PDF Version

October 27, 2021

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. L No. 28

The

House met at 10 a.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

Orders of the Day

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you, Speaker.

I call

from the Order Paper, Motion 1.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

S. CROCKER:

WHEREAS

section 7 of the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act

prescribes that, upon nomination by the House of Assembly, the Sergeant-at-Arms

shall be appointed by Lieutenant-Governor in Council

by Commission under the Great Seal;

THEREFORE

BE IT

RESOLVED that Mr. Robert Escott be appointed

Sergeant-at-Arms.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

pleased to take a few moments to welcome Mr. Robert Escott or, as we all know

him, of course, Bob –

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

We need

a mover and a seconder for that motion, please.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Sorry, my apologies, Mr.

Speaker. I think I had to do a redo last Wednesday morning so I guess I do

again. Wednesday mornings are not my time.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

That

motion would be moved by myself and seconded by the Premier.

SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY:

Thank you again, Mr. Speaker.

I am

pleased to take a few moments to welcome Mr. Robert Escott, or as we all, of

course, know him affectionately as Bob, to the position of Sergeant-at-Arms in

the House of Assembly. The Sergeant-at-Arms is the officer responsible for, as

we know, the security in the Chamber, for protecting all of us as MHAs and the

custodian of the mace.

Mr.

Speaker, I know all of us are used to seeing Mr. Escott outside the Chamber as

director of security services for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador,

and he has done a remarkable job.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER A. FUREY:

Over the years he has done

such an exceptional job of overseeing the security team for all of our buildings

and assisting with special guests to the Confederation Building. Most recently,

he received glowing reviews about the great work he did in assisting the prime

minister's team on their recent visit to the province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER A. FUREY:

Mr. Escott's role as director

of security services also saw him work alongside the Sergeant-as-Arms and the

staff for the House of Assembly so that the Legislature remained a save, secure

and accessible environment, especially during these times of COVID-19; a very

fitting experience for this new role.

Mr.

Escott's history with the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary makes him the perfect

fit as well. During more than two decades with the police force, Mr. Escott has

many years of experience in the patrol division and was promoted to sergeant in

Mr.

Escott epitomizes the motto to protect and serve, and I know he's certainly up

to the challenge as Sergeant-at-Arms for the House of Assembly. We are very

fortunate to have someone of his calibre and credentials with us. On behalf of

the government caucus, I want to congratulate him and officially welcome him

here to the House of Assembly.

Well

done, Sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

Speaker, thank you for this

opportunity.

congratulate Robert Hiscock – Escott. Sorry, Bob, I apologize for that.

I thank

the Government House Leader and the Premier for putting this forward. I've had

the privilege of knowing Bob, going back some 30 years, in my days when I rode

with the RNC and Bob was a young officer there. We crossed paths a number of

times and in sporting events and parts of his storied career with the RNC.

I had

more of an opportunity to get to know him a number of years ago when I had the

privilege of authorizing his hiring to come in here as part of the

administration and management of our security in the Confederation Building.

They were times when we were going through transitions around how we keep the

employees in this building safe, how we keep staff in the House of Assembly safe

and how we ensure that the MHAs are kept safe here, while at the same time

respecting the citizens of this provinces because it is their House and their

access to here. Finding ways that would be less intrusive for people to still be

able to be engaged in the Confederation Building, but, at the same time,

ensuring that everybody follows proper protocols.

With

Bob's knowledge and his background in security and police enforcement and

safety, he brought a new approach to things, a new knowledge. A very relaxed,

engaging ability to get the other staff and senior members of the bureaucracy to

make some changes that were in the best interests of everybody. Bob brings that

very engaging, easy set of skills that made this transition very easy.

We've

noticed how we've now changed to one point of entry into Confederation Building

where it's much easier for everyone to understand who's coming to the building,

who they're coming to see and the individuals coming in would know exactly their

roles and responsibilities as part of that. He brought that knowledge.

Now, we

elevate him to this level, as Sergeant-at-Arms for our security and for our

protection but, particularly, for the dignity that that role and that

responsibility brings to the House of Assembly. Bob, obviously, as a

professional all his life, brings that skill set, but brings that

acknowledgement that the House of Assembly is a place of importance for the

people of this province and should be seen and respected for that.

doubt, he made a decision to want to come to do that, coming into a role that he

was familiar with by seeing his former colleague partaking in that and taking

that responsibility on.

behalf of the PC caucus, I thank him for taking on that role. I thank him for

his career serving the people of this province. I thank him for his most recent

career in ensuring security in this building and for keeping all of us safe. But

I particularly thank him for taking on his new role. We look forward to him

helping guide us and keep us all safe as we go through the next number of years

sitting in the House of Assembly.

congratulations to Bob and welcome aboard.

Thank

you, Sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

J. DINN:

Thank you, Speaker.

It's

certainly my honour to say a few words about Bob and my relationship with him

goes way back before yours, Leader of the Official Opposition. We're of the same

vintage: Went to Holy Cross and graduated from Brother Rice at the same time. So

we're both Crusaders and Celtics. That's going back to 1976, by the way, so

that'll give you the length of it.

But we

went our own different ways: teaching university, and Bob went into the RNC, and

he's had a fine career in the process. But we're connected in other ways – I'll

get back to that. I did have the pleasure of teaching his son Daniel. I worked

with Daniel and his wife to start a radio station at Holy Heart, basically

Daniel and Helen's project. I was just there as the – what do you even call it –

arm candy, because I basically found a room for them. So there's a long

connection. It's interesting how we come back now after this, so many years

later here we are, we're back sort of in this Chamber and it's interesting how

life works out.

However,

Bob has had an extremely interesting career, when you look at it, with the

Canadian Armed Forces, a lieutenant; attended the Atlantic Police Academy in

Holland College; the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary; security with the Marine

Institute of Memorial University of Newfoundland and here in government.

Certainly we do feel safe with him when he was with the security. Always

friendly, always personable, always professional and, as I said, the fact that

he's a former Celtic and a Crusader, even more so.

He's

heavily involved in volunteer activities with cadets. He's also a saxophone

player, as I understand, with the Church Lads' Brigade and a classically trained

pianist.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

J. DINN:

So this is a man who brings

to this job skill sets that are beyond the requirements, but it shows the depth

and breadth of his interest in education and so on and so forth. Always

approachable, always friendly and certainly when in walks in the door and says

“all rise,” there is no mistaking it. There's no confusing his “all rise” with

the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands as well. But I'll say that he's outdone

that Member as well.

congratulations, a well-deserved promotion, and I'm sure we'll enjoy your time

here working together over the few months, years, whatever.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Lake

Melville.

P. TRIMPER:

Thank you, Speaker.

certainly wanted to say a few words. My history doesn't go back as far as my

previous colleague's, but it has been an interesting six years. I would like to

personally thank this gentleman for his support both inside this very room,

inside the precinct and back in my district. There are all kinds of issues that

arise. I've always found Bob to be very approachable, very responsive and very

professional.

Security

is an issue and we all have to realize that – I think back to my own community

where, when I first moved there, we never locked our doors. Well, we do now.

Times have changed, but this man has demonstrated in the capacities I've known

him and hearing my colleagues speak about his illustrious career; he's obviously

done an extremely good job. I was very pleased to see this appointment.

behalf of my family and I, Sir, congratulations very much.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Is the House ready for the

question?

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I call

from the Order Paper, Order 10, second reading of Bill 12,

An Act Respecting The

Renaming Of Red Indian Lake.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy

Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Speaker.

I'll

just take a few minutes here at the opening.

SPEAKER:

We need a mover and a

seconder, please

L. DEMPSTER:

I move, seconded by the

Government House Leader, that Bill 12 be now read a second time.

SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

Bill 12,

An Act Respecting The Renaming Of Indian Lake, be now read a second

time.

Motion,

second reading of a bill, “An Act Respecting The Renaming Of Red Indian Lake.”

(Bill 12)

SPEAKER:

The hon. Deputy Government

House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER:

Thank you.

We're

all having trouble on this Wednesday morning. That's three of us now, so maybe

that's it for the day.

I'd like

to take a few moments, Speaker, to speak to Bill 12,

An Act Respecting the

Renaming of Red Indian Lake. This is an important piece of legislation for our

government, Indigenous peoples and I might say, Speaker, all residents of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Renaming

Red Indian Lake is one several significant topics that we are discussing and

taking action on as a part of our journey towards reconciliation. I would like

to emphasize the point that reconciliation is not something we do for Indigenous

people. Reconciliation represents a belief in atoning for our past mistakes and

making good on our promise to listen, to learn and to do better. It is something

that every one of us must do.

Our

government, together with Indigenous leadership in this province, strongly

believe that conversations about history, places, discrimination and injustices

contribute to a greater understanding and awareness.

When we

commit to learning from our past and reflecting on having respectful

conversations, we are moving towards fulfilling our collective responsibility as

a people, and as a province to create, Speaker, a better future for everyone.

Speaker,

we are having those conversations with the Indigenous leadership in this

province. You've heard me say in this House on numerous occasions the Premier

and I meet weekly with the Indigenous leadership. We're extremely pleased with

the discussions that are taking place each and every week. We are sharing

information, learning from one another and gaining a greater understanding of

what it means to apply our efforts towards achieving reconciliation.

It was

during one of those meetings – with the passing of time they all blur together –

there was a discussion a few months ago where the topic of Red Indian Lake first

came up. We have been having conversations about options for coming up with a

respectful place for the remains of the two last known Beothuk in this province,

Demasduit and Nonosabasut. As a part of that process, many people discussed that

Central Newfoundland would be the ideal place for the final resting place.

Specifically, Speaker, the Red Indian Lake area.

The

reasoning for that is that the Beothuk inhabited several campsites on the shores

of that beautiful lake. I can say that with some first-hand experience after

visiting that area in May. It truly is a beautiful lake and a beautiful area.

Questions in that process around that time were raised about whether it is

proper to return the remains to a place which carries a name that is derogatory

and disrespectful to Indigenous people. The answer, Speaker, is a resounding no.

While we

continue to have discussions with Indigenous leadership on determining a resting

place for the Beothuk remains, our government is committed, together with

Indigenous leaders, to honour the legacy and history of a proud and resourceful

people.

With the

support of Indigenous leaders, earlier this year our government served notice in

the House of Assembly of plans to change the name of Red Indian Lake. I will

say, while our intentions were well meaning, we certainly came under criticism

and perhaps justifiably so, Speaker.

So we

returned to the table with Indigenous leaders. We heard the desire clearly for

consultation and there was a collective resolve to pause and reflect. Most here

would know that a joint statement from the Indigenous leaders and government

committed to a process where we would seek the views of interested organizations

and members of the general public who had an interest in the name of Red Indian

Lake.

Our

government carried out a consultation process to receive feedback and they were

comprised of a – there was a number of mechanisms whereby people were able to

have input. In-person public sessions were held back in May in the communities

of Buchans, Millertown and Buchans Junction. Myself, my deputy, my comms and a

number of people travelled out. The MHA for that area was present at all of

those sessions. A dedicated email address to receive written submissions was set

up. An online questionnaire was available from engageNL from May 18 to June 11.

I think

I'll share with the House a little bit, Speaker, of the feedback that we

received at that time. I will say, as I said earlier, I thoroughly enjoyed

travelling to those three communities, meeting with the people who live

alongside that lake. Although, I will confess, in hindsight, I probably would

not have gone in bare feet and sandals in May to spend several hours in a

stadium in Buchans. The next time I'll dress a little warmer.

Approximately 150 residents attended those four sessions over the two-day

period. So, clearly, there was a strong interest by the people who live in that

area. The lake is very important to the residents of that area and there is no

doubt that residents are attached to the name.

I can

appreciate that and I may have shared with some having a cottage of my own

that's on a lake where my grandfather put his first camp in 1936 and we built

next to it; we have an attachment. So I do respect peoples' attachment to a

place and a name.

There

were many residents, as the MHA would know, that had no interest in changing the

name of the lake, as it currently is now.

Our

goal, Speaker, with the consultation process was to ensure that everyone who had

a viewpoint on this question had an opportunity to share their thoughts. The

portal on the engageNL website provided that opportunity, and we did receive

more than 500 responses, so clearly there was a lot of interest in the topic.

So there

was, as I mentioned earlier, a lot of people that said: If it's not broken,

don't fix it; leave it as is. That was their view and we respect that, but a

considerable number of respondents also told us that the name Red Indian Lake is

colonial and carries racist overtones. They said the name represents negative

connotations for Indigenous peoples and that it is no longer acceptable.

Their

review was that a new name – if the name of the lake were to change – should

honour the Beothuk. Ranking second on the preference list of names was Beothuk

Lake and many also suggested Lake Beothuk, which I personally really like but

this was not about what I personally like. A range of other suggestions was also

received which linked the lake to the Beothuk in some form.

The next

step in our consultation process was to share the results of the feedback with

Indigenous leaders. I can tell you that the Premier and I, during more than one

meeting, has fulsome discussion with the Indigenous leaders. The Indigenous

leadership, in collaboration with government, carefully considered the number of

suggested names. There was an agreement among those folks that the name should

change. Some of the leaders were of the view that a name change was absolutely

necessary. Together, we arrived at the conclusion that Beothuk Lake should be

the new name for the lake.

Speaker,

this is the place where we have now arrived. Bill 12 proposes to rename Red

Indian Lake as Beothuk Lake.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

L. DEMPSTER:

Our government is not alone

in its pursuit to atone for past actions. We note that the professional football

team in Washington, Speaker, after considerable pressure from the public dropped

its name, Redskins. In Canada, the owners of a football team in Edmonton engaged

with Inuit governments and organizations and Inuk from Northern Canada and they

decided to part ways with the team's familiar, the Eskimos.

It is

important to state clearly that government and Indigenous leaders share the view

that Indigenous place names do contribute, Speaker, to reconciliation. Place

names are also integral to promoting diversity, inclusion, revitalization and

strengthening Indigenous histories, languages and cultures.

It is

important for everyone to understand that renaming the lake is part of a broader

commitment to work toward achieving reconciliation. I thought it would be

important that I take a couple of moments here this morning to outline some of

the other things, Speaker, for this House, what we are doing because this is not

just about let's go choose a lake and let's change a name.

Our

government is proceeding with plans to procure and erect a Beothuk statute. It

will be placed near the front entrance of Confederation Building, near the front

and a little to the right, if people want to spend time there and reflect, et

cetera.

announced a short time ago that we would observe a day for truth and

reconciliation. We've just had that day, Speaker, on September 30, where we

honoured survivors and we raised awareness about the terrible legacy of

residential schools in Canada, a legacy that is still being felt and impacted

and we see the effects of that even today.

In the

House of Assembly last week, we passed legislation to change the coat of arms.

We have rewritten the text of the centuries-old coat of arms to add Labrador to

the name and to remove the racist and disparaging references to savages.

Our

government is collaborating with Indigenous governments and organizations to

furnish a set of new murals for the lobby of Confederation Building. I will have

more to say on this later, but I'm excited. When I walk in now and I look up and

there are many panels that are just blank. We're working on a project with our

Indigenous leaders where the lobby is going to be much more inviting. When

Indigenous peoples visit this place, this seat of government, they will see

themselves when they come in.

We're

working in partnership again, Speaker, on this project. There's a lot of

dialogue happening between government and the Indigenous governments and

organizations. Each group will have their own mural out in the lobby.

I have a

great interest, Speaker, in the work that is under way to update the current

curriculum and devise new teachings on the culture, history and traditions of

Indigenous peoples in our province. I'll pause and say during my travels and

meetings around this province, it's been refreshing the number of non-Indigenous

people that have approached me and said: I want my children to learn, but

there's so little right now in the curriculum in a way of opportunity.

There's

a lot of work with this government. It's important, as my tone throughout, as

I've been speaking – I've tried – it's about educating people and it's only when

we understand some of the past that we can atone and move forward. There's a lot

of work that's happening around curriculum. Again, working closely with our

Indigenous peoples, governments and organizations.

We are

building on advances that have been made in describing the way of life of

Indigenous peoples in present-day Atlantic Canada, as well as exploring how

national policies, treaties and the Indian Act impacted the Indigenous peoples

of present-day Atlantic Canada.

keeping with Call 57, Speaker, of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission I am

working to develop and deliver training on Indigenous perspectives to elected

representatives, their staff and the public service. This will help again foster

deeper understanding and cultural awareness of the unique history and

perspectives of each community, and support the maintenance of respectful

relationships with Indigenous people in this province.

As my

colleagues sitting around me will know, First Light has already provided

training to Members on this side of the House. We had a wonderful day. It was

encouraging me to see my non-Indigenous colleagues very engaged and asking

questions and sometimes you could see revelations: I wasn't aware of that. So it

just drives home to me why so it's so important that we continue to build on the

work that we've already done in this area.

Chief

Joe – Saqamaw Misel Joe, recently, at one of our Cabinet meetings, began with a

prayer. Again, that was a first and just one of a number of initiatives that

we're going to embark on going forward.

interdepartmental committee made up of several departments of government is

reviewing historical monuments and observances. This comes from a belief that

all monuments and observances must be culturally appropriate, representative and

inclusive. If you follow the news at all, Speaker, not just this province but

across the country, we've heard much about statues and monuments and some that

have a very negative history attached and there's a lot of conversation

happening around that whole piece about: Do we remove them? Do we leave them

there? Do we add more information to the panels, et cetera?

example of this commitment can be found in the collaborative effort presently

under way and it's being led, Speaker, by The Rooms to change the name of the

Mary March Provincial Museum in Grand Falls-Windsor. Consultative discussions

will ensure that a new name is reflective of the content of the museum, its

history as a community museum and is respectful of efforts towards healing and

commemoration of Indigenous people's histories in this province.

Speaker,

this government not only wishes to advance reconciliation, but we intend to

combat and defeat racism in all its forms and manifestations. That is why this

government has established a Ministerial Committee on Anti-Racism. I'm very

pleased to sit on that committee, Mr. Speaker, along with my colleague, the

Minister of Justice and Public Safety, the Minister of Education sits on that

committee and also my minister of – I'm forgetting the name of his department.

The MHA for Corner Brook, since I can't say his name.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

L. DEMPSTER:

Yes, he's a fantastic guy, he

is.

recently introduced the work of that committee at the Premier's Indigenous

Leaders Roundtable, Speaker –

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I remind

the minister to stay relevant to the bill, please.

L. DEMPSTER:

After the round table,

Speaker, the MHA for Corner Brook and myself met with Qalipu First Nation and

the Newfoundland Aboriginal Women's Network to discuss racism, and we are well

on the way with our plan to meet with each of the 13 governments and

organizations that participated in the round table. I also note we are in the

process of organizing with the Innu in Labrador. The first meeting of the Innu

government anti-racism working group.

As I

prepare, Speaker, to wrap up my remarks, it is my sincere hope that I have been

able to outline – I took some extra time because there's been some controversy,

there's been lots of dialogue and there's been lots of discussion since May. So

that's why I wanted to take a little bit of extra time upfront to outline the

rationale to establish Beothuk Lake as the new name for Red Indian Lake. This is

what we need to do and this is what we are doing.

If we

truly believe, Speaker, that we have a responsibility to respect Indigenous

histories and strengthen our understanding of Indigenous languages and cultures,

there can be no other conclusion than to embrace the name of Beothuk Lake.

I have a

lot of respect and admiration for Murray Sinclair and I've been reading about a

lot of his work over the last number of weeks. Murray Sinclair, as most here

would know, led the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. He continues to remind

us where we have come from, where we must go and how to get there.

I'd like

to recite a quote, as I always do when I'm speaking or closing, that was

published – and my colleague the Minister for Health says we know, but sometimes

I've seen him recently pick up and follow as well. It was published by CBC

during an informative and wide-ranging interview.

So this

was what Murray Sinclair said, and it's powerful. He said: I did say at the end

of the Truth and Reconciliation report that we will not achieve reconciliation

in my lifetime. We will probably not achieve it in the lifetime of my children.

We may not even achieve it in the lifetime of my grandchildren. But if we make a

concerted effort then, eventually, we will be able someday to wake up and, to

our surprise, find that we are treating each other in a way that was intended

when contact was first made.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Speaker.

It's

indeed an honour to speak in this House again, particularly around an important

issue that's directly connected to reconciliation and acknowledging our

Indigenous communities.

important role that we all play in this Legislature but that every citizen in

this province plays in acknowledging our past, learning from it and ensuring

that we rectify things from the past and that we put the supports in place that

it can never be duplicated again. We have to ensure that all citizens in this

province are accepted as equals and all are respected for their culture, their

particular past, but particularly, that they are all equal when looking for a

prosperous future.

I want

to take a moment, this past week I have taken on a different role as the

Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation critic, but I want to acknowledge our

former critic very diligently outlined to our caucus and to the House of

Assembly a number of issues relevant to Indigenous communities and around

reconciliation and what real reconciliation is all about.

As I

heard those stories and reflected on my minimal knowledge of what has happened

in the past in our province, what's still continuing to happen but, more

importantly, what we need to do, as a society, to ensure it doesn't continue

into the future. It made me realize that, while changing names and symbols is

very important, because it's important to acknowledge what in the past hasn't

been in the right respect for individuals, particularly Indigenous communities,

and was disrespectful of their culture and their heritage and them as the

original settlers of this great province of ours, it made me think it's

important to acknowledge that, but there is a bigger picture here. We've heard

it in this House of Assembly; we've heard it from our Indigenous leaders: we

need to take action.

It's one

to be respectful of what has happened; it's one to get an understanding; it's

another to educate everyone about it. But all of it means very little if we

don't take the appropriate action to address, to solve and to ensure that

there's a better quality of life for all involved. Particularly, as we look at

the Indigenous communities in our province and as we look towards

reconciliation.

I'm

happy to say that we're moving in the right direction. We've made small steps,

and that's what we've made, small steps, but I think significant steps. Changing

our coat of arms is a significant step in acknowledging that the past was out of

touch with what would be acceptable in today's society, or what should have been

acceptable in any society at the time; a better process of engaging with the

Indigenous leaders and the Indigenous communities, but a better understanding

that all that means very little if we don't take serious action. Serious action

is about addressing the particular needs in an Indigenous community here.

Changing

the name of a lake is acknowledgement that perhaps former generations, a

mentality wasn't were it should be in society and that there was disrespect and

injustice done to the first settlers of this great province of ours.

As we

move forward now, discussion has to be around what are the other things that we

need to do? What are things that are important in this process? To really make

any strides and to really show that this is an inclusive process and that we

need to make sure all Indigenous leaders, all Indigenous communities, all

Indigenous individuals and the rest of our society, all of those who live in the

same communities, all of those who work with them, all of them who are family

members feel they're one in the same and that their same objective should be to

make a better life for everybody in this province.

You

know, it's unfortunate that hundreds of years ago the Beothuk were in this

province and unfortunate that they were annihilated. We only know a small part

of the history. That's the unfortunate part, we only know a small part of the

history, their culture and what they contributed here; their own personal

beliefs, all of this.

We get

it from some of our particular parts of the research that's been done but it

doesn't really spell out the full story here and it's unfortunate. There's a gap

there to really understand what this culture was all about and the impact and

the importance to this great province of ours that the Beothuk individuals and

Indigenous peoples had.

My issue

becomes around, as I led into, we need to move forward in the right process. My

challenge with where we've gotten now is unfortunate. I just want to note this,

not to be in any way derogatory about how it was handled but to ensure again –

and my whole speech will be around we have to ensure that we don't cause more

havoc or more trouble when we're trying to do the right thing through

reconciliation and inclusion and acceptance in our society by not thinking what

is the best approach forward.

It's

unfortunate through the consultation process that it became a national

spectacle. It didn't need to be, had we thought it out a little bit more. I

understand the minister has accepted things didn't go the way – it didn't put in

play the way it should have at the beginning. I understand that and accept that.

Newfoundland and Labrador have too many good things for us to be embarrassed by

not handling this. I do think – no I don't think, I know – every Newfoundlander

and Labradorian feels the same way, that we're all one. We may have different

views on how we do it, we may support our own community over others but our

instinctive belief should be that everybody should be treated as equal as

possible and should have access to services and amenities and respect, more

importantly, equally across the board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL:

I know that echoes in this

House of Assembly. Even when we debate and disagree on policy and procedures and

processes, at the end of the day, the intent here is to do what's best for the

people of this province.

Well, we

have an opportunity over the next coming years to do what's right for this

province in a number of ways, but particularly a segment of our society who've

been segregated, disrespected, not included, and that would be our Indigenous

communities here.

The best

way to do that is acknowledge that we've learned from the past. We've learned

from the historic past, but we need to learn from the immediate past on how we

dealt with this particular situation now.

Enforcing something on people or not including people in the proper manner will

only get you push back and will only cause more havoc. We've seen that in this

situation.

I'm glad

we've gotten to a point where there was more consultation, open dialogue, a more

respectful approach to all included. Because our society is not only about our

Indigenous communities, it's about our settlers here, too. We have to find the

mechanism; we have to ensure the mechanism is there, that we're all one in the

same, we're all treated equally and we're all respected as equals.

To do

that, we need to make sure there's a proper mechanism. To me, it's not beyond

the concept of designing a mechanism for everything that we would do. This may

have been the test case around – probably we were overzealous because everybody

wanted to do the right thing.

Reconciliation needed to be done. We wanted to show our Indigenous communities

that we support them, that we're starting to understand their plight in life. We

may never be able to really understand what some of these communities, some of

these individuals have gone through because we haven't lived it, but in true

reconciliation, to have the discussion around how we best approach and deal with

those situations. You do not want to put a wedge between any part of our society

and another part. You want to do the opposite.

It's

much harder to deal with this, than it is with this in life. So we need to find

ways where the holding of hands and the sharing of information and the education

and the understanding and the respect is the approach we take to ensure that our

society is one and the same and we address the issues.

When we

talk about – and I mentioned it earlier – symbols and names, it's important to

acknowledge where they are disrespectful for any individual. But, particularly,

in this case and we've seen examples nationally and internationally, where names

or symbols or statues of individuals or events were disrespectful for our

Indigenous communities. The fact that we're moving in the right direction gives

me a sense of hope that we will heal, this community will heal and we will stand

as one. We will ensure that all of our society understands the past, embraces

the present, but looks forward to a very inclusive future as one society.

I do

want to keep encouraging to ensure that we've learned. I know on this side we've

had our conversations about what we do and what we have to do that any mechanism

that we talk about, any issue that's in this province but particularly if it's

around reconciliation and our Indigenous communities or any disenfranchised

sector of our society, until we make all parts of our society equal and that the

mechanism is fair and transparent for all, we need to ensure that we just don't

do what we think is the best political thing because whatever time you think is

the best political thing ends up being the wrong thing. We've seen that too

often in our society.

As we

look at moving forward and as we look at understanding what reconciliation

really means, I mean, we can say it as individuals who haven't lived the life

that a number of our Indigenous friends and communities have, reconciliation has

to be a bigger picture. I think one of the biggest parts has to start with our

understanding of what's gone on, our acceptance that it was the wrong thing, our

education on how we address it, but particularly – and I'll stress this – our

actions to the future speak volumes.

Those

actions have to be inclusive for all of our society if they're to be effective

and get the desired result. The desired result is that we have a better society

and a better understanding of each part of our society and our cultures and a

more inclusive part so future issues like this don't surface. We've dealt with

the situations, we have an acceptance, we have an understanding, we're all as

part as equals and that works well.

We have

some work to do to catch up in Indigenous communities. We have a lot of work to

do to catch up. We know they've been marginalized, disenfranchised. They've

actually done without particular services and that. So we have to find a way to

engage that process.

I know

over the last number of years we've looked towards self-governance, which is a

great move forward. But as we do that, we also have to ensure that through

self-governance, the lines of communication are open. As identified issues are

put forward, as solutions are put forward, there isn't red tape and stumbling

blocks and delays, to ensure that our society moves to the next level and we've

done what we've tried to do in identifying how we improve the state of our

Indigenous people and how we improve the fact around reconciliation.

I do

want to say, at the end of the day, that while the process at the beginning

caused some dysfunctional, probably, division among people, I think since the

discussions and the approach changed after and opened more discussion among

settlers in particular regions – because people have a different attachment to

everything more than other people would have and we have to respect all the

people's understanding and their attachment to a particular situation, an event,

in this case, a lake and what it means for them. But I'm confident that people

now have a better understanding that we have a role to play in reconciliation, a

role to play in better education of our past and a role to play to make sure our

society is better. This is a first step towards that in looking at this process.

Since

after the dialogue, coming back and coming to a consensus – or at least a

discussion. We may never ever all come to a consensus on what we think is the

best name, or the best location or the best policy. But in this case, in

reflecting on it from my own personal view, I think from a respectful point of

view, from an engagement point of view and from a reconciliation point of view,

the renaming of Red Indian Lake to Beothuk Lake, I think, is in the proper modem

and the proper manner to start the next level of reconciliation, acknowledgement

and understanding in education about our past and how we rectify parts of the

past, but, more importantly, how we plan for the future.

So,

Speaker, I'm glad to say I will support the name change and I think Beothuk Lake

is respectful of the Beothuk culture and the Indigenous community, particularly

in Central and Western Newfoundland and Labrador. I look forward to hearing from

my colleagues on both sides of the House as we move this important issue forward

and as we look at the bigger picture of reconciliation and action to improve all

of our stake in our society, but particularly the services and needs of our

Indigenous communities.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Grand

Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS:

Thank you very much, Speaker.

It's a

great opportunity to speak on this today. Of course, Red Indian Lake is in my

district and the people up there they love it, and if anybody has never visited

I encourage you to do so. It's absolutely beautiful.

Speaker,

I'll give my opinion right now: Reconciliation, in my own opinion, recognizes

the injustice and wrongs of our past, addressing those injustices to both heal

and to ensure these mistakes never happen again. In my opinion, the Indigenous

people of our province represent a very important link to our past, as well as

they are a very important bridge to our future.

Speaker,

I attended all of the consultations just as the minister did. Sometimes I think

that there were different meetings taking place – we were attending different

meetings. I'll just go over a couple of things and I truly believe the process

was flawed from the beginning, but there was a part of the process flawed that

came about in Buchans-Millertown and in Buchans Junction as well.

These

are facts. These are not my opinions, but these are facts. Upon these

consultations, there were many people who were against this whole process,

against the name change of the lake at all. Former Liberal MHA Graham Flight

made it be known in no uncertain terms. Former Liberal MP Scott Simms, the same

thing. More importantly, Speaker, many Indigenous people around the lake said

the same thing. Again, these are facts; they are not my opinions. I'm just

putting the facts out there today.

When the

minister had these consultations with her team – and we thank them for coming

up. Of course, they were asked several times: Is the name of the lake changing

for sure? Unequivocally, they were told no, that's why they were there to do the

consultations to get the feedback to see where the public were going with this.

I argue

that the process that they used created so much conflict, confusion and

controversy that could have been avoided from the start. That's what we're

talking about here today, Speaker. If at that point somebody on the minister's

team had to have stood in their place and said: Absolutely, we feel as though it

is the right thing to do; we are changing the name of the lake for

reconciliation purposes. That conversation could have taken a different angle

right from that moment, and we could have went through this process much more

diligently than we have right up until even now.

I truly

believe that honesty should have been the best policy on that day for the

consultations. Why didn't they just stand and say: You know what? We are

changing the name of the lake, but we want to hear other recommendations. That

is not what the people that I represent were told on that day. They were told

decisions have not been made yet; that's why they were there.

Some

Mi'kmaq felt targeted from this process; the people that settled around the

lake, they felt slighted. They are the ones that have kept the Beothuk memory

alive, and we want to thank them for that because they have been doing it for

over 40 years on a volunteer basis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

C. TIBBS:

Speaker, the minister this

morning talked about the plans for government when it comes to reconciliation. I

applaud that. But I'm going to talk about some more things that the government

hasn't done for reconciliation so far.

Up on

Red Indian Lake we have a point, it's a little isthmus; it's a beautiful point.

I encourage anybody to visit at any time. It's a National Historic Site

recognized by Parks Canada. It's the only site with mamateek replicas on the

land of the Beothuk winter home. Many real mamateeks were discovered there,

examined and those artifacts were taken to St. John's.

This

site has been washing away for years due to high-water levels and lack of

protection. It has been taken care of, again, by the Heritage Society there and

the people throughout Millertown and around Red Indian Lake. I have sent, about

a little over a year ago, a request for a special assistance grant to get some

simple ditching done that would save this point and the artifacts and what it

represents.

I helped

the people of Millertown form this together. We sent it off to government, a

simple ask to save this point – denied. Denied, Speaker, after 40 years of

trying to save it: denied.

When I

got the denial email back, I wrote – and I quote, this is from myself, Speaker:

“We were recently informed of the department's decision to deny a grant to fix

and maintain” the point on Red Indian Lake. This point in Millertown “is one of

the most influential places in Newfoundland and Labrador where Beothuk

civilization made their home. The history and artifacts collected from this

important landmark are extensive and extremely important to our history” here in

Newfoundland and Labrador. “The washouts that are happening here are also

washing away the prevalent history of our heritage. We were very disappointed to

learn of our denied request for a special assistance grant to help preserve the

culture of the Beothuk people which in turn will negatively affect the tourism

industry in Millertown.

“Could

you please provide me with a reason for denial, how much money is allocated for

these grants” –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I gave

the minister lenience on the issue and I'm giving the Member a little lenience,

too.

C. TIBBS:

I'd just like to say –

SPEAKER:

Continue.

C. TIBBS:

Thank you, Speaker.

Could

you please ensure a valuable reason why it was denied? Nothing back.

Indian

Point since then, just over a year ago, is more washed away again and who knows

what artifacts are still there.

One

other example – and it's an Indigenous business owner – Fred Thorne is a

card-carrying, proud Indigenous business owner who runs an outfitting business

around Red Indian Lake and his name is Red Indian Lake Outfitters. He has been

struggling to get help from this government for years and years and years to

help him and his business be successful – struggling, Speaker.

So if

we're going to stand up today and talk about the things that we want to do and

help the Indigenous people throughout this province, whether it be food security

on the North Coast or the mental health issues that afflict our Indigenous

communities that are still ongoing, let's focus on some real things.

I don't

oppose what we're doing for reconciliation, I'm just wondering why Red Indian

Lake, the name change, gets a lot of attention, gets a lot of resources, which

it should, but why not the point, which preserves these artifacts, which I have

tried, and the people of Millertown have tried to preserve? That's not going to

get a big clip on the national news, but it's going to help the Indigenous

people. It's going to help preserve the memory of the Beothuk people in Red

Indian Lake: denied.

Speaker,

this has been ongoing for some time now. We have heard we want to do the

reconciliation; we want to be champions for the reconciliation throughout this

country. I, too, want to be a champion for reconciliation throughout this

country. But we have many Indigenous groups and people throughout this province;

we need to listen to them as well.

applaud the minister and the Premier for getting on these weekly calls that they

applaud themselves for as well, but we have Indigenous people throughout the

whole province that have a voice as well. I want to ensure that they are heard.

The

name, Beothuk Lake, it's much better than what was first considered, but from

here out, I would ask the government to make better decisions in regards to the

process of reconciliation. Divide and conquer – which is exactly what was done

here in the past year in my district through non-consultation with the people

that we represent – is not good enough. I demand better and we should all demand

better when it comes to these processes.

I'm here

today, Speaker, to speak on behalf of the people I represent. But as 40 MHAs, we

represent all of Newfoundland and Labrador and reconciliation is very important

to all of us. I guarantee it's important to all 40 MHAs, this side and that

side, but the process by way of means that we are doing it through, it's not

right. It's flawed. It's completely flawed.

When the

minister and her team stood up in Buchans and Millertown, Buchans Junction,

sorry, and told the people that they were waiting to hear from: Nope, this is

not changing, we are here to hear from you. Again, if they had just been honest

– because nothing changed from then until now – and said: We are completely

changing this name. That conversation would have taken a total different

direction, which is the way it should.

So I'm

calling on government to be more honest with ourselves moving forward and be

honest with the people that we're looking to represent.

Beothuk

Lake – much better than what was first introduced. But I speak on behalf of all

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians when I say: Have better engagement. We can do

better. We're not here to represent ourselves. We're here to represent the

people, the other 530,000 people out there. That's what we need to do better. We

need to listen to them better. We need better interaction and we need to be more

in touch with these people.

Beothuk Lake, again, much better than what was first considered, but I ask that,

please, have more respect for the people that we represent, Indigenous and

non-Indigenous, have respect for those people.

We'll

stand here today, Mr. Speaker, and we'll vote on this and we'll all do our best

and we'll all work towards reconciliation. It's never a combative thing.

Reconciliation should always be 40 MHAs working towards the one goal, and I know

I'll do my part, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

the government: Do better with your process from here on out.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Exploits.

P. FORSEY:

Thank you, Speaker.

Again,

this morning, it's great to be in this House of Assembly and speaking on behalf

of the Exploits District. Being from the Exploits District, of course, it's a

place where the Beothuk called home. They combed the Exploits River, so this

gives me a great time this morning to certainly reconcile and reflect on the

past, especially on the Indigenous and the Beothuk people.

Mr.

Speaker – Speaker, sorry; I'll get used to it. We are proud of the heritage of

the Beothuks. They settled along the Exploits River system. Red Indian Lake, of

course, is the headwaters for the Exploits system and that's where the Beothuk

made their home in the wintertime. That's where they spent most of their time.

They started their villages there. During that time, Speaker, they built and

fished along the Exploits River system.

Not only

that, during the summer, they expanded. They travelled from the Red Indian Lake

area, from the interior, out towards the sea so they could fish the salt waters

and use that during the summer. They expanded from Green Bay right to Gander Bay

and beyond. Actually, it's proven, with regard to reconciliation, some has

probably been done in the past before our time here in the House of Assembly. I

know that over in the Baie Verte-Springdale district, they have the Beothuk

Trail which they adopted, which is great to reflect and reconcile part of the

Indigenous ways and the Beothuk people. It's great to see that they've

recognized Beothuks in that way.

Not only

that from down your way, Speaker, Lewisporte-Twillingate, they have the Beothuk

Interpretation Centre, which is another way of reconciliation of recognizing

those people. It's great that those initiatives are being done. It's something

that we need to do. We need to reconcile; we need to reflect. In those ways, we

can do that.

course, renaming of Red Indian Lake now is becoming another process that we can

show some reconciliation on that. We are proud of the history again, Speaker, of

the Beothuks. We learned about it in our school system. When I went to school

anyway, we always learned about the Beothuks, how they travelled the Exploits

River, how they did things, right down as far as Exploits Bay, again, right out

into the Notre Dame Bay and those areas. Those people, we're proud to think back

on those places.

Really,

when it comes to renaming of the Red Indian Lake, the name should depict and

represent the Beothuk people. Again, like I said, they were the ones that

started the interior in regard to villages, in regard to Red Indian Lake on the

Exploits River so it should depict the heritage of the Beothuk people.

I've

heard basically the Beothuk Lake would be introduced as the name, and that is a

fitting name for the lake. If it has to be changed, that certainly would be a

fitting name. I did hear a couple of more names thrown in there, and the

minister did mention one, Lake Beothuk, of course. I've heard Red Ochre Lake

would be another one,

whereas the Beothuk would use the red ochre that was

depicted in around the lake. The red ochre they used that for paint during their

celebrations or whatever they did, that's what they did for that part and that

was from the red ochre. So that was another name that was depicted. But most of

all I think Beothuk Lake would be fitting.

However,

again, as the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans did allude to, it's the

process of renaming the lake. First of all, the first we heard about it, I know

both of us probably looked at each other the same time, because the first time

we heard about renaming of the lake was right here in the House of Assembly when

it was brought to the floor, you know, they were going to bring in legislation

to rename Red Indian Lake. We didn't hear about this before. We weren't

consulted. Nobody told us. We didn't know what was going on there. So that

probably was an insult to the people in the Central area that would've proud,

would've been really engaged in being a part of renaming their heritage, because

they are very proud of that heritage.

So the

process was wrong; there were no discussions with the Millertown area, with the

Buchans area or with the Exploits District area. I've heard it down in Botwood,

I've heard it in Bishop Falls, you know, on the streets and the gas station:

What are they doing to Red Indian Lake? What are they going to do? What are they

going to name it? B'y, I don't know right now. I can't tell you, we haven't had

any consultation. So the process there was flawed; it really was, because they

felt that they needed to be part of something that they'd been a part of for

years. They combed those woods and wilderness the same as the Beothuk did.

They're proud to stand on the same ground that the Beothuk stood on and they

are.

But the

process wasn't right, to not engage the people in that area of being able to be

a part of that process and want to have some initiative into what we name that

lake and how we proceed. All of us and everybody in the area believe in

reconciliation. They believe that everybody matters, not only every child

matters, but everybody matters. What was done in the past was wrong. There are

things we can do to change it, of course, and as we move along doing those

things of reconciliation, it will help us heal and we need to do that.

So,

Speaker, I just wanted to touch on the part of the Beothuks and why the Beothuk

name would be more fitting to that lake if it's got to be changed from Red

Indian Lake to another name. I think Beothuk Lake would be more fitting today.

Thank

you, Speaker, for having this time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

J. BROWN:

Thank you, Speaker.

It's a

privilege to speak here today and it's very important that we do speak to this.

Like they say, reconciliation is not a word; it's a mindset. It's an important

mindset that we all have to have as Members of this Legislature because it's an

important thing. Historically, we see a lot of names, places and things that

were brought over here when the area was settled.

You see

it really a lot here on the Island, but especially in Labrador, as well. The

biggest example, the most glaring example, is the Churchill River. That name was

changed whenever or which way, I guess, the colonial wind blew. It was Hamilton

River; now it's Churchill River.

It was

always Grand River and there was a reason it was called Grand River, and I'm

sure the Member for Lake Melville (inaudible). It was the biggest river in the

is the Innu word for it.

If we're

going to talk about reconciliation and setting rights of wrongs, you know, we

can even start in Labrador with the Churchill River. That was only changed on a

whim, on a personal want of a former premier.

We have

a lot of wrongs to right in this province. We have a lot of work to do. There

are a lot of things that we can all work towards as individuals, as people and

as Legislators to correct those things. Some people who don't understand may not

see why these things are wrong. It's important that we educate and support

because for Indigenous people it's a constant reminder of a lost culture, a lost

place, a lost piece of their heritage. It's important that we help them

rediscover it with them. It's a journey we all have to take together. It's going

to take all of us to do it. It's not going to be just one government, one

person, one individual; it's a collective of this entire province.

Growing

up in Lab West, when we had the Labrador school board, we were lucky in the

sense that our curriculum was a pan-Labrador curriculum. It did have a very

large emphasis on Labrador culture, Indigenous culture and that. I was lucky in

that sense. But when I would come, as a teenager, and visit my family on the

Island and I'd talk about something or anything like that, they used to tell me:

We didn't learn about that in school.

I always

found it very shocking that, while I'm growing up in Labrador, I was learning

about Indigenous culture, Labrador way of life, the importance of those kind of

things. On the Island, they weren't learning about that. I found it very

shocking that a huge chunk of this population's culture and heritage and the

richness that it is was not being taught to groups of children on the Island. I

always found that very shocking that I had the benefit to learn about Labrador's

way of life and culture and Indigenous people there but it wasn't being shared

to entire province.

I think

that's a good start that we also have to take is when we're talking about

reconciliation and finding lost culture and importance of bringing attention to

it, we also have to start with our school system. Start with teaching children

that we're not a monoculture place; we are a very rich fabric of different

cultures in this province.

We have

so much beauty and wonderful things here that we need to share with everybody so

we all understand each other. That's another thing, too. We all have to

understand where everyone is coming from. We have to understand why some

cultures do this and some other cultures do that. It's because of ways of life

that we all have passed down to us.

I was

also very lucky, too, in a sense, when I lived in Goose Bay. I met my wife. My

wife is an Inuit woman from Cartwright. I was just a kid from Lab City so it was

a bit of a culture clash that way, too, but I got lucky enough to be married

into an Indigenous family. I will tell you one thing, there are things that I

did not know, that I should have know. There were things that I wish I learned

earlier in life. I'm very luck that I had the opportunity to learn about the

Indigenous people of Labrador through their own eyes because it's not what it

seems.

There

are a lot of wrongs there. There were a lot of things that were done to the

Indigenous people of Labrador that people do not realize. They were denied

services, they were denied things that we all take for granted and they are only

recovering their culture now. We are very lucky that we are going to start down

this path but we have to stay on this path. We have to accept that it has to be

done and we have to accept, as a province, collectively, we did a lot of people

wrong and we have to make up those things.

Changing

the name of a lake is a good first step, but like the hon. Member that just

spoke and talked about the historic artifact site washing away: that is

something that needs to be corrected. Bringing services to Indigenous

communities in Labrador: that should be on the very, very top of the list

because that's a historical wrong that has been perpetuated far a very, very

long time. That is reconciliation.

That is

the very part of reconciliation, is bringing things to the people that were

denied it. We have a long road but it's an important road and we should all take

it together, collectively, and with the best intentions in our heart because we

must do this. We have no choice because, right now, we have to correct wrongs of

our past and accept those wrongs.

Just

look at the Truth and Reconciliation, Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and

Girls, these are things that – lights are being shone in dark corners of our

past and now we must accept them, take them into our hearts and do the right

things and that's where we go, collectively.

I can't

stress it enough, we need to make sure that our children and our children's

children understand what happened and why it will never happen again and put in

the safeguards so it can never happen again.

always portray the friendly province, the province that is there, but there are

a lot of issues in our society. There's a lot of racism. There's a lot of

exclusion. We need to work together to address those things.

I do

applaud the minister on the task force. That's a good first step into

recognizing that we're not perfect. We have flaws. We have a lot of flaws but we

must take every effort, as a society, as a group, as a collective to address

those flaws and make sure that people understand other cultures, other peoples,

other ways of life, other religions so that way we can live in peace and

harmony. Everyone is included and everyone feels like they have a purpose and a

belonging to this place.

I've

been very privileged, Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of Filipinos living in my

district; wonderful people, very friendly. Very nice people who make excellent

food; they are so welcoming, so kind. If it wasn't for that recent group of

people immigrating to Lab West, it opened a lot of doors. It made people talk

and realize that some of their behaviours, some of the ways they speak, some of

the things that they did was not very kind. It wasn't very inclusive.

We've

learned and we grew as a group. I want to take that and encourage all corners of

this province to take a moment and realize maybe some of the things we say are

wrong, maybe some of the things we do are wrong. It doesn't mean you're a bad

person but it gives you an opportunity to grow and change as an individual.

That's

what I feel here today, we are going to do the right thing. Changing the name of

that lake, that's a right thing. It helps us all grow as a people, as a

Legislature, as a group of 40 here in the House of Assembly that we are

embarking on the right path, but we have to keep it up. We have to keep the

steady pace. We have to make sure that we talk to our Indigenous communities and

their leaders. Like the Member said there, even just everyday folk that are

members of those communities that may not engage 100 per cent with their own

community but they have an opinion or a recommendation or even an example or

something that maybe we missed.

This is

important and those other tasks are important. We all have to take it into our

hearts. It's not something we do; it's something we have to believe. We have to

believe in the right thing.

With

that, Speaker, thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

J. DINN:

Thank you, Speaker.

I'll be

supporting this. It's interesting – I don't know if we've had the opportunity to

read Thomas King's The Truth About Stories ,

or listen to the Massey lecture series where he spoke on this. But he did make a

note of the fact that the truth about stories is that that's all we are. In many

ways, that's what we are discussing here: the stories we tell. It is the facts

and then there's the narrative.

Another

Indigenous person said, something I don't think that occurs to settlers is that

Indigenous people already are living in a post-apocalyptic world. There are

plenty of series, books about a post-apocalyptic world that are out there as to

what civilization would be like after an apocalypse which devastates the society

that is present.

But even

framing it in that way, challenges the narrative, Speaker. I would say that for

many people, the westerns that were put out by Hollywood certainly created the

narrative of how the west was won.

Thomas King's book, he describes of how, as sort of the whole need to preserve

Indigenous culture because it was dying out. It wasn't. It was transforming; it

was changing. But it hadn't vanished. That was another narrative.

So here

we are looking at changing names, and names are important as well. Back on May

3, I wrote the minister at the time about the name change. At that time, it came

out on the news that they were looking at renaming it Peaceful Lake or Peaceful

Waters.

So I'll

just read a few ideas from that that I had said at that time. I do support the

idea; I did say it was a misstep to announce the renaming without adequate

consultation. But it's positive to see, at least now, that this will now take

place and that the Newfoundland and Labrador Geographical Names Board will have

an active role.

Consultation can be long and difficult, but I will tell you it makes for better

decisions – it makes for better decisions. The rationale for changing the name

has merit, but there are many other places too – Indian Arm Pond, Indian River –

where the rationale equally applies. Then there's Lake Michikamau – I think it's

Innu origin – which was absorbed into the Smallwood Reservoir. Obliterated in

name and in geographical formation. And then, as my colleague from Labrador West

said, the Churchill River. Then if it's about reconciliation, we're not stopping

with the renaming of Red Indian Lake, but we have other geographical areas as

well that we're going to look at.

I taught

where I was able to teach about – very much my own choice there – the history of

the Beothuks and the culture and so on and so forth, and the literature around

that. So I did have access to Ken Pittman's

Finding Mary March , Peter Such's book

Riverrun and a number of other pieces of literature in the anthology

that was provided. It was important to me.

So, part

of reconciliation then, if we're looking at the curriculum, and maybe that needs

to be part of it throughout the curriculum about honouring the past and

recognizing the narratives and telling the story that needs to be told.

I also

believe that in renaming the lake it should at least recognize and pay homage to

the people who originally inhabited its shores. Now, as imperfect as the current

name is, it at least acknowledges the existence of the Beothuk people and their

tragic history as a result of their contact with European settlers. They are the

victims of that post-apocalyptic world.

That

existence in history – if we had named it Peaceful Lake, I do believe that it

would've erased that history, that existence. I think it's important not only in

remembering the people who lived there, but also the tragic consequences of that

contact with European settlers.

Now,

unfortunately, I would loved to see something of Beothuk language or a term, a

word but there is not much of the Beothuk vocabulary extant. Although some

research suggests that it's closely related to the Innu language. Still I think

and, at that time, I suggested it still would be more appropriate to rename it

something using a Beothuk term, even if it is called Lake of the Beothuk. Now I

hear the minister would prefer Lake Beothuk; I like to think maybe I had some

influence, or something similar. But I think the name Beothuk has got to be

there or some reference to the people who made their lives, lived, died, raised

their families there and vanished.

keeping with what my colleague from Grand Falls-Windsor pointed out, we have to

go beyond that. Shanawdithit, the last Beothuk, was buried on the south side of

St. John's; you'd be hard-pressed to find where it is right now. The site was

plowed under; I think there is a small plaque next to where the current

wastewater treatment plant exists. I'm thinking should we not make this a more

prominent monument, replete with historical storyboards in her memory and in

memory of the Beothuk people. A plaque does exist in Bannerman Park but

something near where she was buried might be more significant as well to honour.

suggest that at that time, for that matter, why not install a statue on the

grounds of the Confederation Building in honour of the Beothuk people. So, to

me, we've got to go beyond the name change. Changing the name, yes, it is time;

it is overdue some people would argue. But I think we also have to walk the talk

as well. So if there is a historical site where the Beothuk people lived and if

it is an important part of reconciliation, then we should put the resources into

preserving that as well to honour the people who occupied this land before we

came. We can do all the land acknowledgments we like, but I think we have an

opportunity to put something concrete, Speaker, not only in the historical sites

and preserving them but also making it a part of the curriculum. Not as an

option, as it was at my time. It was really up to me as a teacher.

I will

support this, but there's more to be done. My only comment or suggestion, since

we've been asked for suggestions, is make sure that we continue with an

intensive consultation process and that we look at ways – it will make for

better decisions. It will be longer, it will probably be more discussion, but I

think it will make for better decisions.

Secondly, let's look at the provincial curriculum and bring Indigenous peoples

into designing that curriculum for the province and make it a requirement, if

that's what we're serious about.

Finally,

if we have historical sites and people apply for funding to restore them or to

keep them from being eroded, I think that's a small price to pay – or a small

investment, I should say – in preserving those historical sites until we have

time to determine where else we're going with them. But preserve our history; do

more than change the name.

I will

support it. I applaud the fact that at least there was some consultation here,

but we've got more to do and a long road ahead of us in terms of

reconciliations. These are important first steps, but they are first steps.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm just

going to take a few minutes to make some comments on this bill. Like every other

Member in this House of Assembly, I'm going to support it because it's,

obviously, the right thing to do.

I, too,

have some concerns. From what I've heard – I'm not as close to it, obviously, as

the Member from Grand-Falls - Buchans and the Member for Exploits, but I did

receive some feedback from people from that area who had some, I guess, issues

with the process.

I don't

want to beat a dead horse and beat up on the minister. I think we all understand

and all acknowledge, perhaps, that the process wasn't perhaps thought out the

way that it should have been and to come prematurely with a name without going

through the proper consultation process was, obviously, not a good idea. I think

we have to learn from that and do better in the future. That's all I'll say

about that.

It is

unfortunate, though, that – I think we need to be really sensitive about this on

all sides whenever we're doing these things because I think it's important that

as we're going down this road of reconciliation and we're making various changes

throughout the province, that we need to try to be very sensitive of the

feelings of all people involved. Obviously, our Indigenous people, they have to

be top priority, obviously.

But I

think it's also important that when we engage with other citizens who may be

impacted, in this case, citizens in the Millertown area, citizens who live in

the area of Red Indian Lake, volunteers who have volunteered over the years to

try to preserve the memory of the Beothuk people and so on, it's important that

we bear in mind that they have views and opinions and they're very passionate

about some of those issues. We have to be sensitive to ensuring that they are

included in the conversations, that their views are taken into account and that

they are truly educated as to exactly what the intention is from the outset of

the process and the reasons for it.

I don't

think it helps the cause of reconciliation when we get into a confrontation

where people feel, perhaps people who may or may not be part of the Indigenous

community but have a certain affiliation, a tie to a particular area or whatever

the case might be, I don't think it helps the process if we feel like we're

butting heads. That somehow their views are just being sort of shot down as

well, you're not being sensitive to the needs of the Indigenous community or

somehow you are racist and so on because you feel strongly about a particular

name. I don't think that helps. I really don't.

We must

recognize, we have a long history and somebody has said – I think it was my

colleague from Lab West, talked about the whole concept of how we all grow over

time as individuals in our views, as we become more informed, more educated.

I can

look back at, and I'm sure there are other Members here of my vintage, some

older, of a later vintage than I am and some younger but a lot of my vintage. I

know growing up myself, we never ever considered ourselves racist, like in a

mean-spirited kind of way. But let's face it; I grew up watching

All in the Family , as a lot of Members

here probably did. Nobody really thought of it that you're actually a racist

because you're watching it or you laughed at some of the jokes and everyone got

a good old charge out of Archie Bunker, whatever. People just thought in those

days that it was funny, it was whatever.

SPEAKER:

Order.

P. LANE:

It didn't mean –

SPEAKER:

Order.

Stay

relevant to the bill, please.

P. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker –

Speaker, sorry, not mister. I don't know if I'm ever going to get used to that

one. I'm trying.

But the

point is that was sort of those attitudes and so on that were there, it's what a

lot of people grew up with and how they were – when they were born these are

things that were exposed to. It was the way things happened in school and what

you saw on TV. Watching the sports teams that now have changed names, like the

Edmonton Eskimos, they were called, and the Washington Redskins, I never thought

of that as racist. I honestly didn't. Now, I see it now. I see that name as

being offensive to Indigenous people.

But all

my time growing up, and even in recent years, it never really occurred to me,

because it's like anything else, if you're something and that's sort of what

culturally you're used to and whatever the name might be and if someone doesn't

point it out to you sometimes and say this is offensive, whatever, then you

probably don't think any more of it than that, because perhaps it's not

impacting you directly and so on.

We grew

up watching cowboys and Indians, playing cowboys and Indians as kids. I never

thought anything – I never considered the term Indian as being racist, at the

time. I can see now why people would. As I say, as you grow as a person, as

people point it out to you and we see how society has shifted and so on.

But my

point is, I guess, that just because somebody, in this case, perhaps people in

the Red Indian Lake area and so on who had concerns, and if we go down this road

with other things, there will be probably other people who will have historical

attachments and so on to certain names.

I know

my family, certainly on my mother's side – I've said it in the House many times

– we're from Bonavista North, from Wesleyville. They call it New-Wes-Valley now,

but Indian Bay is right in that area. I was down in Indian Bay fishing actually

the spring because it's somewhere where we've always gone trout fishing and so

on. I never considered the name Indian Bay as being racist in any way; I just

didn't. Perhaps that name is going to have to be looked at and may change. I

don't know, perhaps it will. The same name as what's on Red Indian Lake.

If it

does, I'm sure there's going to be people who grew up or were raised there,

spent all their time there and whatever are going to have concerns about

changing that name as well. But it doesn't make them bad people and it doesn't

mean that they're all racist because they have a tie to a particular area.

That's my point. I think that's where the education piece really comes in.

So when

we're making these changes, I think it's very, very important we educate the

public. I think, as has been said, it's important that even in our schools and

so on we start teaching our children, get them young, start teaching them about

our history and what happened so that this will not be an issue. I know I look

at my daughters and the way they think about things; they correct me lots of

times on things that I say. Not meant in a harmful way or whatever, but perhaps

just not thinking or because of the way you were raised. Some words or

expressions you might use or whatever that we consider them just normal

expressions, Newfoundland expressions, but you always have to be catching

yourself on it.

That's

not just issues around race, but issues around gender and so on, or things that

can be considered offensive. I've always said my love, my ducky; I was probably

the most guilty person out there for saying that over the years. From time to

time, I still catch myself; I do. It's not right and I catch myself. It's not

meant in a negative way; it's just an expression. It's the way you've always

been taught and so on.

I guess

to bring it around, the point is that, as I said, I do support this and we need

to continue down this road but the point I'm trying to drive home is that we all

have lived experiences. There are going to be generational gaps and so on of

what you were taught and how you were raised. Some people are going to more

sensitive about these issues than others. I mean if somebody is outright racist,

obviously, we have to call that out for what it is, but I think it's also

important to realize that people, because of their lived experience and so on

and perhaps lack of education around some of these issues, that doesn't make

them bad people and it doesn't mean that they are racist. It is important, as we

make these changes, that we consult with people and we try to educate them into

the reason why we're doing these things, as opposed to just ramming it down

people's throat and creating any kind of a divide.

If we

want true reconciliation and we want us all to live together in harmony and

respect each other, I think it has to be respect on all sides, an understanding

on all sides and an education on all sides to make that transition really go

smoothly.

Now,

with that said, I also want to pick up on a point that my colleague from Grand

Falls-Windsor - Buchans brought up. That is the fact that it is one thing to

change a name, and we all recognize this is the right thing to do, but I think

we're being a little disingenuous if we're going to simply say we support

reconciliation; we support the Indigenous people because we changed the name of

the lake. But, by the same time that we did that, we're going to ignore the fact

– and I'm taking my colleague on his word. I'm only going by what he is saying

here now.

But if

there is indeed, I think he said, a peninsula or a point of land out there and

there is actual Beothuk artifacts there and it has been shown, it's recognized

and so on, and if indeed that is being destroyed by nature and there is simple

fixes that we can take, as he said, to put a trench in or whatever the case

might be, to preserve that piece of land where more artifacts may indeed be or

perhaps we may want to do something with that point of land to enhance it at

some point in time, I think it is disingenuous for us to sit here and say yeah,

we support our Indigenous people by changing that name, but we're going to allow

this area to be destroyed because somebody doesn't want to spend a few bucks to

put in a trench or a berm or whatever is required to deal with it.

We're

going to deny all those things. Forget about the history, forget about the

artifacts, forget about all that but we changed the name, b'ys; we support

reconciliation. So that is a very valid point and if indeed that is, as being

described by the Member, then I support him 100 per cent on that particular

point. Obviously, we have to factor in costs and everything else. I don't know

what the costs is involved with this or what's involved but if there is a

reasonable fix that we can make to preserve that, then I think it is important

that we do it.

And

then, when we talk about those things, I think that not just Red Indian Lake. I

think it's important that, as my colleague from St. John's Centre said, put our

money where our mouth is. I understand where we are financially as a province,

but the federal government certainly has a huge responsibility when it comes to

Indigenous affairs, Indigenous rights and so on. They have funding programs in

place to deal with these things. There's a department that deals with these

matters.

I think

that we need to be more aggressive, perhaps. We have two federal MPs now. Not

one, we have two. So if there are funding requirements to preserve some of these

Indigenous sites and so on, and artifacts or whatever and we need some funding

to do it, then if we don't have the cash – and I know we're strapped for cash –

then let's get after our two federal MPs now – our two federal ministers, I

should say – to get us some funding to make that happen.

Not just

with that site, but other areas where this type of thing needs to be done.

Again, this is a good start for reconciliation when we start making some of

these changes. It's all good to do and necessary to do, I would say. But it goes

much deeper, as Members have said here. It goes much deeper than this; simply

making a few changes, putting up a statue here, taking down a statue there, that

in itself is not enough. If we have Indigenous communities that are not being

provided with the appropriate resources and services and so on they require to

put us on par with everybody else, then that is a bigger problem and that's

something that we have to be prepared to tackle as well.

I want

to think in my heart that we all believe that. I know there are financial

challenges to it all. I get that. But somehow, somewhere along the way, if we're

truly committed we have to find ways of doing it. Again, perhaps the answer for

the funding for some of this stuff is going to come from Ottawa. If that's what

we need to do, then that's what we need to do.

But I

hear my colleague behind me all the time and she's always bringing up these

issues. I know that she's very sincere when she does bring these issues up. You

can see the passion; you can feel the passion when she speaks about these

issues. I know that a lot of people in her district in particular – and there

are other areas in the province as well, but in that area in particular – I'm

trying to get my head around and understand the issues that the people she

represents face. It's hard sometimes to do it. You're living here; I'm

representing Mount Pearl - Southlands. So I have the City of Mount Pearl and the

City of St. John's.

Sometimes I try to, when she speaks, get my head around some of the things she's

saying. It's not easy. Because I've not experienced it, I've never experienced

it. Unless you've experienced it, I guess, it's hard to really get your head

around some of this stuff. Perhaps your perspective is different. You have a

different perspective. That's why it's important that we have Members here from

Labrador and from all areas of the province to share these perspectives with us

all.

I'm sure

everything she's saying is correct and the stories that she's sharing. I think

it really needs to sink in sometimes, especially for us MHAs in the urban areas

and so on, in particular, that don't have these issues. We need to really try to

understand and listen. That's why it's important that we listen to what these

Members have to say and, more importantly, we have to work towards taking action

to resolve these issues, as best we can, under the financial situation that

we're in.

Again,

that has to be recognized as well. But if that requires more assistance from the

federal government to deal with these issues, then that's where we need to go

and we need to get that assistance. As I said, we have two ministers now and

it's important that they step up to the plate as well on behalf of the people

that they were supposed to be elected to represent.

Anyway,

with that said, Mr. Speaker, I will be supporting the name change.

Thank

you.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS:

Thank you, Speaker.

I'm just

going to talk on Bill 12, the renaming of Red Indian Lake, but before I actually

start talking on the bill, I want to thank the Member for Mount Pearl -

Southlands.

district is totally communities that are Indigenous communities. A lot of people

are looking to me to actually comment on Red Indian Lake because it's so

controversial, the renaming is so controversial.

listened in the House and I hear Members trying to put forward some of the

issues that their constituents have brought up but they're a bit nervous about

it. They're a bit nervous because they don't want to be negative or seen to be

prejudice or anything to do with something that will take away from the

Indigenous people and reconciliation.

I think,

right now, that's a reflection of a failure on the process of renaming Red

Indian Lake. We're creating divides where there weren't divides. We're creating

frustration and hurt and resentment on people closely affiliated with Red Indian

Lake because of the process of the name change. That needs to come out in this

House.

I have

an obligation to raise it because of people out there who aren't racist, aren't

prejudice, now resent the renaming of Red Indian Lake because of the way they

were consulted with, and that's a failure. In actual fact, the way things go

now, it could actually be creating racism, prejudice and discrimination and hurt

feelings towards Indigenous people. Really, what's happening is the reverse of

reconciliation is occurring. I feel an obligation to speak on that. It's very,

very important.

You

know, I keep talking about words – sometimes when some people in this House are

speaking, not out loud but in my mind I keep thinking: There are more words,

more words, beautiful, beautiful sounding words. But if you lived on the North

Coast in Labrador with the Inuit and the Innu, if you went down to around

Cartwright area where my fellow MHA's wife is from, you would say we can't eat

words. We can't eat words. We can't heat our house with words. We can't raise

our children. We can't get our children back from CSSD with just words.

Speaker,

I'm going to remain relevant in my topic. I'm not going to have anyone call me

on relevance to this bill. I'm going to follow what the minister actually said.

I'm going to respond to her speech.

First,

she mentioned atoning for past mistakes. That's a wonderful phrase. Let's atone

now. Let's atone for all the hurt and harm and damage we've done to Indigenous

people, to the First Nations, in our province, the two nations of the Mi'kmaq

people.

The

Beothuk, well, we're not going to be able to atone to them, personally. We're

going to have to atone to their memory because they're gone, wiped off the face

of the earth. Atonement. Have past mistakes.

I said,

what are the mistakes? People don't need to listen to what I'm saying, but I

wanted it recorded here in the House of Assembly. What's the past mistakes we're

going to atone for?

The

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls: Why do we have that? That's

what I said in a speech earlier. A lot of the missing and murdered disappeared

because they were searching for a place to get away from harsh living

conditions, issues that they faced every day that harmed them and their family,

from intergenerational trauma.

Let's

bring up Truth and Reconciliation – past wrongs, mistakes, a mistake. Truth and

Reconciliation don't call it a mistake. They call it genocide, which no federal

or provincial government wants to recognize – genocide.

There

are many forms of genocide, but in my district of the Indigenous people, the

genocide is creating such hardship that the generations coming next are harmed.

CSSD is a make-work project for the Northern Peninsula. You just Google it – and

I hope they never take it down – there's a CBC video up there recording of where

the mayor, honestly, without malice, without ill-intent, without prejudice talks

about, oh, the foster kids, that income saved our schools.

Those

little kids grow up –

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

L. EVANS:

– to go back home.

SPEAKER:

Order.

I remind

the Member to stay relevant to the bill.

L. EVANS:

Stay relevant.

Past

mistakes: Residential school is another one. In Newfoundland and Labrador – I

want to add some information here. Residential schools only existed in Nain,

Makkovik, North West River and across from Rigolet –

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

L. EVANS:

– the community of Cartwright.

SPEAKER:

Order.

I ask

the Member to stay relevant to the bill.

L. EVANS:

I'm just getting around to the –

SPEAKER:

I've been very lenient.

L. EVANS:

Yes.

I'm just

getting around to the minister's sentence where she said: Atoning for past

mistakes.

So what

I want to say is, I wouldn't call it mistakes, Speaker. I would refer to the

damaged lives, the cycles of trauma. Now, I'm not going to be forced to go off

topic, so I'm going to just continue on.

The

minister said we have to do better. So I always ask: How is this government

doing better? We're going to rename a lake, and the process was so flawed and so

disrespectful to the people to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador that

they actually created resentment for Indigenous peoples and reconciliation. So

I'm going to stay relevant and I always ask: What's the government doing to do

better?

Now,

this minister, one of the ways they're doing better, she mentioned in her speech

– so staying relevant – and keeps referring to meet weekly with Indigenous

leaders. Keep saying that. How bad were things that we have to refer to weekly

meetings as a success? Because that's what it is. Because when I speak to the

Innu leaders, when I speak to the Inuit leaders about these weekly meetings,

they say they're frustrated. The Inuit hardly ever even go it is that tense. The

ministers in the Nunatsiavut Government talk about sending over emails they

don't even get a reply from. You know something? I thought I was the only one

that had that happen to, so I guess misery loves company.

When we

look at the Innu missing the meetings, you know, we just have to look at Muskrat

Falls rate mitigation and the RCMP policing in Natuashish. I got to say, I'm not

going to beat up the Minister of Justice. He actually helped me. I was in

Natuashish trying to address this thing about the failures that was coming out

about the changes of the policing, and I reached out to the minister and he did

help me. Actually, I was even able to talk with him, and it helped me prepare

for my meetings with the Innu and I was actually, I think in some ways, able to

help the Innu with this policing matter.

But when

I got to meet with DeAnna Hill, the RCMP commanding officer, I had to find a way

to gently and respectfully tell her: It was such a lack of respect towards the

Innu the way they handled it, so disrespectful. It wasn't only the Innu that saw

it as disrespectful. The Inuit in Northern Labrador also saw it as

disrespectful, and I told her that and I gave her some advice. I got to say they

were very receptive of it.

So I'm

going to say relevant now, looking at this bill, looking at the renaming

process. The minister talks about conversations for options. Then their

intentions were good, changing the name of Red Indian Lake. They were criticized

and, I think she even said, probably justifiably so. Then it talks about pause

and reflect, and then seek the views of those who had interest in a name. What

does that mean? They're going to consult, and they did.

But I

find the whole process irresponsible when it comes to true reconciliation –

irresponsible. They did reach out, 150 residents – I got the

schedule there of

the consultations. We had a technical briefing. I think the Member for St.

John's Centre said he'd trust what the Opposition was saying in terms of the

numbers, but I trust it because the numbers that were given to us was through a

technical briefing from the deputy minister of Indigenous Affairs and

Reconciliation; 150 residents, a four-day process, very little interest in

changing the name. Basically, everybody who was actually consulted wanted to

keep the name the same.

There

also were some virtual opportunities for people across the province to

contribute. The majority of the people said they wanted to keep the name. There

was a lot of hurt; there was hurt from people who would say you know something,

I'm not racist – I'm not racist. There are companies out there that are going to

be harmed because of the name. The Official Opposition has brought that up; the

Member from the district brought that up. There's not going to be any help to

him in the rebranding. That's just another way of creating resentment, adding to

it.

Do you

know what I'm going to hear? They are going to be sick and tired of hearing

about reconciliation in the province. People are going to be tired of hearing

about it, and the biggest failure is nothing is going to be done before people

gets tired of it, then it's going to slip by the wayside. All the hurt and

outrage of those unmarked graves and those little bodies that were found in the

graves, all the hurt is going to be forgotten. Yet, the Indigenous people are

not going to be any further ahead. Not going to be any further ahead because it

is just words. I can sing it in my head: words, words, words, words, words.

I'm

sorry, but sometimes when people are talking in the House that's what I'm saying

in my head: words, words, words, so many words, good sounding words. We should

all just maybe leave and go and just be broadcasters reading off of

teleprompters: beautiful words. Yet, we have families who struggle to feed their

kids. I have people suffering from addictions and they don't know how to get

better; there is no hope for them.

I resent

the fact that this process is now going to hurt the Indigenous people of this

province. I can actually say it. I can say it. Do you know what the process was?

It was in the technical briefing. I have it written down. During the weekly

meeting, the minister and the Premier met with people who were considered

leaders of the Indigenous groups, very respected leaders, and they discussed the

name change.

They

decided to change the name of Red Indian Lake. They came up with the name change

and told the people of the province that's it, and people were hurt. People

weren't consulted with. People were angry. You should have seen the emails we

got. Over on this side, we all got emails. We got emails of people hurt and

upset. Not racist people – I say all the emails we received even with the anger

in them, it wasn't racist people.

Do you

want to know something? When you do consultation, it's a two-way street.

Indigenous leaders and the government needs to consult with the non-Indigenous

people about something as important as changing a name on a lake. Because if you

don't do that, people will be resentful. There are people out there who are

racist and they are using this to create more racism, and that's not right.

We even

got petitions. Then it goes back to pause and reflect. Yeah, let's pause and

reflect on that and let's come up with more nice words that we can say. The

government that exists since we joined Confederation has been a failure to the

Indigenous people; it really has.

To me,

it's difficult and I've been very tired. I get tired of this. I tell you, I get

hurt. I lose a lot of sleep. I actually even thought of resigning for my mental

health. You know what changes my mind every time my thoughts go there? I say I'm

not going to let them get away with that. I'm not going to let them get away

with that.

As I

boarding school. How fancy is that? How fancy is that: boarding school? It was

residential school. I told the story in the House where my mother was so thirsty

at the age of six, she would sometimes pass out. But when she told us the story

she kind of laughed and say, you know, it was a good thing there was a lot of

frost on the window, because that's how she used to actually quench her thirst

was scratching the frost off that windowpane. Atonement for mistakes: Would you

call that a mistake? I never understood half the stories.

Do you

know when I found out? It was when my mother refused to take any money from that

class-action lawsuit. I said: Mom, you're old. Let the government pay for the

harms done, because if not, we are; we're your children. I'm sorry for what I

said to her, to encourage her to take the money. I think I actually forced her

because I thought she deserved it.

There

are people now that are dead. Some of them are old; some of them are very young.

But I will tell you something right now, if this government doesn't start taking

real action that helps people – symbolism is important, there's a lot of value

in that. I'm really glad when the game comes on and it's the not Edmonton

Eskimos. But, also, when I'm in my district and I'm talking to people who really

need help, who want help, who want to get their children back, who want their

children to succeed.

Do you

know something? Some of the children that are young adults that are committing

suicide, they're coming from what we would call good homes. Their house is warm.

There are meals on the table. We wonder: Where's this coming from? But if you

went back and you looked at intergenerational trauma and past harms, you'll find

the answers there.

totally support not having a lake called Red Indian. But in terms of real

consultation, we really have to start doing things.

I look

at all this now: Plans to erect a statue. We need to put a camera on it, because

that's the only way most of my people in the District of Torngat Mountains is

ever going to be able see that statue.

Observe

a day for truth and reconciliation: What's really being done about truth and

reconciliation? What came out of truth and reconciliation?

We're

going to furnish a new mural – I'm reading from the minister's statement in

terms of reference: Furnish a new mural for the lobby of Confederation Building.

A lot of people in my district struggle to buy furniture. They have money for

furniture; how are you going to get it? You're going to get it to the Coast.

These are very important things.

Update

the curriculum for Indigenous people to educate people: Well, Nunatsiavut has

already done that. Nunatsiavut has a textbook on the actual history. Nunatsiavut

Government and the Innu Nation are leading the way for reconciliation. They're

the ones that's actually taking the steps to educate the province.

It's

different for me, it's really different for me to sit here – and I hope people

are not offended when I said that when I'm listening to people speak, in my head

I'm just thinking: words, words, words. Oh, continue on to the chorus: empty

words, empty words.

This

government has to do things –

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The

Member's time has expired.

L. EVANS:

Thank you, Speaker.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Humber - Bay of Islands.

E. JOYCE:

Thank you, Speaker.

I'm just

going to have a few words, after that passionate speech, on this Bill 12, the

renaming of Red Indian Lake.

course, we hear a lot about the process and about consultations with the

Aboriginal and Indigenous groups, Speaker. I just want to give a bit of history.

I hear the words and I hear the Member for Torngat Mountains talking about the

words, what words mean and you have to live up to your words.

I just

want to make it quite clear; my family is a part of the Qalipu on both sides. My

sister in Toronto did a lot of research on our family and we found out our

connections back 20 years ago. This whole process of renaming this, and then we

hear the words.

I have

to bring something up here. I heard the Minister Responsible for Labrador and

Aboriginal Affairs make a statement this morning, and going on the Member for

Torngat Mountains on words, her words were: injustices must be corrected. I have

to remind the minister you were a part of an injustice that happened in this

House and you have yet to reconcile. You know what I'm talking about. If you

don't know, ask me, I'll tell you right now. Here's your opportunity. So,

please, don't go getting out these words. Injustices should be reconciled. They

should be: I agree, but don't go making these blanket statements here because it

sounds good in the House of Assembly. You know what I'm talking about and if you

don't, stand on your feet and ask me and I will tell you. I didn't think you

would stand.

Mr.

Speaker, I'll just go on the whole process of this and listening to the points.

I know the Member from Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans made a great speech on the

people in the area, and I know the Member for Exploits made a great speech on

the people in the area also.

I just

want to go back – and you want to talk about involvement with the Aboriginal

groups. I remember back in 1989, that's my first involvement when I went to my

first General Assembly with the Aboriginal groups. I know Mr. White was heavily

involved with it, and I know Judy White was heavily involved to fight for

recognition for the FNI at the time. I remember even going to Congress of

Aboriginal Peoples conferences in Gander to learn more about how we could help.

I remember even getting Clyde Wells meeting with all the groups and wanting to

get recognition and pushing for Aboriginal rights in Humber - Bay of Islands.

One of the biggest population of the Qalipu is Humber - Bay of Islands.

I go way

back in 1989 when I first start going and Brendan Sheppard – and I'll tell a

story about Garly Webb, when the premiers were going around and they were

meeting all across Canada. Garly Webb wanted a

schedule so they could make a

presentation to the premiers across Canada. I remember getting permission to

give him that

schedule to go across.

remember going out to a General Assembly in Gallants back in the '90s. There was

a lot of progress at the time because of collaboration. I remember housing was

an issue. I remember Dot George started up a housing group for the Aboriginals

in the Humber - Bay of Islands area, Benoit's Cove and Corner Brook, for

housing.

understand the issues, but the biggest part that I take from this whole process

is consultation. Consultation is the issue. I understand that we're all going to

move forward with this now and say we have this whole issue in place. We're

going to now change the name from Red Indian Lake to Beothuk Lake. I understand

that after the public outcry – and, yes, we received the emails. But the point,

and I know it was made here on numerous occasions here in this House of

Assembly, it was made on numerous occasions, is that consultation and process is

what causes so much anxiety with people.

I look

back at the time, again, when I worked for Clyde Wells and he had an open

process of listening to the Aboriginal groups. I go back and look at Bern White,

who passed away and I did a Member's statement here in this House, where he

fought. Mr. Sams is another one who fought to keep their Aboriginal rights.

Fought for their rights, fought to keep their culture, fought to be recognized

and they fought over many years and they finally got it.

I know

Brendan Mitchell who just got re-elected as the Qalipu chief and the great work

that he has done and his family has done going back years with his family. The

Sparks family who's involved with the Mitchell family. I remember all of that

and I remember my grandmother talking about Indigenous rights. I'm going back 60

years, 58, 59 years talking about that. What they all wanted was respect and to

be able to be consulted.

I hope

we all learned a lesson and not just government. Government is just one part of

this, but I hope we all in this House of Assembly learned a lesson on what

happened here. I hope we did. It's one thing to give rhetoric; it's another

thing to actually follow up on that rhetoric. I understand there are a lot of

issues that most of us in this House of Assembly – and I agree with the Member

for Mount Pearl - Southlands, a lot of us couldn't appreciate because we weren't

involved with that.

remember speaking to Randy Edmunds – and I know you know Randy, I say to the

Member for Torngat Mountains. I asked Randy: How do like the residential

schools? Here's how Randy explained it to me. He said you take your father and

your mother, what they gave to their families, and you take that whole set,

Speaker, you take that whole generation and put them through the abuses that

they had through the residential schools and then put them back in society, how

much further would you be if your parents went through that? When you look at

that, it's so true. Taking that whole generation, and the abuse and the

hardships they had to go through, now you expect the children to say, okay,

we're all fine. You should treat your children the same. This whole thing of

alcoholism, it's real. This whole thing of the issues that they face, it's real.

And when you look at that, I think about if my mother or father had to go

through that, it's sad – it's sad.

So this

is why I say the process is very much the focal point here now. I remember the

Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans stated that if we had to come out as a

government and as a people, come out and say, look, we're going to change the

lake, what's the good ideas, how can we chat about this; nine chances out of 10,

we'd be in here today and we would not be having such a great discussion because

everybody would have collaborated to come up with this.

I really

believe this, that when the Premier of the province came up and did this, I

don't think he understood the whole consequences of it. Because I don't think

the Premier of the province would try to insult the people, the Beothuk people.

I really feel that. But this is where we've got to learn from this process. We

really got to learn from this process.

there's anything that I would take from this here – and I say it to the

government and I say it to the people here: Remember, there's a lot of us who

are Aboriginal. There's a lot of us who can give guidance to the government.

There are a lot of us who went through this. Believe me, in the Humber - Bay of

Islands, there are a lot of people who had a lot of injustices done to them over

the years because of who they were and because they were supporting their

Aboriginal rights and trying to keep their heritage. Trust me on that.

Now, I

will be supporting this bill. I will be supporting this. But I call upon the

government, from here on in, let's do the proper consultation for anything we're

going to do for Aboriginals across the province and any group across the

province so that we can have an open and honest dialogue on this whole process.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Lake

Melville.

P. TRIMPER:

Thank you, Speaker, and I thank all of my previous colleagues for their very

inspiring remarks. I think that while it's been a tough debate, I think it's

been a very helpful one for all of us here and hopefully the rest of the

province who are watching.

I've got

a few remarks. Most of us, I think, in this House are going to support this bill

today. What we're frustrated with is how we came to this point. As I was

preparing my remarks and thoughts and checking messages that are coming from the

good folks of Buchans, Buchans Junction and Millertown who are also feeding the

independence that's for sure, I thought what exactly is a successful

consultation.

I just

did some googling here to try and understand. Some of the basic concepts are:

should be sincere. It should be clear. It should be in advance by the way of any

decision-making. It should provide an opportunity for both sides to learn.

Whoever is coming forward as a proponent, whoever is being consulted, there

should be an incorporation of those views.

I was

listening very intently to the comments from my colleague from Grand

Falls-Windsor - Buchans and I just learned a little bit more this morning. I can

recall here in May when government very clearly stated when this bill was coming

forward, I wrote it down: It's a done deal. I wrote those words down.

I just

remembered it was that determination to push forward, thinking that this was the

right way and the appropriate way. I think that, particularly my colleague from

Torngat Mountains, has reflected very well how so many people feel. All of a

sudden, they feel they're in this awkward squeeze of anything they say and do is

now going to be questioned, and they may be accused of something that they

certainly are very respectful of and don't even want to go there. I just think

how wrong this has all been.

listened closely to the minister's remarks, and I thank the staff for the

briefing that the Opposition had a few days ago. What was overlooked in the

reflection – and the term Beothuk Lake was the most of those options that was

put forward; that was perhaps the most common name. But, in fact, the majority

of the comments from 72 emails from April to June, from another 86 emails, from

523 responses that came in through the portal, the vast majority – I don't need

to total them up. I can tell you the vast majority of the numbers I'm estimating

is something like 70 per cent said please leave it as it is.

I thank

the staff, and I think those of us who have had an opportunity to learn about so

many of the struggles of the Indigenous peoples of this country, and why this

name is here and debated in this Legislature today, understanding the

connotation of the term Indian, Red Indian and so many have identified, there's

really still a lot of education to do. I guess my point that I want to make,

Speaker, is that, in my opinion, the consultation needs to continue. There is a

lot of hurt and anxiety in the region. I'm hearing from the communities. I thank

the MHAs from Exploits and Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans; they're certainly

speaking to it.

So I

have a few suggestions; one is: Please continue on with the consultation and the

education. I do feel and hear from some of the community leaders, including one

this morning, that believes that we need to move on with this. We need to get

going. However, there are a lot of hurt feelings. I think we need to – no I

think. We know we need to address that.

A second

item that's going to be very, very important for particularly the communities

there. The example of the outfitter – who I also happen to know – I believe

government needs to step forward with some financial support. Let's take a wrong

from the past, let's take an awkward consultation that's occurred and let's turn

this into something now where we can build. The marketing and branding of a very

proud group of residents in the Buchans, Buchans Junction and Millertown area,

we need to support them. Help them embrace the branding and the marketing. And

let's see what we can do.

Further

to the example of the isthmus, these kinds of examples, these are incredibly

important treasures. Again, I would urge government to go forward, please, with

some support in terms of expertise and financial support.

Two

final points: We've just gone through a naming exercise in Labrador. There have

also been some missteps on the naming of bridges. However, it's been done. The

advantage of the way that they were finally done in terms of recognizing five

elders – some of whom were good friends of mine; I had the pleasure of working

with. I knew them all. These bridges are now named in their honour. At least we

had the opportunity to speak to the Innu, speak to the Innu community, speak to

the Innu leadership, and say: What would you like to do?

The real

tragedy of this bill here today, of course, is we aren't able to speak to the

Beothuk. I think we're all realizing the importance of that and reflecting just

how good it would be to go back and correct history. As my colleague from

Torngat Mountains said, the atonement that is involved in here, we all

collectively need to really understand that word and really work with that word.

Finally,

I need to say that I also would like to encourage government to think about some

of the other names that have been changed. I'm going to go to one that's right

in the heart of my district, and that is this name: Churchill River. Its

original name was actually – and I thank my colleague from Labrador West from

reminding me, but it was actually Mishta-shipu. That's the name that the Innu

called it. It means Grand River. Shipu means big river. And there's

Mishta-shipu, -shipit and -shipish, meaning different-sized rivers. But

Mishta-shipu is the Grand River. It's the largest river in our province. Mr.

Smallwood and his team in 1965 said let's call it the Churchill River. The

settlers that had come prior to that time and since, working with the Innu and

so on, they used the concept Grand River.

There

are a lot of folks that would be looking for government to think about some of

these other mistakes. These are recent mistakes I would say. Not going back to

the time when we lost the Beothuk, but we've got a lot of mistakes to make up

for.

I'll

leave those thoughts with government and I thank you for your time, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I move we adjourn debate on Bill 12.

SPEAKER:

In accordance with paragraph

9(1)(

b) that this House now do recess until 2 p.m. this afternoon.

Recess

The

House resumed at 2 p.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett):

Admit strangers.

Order,

please!

Before

we begin, I would like to welcome a new face to our Table today, Evan Beazley.

Evan

recently joined our Office of the Clerk on a temporary assignment in a Clerk's

role, having served in Hansard since 2018.

Please

join me in welcoming Evan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by

Members

SPEAKER:

Today, we will hear

statements from the hon. Members of the Districts of Exploits, Labrador West,

Harbour Main, St. John's Centre, Topsail - Paradise and Waterford Valley, with

leave.

The hon.

the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY:

Thank you, Speaker.

September 17, 1946, Gordon and Marie Lannon were married in Bishop's Falls, in

what was then the British colony of Newfoundland.

Speaker,

this September, Gordon and Marie celebrated their 75th wedding anniversary in

Bishop's Falls, their home for all those years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

P. FORSEY:

A diamond anniversary and a rare occurrence. They still reside in the home where

they raised eight children and have 16 grandchildren and 17 great-grandchildren

– their great legacy.

Over the

years, Gordon worked 44 years with the Canadian National Railway and Marie was a

stay-at-home Mom and later worked part-time at the local library. They both have

been active in various church and community organizations.

Speaker,

I ask all Members in this House of Assembly to join me in congratulating Gordon

and Marie Lannon of Bishop's Falls on their 75th wedding anniversary.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

J. BROWN:

Thank you, Speaker.

I rise

today to acknowledge Dwayne Broomfield who completed the 535-kilometre bike ride

from Labrador City to Happy Valley-Goose Bay to raise awareness for a rare

medical condition their son was born with called VACTERL association. In

addition, they also aimed to raise money for a local charity called Toys for

Joys, a Labrador West charity that gives gifts to children at Christmas whose

families are struggling financially.

Dwayne

completed the 535-kilomtere ride in only three days and, in total, he raised

$7,060 for Toys for Joys.

Raising

awareness for VACTERL was important to Mr. Broomfield and his wife as the

condition is so uncommon. When their son was born and diagnosed they hadn't

heard of this condition, so if they could provide awareness to other parents

about what it is and how children with this condition can lead relatively normal

lives, maybe it wouldn't be so scary if they got this diagnosis.

Dwayne

isn't done yet. This summer he intends to ride from L'Anse au Clair to Happy

Valley-Goose Bay to continue his journey.

I ask

all Members to join me in thanking Dwayne Broomfield and his wife, Kelly

Nippard-Broomfield, for being strong advocates for thei