t.J Volume XLI Th ursd ay Province of Newfoundland FORTY -FIRST GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEWFOUNDLAND Second Session VERBATIM REPORT {Hansard) Speaker: Honourable Thomas Lush [Preliminary Transcript] Numbe r 56 21 June 1990

rhe House met at 10:00 a.m . Mr. Speaker: Order, please! The han. the Minister of Health . Mr. Decker: Mr . Speaker, last night before my time ran out, I adjourned the debate, I started to describe in a brief outline some of the feelings I had in the ongoing process of making up my mind on how to vote on this thing. I made the point that last Sunday, or Monday, a lAIE!ek ago, I had some inclination to vote for the Accord, and I arrived at this conclusion: The conclusion was that I would hold my nose and vote for.

The reason I came to that conclusion was because I had some fear for my constituents, because I realized that after June 23rd, the Newfoundland Government would still have to deal with the Federal Government. And although I would like to think that we are dealing with principle here, we are dealing with the rights of people,. a province to stand up for what it believes in, yet, being somewhat of a pragmatist, having some knowledge of interpersonal relations, I was nervous that the Federal Government could wreck vengeance on the Provincial Government. NolAJ, Mr. Speaker, this is a very real concern.

I would certainly hope that no person, or no persons, would ever stoop to such a level, but human nature, knowing what it is, there is always the danger that this kind of game could be played.

So I was worried about what would happen to the Province, and I also was worried very much about the implication if some war was waged against Newfoundland for voting against this Accord; I was concerned about what the implications of that Ll June 21, 1990 Uol XLI would be for my District, Belle Isle. the cons tituents in the Strait in of I know how important it is for this Province to have a secondary roads agreement with Ottawa . I live in a district where 300 kilometers of the roads are still unpaved.

And if we have to wait until the Province can afford to pave these roads, it tAiill take us years and years and years to do this. So we have to have a federal/provincial agreement. And I would be a little nervous about standing on principle if it meant that the roads in my district would not be paved for another 20 years. I know that many springs we haVE! the bays and the harbours in my district filled with ice and the fishermen cannot get out to fish, and we have to go to Ottawa and ask to have Unemployment Insurance extended.

Now there should not be any connection between the Meech Lake Accord and whether or not you are going to try to stop a fisherman from making a living, by extending the safety net for a week or two. That should not come into the play, but there is always that question mark, Mr.

Speaker, there is always that question mark, so before I was prepared to say I am going to vote against this Accord, I wanted to consult with my constituents and bring some of these matters to their attention, so I went through the exercise last week as most honourable members did, I went back to the district to talk to some of the constituents. I did not cover my complete district. There are thirty-five communities in the district which I represent . I only went to one area . The message I got was loud No. 56 (Morning) R1

and clear. But, Mr. Speaker, I understand the Newfoundland way of life and all of us don 1 t normally want to provoke a fight, so people who talk to me, generally assume by the positions that we have taken in the past, that I am against the Accord. My friend from Kilbride spoke last night and I would think, and this is not being unkind to my friend, I would think that people who talked to my friend from Kilbride would assume that he was for the Accord, and people are not going to come up and take us on, not out of the blue.

Generally, they will tell you what you want to hear, not 100 per cent , but there is a certain amount of that. I met a certain amount of that and I believe people were telling me what they thought I wanted to hear. To avoid this, I commissioned a scientific poll done by a polling company in the city of St. John 1 s, and over the weekend, over the last three or four days they polled - I think it was 1,000 phone calls they made. I don 1 t have the actual formal presentation but I will have it today, Mr. Speaker, but if anyone doubts what I am saying, I am prepared to table it .

The results are this, 66 per cent of the people in the Strait of Belle Isle district are asking that I vote against the Meech Lake Accord. Now, that figure, I would have thought would have been a bit higher, but the figure which surprised me, was, the people who said vote for, that number is 12 per cent. 12 per cent said 1 vote for 1 and 22 per cent were undecided. So, the poll is saying to me that I should vote against this Accord, but even though the people of my L2 June 21, 1990 Uol XLI district are saying to me vote against, I know the fickleness of the electorate.

Even if people demand that I do something, if they demand that I vote for or against, if a week or two or three, or a month after I vote against, and if this thing is defeated, and if the interest rates still continue to rise, and I believe they will. If we still have some economic problems in this nation, and I still believe we will, whether we vote for or whether we vote against, I think we are going to have some economic problems over the next few months.

And if we could somehow ·- if some politician or some group, could somehow tie what is happening in the economy of the nation, to the fact that Newfoundland turned down this Atlantic Accord, if someone could tie that, my constituents would turn on me, Mr. Speaker, just as fast as you could blink an eye. Even th ough they are telling me lou d and clea r to vote again st the Meech Lak e Accord, even thou gh they are tel ling me tha t, they wo uld turn on me just as f ast as they turned on Sir Richard Squires, Smallwood, or Peckford . This is the way it is with the electorate. So in the end, Mr.

Speaker, even though they are telling me to vote against; in the end it has to be my decision. I will be held responsible, not because the constitutents say do this, I will be held responsible for the results whether they are good or bad . Some Hon . Members : Hear, hear! Mr. Decker: So I have gone through the same reflection period that many of my colleagues have gone through. I have examined the document, listened to various No . 56 (Morning) R2

speeches, listened to the two Premiers we had here yesterday. I have listened to some of the speeches that our own Premier has made over the months past. Mr. Speaker, if I thought for a minute that my vote against Meech would bring some long term harm on this nation, I would vote for it. I would not even take a second thought. But I am not sure whether or not a vote for or against is going to have some long-term effect on the nation. And I have not yet received any implication that it will. I have opinions from Mr. McKenna yesterday, who seems to think it will have some long-term impact on the Nation.

I have the word from Premier Peterson tJJho tells us not to vote out of fear. So it is difficult to make up your mind if you are going to bear in mind the implication on the Nation, because I do not really know. My gut feeling is that the Nation will go on after June 23. I think the interest rates will still climb up. I think there still will be a tremendous strain on the dollar. But that same landmass of Canada wi 11 be there, I believe you will still have the separatist element in Quebec, Mr. Speaker. That element has been there for quite some number of years now.

My concern from the point of view of the Nation is that someone, somewhere, someday is going to have to take on this separatist element which is in the Nation. Now i d e a 11 y I wo u 1 d 1 i k e for someone on the Federal level to take on that separatist element, and I believe Prime Minister Trudeau did an excellent job of taking on that separatist element some years ago.

But it seems today that it has gotten down to L3 June 21, 1990 Vol XLI the position where Newfoundland, the youngest province in Confederation, one of the smallest provinces, and probably one of the poorest provinces in the Nation, we are left to take on this separatist element in Canada. I am not taking on the average Quebecer. Since I have been elected the Minister of Health I have had the opportunity to attend one Health Minister 1 s Conference in Quebec, and I was impressed with the ordinary people that I met, the few that I did meet.

Certainly impressed with the previous Minister of Health before the election, as a woman for whom I had a tremendous amount of respect and I understand she was respected by all the Health Ministers across the nation. I sort of feel discouraged when Premier McKenna says that the people in Quebec are misunderstanding our intentions and they feel that somehow the English Canadians are turning against them. I do not believe for a minute that it is the intent of English Canadians to have any bad feelings against the ordinary Quebecer, the ordinary Francophone, so what do you do?

If your actions are being misinterpreted do you try to change your actions or do you try to change the

interpretation of your actions? It is unfortunate that they feel that way, but, Mr. Speaker, I have no sympathy whatsoever for the separatist element, whether it be in Quebec, in Newfoundland, British Columbia, or wherever it is. They are nation tearer-downers and I have no concern for that. It seems to me that a lot of the pressure which is coming to have this particular document passed is coming from the separatist No . !;>6 (Morning) R3

element. They no longer have a separatist government in Quebec but the separatists in Quebec still have a tremendous influence on the Government, and on the Federal Government, and on the nation as a whole. Mr. Speaker : We remind the press that there are no cameras from the sides. Please, carry on. Mr. Decker: So, Mr. Speaker, I think what I am saying is this Meech Lake Accord which we are being asked to vote on, based on pure principles, I am opposed to it.

Being a pragmatist I can see that we might just be punished over the short-term if we were to vote against, and I feel cheated that we, the smallest Province in the nation are the ones who have to take on the separatist element in the nation. At this moment. I feel that the proper and right thing for me to do is vote against. Premier Peterson says if your only inclination to vote would be based on fear do not vote for it, so my inclination at the moment is to stand on principle, to do what I believe is right and to vote against the Accord. I suppose, Mr.

Speaker, in the end that just might be what I will do, but we have two more speakers coming from outside the Province. We have the Prime Minister coming today and I understand, the Premier for Saskatchewan, who is going to address us and who knows we may have other people.

There are still a lot of other speakers in this House who are going to express themselves, so being a person who does not have a closed mind, and does not want to be accused of having a closed mind, I am going to listen to all the speeches which are going to be L4 June 21, 1990 Vol XLI made later and who knows, maybe some of them will just allow me to have the same experience that Saul had on the road to Demascus, and some blinding light should show me something I have not seen before, and I might end up voting for it. So, Mr.

Speaker, tomorrow my picture will not be in the telegr·am saying that I am for it, or against it, because the arguments are not all in, the jury is not back in, but I will make up my mind when the time comes to vote. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker : Before recognizing the hon . Member for Carbonear, I just want to remind han . members of the agreement that we entered into with respect to the length of speeches. It was my understanding we would take twenty minutes. If, for some reason, a member could not complete his speech in twenty minutes, he would then try to do it within the half hour.

A couple of members yesterday exceeded that rather excessively, so I am reminding han. members today that the agreement is twenty minutes. If we can do it in less than twenty , of course, nobody would be upset, but once we get over the twenty we would certainly want ho n. members to try and restrain themselves and to keep what they have to say with in the thirty minutes . The han. the Member for Carbonear. Mr. Reid: Mr.

Speaker, for the past three or four days, I guess, listening to my constituents, and I did listen to a great number of them, and as of yesterday afternoon I had my mind made up on the Meech Lake and what I was No. 56 (Morning) R4

going to do as a Member of this House. Right now, Mr. Speaker, I do not know. I have listened to comments by both sides of the House. I have listened to han. guests here yesterday. One was telling me one thing, the other was telling me something entirely different. The problem I have with it, Mr. Speaker, is I am asking myself who is Art Reid to make a decision on whether or not Canada will remain as a united country. I can honestly say to each and every member in this House this morning that the pressure is on.

There is more pressure on us as individuals, I think, right now at this given hour, than there has been in a very, very long time as far as I am concerned, with the involvement that I have had over the years in municipal politics and in other things. I am so torn here this morning, Mr. Speaker, that if somebody was dead belong to me I don•t think I would feel any worse than I do now. I am afraid of the repercussions. Mr. McKenna came in here yesterday afternoon and there is no doubt in my mind, that he told us - look out Newfoundland if you do not pass this Accord.

I am afraid of what is going to happen to the unemployment insurance system, to the fishery, to the Hibernia deal, to the Lower Churchill deal, and I am afraid of the repercussions that will, I guess, after tomorrow, be illustrated by the Prime Minister. I am telling you that I am afraid of the Prime Minister, and the rest of the provinces in Canada that will dictate the future of Newfoundland for a long, long time. Yesterday I would have stood in this House and said I was voting L~ June 21, 1990 Vol XLI against the Accord, but this morning I just cannot do it. I do not know where I am.

I hope and pray that something will happen. And I think, to be quite honest about it, Mr. Speaker, every single woman and man in this House is praying and hoping that something will happen before tomorrow afternoon that can straighten out this mess that we are in. I apologize for my sentimentality, Mr. Speaker, but. I am lost, and it has happened in the last couple of hours. And I cannot stand here at this particular time and tell you or this House whether I am going to vote in favour or against the Meech Lake Accord. Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker: The han. the Member for Mount Pearl . Mr.

Windsor : Thank you, Mr . Speaker. First of all, let me congratulate my han. friend from Carbonear. I think his address this morning was one of the most impassioned speeches that we have had the honour to hear in this House. And I have, over the past year or so, since he has been a member of this House, a tremendous amount of respect for him, I believe his words this morning were tremendously sincere and from the heart. And I think he speaks for many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. And I find myself not greatly at odds with him, Mr. Speaker.

I also, am feeling the pressures from both sides of the debate we are having in this House of Assembly and that we are having right across this great nation. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I have found this to refreshing exercise in Assembly. This debate is by the most productive, the most No. ~6 (Morning) also be a this far, well R~

researched and thought out and soul-searching debate that I have enjoyed in this House of Assembly in my fifteen years as a member. And your honour has been hear an equal period of time, and I think you know what I mean. It is indeed a very important debate, not only to our Province, but to our nation . Each of us as members is faced with a very serious problem. The dilemma that my han. colleague just described; I think all of us have to search deeply for the answer to this particular dilemma.

I heard also, my friend, the Minister of Social Services, yesterday make a speech, and I thought that he said many things far better than I can. It is to the dilemma that he also is feeling in this Chamber. I think we all, Mr . Speaker, deplore the process that we have been forced into in these past few weeks; that we saw it take place in Ottawa. And I congratulate the Premier for the fact that although I may disagree in substance with some of his arguments - I congratulate him on the manner in which he represented his principles and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

And I think all Newfoundlanders were proud of that performance. Some Han . Members : Hear, hear! Mr. Windsor : Mr. Speaker, we have all been speaking with our constituents and listening to people from all over our Province, and all over Canada, over this past week or so. And I particularly want to thank my constituents, the people of Mount Pearl, hundreds of them, who made an extreme effort to phone me. L6 June 21, 1990 Vol XLI Several hundred, in fact, called me. I spoke with as many as I could personally. Many simply left messages with my office.

Many people came to clinics that I held for three days in Mount Pearl. I want to particularly make mention, Mr. Speaker, to emphasize to the people of this Chamber and to the people of Canada, the degree of sincerity that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians feel on this issue I had one couple, both of them who are very seriously visually impaired, who took a taxi, came to my clinic, spent a half hour or so with me, discussed the issues, gave me their views, then took a taxi home again. That is the kind of sincerity we are seeing in Newfoundland and Labrador today in dealing with this particular issue.

And I use them only as one example. But it was a particularly gratifying example for me to see these people dealing with such difficulties in getting to the clinic and giving me their opinions. I was also gratified Mr. Speaker, to receive the opinions of the Mayor and Council of the City of Mount Pearl, who spoke not as a group but individually in the Council Chamber, and six of seven of that council are in support of Meech Lake. Their opinions, Mr.

Speaker, as municipal leaders and as people who are continually in the community dealing with the same constituents as I, their opinions are no doubt valuable to me as well, as all the opinions that I heard throughout the week. One thing is very clear. Two things I suspect are very, very clear. Firstly, all of the opinions that I heard were extremely sincere. Regardless of No. 56 (Morning) R6

whether they were for or against this particular issue. And there is clearly a division of opinion on this matter, very clearly a serious division of opinion, as we see right across this nation.

Regardless of the decision that takes place here, regardless of any decision that may take place in Manitoba, regardless of the outcome, this nation is very clearly divided and I don 1 t think anything that we can do can repair that division at this stage of the game, but we must indeed try to do that and we must recognize, regardless of which side of the argument we are on, that a decision must be made and it must be made soon. It is time to get on with the nation 1 s business, this being a very important part of the nation 1 s business, but there are many other important aspects.

Here in Newfoundland, we have thousands of people on strike. We need to deal with that and so many other important issues in our Province and in the Nation generally. It is time to move forward. I say to the Premier, with respect, hearing some comments today on radio, that he may indeed not decide to have a vote, I say it is time for us in this Chamber to stand up and be counted, and I think the amount of effort that has gone into this debate, dictates that we must indeed proceed to a vote on this particular issue. Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Windsor: Mr.

Speaker, as I said a few moments ago, I think the process which we have gone through, is lacking, and I think it is time, not to disregard it totally, but to accept the fact L'l June 21, 1990 Vol XLI that for whatever without laying blame, through that process time now to deal substantive issues. reasons and we have gon.::~ and it is with thE! I am concerned that the process lacked the mechanism to fully inform the people of Canada. Some Han. Members: Hear, hear! Mr.

Windsor: My greatest concern in speaking with constituents, Newfoundlanders from all across our Province and other Canadians, and in reading the many letters that we received from all across Canada, my greatest concern was that, a great deal of the opinion, although very, very sincere, some of it was founded on misinformation, misinformation from letters to editors from other persons who, perhaps, were not greatly informed, misinformation, and let me say to the news media, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you this, that I had three reporters who came to my clinics to do feature articles.

Not · one of them had read the Accord. Not one of them. These are people who are going to produce news items that will influence thousands of Newfoundlanders and Canadians, not one of them had read the Accord . That concerned me. That concerned me. And that is why I chose the route of having clinics rather than public meetings.

At my clinics, I was able to sit down and deal with the substantive issues with my constituents, one on one, to discuss them with them and be sure that they understood what was in the Accord, and then receive their views, and I think I had some very valuable discussion and received some very valuable opinions from them. No. 56 (Morning) R7

Mr. Speaker, my constituents brought forward a number of very legitimate concerns, and I think we will all have found that the greatest concern, is the Distinct Society Clause. I say forthwith, Mr. Speaker, that Quebec is indeed a distinct society. I think we must recognize that fact. It is part of the notion of Canada created from upper and lower Canada, a French and English duality Nation . It is indeed a distinct society, and I believe the people of Quebec have a right to expect that to be fully recognized and I have no concern about that. What I found in my discussions, Mr .

Speaker, was a tremendous amount of anti Quebec feeling based on some of the actions that were taken in the past, and I feel that those are important, and I believe the people and the Government of Quebec must bear the responsibility for that. But I do not feel we should allow that to overshadow the importance to the people of Quebec of having their distinct culture recognized. We take some comfort in the legal opinions that have been expressed . A large number of constitutional lawyers have expressed the fact that they felt nothing in the Accord changes anything .

Any rights, powers, and privileges that the people of Quebec have to protect their culture and their society, they now enjoy and indeed are exercising underneath the Charter, and this Accords provides no additional powers. The Accord itself says, and let me quote, 'Nothing in this

section derogates from the powers, rights, or privileges of Parliament, or the Government of Canada, or of the Legislatures or Governments of the provinces, including any powers, L8 June 21, 1990 Vol XLI rights, or privileges, relating to language. ' Mr . Sp eaker, that gives me some comfort, that there was no more power, and no less power, to any Parliament of Canada, Federal or Provincial, including rights relating to language, and I still have some concerns.

I have the concern that Quebec was not prepared, for example, to add words which clarified the fact that the Dist inct So ciety Clause cou ld not ove rr ide the Charter of Righ ts. I ha ve th at co nce rn and I think a lot of Ne wfo undlanders and Cana dian s share th at concern, an d it is unf ortun ate that it is there, but t his is an is sue th at is not black a nd white . My engineerin g b ack gro und w ants me to kn ow that this is right and this is wrong but an issue such as this is not of that nature.

It is very largely a matter of opinion and I guess the only proof will be the test of time as to whether indeed this clause provides powers that are over and above those that they now enjoy. Mr. Speaker, this is a time, I believe, to put aside our irritation at some of the actions of the people in the Government of Quebec in the past. We must concern ourselves now with substantive issues and I for one am not prepared to offend rny fellow Canadians in Quebec by suggesting that when it comes down to the important points, indeed, they will not put Canada first. Mr.

Speaker, the Unanimity Clause was the second important issue, and I have listened to arguments on both sides. There is concern that future changes would be impossible, concern that Quebec would have a veto, but then indeed we all have a veto . Mr. Speaker, No. 56 (Morning) R8

is that not i exactly what we are doing in this chamber today, exercising a: veto that has been given to us by the process that we have been going through these past two years. i Is it not a good example, on both sides, that a province whi~h represents 2. s per cent of the population could indeed hold C.p this Constitutional process? niere is an argument against hauihg a veto, while on the same tim 1 e here is a province which is exercising its right to protect principles which are very deeply held, so again, Mr. Speaker, we 1 have a dilemma.

I recognize the benefits and the merits of a Triple E Senate but I think it is naive to think that we will move Ito the theoretical Triple E S,enate very quickly. Constitutiona[ reform is an evolutionary I process and it will take a great deal of time. The Meech Lake :Accord moues us a couple of steps closer to a Senate that we can ~11 believe is useful, is effective, and I believe elected. I support the concept of the Triple E Senate but I do not believe that we will ever exactly have Triple E Senate in the true theoretical s:ense of the word, but we are mouin ,g closer.

The Meech Lake Accord hi as given us, for the first time, a say in nominating persons to 1 be selected by the Prime Minist~r. We saw it in the selection of ' Senator Ottenheimer, who I belie~e, no one in this Chamber can disagree. is a tremendous representative of our Province and the Senate of Canada. The l Meech Lake Accord, Mr. Speaker, guarantees future constitutional conferences. The Charter as i t now ex is t s does not require the Prime Minister to call a constitutional conference, the Meech Lake Accord gives us that assurance.

I L9 June 21, 1990 Vol XLI It also assures us that Senate reform will be on the agenda of the next Constitutional Conference. It assures us of that. It also assures us, and let us not forget, Mr. Speaker, an issue of great importance to Newfoundland and Labrador. There are only two items that are assured to be on that agenda, one is Senate reform, the second is fisheries jurisdiction, more important to Newfoundland and Labrador than any other Province of Canada, and something that I believe was a major accomplishment in 1987 in negotiations leading up to the Meech Lake Accord. Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr.

Windsor : Hon. gentlemen opposite may argue that it simply puts it on the agenda to be dis c us sed . but that is a 1 on g ways ahead, Mr. Speaker, of where we have been in the past. And for the first time it is now recognized that there is merit in discussing Federal/Provincial jurisdiction in the fishing industry. And the companion agreement, Mr. Speaker, provides a process which now moues us into some Senate reform and provides that certain things will take place in 1995, if the Commission that is to be established has not been successful. And so, Mr.

Speaker, there are three steps already in a Senate reform process contained in the Meech Lake Accord and the companion agreement. And it is indeed a beginning of a continuing revolutionary process. Now the Premier has expressed grave concern about Federal spending power. And we all recognize the strong Central Government in Canada is essential No. 56 (Morning) R9

for the cohesiveness and the unity of this Nation . I do not disagree with that notion, in fact, I agree strongly . The Accord very clearly states, as I have already quoted 1 That there are no additional powers and no less powers for the Government of Canada or the Parliament of Canada or any of the provinces. 1 So I find a great deal of comfort in that clause once again. The

section that the Premier has expressed concern about, Mr. Speaker, is the

section which provides for Federal spending in areas of Provincial concern. These are areas that the Government of Canada is not now providing funding, except through Federal and Provincial agreements. The Accord clearly states areas of Prov incial jurisdiction .

So indeed what the Accord is doing is providing a mechanism whereby the Government of Canada can extend its spending authority into areas which are now of Provincial jurisdiction, and it provides the provinces the ability to opt out of the program provided they provide a similar program which is complementary, which meets the same national obj ective and the Government of Canada will provide the funding. Now, Mr. Speaker, I say alleluia.

I have for fifteen years been attending First Ministerial Conferences and First Ministers Conferences, Federal/Provincial Conferences arguing that national programs very often are not applicable all across our Nation, because of the diversity of our Nation. I have seen so many programs that are applicable in Downtown Toronto but are of no value in Little Heart 1 s Ease or Fogo. How many times have I argued at Ministerial Tables that LlO June 21, 1990 Vol XLI we must have flexibility built in.

And when I heard that this clause was being included in th!'::~ Accord I said, what a major step forward in Federal/Provincial relations, that we can now take a national program and tailor it to be applicable in Newfoundland and Labrador because we are a very distinct society, and we have very unique needs and requirements in this Province . And I thin k that clause, Mr. Speaker, is an extremely positive clause and a move forward for us. I have a fourth concern, the Supreme Court judges.

I recognize that the courts in Quebec deal in civil law, and the balance of Canada is based on the English common law s y stern. And I recognize, therefore, the three judges from Quebec would need to be well versed 1n civil law. I have no argument with that. I have a concern I wish to ex pres s . I have the concern that the Government of Quebec has the exclusive right to nominate persons for those three appointments. For the balance of six appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada, all provinces in Canada may nominate for those six.

The Government of Quebec has the exclusive right to nominate the persons to be appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada, representing those three particular positions . That leaves me some concern that Quebec, therefore, has a power that other Provinces of Canada really do not have. Mr. Speaker, we must consider all these substantive issues and others that are embodied in the Accord, and we must also think about the future of Newfoundland, of Canada and of the implications of whatever decision may be taken No. 56 (Morning) R10

here and by the nation as a whole. I am concerned about our ability to finance national and provincial social programs, as my friend from Carbonear has mentioned, to support the huge provincial and national debt, our ability to meet our borrowing requirements. And. indeed, there is already evidence that the financial markets, the money markets - the Minister of Finance may address this when he speaks - but there is evidence that the financial markets are concerned about the stability in Canada today, and it may not be as easy for us to borrow the huge amounts of money we need to do capital works in the future.

I am really concerned, Mr. Speaker, about our ability to attract investment. My friend, the Minister of Development, will know, as I have for so rnany years in that Portfolio dealt with investors who were looking at this Province, and trying to attract investors; people who were proposing to invest in the Hibernia development certainly are a case in point. We are talking billions of dollars, Mr. Speaker. They need to know that there is sorne security here.

The Minister will confirm, I arn sure, that when an investor comes into our Province he says, I want to know a number of things: What is the stability of the Government? How stable is the Government? Is it going to change quickly? Will the policies change quickly? How stable is the economy? It is a strong, vibrant economy? Am I taking

part in that, or will I have a tremendous overriding influence on the economy when I establish, and will I have the same overriding negative influence when the project ends? What is the stability of the labour market L11 June 21, 1990 Uol XLI and of labour legislation? How strong are the labour laws in protecting businesses and industries? What are the financial incentives? These are all things that these people look at. Mr. Speaker, the question has been raised, will the Government and the people of Quebec leave Canada if we vote no?

I sincerely hope not, and I plead with the people of Quebec, regardless of the outcome of this debate, to consider any such action very deeply. Because I believe that would not be in the best interest of Quebec, and I believe it would not be in the best interest of Canada. But whatever happens, Mr. Speaker, I reject the notion that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can be held responsible for whatever decision the people and the Government of Quebec may come to as time progresses. Some Han. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Windsor: Mr .

Speaker, we have a right and we have a responsibility to exercise our best judgement on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I believe the people of Quebec must do likewise. Mr. Speaker, neither do I feel an obligation today to Canadians from all across this nation who have said to us in telegrams and letters and by telephone, you must stop this, our Premiers have approved it. You alone can stop it. I do not feel an obligation to those Canadians to alone change this. I believe we have a responsibility to act in the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador. Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

No. 56 (Morning) Rll

Mr. Windsor: Mr . Speaker, but I do fear for the future of our Province and of our nation, for the future of our children and our children's children. I have many uncertainties about the Accord and I believe I have expressed some of those here. It is a document which I believe is lacking in many respects. If I could begin today to negotiate such an Accord with a blank page, I believe I would come up with a far different document. But I know, as my friend the President of Treasury Board is learning, that the art of negotiation is in compromise.

The art of negotiation is compromise, and the essence of reform is in making slow progress . I cannot vote to approve the Meech Lake Accord as it is, but neither can I vote to reject it at this point in time. I can only vote, Mr. Speaker, for what I believe is best for Newfoundland and Labrador. When the time comes tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, I will vote to choose Canada once again . It is time, indeed, for us to get on with the nation's business. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Some Hon . Members: Hear , hear! ~-·-·~eak~.r: The Minister of Employment Relations. hon . the and Labour Some Han. Members: Hear, hear!

Ms Cowan : Tha nk you, Mr . Sp eaker. I am extr emely happy to be able to stand today and exp ress my opini on and th e op inions of my constit uent s on th e Meech Lak e Accord. I was very anxious to do that last time, when we debated the rescindment of the Accord . At that time, as some of you may recall, my father passed on and I was not in the position at that time to make a statement in the L12 June 21, 1990 Vol XLI House. And my sympathy certainly is with the han the Leader of the Opposition at this time, because I can E.'mpathize very much with what he is going through.

Bu t I 1.11a nt to s ay before I begin my con ve rsa ti on with you this mornin g, th at I wanted to speak la st time bec ause I was a gai nst Mee ch. I hav e bee n agai nst Mee ch since it s co nce pt ion, and I can see nothing that will alter in the next couple of days to change my mind. I have heard here that we are in the possibility of bringing all this devastation and so on to the Province if, indeed, we do not support Meech . My opinion is exactly the opposite to that.

I feel that if we do support Meech we are going to bring long-term effects, economic effects to this Province which we will find almost impossible, if not impossible, to recover from. I have heard people comment that they arE! worried about UI. I have been worried about UI ever since we got that Government in Ottawa; they are out to change it, regardless of what happens in this debate here today .

They are determined to dismantle the UI system, and and it is only because of the Liberal Senators, in the Senate in Ottawa, that that dismantling did not begin - or it has begun, has not leaped ahead and been accomplished . Th ere ar e people wh o sa y Medica re is in danger if w e p as s Meech La ke. Th er e are peop le w ho say work er's compe nsa ti on is in da nger if we pass Meech Lak e. So I can bring to you just as many horror stories from the other side as I can from the pro-Meech side.

I did not want to say those things because I do not believe in talking in scary ways, and that is all I am going to say that is scary. No. 56 (Morning) R12

I am proud, Mr. Speaker, really proud, to be here today representing the constituents of Conception Bay South. I really have always felt a great pride in that group of individuals, but today I feel extra proud, and I have all week, ever since I started this whole process of going out and talking to my constituE:~nts. The constituents of Conception Bay are not anti-French, they are not bigoted in their views of the French. In the hundreds of calls that my staff and I have taken, we got two that reflected a rather unpleasant pos i t.ion which I would rather not discuss.

But that was all, and we received hundreds and hundreds of calls. And I could never imply, as I have heard some hon. members do, that my constituents are bigoted. Mr. Speaker, the constituents of Conception Bay South do know what the Accord contains. Many, in fact, preface their remarks with a disclaimer. And the Premier does that, too. He always says, 'I am not an expert, however. • That is the way we are. We say we do not know everything about a situation, because we do not want to appear as if we are know-it-alls.

So it is not uncommon for people when they are discussing the Meech Lake to say, I do not know much about Meech, and then to go on and show you that they know a good deal. At 1 east they k now enough to have a good understanding, and have formed an opinion on Meech. My constituents, Mr. Speaker, are modest enough not - to claim any kind of unusual knowledge but, in fact, I thought their comments were all very informed, insightful and very articulately expressed.

And I think it would be at the very least presumptive, and at the most arrogant, for me not to feel L13 June 21, 1990 Vol XLI comfortable with my constituents point of view. My experience over the past lAlE!ek, Mr. Speaker, has been quite different than that of many people who have spoken here in the House. I have found it. an invigorating, exhilarating process. I have been out there doing with my constituents what I as elected to do - governing.

And I have been doing with my constituents what has been denied all the constituents in other Provinces of Canada, u.Ji th the exception of Manitoba, way back, I have been talking to them about the heart and soul of this country, the Constitution. And it has been a wonderful experience.

And some of the ways I went about getting input from my constituents were through the usual newsletter, that goes out with a tear off part at the bot tom .to mai 1 back, and I received hundreds and hundreds of them back; I had a phone survey of 1,200 people; and I sat in the Anglican Church basement, in Topsail, for nine hours, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m . last Saturday, and I heard 80 speeches. And during that day I was so pleased I had decided to go into politics, because there I was, out with my constituents, listening to these informed views and enjoying every single minute of it.

Those constituents are not in favour of the Meech Lake Accord. There was a gentleman there from the Wall Street Journal. He waited four hours for somebody to come in who said they were in favour, and he finally threw his arms up in despair and went off to write his story. I do not know what his story will say, because I will not see the Wall Street Journal. I think we have done a No. 56 (Morning) R13

wonderful thing here in Newfoundland by not turning the decision over to our constituents. It still rests with us in the end, and we will take the responsibility for it. I am prepared to do that, but I feel that I am reflecting the opinions of my constituents and I see no reason to believe that will change. We are not involved here in a civil war. Some people have spoken as if we were in a civil war, but we are not. We are debating what is the heart and soul of a country, its Constitution. It is a good thing to be doing. It is not divisive. In the end, it is going to make us stronger.

I just cannot identify wi t.h the - I do not know how to put it, because I do not want to in any way negate some of the real conflicts that some of the people have had. But for me, Mr. Speaker, it has been a positive experience. I first came face to face with making a decision about the Meech Lake Accord two and a half years ago, in another capacity. I was sitting as a member of the Board of Directors of the Canadian Teachers 1 Federation, and they were trying to decide whether or not, as the representatives of teachers, they would oppose the Accord.

So I had to come to grips with it then, and I took the responsibility quite seriously at the time, and I took it because I was an educator representing educators at that time. I looked at it from an educational point of view and this is the conclusion I came to. I had been keenly aware, and I still am. of the tremendous inequality in education between here and other provinces in Canada. I know that in a very real way, because I was born and I was educated in Ontario.

After I L14 June 21, 1990 Uol XLI became President of the Newfoundland Teachers 1 Association I continued to visit schools in Newfoundland and on the Mainland, and it only underlined for me the great disparity. One of the things that I really hoped to see some day, and I still hope to see that very much, is more federal involvement in some way or other with education at the primary/secondary level in Newfoundland. At that time, two years ago, I was very disturbed by the spending power provision of the Accord.

Education is a provincial matter, I wi 11 say that again , but I did entertain then, and now, the hope that the Federal Government, because of its commitment to promoting equal opportunity for the well-being of all Canadians, would eventually see the justice of making sure that children and youth in Atlantic Canada get an education comparable to the rest of Canada. So I felt the spending powers provision would really interfere with that and my dream would never be reali zed. I worry about that today, although now my mandate is wider.

I worry now, too, about how it will impact on employment programs , on health, and post-secondary funding; I worry about women's programs and I worry about day care. There is no doubt, absolutely none, in my mind that the Accord will gravely weaken the ability of our national government to reduce inequalities of income and opportunities among Canadians, and the weaker regions of the country will not be protected. I worry then, too, about our aboriginal people and I worry then, too, about Senate reform. I worried three years ago about the negative aspects of Meech Lake No. 56 (Morning) R14

and nothing since has alleviated that concern. I have heard nothing that makes me feel comfortable with the Accord, and I have waited for somebody to say something so I could have that flash of blinding light, as the Minister of Health put it, but it hasn't happened. I rejected the Accord three years ago, I reject it today. But that is enough about me. My constituents, now, what do they think? I am very briefly going to give you a little bit of opinion of them, because we have all said the same things over and over.

I felt I knew where my constituents stood on Meech Lake, because being in a rural area I had had so much interaction with them over the past few months, in various community functions and what have you. But I had not expected the overwhelming response I would get in the negative towards Meech Lake, even tAJith all the dire predictions that were everywhere about what would happen if we rejected it. I found, Mr.

Speaker, that 90 per cent of my constituents, and I was so amazed at 90 per cent of them that I was sort of modest when I issued a press release on it and said 85 to 90 per cent, because it seemed 90 was so high. Actually, 96 per cent of the calls that came into my offices, unsolicited, were against Meech Lake . But when we sort of averaged it altogether, it was 90 and then, just to build myself a little safety net, I said 85. Anyway, they believe that every canadian person and every canadian province should be treated equally.

They recognize that Quebec has an unique culture and value that culture as part of the Canadian LlS June 21, 1990 Vol XLI milieu, however, they do not accept the concept of an undefined distinct society. Over and ouer again they referred to the plight of Canada's aboriginal people, who have been disregarded since the time of the European occupation of North America. They expressed a lot of admiration for Mr. Elijah Harper, MLA of Manitoba. And I must say that the tears that moved me the most was where I was at a Ministers' meeting a few weeks ago, Ministers responsible for the Status of Women.

I was having dinner, and I actually positioned myself between the woman from Manitoba and the two from the Northwest Territories, til I got comfortable with the crowd before we started arguing Meech, and the two aboriginal, and they were aboriginal women representing those two provinces turned to me and said, ' thank God for Premier Wells. You have no idea what he means to us in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon.' And that moued me particularly, because there were those two aboriginal women, sitting there taking

part in this debate at the table with the Ministers from the rest of Canada and, yet, somehow or other, they were not being considered in the Constitution. I have never been able to understand the reason for that and I never will. It defies my powers of reasoning to understand why we cannot accommodate the aboriginal peoples. The people in Conception Bay South are very strong in their belief that no one province should be able to veto Senate reform, again something that has been mentioned here many times by my colleagues. Regional disparity is one of the main reasons we have to worry about that veto. No. 56 (Morning) RlS

It is not so much about giving Quebec power, itLs about giving more power to Central Canada, to the two provinces that are already most powerful, Ontario and Quebec. They see Ontario as having too much to gain by the veto. They are against having the power for Federal decision-making concentrated in the two provinces of Ontario and Quebec. And finally. Mr. Speaker, they, as everyone, were horrified by the process which cloistered constitutional reform in the confines of a conference centre in Ottawa, a process that now foists an Accord on an unwilling public. Before I close, Mr. Speaker.

I want to take a minute, as I am sure my constituents would wish, to pay tribute to our Premier. He has become a symbol throughout Canada of sincerity, honesty and principle in politics. a symbol much needed when Canadians have become cynical, and with good reason, about their political leaders hip. I was proud to read in a Mainland paper that of all the Premiers in Ottawa two weeks ago, he was the one the crowds waited for outside because they knew from him they would get the truth. A lot of people still have trouble dealing with that and they are always trying to say, what does he really mean?

He must be saying something else. But, in fact, he says what he means. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are proud of their Premier, and thousands of Canadians envy us his leadership. In particular. I want to say to you, Mr. Premier, on behalf of my constituents, thank you for the opportunity in the past few days that you have given us to exercise our judgment to draw on our knowledge and to draw conclusions about the future of L16 June 21, 1990 Vol XLI Canada as we see it. Thank you. Mr. Premier. for letting us be involved in the democratic process in Newfoundland.

And let me end my speech with the same way I began it. I have always been against the Meech Lake Accord, I am against it today, and I will be against it when the vote is called in the House. Dr. Warren: Way to go! Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Speaker: The han. the Member for St. John's East Extern. Some Han. Members : Hear, hear! Mr. Parsons : Thank you. Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I suppose I am in accord with all the rest of the speakers in this hon. House today when I say I am delighted to have been given the opportunity by the people of St. John's East Extern to be in this han.

House and to be able to address this Legislature on such an important issue . Mr. Speaker, I am also elated, delighted to be part and parcel of such a fine group of Canadians as have already spoken here. I was also heartfelt with the deepest sense of sincerity when I heard several speeches in this House, including two or three yesterday; a couple of them by Cabinet Ministers on the other side of the House, and this morning's. by one of the back-benchers, and several speakers from this side, as well. Mr.

Speaker, I have done my best since 1967 to become aware of and be able to speak to what the Meech Lake Accord means to me, and I hope I wi 11 be able to vote in a way representative of the people I represent. Mr. Speaker, what I No. 56 (Morning) R16

did in the last week, I live in the District of St. John's East Extern. I attended one meeting pertaining to schools where Meech Lake was not of prime importance. It was mentioned casually. The sense I had from that, or the realization, 'Look, Kevin, we elected you and hopefully you are going to do the right thing for the Province and for Canada.' I also attended a retirement dinner and dance, where 300 people had gathered, and again I met with the same results. Meech Lake fertainly was spoken of.

In many instances, 'I wish the thing was over and we could get on with other issues .' And again some people said to me, 'Oh, well, we do not think it is a good thing, but really we do not understand what it is all about. 1 And I would explain to them and said, 'Well, I did my best to find out. Over the last couple of years I met with several constitutional lawyers on my own to further my own education, I suppose, as it pertains to the Meech Lake Accord.

I met with professors from the university, again with no political stripe, just to find out if the road I was taking was the right one, and if the route I was taking was the right one? I have met with, again, people from my constituency, and certainly they had mixed feelings. I accepted phone calls, and my secretary did down in the office, and as of three o'clock yesterday evening, and we have a tally here of each day. I have in my district 9,000 voters, to be precise, 8,987, and we had eighty-six calls against Meech Lake, and we had one hundred and thirty-three calls in favour.

Now, I have it here and I can table it. I might as well say this, because L17 June 21, 1990 Vol XLI it is the truth. The ones who were in favour of Meech I did not ask for a comment, because I figured, well, they were in accord or agreement with what I was al1 about. The ones who were against Meech Lake I would ask what their reasoning was, and usually we talked about it at length, in some respects. But these are the numbers. Out of 9, 000, I received a hundred and twenty-nine calls.

Now the only thing I found, even in the calls I had, was there was a different feeling altogether when I met the people at the K-Marts and at the supermarkets face to face. Perhaps it is because you meet them face to face, and they cannot come up to you and say, Kevin, I do not believe in what you are doing. I do not know. But the point remains that most of the people I met face to face told me, Kevin, we elected you. Hopefully you are going to make the right decision. I know very little about Meech Lake; and, again, I hope you make the right decision; and we are fed up with Meech Lake.

There are a lot of other things with the economy now which are of much more importance. The people out there are suffering, to some degree, because of Meech Lake, and I think we should get on with the nations business. Mr. Speaker, Meech Lake has been meeched to death. I have listened to many speakers in this hon. House over the past couple of days, and I think for me to go through the same ritual again today would not serve any useful purpose. I think my colleague from Mount Pearl gave an excellent speech. He delved into the inner linings of the Meech Lake Accord.

And I do not think I could impress . upon anyone any better than he No. 56 (Morning) R17

did, and several other speakers from both sides of the House. So, Mr. Speaker, I have decided against going into Meech Lake. A few nights ago, I was sitting home watching television, late at night, sitting by myself, watching a debate on Meech Lake, as I did over and over and over. One of the people who were involved in the discuss ion said this will bring back memories of the National Convention, and he drew a comparison. So, Mr. Speaker, I went over and turned off the television, turned everything down but one little lamp, and I just sat there in an easy chair.

I suppose you could say nostalgia set in, but I started to reminisce. And I remember because of my age, compared to s orne of the people in this hon. House. I lived in the pre-confederation era. It is no disgrace, no disgrace. Age is natural, and sometimes it is nice to be able to look back and to say to s orne of the hon. Members on both sides of the House, You do not know much about it, only what you read. Mr. Speaker, to me, I lived through it. Mr.

Speaker, in some of the remarks I am going to make I ask for your indulgence, because I will try to tie in with some of the personal feelings I had over the past couple of years, especially since I began thinking about it, since I began the process of reminiscing. Mr. Speaker, I was born in Flatrock, only a few kilometres from here, part of a very strong Roman Catholic family. Part of the home ritual at that particular time was that we would say a certain prayer during the day. That prayer, as many of us know, was called the Rosary.

My mother, a very, very fine lady, would always say to us, Ll8 June 21, 1990 Vol XLI now it is time to kneel down. And believe you me, for a young man in his middle teens, the Rosary was not uppermost in my mind. But, Mr. Speaker, because I had such a deep respect for my mother, I never showed it, it was always kept in there. But, Mr. Speaker, in 1946, my mother had competition. For at the same time we always knelt down and said our prayer, we had on the same wave length the results of that days proceedings of the National Convention. Before I go any farther, I want to tell th is hon .

House what the bottom line of my mother's prayers would be . In closing she always prayed for peace , prosperity, health and happiness. But the National Convention changed that trend, it changed that ritual. My mother would say, it is time now to kneel down, and my father would say, just a moment now.

Malcolm Hollett, Gordon Higgins and Peter Cashin who, as we know, were aJ.l Responsible Government people, or, in fact, Ches Crosbie who was Responsible Government first and then union with the United States after we gained Responsible Government, if they were speaking, the prayers had to be put to one side, they had to be delayed. On the other hand, if Joe Smallwood. Gordon Bradley, Fudge, any of these fellows were going to speak, my father would say. it is a good time now to start it mother. And we had to cancel or go ahead with the prayers.

Our praying became contingent on who was speaking at the National Convention. Some Hon . Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Parsons: gentleman, Mr. out. He be came mine, the late There is one Speaker, I left a great friend of Malcolm Hollett. No. 56 (Morning) R18

},.,: When I talk about these people, they mostly have left us. But they were great men, on both sides of the coin. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, that went on, and whatever was happening in our household came to a standstill. Now, you know, I was sixteen when it started, and Mr. Speaker, the National Convention was not very high on my list of priorities. But, as time went on, I started to listen. And by the time the National Convention finished, in 1948, I was a die-hard, the same as my father. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was one of the people who wore a black arm band. I was one of them, Mr.

Speaker, a die-hard anti-confederate, but I guess I changed, and I constructed my speech today to deal with some of the reasons why I changed. After all the debate, after all the arguments presented at the National Convention, finally two recommendations were sent to Westminster. The first was to retain the form of Commission of Government and the second was Responsible Government. There was no mention of Confederation. And I will have to give Smallwood a pat on the back, because he organized the petition.

Now, I am not saying there was anything wrong done with it, but the petition with 50,000 names was sent to Westminster and Westminster decided, and I have to say, today, thank God for their decision, to put something else on the ballot paper. That was the new boy on the block. I almost said that time, new kids on the block. But the new boy on the block was Confederation with the Dominion of Canada, and Mr. Speaker, what a debate. Boy, can I remember leaning over the old rails, the old fence, and listening to the debate among our L19 June 21, 1990 Vol XLI own people within the confines of F 1 at r o c k .

I t was s p 1 i t about 75/25 - 75 Responsible Government, 25 Confederation with Canada. I do not think there was a person, not a soul there, who wanted to vote, who wanted to think about Commission of Government. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, we all know what happened. My father went to his grave thinking it was rigged, because in the first vote we won on the ballot paper. We had 44 per cent of the vote, 41 plus, but Commission of Government had 14 per cent and it did not give us a clear majority.

Again, we all thought, in our neck of the woods, that it was wrong, it was rigged, it was rigged by Westminister, that Confederation with Canada was a foregone conclusion to be placed on that ballot paper. I am not saying anyone was hoodwinked, I am not saying there was anything wrong with the deal. I do not know. But if there was, and if there was one person involved in it, then I say, today, thank God for that person. Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Parsons: So, Mr . Speaker, we had another vote and the next time, as we all know, Commission of Government was taken of the ballot paper and we had two choices.

Boy, I am te!lling you, then we did some campaigning. We did everything we could, but when the vote came out we were the losers; 52 per cent of Newfoundlanders had spoken and Confederation was to become a reality. I said before in this hon. House, and I will say it again, that I was working in Goose on March 31, 1949, the day we entered Confederation, and I felt that day, or the next day, which was April Fool• s Day, that there were 52 per cent of No. 56 (Morning) R19

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who fitted that category, fools . But it did not take me long to change my mind, it did not take me long to see the advantages of Confederation. What made me change my mind? As I said, this is not what someone else told me, this is what I saw . I did not grow up with a silver spoon in my mouth. My father worked, went to sea, fished, and did everything else to try to raise us as good as he could . But next-door to me lived this old lady, and oftentimes in the evening I went and cut up some wood for her, because she lived by herself .

On many occasions I went to the mail and picked up whatever mail there was and, Mr . Speaker, I will always remember the money, the remuneration, she received at that particular time . It was not called old age pension, it was called the widow 1 s mite, and this is how much she received, twelve dollars every quarter of a year. With Confederation, I saw her monies increased by 1, 000 per cent. Mr . Speak er, you should se e the look on her face when she would get that cheque .

I saw sons and daughters who had to take in their fathers and mothers to give them the right to survive or they would have starved to death, they had nothing to live on. In their old age, they were subjected to the niceties, to the love their sons and daughters had. I saw that change. With Confederation, people became independent . Fathers and mothers were made independent by receiving the old age pension. I saw it. I am not telling you something that someone told me. I was there. I saw it. I s aw the differ en c e .

I n fa c t , I spoke to one old gentleman the other day, a man who was wounded overseas, and I asked him about it. He said, well, boy. there was L20 June 21. 1990 Vol XLI a lot of difference . When Confederation came, my pension incr eased by about 500 per cent. He said , I am thankful we did the right thing in 1949. Mr. Speaker, I saw children who were unable to go to school because there was no money , or very little money. When family allowances came - W E! used to call it baby bonus then . More sophisticated now, with family allowance - I saw how much family allowances did for the children of this Province.

I saw when they were unable to go to school. where they could never get an education. and I saw the difference, I saw they could go to school. Even the measly amount peopl e used to say they received from family allowance was a big help . I saw the change . Mr . Speaker, again because of the seasonality of this Province. I saw men who could only find work for six or eight weeks of the year - for ten weeks; fishing, logging or whatever.

I saw UI. an insurance that was meant to be an insurance, but because of our geogr aphy , bec ause of our histo ry, and I do n ot see anything in the immediate fut ur e that is going to change tha t geograph y or change that hi story, but I saw UI being a go dsend to th os e pe op le who we re in need. Mr. Spea ker. I saw our educational system - and I believe the Minister of Education will agree with me - go ahead in leaps and bounds. We went ahead so far, you cannot appreciate what we started from and where we are today . And I want to say in this hon.

House right now that we always speak about how we want to bring our educational system up to what they have in southern Ontario. I agree No. 56 (Morning) R20

we should look forward to that day. But it is a problem. Within the Meech Lake Accord there is provision made that the Federal Government can get involved in education within the Province . Quebec agreed with that, and I think that is a great start. I am not sure if we ever can attain that level because, again, of our geography, without we take everyone from every nook and cranny and corner and cove in Newfoundland, bring them in and plant them here, in St. John's, and form one great city. That is the only way I can see it.

But certainly we can get a better system, we can get a better education, if we had some Federal funding. And that is in the Accord. But I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the one thing that was greater than anything else, the one thing I get especially from the older people within the District and within Newfoundland, in fact, is what we .got when we became part of medicare . Mr . Speaker, I saw people - time will not permit, but I saw people die, I did, because they could not receive the medical treatment they should have r e c e i v e d be c au s e there was no money.

Even from 1934 to 1949, when we were governed by Commission of Government. People lAiill say, Look, boy, the bases came then. It did not make any difference. The people were paid about forty cents an hour ·. There was still noth -ing here. They had $40 million in the coffers, off the backs of the poor people. I mean, I saw what medicare did. No matter if you were rich or poor, it gave you the opportunity to have the medical services which were your god-given right.

I saw what Confederation did: It improved the situation, not by 95 L21 June 21, 1990 Vol XLI per cent, situation by it happen. it improved the 100 per cent . I saw Mr. Speaker, as all those things unfolded, as all the niceties of Confederation came to my mind, I thought about it, and then I went back and I thought about what my mother prayed for, and I believe that in 1949 the prayers my mother said were answered . Because in joining Confederation, we joined a country of peace, prosperity, health and happiness, and, Mr .

Speaker, that is why today I have to say that I do not have the luxury, I do not have the right to vote against Meech Lake. I do not have that right. If there is any chance, and I am not a fearmonger, if there is the slimmest chance that any of those social programs or any of the niceties of Confederation were to be taken away from us Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, or Canadians, then I say none of us in this House have the right to do that. I mean, it is not now, it is not today, it is the future. Mr. Speaker, I see other parts of the world every time I turn on television - we are all subject to it.

I see all other parts of the world, Asia, the East Block, Africa, every time I turn on television. One person said to me, 'Look, I do not watch it any more, because I cannot sleep after I look at it.' But, Mr. Speaker, they have tangible problems . They are fighting in the streets. They have problems. Big problems! Even in the United States they have problems . But the message I get now is that people are amazed at what is happening in Canada, what is happening in the country we love. Mr. Speaker, I believe, with all due sincerity, that Meech Lake is a very, very small item, a No. 56 (Morning) R21

small piece of our Constitution for which to take the chance of breaking up this great nation. Today I have to place some of the blame on the media. I have to say to the media that negativity became a part of their performance . Granted that is the way the news is; you have to get every part of the news and say, you know, this is what it is all about. But, Mr . Speaker, I think they created, and some po1iticians, as well. and rightly so, they had their feelings as well as I do, but some politicians and the media created a monster. It is too bad it is not over in Scotland. I do not look at it as Meech.

I look at a lake called Meech, down the middle a country called Canada, and the latter, to me, is the greatest thing I have going for me. Mr. Speaker, I ask each and every member of this hon. Legislature to do some soul-searching. It is a very important . issue. We have a good thing going for us. To search for some terminology, it evades me. But, Mr. Speaker, I ask each and every one of us, on all sides of the House, can we be part and parcel of destroying a good thing? Mr . Speaker, in closing I say welcome to Quebec. I say, in my very limited French, bienvenue Quebec. Thank you very much, Mr . Speaker. Mr.

Speaker : The hon. Member for St . John's South . Mr. Mureh!l : Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It certainly is a pleasure for me to have an opportunity to rise in this hon. House and speak to probably what will be the most important decision any of us will have to L22 June 21, 1990 Vol XLI make as legislators. I would certainly like to congratulate all hon. members who have spoken so far. I respect their sincerity . Maybe not their opinions or decisions, but I certainly respect their sincerity and their delivery. Almost as frightening, Mr.

Speaker, is that I remember an awful lot of the things the han . the Member for St. John 1 s East Extern had to say this morning, especially about th e Rosary and such other things, and the National Referendum and Convention. Mr . Speaker, on a more serious note, I would like to talk initially this morning about what I feel had a great impact on the Accord we have to vote on tomorrow afternoo n, namely, the process. Now when I say the process, Mr. Speaker, I think, if I can go back to 19 8 2, when the hon .

Pierre Elliott Trudeau called First Ministers together, he had a mandate, obviously, to , number one, bring the Constitution home from Britain , which he accomplished, and to have all First Ministers of this nation sign a constitution and/or a foundation for this great nation of Canada. Obviously, his task was going to be difficult, because it was the mandate of one Premier there to disrupt and to stop the process, because his mandate was one of separatism. After that, Mr.

Speaker, I suspect all Canadians had an opportunity to watch that public forum, when the Premier of this Province, and I had nothing but admiration and respect for him then as he led our concerns, and we all sat and watched him, and Mr. Peckford done us proud. But time marched on, Mr.Speaker, and we ran into the 1987 constitutional situation No. 56 (Morning) R22

.j whereby the new First Minister of this nation called upon the other First Ministers, and with a different format, a different style, no chance for public awareness or public participation. He and the other ten First Ministers gathered, not in secret I suppose, but certainly with a degree of secrecy, and the media or nobody e 1 s e had the opportunity to see what was going on. I would suggest that as the Meech Accord untwined, Mr. Speaker, we saw that each Province had some, I suspect, little goody to bring back to their people in the Meech Accord.

Ours was to have a real look at the fishery, and I have heard members opposite, the Member for Grand Bank and the Member for Mount Pearl, talk about how important it was at that particular time tha~ the fishery would be re-addressed. I have great problems with the sincerity of that part of the Accord, Mr. Speaker, when you consider that all of us in this hon.

House in the last two years, have asked the First Minister of this country, when we saw our fishery basically destructing in front of our eyes, and we saw the tremendous amount of hardship which was befalling the rural end of this Island and Labrador and not only that but the urban area of St. John 1 s, which I so proudly represent, going down the tube.

The First Minister could not find the time to come and stand with Newfoundlanders and tell the world that we needed his support publicly, to tell those foreign nations, that the destruction they were causing on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Bank could not be accepted. So, I have little faith, Mr. Speaker, in the little piece of goodies that were dropped in 1987. L23 June 21, 1990 Uol XLI I should say this, Mr. Speaker, that the First Minister 1 s intention was worthy, obviously worthy. He had a mandate to bring Quebec into the Constitution of this country. Mr. Speaker, the han.

Members of this House, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and all Canadians, from that point on, it was all downhill, because he became obsessed with a constitution in order to bring Quebec into Canada, almost at any cost. Almost at any cost. And that is the problem I have. I am very quietly up to the twenty-third day of 1990.

We saw very little activity until there was a First Ministers meeting called three or four months ago, and then for the first time, we had an opportunity to see the Prime Minister, when the Premier of this Province challenged, challenged the continuity, the integrity, and whether or not Meech was sound and a solid document for Canada.

And when the First Minister of this nation got somewhat befuddled by the Premier of this Province, his response was, 1 don 1 t you remember, 1949, when the people of Canada, when the people of the Canadian nation were kind enough to accept you into our Dominion 1 • And then the evolution got down until what we saw two weeks ago in Ottawa and I think that probably was the greatest aspect that opened the eyes of all Canadians to No. 1, the flaws associated with the Meech Accord and the statesmanship of one premier in particular and two others in general, who opposed the Accord as it was. So the process, Mr.

Speaker, was obviously wrong. I think within me, as I went about and read and No. 56 (Morning) R23

listened and watched and tried to become more and more informed on the Meech Accord, that had the - process been right, had the First Minister of this country initiated a proper process, the dilemma that all hon. members are faced with in this House today, would not be on our shoulders . I am totally and firmly convinced that the strategists, and I don 1 t only lay it on the shoulders of the First Minister of the country , but I think it should be shared by some of his advisors and some Senators who he brought into his trust. I think the man was ill-advised . I do not and I cannot, Mr.

Speaker, disagree with his intent. I think he had a mandate within himself to bring Quebec, a province of this country into the Constitution. And I can honestly say, Mr. Speaker, I was very , very hopeful that he would be successful . However, as I stand here this morning, I, like some other colleagues, have very mixed emotions about the Meech Lake Accord and the impact of whether tomorrow afternoon we accept the Accord or reject the Accord . The Premier's statement in Ottawa which was not to sign or have anything to do with the Accord, but to br in g back to the people of this Prov ince tw o options .

Option 1, was a ref ere nd um and/or a free vote by every voting age citizen in this Province . The time frame obviously was wrong because of that seven day dinner, and he was left only with Option 2, and that was to have a free standing vote in this han . House. So I went about, like my hon . colleagues discuss the issues of In essence, I suppose, L24 June 21, 1990 the rest of here, to Meech Lake. it could be Vol XLI classified as fifty-two members going out into their constituencies and basically doing our own referendum.

Though it was not the referendum, I suspect and I feel that it was the second best avenue to get the feelings and the understandings from the people of Newfoundland as to how they wanted us to apply ourselves when it came time to vote on the Accord. Well on Father 1 s Day, and I tried to stay away from anecdotes and what have you, I went up to see my father and mother, brought him up his gift and after he opened his gift he said, hello, like most fathers, he wanted to see what his political son had brought him.

I suspected he thought that this year would be a little better than last year, and he probably was disappointed. But as the well wishes went over, this Accord came up and in his close to eighty years he looked at me and he said, 1 I think it is time that you get on with this foolishness, this Meech Accord. 1 And I said, 'Yes, I suspect, you are right.

There are so many other issues, Dad, that need to be addressed. 1 And some members opposite and some members on this side, especially the Member for Carbo near, who was so eleoquent this morning, and the Member for Mount Pearl who wanted to address all the things that were serious and concerning him . And he felt that Meech was not that important . But we finally got through that and I said to him, as a constituent, because he lives in the District of St . John's South, I said, 'What is your opinion? 1 He said, 1 Get on! Pass the Accord! Do not rock the boat! And there is no need.' A very wise man.

And I said to him, 'Why would you make that decision, Dad? 1 He said, 'Well at my time No. 56 (Morning) R24

in life, I suspect that I do not want to take a chance on not being able to open those brown envelopes every month. • I said, 1 0h, well! But how do you really feel? 1 •well, • he said, 1 it must be difficult for you and the other members no matter what side of the House they sit on. • He said to me, 11 Meech Lake, I suspect, is a point of principle, a point of truth, and what I said to you, disregard, and vote however you in conscience feel. • So you are right, the han. Member for Harbour Main is right, he was a wise man. In saying that, Mr.

Speaker, I would suggest to you that like cream, integrity, truth, statesmanship, will always come to the top. Although, I went through the dilemma of the economic impact that rejecting Meech would have on me, would have on my constituents, would have on the people of this Province, was very heavy. I also had to deal with that terrible phrase, that tearing phrase, • You are about to destroy Canada. You are about to break Canada into little pieces and you, forever in time, will have to 1 ive with that responsibility. • I dealt with that, Mr.

Speaker, and I can honestly tell you it was not an easy task and I know it is not going to be easy up until tomorrow. But as I walked around the streets of St. John 1 s South last week and this week, after I finished conducting two public forums, and after I initiated a poll to over 4.00 residents in the south, I think the count was over one thousand voters were contacted by me and/or people who helped me to try and reach this decision. I was very startled, Mr. Speaker, to find out that 76 per cent of the people that I talked to in the constituency of St. John 1 s South, or in the riding of St.

John 1 s L25 June 21, 1990 Uol XLI South, were very adamant for me to reject the Accord. Now I would have thought, Mr. Speaker, there was a fair amount of whatever is in there I did not want to consider.

I think the most surprising thing was although I did sense somewhere along the way some thoughts of bigotry or anti-French, because I suppose we must remember that a lot of Newfoundlanders through the Churchill Falls projects and all the projects that took place during the last Liberal Administration, I do not know if I can associate any great projects that took place in the last seventeen years, however, I know that there was some animosity in it and it came out. I did not count that animosity, Mr. Speaker, nor will I count that animosity. What was even more surprising, Mr.

Speaker, was the knowledge related to Meech Lake. Although some of them were not totally versed and they started talking about distinct society, and they start talking about the right to veto and amending, and they start talking about Senate, the Triple E Senate, all of a sudden I realized, like my han. colleague from Placentia, that they opened up but I know little or next to little about the Accord. The more we conversed the more I realized that was not true. People were very well versed, they did understand the Accord, although they did not understand it all, they certainly had a good concept. So, Mr.

Speaker, in listening to the words of Mr. Peterson, who was with us yesterday morning, and I suppose I lingered on one particular sentence of his speech because I suppose I was looking for something in what he or No. 56 (Morning) R25

Pr emier McKenn a might say or so me othe r hon. member migh t say . I wa s still sitti ng he re in my place not sure of what I wa s g oi ng to do and I c an say th at hon estl y a nd sincerel y. But whe n I he ar d, 1 If you are going to support the Meech Lake Accord out of fear, then do not support it. 1 All of the other things, whether they came from this side, that side, my father, or wherever, I realized then and only then that I had a responsibility to my own conscience, to my own feelings, and to the people who I represent in St . John 1 s South to reject the Meech Lake Accord. Mr.

Speaker. that was not an easy decision, I can honestly say it was not an easy decision. I hope that I will continue to hold my courage up until tomorrow - to be able to stand here and honestly reject what I feel is a flawed foundation for this nation. Thank you . Some Han. Members : Hear, hear! Mr. Speaker: The hon . the Member for Burin - Placentia West. Mr. Tobin: Mr. Speaker. today I stand in this Legislature to participate in what will probably be the most notable and most important discussion of my political career. Having been born after Confederation I was obviously born a Canadian.

I have been proud to be a Canadian and I always want this country to exist, and I believe all members in this House of Assembly feel the same way. It is a country, I am sure. that we all have great respect for, a country that we all hold dearly, and it is a country that must continue to grow. I live in the district of Burin - Placentia L26 June 21. 1990 Vol XLI West, and when· the House recessed last Wednesday, like the rest of my colleagues, l was back in the district.

During that period of time, at my home, and since then at my office, I can say that I have only received nineteen telephone calls, which is not a lot, regarding that issue. I can tell hon. members that ele,Jen as ked me to reject the Accord. ten identified themselves, and one did not, six suggested I should vote for it, and two people advised me to use my own discretion which they would support. During that period of time, while I was in rny district, I went to the shopping malls, the various business centres . I met with. and discussed it with people, and on most occasions I had to initiate the discussion.

I attended a banquet last Saturday night in Marystown and I was always available to discuss what was taking place as it relates to the Meech Lake Accord with my constituents. As well, I had a poll conducted in my district, and when one reflects back and looks at what has been said to me I can see that there has been a tremendous responsibility placed on my shoulders by my constituents because the majority of people have suggested that the decision that I would make is one which they support .

Having said that I acknowledge, I guess as Premier Peterson said yesterday, the test of conscience is what we will all have to live with. The ultimate decision that I will make after wide consultation with my constituents is a decision that will be mine. It will be me who has to live with my conscience, on the decision that I make. for the rest of my life, and I accept that, Mr. Speaker, as part of the privilege that the people of Burin - Placentia West had given me when No. 56 (Morning) R26

... they elected me to represent them in this Chamber. I realize as well that as time progressed, and as the Minister of Social Services said yesterday, the effects may not be known in a day, a month, or a year, but there will also be a test of time . There will be a time when we are no longer members of this Chamber, when our children, and people who will come after us, will reflect at the type of representation that we have given to this House, and will reflect, Mr. Speaker, as to whether or not we made the right decision and only the test of time will determine that.

I can honestly say that I only received one personal letter from my constituents. Last week I received a letter from a man whom I greatly respect and admire. He is a lawyer in Marystown, Mr . Speaker, Mr. McBeth, and in his letter he stated, 1 I implore you to vote in favour of the Meech Lake Accord. The Meech Lake Accord is not the end to constitutional reform, but merely another step in the process towards a constitution which better reflects Canadian ideals and the Charter of our country. 1 Mr . Speaker, I understand where that gentleman is coming from.

I have received copies of letters, as I am sure all other people have, from many individuals; people in the business community such as the Board of Trade, the Fisherman's Union, from Mr. Cashin. We have received letters from Mr. Young, the president of FPI and others. And one has to reflect on all of that in helping them make the decision. Yesterday I listened with interest to the comments of Premier L27 June 21, 1990 Vol XLI Peterson and Premier McKenna . I have heard them describe the distinct society as it relates t.o Quebec. And I share their view that Quebec is indeed distinct .

And I know the Premier of our Province shares the same view, that Quebec is a distinct society. The Premiers quite clearly pointed out that in their

interpretation, that Quebec would not have any special powers as a result of that clause. Senate reform is something in the constitution, I am sure we all agree, must take place. I share that view as well. And I can recall when I served as parliamentary assistant to the former Premier of our Province, Premier Peckford; and I had the opportunity to attend First Minister 1 s Conference and Premier 1 s Conference, and every one I attended; Senate reform headed the agenda by the western Provinces, and particularly the Province of Alberta . Mr .

Speaker, some will ask if the power that the Senate has suffices - whether or not the Senate would need additional power to become a Triple E Senate . I do not know the answer . But if in the event the Senate does need additional powers, where will the powers come from. Will it be from the parliament of Canada, or will the legislatures of the Provinces have to give up additional powers. Mr . Speaker, I do not know the answer. I do not even know if that is part of the problem. But some people have asked me that question. I realize that the Accord is not a perfect document. And like most Canadians, I wish it was.

But I believe I must be realistic and understand that we may never have No. 56 (Morning) R27

a perfect document . So after listening to the views that have been put forward, in this Province and outside the Province, In watching the First Minister 1 s Conference on television, what we saw of it as others, and I concur wholeheartedly; that the process that took place in those six or seven days in Ottawa was something that none of us took much pride in . The whole process has to be changed. I share the views of Premier Wells when he stated on national television that there should be a more open debate and let the people decide. And I want to say, Mr.

Speaker, I believe the Premier of this Province - while I probably differ in some of his arguments - that the presentation that he made on behalf of all Newfoundlanders had to indeed make us proud of our Premier. Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Tobin: But Mr. Speaker, having said that, I now want to say we have got to make a decision between the Meech Lake Accord and the futur e of our cou ntr y. I listened to a ll of the s pea kers in this legislature yester da y and today, all of whom have expre sse d their fe elin gs.

I bel iev e no ne expressed their feelings moreso than the Minister of Mines and Energy and the Member for Carbonear this morning. Like them, Mr. Speaker, I too have agonized over this decision. In times it has been lonely. In times it has been frightening. Never has it been easy . I have also had time alone to reflect. I hav e listed the reaso ns wh y I should suppor t t he Accord , a nd I hav e l iste d r easons why I should rej ect th e A ccord . Always , Mr . Speaker, I have com e bac k to L28 June 21, 1990 Vol XLI wondering what this country would be like without Quebec.

I remember on several occasions in this Assembly my colleague from Grand Bank asking the question relating to the fisheries: What will happen if the scientists are wrong? What will happen if the scientists are wrong based on the fact that the quotas in the fishing industry have been drastically reduced? When at the same time the trawlermen will tell us there is more fish out there than they have ever seen before. We do know, Mr. Speaker, that as a result of that decision communi ties and plants wt11 be closed. People will have moved away and their homes boarded up.

The communities will be silenced with re-settlement whether it be the people moving inside or outside of our Province. And I ask myself the same question regarding the constitution. What will happen if Premier Wells is wrong and the other Premiers are right? Ancl I guess the flip side of th at is, what hap pens if Premier Wells is ri gh t and th e othe r Prem iers are wr ong ? Mr. Sp eaker , th at is a decision al l of us will have to deal with. And I believe the presence yesterday of two very noble and able Canadians has also caused us to reflect on that issue.

And as some of my colleagues in this assembly have reflected on the economic side of what will take place in this country, I listened to what Premier McKenna in particular had to say, as it relates to the visit of his Finance Minister recently to Japan and what he was told. When he talked about the interest rates increasing, Government needing additional funds to operate, when he said . that his Government, like No. 56 (Morning) R28

all other Governments, would probably have to look at raising taxes or cut services in order to survive if the Meech Lake Accord fails, that too Mr. Speaker, is something I have got to weigh in the mix when I vote on Friday. I am concerned that this type of action may indeed cause Newfoundlanders a lot of hardship, as my colleague friend from Carbonear said this morning. It may cause a lot of hardship that we would be responsible for creating. And all of us will only be able to deal with that in our conscience. Mr. Speaker, I say all of this, because I am concerned about my country and my Province.

This is a great country. It is a country that many people from foreign lands have been proud to share. And we in Newfoundland, particularly this year, should be more familiar with how attractive that freedom is, Mr. Speaker, to people who wanted to be free in our society. We can look at the defections this year in Gander. And I am sure that we have all heard it several times mentioned and discussed in the media and in the House of Assembly.

This country, because of its freedom, because of its democratic principles was able to provide an opening for the people who have been under servere hardship back in a different land. Mr. Speaker, I am sure all of us remember when the Sri Lankans were set adrift off St. Shotts. I am sure everyone remembers that. We must realize the price they paid to leave their country to come to Canada. The endurance that these people, men, women and children put up with when they were brought over, Mr. Speaker, like animals in a cargo ship.

When they were set L29 June 21, 1990 Vol XLI adrift at sea in a small boat, in order that they could try to start a new life in a free and democratic country called Canada . Mr. Speaker, if my memory serves me right, the day that that took place off St.

Shotts was the same day that the Premiers, the ten Premiers of this country, were gathered in Edmonton, Alberta, to start a process, to commit themselves to a process that would once again unite this country, that would bring our friends from Quebec into the Canadian family, and it is somewhat ironic that the commitment, the foresight of these ten men that they try and bring this country together as a family, was the same day that a boat load of people were flocking to our shores to be provided with what this country does and does best, freedom, Mr.

Speaker, freedom that our forefathers fought for, freedom that they gave us. Today, Mr. Speaker, because of the determination of these ten premiers back in Alberta, we are here to look at the future of this great country. We are here to decide whether or not, in my opinion, and based on what I was told by the premiers yesterday and I listen again today, we are here to decide whether or not this country will be what we want it to be, whether this country called Canada will survive as we have known it, and which we want to continue, Mr. Speaker.

I can say all of this has caused me to be torn like all of my colleagues. All of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, I think just about everyone has participated in this debate in an nonpartisan fashion. We have all shared a great deal of respect for the views of one another. We all understand the feelings and the No. 56 (Morning) R29

emotions of one another. And I, like my colleagues, am torn over this decision as well. I am concerned about what will happen if the Meech Lake Accord is rejected. In my own district there are probably, Mr. Speaker, as many skilled tradespeople as there are anywhere in this Province, a lot of them unemployed because of the downturn in the shipbuilding industry, a lot of them and their families who are crying and praying for the Hibernia development project, a lot of them, Mr .

Speaker, like many here, are wondering if such uncertainty in this country will be able to entice the investment that is needed to make that project go. In my own neighbourhood in Marystown, there are families where the father had to leave home after years of working, who are now working on the Mainland. There are children, Mr. Speaker, who wish their father was home with them.

And I am concerned that that decision, if I were to vote against the Meech Lake Accord, if that in any way delayed the Hibernia project, and caused more husbands and fathers and families to have to move from our shores in this great Island, would I be doing justice? Is the Meech Lake Accord that important that it should be rejected? That is the question I have to ask. That is the question I have wrestled with. That is the question that I am torn over, Mr. Speaker.

And I believe it is for that same reason, the concern that something may happen in terms of the economic future, and the belief that Canada must stay united and strong, that there are more people in my district telling me that I should vote for the Meech Lake Accord than are telling me I L30 June 21, 1990 Vol XLI should reject Accord. the MeE!Ch Lake However, Mr. Speaker, I know that within the next twenty-four hours I, like all of my colleagues, will be asked to make what will be the most important decisions, probably not only of our political life, but indeed of our entire life.

We will be asked to make a decision that will ~hoose the Meech Lake Accord as some people tAJill say, or choose the country of Canada. The decision I will make tomorrow, I do n ' t k now . I c a n ' t s a y t h a t. I am leaning towards approving the Accord - and I listen to other views. I am waiting for the opportunity to hear our own Premier, we have listened to other premiers and our own Premier, Mr. Speaker, his views will be as equally as important to me as the views of any other premier, and I am waiting for his views .

But I can't say at this moment that I am leaning towards approving the Accord, but it is going to be a difficult decision and I sincerely hope and I pray, Mr. Speaker, that God will guide me and give me the strength to make the decision that will be right for my District, for my Province and for my Country. Thank you very much. Some Han. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Speaker : The hon. the Member for Lewisporte . Mr. Penney : Thank you, Mr . Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I feel very privileged today to have this opportunity to speak in this debate.

This is a very historic occasion and I must acknowledge the enormous responsibility that has been placed on the shoulders No. 56 (Morning) R30

of each and every MHA in this Assembly. I think it must be acknowledged that we are being asked to make a decision that will affect the future of not only our fellow Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, but will affect the future of every single Canadian in this country from coast to coast. This is, undoubtedly, the most important decision that I have ever made in my life, and I think it wi 11 probably be the most difficult decision I will ever make in my political career.

I don't think it is any secret to anybody in this House of Assembly or anybody in the Province or in the country, the position that our Government has taken. We took the position that the Meech Lake Accord was very badly flawed and that the Meech Lake Accord was not in the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador, and in the opinion of the members of our caucus, - was not in the best interest of Canada.

We recognize that Quebec did have some very legitimate concerns, and we wanted those legitimate concerns to be addressed, but we wanted them addressed in a manner that did not compromise the just as legitimate concerns of the other provinces of this nation. It has been suggested by some members and by the media that we have refused to acknowledge Quebec as a distinct society. That is not so. That statement is a misrepresentation of the facts. We have always acknowledged that Quebec is a distinct society.

The province of Quebec is distinct for three reasons. 90 per cent of the second language that is spoken in this country is spoken in Quebec. L31 June 21, 1990 Vol XLI Quebec has a distinct culture that is a very vintage french and they have a legal system that is distinct in all of Canada to that one province, so yes, they definitely do have a distinct society and that has been recognized, I think by probably every member of this Liberal caucus, and has been stated very emphatically by the Premier on dozens of occasions.

The problem is that the Meech Lake Accord fails to identify the distinct identity of Canada, and we refuse to acknowledge the right to a special Legislative status to any one province, that is not granted to the other nine. That is the position that we have always taken and I don't really believe that anything has happened within the Accord itself to change that.

We have also acknowledged that we had some very serious concerns with Senate reform, and you have heard the figures quoted that when Newfoundland joined Confederation in 194-9, Newfoundlanders on an average, received an income of 53 per cent of their fellow Canadians. And in 1987, that figure had risen all the way from 53 per cent to 56 per cent. So in twenty-six years we have closed the gap by 3 per cent, and we maintain that that is unacceptable.

In order for us to become other than a have-not province, in order for us to get away from the status of second-class, we must have a reformed federal system and we must have Senate reform. We must have a Senate equal, effective; representation in the other regions, and effective and elected. No. 56 (Morning) that is equal Province's that is The Meech R31

Lake Accord practically takes away any chance of ever having the Senate reformed because of the veto it grants to every province, and it will be acknowledged by most people that Quebec will undoubtedly exercise its right to veto. We have had problems with other areas of the Accord, Mr. Speaker. It has been the lack of reference to aboriginal rights, not recognizing women's rights, and the restrictions on Federal spending power . We have heard them all. We have heard them all debated here for hours and I do not think it needs to be debated again.

But there is another position, and that is the position that is held by the Prime Minister and most of the other Premiers in this country, that if we do not accept the Meech Lake Accord we will be responsible for the break up of the country. 'We acknowledge that the Meech Lake Accord is badly flawed, that it is far from perfect, and maybe we could have done better, but it is what we have, and with all its flaws we must accept the Meech Lake Accord as it is with all its flaws, because failure to do so will be responsible for the break up of the country.' That is the position that we hear.

We are told that if we do not ratify the Accord Quebec will leave the Confederation, and that we will create economic chaos. Interest rates will rise, the value of the dollar will drop, and you will probably be cut off from foreign credit. We have been told that we will probably see our social programs disappear, or at the very least badly eroded, and possibly very serious flaws in the negotiation process that goes on between Newfoundland and the Federal Government.

Premier McKenna went so far as to L32 June 21, 1990 Vol XLI suggest that we would be creating such a turmoil that we 1.uould actually see flags being torn down and being burned. The question is no longer, is the Meech Lake Accord right? The question is no longer is the Meech Lake Accord the document that we need? The question is do we reject it because we believe it is wrong, or do we accept it because we are afraid that if we do not we will have been responsible for destroying the greatest nation on earth? I do not believe it should ever have come to that, Mr. Speaker.

I do not believe that should have been the question. Unfortunately this is the situation we find ourselves in today, and when this debate is over we will have to vote on what is probably, or undoubtedly, the most important issue that will ever come to the floor of this Legislature. Mr. Speaker, will Quebec separate from the Confederation if we do not ratify the Accord? I do not know. Will the country break up if the Meech Lake Accord is not ratified? I do not know that either. Does it bother me if Quebec leaves the Confederation? Yes, it most certainly does.

Would it bother me to think that the country would be torn apart? Yes, it bothers me greatly, for nobody in this Province says with more pride that he is a Newfoundlander, but I state without hesitation, that I am a Canadian first and foremost. And I say that without apologies. So, will all of those things happen? Will the interest rates go up? Probably. Will the value of the dollar go down? Probably. Will all of those other things happen? I do not know. But I believe that on June 24th, the sun No. 56 (Morning) R32

~'- will still rise in the s t i 11 set in the west . mean to be frivolous, things will not change. east and I do not but some When Premier Wells came back from Ottawa, he stated that the decision was too great to res t on the shouJ.ders of one man. I agree. But I will take it one step further; I believe the decision is too great to rest on the shoulders of 52 people. That is why I believe the decision should have been made in the proper manner with a referendum.

When Premier Wells asked for an extension of the deadline of the 23rd, that we needed to accommodate the time frame required for a referendum; once again, our concerns were ignored. The request was denied. So we had to settle for what we considered to be second best. Like most of my colleagues I took it to my District. I took it to my constituents and I suppose I conducted my own little mini referendum, as best I could. I hired eight students, installed three new telephones in my office, and Mr. Speaker, we polled every single household in the District. As well as that, I visited as many people as I could.

I did not go door to door because with 22 communities, I could not do that. I talked to everybody who was out scraping a boat, or painting a house, or digging a ditch. And I presented my concerns on cable television in Lewisporte, and I believe I very fairly presented both sides of the argument. And I read through hundreds of letters that passed over my desk and those that were printed in the local newspapers.

The results of my poll told me that 47 per cent of the people who L33 June 21. 1990 Vol XLI live in my District acknowledge that they do not have enough information about the Meech Lake Accord to be able to make a decision. They acknowledged that they are not knowledgeable enough. They are not expert, and they really do not think that they should make the decision. I accept that. But they added that this is the decision that should be made by the MHA and they were prepared to let me make the decision on their behalf. I consider that a vote of confidence.

Thirty-nine per cent said emphatically, you must vote against the Meech Lake Accord, and 14 per cent said you must vote for the Meech Lake Accord with all its flaws, out of interest of the security of the nation. The nation must not be torn apart, so you must vote for it. So that is 14 for, 39 against, and 47 per cent who are prepared to leave it entirely in my hands. Some of the comments that I paid attention too were those that were in the letters. I would like to quote just a couple to you, I will take very little more time.

A professor Penner; 1 if Canadian nationalists are incapable of taking the small steps Meech Lake requires to bring Quebecers back into the constitutional fold, in a few decades there may be little of Canada left to be nationalistic about. 1 I have to acknowledge that, Mr. Speaker. I accept the fact that the gentleman, when he said that said it sincerely. I acknowledge as well, a letter from a M r . Doug 1 as F aw c e t t , he s a y s equating the failure of Meech Lake with the separation of Quebec is to misrepresent the situation. To cast Meech as an instrument of national unity is ludicrous.

The debate is not to say yes or no to Canada. This is a simplistic No. 56 (Morning) R33

view of the document in question. The Meech Lake Accord is first and foremost a legal document with very real implications for our future. It is not merely a symbol, a feeling or some intangible sentiment of unity . Arguments based on these premises insult the intellect of all Canadians. I accept that statement as being sincere, as well, Mr. Speaker, but I would remind Mr. Fawcett and Professor Penner that they are not voting in this House of Assembly tomorrow. I am. And regardless of the poll, regardless of the figures I have quoted, the decision still rests squarely on my shoulders.

It is a very onerous responsibility and it is not one that I take lightly. I was very impressed with Premier Peterson•s presentation in the House yesterday. I was impressed with his sincerity, and I believe the man meant what he said. I would like to quote one statement from his presentation, he said, • I do not believe you can keep a country together on the basis of threats and fear, but rather love and respect and accommodation and tolerance .

The kind of principles articulated in the BNA Act. • And in closing, I would like to remind all hen. colleagues of a statement made by President Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis, he said, •we must never fear to negotiate, but we must never negotiate out of fear. • And I am afraid that is the position that we have been put in. And I think it is terribly unfair . My obligations to my constituents: my obligation is to vote against the Meech Lake Accord because that is what they have asked me to do, L34 June 21, 1990 Vol XLI and I recognize that I was elected to carry out their wishes.

But my obligation to my conscience is to listen to the Prime Minister when he speaks here, and to listen to Premier Devine, and to listen to them with an open mind, failure to do that, Mr . Speaker, is to do a very grave injustice to the office of these two gentlemen. But after I have done that, and I have listened with an open mind, I assure everybody that when the vo te is cast tomo rrow , the vote tha t I cast wi ll be done in the best i nter est of my consti tuents, in the best i nterest of ev ery res id ent of the Pr ov ince of Newfoundland and Labrador, and in the best interest of all Canadians.

My vote will be a vote for Newfoundland and Labrador, and it will be a vote for Canada. And I will very sincerely vote in the manner that I think is correct . Thank you very much, Mr . Speaker. Some Hen. Members : Hear, hear! Mr . Speaker: The hen. the Minister of Environment and Lands . Some Hen. Members : Hear, hear! Mr. Kelland : Mr . Speaker, I guess we all have our own approaches, our own feelings on what is transpiring, and all are quite a variety of approaches and how we will make our presentations to the House of Assembly.

I do not propose to be a constitutional exp ert, and I will stay away fr om trying to give the impr ess ion that I am. Nor do I feel partic ularly ph ilosophical about the question , and I wi ll try to stay out of t hat area. I believe I know why I am in the House of Assembly, and I believe I know what my mandate is, and what it will dictate to me No. 56 (Morning) R34

when we reach a decision tomorrow . We are in this position, ladies and gentlemen in the House, and others. a position not of our own making, by any means of our own making. We are forced into this particular position. We are forced into the circumstances we now face. And I will say it in my true belief that we have seen in the past while probably the most blatant or at least the greatest example of premeditated manipulation you are ever likely to see in your political career. We were forced into a tight time frame.

We were forced to deny the people of Newfoundland and Labrador the opportunity to express their views in a referendum. Now let us look at the word •referendum•. Because of an extremely tight time frame we were denied that opportunity. and again I say that is not of our making, that situation.

So it was decided in this House that instead of a referendum, our next best option was to have a free vote in the House of Assembly. and each member of the House of Assembly was charged with the responsibility, and accepted the responsibility, to go to their respective districts and sample the opinion of the people they represent. In other words, one rationale could be this, that because the people themselves cannot vote. we will have to vote for them.

If they had the opportunity to vote on the question, my belief is, and everything I have seen and heard indicates this is correct, the Meech Lake Accord would be turned down. Because the majority of the people I have been in contact with and the majority of the people who have expressed a view in districts other than Nas kaupi, seems to give L3S June 21, 1990 Uol XLI a clear indication that the majority of people in this Province want to see the Meech Lake Accord rejected. So it is a kind of mini referendum. if I can say that. The people cannot vote themselves.

We have been charged with the responsibility and have accepted the responsibility to come in a vote for them. I sampled my district, as everybody else did, I assume. We all used different methods, but I would have been in contact or have received input from several hundreds of people in the Naskaupi District. I do not feel pressure I must use a different dictionary than everyone else - I do not feel the pressure in the same sense that I have seen it expressed in this House, and that is not to take anything away from the very emotional and far-reaching comments by my colleagues on both sides.

I was elected to take pressure. Further than elected. I am paid to take pressure. My job is to do what I am doing now. Now, you may call that pressure. But if that is pres sure . I was born under pressure, I lived under pressure and I will probably die under pressure, because I a in • t going to go willingly, I can tell you that. in any form. But I do accept the weight of the responsibility for making a decision and being part of a decision. It is not pressure, it is part of my job.

If I did any agonizing over the question at all, I agonized for my colleagues on both sides of the House, I agonized for the positions they find themselves. I do not have to single them out, but all of us. all prior speakers, all previous speakers, have expressed some emotion. Some have bared their souls to Canada to a No. 56 (Morning) R3 S

deeper, to a greater extent than others, and I respect that. I agonize for them, and I agonize for the position they find th emselves in. I agonize for my colleague from Eagle River, I agonize for my colleague from Menihek and my colleague from Torngat Mountains. Because when Premier McKenna talked yesterday, part of his comments related to the fact that New Brunswick has a common border with Quebec. But so does this Province . The Island part of the Province does not, but the mai nlan d part of the Provi nce, a part of the whole Pro vince, doe s bor de r on Que bec.

So I appr ec iate what my colleague from Eag le Ri ve r ha s t o go through , real izin g that ther e is a lon g tra dition of commercial and social and recreational linkage between his district and the neighbouring province. By the same token, my colleague from Menihek is faced with the same considerations, a long-standing commerce, we could say, social or otherwise, between Menihek District and the Province of Quebec. My colleague from Torngat Mountains, I know he stated publicly how he will vote.

I do not know if there will be any change in that, but I know he stated that publicly, and we have to recognize and realize what he is going through, in that he represents the largest - the largest - native population in this Province, the largest group probably in this Province, in any one district, of aboriginal people, or those who consider themselves to be Metis. It is a well-known fact in Canada and in this Province that aboriginal people, native people, are against the Accord and want to see it defeated in this House or in some other forum.

L36 June 21, 1990 Vol XLI Consequently, the member, no doubt, and I respect what hE! has had to go through, and I appreciate what he has had to go through, has had to do some very deep soul searching to arrive at his conclusion. Naskaupi District, the other seat of the four in Labrador, perhaps is a bit different , as we a 11 are different and we all are distinct, I suppose, when you come right down to the distinct society kind of a consideration. I suppose every district in the Province is a bit distinct onto itself.

The people in Naskaupi District and the Upper Lake Melville area, generally, have given me political support, going back to 197 4. First of all, it was the community of Happy Valley - Goose Bay, where I was successful three consecutive times as mayor of that town, and more recently, of the broader spectrum of Naskaupi District in two provincial elections by increasing majorities.

Now I have to be very attuned to that, and in the sampling, which wi11 result in a total sum in several hundreds - I will have the exact figures a little later on - very, very close to 90 per cent of the people in Naskaupi District whom we have contacted or who have contacted us, said, 'reject the Meech Lake Accord'. Of those who have said they believe I should vote in favour, a rough calculation of about 50 per cent of those, in other words, 5 per cent, are saying, 'Jim, we are against the Meech Lake Accord, but we think you probably should consider voting for it.

So the figures are quite substantial in my district . Perhaps other districts are not that clear-cut, but my district is pretty No. 56 (Morning) R36

clear-cut on all this, when you consider 90 per cent who want rne to vote no, and 5 per cent of the 10 who wish me to vote yes, have real grave concerns. The other 5 per cent didn 1 t express anything, by the way, other than they wished to see me vote in favour of the Accord. I understand in the business community of Happy Valley - Goose Bay there is a segment of that population who wishes to see the Accord approved. Those are the figures, and my method was by direct phone call, personal contact and soliciting phone calls into my two or three different phone numbers, where their opinions would be recorded.

And we have gotten quite a good input. But I am a little amazed, actually, and a little surprised when I hear some members of the House commenting on the very few numbers of phone calls they received. I believe I heard one member saying maybe fourteen calls, something like that; another one thirty of forty calls. Maybe there were other methods used. I don 1 t know what method they used in each individual case, but it strikes me as a surprising statistic, and I prefer to use that term.

Now, a couple of members mentioned the fact that probably that was because people have other concerns, fisheries whatever, other concerns. I have a view on that, as well. My constituency matters continued on through the week we were in recess. I take the concern of an individual who has a problem with the Department of Social Services as being a constituency matter, and they won 1 t hold up their concern for the week I am polling my constituents on the Meech Lake Accord.

So the fact that other L37 June 21, 1990 Vol XLI people will have other concerns besides Meech Lake is nothing more in my mind than the normal course of duty in my district, and I have a staff to help me solve these problems whenever I can. So to say I asked a person about MeE!Ch Lake and he said, 1 Yeah, great, but what about the caplin? 1 that 1 s normal, that 1 s part of your job. You do that anyway. If Meech Lake is not here next week, we will still do it. If it wasn 1 t there the week before, we would still do it.

And while the Meech Lake opinions were being polled in the past week, you still did your constituency work. I don 1 t put any greater significance on that than that, us carrying out the functions of our job. Do I believe Quebec will separate because of Meech Lake? I can say like my colleague from Lewisporte that I don 1 t know, and I really don 1 t know. But I don 1 t believe they will, and I believe the majority of people in my District have the same belief as I have. They don 1 t believe Quebec will separate on Meech Lake. It may be that the Province of Quebec may find a reason to separate anyway.

Do I believe Canada will disintegrate if we fail to approve the Accord? No, I do not believe that either, but I do not know with absolute certainty. I could be wrong, but I do not believe that to be the case. A lot of Members in the House of Assembly have talked about the family, the family of Canada, and that we all should be equal members of that family. But if the Meech Lake Accord is ratified, we will have members of the family who are more equal than others. That has been said, I think, by a number of different people here. So in the analogy of a family No. 56 (Morning) R37

let's look at a family, the parents and a number of children. As soon as you treat one child better than the others, that is when you have your problems, not when you treat them equally. If Quebec comes in as part of the Canadian family and is treated differently than the rest, that is where you are going to get your discord, the same as you would in any other family. So some of the comments with respect to fami