|
Oral
Questions
December 8, 2008
Home
| In the House | Question
Period
MS
JONES:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, last week we
had devastating news in this Province, especially for
the people in Wabush and Grand Falls-Windsor, as
hundreds of workers now face layoffs with uncertainty.
Government indicated that
a taskforce had been established to look at options in
Grand Falls-Windsor, and I would like to ask the
minister today: Who will serve
on that taskforce, what are the objects of the
taskforce, and are there any plans to develop a similar
strategy, I guess, to kind of aid or help the people in
Western Labrador as well?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources and Deputy
Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
This taskforce has been
up and operational for the last three months. It is
chaired by the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development. On that taskforce we also have
representation from the Department of Education. I will
sit on that taskforce. The Minister of HRLE is there,
the Minister of Finance, as well as the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
We have already received
a number of proposals from interested parties in the
Grand Falls-Windsor area, especially in the area of
information technology where they already have a strong
foundation.
I will also bring a
strong perspective around the forestry industry, Mr.
Speaker, to see where we can have opportunities for
diversification.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I just wanted to ask the
minister if she could clarify: Is
there any local involvement in the taskforce at all, any
groups, organizations, sectorial representatives that
have been invited to share on the taskforce as well?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Not
at this time, Mr. Speaker. I am travelling to Grand
Falls tomorrow, hopefully accompanied by the ministers
from INTRD, as well as HRLE , to engage with the union
and with the taskforce. We already have Rob Kinden
appointed from within government to be the CEO of this
taskforce and then we will work with the community to
shape our response.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, last week when I questioned the minister with
regard to Grand Falls-Windsor she said at that time that
she herself and government had been working on this file
for about one year.
I ask the minister today:
Does government now have any
kind of mitigation plans or an economic stimulus plan
that they can present to the people in Grand
Falls-Windsor at this stage, or is that going to be
developed by this taskforce that is in place?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Our efforts during the
last two to three years has been to keep this pulp and
paper industry alive and well in this Province as it
faced the global challenges that played a role,
certainly, in taking down AbititiBowater in Grand Falls.
That is where all of our effort has been focused. There
are a number of strategies that work within this
government to diversify the economy. Those are always at
work, Mr. Speaker, and we see some evidence of that, as
I just referred to in my previous answer, in terms of
the technology industry that we are supporting in Grand
Falls-Windsor.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Abititi has hydro and
timber rights, as we are all aware of, and a mill that
is considered to be a huge asset within the Province.
The minister did state at one point that expropriation
may be an option. They were reviewing that possibility.
Maybe
you can tell me today if you have had any success with
finding a new operator for the mill in Grand
Falls-Windsor over the course of that time and what the
findings of your review was that you talked about back
in May?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
We are still reviewing
all our options, particularly now that the mill has
closed. This Province having control of its own natural
resources is extremely important to this government.
That is one of the reasons we engaged in the whole
discussion with AbitibiBowater about repatriation of
their Charter of Rights, which would have given them an
opportunity to not only maintain the rights and
privileges they have around that fibre in the Province
while they are operational here, would give them an
opportunity to find significant investment for the mill,
but would give the people of the Province control again
over the particular lands that are contained within that
Charter.
We review all our
options. Whatever we can do to maintain resources here
in the Province and create an opportunity for somebody
else to come and operate that mill, Mr. Speaker, we are
going to consider everything and do all we can to make
that happen.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, back in May when the minister was talking in
the media she said that she had asked the Justice
department to look at the Province’s legal rights
regarding the hydro facilities in particular and she
expected to have a report soon.
I
would like to ask her today if there was a report
prepared, if she has received it yet, and maybe she
could table it in the House or at least have it
available so that the public can see it?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
We are getting the best
advice that we have available to us to formulate a go
forward position with regard to the industry in Grand
Falls-Windsor. Our main objective always is to see that
whatever the infrastructure there is, whatever natural
resources we have available to us that we can continue
to use them for the well-being of people in Central
Newfoundland. We do not know what we may have to do. We
do not know what road we are on.
AbitibiBowater has asked
for an opportunity to come and speak to us about those
resources. We are more than open to that, but we are
certainly not going to make legal opinions available to
the general public at this point in time and weaken our
position, Mr. Speaker. Certainly not going to consider
it at all.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: I
am just wondering, Mr. Speaker, for clarification, did
the minister have any discussions with Abitibi related
to the actual mill asset themselves and what their plan
is around that particular asset to date? I do not know
if that was premature at this stage or not, I am just
wondering?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr.
Speaker, last week I had a – I would consider a very
curt and brief conversation with Mr. Paterson. Myself
and the minister, and Cabinet and government found out
in The Globe and Mail that this mill was going to
be closed down. So when I spoke with him I expressed my
displeasure to him at that particular time as to the
manner in which this message was conveyed to the people
of Grand Falls particularly and surrounding areas, and
the communities, the wood and mill workers and everybody
involved, and of course, the government on behalf of the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
In the same breath, I
indicated to him that the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador would be prepared to fight for those assets,
the timber assets and the power assets, to the full
extent of our ability and to the full extent of the law.
The ideal situation would be that this company did the
right thing and basically transferred over those timber
assets and those water assets to the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I know that in September,
Premier, you made some statements in the media that you
would look at court action if it was necessary in order
to keep the assets associated with this mill operation.
I am
just wondering what the status of that is, is that
something that your government has looked into already
or something that you will look at pursuing?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: I
can quite honestly say that this government has looked
at the legal issues surrounding that mill for a
considerable period of time - over several years since
we have actually been in office - with regard to demands
that Abitibi were making, based on previous agreements
and previous rights that they assumed that we have. So
we have been constantly reviewing this from a legal
perspective and made sure that we protected the
interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
From our own perspective,
on an ongoing basis, we obviously are obtaining legal
opinions. I think it is in the best interests of
everybody involved that we not share those legal
opinions because, obviously, we have a preferred
advantage there and some leverage with the company and
that is something that we would prefer to continue on
with.
The first option is the
best option. The company does the right thing, does the
right thing for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador,
and particularly Grand Falls and surrounding areas,
after 100 years is that they pass these assets back
over. That would be the timber assets - which actually,
a month ago, we were actually prepared to pay for on the
basis that we wanted that x number of dollars to go back
into the mill and allow the mill to have some longevity,
which is what the workers indicated.
The other remedy would be
a court action, the other remedy would be an
expropriation, and the other remedy would be an act of
this Legislature which deals with the entire problem.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
There is another group of
workers, obviously, that are affected by all of this,
and that is the loggers and the forestry workers.
I would like to ask you,
Minister, today: Will they be
included, as well, in any assistance plans that may be
developed by this task force? Also, will they be
considered for inclusion in the task force process, the
same as the direct union employees of Grand
Falls-Windsor?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Those workers have been
included in all our discussions from the very first day,
Mr. Speaker, and will be included in every initiative
that we take care of. Those workers, the loggers, find
themselves in a very particular circumstance because
many of them are not eligible for a severance package,
Mr. Speaker, and I committed today on their behalf to
support them in a plea to Abitibi to please do something
for these workers along with the regular workforce at
the mill.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Just one final question
to the minister.
In light of what we seen
happen in the pulp and paper industry in the Province
over the last few years, I suppose – nationally, for
that matter, but particularly in Stephenville and in
Grand Falls-Windsor - I would
like to ask the minister if she is having ongoing
discussions with Kruger and if everything is running as
it should be in Corner Brook, or are there some plans by
Kruger to downscale as well in this difficult economic
time?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I have regular contact
with Corner Brook Pulp and Paper, and to their credit
they continue to invest in the mill in Corner Brook.
They have not indicated to me at this point in time that
they foresee any difficulties in the short term. In
fact, the reduction of the cost of oil and the low
Canadian dollar are working very well for them, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions are for the
Minister of Justice.
Minister, you released
this morning the report on correctional facilities. I
notice in particular that recommendation twenty-three on
page seventy-five makes reference to establishing a
committee comprised of representatives at all levels to
look at issues of organizational behaviour and
rebuilding trust and so on. I
am wondering if you could advise us if that committee
has indeed been struck, and who the members of that
committee might be.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr.
Speaker, government had the opportunity today to release
an independent review headed by Simmone Poirier, Gregory
Brown, joined by Dr. Terry Carlson, the former executive
of the John Howard Society here.
It is very
all-encompassing and a very thorough report. There are a
number of recommendations. I will have to get more
information on whether that specific committee has been
struck, but I can tell you that Dr. Carlson has agreed
to remain with government for the purposes of chairing
the analysis
and implementation committee and I have every
confidence that, with his dedication and concern over
the years for the rights of inmates and correctional
officers, that the recommendations will bring us on the
road to a major step in reforming, in a responsible and
effective way, the corrections system in this Province.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
We appreciate that the
minister finally released the report, after some
prompting and questions in the House, and that we did in
fact get it today.
I ask the minister: Was
it premature, given that very recommendation talks about
the establishment of this committee to deal with
organizational issues and so on, and building trust back
in, was it premature that if you do not have that
committee established – you, in fact, fired the
superintendent and the deputy superintendent - without
having gone through the recommendation process of
getting a committee to help you out with that issue? Did
you not put the cart before the horse here?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr.
Speaker, as the hon. member knows, it would be totally
inappropriate for me to talk about personal employment
rights of employees of government and I will not do so.
I have never done it in the past and I do not intend to
do it now or in the future.
What I am pleased to say
is that, under the leadership of the Acting
Superintendent of Prisons, Graham Rogerson, and the
Acting Assistant Superintendent of HMP, that a number of
initiatives have in fact been commenced at HMP,
including the cleaning of the facility and the painting
of the facility by inmates, and we look forward to
continued responsible action to address the concerns and
to implement the recommendations of the independent
review.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Minister, I do not wish
you or require or ask you to get involved in any privacy
issues concerning anyone. Maybe the decision to fire the
superintendent and the assistant superintendent may well
have been justified. That is not the question.
The question is, if you
solicited this report, initiated it - you got it, as I
understand it, on a Sunday, the former minister did, and
within forty-eight hours he fired those two people - all
I am saying is: Is it prudent
to expect that you are going to fire someone and you
have not even followed the recommendations of the
committee which said, go out and strike a committee to
help you decide where you want to go with these issues.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr.
Speaker, I think it is clear from the reading of the
report that there comes a time when any institution, any
large organization, requires leadership renewal, and I
think the recommendations of the report indicate that
this would be an appropriate time for a new direction as
a result of the review of the correction facilities in
the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank
you.
Again, Minister, tied in
with that recommendation twenty-three, and also with
number one which recommends that we change the system
from its current quasi-military, paramilitary set-up to
have one what they call a dynamic security arrangement
whereby there is more involvement between the management
and the inmates and the staff and the inmates, I am just
wondering: Was it premature
again? This is not commenting on the
individuals you put there, but within forty-eight hours
we get rid of the people who were there, we put in two
people who only, as I understand it, have a paramilitary
background, to implement a report that says we should
get away from a paramilitary set-up. You did all of that
without ever having that committee struck. Minister,
was that prudent? What is the point of having a report
if you are not going to follow it?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh,
oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr.
Speaker, corrections - what happens in a lot of our
correctional institutions throughout this Province -
have not really played a major role and had the
attention of the people of this Province. I believe what
this report will do is have people aware of corrections
across Newfoundland and Labrador, make it part of public
debate, make it part of public discourse.
I think that this report
will do for corrections of Newfoundland and Labrador
what the Lamer report, and the recommendations of that
report, did for policing, for legal aid, and for the
judicial system in this Province. We look forward to the
implementation of the recommendations.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS:
Thank you.
Minister, it is quite
obvious that the report dealt with all of the
correctional facilities in the Province, not just Her
Majesty’s Penitentiary, of course, but my next
question is focused on that.
Given the fact that HMP
is a Victorian institution, I believe, opened in 1859,
actually, parts of it, and given the recommendations
that we have here, which pointed out a lot of
deficiencies and so on, do you
feel that it is even possible to try to do some of the
program changes and new changes of organization that the
report recommends with the HMP as we currently have it
as a physical structure? Is it even possible to do that?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Given the state of HMP
there would obviously be challenges in implementing more
programming at HMP, and that is why we have to continue
to engage with the federal government in order to share
with us, under a joint sharing arrangement, the
construction of a new penitentiary in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
I know that my
predecessor wrote a very compelling letter to Minister
Day outlining the reasons why this should happen, and
since I was reappointed to that position I have had
communications with the President of Treasury Board for
Canada and the Minister of Justice, as well as the
Minister of Public Safety. We have re-engaged to try to
get the federal government to come on side with us in
building this new and much-needed facility.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker, and that leads to my final question.
Minister, we are all
aware in the Province of the request of the government
to hopefully have the feds come on board and provide
some financing for a new penitentiary. I understand the
figures being tossed around were a $100 million
institution, and we had hoped the feds to cover off to
the tune of 70 per cent, which would have been $70
million federal, $30 million provincial.
I am just curious, and
hopefully they will put the whole 100 per cent involved,
but how is your department
trying to justify requesting 70 per cent of the cost of
a new institution when the feds only have 20 per cent of
the inmate population here?
AN HON. MEMBER: The
1949 Terms of Union (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: How
are you trying to justify it, Mr. Minister, if they have
20 per cent of the population yet we are asking for 70
per cent of the facility? What is your rationale?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. T. MARSHALL: I
thank the hon. member for his question.
We do have an exchange of
services agreement with the federal government. We are
the only Province in the country to have that, I
believe, and under that, even inmates who are sentenced
to federal time, we have the right to determine their
placement – whether it is in a federal penitentiary or
whether we keep them in Newfoundland in our facility. Of
course, we do charge the federal government for that,
and there is a benefit to the Province in terms of the
revenue received, and there is also a benefit to the
federal government, because the cost of housing an
inmate in our facilities is, I understand, lower than
the costs that they are incurring by having those same
inmates in federal institutions.
So, there is a good
reason to justify the federal government for joining
with us. Otherwise, I believe they would have to live up
to their previous promises to build a federal
institution –
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. T. MARSHALL: Pardon?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. T. MARSHALL: I
think it is important that –
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
I ask the hon. minister
to conclude his answer.
MR. T. MARSHALL: I
would be very happy to.
I want to thank the
Premier and the Minister of Finance for their help in
answering (inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh,
oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
The hon. the Opposition
House Leader.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
It took three of them,
and I think I still got half of an answer out of it.
Anyway, Minister, I
wonder if you could confirm: Did
the former Administration federally confirm – and that
ties in again with their percentage of responsibility;
they had 20 per cent, roughly, of the inmate population
here, federally - did the former federal Administration
confirm and agree that they would, in fact, put a $10
million to $12 million federal facility here but that
did not fly? Is that correct?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. T. MARSHALL: Which
former Administration, the federal?
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: (Inaudible).
MR. T. MARSHALL: No,
I am not aware of that. I do not recall that. Most of my
discussions with the former federal minister had to deal
with legal aid, but since the other Administration came
in the priority has become the prison.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
On September 22 the
people of Barachois Brook awoke to the realization that
contaminated soil was being transported to their
community from Stephenville for remediation. The local
service council of that community had no knowledge of
this permit to operate being granted.
I ask the minister: What
are your department’s standards and procedures for
approving soil remediation facilities?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Acting Minister of Environment and
Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. JACKMAN: Mr.
Speaker, this is an approved soil treatment facility, no
different than there are ten or eleven other such
treatment facilities in the Province. This facility
meets all the requirements under the Department of
Environment.
Mr. Speaker, as far as
the issue is concerned here, as I said, they are meeting
all requirements and there is not an issue that the
department sees at this particular time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr.
Speaker, when the people of Barachois Brook witnessed
uncovered trucks coming into their town with dark, oily,
soil they were terrified. Knowing nothing about the
establishment of the remediation site in their
community, the people immediately reacted and blockaded
the site.
I ask the minister: How
was the company able to receive approval from the
Department of Environment for this site without the
knowledge of the local residents?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Acting Minister of Environment and
Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. JACKMAN: First,
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it clear to the people
of Barachois Brook and the people of the Province that
this particular site does not accept toxic material. The
material that comes into this particular site is treated
and then it is transported to landfill sites. The
company that came in here applied through an application
process, having met all the conditions, the permits were
awarded, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr.
Speaker, the Town of Kippens had previously rejected
this same operation because of environmental and health
concerns. Approval for the Barachois Brook site was
given by the Town of Stephenville Crossing, yet it was
not communicated to the people of Barachois Brook, which
is a local service district.
I ask the minister: Are
you prepared to change your policies and ensure the
Department of Environment consults with all affected
stakeholders before such permits are issued?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Acting Minister of Environment and
Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. JACKMAN: Mr.
Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that every effort
is made to include and inform all parties involved here,
but I will say that this particular site has been
approved, met all standards, its lined solid base under
that, and from a department perspective, Mr. Speaker,
this is a site, as I said, that meets the standard and
is certainly up to scratch.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, today this
House will be asked to repeal the midwifery act. Now we
know the act is not up to date and does not represent
the work that is actually being done by midwives in the
Province right now. For example, we have midwives
working in the Labrador Grenfell Regional Health
Authority for whom the act would be relevant. However,
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Health and Community
Services, why is this government repealing the midwifery
act without a new act in place?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Mr.
Speaker, the member opposite has raised several times in
the House, the time that they need to have a bill in
advance so they can prepare themselves for debate in the
House. I say, Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite would
have read the bill as circulated, would have fully
understood the rationale for repealing this bill. The
bill is no longer applicable.
This bill was intended,
as I will comment on later this afternoon or some time
during this session, that this bill was intended to
regulate untrained midwives. This is a totally separate
discussion that we will be having later today about
midwives of today and the role that midwives have today
and how they are regulated and the nature of their
practice versus what it might have been thirty or forty
years ago in Newfoundland and Labrador when many people
evolved into that role, I say, Mr. Speaker. In fact,
there are many of us in this House who can talk about
their grandmothers or great-grandmothers who were
probably midwives in many parts of Newfoundland and
Labrador. They were untrained individuals who acquired
skills over a period of time, and this legislation we
are repealing now was meant to regulate that particular
group and not anything to do with those who practice
anywhere in the country today, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for Signal Hill–Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, we got rid of some
bills or acts this week that were on the books for an
awful long time after new ones came in, so I do not know
why this one is being gotten rid of so quickly.
Mr. Speaker, there was a
midwife legislation implementation committee that
finished its work in 2001 and successive governments
have let the work of that committee slide. Mr. Speaker,
with the shortage of family doctors, we know that having
midwives would certainly help to ease the strain on
family doctors and obstetricians working in rural areas
as well as elsewhere.
I ask the minister: What
is happening with regard to the introduction of new
legislation that would fully recognize midwifery as a
profession in this Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Mr.
Speaker, it is interesting that the member opposite
stands and asks the question as if to advocate for
midwives and she has just given them a grave insult,
because she has talked about it in the context of them
not having an adequate supply of physicians.
The role of midwives is a
role that is well-established, whether you have a lot of
physicians or very few physicians. It is a discipline in
and of itself. So to stand in this House all righteous
and asking questions as if we are doing something wrong
and she has the right idea, she just insulted a group of
people who we are going to bring in legislation later
this year to regulate. We are committed to do it, I say,
Mr. Speaker, and I will have an opportunity in this
House as we debate the bill a little later on, to
provide some elaboration on exactly what our plans are.
I have been clear, on the public record, to indicate our
government plans to introduce legislation to regulate
the role, the discipline, the profession of midwives in
this Province, and it will be done with or without a
group of physicians, or the fact that we have some or no
physicians –
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
The hon. the Member for
Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Once again the minister
just twists around my language. He knows that I am not
insulting the midwives and the midwives - the
representatives in the august House today, who are here,
also know I am not insulting them. I am glad to know it
is coming in. I hope that the minister – or, I will
ask the minister, so I will put a question: Are you
going to consult with the Association of Midwives around
the new legislation, because you certainly did not
consult with them around repealing the current act?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. WISEMAN: Yes,
Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The
time for questions and answers has expired. |
