The main controversy that erupted Wednesday in Question Period, and which dominated Thursday as well, concerned accusations from the opposition benches about a breach of privacy involving health care worker Peter Bowden, who had been suspended with pay from a seniors’ home in Saskatoon.
Opposition leader Cam Broten raised the question in the legislature Wednesday afternoon.
Mr. Broten: — There are serious allegations of a significant breach of privacy on the part of a senior staff member in the premier’s own office. Will the premier agree today to turn all files and emails over to the information and privacy commissioner for a full investigation?
The Speaker: — I recognize the premier.
Hon. Mr. Wall: — Mr. Speaker, there are provisions in legislation that allow for the release of certain parts of information. Mr. Speaker, procedures were followed according to that provision in provincial law.
The Speaker: — I recognize the leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Broten: — Mr. Speaker, I think that’s something that the independent officer of the legislature should determine, not the premier’s office, Mr. Speaker, that leaked the information in the first place.
The premier’s own office was involved in a serious breach of a citizen’s privacy because it leaked confidential information about an individual citizen. It couched that leaked information in a whole lot of innuendo in a clear attempt to sully this individual citizen’s reputation. And I’d argue, Mr. Speaker, that this looks a lot like, it looks a lot like an attempt by the premier’s own office to put a big chill on front-line health care workers speaking out.
The premier’s office needs to turn all files and emails over to the privacy commissioner immediately, and it needs to turn all files and emails over to the ombudsman as well, as this is directly relevant to her investigation in seniors’ care. Will the premier commit to doing that today?
The Speaker: — I recognize the Premier.
Hon. Mr. Wall: — Mr. Speaker, the reason certain actions were taken were precisely the opposite of what is being depicted by the member that just asked the question.
The subject began when the leader of the Opposition, in his preamble to questions on behalf of a health care worker asked, I think twice or maybe three times, to ensure that the position of the government was that this individual would not face any retribution in the workplace for coming forward. I gave my assurance on all three occasions. Subsequent to that, the minister of health gave his assurance on a number of occasions. Mr. Speaker, that’s a promise that I made. That’s a promise that the government made.
Subsequent to that, not just a few days ago, I found out that the Saskatoon Health Region had in fact suspended the same individual, with pay, pending the investigation of some complaints. Mr. Speaker, I wanted the people of this province to know that we keep our promises, not just to this individual, but to every other health care worker in the province. So I felt it was very, very important that the government … make it known that this individual was facing some disciplinary action, was suspended with pay for reasons completely outside his attendance here at the legislature and him raising issues, Mr. Speaker. And that’s exactly what happened.
There are provisions in legislation that allow for the disclosure of certain kinds of information if it’s in the public interest. We believe it is in the public interest to send a signal to all health care workers that a promise that we have made will be kept, that the promise that there will be no retribution for anyone raising any concerns about health care will be kept, and that this particular instance, this suspension without pay, had nothing to do with what was raised in the legislature that day.
The exchange went on for some time as Broten continued to blast Wall.
Mr. Broten: — Mr. Speaker, this explanation from the premier is absolutely unbelievable. It is ridiculous, Mr. Speaker; they’re trying to spin this now. We have seen the disgusting actions that we saw with how they leaked this information. We’ve seen how they treat our front-line workers, and we have the premier admitting that it was his decision to release this information. He thinks everything is fine. This needs to be handed over to the privacy commissioner. It cannot be left in the premier’s office, who leaked the information in the first place. Mr. Speaker, I have another question. Does the premier think it’s fair that First Nations seniors are discriminated against by our current ambulance fee system?
The Speaker: — I recognize the premier.
Hon. Mr. Wall: — Mr. Speaker, I’m going to allow the minister of health to answer this particular question and the subsequent line of questioning, but I think it’s very important to stand in my place here and state for the record, Mr. Speaker, that there is certain disciplinary action under way with respect to the individual that has nothing to do with him appearing or attending to the Legislative Assembly. I have an assurance of that, and that would be the only reason why we would take the extraordinary action that we’ve taken to make sure it is understood by all — those who observe the proceedings of this legislature, those who are involved in health care delivery in the province — that indeed they can come forward and do so freely.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, whether it’s letters to the editor or other workers that the members have quoted that they have brought forward, Mr. Speaker, there clearly has not been the kind of retribution, the kind of depictions that the leader of the Opposition is trying to paint. That’s not how we have conducted ourselves in government. Maybe that’s how members opposite acted when they were in the government, but we have not, and we will not.
We’ll take, actually, extraordinary steps to send a signal that we will allow for certainly any criticism or complaint of the health care system free of any retribution. What we will not allow, Mr. Speaker, what our policies do not allow, what the health region policies do not allow is for any action on the part of a worker, any worker — now I’m speaking generally — to have a negative impact on the health and welfare and well-being of either patients or their colleagues,Mr. Speaker. On that we stand.
Question period on Thursday morning in the legislature resumed as there were some updated developments on the same issue.
Mr. Broten: — Mr. Speaker, the care aide whose privacy was breached by the premier has lodged a formal complaint against the premier and the premier’s chief of communications and operations. Will the premier commit to fully co-operate with this investigation?
Hon. Mr. Wall: — Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. Under section 29 of the relevant act, there was no breach.
The Speaker: — I recognize the leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Broten: — Mr. Speaker, the premier is dreaming if he thinks that is accurate. The premier’s entire argument yesterday, Mr. Speaker, was that he believes … that leaking confidential information about a private citizen was necessary in order to protect the premier’s reputation and get him out of a conundrum. Conundrum is the exact word that the premier used. He was in a conundrum, so he ordered the leak of confidential information about a private citizen.
Nothing whatsoever in the legislation allows for a breach of privacy to protect the premier’s reputation or to help the premier out of a conundrum. Will the premier agree today to turn over all relevant emails, text messages, phone records and other documents to the independent Privacy Commissioner?
The Speaker: — I recognize the premier.
Hon. Mr. Wall: — Mr. Speaker, we’re used to a lot of things from the member opposite. We’re used to him representing facts in ways that we later find out aren’t correct. We’re used to, I think, the extreme use of rhetoric in certain situations. We saw it I think yesterday in the scrum when he was comparing this whole situation to what happens in Russia, if you can believe that, Mr. Speaker.
The conundrum that I . . . And he’s also now misrepresented, I would say, or not dealt fully and clearly with what exactly I said yesterday. And he does this. He cherry picks a word here and there.
Here’s the conundrum the government faced. The conundrum was this: that member, for some reason — he’s not done this in the past — asked as a preamble to his questions about Mr. Bowden’s inquiry here at the legislature three times if he would be protected from any retribution in the workplace for raising these concerns. I made that promise. I gave the commitment on behalf of the government. So did the minister of health, Mr. Speaker. So the conundrum that I was talking about was, how then do we ensure, in light of the fact that the health region has taken steps to discipline him because of complaints received, had nothing to do with his intervention here at the house but because of that, the conundrum for the government is, how do we make sure that other health care workers understand there will be no retribution for anyone that comes forward and raises concerns?
He knows that’s the record of the government because, as concerns have come forward, either in letters to the editor or in to this Assembly, there has been no retribution. There have been no consequences in the workplace.
Mr. Speaker, what the health region takes seriously and what the government takes seriously, and I wonder if the Leader of the Opposition takes this seriously, is the well-being of patients and colleagues, the health and well-being and welfare of patients in the system or residents in long-term care and colleagues in the workplace. Mr. Speaker, we do take that very seriously. So does the region, and the appropriate action has been taken. The appropriate action was also taken with respect to information as outlined in section 29 of the relevant act.
The debate went on, with Broten continuing to hammer the government and Wall insisting that under section 29 there was no breach.
Mr. Broten: — Mr. Speaker, this is pathetic what the premier is doing right now. We have seen, Mr. Speaker, the same information that the premier breached and sent around to the media. It’s clear that is the case, Mr. Speaker. I said this yesterday publicly, for crying out loud, and now, Mr. Speaker, for them to pretend that this is breaking news . . . Give me a break. My question to the premier: who did the premier consult with before he decided to release this information?
The Speaker: — I recognize the Premier.
Hon. Mr. Wall: — Mr. Speaker, what is pathetic … in this legislature is a line of questioning from the leader of the Opposition about the confidentiality of information when … And apparently now he said he said it yesterday, and they’re tweeting it out that they have the file, that they’ve seen the file.
Mr. Speaker, I again ask the member to put … I asked the Leader of the Opposition to state for the record if he has seen the entire file because I haven’t. I had a general briefing about it, but I have not. If he has seen the entire file, will he, again, stand in this legislature today and say that he believes that the only thing Mr. Bowden did to receive this discipline was come to the legislature and present his concerns about seniors? Is that his view? He’s seen the whole file. Does he believe it’s all about him coming forward and has nothing else to do with other workplace incidents?
After much more back and forth on the topic, Wall’s final response referred to a bit of news from outside the legislature – news that Wall’s own party was still riding high in public opinion polls.
Hon. Mr. Wall: — Mr. Speaker, I would be kind of grumpy over there too if I’d had the last couple of weeks that they’ve had. And here’s more bad news for the NDP, but more good news for the province. In part because of the conduct of members opposite, even after now almost two full terms in government, Mr. Speaker, the voting intentions of the people of the province have not changed.
Insightrix, the polling firm, has released a poll today, Mr. Speaker, and the facts are this: people are weighing in on the performance of that leader of the Opposition. His party is actually at a level lower than it was under Dwain Lingenfelter, Mr. Speaker, lower than Dwain Lingenfelter, and a 27-point lead for the governing party. Why, Mr. Speaker? Why? Well hopefully it’s because of good government. We can always do better, but certainly it’s in part because of the terrible performance of the NDP opposite.
