|
Opposition Health and Community Services Critic Yvonne
Jones asked the Minister in the House of Assembly today about the VON
controversy that resulted in the resignation of the Minister of Health and
the firing a highly respected public servant.
"There remains much secrecy surrounding the government’s settling of the
strike by VON workers in Corner Brook," said Jones. "I asked for details
about any proposals that were sent to government and the terms of reference
for the palliative care program that was announced. The Minister of Health
and Community Services today confirmed that no proposal exists.
"Government continues to cover up the truth about the
settlement of the strike. This was the Premier’s plan without any
consultation with any government officials. The Premier contravened the
Financial Administration Act by promising funding for a palliative care
project that siphoned wage increases for workers. Is it a coincidence that
this settlement was achieved on the same day that a protest was planned at
his golf tournament in Corner Brook? No proposal was forwarded to government
by the VON and it is obvious that the Premier acted unilaterally to end the
strike to save his own personal image, a decision that sacrificed both the
Minister and Deputy Minister of Health.
"The Minister has also failed to release the full
terms of reference for the palliative care program that was announced. I
requested this information on several occasions and the Minister refuses to
release the facts to the public."
Jones says the cost of the Premier’s decision to end
the strike remains unknown. "Other home care agencies are waiting to hear
from government about what the commitment to the VON will mean for them.
Government must treat all agencies equally in the province.
"The greatest cost for government as a result of this
decision is the unnecessary termination package that must be paid to a
former civil servant. If the Premier had taken the advice of the Minister
and Deputy Minister, he would not have lost a cabinet minister and a civil
servant would not have been sent home at great cost to taxpayers." |