As was the case the previous week, allegations of a privacy breach involving Saskatoon care aide worker Peter Bowden dominated Question Period in the legislature all of last week.
Bowden was the care aide worker who had gone to the legislature to speak out against low staffing levels, but he was suspended with pay the week before after various complaints were filed against him. Bowden then filed a privacy complaint against the government after news of his suspension went public.
The controversy raged on Wednesday afternoon in the legislature with the most heated exchange yet between opposition leader Cam Broten and Premier Brad Wall on the issue. With voices raised and much heckling in the legislature, Broten demanded that the premier table the emails sent by his chief of communications and operations in the matter. Here is some of that exchange as recorded in Hansard.
Mr. Broten: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know what this premier is so afraid of sharing. Why won’t he table these emails that his chief of communications sent, Mr. Speaker? What we see from this premier instead of accountability, instead of transparency, instead of a commitment to due process, we see this premier leaking confidential information about a health care worker, throwing due process out the window, Mr. Speaker, all in an attempt to sully that care aide and to put a chill on other health care workers here in Saskatchewan.
We know, Mr. Speaker, that this premier received confidential information from the CEO [chief executive officer] of the Saskatoon Health Region on the only care aide that came to this legislature as a whistle-blower. We know, Mr. Speaker, this premier saw a political opportunity. He saw a political opportunity to discredit and undermine the care aid. He saw an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to cast doubt on the concerns brought forward, and he saw an opportunity to cast a chill on all other health care workers. And that is the quick decision that he made on a Monday when he directed the leak of the information, Mr. Speaker. The member from Sutherland is worked up. He should be concerned that his premier is leaking confidential information, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we know yesterday the premier and the health minister said what Mr. Bowden said was untrue, even though it’s absolutely backed up with their very own CEO tour report. My question to the premier: why is the premier making every effort to discredit this care aide, Mr. Speaker, and why is he so afraid to share what his office leaked?
The Deputy Speaker: I recognize the premier.
Hon. Mr. Wall: Mr. Deputy Speaker, who’s worked up here? That’s a question I would offer for the member to consider. Well now, you know, he’s saying he’s worked up.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, the honourable member and I disagree. I believe that the information was provided in the public interest and have said so because we want to ensure workers that they could come forward without any implications, that there were other reasons for the investigation of this particular individual predating his attendance to the legislature, informed by complaints by his colleagues, Mr. Speaker. That’s why we wanted to have the information out.
You know, this is about debate. Fair enough. It’s been the Leader of the Opposition’s position that he doesn’t agree with that. He doesn’t agree with my position. So that’s fair. So that’s fair. I mean he’s saying that the information ought not ever to have been provided. Fair enough. Why then is he demanding that same information be tabled in the House today?
The Deputy Speaker: I recognize the leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Broten: Mr. Speaker, because this premier said the information is general. This premier said, Mr. Speaker, that there are no specifics, Mr. Speaker. This premier said that it was provided simply as background, Mr. Speaker, but now he is afraid and will not have the courage to publicly table the information that he chose to leak to the media, Mr. Speaker, violating the privacy of that care aid. And members, the government, the Deputy House Leader is laughing. It’s a big joke to this government, Mr. Speaker. This is how serious they take this.
From day one, Mr. Speaker, I have said that there should be due process, due process for this case. The premier’s actions have undermined that entirely. Because of the premier’s inappropriate actions, the government now has incredible motivation to ensure that they finish the job, finish the job of decimating this care aid’s reputation. And you can bet, Mr. Speaker, that they will be in overtime to do that. You sure can. Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, this government keeps neglecting what really matters, and they keep pretending that problems in seniors’ care are just one-offs, that they’re isolated.
Talk about messed-up priorities. All the time in the world and attention to leak confidential information; no attention to what actually matters for the priorities for seniors. My question to the premier, Mr. Speaker: we know he’s doing everything he can to stick to his guns and try to pretend that this smells okay. Everyone knows that it stinks. He won’t apologize for the leak, Mr. Speaker, but will he at least stand today and admit that his inappropriate actions have compromised this entire process?
The Deputy Speaker: I recognize the premier.
Hon. Mr. Wall: Let’s remember, let’s remember what we learned yesterday on this file, Mr. Speaker. Let’s remember what the minister of health reported to all members of the House. The information that that member brought forward to the floor of this Assembly, where we’re obviously duty bound to communicate the truth and have a debate about that, the information he brought forward from this gentleman in question was wrong. The characterizations of care at Oliver Lodge that he presented as fact, the minister of health has done the investigation, and those facts again, not surprisingly, coming from that member are incorrect, Mr. Speaker.
So the question then to the member is this: before he raised those questions in the House, did he do any due diligence? Did he do any research to find out if Mr. Bowden’s claims were true or not? Mr. Speaker, did he have a conversation with Mr. Bowden as to why he was asking for immunity, for protection in the workplace? I think these are all important points, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. member now, as some sort of a tactic, is to demand that the emails be provided. I think members opposite have seen them. They’re the subject of debate because they were made public, not in a leak, but in a way that we’ve already described.
Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is this: is it still his position because he said it in the preamble is it his position that this gentleman is facing potential discipline in the workplace solely because he came forward to the legislature, or are there workplace concerns that should be dealt with? Mr. Speaker, what will the Leader of the Opposition say about that?
The Deputy Speaker: I recognize the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Broten: Mr. Speaker, with this premier, it’s all attack, as opposed to all transparency and accountability. That’s very clear.
The questioning later turned to the issue of Florence Bork, a Swift Current resident who suffered from cancer, and Richard Parr, another patient, both of whom had raised concerns about short staffing and overcrowding at Cypress Regional Hospital.
Mr. Broten: Mr. Speaker, this premier’s so ill-informed about what’s happening on the front lines, he doesn’t know that his own constituents are being pushed out of the hospital, Mr. Speaker, or facing charges of $90 a day.
Broten went on.
… Do you know where he shows attention? He shows attention tracking the one care aide, Mr. Speaker, who comes as a whistle-blower to this legislature, spends his energy, his time, his concern on leaking confidential information, Mr. Speaker. That’s where this premier spends his time, his focus, and his energy because he’s more consumed about the politics of his own self-interest, Mr. Speaker, as opposed to what works best for the people here in the province.
My question, Mr. Speaker, to the premier: how many Richards, how many Florences, how many Irenes need to come forward before this premier will take this seriously?
It was at this point that Health Minister Dustin Duncan responded and pledged to look into the specifics. But he pointed to government funding levels for health care and also took time to blast the former NDP government.
Mr. Duncan: … Mr. Speaker, we had a government of the day, back under the NDP, that thought a wait time for MRIs [magnetic resonance imaging] of 22 months was okay. We don’t agree on this side of the House. That’s why we’ve invested record, significant dollars into health care to make improvements. There’s more work to be done, but after the mess we had to clean up from the members opposite, you bet there’s more work to be done.
The controversy continued at white-hot heat the following morning. With the premier out of the legislature Thursday, Broten raised the prospect of criminal charges with Health Minister Duncan.
Mr. Broten: You know, Mr. Speaker, you think the members opposite would take this much more seriously. The consequences, as I asked in my question, the consequences of breaking this particular law include a fine and jail time. Was the premier aware of that before he asked for the private information from the Saskatoon Health Region CEO [chief executive officer], and before he ordered his chief of communications and operations to leak this confidential information about the care aide?
The Deputy Speaker: I recognize the minister of health.
Hon. Mr. Duncan: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Again in the absence of the premier, I’ll take that question on behalf of the Government of Saskatchewan, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What the Saskatoon Health Region CEO has indicated, and I quote, “We suspended with pay because of receipt of numerous complaints that were serious enough that they required his removal from the workplace.” This scenario that’s playing out right now actually predates when he went to the legislature. He went on to say, “This was the culmination of numerous complaints. The significance of those complaints prompted our action.”
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope all members of this House can agree that when complaints are raised by co-workers against one of their co-workers, that the obligation of the facility and the region, the employer, has an obligation to treat those complaints seriously. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would hate to think that the Leader of the Opposition doesn’t believe those complaints were serious enough in nature, and in fact that they, in some cases, predated his attendance at the legislature. That’s why the facility, the region, and this government takes this very seriously.
Broten also asked if the Attorney General could “assure us today on the public record that the results of these four investigations will be referred to an out-of-province prosecutor?”
Duncan responded “certainly we are going to let the privacy commissioner do the work that he is responsible to do, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that that’s appropriate.”
