Debates of the
Legislative Assembly (Hansard)
Estimates: Ministry
of Health
Committee C
Wednesday, May 16,
2012 Afternoon Sitting
---------------------
H. Lali: When these
changes were announced a couple of months ago, Princeton was actually given
28-days notice of the ER closure. There was no consultation. It was an
arbitrary decision made on the part
of the IHA, and letters were presented in front of the community to sign off
on. I mean, that's the kind of way that they do things. I'm asking legitimate
questions on behalf of my constituents. In a recent job posting Princeton
General Hospital was
called "Princeton Health Center."
That's what it said in
there. So I'd like to ask the minister: are the B.C. Liberal planning to
further degrade health care services at Princeton General and downsize to a
clinic — or even to close the hospital in Princeton?
Hon. M. de Jong: Just to
cut to the chase on the member's question and I'll try to say this slowly so
that not only will the skilled personnel at Hansard be able to record it
clearly but even the honourable member won't be able to misconstrue it. There
are no plans to close Princeton. None.
I regret more than the
member could possibly know that my invitation to engage him in a constructive conversation
about how he believes improvements might alleviate the challenges faced by the
folks in Princeton and surrounding area somehow represents an abdication of my
responsibility or some other nefarious pact. If the member believes that a
particular service should be returned to Princeton, then presumably, this is the
forum where he would make that assertion.
He would, first of all,
criticize the minister and the government for the change that has been made and
then say: "In my view, the challenges that we face would be alleviated if you
were to do the following. Will you?" That's advocacy. That's constructive advocacy
on behalf of a constituent or constituents. That's not what the member has
done. So I could go on at length, but I will say this. I don't know how the
member construes my statement acknowledging there are challenges at Princeton
as somehow representing a blame game.
It's an interesting employment
of the dialectic on the member's part — that when an individual stands up and
acknowledges that there are challenges in a particular area somehow that
represents a blame game. And I don't imagine there's anything I can say today
to dissuade the member from that approach.
We are going to continue
to work with the health authority and the folks in Princeton to ensure that the
very best service possible is available, that we are attracting the professionals
necessary, using all of the means at our disposal. Again, I implore the member,
if he believes that there are mechanisms or means available to government that
have not been deployed to assist in that regard, make that case. Make that
suggestion. I will undertake to provide as candid a response as possible. It
might not be a response he
likes, but then the people
of Princeton will have the benefit of knowing that as well.
To be continued…
No comments:
Post a Comment