Well, that didn’t work

A quickie cabinet shuffle – the third in eight months – didn’t produce the media coverage they likely thought it might.

Check the headline.

Of course, it doesn’t help when you have to admit in the post-shuffle scrum that the shuffle postponed a scheduled update in the breast cancer scandal that has dogged the government.

-srbp-

Who’s laughing now smart arse? update:  There was no secret that Danny Williams, Premier was not enamoured of John Crosbie, former cabinet minister.

No surprise, therefore, that Stephen Harper, arranged to have Crosbie installed as lieutenant governor.

Crosbie may be silenced daily but he still gets his shots in.  Like say reminding everyone assembled for a cabinet swearing in that -  as the Telegram put it -  “Brian Mulroney used to have frequent cabinet shuffles when the former prime minister wanted to deflect criticism from his government.”

Everyone laughed and the incident made news.

Talk about getting payback with the seemingly most innocuous of comments.

Anger, personified

The raw scrum video, via cbc.ca/nl of the response by Premier Danny Williams to an ongoing story at Eastern Health.  There’s also the full cbc.ca/nl online story on the ongoing controversy.  If that doesn’t work, try another link here:   http://tiny.cc/TEJTJ.

CBC news obtained documents through the province’s access to information laws that shed more detail on the release of information in early April related to the ongoing breast cancer testing issue.

Officials  - especially communications vice-president Jennifer Guy - at Eastern health,  New Democratic Party leader Lorraine Michael, all on the receiving end of the Premier’s anger including an accusation of  political opportunism on the part of the NDP leader. 

This is radically different from anything ever fired at people like Stephen Harper.  There’s none of the characteristic hyperbole, for instance.  You can feel the anger coming clearly through the audio portion. Eastern health chief executive Louise Jones held a newser later in the day;  that isn’t available online yet.

Williams recently criticised the province’s access laws for bogging down government officials with “frivolous” requests and used that an excuse for failing to deliver whistleblower protection legislation in the first session after the 2007 general election as Williams promised.

In a scrum with reporters last Friday, Williams also claimed there was not much experience globally with whistleblower protection laws

He also accused an unnamed witness at the Cameron inquiry into the breast cancer scandal of being motivated at least in part by a personal vendetta. Williams said someone “came on pretty strongly” and decided “to have a crack at government after they did not get their own way’ on employment for a relative with government.

Political opportunism by opposition leaders is not an unusual phenomenon in Newfoundland in Labrador, by the way:

“We told them it was only print-sharing and that there was no threat but, regardless of that, they did take the action they did,” he said.

“What happened wasn’t a breach. Their staff, we believe, knew it wasn’t a breach.”

The action referred to there by a police officer was a public accusation a Liberal political staffer had attempted to hack into the opposition Progressive Conservative computer system.

The story broke in early February 2002:

"The premier's office knew right away that this had happened and, in my opinion, they've acknowledged that a political staffer has interfered with our (computer) system," Conservative Leader Danny Williams said Friday.

"That's very serious stuff."

The language from then opposition leader Williams was strong and, as it seems people in his office knew at the time their version of the story was nothing that would warrant the over-the-top language their boss used:

"Here we have a political staffer trying to break into our computers," Mr. Williams added. "It's very disconcerting to us. There's strategic information in our offices."  [“Liberal tried to hack our computers, Tories say: Newfoundland probe”, National Post Richard Foot, Saturday, February 9, 2002]

or from a Telegram story headlined “Tories sweep offices for bugs”:

"An attempt at access is just as serious as access - no different than attempted robbery is as serious as robbery itself," said Williams, who is a lawyer.

"From our perspective, we're treating it as a very, very serious matter."

 

-srbp-

The External Review Reports decision

While this will eventually make it to the Internet in other legal databases, here's a copy of the decision rendered by Mr. Justice Wayne Dymond in the application by Eastern Health on certain documents requested by the Cameron Inquiry into breast cancer screening.

This is an extremely enlightening document since it demonstrates fairly clearly that even the evidence led on direct or cross examination of Eastern Health's own witnesses contradicts acting chief executive office Louise Jones claim on Friday that these external reports are peer reviews and were considered so by Eastern Health.

At paragraph 39 and subsequently, for example, it is clear from testimony by Dr. Oscar Howell - current vice president medical services - that the work done by two external consultants did not conform to establish Eastern Health policy on peer reviews:

More than one doctor was subject to the review; at least one of the doctors subject to the review had a hand in selecting the reviewers and ultimately, the reports continents were not distributed to the review subjects in the form of a "sentinel report."

On the related issue of the reviews being quality assurance reports, according to Howell's testimony:

Q. So, if the Health Care Corporation, because we’re going back, in fact there isn’t even a Peer Review Policy for Eastern Health – they’ve adopted and continued to apply for positions, the Health Care Corporation’s right?

A. That is correct.

Q. I think it’s important that the Court understands that there is nothing written, there is no Quality Assurance Committee written down anywhere is there?

A. No.

Q. You are going about setting in place a written Policy, aren’t you?

A. We are working through that process, that’s correct.

Q. And with a view to ensuring that, and being able to identify that committee as a s. 8.1 committee isn’t it?

A. That would certainly be very important.

No quality assurance committee. No policy currently in place. Dr. Howell was asked if it was his view that the two experts were being retained to conduct a peer review. He replied: "It is not."

Then there's the famous testimony of the doctor who organized the reviews:

Q. Yes, you -- sure you would, of course you would and this idea that the statement that Bannerjee and Wegrynowski [the external consultants] were designated Peer Review Committees or Quality Assurance Committees, that’s covered by the [Evidence] Act, that notion, or that whole idea only came up long afterwards, didn’t it?

A. That came up in the past six months, the past year or so, yes.

Q. Yeah, but it didn’t occur in the fall of 05?

A. No, I wasn’t thinking about that in the fall of 05.

Q. And, no one spoke to you about it at that time?

A. No.

The idea that the external reviews were peer reviews or quality assurance reports covered by the Evidence Act only emerged within the past year, i.e. since the Cameron Inquiry was established.

The entire decision is rendered in about 39 pages, including the obligatory title page. It's not a long document nor are the issues complex or convoluted. The words used are pretty straightforward, as legal decisions go.

What is fascinating is the information obtained from the sections of evidence - only some of the testimony entered - about the whole issue. We are starting to see the first glimpses of detail of this highly controversial issue.

In particular, though, at this early stage, it is really instructive to look at the position being taken by Eastern Health on certain issues and compare them to what was actually said in court. In some respects, it's not far off the gap between the public statements and the facts - as demonstrated in court - related to the Ruelokke Affair.

-srbp-

Government promises accounting in cancer scandal

Premier Danny Williams said Thursday his administration had a "moral responsibility" to investigate whether patient health was compromised in the way a regional health authority in the province responded to news that certain breast cancer screening tests had produced incorrect results.

Upwards of 300 women were steered away from access to the drug Temoxafen, based on the results of faulty hormone receptor tests.

Former health minister Tom Osborne, now the province's justice minister, admitted he was briefed on the scope of the problem in December 2006.

At the time, health authorities only publicly disclosed changes in treatment to over a hundred women. Information that tests were incorrect for almost three times that number of women was not made public until this week, as a result of inquires for lawyers representing some of the women.

CBC reported Thursday that:

...Health Minister Ross Wiseman told the legislature Thursday that Eastern Health — which is largely funded by government, but operates at arm's length — was aware of the inaccurate test results more than a year ago.

However, he said, government officials were not notified until last August, and that the then health minister was not personally briefed until three months after that, in late November.

Health Minister Ross Wiseman said Eastern Health has known for more than a year about the error rate of hormone receptor testing.Health Minister Ross Wiseman said Eastern Health has known for more than a year about the error rate of hormone receptor testing.
(CBC)

Court documents reported earlier this week by CBC News showed an error rate of 42 per cent in a large set of samples, several times higher than a public estimates.

Wiseman said Eastern Health still may not know what went wrong with hormone receptor tests done between 1997 and 2005.

In the House of Assembly, Wiseman said that the health authority became away of a problem with testing in May 2005 and began a review of tests and procedures.

There was no explanation for the delays in briefing the health minister in 2006 or why the provincial health department concurred with legal advice that appears to have recommended partial disclosure of information.

The premier told the legislature today that his administration would conduct a thorough review of the matter bearing in mind the issues of liability and confidentiality.

-srbp-