November

27, 1991

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLI No. 79

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Before moving into Oral Questions, on behalf of hon. members,

I would like to welcome to the galleries today, forty Grade XI and XII

Enterprise Education Students from St. Clare's High School in Carbonear,

accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Brian Manning and Ms. Christine Rose.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Also, forty-eight Level II students from

O'Donel High School, Mount Pearl, accompanied by their teachers, Mr. James

Locke, and Mr. Jeff Howard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, when the Premier announced that

Ed Roberts was to become the new Minister of Justice, I think he said publicly

on television that the law firm of Halley Hunt, in which the new Justice

Minister and his wife, I believe are partners, can no longer do business with

the Government. I want to ask the Premier: Has he notified that firm, and has he

notified the Government departments and agencies to cease immediately doing

business with this firm. Has that been done?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I did not say what the hon.

Leader of the Opposition said. I made no such statement. What I did say, and

made very clear, is that obviously the firm does have some business in progress,

and is doing some work at this particular time, but obviously the firm cannot

now be awarded work by the Government to do any further business for the

Government.

Obviously also, in the case of any action being taken by the

firm against the Government on behalf of clients acting against the Government,

and that may well be the case as well, that in the future, nothing that that

firm does against the Government will be able to be referred to the Minister of

Justice. He will have to be out, and not in any manner involved in it. As well,

the Government cannot refer any further work from this point on, even before Mr.

Roberts becomes minister. From this point on, the Government should not be

referring any further work to that firm. Engagements that the firm already has,

I would expect to be completed. That is the explanation I gave at the time and I

restate it.

MR. SPEAKER: Maybe before I recognize the hon. Leader of

the Opposition, I ought to tell members that there is a cameraman here from

Maclean's who is doing a political story, I think, on the House. I checked it

out with both House Leaders who agreed, but I forgot to remind hon. members. He

is going to be here for a short while during Question Period.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I hope he has his batteries in

and his flash is ready and he does not have his cap on.

Mr. Speaker, let us try to get the situation cleared up,

because there is some confusion, I think, after hearing what the Premier has now

said. Mr. Roberts himself, in an Evening Telegram report, November 17th,

confirmed what the Premier said about seeing no reason why Halley Hunt should

not keep the business that it already has, but he also said that the Premier and

he, Mr. Roberts, had agreed that the Premier would deal with any conflict

situation that might arise dealing with Halley Hunt and the Department of

Justice, which admits of course obviously therefore that there could be some

conflicts arising. Is that the deal that he has arranged with Mr. Roberts? Can

he confirm that, then?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not arranged any

deal with Mr. Roberts. We spoke about this matter and Mr. Roberts has been asked

to identify for me all possible conflicts of interest. I expect I will shortly

receive a letter spelling all of that out and I will reply to the letter and

state the position. The position is quite simple, Mr. Speaker. The conflict of

interest guidelines will be fully and completely enforced in respect to Mr.

Roberts and will not be in any manner breached, and knowing Mr. Roberts as I do,

I would say with confidence that he, more than anybody else, would

conscientiously seek to make sure that that was so.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am glad we are

having this little discussion here today because it is contrary to some of the

things Mr. Roberts himself, I think, has said publicly. But let me ask the

Premier this and quote first of all for him from the Liberal Party Manifesto in

the last election, " Ministers and their immediate families, or companies in

which ministers and their immediate families have a financial interest, must not

do business directly with Government. There must be no room for suggestion of

improper dealing by any member of the Cabinet".

Now how does that policy square with the arrangement or the

deal that he has made with Mr. Roberts? Is there one rule for Mr. Roberts and

one for all the rest of the Cabinet Ministers?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker. The only confusion that

exists is the confusion that the Leader of the Opposition is trying to create,

where there is none. That is exactly what applies to Mr. Roberts as it applies

to all of us.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, I asked the Minister of Fisheries about a plan

announced by the federal minister yesterday pertaining to the creation of an

agency in Atlantic Canada that would have responsibility for allocation of fish

and licensing in the region. I think it is fair to say that at the time the

minister was not aware of the federal minister's announcement, so I want to

revisit that issue today and ask the minister: did he or any other minister or

the Premier have any discussions with the Federal Minister of Fisheries on the

plan pertaining to this regional agency that would control licensing and

allocations?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries.

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, the plan to which the hon.

gentleman referred was delivered to my office late yesterday afternoon, and

brought to my attention this morning. It is a plan put out by the Federal

Minister of Fisheries and Oceans having to do with a proposal for reforming

licensing allocation systems within his department. I have gone through the

plan, and it does not contain too much information. In fact, there were only

five or six pages, I think, sort of general information as to what the minister

has in mind. But from what I have seen in the plan, Mr. Speaker, I think it is

going to be awfully difficult for the Province to support that kind of an

undertaking, because not only is it not even close to what the Province has been

proposing, but this plan will include the five Atlantic provinces, including

Quebec of course, in which case Newfoundland will be one voice in a sea of many

voices representing all parts of Atlantic Canada. We do not think that is going

to be in our best interest. In fact, I suppose if we had a choice - again I say

this given the fact that I have not been made aware of all the details yet - but

I expect if we have a choice, maybe the existing system would probably better

serve Newfoundland than that which is now being proposed by the minister in his

discussion paper, and for all the obvious reasons.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

The minister has partially answered the supplementary

question I was going to ask him. I was going to ask him if the federal plan

meets the Province's proposals for a provincial role in joint management of the

fishery, which we have been pursuing over the last month or so here and not

getting any answers from the minister. Because it would seem logical to me that

the two areas the Province would want some say in would be in allocation and in

licensing. Now that the Federal Minister is going to establish a regional agency

to deal with those issues, I am wondering now what impact that will have on the

Province's role in management of the fishery, and indeed will the Province now

proceed with its proposals for joint management of our most important resource?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries.

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, the plan that is envisaged by

the Federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans would be one of an Atlantic-wide

perception of the fishing industry. I am afraid - and I believe this view will

be shared by most Newfoundlanders once the details are all made known - that the

interests of Newfoundland will be compromised, and there will be a tendency of

course on the part of the Federal Government and this board to look at the

fisheries in an Atlantic-wide context. If that happens then -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CARTER: That is far worse than what we are having

now. We have had a difficult time of it over the past number of years convincing

Ottawa that Newfoundland does have certain historic and prior rights to northern

cod, for example. Ottawa appears to have adopted the attitude that any fish that

is congregating in Atlantic Canadian waters is a Canadian resource and

consequently must be shared by all the Atlantic provinces.

Now we recall a few years back, when a company known as Nova

Nord, a consortium put together by interests in Quebec and New Brunswick,

applied for permission to harvest, I believe it was, 20,000 metric tons. We will

never know how close that proposal came to being accepted, and it was only

because of an outcry on the part of certain Newfoundland interests that it was

blocked. But that is the sort of thing that we might very well be looking at if

and when such a board goes in place.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker. I just want

to say to the minister that he and the Premier have admitted in the Legislature

that they have both been having discussions with the Nova Scotian premier and

other Atlantic governments about the fishery. That is regional. We have waited

some time now for the Province to prepare its formal position on joint

management. The minister keeps telling us that he is going to table it next

week, in two weeks time, and so on. We have waited months for this. Why has it

taken the Province so long to develop its proposals? Isn't what we are really

seeing now, is the Government has procrastinated so long, we have really waited

so long now, that it is too late to have any significant affect on Federal

policies? And hasn't the Government -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. MATTHEWS: I mean, once again, Mr. Speaker, I want to

ask the Minister is the Government not, once again, the victim of its own

procrastination, doing nothing? And here we see a federal minister taking the

initiative, where this Government should have had some input? That is what we

really see here.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries.

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, quite the obvious. Now, if the

hon. gentleman opposite wants to support the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. CARTER: If the hon. gentleman, the hon. the Member

for Grand Bank, wants to support, for whatever reason, the Crosbie proposal,

then let him do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CARTER: I can only caution the hon. gentleman that

once the news gets out, once the word is out and Newfoundlanders more fully

understand what is being proposed in the Crosbie proposal then he will be doing

so at his own peril. The plan we have put together has been completed, a copy

has been sent to the Prime Minister, and a copy has been forwarded to the

federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Officials of my Department and those

of Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat are now meeting with the members of

FANL and we will be talking to the union, and when we are ready we will be

releasing the document. I can only say, Mr. Speaker, that I am sure, once the

House has the opportunity of viewing what we have put together, and comparing it

with what Mr. Crosbie appears to be putting together, then if there is an ounce

of Newfoundland blood in them, I have every confidence they will support the

position taken by the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, once again, Mr. Speaker.

Let me say to the minister, I was so concerned about what Mr.

Crosbie is proposing that I asked the question yesterday and the minister

answered a question on part-time fishermen. That is what I was concerned about.

The minister should play a little more fair than he is playing today because he

knows full well that both of us discussed this issue this morning.

MR. FUREY: Cop-out.

MR. MATTHEWS: It is not a cop-out, I say to the Minister

of Development. He should take the fisheries seriously and get his Government to

do something about it.

MR. SIMMS: Spin Dr. Furey.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

In the past, I have asked hon. members to my right, when we

are asking questions, to please stop interfering, and today I ask members to my

left to stop interfering when we are asking questions.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

A final supplementary to the minister: When is he, as the

Minister of Fisheries for Newfoundland and Labrador, going to stop his

procrastination? When is he going to put before the people of this Province

concrete proposals on a joint fisheries management agreement with the Federal

Government? When are we going to see that? Is it going to be next week, next

year, or five years time?

The problem we have facing us now is that the federal

minister has taken action while everybody in the Province has been waiting for

some action from the Provincial minister of Fisheries. We have not seen it, and

when are we going to see that, is the question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries.

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, he asked when are we going to

put together or put out a joint management agreement between the Feds and the

Provincial Government. That, of course, is something I cannot answer. An

agreement will require agreement on their part. I presume you meant, when are we

going to put out our paper. Now, that paper, Mr. Speaker, should be ready for

presentation to the House within, I would think, a couple of weeks at the

outside.

Mr. Speaker, if they can see and understand what has been

happening here, maybe then they will have a better appreciation for what the

Province is trying to do, and that it is quite obvious that the federal minister

is under very substantial pressure from the other Atlantic Provinces. It might

very well be perceived by other Atlantic Provinces that it is not in their best

interests to have a Newfoundland/Canada board, but certainly, it is in our best

interests and that must be our first concern.

When you look at the implications, Mr. Speaker, of putting

together such a board, the political ramifications of that kind of an

arrangement, where, in terms of political clout, we in Newfoundland have seven

federal seats, the collective strength of the other provinces in Ottawa would be

- what? - well, in excess of 100 federal seats. So you can imagine just what

chance poor little Newfoundland would stand in that kind of a scenario.

So, certainly, I think that once the proposal is made known

and all the details on it, then I think every Newfoundlander will have to take a

stand against this sort of thing and come out against it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question, Mr. Speaker, would be to the Minister

responsible for Municipal and Provincial Affairs but, in his absence, I will

direct my question to the Premier. Last year, Mr. Speaker, between Christmas and

New Years, municipalities in the Province were hit with a real bombshell when

they were told about the changes in their municipal operating grants and, to add

insult to injury, at a time of the year when most municipalities in the

Province, Mr. Speaker, had their budgets done up and submitted to the

department.

Would the Premier be able to confirm to the House today if he

is aware of any other major changes to the municipal operating grants this fall?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any

proposed changes to the municipal operating grants this fall. I am aware that

the minister has been working with a number of municipal representatives and

representatives of the federation in the matter of the implementation of the

existing changes, but there are no new changes that I am aware of. What the

Government may do in its budget, I cannot speak for, but that is not this fall,

that will be next winter or next spring sometime when we bring in the budget.

There is nothing that I am aware of this fall.

MR. WOODFORD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley, on a

supplementary.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, would the Premier, after

answering my first question by saying that he is not aware of any changes - I am

aware, Mr. Speaker, of some major changes that municipalities in the Province

have been notified of as of yesterday and today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: One, Mr. Speaker: That the roads component

to municipalities in the Province is going to be cut by 30 per cent, crucifying

municipalities in the Province. How can the Premier and his administration

justify such a move to municipalities in the Province again at this time of the

year?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I will take what the hon.

member says as notice. I can only say to him that I have no personal knowledge

of it and, to the best of my knowledge, what he puts forward is totally without

foundation. It may apply to a particular municipality, I don't know, but I don't

think there is any general application to that effect. If there is, I have to

confess that I am totally unaware of it at this moment.

MR. WOODFORD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley, a

supplementary.

MR. WOODFORD: Make no wonder the minister took off to

Bristol, he did not even notify the Premier of what he was doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, in light of the seriousness of

this particular blow to municipalities again, the second in two years, would the

Premier take this seriously and, as he said earlier, look into it immediately?

It is not only the roads component, the equalization component has been changed,

the averages are all changed, but I haven't time to go into that on a

supplementary. This is a serious blow to municipalities in the Province. Members

opposite obviously do not take it seriously, because it would have been dealt

with earlier.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WOODFORD: Would the Premier make sure that they look

into that and, if this is so, have it cancelled and consult more with

municipalities in the Province before such an adverse thing goes into effect?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I just spoke with the

Minister of Finance, and he alerted me to what is probably the explanation.

There is no change this year. That change was implemented last year. As he

reminds me, the road component -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: As hon. members know, when the situation

was revised - the standards for municipal grants were revised last year and the

rules were set - the final component that was adjusted up or down depending upon

the money available for municipal grants was the roads component. I believe that

is correct. But I will confirm to the House, whether or not it is correct. I

believe that to be the case.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that is what has got the member

stirred up and putting forward the proposal that this is now a new change that

is being put forward by the department. It is not. It was part of the change in

the grant system put forward last year and I think the Minister of Finance is

probably correct. But I will check it and advise the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for

the Minister responsible for Employment and Labour. The Federal Government

Fishery Assistance program now appears to have completely exhausted its funding,

and CEIC officials claim that no new applicants are eligible for the program.

The present Provincial Government program has already exhausted its funding, yet

there are thousands of Newfoundlanders, from 39,000 as of October, who needed

work. Does the minister have any further plans to help the unemployed of this

Province now?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, I thank the

hon. member for his question. It is unfortunate that in the lead-in to the

question, as the member indicates, that the federal response program directed to

the fishery is, indeed, exhausted as they indicate. Because it did leave a

number of people in the Province, a number of people involved in the fishery who

still claim that that they can identify an attachment to the fishery, left

without benefits under that program. I know there are a number of appeals that

probably members representing all districts are involved in, trying to, again,

have more people deemed to be qualified under the federal Fisheries Response

Program than were allowed or permitted to qualify under the rather strict

criteria set forward.

But we know for a fact that, to date, they have dictated and

determined that there will not be any further funding unless some of these

appeals that all of us are involved in are successful from the fisheries side.

From our own point of view, we are looking at the possibility right now, in this

Government, of putting another small amount of money into the short-term

make-work assistance program that we got involved in, in the $13.5 million. It

will be determined in a matter of days as to whether or not we can allocate some

monies or transfer some monies from our longer-term response program into the

short-term. We do recognize that there is still a significant need that hasn't

yet been met in this Province in relation to the employment needs of people in

all parts of the Island. It seems that Labrador has been fairly well taken care

of but there are certain areas identified in the Island part of the Province

where there still is remaining need that we are looking at the possibility of

addressing.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The minister

correctly indicated that large numbers of people have not qualified for

programs. Can the minister indicate if he has made representation to the federal

minister responsible for employment to ask for federal assistance and a job

creation program for people other than those related to the fishery?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In the initial stages,

before we even decided to get involved in a program ourselves in the Province

our $13.5 million Emergency Employment Response Program, we had made request to

the federal minister to see if they would get involved from the federal point of

view in a response program not related to the fishery. We have not received a

positive response to that request and only in the last day or so I have been

involved in meetings with officials in my department whereby we are going to

make a renewed request based on numbers that have come to our attention of the

unmet need that still exists there.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier

a couple of questions. The Premier has said, and he has been quoted, and has

said in this House, that Government's view was that they would not force

amalgamation or regional services or anything of that nature on municipalities

which show that they did not want it, and if it was not in the public good and

desired by the majority. Would the Premier tell us if that is, indeed, the

Government's position?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, hon. members keep trying to

obfuscate and confuse this whole thing. The Government's position has been

consistent from the beginning and it remains the situation today. There are a

great number of areas in this Province where there are municipalities contiguous

to one another where it would be highly desirable, from Government's point of

view and from the point of view of best administration of municipal matters in

the Province, and getting the best value for the scarce taxpayers' dollars

expended, if these municipalities were amalgamated.

Now, we have also said that if the majority of people in the

area concerned, not the majority in each municipality, and let me emphasize that

over and over again, because it seems to get confused and people seem to

constantly misrepresent it. If the majority of people in the area concerned are

opposed to it, we would not pressure acceptance of it. I did say there may well

be an exceptional case or two that it may be necessary to bring to this House

and have decided in any event. Now that is the position that we took from the

beginning. The position is really no different today, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl, on a

supplementary.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Premier

for confirming once again that is precisely what I had said to him, in fact, I

did not misconstrue what he had said at all. In view of that statement, Mr.

Speaker, and in view of the fact that the Fire Commissioner, who is the chief

adviser to Government and to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs on

matters relating to fire prevention, has recommended that the City of St. John's

should take over what has been known as the St. John's Fire Department,

volunteer fire departments in the region should be allowed to expand because

they are very cost efficient, and the City of Mount Pearl should be permitted to

operate its own fire department. In view of the Fire Commissioner's advice to

Government in that regard, Mr. Speaker, how can the Premier justify the approach

that is being taken by Government? How can he tell us that it is in the public

good, when the chief official says that it should be otherwise?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I would have to look in detail at what the

chief official said. I do not accept, on the face of it, that it is as the hon.

member has represented, but I will have it checked. Mr. Speaker, the fire

department, commonly referred to as the St. John's Fire Department, operated by

the Provincial Government, from its inception, I expect, until now, has always

provided the fire service in the area known as Mount Pearl - has always provided

it. Now, Mr. Speaker, we are not going to retrench and have Mount Pearl create

its own new fire department. What are we going to do with the capability, the

staff, the people and the unionized representatives employed by that fire

department? Are we going to fire some of them, to lay them off because there is

not enough work so that Mount Pearl can hire its own and withdraw that

experienced, long-standing fire fighting service from providing fire service to

the area of Mount Pearl? No, Mr. Speaker. It make eminently good sense to do

what we did.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Let me advise the Premier, Mr. Speaker, that

the Fire Commissioner, and studies that have been carried out by Woods Gordon

and by others, show quite clearly that the operation of the Mount Pearl Fire

Department will have absolutely no impact whatsoever on the existing St. John's

Fire Department - absolutely no impact, and there will be no layoffs as a result

of Mount Pearl being open.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Premier this: The Premier has

also said that if the majority of the people in the area desire such a service

to be provided in a certain matter - that is what he just told us - if the

majority of the people in the area in the region. In view of a poll that was

released last night, Mr. Speaker, a poll done by Corporate Research Associates,

an independent poll -

MR. SIMMS: That is right, there was.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I do not want to discuss other polls.

AN HON. MEMBER: Were there other polls?

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, there were other polls, as well. The

only one that counts here is at the ballot box, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: We will see how good that poll is when

balloting time comes.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, a poll was done by Corporate

Research Associates, an independent poll not commissioned by anybody locally, a

poll, Mr. Speaker, of 406 persons in the region, 262 of whom were from the City

of St. John's, only 52 from Mount Pearl, and 92 from other parts of the

Metropolitan area, clearly a large majority from the City of St. John's; 83 per

cent of those persons agreed that the City of Mount Pearl should be permitted to

own and operate its own fire department.

In view, Mr. Speaker, of the Fire Commissioner's

recommendations, in view of the lack of any financial analysis on the proposal

Government is putting forward, in view of the very strong expression of public

opinion by this poll and by the 22,000-name petition that I tabled in this

House, how can the Premier justify the action, and will the Premier not agree,

Mr. Speaker, to put the question of the Mount Pearl Fire Department before a

plebescite of this whole region? Let the people of this area decide.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, let me just point out the

misrepresentation again in what the hon. member has said. He has now represented

or misrepresented that my position is that if people want service in a certain

way we will take a poll. I never said any such thing. What I talked about was

amalgamation. I said nothing else other than that.

Now, Mr. Speaker, to think that we are going to burden the

taxpayers of this Province by running duplicate fire fighting services in St.

John's and Mount Pearl instead of running it in a more efficient way, if that is

what the hon. member wants to do, then let him get his party elected to form the

Government and they can implement it, but as matters now stand in this Province,

that seems highly unlikely.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: The NDP are on the move.

AN HON. MEMBER: Live in hope.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members on both side, please, to restrain themselves.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the Government has made the

decision that it honestly and sincerely believes is in the best interest of the

people of this area, and in the best interest of the people of the Province, and

we are going to continue to implement that decision. Now, I could ask a question

in a certain way, and people might even believe and say that the hon. the Member

for Mount Pearl would make a good Premier. I believe if the question were asked

accurately, Mr. Speaker, you would get an accurate response.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER: As it is Private Member's Day, I call on the

Member for Torngat Mountains to introduce his Private Member's resolution.

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Today I have the privilege of introducing a resolution that I

consider - when I came into this Legislature in 1979 I was honoured by the

people of Torngat Mountains in sending me here to do the best job I could for

those people. I think, if you look back over those ten, twelve, or thirteen

years, it is fair to say that I have attempted to do the best I could. Today I

am bringing in a resolution which I think, and I believe, is one of the major

resolutions which could be introduced in this Legislature on behalf of a

minority group of people.

In our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador we have a group

of people who, I believe, and I believe each and every one of us here believes,

have been treated a little bit unfairly and I believe that we, as legislators,

public servants in this Province, have to take a lot of the blame. We have to

take a lot of the blame.

From 1967 until 1979 I worked and lived with the Innu and the

Inuit people in Labrador. It was always - and it is not much different today -

it was always what the white man wanted to do. It was always the philosophy that

the white man is going to do the best for the native people, without

consultation. I remember in 1968 when I was in Davis Inlet and the Inuit people

there at that time were living in tents. The following summer two Marine

Atlantic ships - then it was called Canadian National Railways - the Bonavista

and the Nonia arrived in Davis Inlet. Mr. Speaker, without one word of

consultation with the Inuit people in that community they were told they were

going to be placed in new homes. What they wanted in the way of new homes was

not up to them it was up to Government. Government decided what they wanted to

do.

During the past number of weeks and months right across this

great country of ours the issue of aboriginal people has been discussed widely.

It has been discussed by aboriginals and by non-aboriginals. I think that

Governments, both Federally and Provincially, in our country, have to address

the issue, have to attack the issue head on, and do what they can to accommodate

our first people, because the first people of this great country of ours were

the aboriginals. I have been interested in some of the approaches made by the

Premier in the last year or so. If the former Government and this Government had

recognized aboriginal people we would not be discussing land claims now, Mr.

Speaker. In order to discuss land claims we have to also look at the rights of

the aboriginal people. In this Legislature today we have fifty-two men and women

who have been making decisions on the aboriginal peoples' behalf without really

knowing what they are doing. I would challenge anyone here in this Legislature

that unless you live and work with aboriginal people you cannot understand very

much about them and there is a lot I cannot tell you about them, although I have

been associated with these people for twenty-odd years. They are not asking for

very much but the one thing they are asking for is recognition.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see there are a number of

students in the gallery today and I would venture to say, Mr. Speaker, that very

few of those have ever had the opportunity to speak to one or two of their

counterparts in Nain or in Davis Inlet. An exchange back and forth occurs once

in a while but many of those students, I believe, do not understand the

significance of this minority group of people who want to be recognized. I

remember when I left the waterfront in 1967 on the motor vessel Bonavista, Mr.

Speaker. My mother and father were on the wharf, and it was the first time I was

accepted for a job in Nain. The last words said to me by my mother and father -

AN HON. MEMBER: Good by!

MR. WARREN: Exactly. They said: good by, you are going up

there with the Eskimos and you will never come back again. That was the

mentality of Newfoundlanders at that time and still is today, unfortunately. Mr.

Speaker, I find it most disgusting when you see a Minister of the Crown thinking

this is funny. What is happening today is that Newfoundlanders are not educated

as to the aspirations of the aboriginal people. We need aboriginal people in our

Legislature when decisions are being made on their behalf, not only in our

Legislature but in other Legislatures in this country. The chances of them

becoming members in our Legislature has increased over the last number of years

but I think we have an obligation, and the obligation is to assure that a seat

in the Legislature will be contested by aboriginal people.

That is not asking very much, Mr. Speaker. If we need to

reduce the seats down to fifty, sobeit. I always believed that fifty-two seats

were too many. I really believe that. If we have to reduce the seats down to

forty, reduce them down. But let's make sure that the aboriginal people in this

Province of ours, from Nain to Conne River to the West Coast, wherever they

live, be given the opportunity to elect a representative to the Legislature.

Unless we do that I do not think we as legislators are doing

our duty. Mr. Speaker, I think it is interesting that you are in the Chair now,

because I am sure that I can relate this story and you will understand, and my

colleague for Port au Port will also. I presented a petition in this Legislature

in 1981 which only had eighty signatures on it and it was from the community of

Hopedale. The hardest thing that ever struck me was when a colleague of mine at

that time - as we were asking around the table who was going to be the second

speaker on the petition - said: Why? - It's only eighty people and they're only

Eskimos from Labrador.

That is the kind of comment that really hurts. A former

colleague did this in 1981. There are only two other people in this Legislature

who know when this took place. He said there was only eighty people from

Hopedale and they're only a bunch of Eskimos, so why do you want anybody to

support them? That is the kind of attitude that we have, even today! Maybe even

in this Legislature, in Newfoundland now. That is what does hurt and that is

what is disgusting, when we cannot -

You know, a few days ago I had the opportunity to meet with

two members of the aboriginal committee appointed by the Federal Government, the

former chief of the Indian nation, George Erasmus, and also Mary Sillett. By the

way, I knew Ms. Sillett a number of years ago when she was a resident of

Hopedale. I met and had breakfast with them and I discussed this particular

issue and I advised them that I would be bringing it back to the Legislature. I

asked their opinion, and in fact I got some correspondence back from them since

then. They said: the Premier does not share your ideas, the Premier has strong

reservations about your ideas. Sobeit - that is the Premier's choice. I cannot

argue about that. I am sure every Member in this Legislature has different

ideas. Maybe it is because I don't think there are very many in here who have

had the opportunity to live, eat, and work with those people as long as I have.

Under new Federal proposals there is a recommendation that a

number of aboriginal people be appointed or elected to the Senate. I think that

is a good idea. But surely goodness are we just going to go that far and put a

number of aboriginals into the Senate and forget about it? There is also a

recommendation from a committee on election reform in Canada that a percentage

of the total Canadian population be aboriginal people in the House of Commons.

This would work out to roughly twelve, roughly twelve.

New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario are looking at bringing in

legislation assuring aboriginal representation in their Legislatures. Now, Mr.

Speaker, our Premier has been very, very vocal on fairness and balance, and I

think we, as the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, can make history. We can

make history, by having a guaranteed seat in this Legislature for the aboriginal

people.

Mr. Speaker, look at the District of Torngat Mountains, if

you want an example. Torngat Mountains has roughly 72 per cent of its people of

aboriginal descent, give or take a percentage here or there. Roughly 72 per cent

of the people of the District of Torngat Mountains are aboriginal people.

In the District of Naskaupi - if my hon. colleague from

Naskaupi were here he would vouch for this - there are close to 3,500 people of

aboriginal descent, LIA membership and the Naskaupi Montagnais. So there are

roughly between 2,800 and 3,500 people of aboriginal descent in the District of

Naskaupi which could be close to 50 per cent. So, those are two districts, Mr.

Speaker, if you are looking at it percentage-wise. But that is not a guarantee

of election, Mr. Speaker. Furthermore, we have to look at the 28 per cent in

Torngat that are non-native and look at the other 45 or 50 per cent in Naskaupi

that are non-native. So, where do these people fit in if you are going to have

an election in one of those guaranteed seats?

So, Mr. Speaker, if you want to define the boundaries - and

there are aboriginal people down in the area of Conne River, down in the Bay

d'Espoir area. There are aboriginal people down there. They are recognized by

the Federal and Provincial Governments. So, Mr. Speaker, there are more

aboriginal people in this Province, in fact there are more voting aboriginal

people in this Province, than there are in the District of Eagle River and in

the District of Torngat Mountains, the two smallest population districts. There

are more aboriginal people all over Newfoundland and Labrador then there are in

either one of those two districts.

The hon. the Premier is shaking his head, and I am sure he is

going to get up in rebuttal to what I am saying, but I say to the hon. Premier

and I say to the rest of the members on both sides of this Legislature that it

is out there and we have to address it. Now, whether my suggestion is the right

way or not, that will be up to the Legislature to decide. Mr. Speaker, the

aboriginal people in our Province want representation, and I think if we can do

anything to accommodate their request, then I think, Mr. Speaker, we should do

it. It is up to us. If we have the will to do it, we can do it.

I find it very, very irritating when I talk to colleagues

either on this side or on that side or down the corridor, or I talk to people on

the street, I get this feeling and I get these comments, 'Well, there are only

2500 of them, there are only 2,000 of them, there are only 1,000 in Nain, they

are living in old beatup houses with the windows all smashed out,' all these

kind of things. That is what really upsets me, when I hear these kinds of

comments. It is almost like, 'Oh, they are second class citizens, the hell with

them.'

Mr. Speaker, that is not my attitude towards the whole thing.

My attitude is that they are part of our great Province, and we should recognize

their rights. Mr. Speaker, Sister Campbell with the Presentation Sisters of

Newfoundland said: The greatest thing we could do in our Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador is to educate our non-native people to the aspirations

and ambitions of our native people, to educate them as to who our first people

were. Unfortunately, we are not doing that. I would hope that this resolution

would go through and, if need be, maybe the Premier may see fit to set up a

committee to study this resolution. Irregardless of what you do with the

resolution, and if we do come out of this Legislature today setting up a

committee to study the whole idea of how this would work, I say to the Premier,

to the Government, to everyone in this Legislature, there is only one way to set

up a committee, and that is with the aboriginal people, not with us. It is not

for us to decide. If we are going to set up a committee, let us set it up with

the aboriginal people and let them decide the best way for them to get into this

Legislature. I venture to say they would come back with a suggestion such as

that of having a guaranteed seat.

Mr. Speaker, I leave this, as I am sure I am going to finish

up in the last twenty minutes, or the last hour if need be. Then I will go into

more detail on what the particular resolution is about, which is making sure

that there is a seat in the Legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador for the

first people of this country, the first people of this Province, the aboriginal

people. Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, before I give my response to

this resolution and the comments of the hon. member, I want, at the outset, to

say that I have no doubt that the intentions of the hon. member are good, and he

genuinely is concerned about ensuring appropriate and adequate representation in

this Legislature of the aboriginal people who live in this Province. However, as

sometimes happens with good intentions, they are often expressed in an ill-timed

manner, or the good intention carries the individual to make a suggestion at a

time when it is most inappropriate, or to propose a solution that is not at all

appropriate to the circumstance. I think that this is what this resolution

reflects. So, in making the comments let nobody suggest that I am, in any

manner, questioning the good intentions or genuine desire of the hon. the Member

for Torngat Mountains to achieve the desired end, because it is our own desire

to see that there is adequate provision for representation by aboriginal people

in this Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, I should also, at the outset, tell members that

in preparing for the last general election, I talked to at least five different

aboriginal people in Torngat Mountains to seek their agreement to run for the

Liberal party and contest the hon. member in the seat that he now holds, and I

think that the hon. member is probably aware of that, that I did seek their

consent to run. For whatever reason - maybe they liked the hon. member that much

that they did not want to contest him; I do not know whether that is so or not,

but for whatever reason - none of them decided to seek the nomination. Maybe

they did not like the Liberal party, but in any event, no aboriginal member

sought the nomination for the Conservative party, either, or for the NDP, as far

as I know. So no aboriginal member sought election in the Torngat Mountain

district in the last general election in this Province.

As the hon. member knows, I sought another member, too. I

tried to persuade him to run in a district on the Island part of the Province.

He chose not to at the time. He is a good, solid Liberal supporter, and maybe

the next time around he will seek a seat, and I would like to induce him to do

so.

The other thing I want to say to the hon. member before I

address his remarks specifically is, please don't rely on what somebody else

tells him are my positions. Seek them from me and I will gladly give them to

him, but don't expect somebody else's view of my position to be my position.

They are just that, they are somebody else's view. Whether it comes from Mary

Sillett or whether it is a figment of the hon. member's imagination, or a

dressed-up version of it by the hon. member, whatever it is, it is not my

personal view of it, so please do not misrepresent my personal view on these

matters.

There are a couple of difficulties with the hon. member's

suggestion. The Province of New Brunswick have proposed that they would create a

number of aboriginal seats but they would be non-voting seats. They would have

the right to sit in the Legislature and speak but not have the right to vote.

Frankly, I think that is wrong. I think it would be insulting to the people and

I cannot imagine that they would accept the proposition, and I would not for a

moment put that forward here. I would only hope that the aboriginal people would

seek election in any seat in the Province in which they wanted to, but, in

particular, in Torngat Mountains, where at least 72 per cent of the voters - as

the hon. members notes - perhaps more, are aboriginal.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Naskaupi?

PREMIER WELLS: I don't think the percentage in Naskaupi

is bigger.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) more numbers (inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: There are more numbers but not a bigger

percentage.

Mr. Speaker, I should say something else to the House. As

hon. members know, in 1993 there will be the decennial reallocation of seats in

the Province. After the census of 1991 is tabulated and a committee can be put

in place, the existing legislation requires that a committee be put in place to

reallocate seats. One of the things we have been looking at is the possibility

of a reallocation of seats to include, perhaps, the Sheshatshit area and the

predominately native areas of the Naskaupi district into Torngat and make sure

that there would be one seat with an overwhelming aboriginal majority, and that

there would be a clear chance for the people of that district, if they wanted to

elect an aboriginal person to this House, to do so, but you should not force it

on them if they do not want to do that.

I would prefer, really, to change the boundaries in such a

way as to do the best we can to include in a district in Labrador, perhaps

basically founded on Torngat, the hon. member's district, and include a portion

of Naskaupi in that, that would be predominantly aboriginal, to have a clearly

predominantly aboriginal seat in this Province, and leave it to the aboriginal

people for themselves to decide who they want to represent them. I would be

quite confident that they would chose an aboriginal person, if that is what they

want, but, by the same token, we should not dictate in any area that nobody who

is not of aboriginal blood can represent all of the people in that seat if they

want to choose somebody else to do so. I think it would be wrong to do that. I

think we should distort the size of the seat, as we have already done, because

Torngat - how many people are there in Torngat? - 1500?

MR. WARREN: Thirty-five hundred.

PREMIER WELLS: About 3500, altogether, which is less than

a third the size -

MR. WARREN: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: There are 1400 voters and in many

districts in the Province -

MR. WARREN: Where?

PREMIER WELLS: In Torngat.

MR. WARREN: There are 1600.

PREMIER WELLS: There are 1600 voters in Torngat, which is

about a quarter of the size of most other districts in the Province, not all,

but most other districts.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). The geography is

(inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: I say, I agree with doing that. The

geography of it is important, but also, Mr. Speaker, we must preserve to the

maximum extent we can the principle of the equality of citizens, one person, one

vote. But there are certain circumstances that warrant deviating from that

principle, and I believe, the fact that the majority of the people in that area

are of aboriginal decent warrants our creating and putting in place a seat that

would give a clear and overwhelming ability to elect an aboriginal person if

that is what the majority of the people of the district wanted to do. So I think

that is probably the best way to achieve it. We are probably part of the way

there now with the structure of Torngat district the way it is. We could

probably add in a portion of Naskaupi to make it even more effective in that

way, and I think, when the review comes around in 1993, that is one of the

things we should look at. But I don't believe we should make the decision now in

this House, I think there is a greater reason for not supporting this resolution

at this time, and we do not support it for those reasons. I think, a more cogent

reason is the fact that it is inappropriate.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: The next review is in 1993 - or 1992, I

guess -

MR. SIMMS: No, it is not. The electoral boundaries, you

mean?

PREMIER WELLS: Yes.

MR. SIMMS: 1995.

PREMIER WELLS: 1993. We will get the act and see.

MR. SIMMS: Well, (inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: It came in 1973, 1983. I looked at the

statute only two weeks ago, but I will have it checked. Maybe there is an

amendment to it that I haven't seen, but I will have the statute checked. I

think it is 1993.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, there is a more cogent reason for

not moving in this direction now, and that more cogent reason is that right at

this particular time in the whole nation, the whole question of the

constitutional place of our aboriginal people is under discussion. It would be

inappropriate for us to act precipitously and say in respect of the aboriginal

people of Newfoundland and Labrador, we - none of whom are aboriginal in this

House, or claim to be; maybe some of us have some aboriginal blood, but none of

us claim to be aboriginal people - would be making a decision without having any

input from the aboriginal people. I think that would be wrong.

I think it is more appropriate at this stage, Mr. Speaker,

for us to watch the national constitutional developments, because they are

surely going to provide for a certain level of aboriginal self-government, as

well as representation in the two Houses of Parliament and representation in the

various Legislatures of the territories and the provinces. So I think it would

be acting presumptuously and precipitously for us to move now on this

resolution. That is why I prefaced my remarks by saying I do not question the

good intentions of the hon. member. I know he genuinely desires to address the

question, but I do not think this is the correct way to address that question.

As well, Mr. Speaker, hon. members would do well to bear in

mind that there are two other Royal Commission processes in place. One: the

Erasmus/Dussault Commission, the Royal Commission on aboriginal affairs,

co-chaired by George Erasmus and Mr. Justice Dussault. That commission is

working and considering these very questions, so I do not think it is the right

thing to move now, to make a decision and to go a certain way without having the

overall input and the collective wisdom of the aboriginal people of the country

as to what the constitutional changes should be.

As well, Mr. Speaker, I announced on behalf of the Government

recently, and I had indicated it prior to that, to aboriginal groups in

Labrador, to the LIA, to the Naskaupi people at Davis Inlet, that we were quite

prepared to discuss with them, aspects of self-government. We think it only

appropriate, and we told them a year ago that we were quite prepared to do that.

When I spoke to our Constitutional Committee in this Chamber, some month ago, I

guess, now, I stated very clearly that this Government is committed to the

principle of providing for an appropriate level of aboriginal self-government,

of discussing with the aboriginal people a means whereby that could be

implemented within the overall constitutional sovereignty of Canada, and we are

committed to doing that.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to have that, and have a

level of aboriginal self-government, we cannot very well have a situation where

there would be two or three levels of voting, or two or three rights of voting

for the same citizens. You have to balance it and provide for continuing balance

that represents the principle of the equality of citizens. We will not achieve a

just and lasting solution if we take the pendulum from an unacceptable level on

the left and swing it all the way to an unacceptable level on the right. You are

only going to create dissatisfaction and backlash. So the way to deal with this

problem, I believe, is to take the time over the next twelve to twenty-four

months, as these Royal Commissions and the various constitutional activities are

underway, and try to find the right solution.

But I share the member's dedication, and if this resolution,

instead, called for a commitment to work towards finding a solution to provide

for an adequate level of representation in the House or self-government or a

combination of both, then I would be quite prepared to support it because that,

of course, is the position of the Government.

But, if this resolution were to pass now, the Government

really would be duty bound to introduce legislation to immediately amend the

Elections Act to provide for the election of a person of aboriginal descent, and

I think that would be presumptuous on our part, and it would be acting

irresponsibly, in light of the present discussions that are underway. So, if the

member wanted to amend the resolution - I will not ask the House to amend it,

nobody on this side would move an amendment because it is the hon. member's

resolution and we would only move it with his consent. If he consented to amend

the resolution in a way that reflected the House's general support for endorsing

constitutional change that would ensure an appropriate level of representation

for aboriginal people in this House, including an appropriate level of

self-government for aboriginal people, I am sure members on this side of the

House would be quite prepared to support the resolution. In its present form,

Mr. Speaker, we obviously cannot support the resolution because of what it calls

for, but I do encourage the hon. member and congratulate him for the general

thrust of his position because that is in accord with what has been the

Government's position for the last year or so. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to have a

few words to say on the private member's resolution so ably put forth by my

colleague, the Member for Torngat Mountains, and I join with the Premier in

commending the member. I can tell the House that within the confines of our

caucus room and, indeed, outside, the Member for Torngat Mountains articulates

the concerns of the people he represents, a vast majority of whom are aboriginal

people, in his district of Torngat Mountains. But he has the same strong feeling

for aboriginal people outside his own district, throughout the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

PREMIER WELLS: Will the hon. member yield to me for just

a moment? - not to interfere with his speech, not to deal with a response, in

any way, but I have to leave for some meetings and there are a couple of things

I would like to -

MR. SIMMS: Is this the '73 versus the '75?

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, there are two -

MR. SIMMS: I understand the answer now.

PREMIER WELLS: It is '93.

MR. SIMMS: Yes.

PREMIER WELLS: Okay. There is one more thing. I can now

give the information on the question that was asked about the municipal matter,

if they want it, if not I can hold it until tomorrow.

MR. SIMMS: Can you table it?

PREMIER WELLS: No. It is a verbal explanation that I have

to give.

MR. SIMMS: Okay, go ahead.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I am advised by officials in the

department, Mr. Speaker, that there have been no changes whatsoever in the

system of municipal grants, outside of what was announced by the minister last

year. The roads component, which is a floating system that will kick in when

certain things happen, was announced at the time. Dr. Kitchen's explanation is

correct. His

interpretation of it is correct, so I just pass that on.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I imagine that issue

will be debated further by my colleague, the Member for Humber Valley. I am sure

he will pursue that matter.

Anyway, to get back to the resolution. As I was saying, the

Member for Torngat Mountains has some very strong feelings on behalf of the

people he represents, and it is all the people of Torngat Mountains he is

speaking for, not just the aboriginal people who happen to make up 72 per cent,

or whatever it is, of the district. And he speaks just as strongly and from the

heart about issues affecting our native peoples throughout the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, it was only a week

or so ago, a few days ago, that I had the privilege of sitting down with about

twenty young people, aboriginal people I don't know if they were all from

Torngat Mountains, I think they were. Some of them were students, others were

young people working in the City of St. John's or down in this area working, all

of whom are highly articulate, highly concerned about their futures, their own

personal futures and the futures of the aboriginal people, not only in

Newfoundland and Labrador, but throughout Canada. I asked the question of them

that we are debating here today. I passed out that question and asked them how

they felt about the issue that their Member was trying to have debated in the

Legislature. That there be some method put in place so that a seat or

representation would be assured in the Newfoundland Legislature. They obviously

were receptive to that kind of a proposal as put forth by their Member.

I even asked the question about whether or not they would

elect or vote for an aboriginal person who might be a candidate in Torngat

Mountains, which is similar to what the Premier was talking about a little

earlier. If there was an aboriginal person as the candidate in Torngat Mountains

running against the present Member, Mr. Warren, I asked them what they felt and

what their voting pattern might be like. I have a very strong feeling that the

voting pattern would favour the present Member. That is a bit of irony in it

all. I think that is fair. My colleague would support me. When I asked -

MR. TOBIN: He's too modest. That is being unfair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: When I asked the young people who we met with

a few days ago, when I asked the question, they were very supportive of having

some kind of a measure taken to assure aboriginal representation in the

Legislature. They were very supportive of that. When I tossed out the idea that

the Premier just talked about, about having Torngat Mountains - that particular

seat - identified and selected as a seat where, because it has 70 per cent

aboriginal people -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: - a seat where the aboriginal persons might

run to seek election, I asked them - I say to my colleague, I am just getting to

my question now - if an aboriginal person ran for the Liberal Party for example,

or the New Democratic Party, against the Member for Torngat Mountains who

presently holds the seat, of the twenty or so aboriginal young people that I met

with - all of whom were of voting age, I think, except for a couple of small

children - I think it is fair to say that they would support the present Member

for Torngat Mountains. That is the irony in it all.

MR. NOEL: That is more than irony.

MR. SIMMS: Well, the hon. Member for Pleasantville may

think it is more than irony but I am saying -

MR. NOEL: It's a great compliment to the member.

MR. SIMMS: It certainly is, and he deserves that kind of

support. So under that kind of scenario of course then there would be no

assurance that aboriginal people would be represented.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Oh, I think there is a possibility that there

may be an aboriginal person running for the Conservative Party in Torngat

Mountains the next time around. That is a possibility. I do not know if the

Member for Torngat Mountains has let that out yet or leaked that. I just let

slip that there is a possibility there may be an aboriginal person running for

the Conservative Party - never mind the Liberal Party.

MR. WARREN: At least for the nomination.

MR. SIMMS: At least for the nomination.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why is Garfield resigning?

MR. SIMMS: Oh, I did not say Garfield was resigning.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I will let the Minister of Health stew over

that one and try to figure that one out. I will let him try to figure that one

out over the next little while.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, not to be thrown off track, but I am

somewhat encouraged that the Premier is prepared to accept the principle of the

resolution put forth by the Member for Torngat Mountains. The principle of

trying to find some way to ensure, or to assure, aboriginal representation in

the Legislature. He threw out a bunch of scenarios, taking Sheshatshit, or other

parts of Naskaupi district, and putting it into Torngat Mountains. He mentioned,

although he did not agree with it, the New Brunswick approach, which I do not

agree with either, by the way, which is to have non-voting representation. That

is not what they are looking for and that is not what they need.

But there are some options, and I think the gist of the

Premier's speech is that he was prepared to consider it and he is considering

it, he is looking at ways to try to bring about the principle outlined in my

colleague's resolution. The principle is that there should be aboriginal

representation in the Legislature. Let's find the right way to do it. All we are

debating here today, and all we may continue to debate for the rest of the day,

is a way to do it -a way to do it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, Mr. Speaker, we are not quite ready for

the question. That is one of the problems. That is one of the problems with the

whole issue of dealing with aboriginal rights. People, particularly non-native

people like ourselves, are too anxious to sweep it off, brush it away, instead

of standing up and debating it, discussing it, and talking about their problems

and their concerns. Lord knows, I was in a government that recognized the rights

of native people, aboriginal people, to pursue land claims. We agreed with that,

as a government, and got it off the ground I guess. We got it started anyway,

many years back when it all began. Now it moved very slowly, but we were the

ones who recognized it and gave the approval for it.

Still, I confess that I do not understand everything there is

to understand about aboriginal peoples. I confess that. As a matter of fact, Mr.

Speaker, I suspect there are many people in this Province, and indeed in this

country, who do not have a good understanding of what it is all about; how they

live; what it is they want to do with their lives. Therein lies the problem.

That is the question that we are trying to address, and that is the question

that my friend from Torngat Mountains is trying to address, because he

understands it better than any of us. He understands it better than anyone in

this Legislature. In fact the Premier himself, when he was in the Naskaupi area

- Goose Bay, Garfield, I think it was -and met with some of the aboriginal

groups and native peoples up there, he admitted, if I remember the news stories,

the Premier admitted and confessed that he had had a change of heart in dealing

with this whole question and this whole issue.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, and his own constitutional proposals

addressed that issue. So the Premier made the point that it is ill-timed. Well,

he was not listening to the Member for Torngat Mountains, because when the

Member for Torngat Mountains introduced the resolution, he himself, the Member

for Torngat Mountains, suggested that rather than lose this resolution, let us

put it to a committee. Let us try to put a committee together. Let us let a

committee involving the aboriginal people, maybe predominantly involving the

aboriginal people - maybe the majority would be aboriginal people with some

elected representatives of the Legislature - let them discuss this matter and

bring back something to the Legislature in the spring and give us some ideas. It

does not have to be done today. It does not have to be done tomorrow, but let us

give them the opportunity; let us give them the opportunity, and that is all

that the Member for Torngat Mountains was really saying, Mr. Speaker.

I also do not want to leave the impression that this is not a

difficult issue to deal with. It is an extremely difficult issue to deal with,

as is the case with most issues that are hard to deal with, mostly because there

is a lot of misunderstanding; mostly because there is a lot of misinformation;

mostly because people do not quite follow what is going on, or they do not

exactly know what it is the people are looking for in this case, and that is the

case with any issue that is hard to deal with, and this is an issue that is hard

to deal with. We make no bones about it. Even the Member for Torngat Mountains

would admit to that, I am sure, and he knows.

Mr. Speaker, what is encouraging I think, is that the Premier

said he is considering this resolution, and considering finding a way to

accommodate the principle contained in the resolution put forth by the Member

for Torngat Mountains. He threw out the olive branch, suggesting that maybe an

amendment could be put forward. I have not talked to the Member for Torngat

Mountains to know how he feels about it. I know he strongly feels there should

be representation in the Legislature for aboriginal people. I know he strongly

feels that. But rather than lose it, he might be prepared to consider - I do not

know; if I have a chance I will talk to him before it is all over at 5:00 p.m.

today - he might be prepared to consider some way to ensure that this is kept

going, kept alive, get the aboriginal people involved themselves; show, on our

part as legislators, some compassion and some understanding at least for the

plight and the problems that these people face, and hopefully in the process

educate ourselves, because therein lies the biggest problem, the lack of

education, knowledge, and understanding that we have ourselves.

I believe that and I do not know everything there is to know,

but I do know there are a lot of people around who have difficulties with it for

some of the reasons outlined by the Premier. Maybe that is wrong so why not take

the approach suggested by the Member for Torngat Mountains, and I think alluded

to by the Premier in some way, shape, or form, let us take the approach of

finding a way to accommodate the resolution or at least the principle contained

in the resolution put forward by the Member for Torngat Mountains. I as one

member of the Legislature would be quite prepared to support that approach.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for LaPoile.

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to have a few words about the hon.

member's resolution. Again, I am pleased to see it there as an initiative that

will certainly serve well to bring about a shift, I suppose, in the thinking

here in the Province. I want to let everybody know and not give the impression

that I am extremely well versed in the native affairs of the Province. I, as

most, would be informed partially by one of my colleagues here, the hon. Member

for Eagle River, and also through my own following of current affairs in the

news as to what the native people of the Province, and also of the country, are

desirous of, what they as a people see as their right to, as they would call it,

inherent self-government, this is the term that is used nationally, albeit here

in the Province they have yet to come to the point where they have yet to deal

with it in a manner in which we are speaking of now. I guess they have had their

ideas themselves in the past. I do not know if the Legislature in the past has

gone to a point of discussing it and debating it to this point, to this extent.

I would think not, but it is certainly something that we have to have some

inward looking people, like the hon. member, who will certainly attempt to do

something on behalf of the native people in the Province. The words, 'on behalf

of', is something that, as the hon. member mentioned in his speech first when he

started off, that is what we have to get away from, acting on behalf of the

native people of the Province. We would like, as people here representing the

whole Province collectively in the Legislature, to have the native people act on

behalf of themselves. This is certainly something we have to look at. We have to

see to it that somehow or other, through a process of allowing them to come up

with some proposals to the Legislature, of allowing them to come up with some

manner of shifting the way that Government now operates, be it through a change

to the House of Assembly Act sometime in the future, or some kind of other

method where they could possibly be well represented within the decision making

levels here in the Province, some manner for them to have their issues heard

regularly, to have their issues dealt with, issues they deal with normally in

the course of the various groups and associations they are a member of, and the

groups and associations they have started and have gotten to.

I wanted to draw a bit of an analogy to other parts of the

Province. We have in a lot of the smaller areas of the Province a similar

situation. I say similar and I have no right to determine that what has happened

in some smaller areas of the Province is the same as the native situation. I am

sure that it is not but there are similarities. In the smaller areas of the

Province, say for instance a small town, a small outport community, or what have

you, the people there, without the general leadership required, I guess, to make

representations on their behalf without the solid educational background in

these smaller communities throughout the years, they in turn were not always

very well able to make representations on behalf of themselves.

They had to look to others who would represent them in

Government, others who would do things for them in the preparation of small

presentations that had to be made to governments, be made to visiting government

officials and what not, and these things that had to be done are changing as

society becomes better educated, as we get a higher level of education in given

areas, notwithstanding the fact that illiteracy is still something that plagues

us throughout the Province, but the people are improving in their ways of

dealing with the systems that we have in place. Likewise, as I see throughout

the last number of years that I have been following native affairs in the news,

that they are getting to a point where they finally have people in decision

making capacities within their own organizations, and within national and area

organizations that make good representations on their behalf.

They are much more able now to represent their own desires

and their own wants and needs as a people to the decision making authorities in

the country, and also here in the Province, than they have been in any time in

the past. Apparently there are approximately 7,000 native persons, aboriginal

people here in the Province, as I understand. That in turn would put them as a

community on par with one of the largest municipalities in the Province. There

are ten, I think, in excess of 4,000 people here in the Province - ten different

communities - correct me if I am wrong. The 7,000 people represent almost the

size of my own native town of Port aux Basques, so a very solid sizable group of

people, albeit spread somewhat throughout a variety of areas of the Province.

Now they do need a collective voice. I am sure they are ably

represented by the hon. member to this point in time. Maybe some variation in

the way that his district is represented, and there are a lot of 'maybe's' at

this point in time because for us to pass the resolution as it is written here,

of course, hopefully we can come up with some kind of accommodation to vary it

somewhat, and make it acceptable to all parties here in the House, but I do also

feel that passing it in its current form would be nothing really other than -

the intent is good, but the proclamation of this as a resolution by the

Legislature could possible be problematic, and cause some difficulty.

I wanted to bring a little something that came to me recently

in the way of a story, and it is maybe the kind of thing that we have to look at

as far as changing our mind-set, and changing our way of dealing with things

like this. We, sitting in this Legislature, see the native issue as being dealt

with from the perspective of the Legislature itself. We see us in our various

positions that for someone to represent native people, they would have to

arrive, be sworn in as we are, and become part of the same process. Now that has

its merits, I am sure, because you have a process in place, but the question of

course is, is that the right way? We look at it, and the hon. member did mention

a couple of things like the lack of understanding on the part of the white man,

to use a phrase, in understanding native people's wants, desires, and this sort

of thing, and you speak of the things associated with the building of houses,

and how that became a real black eye for the efforts of the Department of Native

Affairs, I guess, in not listening to what those individuals wanted as housing,

and therefore as soon as they were built they became a problem, and they did not

suit the needs.

I have a friend who is an architect in the Northwest

Territories who often does design of facilities and houses for native people,

and he has often told me of the problems in making sure that your design of the

premises suit the culture and lifestyle of the people that you are designing it

for. It would be useless to assume that a two bedroom bungalow is going to be

useful for the native individual who is still very much tied to the land, is a

hunting person. He or she as a family who live off the land, to put them in a

two bedroom bungalow with electric heat and all these sort of things just does

not really make a lot of sense and is possibly something that should have been

better thought out before it was attempted, and that has then been taken and

twisted I guess within some people's minds, as meaning that the people for whom

they were built were ignorant and the people for whom they were built were not

capable of living like the white man so therefore they shunned the idea of these

people as if they were not grateful for what was being done for them. I am sure

they had as much gratefulness as anybody, but of course if it did not suit their

lifestyle it was not unlike trying to take a fish out of water and hope that it

can swim. It was not unlike trying to make someone acclimatize himself to the

manner in which the white man deals with things in having a comfortable two

bedroom bungalow with electric heat.

Now what I was going to get into is the idea of changing our

perspective as Members of the Legislature. e. Well I, as one of the younger

members and Danny as well, I suppose, the hon. Member for Eagle River, maybe we

are a little less tried in our ways, we are not as prone to see things from this

chair and this chair only. We possibly see that there can be changes made, we

see that maybe we have to come up with different ideas and hopefully accept

different ideas from native peoples as to how they might best be able to

integrate into this Legislature, integrate into Government decision making.

Maybe there is a wholly different manner in which we can approach it in concert

with them in making the decision.

That would be I suppose, looking at our Legislature here, is

somewhat of a paradigm, and I use that word because it is the point at which or

the way that we see it is based on the paradigm of the way things currently are,

the benchmark by which the current situation be judged. Now, to shift that

somewhat, and again I will use a little story as an analogy. The story is that

of the Swiss watch making companies.

The Swiss, as we all well know were the watchmakers, they had

the Swiss watch movement back in the late 60s and they used to do things a

certain way. They were the ones who had the technology and the expertise to

build the Swiss watch and along came this little thing called the Quartz

Movement, and the quartz movement came along and it was a fantastic thing,

although it was developed by, not the Japanese who are now the world leaders, it

was developed by the Swiss, but that group of people could not see past their

typical swiss movement watch, so they held on to their technology, and gave no

trouble in allowing the licensing for quartz watch technology to go all over the

world. Their market share went somewhere from about 70 odd per cent I think down

to 16 per cent in the course of about ten years, so they basically were just

levelled, that is a business type analogy but, the thing was they could not see

past the way things were done. They could not see past - well I would not say

the end of their noses, it is not that kind of thing but again, they were tried

in their ways, they wanted to maintain things as -

AN HON. MEMBER: Beyond their risk.

MR. RAMSAY: - yes, beyond their risk is a good way of

putting it and lo and behold, they were bypassed by others, they were left in

the cold and they were unable to meet the need. Now of course to look at it here

in this Legislature, we could I suppose do it as the hon. member stated, and it

may work very well, it may be the best thing, but without the effort on our part

to consult with the native people, to allow them to be part of the process and

to allow them to be the decision-makers I guess in this case, offering as much

accommodation as is possible, by the Legislature, we would be doing, I would

think, a disservice at this point in time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to clue up just by saying that I, a

native Newfoundlander myself, a person from the mainland part of the Province,

and my family having a long background in Newfoundland, but yet we were not here

before the current Newfoundland and Labrador native people were.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RAMSAY: They were here before us. They were here

before us and of course I do feel strongly that we have to make some

accommodation for the native people in allowing for their representation within

the decision making bodies here within the Province, and do whatever we can in a

cooperative and constructive manner to shift the paradigm somewhat. To open our

minds and not think of things within our own perspective. To think of things

within the perspective of an overall view in accommodating all of the people of

the Province, including the native people especially.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise with pleasure

to endorse the initiative taken by the hon. Member for Torngat Mountains in

bringing forth this resolution. I say that I disagree strongly with the Premier

when he says that the resolution is untimely. The principle contained in the

resolution is more timely now than it has ever been. Because we are in a time

when at long last the people of Canada - that is, the non-aboriginal or

non-native people of Canada - are finally recognizing that they have a duty to

provide some affirmative action to ensure that aboriginal people have a rightful

place in the Constitution of our country, in the Government of our country, and

in the government of their own communities and people.

That is particularly so in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador, where up until a very short period of time ago native people were

given very little recognition, and in fact were treated with prejudice and

treated with a constitutional ignoring, and ignorance in the real sense of the

word, which was a scandal and a shame.

I may relate some of my own experiences in terms of coming to

some level of consciousness about not only the presence of native people in our

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, but my own experience in coming to

realize what a terrible fate had befallen the native people in this Province.

Not just the continuing historical shame that we all must share, or we all do

share as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians - although we do not have individual

fault for it - the shame that the race of Indians known as the Beothucks became

extinct on the very land of Newfoundland and Labrador in the 19th century. Now I

am not going to rehash that particular problem. But let's face it, Newfoundland

and Labrador throughout the world is know as the location where became extinct a

people that had a culture, a history which is unique to them, and a people who

no longer share this earth with the rest of us.

But my own experience of this consciousness of native people

in this Province arose from meeting a number of representatives of the people of

Conne River in the early 'seventies who very articulately put forth the position

and the problems of being a native person in Newfoundland and Labrador. It was

one that I had great concerns about, knowing that the rightful place of

aboriginals in Newfoundland and Labrador had not been recognized. I visited

Conne River in the early 'seventies and stayed for several days with families

there and listened to what they had to say about their experience of life in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

I was told stories about the people of Conne River going

across the river to get their freight, as they called it, or get their goods.

They would go to a town, I believe the town was called Morrisville, across the

river from Conne River, and (Inaudible) to go to the general store in

Morrisville, if there was anybody else there to be served, they had to wait. If

there were three or four people from Conne River in this store and a white

person came in, they had to stand back and wait till all the white people were

served before they were served in that store. Now that is what happened in Conne

River to native people in this Province - not two centuries ago, not 100 years

ago, but in the lives of people who are now living in this Province.

Now the people of this Province have really failed to

recognize the rights of native people. The Premier has only recently, in this

very House several weeks ago, recognized that in his own responses to the

constitutional proposals in the Meech Lake round of constitutional affairs, only

recently acknowledged that he was wrong by failing to recognize the position of

aboriginal people as an important element of constitutional reform in this

country. That is an indication of the failure, not only of governments

historically, but this Government in the last twelve months, in the last year in

dealing with the Meech Lake Accord did not recognize that the native and

aboriginal people in this Province and this country had to play a significant

role if constitutional reform was going to be acceptable.

I also in the mid-seventies visited Labrador and spent

several days in the community of Davis Inlet in the summer of 1976. Now I heard

our colleague, the Member for Torngat Mountains, talk about the attitude of

certain Newfoundlanders, and I say "Newfoundlanders" because I do not mean

Labradorians, towards the native people in Labrador. Let me tell you how shocked

I was to hear it said - and I will not tell you the name of the vessel - but I

was on one of the coastal boats run by the Canadian National Railways at the

time. I told the people who were the crew on this boat that I was going ashore

in Davis Inlet. There were men who had worked on that boat, and worked on the

Labrador coast, for twenty years and more, who had never been ashore in Davis

Inlet. Never had gone ashore and gone and seen the village and the community of

Davis Inlet, and never saw how the native people had lived.

But they had an opinion. They said: you're crazy to go ashore

there, you'll be scalped! In 1976, to go ashore from a coastal boat, the

Bonavista was the name of the ship, and on that ship I was told by the crew:

don't go ashore there, you'd be crazy because you'll be scalped, they're

savages. Now that is the kind of attitude that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

who are alive today have had about native people, and that is the level of

ignorance and intolerance that we have seen in our own lifetimes.

So what we have here with this resolution is an opportunity

for all Members of this House - and I suppose it is appropriate that it is a

Private Member's Resolution. I know the Premier is irritated when somebody other

than he takes some initiative on the constitution, or on matters of great

import, as this one is. We heard his irritation in his reaction. But even though

there may be some difficulties with the wording of the hon. Member's resolution,

that would make it difficult for the Government to support it as it stands,

there is a great principle involved, and I would hope that all hon. Members are

able to endorse this principle.

In the current round of constitutional debate the proposals

that the Federal Government has put forth have been met with a strong negative

reaction from native people, because it fails to recognize that aboriginal

people have the inherent right to self-government. Not one granted by us, but

one that they have. What the principle of this resolution asks - and this goes

beyond self-government - because self-government is something that I think we do

have to recognize and allow native and aboriginal people to work out what they

mean by that. We will sit down and negotiate how that is brought about. But what

we are saying, in this place where all of us have a collective responsibility to

make the laws for this Province within our constitutional mandate, that we want

to assure that there is at least one - and I say "at least one" - aboriginal

person here.

That is a very simple resolution. How do we do it? We are not

here to answer that today. That is something that must be discussed with

aboriginal people not just in Torngat Mountains - because as the Premier said,

if the people of Torngat Mountains wanted to kick out the hon. Member for

Torngat Mountains and elect one of their own, they could have done it before.

AN HON. MEMBER: They never would, though, never will.

MR. HARRIS: They may not, because he may be such a fine

fellow that they would not want to. But that is not the point, Mr. Speaker. The

point is, and I think the Premier spoke about difficulties in finding native

people to run, I agree with that. That is because the native people that I talk

to who support the kind of things that our Party speaks out for do not want to

get involved in party politics. They do not want to be divided amongst

themselves. If native or aboriginal leaders would chose to run for the NDP or

the PCs or the Liberals, they might fear that they will be divided amongst

themselves, and that the Parties will try to manipulate and divide them so that

they can represent them in this House.

It may be that the most appropriate form of representation

for aboriginal people will be to have a district that is similar, I suppose, in

effect to what might come under proportional representation in other

Legislatures around the world. That the aboriginal people of this Province, all

of them, not just in Torngat Mountains but those who live in the districts of

Naskaupi, Port au Port, Bay d'Espoir or Fortune - Hermitage, which Conne River I

think is in. Or in the district of Gander, or the other districts of this

Province that have aboriginal populations that are recognized as such by

whatever details and formulas are worked out with the aboriginal people

themselves. That they will choose whether to be involved in partisan politics as

we know it, or they will choose to have someone here in this House to speak as

an aboriginal person. And to inform us of what is wrong with the kind of things

that we may be doing or what we are doing to aboriginal people.

Well, I have taken a great interest in the problem of

aboriginal people in this Province and so much so - I remember being quite

concerned hearing years ago that for some reason, when the Terms of Union were

entered into between Canada and Newfoundland, that the aboriginal people were

left out. Not even mentioned. So when I became a Member of Parliament I decided

that I would try and find out something about this. As a result I commissioned

two studies: one done by the Library of Parliament in Ottawa by a lawyer by the

name of Wendy Moss, who did a very remarkable paper outlining the constitutional

position of native and aboriginal people in Newfoundland and Labrador, a very

interesting study; and another document done by a private researcher engaged by

me, a Mr. Edward Thompkins, who wrote a report which he called Pencilled Out.

The reason he called it that was because there was in one of

the versions of the Terms of Union provision for services for native peoples.

There was provision recognized in the constitutional proposals at one time. They

were in the next version taken out, and this researcher was able to find

documents in the archives of Canada which in fact, had those provisions

pencilled out. Provisions which would have provided and guaranteed that the

Newfoundland and Labrador, the same services as were provided to Indians and

Eskimos in the rest of Canada under the Indian Act. That was pencilled out and

not done. As a result, the native peoples of Newfoundland and Labrador have not,

to this day, received the same level of grants and subsidies, support for health

care, housing and the amenities that were provided for the rest of Canada. That

was done in the negotiations leading up to Confederation.

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to see these people pencilled out

once again by the failure of the members of this House on this day to ignore an

opportunity to hold out to the aboriginal people an offer - an offer, that's

all! We want to say to the aboriginal people of this Province: We want you here

- not on our terms, on your terms. We want you here on your terms. We will take

the time to work it out, we will allow you to tell us how you want to see that

happen.

That is something that can be done, not tomorrow, or the next

day, but it can be done over a reasonable period of time, taking into

consideration the ongoing discussions that are happening with the federal Royal

Commission, the ongoing discussions with our own provincial Constitutional

Committee, the ongoing discussions with the First Nations at the national level,

and any other things that are going on at the moment in terms of discussions of

what is going on. But I would like to see an initiative by the members of this

House - not the Government, not the Premier, not the constitutional advisor to

the Premier, whoever that might be at the moment - but an initiative by the

members of this House, all of us.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The Member for St. John's North, I am sure,

would want to be seen as saying: Yes, we hold out to aboriginal peoples the

principle that there ought to be in this House at least one aboriginal person,

and we want to assure that. The details we will work out, but the principle we

will support. Because I think hon. members opposite should be able, unless they

have been told otherwise, to support that principle.

Therefore, I move, seconded by the Member for Kilbride, the

following amendment: That the resolution be amended to remove the words, "Act be

amended," in line two, and be replaced by the words, "endorses the principle

that appropriate legislative or constitutional change be made," so that the

resolution would now read as follows:

BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly endorses the

principle that appropriate legislative or constitutional change be made to

assure the Election of an Aboriginal person to the Legislature of Newfoundland

and Labrador.

I think that reformulation of the resolution does not force

the Government to bring in an amendment to The Elections Act or The House Of

Assembly Act immediately, but endorses the principle that we can then, as a

Legislature representing all the people of Newfoundland, go to the aboriginal

leaders and the First Nations in our Province and say to them: We have endorsed

this in principle, and we want to work with you to find a way that makes it

practical for this to take place within a reasonable period of time.

Mr. Speaker, that resolution, as reformulated, allows for an

all-party resolution, or an all-party support, in this House, to allow all-Party

support. I urge them to do so, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: I wonder if the hon. member could provide us

with a copy of his amendment?

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

AN HON. MEMBER: Eagle River.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know that the

hon. the Speaker has probably heard that there have been persistent calls for me

to represent the riding of Torngat Mountains.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: But I have to dedicate myself solely and

wholly to Eagle River, Mr. Speaker.

Today, I am pleased to rise and speak to this particular

resolution, as a native Labradorian, the first native Labradorian to be elected

to the Liberal party in forty years. I am very pleased, of course, to stand here

and speak to the resolution put forward today by my colleague from Torngat

Mountains.

Again, as many members have pointed out, this is an important

resolution, an important initiative, and I believe that the time has certainly

come, as all of Canada has now appreciated, when native affairs and native

issues have to be taken more seriously. Indeed, tangible steps have to be taken

in our constitution to ensure that the dignity of native people and native

self-government is an absolutely essential part of policy for the next few

years. Only when the native people of this country get their rightful place in

our constitution, can we be comforted that we have lived up to our

responsibilities as landlords of this nation.

Mr. Speaker, in the next few minutes that I have to speak on

this resolution, I would like to talk particularly about the process that has

been undertaken, and the process that is required.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I wonder if the hon. member would mind if we just recessed

for a moment to look at the amendment that has been made to the resolution, and

to make a ruling on it before we continue with the debate?

MR. DUMARESQUE: Surely, Mr. Speaker.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has looked at the resolution put forward by the

hon. the Member for St. John's East. It meets all of the requirements for an

amendment, therefore, it is ruled to be in order.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East, on

a point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, as a result of some

consultations, it appears that one word needs to be changed in the resolution.

With the concurrence of the seconder, the hon. the Member for Kilbride, I would

seek to change the word 'person' in the last line, or 'aboriginal person', so

that it would read 'aboriginal representative'. The word 'person' would come

out, and the word 'representative' would go in, and that subamendment or change

would be incorporated into the amendment, with the concurrence of the seconder.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay, fine. No problem.

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to indicate from the start that we, over here, would

be supportive of that amendment, and therefore, supportive of the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, in the time that I have remaining, I want to

talk about the process that is undertaken, and one of the most important

principles involved in all of this. I guess I would be remiss if I also did not

indicate this Government's record, to date, in dealing with the aboriginal

people, and the native people of Labrador in particular, and would conclude on

some of these notes.

I know hon. members have made note of it earlier today, but

one of the fundamental principles involved in dealing with the issue of

aboriginal representation, and aboriginal self-government, is the issue of

whether we should be imposing our values on the native people of this Province,

and, indeed, this country, whether we should be in any way seen to be putting

forward what we see for the native people, and that it is up to them whether

they should accept it, Mr. Speaker. It is very important that the initiatives

for greater integration into our system or, indeed, the eventual self-government

of the native people, should be coming from the native people, themselves. That

is very important to keep in mind, because if we do not, then we will just be

keeping the old process going as it always has been.

Mr. Speaker, I might also note, though, that while we have a

process like this in place, and it is commendable to see it in place, it is

obvious, as the record indicates, it is not absolutely essential to put any kind

of affirmative action or any particular specification into our Elections Act to

assure aboriginal representation in our parliaments.

Mr. Speaker, as all members know, we have with us today, two

very, very reputable members of the federal Liberal caucus, Miss Ethel Blondin,

and Mr. Anawak, from the Northwest Territories, who are very, very good members

of the House of Commons, and have come there, not by virtue of a specific

recommendation and amendment to the Elections Act, but by virtue of showing to

the people of their respective federal ridings, that they are, indeed, the best

people to serve these areas and these people. Certainly, they are doing an

admirable job, and I believe the Liberal Party record would speak for itself

there.

As I indicated, we would also have to make sure that the

people of the Province understand that this Government has nothing to be ashamed

of when it comes to dealing with the aboriginal people of this Province, and,

particularly, the people of Labrador. Mr. Speaker, the land claims issue is one

that has been very, very prominent on the agenda of our Premier. He has

undertaken to be involved in such a meaningful way that he has a significant

watershed proposal now on the order, now on the public agenda, that will see

land claims settled in two years as opposed to the ten, fifteen and twenty years

in place previously. I think the people of this Province would acknowledge that

the process in place under the previous government was little more than lip

service to the whole problem.

I remember distinctly, an incident in Happy Valley - Goose

Bay, when the former Premier of this Province was down there to a party

fund-raising activity, when the native people of Sheshatshit wanted to meet with

the Premier - they made quite a vocal representation outside the hall that

evening - but, Mr. Speaker, they did not get the opportunity. Our Premier is

definitely not of that mind-set, as we have seen. He has gone to their home

territory and met with them in their own quarters, only a few months ago.

I guess, another significant step forward has been the

initiation of the land claims negotiations with the Innu of Labrador, another

milestone, Mr. Speaker, for which this Government can take full responsibility.

We initiated the talks, they are ongoing, and we have a process in place that

will see them to completion. And involved in all of this, is eventual

self-government for native people. As we know, the present constitutional

proposal is the recognition that the aboriginal peoples were historically

self-governing, and recognition of their rights within Canada. That is all part

of what has been put forward, and certainly, what has been supported by this

Government and, indeed, many people across this country.

It would also be important for the people of this Province to

know the steps that we have taken in education with respect to the native

people. And I must take this opportunity to commend the Minister of Education,

'Mr. Liberal' as I like to refer to him, Mr. Speaker, Liberal in the traditional

Liberalism of Newfoundland and Labrador. It was the present Minister of

Education who initiated the talks and the process of education, and the

responsibility for education to getting more meaningful input into the education

system of Sheshatshit. It was this minister who did that, who has been living up

to that particular initiative, and has been received quite well by the people of

that community.

Again, I cannot help but also point out the Minister of

Social Services. After his being in the portfolio for only a few short months,

Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of attending a meeting with him and the leaders

of the Innu community just a week or so ago, where, again, he gave the same kind

of hope and accountable leadership to the Innu relative to what could be done

with Social Services. He showed how this Government is determined to see that

more services and more things are done and delivered at the local level, and,

indeed, the Innu or the Inuit of our Province will be treated no differently

from any other people with respect to these responsibilities.

These are milestones, Mr. Speaker, that I think have to be

recognized. The Premier, as I noted earlier, has taken significant steps to see

that the barriers between the native population and the rest of this Province

are broken down, and that we put in place a process where there is a fast track

to having a final solution on the land claims, and one that will see our native

people continue to live, work and prosper with the other people of Labrador.

I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that we must be careful when we

talk about having our own mind-set, our own ideas put upon people of Labrador.

We all are aware of the opposite argument, I suppose, to affirmative action,

that people get the feeling they are being singled out, that they are being made

tokens in the public eye. That is one thing that has to be approached with

caution, and is why, I think, the Government here, today, have appreciated the

amendment put forward by the Member for St. John's East, because it allows for

the aboriginal representative. If, by some chance - not much chance, I would

have to say - the Member for Torngat Mountains will ever be returned to this

Chamber again, but if by some chance the electorate of Torngat Mountains decide

they want some other person other than their native brothers or sisters to be

their representative, carrying a much brighter flag I would think, then

certainly, that is their right to do so. As I said, I don't hold out a lot of

hope that the present member will be endorsed the next time around, but again, I

have to leave that up to the people of Torngat Mountains and see what their

decision will be.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DUMARESQUE: No, I cannot be convinced, I would say at

this point in time, that that will, indeed, be the case. Mr. Speaker, I may have

had, sometimes, I guess, different

interpretations of the sincerity and

dedication of the hon. member when it came to some of the issues in Labrador.

All of us remember the issue of the Labrador flag, and whether that was the

right thing to do at the time, or whether when he was in the Cabinet of the day

and signed the Roads for Rail Agreement and got the little minuscule percentage

of funding for Labrador. I mean, things like that have caused me, I guess, to

wonder about the tremendous dedication that one has towards his particular role

in this hon. House.

Mr. Speaker, I would have to concur with the Premier today

and say that this particular issue is one that I know the hon. member has

advocated on a number of previous occasions and, certainly, there is no doubting

his sincerity in seeing that an aboriginal person of the native community in

Labrador sits in this hon. House at some point in time.

However, Mr. Speaker, I guess, as one of the great American

First Ladies once said, Eleanor Roosevelt, "It is not fair to ask of others what

you are not willing to do yourself." I would think, given the overwhelming

representation of the native people in that particular riding, and maybe a new

boundary around that particular riding will have a greater preponderance of

native people, that the hon. member will live up to his commitment. Far be it

for me to say that he will ever take the chance on running anywhere else, but

certainly I would think that the next time around, Mr. Speaker, that hon. member

will be out there actively supporting a member from his native community for the

leadership and candidacy for his party. I am sure that that is the kind of

intention that he has and I am sure that is what he is going to be living up to.

I do not know, maybe he will seek the nomination for his party in some other

riding, but, Mr. Speaker, he will, I am sure, pursue this idea and pursue the

fact that there has to be an aboriginal person in this Legislature from Torngat

Mountains.

So, Mr. Speaker, today, as I said, I am pleased to support

the resolution as amended by the Member for St. John's East. I am pleased to see

that this hon. House, as all of this country, has come to appreciate that we

have not been dealing well enough with the aboriginal people of this country

and, indeed, the aboriginal people of Labrador. I see this as another

significant and good step forward for an eventual self-government.

I guess, if I could conclude on a note, Mr. Speaker, and

differ a little bit with the hon. member, I am more inclined to believe that

they have an inherent right to self-government, and not just the acknowledgement

that self-government is a thing to come. I think they have an inherent right. It

is self-explanatory, Mr. Speaker, and I think anybody who would interpret it

differently is being remiss. I am sure that we, on this side of the House, will

be here to see the day when the native communities will be delivering their own

programmes with their own people and certainly reflecting their own values and

culture, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to that day.

So, thank you very much for giving me this opportunity. I

hope that all hon. members will support this particular resolution.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I just

want to have a few brief words on this amendment. We were doing pretty good here

with fairly non-partisan debate, up until the last speaker. Mr. Speaker, I could

make a few comments on that but this issue is much too important to bring any

partisan issues into this debate. It would be better for all members of this

House of Assembly to treat this issue with the seriousness that it deserves.

Mr. Speaker, I am very delighted to be standing here

supporting the resolution of the Member for Torngat Mountains this afternoon,

and I was delighted because the Member for Torngat Mountains wanted to make his

resolution as acceptable as possible in this House of Assembly. I was also

delighted to second the amendment made by the hon. the Member for St. John's

East. I believe this to be, Mr. Speaker, not only electoral reform but I believe

it to be historical electoral reform for this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. R. AYLWARD: I would say that in years to come this

will be considered the same as today it would be considered ridiculous for women

not to vote,

whereas fifty or one hundred years ago it was the other way around.

The elected people at the time never put a great importance on it until somebody

fought for that right and they convinced people to get that right and they won

the right. I find it hard to believe that it could ever be the case that any

person, in any part of our country in particular, did not always have the right

to vote. Mr. Speaker, this type of electoral reform we are trying to deal with

here today, in the next fifteen or twenty years, will seem just as ridiculous, I

would say.

That is why I am very glad that everyone in this House can

find this amended resolution acceptable and will be able to vote for it. I would

say that when I came into this House of Assembly twelve years ago my feelings on

this matter would probably have been completely reversed to what they are today.

I did not understand what the issues were and most people in Canada, and most

people in our Province, do not understand the issues that the native people are

trying to express in this Province and right across Canada. I consider myself to

be very fortunate, because in 1985 I was made Minister of Northern Development

and I was put headlong into all of these issues. When I was a minister of

Cabinet I had the opportunity to meet with all the aboriginal groups in this

Province, the Conne River aboriginal groups, aboriginal groups on the West Coast

in the Flat Bay area. Gander Bay in the Fogo district has a sizeable native

group. All the aboriginal groups in the Labrador region I met with many times. I

visited the hon. member's district many, many times and had a lot of meetings.

The day after the election in 1985 at 5:00 o'clock in the morning I was on an

airplane to Ottawa to be a representative for Newfoundland at the First

Minister's Conference on a conference on aboriginal rights. I not only had an

opportunity to get to speak to the Newfoundland representatives for aboriginal

issues, and I did not understand them very well at the time, I have to admit

that I did not understand them very well. I would be the same as any

Newfoundlander, any person who grew up in Kilbride for forty-seven years. For

the first thirty-five of them, I would say before I came in here, I had very

little dealings with any aboriginal issues other than what I saw in the paper,

what I saw in the media, or what I saw on television which is usually, as I

understand now, you get the wrong impression from them.

You see the problems mostly, you see a drinking problem in

the media, or you see a housing problem in the media. You do not understand the

issues, you do not understand why these problems exist. I consider myself to be

very fortunate to have had the opportunity to be able to sit down and be able to

discuss the issues with them. I must say that after these discussions, and by

the end of the time I was Minister of Northern Development, my thinking on these

matters was probably 180 degrees changed around because I could understand them

a bit better. This resolution in this House of Assembly today will go a long way

in recognizing some of the problems, maybe, maybe even helping solve some of the

problems. I do not know that this is the answer and it certainly will not solve

all the problems of the native people. What I tried to do as minister, and what

I will try to do today as a regular Newfoundlander, if native people's

organizations say there are many, many problems, and they keep saying there are

many problems, I would ask them how I could help solve them. One of the

suggestions that they made - not a suggestion that came from this Legislature or

from elected people - one suggestion that they made is that probably guaranteed

political representation in Canada or in the different provinces might help.

Well if that will help - I do not know that it will - but if that will help, I

am very willing to go along with that representation, that guaranteed

representation that we are discussing in this. The exact format of that

representation, I guess, is going to be a matter of future discussion. The

method that I would prefer to see, which again is not necessarily what the

native people would prefer to see - you would have to talk to them about it -

but the method that I would prefer to see would be a floating seat, and I do not

mean a fifty-third seat in this Assembly. I do not care what the numbers are,

but there could be a floating seat - maybe an extra seat if that is what is

necessary, maybe we could cut back to fifty-one and then have that floating seat

- but a seat that aboriginal people and native people all over the Province

could elect their representative.

AN HON. MEMBER: That makes a lot of sense.

MR. R. AYLWARD: If we want to pass this resolution as it

reads now, that native people be guaranteed to have a representative, or to

elect a representative in this House-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Well they have now. They have a

representative in this House now from Torngat Mountains. They have a

representative from Eagle River. There are some native people in that district.

MR. MATTHEWS: Naskaupi.

MR. R. AYLWARD: They have a representative from Fogo, and

Naskaupi, and Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bay of Islands.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Bay of Islands? No. St. Georges.

AN HON. MEMBER: St. Georges.

MR. R. AYLWARD: So they do have now what this resolution

could be interpreted to mean, and I hope that is not what we are trying to do in

this House of Assembly. I would like to have the resolution a bit clearer, to

make sure that native people being guaranteed representation in this House will

not be interpreted to mean that they have representation now, from Eagle River

or from other districts. I hope this amended resolution will read that there

will be a 'native seat', if that is what it has to be called - a seat in this

Legislature that is guaranteed to be a seat that will be representative of the

native community in this Province. I hope that all native people in the Province

will have an opportunity to elect that representative, not just the native

people in Torngat Mountains. I do not think that would be any fairer than what

exists today. So whatever mechanism has to be put in place, I hope will be. My

suggestion on that mechanism would be some type of a floating seat so that all

native people in this Province could have a chance to vote.

The Premier said that he is concerned about the

constitutional principle of one person, one vote. Well, he said he always is

concerned about it. He did mention it, because I made a note of it. This

floating seat would not interfere with that principle. It is still one person,

one vote. No matter what district the native community happened to be in, they

would vote for their representative. They would not necessarily have to vote for

any other representative in that seat. That floating seat concept would protect

the one person, one vote constitutional concept in our district, and I am sure

it could be accommodated.

Mr. Speaker, I know the Member for Torngat Mountains. I would

like to give him as much time as possible. You could speak on this for quite

some time. I just want to say that, as it seems now, we are all in favour of

this concept. I believe that this debate some time in the future will be looked

back upon, and for those of us who did speak in this House of Assembly, we will,

I hope, be held accountable for our words. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President