern are, who was involved and their areas of

responsibility. This should be leave to the commissioner of inquiry. I do not

think that we should be passing motions in this House of Assembly that identify

certain people as having done wrong. I think that should be left up to the

inquiry.

As I have said, Mr. Speaker, I have been through my share of inquiries and

court cases. I think that we should leave it up to the commission of inquiry. We

should not second guess because I have found in the past that every commission

of inquiry, every court case, will yield its share of surprises to us.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I will not be supporting the main

motion. I will be supported the amended motion for the appointment of a judicial

enquiry into the circumstances surrounding the incorrect testing of the breast

cancer patients.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member or Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I was going to be happy to stand and speak to the motion, the original motion

that came to the floor, and I am quite saddened actually that the amendment that

was proposed is now on the floor; not all of it, some of it I could have lived

with. For me, the heart of the original motion was the statement that the

judicial enquiry, which I absolutely want, which I personally asked for as well

last week and have publicly said I want, that the judicial enquiry would have

Terms of Reference established with input from all parties of the House of

Assembly. To me, that was actually the heart of the resolution. I bowed to the

judgement of the Chair, but that is what I was voting for. I was voting for that

because I totally believe in the fact that the more people who have input into

decision making the better the decisions.

Now, my colleague, MHA from Topsail, has just read from legislation, the

rules and regulations regarding the setting up of a commission. It is true what

she said, but that is the letter of the law. There is nothing stopping

government from seeking consultation in putting the Terms of Reference together.

There is nothing stopping government from saying - government, yes, will finally

make the statement, these are the Terms of Reference, but having done it in

consultation.

I consider myself to be in a strange position with what I am going to say

next, but I am going to say it. In my career up to now, I have been used to

making decisions in a consensus way. Everything I have done, even when I was a

principal with my staff I did it, but all the way through, all the work I have

done, I have always been part of collectives, staffs that were flat, collectives

that made decisions in a consensus way. Even in organizations where we had a

Board of Directors who ran the not-for-profit organization, because I worked

with not-for-profit for so long, the staff and the Board of Directors would work

together. I am very, very used to working in that model of participation, a

participatory process and in consensus decision making.

You would almost be forced then to ask the question: Well, my dear, why did

you go to the House of Assembly? Because it has to be the complete opposite of

everything that I have been used to. But, maybe I also believe that every time

we do something different and put ourselves in new situations, hopefully the

experience that one brings can maybe affect the new place that you are going

into. Maybe, for me, I was dreaming in technicolour or maybe I was, you know,

pie in the sky, but I really did believe that we could pass this motion. I

really did believe we could do that, especially when I heard the amendments that

the government wanted. I could see why the government wanted two of the

amendments but I really believed that government could agree that we could work

together on this issue.

I have to join with my colleague from Humber Valley in saying that I do not

know what it is to sit over there, and I can honestly say that in supporting

this motion it is not a political action. It is not a partisan political action.

We are all involved in politics, obviously, but it is not a partisan political

action. I am not doing it to better the government or to show up the government.

I really do believe there are issues that we should be showing the people who

elect us, that we are working on together.

There are models for doing this you know. One of the models is the federal

environmental assessment process, that I do have a lot of experience with. When

an appointed panel, they do not do many panels anymore, but when an appointed

panel is put in place - and I was on the Voisey's Bay Environment