Newfoundland, House of Assembly, 1983 Constitutional Accord, 39th Gen Assembly, 2nd Sess, 1983

Document Information

Date: 1983-12-01
By: Newfoundland (House of Assembly)
Citation: Newfoundland, House of Assembly, Preliminary Unedited Transcript, 39th Gen Ass, 2nd Sess, 1983 at 7886-
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).

The HTML Text Below Has Not Yet Been Edited

This document has not yet been edited for mistakes. Help us out by correcting the text and mailing it as a text file to Your help will make the most complete word-searchable electronic repository of documents relating to the Canadian constitution. For more information consult our Be a Contributor page.

Read the unedited text

VOL. 2 NO. 69



3:00 P.M. – 6:00 P.M.


December 1, l983 Tape No. 3599 MJ – 2

MR. AYLWARD: – resolution and recommends that

a bill be introduced to give effect to the same.

On motion, report received
and adopted, bill ordered read a first, second and third

time now, by leave.

On motion, a bill, “An Act
To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957 (No. 2)”, read
a first, second and third time, ordered passed and its

title he as on the Order Paper. (Bill No. 77).

MR. MARSHALL: Motion 1, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER (Russell): Motion 1 is a resolution to

be moved by the hon. the Premier.

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great

pleasure to introduce into this House the following resolution
that was just referred to. As all hon. members know,the
Constitutional debates,which led to the new Constitution of
Canada,got into the thorny issue of aboriginal and native
rights. I guess it was one of the key aspects of the whole
Constitutional discussions that caused a lot of the First

Ministers a lot of agony and a compromise was struck


December l,l983 Tape No. 3600 ah-l

at that time to allow the new constitution to go ahead.
And the oompromise.that was struck by all the first
ministers wasvthat we would,before we got into the whole
question of aboriginal rights and title and land claims
and all the rest of it –I think, Mr. Speaker, it should
be recorded that it was chiefly because of the provinces
that this approach was taken and I think over time that
this approach will be seen to be a far more rational
approach to the whole question of natives and aboriginal
rights than the approach that the federal government
at the time wanted to take. They wanted to rush fairly
quickly into putting a number of provisions there that
were suppose to cover all the problems as related to it
when,in fact,given the way that things work across the
nation,it varies from place to place , and you have various
treaties,and in other places you have your status and
your non—status people — and so it felt by a fair number
of the proVinces,including Newfoundland,that a far more
appropriate mechanism would be to commit ourselves in the
constitution t0 some ongoing discussions with the native
people and the Territories to insure that after that
debate was held amongst all the first ministers and the
territorial representatives and representatives of the
various native peoples that then we would introduce
various new constitutional amendments that could be entertained,
that could get consensus and that could get the constitution
amended along the lines that everybody wanted to see. And
so a commitment was put in the constitution that a
constitutional conference would have to be held with the

native peoples and with all the first ministers and the


December l,l983 Tape No. 3600 ah—2

PREMIER PECKFORD: ‘ _ territorial governments to
further discuss with everybody present the kinds of

provisions which were appropriate to put in the constitution.

And , of course,as everybody knows there was a conference

held to discuss constitutional matters that directly

affect the aboriginal peoples of Canada,including the
identification and definition of the rights of those

people to be included in the Constitution of Canada,

and that was the approach that was taken and it was successful.
So,as a result of that meeting,and I guess most people

are familiar with that constitutional conferencee I

think it was televised at the time and it was held up

to be a very important and significant conference. It

was not just a first ministers conference, it was a conference
of first ministers of Canada plus the hanifimfiali governments,
plus representatives of all of the native groups in

Canada. That conference went on for a couple of days,

I believe, and the result of that conference was an

accord that was Stflxfi ‘between all the groups there to
further amend the constitution. And that is what we are
doing here today, we are passing into law amendments that
will become amendments to the constitution as a result

of that conference flfit was held in April 1983. So what

we have here, Mr. Speaker, if anybody has the copies of

the Act itself, and we undertook as part of the accord

that this would have to be passed by all the legislatures

as well as the House of Commons and the Senate , of course,
and so,as I understand it,the provinces of Nova Scotia,

New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island , Alberts, Manitoba,

and Ontario have already passed the resolution. And

another provision in the accord was that it would be

passed by all the legislatures by December 1983,50 we


‘the Houses of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies of the

December 1, l983 Tape 3601 NM – l



are just really, for all intents and purposes, getting in

under the wire. British Columbia has introduced the resolution
in its House-in July but it still has not been passed,and

I guess we understand the reason for that. Saskatchewan


has given notice of its intent to introduce it but it has

not been introduced in saskatchewanayet. And it was approved
by the House of Comons in late June and referred to the
Senate,and it was given approval by the Senate on November 3,
just a few weeks ago. And so there is British Columbia and

Saskatchewan to come,and the Senate has now given its approval

of it.
so what this accord does

is to further try to clarify how we are to proceed in the
future relative to constitutional change for the aboriginal
and native peoples of Canada. If I may read

it, “WHEREAS the Constitution Act,l982,provides that an
amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by
proclamation issued by the Governor GeneraI’and so on,
two—thirds,”AND WHEREAs,the First Minister of Canada,

First Ministers of nine of the provinces,” because,of course,
Quebec has never been a party to the new constitution and
has refused to acknowledge that it is the legitimate
Constitution of Canada, so it is, first ministers of nine

of the provinces, the Prime Minister of Canada,”the Government
Leaders of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories,and

the leaders of the National Aboriginal Associations were

signatories to an Accord on March 16, 1983, to lay before

Provinces ‘prior to December 31, l983,a resolution to

authorize a proclamation to amend the Constitution Act 1932


December 1, 1983 Tape 3601 NM ~ 2

PREMIER PECKFORD: , with respect to

aboriginal rights.
“AND WHEREAS, the Premier

of the Province of Newfoundland was one of the signatories
to the accord; NOW THEREFORE, the House of Assembly” go on

record and to put this into place.

And then if one looks at

the various sections here, because it is very short, we can

see what the accord really consists of. “Paragraph 25 (b)
of the Constitution Act, 1982 is repealed and the following

substituted therefore:

“(b) any rights or freedoms

that now exist by way of land cliams agreement, or may be so acquired
Before that time it was just existing rights. The new
constitution, that is all it had until this one gets passed
and that has been sort of refined now to include land claims
treaties, or any that may be acquired in the interim. So
treaties will be legitimized or constitutionalized in the
constitution, which was not there before. so that is one
refinement that has come about as a result of the first meeting
of the leaders of the native peoples and the territorial
governments with the provinces, is that we refine that provision
giving recognition of land claims, which I think is a very
significant move, Mr. Speaker.

And then, for greater
certainty, section (2) says, “Section 35 of the Constitution
Act, 1982 is amended by adding thereto the following subsections:
”(3) For greater certainty, in subsection (1) “treaty rights”
includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements
or may be so acquired.” which clearly then puts it.

Then Number (4) “Notwitstanding
any other provision of the Act, the aboriginal and treaty rights

referred to in subsection (1) are guaranteed equally to male


December 1, 1983 Tape 3601 NM — 3

PREMIER PECKFORD: – _ and female persons.”
That was another very key point, if you remember that
meeting of a few months ago, that there was this legitimate
argument. As a matter of fact,there was not unanimity

on that point.’ There were some aboriginal associations,

or native associations, that supported putting in male and
female persons; there are other native and aboriginal
associations that did not. And this was the danger, and

it just points it up again, Mr. Speaker, that if we had

taken any other approach than the one we are on now look

gat the problems you would have been in


. aft?’-”.5e.°ti.°“.,3§_ t.3″ere°fI the 5-°11°.‘.’.”i.‘.“? .5?¢‘E.5:.9.“‘ ‘T?h¢_§9V.¢rnm,

December 1, 1983 Tape No. 3602 ‘SD – 1

without discussing them with the native associations first
because there is not unaminity among them. As I said, you
have your status and your non-status and your more localized
native groups,like in our Province the Naskapi Montagnais I
who might not see eye to eye ,their association,with the
Inuit Association,whodo not see eye to eye with the Micmac
peoples of Conne River,who do not see— and on you go ‘
and the Metis and so on. But finally,after some debate and
some reluctance by some native associations, they went along
with putting into the Constitution that all of these
aboriginal treaty rights referred to in subsection 1
are guaranteed equally to both male and female persons. It
seems like an obvious kind of thing to have in there and why should
anybody argue about it. And, of course, different native
groups have different positions as it relates to male and
female persons,obviously. And if you look at the cultural
lifestyle of some of these groups that is sort of understandable,
at least historically,in the way that they have operated
their societies. pg

Then 3 goes on:

>”ThesaidAct is further amended by adding thereto immediately

of Canada and the provincial government are committed to
the principle that,before any amendment is_made to Class 2i_m
of section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867, or to section 25″ —
whicharertheones applicable to the native peoples,that”a
constitutional conference that includes in its agenda angwlv _ _“
item relating to the proposed amendment, composed of the

Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the

prpvinges, will be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada; and
(b; the Prime Minister of Canada will invite representatives

of the aboriginal peoples of Canada to participate in




December 1, 1983 Tape No. 3602 SD — 2

PREMIER PECKFORD: _ discussions on that item.” So
all governments are giving a commitment that the aboriginal
peoples will be informed and consulted before additional
amendments to things affecting them actually can put into

the Constitution.

Then Part IV.l deals with

constitutional conferences. “In addition to the conference

convened in March l983, at leasttwo” and_here is a commitment

by everybody again_:“ iconstitutional conferences composed of

the Prime Minister of Canada and thecfirst ministers of the provinces
shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada, the first H’ M
within three years after April_l7{ l982 and the second within

five years after that date)’ So there is a commitment by

the government leaders of Canada that not only will we

consult the aboriginal peoples when something comes up

which affects thenybut we go on to give them an additional
commitment that two further constitutional conferences

or First Ministers‘Conferences will have to be held within
the period of time as just described and as I just read.”>H
And, of course.“each conference convened under subsection (1)
shall have included in its agenda constitutional matters
that directly affect the aboriginal peoples of Canada,and
the Prime Minister of Canada shall invite representatives

of those peoples to participate in the discussions.” So

we will not only have these constitutional conferences but
we will obligate ourselves to invite representatives of the
aboriginal people who will be allowed to speak at that‘
meeting and express their views.”The Prime Minister of
Canada shall invite elected representatives of the governments
of the Yukon Territory “and the Northwest Territories to

participate in discussions on any item on the agenda of a

conference convened under subsection(l) thatlin the opinion


December 1, 1983 Tape‘No. 3602 SD’~ 3

PREMIER PECKFORD: ‘ of the Prime Minister,directly
affects the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories
Here is a funny kind of
provision, it is a commitment for the Yukon and Northwest
Territories to attend,but it is not complete in itself; it

has within it some power left to the Prime Minister of

Canada- Of course,the reason for that from the federal
government’s position is that the Yukon Territory and the
Northwest Territories come under federal legislation and

are not in themselves in the


SD'” 3



December 1, 1983 Tape 3603 EC – 1

PREMIER PECKFORD: not in themselves in the

same status as our provinces, so that,therefore, you

‘have a little thing here which gives the Prime Minister

some power if in his opinion it does affect them.

so those are the main parts
of what we are doing here today, Mr. speaker. It is not
extensive but I think it is significant. And I will just
make the point again that, in my opinion, it is important
primarily because you are establishing a logical,reasonable
process – Andnot only has that been established, it has
been further refined by the conference of March past,
which further puts into the constitution obligations upon
the Prime Minister of Canada and the Government of Canada,
obligations upon all the provincial Premiers for additional
constitutional meetings,and also obligates us that if
anything comes up which affects the aboriginal peoples
that they have to be notified and consulted on it and,
of course, the male and female persons being already in

there as well.
So I think it is a significant

step forward, Mr. Speaker, for Canada, and I am, as
Premier of the Province, pleased and proud to introduce
it into our Legislature, into the Newfoundland Legislature,
and hope that it gets the unanimous support of all hon.
members. It remains to be seen, Mr. Speaker, how it
proceeds from here, but there has to be full consultation,
and no doubt there is going to be lively debate over the
next couple of years as further refinements and additions,
no doubt, to the constitution are made, relative to the
interests of the aboriginal people of Canada.

V From a more provincial point
of view, Mr. Speaker, where the Province of Newfoundland,

as it relates to our own native groups, are on record,


December 1, 1983 Tape 3603 EC – 2

PREMIER PECKFORD: as it relates to the Naskaupi,

Montagnais and the’Inuit of Labrador, that we are prepared
“to sit down with the federal government and with the
peoples of the Naskaupi Montagnais Association and of the
Inuit Association and begin serious discussions towards
what happens as it relates to native and aboriginal claims
and rights in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
As it relates to the people of Conne River, we have done
an extensive and detailed research and could find no‘
evidence which would support aboriginal title by the
people of Conne River. And our position is that they
should be treated exactly the same as all the other people
who live on the Island. But as it relates to the Naskaupi
Montagnais,and as it relates to the Inuit, we do state
that we believe that there is an aboriginal claim. There

are legitimate rights which the people of these two groups
should have more discussion on with the Canadian Government
and with the provincial government and we are prepared to
sit down and recognize,right from the start,that they are
different from the rest of us on the Island,including the
different band of people in Conne River.

our problem has been that in all
our correspondence to date with the federal government,
they have not been willing to sit down, so we are still

waiting for some answer from them on that.















December 1, 1983, Tape 3604, Page 1 — apb

PREMIER PECKFORD: But that not withstanding,
Mr. Speaker, and I do not want it to detract from the

import and substance and items in this particular
resolution, this is an extremely important one and no

doubt over the coming years there will be additional
amendments to the Constitution which will have to go through
the respective legislatures of Canada to further refine and
support, really, the aboriginal peoples of Canada who remain
such an important part of the total Canadian society. – I
take great pleasure in introducingthis.

MR. SPEAKER(Aylward): : The hon. the member for
Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, first I
would like to thank the Premier for giving me advance
notice. In the last week I was out of town, in Toronto,

and he agreed to hold off until I got back to respond to

this resolution.

I believe, Mr. Speaker,
that the Premier failed to give the‘whole story, he failed
to give the story started back in November 23, 1981. That
is when the story started,for that is when the Premier
betrayed the native people and is continuing to betray the
native people. Regardless of what he is bringing into the
House today, he still made a big mistake, he made a big
blunder on November 23, 1981. It is fine and dandy-

The Premier came in today,like an old dog with its tail
between its legs,trying to play up to the native people,

hoping to get them on his side.

Mr. Speaker,-we will
recall, on November 23, 1981, and I will read it for the
record, a resolution that the hon. the Premier brought

into this House: ‘wHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland‘ —
he did not even say Government of Newfoundland and Labrador —
‘has supported the inclusion of the rights of the aboriginal

peoples of Canada in the Constitution;


.December 1, 1983, Tape 3604, Page 2 -— apb

agreement has now been reached among all the signatories
to the Constitutional Accord that the rights of the
aboriginal peoples of Canada are to be entrenched in the
AND WHEREAS the identification and definition of the
rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are to be
discussed at a constitutional conference with representations
of those people within the next year;
Now THEREFORE be it resolved that this House approve and
support the agreement of the Government of the Province

– to the inclusion of the rights of the aboriginal peoples

of Canada in the Constitution in the following terms: ‘

MR. NEARY: Two years ago?
MR. WARREN: November 25, 1981.

‘Rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada.
34(1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights
of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are
hereby recognized and affirmed.’
Now, Mr. speaker, that is exactly what the
Premier said earlier. And when he mentioned this first he
said the new resolution says, and I will repeat what the
Premier said earlier, ‘Any rights or freedoms that now
exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so
acquired.‘ Now, Mr. speaker, this is what the Premier tried
to do back in 1981.
He came into this House on three successive days
trying to get unanimous support for that resolution and
the next day both newspapers carried the headlines: “The

Premier was trying to betray the native people.”




December 1, 1983, Tape 3605, Page 1 ~— apb

MR. WARREN: The Premier came in in
1981, Mr. speaker, and tried to do that. And it was not
the minister on that side who is responsible for Labrador
who stood up and tried to stop him from bringing that
resolution in)_No, Mr. Speaker, it was the gentleman
from Torngat Mountains(Mr. Warren) who stood up on three
consecutive days and stopped the Premier from getting
unanimous consent in this House.

There is no reason the
Premier should feel happy today because he is finally
bringing in – by the way, I may as well say it at the
beginning, l am going to support this resolution, yes,
because it is the resolutionthat the natives peoples who
came into st. John’s on November 23, l98l, native people
from Nain, the Naskaupie — Montagnais Indian Association,
and the Conne River Band Council and persuaded the
government, persuaded the Premier not to sign the Accord
under the then present conditions, when the Premier was
hoping to get consent of this House so that he could call
a big press conference and say that he had finally done
it. V

Mr. Speaker, it was my
constituents who stood up and said, ‘Look, we do not want

this to go ahead.‘
MR. NEARY: So what you are saying:

even though he had unanimous consent on that resolution
he-could not deliver on that resolution?

MR. WARREN: That is right. That is
right, he had to bring in a new resolution and the new
resolution came after he had met with the native peoples
across the Province, and across Canada, and this is it here.

But if it had not been for the will of the people who were
sitting in the galleries on November 24, whom the Premier

betrayed twenty-four hours earlier in a meeting, and my


December 1, 1983, Tape 3605, Page 2 -~ apb

MR. WARREN: getting up and not
giving unanimous support that the Premier finally gave
in and dropped the resolution from the Order Paper

Now, Mr. Speaker, I
will quote, and I will table it afterward for hon.
members information, some comments that were made about
those notorious days of the Premier, the blackest days.
As the President of the LIA said, it is on page 3659
of Hansard
MR. SIMMS: . How did he get in
Hansard, the President of LIA?

MR. WARREN: Mr. speaker, I quote‘
from a letter from the President of the LIA: He said,
‘The day of the signing of the Constitutional Accord by
the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premier of the
Province has been one of the blackest days in the history
of Canada’s aboriginal people.‘ Now, Mr. speaker, that
was because the Premier was still determined to make sure
that the native people were not going to be recognized.

Now, Mr. Speaker —

MR. SIMMS: The venom.
MR. WARREN: – “on November 24, or

shortly thereafter – I believe the hon. minister, by the
way he is taking notes, is going to have a few comments to
make afterwards. ‘I only wish, Mr. Speaker, that he could
be more positive than he was back in November, 1981.

“When the nine Premiers“-
I am quoting, Mr. Speaker, from a book on the Newfoundland
native groups in the Constitution, a report by Adrian
Tanner — I will be only too glad to table_it: “When the
nine premiers and the Federal Government signed the Accord
on November 9, 1981, native people across Canada felt

betrayed by the dropping of the aboriginal rights clause.”


December 1, 1983, Tape 3605, Page 3 — apb

MR. WARREN: He said, “It had been
‘Peckford’ who was given the credit for proposing the
compromised draft of the Constitution which dropped the

aboriginal rights claim.”



December 1, 1983, Tape 3606, Page 1 — apb

MR. WARREN: Remember the Premier

coming back from Ottawa on his high horse? ‘1 was the

man who got the Constitution brought back to Canada, I
was the guy who convinced all the other Premiers.’ He

was also the same fellow, Mr. Speaker, who dropped the

aboriginal rights clause.

I repeat another

comment that was made here, and I repeat it the same as

it is here: ‘Peckford’s office refused the request for

a meeting with the aboriginal people. Two support

group members‘ – just listen to this, Mr. Speaker — ‘two
support group members intercepted Peckford as he was
leaving a meeting at Memorial University and were told

that he could not agree to re-insert the aboriginal

rights clause because it would break the delicate accord

between the nine Premiers.’ That is what the Premier

told two support group members, Mr. Speaker, that he

could not re—insert the aboriginal rights clause because

it would break the delicate accord with the other Premiers.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this is
the same Premier who came into today saying he is concerned

about the native people. It was the native people who got

him right up to the wall, had him cornered so that he

finally had to bend. The Premier did not do this_

willingly, this Premier has not done one thing willingly in’
this Province other than raise taxes.

V Mr. Speaker, an emergency
debate on aboriginal rights was introduced in the House

of Assembly against the government’s wishes. I believe you

will remember, Mr. speaker, that I brought in a resolution

and the Premier would not even bring it to a vote, and the
reason the Premier would not let that resolution come toia
vote was because it was going to put his Minister of



Agricultural and Northern Development(Mr. Goudie) in

an awkward position because that minister would have been




as V


December 1, 1983, Tape 3606, Page 2 —— apb

MR. WARREN: obliged to vote for it,
and I believe his conscience would have made him
vote for it. But the Premier would not let it go to a
vote because he did not want one of his Cabinet
Ministers to vote for the resolution.

Now all of a sudden,
just to follow the sequence of events, when the Premier did
speak to that resolution he brought up the subject of
land claims, the delicate subject of land claims. Here is
what Adrian Tanner said‘about the subject of land claims:
‘The attempt to substitute land claim negotiations for
constitutional aboriginal rights can also be seen in the
following statement by the Premier. He said, ‘We do agree,
as we had indicated in our statement on land claims over a
year ago, that we are totally in favour of negotiating the
whole native rights situation, but negotiating it like we

have indicated, like we wanted to is one thing, inclusion in

the Constitution is another.’ Now, he wanted to, he said,
but he cannot do it. The reason he could not do it, Mr.
Speaker, was because,if he mentioned aboriginal rights,the
other nine Premiers – he said nine, but I think there were
only seven of them — would not be willing to go along with



December 1, 1983, Tape 3607, Page 1 — apb

MR. WARREN: It was the determining
factor in l98l, when the hon. the member for Mount Scio
(Mr. Barry), the Premier’s stiffest competition, spoke

in favour of the resolution. The member for Mount Scio, and
we all know to whom I am referring. I will repeat, Mr.
Speaker, just in case some hon. member does not know,
when the Liberal Opposition tried to force an emergency
debate on aboriginal rights in the Constitution,one after
another the government members opposed the idea until one
of their colleagues, ‘Leo Barry’,made it clear that he
sided with the Liberals that such a debate should be held.
The Premier was then so scared that one of his former
Cabinet Ministers, a member on his side could get up and
convince the Premier that the debate’should be held.

Now, Mr. Speaker,
‘At this time Peckford quickly agreed to the debate on
condition that at the end no vote would be held.‘ As I say,
> Mr. Speaker, the reason no vote was held was because he
did not want to embarrass his minister from Labrador.
‘ Mr. Speaker, right

through the debate onNovember 24 the theme was: ‘However

just the principle of aboriginal rights ma§Hbe,Newfoundland
cannot agree to it without knowing how much the principle is
going to cost the Province.’ Now that was the concern.

If we go back to Hansard –
MR. TOBIN: ‘ You are supposed to give
your own opinion here,not somebody else’s. You should not

be reading £nm1a>pqer.> You will never be leader that way,

MR. WARREN: ‘. Mr. Speaker, I ask for the
____._____ .

protection of the Chair. I would also like to suggest to the

member for Placentia west (Mr. Tobin) that he refer to
a member by his district,not by his first name.
MR. SIMMS: Burin-Placentia west. You have to do the same

thing, only use the right name.


December 1, 1983, Tape 3607, Page 2 —— apb

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
‘MR. WARREN: ‘ , I am doing okay.
MR. SIMMS: -Instead of reading somebody

-else’s read your own speech.
MR. WARREN} ‘ Mr. Speaker, it goes on:
‘Newfoundland cannot agree to it without knowing how much
it will cost.’ And every member on that side who spoke on
November 24, 1981, said, ‘What is it going to cost us?
How much is it going to cost us to look after 2,000 native
people?’ That was the big bottom line, the big concern,
how much it was going to cost us.

. i believe, Mr. Speaker,
the important fact is that we have native people in this
Province and we should respect them, which this government

did not do until they were forced to.

The Premier said today in

the half hour he was speaking, ‘This government is

concerned about the future of the native people}


December 1, 1983, Tape 3608, Page 1 — apb

MR. WARREN: Just today, Mr. Speaker,
in the Question Period the-Premier said, and the Premier
was right proud today when he brought in this resolution –
MR. SIMMS: He is going on Provincial
Affairs next Saturday, by the way.

MR. WARREN: Good: Good! I hope he
will do as good a job as the man did there last week.

MR. SIMMS: Your campaign speech, I
can visualize it now around the 15th., in Gander, when you
make your announcement about the leadership. v

MR. WARREN: ‘ Mr. Speaker, when the
Premier bought in this resolution today,the Premier said,
‘We are concerned about the native people, we are concerned
about the land claims.’ Mr. speaker, it is ironic.’ How
can a person, the Premier of this Province, talk out of
both sides of his mouth? It is not very easy but he did it
within the past hour. In response to a question today to
the hon. Minister of the Environment(Mr. Andrews), to the
hon. the Minister of Culture, Recreation and Youth(Mr. Simms),

who is responsible for wildlife, and to the Premier
concerning Strange Lake,the answers we got back were there

was no monitoring going on; the only monitoring that is

going on is watching the Quebec officials. The Minister of
the Environment did not even know there was such a place up
there, He inly thing he is concerned about is,if development

takes place,then we will do an environmental impact study.

Now, Mr. Speaker, these are

the kind of ministers –

MR. SIMMS: ‘ anaudible) vote for you
now. 5

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to

be heard in silence.

MR. SIMMS: I am sorry. I apologize.
–Z-—-——-— . .

MR. SPEAKER(McNicholas):

Order, please!


December 1, 1983, Tape 3608, Page 2 — apb

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, these are
the kind of ministers that we have in this Province, who,
just an hour before the Premier brought in this resolution,
were contrary to what it says.
MR. SIMMS: ‘ What does that have to
do with strange Lake?
MR. WARREN: It has a lot to do with
strange Lake because the Premier is talking about land
claims in this resolution.
SIMMS: Do not get excited, just
explain it to me.
MR. WARREN: Okay. What does this
have to do_with Strange Lake? In this resolution that the
Premier brought in,he is referring to land claims acquired,
land claims that will be ongoing. The lands claims that
will be ongoing are the ones that are ongoing now.
MR. SPEAKER(McNicholas): Order, please!

It being five o’clock,I
would like to inform the House there are no questions for

the Late Show.

MR. MARSHALL: No questions again for the

Late Show. some oppositioni

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for

Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: – Mr. Speaker, before I was
so rudely interrupted by the hon. gentlemen,I was saying

this resolution concerns land claims. And the minister knows,
and the Premier knows – that minister there does not know —

that there are ongoing claims now with the Province and with

Ottawa about territory in Labrador,and Strange Lake is

included in Labrador. __ My .. . ,mi.- . _… ..

§§;jflg§§i1 What do you mean, I did not know?

§gg_1gg§gy You did ot neon by the way you ansuued the question.


December 1. 1983, Tape 3608, Page 3 — apb

MR. SIMMS: All he said was, What are
you talking about?

MR. WARREN: Now, Mr. Speaker, the
Premier brings in this resolution and what happens he is
contradicting what wae said in the past about the native

people. The Premier cannot go along



December 1, 1983, Tape 3609, Page 1 —— apb

MR. WARREN: trying to blindfold the
people of this Province. The Premier is trying to
blindfold the people completely but it is not working.
The native people in Labrador know, Mr. Speaker, that it
is not;working.

Let me relay some more
information, Mr. Speaker. Douglas Saunders,of the
Faculty of Law at the University of British Columbia
on November, 18, 1980 said —

DR. COLLINS: Was that Wednesday or

Thursday? _

‘ MR. WARREN: You can findout yourself.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: what a vicious attack!

Do not be nasty now. Stop interrupting.

MR. WARREN: ‘ Mr. Speaker, in speaking to
the Native Support Group on November 18, 1980, Dr. Saunders
said, and I quote from a paper, and I will table it if it
is of interest,‘that the provincial government is concerned –
and this was concerning native land claims. Here are the
three reasons the Premier’s attitude is what it is on native
land claims: The Premier has not yet, up until today,
advised the native associations in this Province what his
position is on native claims. And he is not going to do it,

Mr. Speaker. He is not going-to do it.

AN HON. MEMBER: ‘ Why is that?
MR. WARREN: Because he does not want to

do it, and here are three reasons given by Dr. Saunders:

The government is concerned
about its Labrador jurisdiction, number one, that the
settlement of native land claims could stall development,
number two, and settlement would help to develop the

isolated region. Those are the three reasons. The Premier

_ 7909

December 1, l983, Tape 3609, Page 2 — apb

MR. WARREN: is scared,because if

the Premier would adjust honestly and sincerely the native
peopleisclaims, the native people’s concerns, then he

knows it will have some effect on development. I know it
will have some effect on development, but let us face it,
let us stand up and address those concerns now. If not it
is still going to continue and you will see the Minister of
the Environment, who is acting like a fool in the doorway,
coming in two years down the road saying, We will have an
impact study on Strange Lake. Then it will be too late,
Mr. Speaker. The George River caribou herd will be
destroyed by the activity, even by the activity that
was going on in the George River area this past Summer.

Mr. Speaker, it is high
time that this government recognized that the native people
of Labrador are not to be taken for granted. They are not
going to be taken for granted any more. Past administrations,
from 1949, Joey’s administration, the Moores’ administration
and now this present administration, have taken the native
people for granted, but the will not be taken for granted
any more.

Mr. speaker, it is
interesting to note that only last week in response to a
question I posed to the Minister of Justice(Mr. Ottenheimer)
which had to do with a Daniel S. de LaPenha, Hilton Head,

south Carolina —
MR. SIMMS: How do you spell that last

name? ‘

MR. WARREN: I How do you spell the last
name? P:ewn—h-a. Penha.

MR. smms: Penda?

MR. WARREN: . I suppose your pronunciation
might be different than mine, but,anyhow, it is some foreigner.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister

of Justice responded, and you would not


December , 1983, Tape 3610, Page 1 -— apb

MR. WARREN: _ believe the kind of

ridiculous answer he gave us.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: The question was
MR. WARREN: ‘ Mr. Speaker, the question

was, knowing that the Premier was going to bring in this

resolution, and this resolution says that the native people
will be protected, were the native people advised about

this land claim being before the Supreme Court of
Newfoundland? The Minister of Justice(Mr. Ottenheimer)

said, no, why should they?

Now, here is the Premier
on the one hand,saying the.Constitution is for the native
peoplewhen the minister will let a case go to the supreme
Court of Newfoundland that could affect the lives of any
native people in this Province. That is the hind of

government we have over there, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIMMS: What was his answer?
MR. WARREN: The minister’s answer was

that he did not think they should have been notified. But,

he said, if there is an appeal –

MR. SIMMS: I am sure he did not mean
MR. WARREN: I hope the hon. minister

did not mean it. But the minister did say, If there is an
appeal,I am sure that the Innuit people will be advised.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: V It had nothing. to do_with
land claims,it had to do with Efié territorial integrity of the

MR. WARREN: And it has to do with land
claims. It has to do with land claims.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: ‘ They do not need me to

send newspapers up to them. The hon. gentleman reads

newspapers, If he was so interested,he would have told them.


December 1, 1983, Tape 3610, Page 2 —— apb

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WARREN: ‘ Mr. Speaker, the reason

I did not tell them is the same reason the minister did
not tell the native people. He did not tell anyone. No

one knew but a couple of lawyers and people in the
Supreme Court. These are the only people who knew.
AN HON. MEMBER: ” ” You knew about it. I
Yes, after it came out.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: You should read the

newspapers. Itcame out months ago, months ago.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, it came out
in the newspapers after the fact. The minister cannot get
off the hook on this one, nor the Premier, nor the Minister
of Development(Mr. Windsor), nor the Minister of the
Environment(Mr. Andrews), now the Minister of Culture,
Recreation and Youth(Mr. Simms). Put your act together,
gentlemen, get your act together, and then you will do
wonders for the native people. Unless you act collectively,
it is going to be a sad day for the native people because
this resolution which the Premier brought in today –

MR. SIMMS: The President of the Council
(Mr. Marshall), what did he have to say about it?

MR. WARREN: He has not said anything yet,
I do not think.

MR. BAIRD: His time is up,

Mr. Speaker.
MR. WARREN: . i I wish to advise the hon.

the member for Humber West(Mr. Baird) that I have at least

until five thirty and some time again tomorrow. So I will continue

Vas long as I can to try to knock something into some of the

heads on that side, that the native people have to be
listened to. . 5
Mr. speaker, I suppose it

is an error that is not worthy of note, but, in fact, the



pr ZZV‘-.‘




December 1, 1983, Tape 3610, Page 3 — apb

MR. WARREN: Premier was not one of
the signatories to this Accord, it was the Minister of
iustice(Mr. Ottenheimer). so it was the Minister of
Justice who put his signature to the Accord and not the
Premier, and this was brought out by the lawyer for the
Native Association who attended the meeting back in

November of 1982, I think it was.

Mr. Speaker, I have all
kinds of things here that I can relate to hon. members ‘about
how frustrating it has been. If we are eoncerned,as the
Premier ‘and I hopeflhe was being honest today. He has not been

so far. I hope it was a new leaf.

MR. MARSHALL: A point of order, Mr.
MR. sPEAKER(McNicho1as): Order, please!

A ooint of order, the hon.
the President of the Council. _“ W mV_“>H
fl§;_§§§§§§§g; It is time_to give the hon.
gentleman some shock treatment. He is not allowed to impugn
the honesty of anybody. I mean, the hon. gentleman gets up,

and I


December 1, 1983, maps 36ll, Page 1 — apb

MR. MARSHALL: know the hon. gentleman
does not mean it, but I know the hon. gentleman equally —
oh, look at the hon. the Leader of the Opposition(Mr. Neary).
he is alive and well and bestrides this Assembly like a
colossi. But,.Mr. Sneaker, he impugned the honesty of an
hon. member, namely the Premier, and I think he should be
asked to retract it.

MR. NEARY: To that point of order,
Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER(McNicho1as): To that point of order,
the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
mugwump,when he was raising his point of order,used a very
unparliamentary term when he said my hon. colleague needed
some shock treatment. Now, Mr. Speaker, your honour knows
that that kind of a remark in this House is unparliamentary
and I ask that the hon. gentleman be directed to withdraw it.
MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order:
The point of order was about the comment impugning the
Premier’s honesty and it was said by the hon. member. I
would ask him to withdraw it.

MR. WARREN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is
no problem there. I am sure the Premier does not want to be

dishonest to this House or dishonest to anybody else, but I

hope that today he was honest.

MR. NEARY: – A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon.

the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, when the

mugwump there opposite made his point of order,he used

unparliamentary language.

MR. YOUNG: He did not. He was telling
the truth.
MR. NEARY: He certainly did use


‘December 1, 1983, Tape 3611, Page 2 -— apb

MR. NEARY: unparliamentary language.
You cannot case aspersions or reflections on the physical

or mental capabilities of anybody in this House, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. gentleman knows that. The unparliamentary

language thatithe hon.gent1eman used was ‘some shock
treatment’. Mr. Speaker, if you research the rules of

order in Beauchesne you will discover that that is
unparliamentary, but I understand it is typical of the

kind of poison the hon. gentleman squirts across the floor
of this House. ‘Only the hon. gentleman would be capable

of making such a lowdown statement to this House, Mr.

’ Speaker, and it is no wonder the administration try to keep

him off television. Every time he gets on he loses
thousands of votes for the administration. I would submit
that the Chair direct the hon. gentleman to withdraw these

nasty remarks.

MR. MARSHALL: To that point of order,

Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER(McNicholas): To the point or order; the

hon. the President of the Council.

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
gentleman was out having a drag on his Panamanian cigar —
some HON. Msmasns: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: ‘ – and did not hear what I

said. Mr. speaker, all I said with respect to the hon.
gentleman, after listening to the hon. gentleman for half an
hour, was that he needed a shock and we all needed shock
treatment having listened to him. That was myself, so I
withdraw it if I made an aspersion against myself. But, I
mean, the hon. gentleman is being ridiculous. The hon.

member for Torngat Mountains(Mr. Warren) got up and he withdrew

an unparliamentary expression,which he ought to.

MR. NEARY: Well, now, you withdraw yours.
MR. MARSHALL: I will do nothing.


December 1, 1983, Tape 3611, Page 3 —— apb

MR. SPEAKER(McNicholas): To that point of order,
the hon. the President of the Counci1(Mr. Marshall) has
withdrawn that remark.

The hon. the member for
Torngat Mountains.
MR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know, Mr. Speaker,
but it appears that members on that side of the House really

think that when you talk about native people in this



December 1, 1983, Tape 3612, Page l — apb

MR. WARREN: it is a laughing matter.
when you talk about native people in this Province and

you look across at the backbenchersover there. and you

look at the ministers especially the minister
responsible for wildlife(Mr. Simms), you can see it is

just a laughing matter. I can assure hon. members it is no
laughing matter when you are talking about 2,000 people in
this Province this government is trying to destroy. It

is no laughing matter, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIMMS: I agree, it is no laughing
matter. .

MR. WARREN: _ Mr. Speaker, I want to
further state that the reason that this motion –

MR. SIMMS:– -~» v~ — – -Go on, you mugwump;

MR. WARREN:_ Iook_how silly the minister is. You mxnfld be ashaned of yourself
my friend. You should be ashamed of yourself. You do not

have any respect at all for the native people. Why do you

not go back to Grand Falls and put on your monkey suit?

And he was the Speaker


of the House at one time.

AN HON. MEMBER:‘ He is uncouth.

MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, to a point oh

MR. SPEAKER(McNicholas): A point of order, the hon.
the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. NEARY: f_ Mr. Speaker, one of the rules
of this House is that a member has a right to be heard in
silence in this House. Now my hon. colleague is continuously
being interrupted by hon. gentlemen there opposite who think
they can take the House on their backs. They think they own
the House; they allow the public servants to walk in on the
floor of the House, they do what they like, they change the
rules whenever they feel like it. Mr. Speaker, we have

precedents in this session of the House that are unheard of.


December 1, 1983, Tape 3612, Page 2 — apb

MR. MARSHALL: Why do you not tell them
about — I
MR. NEARY: Well, that particular

gentleman, by the way. is the fellow I defeated back in
1966 and he is bound to get in on the floor of the House
one way or another. Legally or illegally he is going to
come in on the floor of the House. Mr. speaker, you have
to get elected to get in on the floor of this House.

But the point I am making
is my hon. friend has a right to be heard in silence and I
would ask the Chair to direct the rowdies on the other side
to restrain themselves. Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is

making a good speech and we want to hear what he has to say.

.MR. SPEAKER(McNicho1as): To that point of order,

the hon. member has the right to be heard in silence,and I
would ask all hon. members to acknowledge and honour that.

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr.


When Adrian Tanner was
doing his summary on the actions of the Premier back in
November of 1981, and the actions of other members in this
House, Mr. Speaker, with respect to a resolution that we
were debating, he did say that the native people wanted
something stronger in the Constitution. That was their
request. They went and met with the Premier and the
Premier made a promise to them — I do not know whether it
was in the Premier’s office or not – that he would make

sure that he would satisfy their wishes. In fact, he
wrote them a letter the next day,which was delivered to me

‘about a quarter to three by the native people, and his

response to the native people’s objections was that the
word ‘existing‘ did not change anything. He did not
interpret the word in the narrow, legalistic sense

that worried the native people. However, he offered no

hope that the term would be dropped.

. V- 7918

December 1, 1983, Tape 3612, Page 3 —— apb

MB;_fl£EE§Q§; Trudeau would not
drop it.
MR. WARREN: That is right. That is

exactly the answer,and I thank the hon. the minister for
bringing it up, he would not drop it because the Prime

Minister, who was in the same bed with the Premier at the
time, would not let the word ‘existing’ be dropped. That

is the reason,


December 1, 1983 rape” 3513 NM – 1

MR. WARREN: – . _ that is the reason.

And the Premier did not have the intestinal fortitude

of standing up and being counted as a person representing
Newfoundland and Labrador including the Native people. That

was the reason, Mr. Speaker.

In fact,it went to the
point that the letter the Premier actually sent to the Native
lexkxs shattered, I repeat that word, Mr. Speaker, shattered
any hope for a relationship or trust. The letter that the
Premier wrote to the Native people, and Mr. speaker, that
letter is available upon request, it sort of gave no trust at
all. It sort of shattered any relationship or trust.

However, there were lessons
to be learned from the experience of the campaign to reinsert
aboriginal rights into the Constitution. Here is one of
the lessons, Mr. speaker. First it is clear that among
the politicians on both sides of the Provincial house of
Assembly very few knew very much about the issue. Although
there were eight or nine people spoke ,very few knew very much
about the issue,except in respect of Mr. Peckford7and
possibly Leo Earrycwho will make the decisions on these
issues. And this is from the support group. They are saying
that the Premier is going to make the decisions regardless,
come Hell or high water.

1 Mr. Speaker, I must say one
thing, I am glad for one thing, that the Premier did see fit
to bring this resolution in. But at the same time when he
was bringing in the resolution, only a matter of an hour
before,there were some vital questions asked of two ministers
in the House:inoluding.the Premier, about land in Labrador
that is contingent on land claims,and the Minister of the

Environment (Mr. Andrews), and the Premier, in response to


December 1, l983 Tape. 3613 ‘ NM – 2

MR. WARREN: – ‘ a question from the hon.
the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary), Said that
there are permits issued by both governments, by the

Quebec Government and by the Province.

Mr. Speaker,

with all due respect to the Premier, one of

his statements is not factual, Either this resolution

be is bringing in,or his response to the question today, one
of the things he is saying is incorrect. why would the
Premier and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Andrews)

be issuing permits and allowing work or surveys to be

going on in the Strange Lake area-vwhich is included in the
Native land claims synopsis that the Province has their
hands on, which is included in the synopsis that the federal
government has their hands on—:why is it that the Premier
would allow movement to go ahead in strange Lake if he is
concerned about the resolution he just brought forward?
Because the resolution states that any land claims that

are on the negotiating table will be looked,at or any

°ther5 flflhd, which include the proposed ones that the Premier

has known to be ongoing for the last year and a half or

CWO years .

The Liberal Government
under Mr. Smallwood did not give very much respect to the
Native people. The Moores’ Administration gave less respect

to the Native people. And this administration is trying


December 1, 1983 Tape No. 31314 sn – 1

to do one thing,_”Wtake the 2,000 or so Native people in

this Province and try to twist them around their small finger.
But it is notpgoing to work. The Native people have stood

up before, the Native people have put the Premier in the
corner. The Native people have cornered the Premier and

he could not get his big wishes of going forward and having
the Constitution adopted on the 26th of November, 1981.

He really thought he would, Mr. Speaker. And I will repeat
for the Premier’s benefit in case he might have missed
anything – well,he missedione thing, he missed the

response the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ottenheimer) made

with reference to land claims by an individual outsider and
on territory in Labrador,_ he missed that much, And he

also missed, Mr. Speaker, the reason_the Premier, although

he did not say it publicly, but the reason was there and

the Native people know*the reason too, that the reason why
the Premier would not have any vote on November 25th is
because he knew if there was a vote carried forward

his Minister of Rural, Agricultural and Northern Development
(Mr. Goudiel, the minister responsible for Labrador,

because he does have a conscience ,that is one thing I

will say about the hon. member, he does have a conscience

and he would be forced, his conscience would have forced

him to vote for the resolution that I brought into_them§ouse.v
But the Premier did not want a vote and he got his Way:
having Eorty~four members to eight in the House, the resolution
would not be brought to a vote and subsequently there was_ N
no vote carried. But the underlying current was there,

he did not want to upset the apple cart. And.the Premier
can come in with what resolutions he wants in this hon}

House ,like.he.came in today» He came in all full of smiles

saying that they were going to support a resolution for the


December 1, 1983 Tape No. 3614 SD – 2

Native people, knowingly and

probably hopingly that no media or anyone else would pick up

the double turn that he has made, could put up the 360 degree
turn that the Premier has made since November 1981. He was the
same gentleman, the Premier of the Province at the same time,
who came in here in November 1981 and wanted to leave the word
‘existing‘ in the Constitution, and he wanted the full unanimous
support of this hon. House. Now he comes in because, Mr.
Speaker, he has no other choice. And we are ready tc‘support
this, sure. We will support this resolution, Mr. Speaker,
because it is a resolution that should not have been necessary
in the first place. It was just another ongoing confrontation
and this time it was with the Native peoples with an extra

year and a half which was not necessary. The member for Mount
Scic (Mr. Barry)..

MR. SIMMS: Where?’

MR. WARREN: You know who the hon. member is.
Most hon. members over.there, if there was a leadership

convention called on this side today, most likely a lot of

them would support him.

MR. SPEAKER (Russell): Order, please!


MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, can I have the
protection of the Chair, please?

Mr. Speaker, I only wish the
Premier, if he is going to respond at the closing of this
resolution, would be factual with the Native peoples about

the meeting of 23~24 November, 1981.


December 1 , 1983 Tape 3615 PK – 1

and tell us why he would not agree at that time to take the
necessary changes that the Native people requested. It was
not a big deal, but the reason was because the Prime Minister
and Mr. Lougheed and Mr. Blakney would be on his back, that
is the reason, Mr. Speaker.
You can read it whichever

way we like, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier of the Province,

up until one. hour ago when he brought in this resolution,

he was right down on the totem pole regards the Native

people. I believe the Premier realizes that, and,yes, the
Premier will.get some credit for that, and the Native people
will give him some credit for it. But the credit has to go
to those delegations, those people from Labrador and from

Conne River who came out and pushed the Premier into a corner
and forced him and stopped him from not going ahead with
his ultimate aim of wiping out the Native people. That was the_“
ultimate aim, let us get the word ‘existing’ in there.
V I If the Premier had his way
what would have happened, and what the Premier was after,
and this has been said by the Native people in Labrador and
in Conne River, if the Premier had his way what would have
happened is that there would not have been any meetings with
the Native people, this would not have come about, and then
there would not be any talk of lands claim at all in Labrador.
The Premier has not yet identified his government’s position
on lands claim.
Mr. Speaker, seeing it is
5:30,I adjourn the debate.‘
MR. SPEAKER (Russell): It has been noted that the
hon. member for Torngat Mountains adjourn the debate.

This being Thursday and

there are no items for the Late Show, it is deemed that a motion




PK – l





ti“? .

December 1, 1983

MR. SPEAKER (Russell):

rising adjourned until tomorrow,


Tape 3615 PK – 2

to adjourn has been made.
on motion,the House at its

Friday, at 10:00 a.m.







10:00 a.m. — 1:00 p.m.



December 2, 1983 Tape No. 3631 NM – 2

MR. SPEAKER (Russell): Order, please! The
point of order raised is a difference of opinion between
two hon. members.
Motion, the hon. the

Minister of Social Services to introduce a bill, “An Act
To Amend The Social Assistance Act, 1977”, carried.

(Bill No. 82)
on motion, Bill No. 82
read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
Motion, the hon. the

Minister of Health to introduce a bill, “An Act To Amend The
Newfoundland Medical Care Insurance Act”, carried. (Bill No. 92)
On motion, Bill No. 92
read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
Motion, the hon. the
Minister of Culture, Recreation and Youth to introduce a bill,
“An Act To Amend The wilderness And Ecological Reserves Act
(No. 2)”, carried. (Bill No. 93)
On motion Bill No. 93 read a

first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1. The resolution

introduced by the hon. the Premierland the hon. the member
for Torngat Mountains adjourned the debate yesterday.

MR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. speaker.
Yesterday when I was speaking in favour of this resolution,
I did indicate, Mr. Speaker, at the time that the Premier
made a 360 degree turn since November 24, 1981. And it is

public record, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier in 1981, at the


oe’¢emb.._- 2, 1983’: mafia No. 3”633’1″ N34‘ — 3″

MR. WARREN: time the Constitution
was in the process of being brought home to our country
the Premier was content, at that time the Premier was

contented to go ahead, having the


December 2, 1983 Tape 3632 EC – 1

unanimous support of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians of
retaining the word‘existing’in Clause 34. And it was,

Mr. Speaker. The the Premier cannot get any credit what-
soever for this resolution that he brought in yesterday.
The credit for this resolution lies solely on the native
people across Canada. The native people across Canada have
stood up in force with the backing of the federal MP,
Warren Allmand. Warren Allmand was one of the backers,

one of the MPs,along with Peter Ittinuar, an Inuit who
represents the Eastern Arctic. He and warren Allmand were
the two federal MP5 who were backing the native people
across Canada in order to hme the word ‘existing’ deleted
or have something added to it. But the resolution that the
Premier brought in yesterday did what the native people
wanted done in 1981, it extended the word ‘existing’ to
include any other ongoing talks between the native people_

and government.
Now, the Premier said yesterday

that so far the federal government have not been willing
to look at the land claims of the native peoples.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that is incorrect.

I would like to quote from a
statement of the Labrador Inuit Association under the
signature of Enoch Obed, who was the Land Claims Director

for the Inuit Association: “The Supreme Court of Canada

came very close to saying that the native people had

traditional and aboriginal titles to their land in
January, 1973. The government at that time got scared

that if the Inuit and Indians ever went to court, it might
get beaten and the native people would win their case.

In order to forestall this possibility, the federal govern-

ment reversed its 1969 policy and on August 6, 1973,

7980 ‘

December 2, 1983, Ta9e,3632 EC 1 2

MR. WARREN: announced that it was prepared

to settle land claims with natives without treaties

if those people could show that they had traditional interest

in their lands.” Now, that was on August §, 1973, ,

Mr. Speaker, some ten years ago.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Premier _
was the gentleman who said yesterday that the federal

government was not concerned about land claims. It is

_this Province that is not concerned about land claims.

This Province is concerned that what will happen is
the native people in this Province will have some say about

their destiny.
The Premier met with the native

leader on November 23rd. I want to read for you, Mr. Speaker,

what the native people said on November 24th:


December 2, 1983 Tape 3633 PK – 1

MR. WARREN: ‘we met with Premier Peckford
this morning where we were presented with a new version of
Section 34 that the Premiers across the country had agreed

on last night.‘ Again I reiterate, Mr. Speaker,’The Native
people were left out of these consultations and we were asked

to support a document that we knew nothing about.-

‘ ‘we hope that Premier Peckford
will support the request of the Native peoples of this
Province and have the word dropped} in other words, the word
‘existing’. And, Mr. Speaker, if that was dropped then
at that time,November 24, lgel, the Native peoples of this
Province would agree wholeheartedly with the constitution
and the Premier would not have been required to come into
the House yesterday with his tail between his legs and
egpect hopefully that everything would be forgiven.

Mr. Speaker, in the
remaining few minutes I have left, for the record let us
look at what this government has shown in favour of the
Inuit people, Let us look at what they have shown in the
past and see if there is any desire in this resolution to

be better to the Native people. \

‘ Mr. Speaker, in September
l978,the Premier.who at that time was the Minister of Rural
Development,on September 18, 1978, at that I V
time issued a directive to all the managers of government
owned stores in Northern Labrador that the stores would be
no longer carrying hardware, furniture or appliances.

Now the Premier made that , as Minister of Rural Development
at that time, in 1978, he made that decision without even
consulting the Inuit people. Instead who did he consult?

He consulted two individual business people who were living


December 2, l983 »Tape%3§33 . PK – 2

MR. WARREN: in Nain, who wanted to carry

those ¢0mm0ditieS- Instead df stocking them in the government

store, he was receiving federal money for the operation of

government stores in the communities,this government just _

turned their backs on them and started taking things away.
‘This is another sorry

episode,’this is what the statement said by the Inuit

Association in 1978,’this is another sorry episode of

vgovernment officials listening to and being influenced

by a couple of white businessmen and discarding the
opinions of the true citizens of Labrador.‘ Mr. speaker,

it asks as final questions, ‘What about the people who live
there?‘ What about the people that this agreement is meant

Now, Mr. Speaker, this
resolution will,I hope – I do have a little confidence in
the Premier-I hope that he will now have learned his
lesson that the Native people will no longer be trodden
on. I am surprised also , Mr. Speaker, that_the Premier
said yesterday, he said,’we have done extensive, detailed
research and can find no evidence to support the aboriginal

title by the people of Conne River.‘ That, Mr. Speaker, is


December 2,1983 Tape No. 3634 ah—l


not correct, that is not correct, they have not done an
extensive search. They may have done research/but

not an extensive research.Because if they had done
extensive researchlthey would have came up with some

ideas supporting the Conne River indians. All the Premier
has done was listen to some research from his flunkies,
that was the research that he listened to. There is
research that he will not ever listen to at all, Mr.
Speaker, that was done by a Memorial University professor.-
He will not evern listen to that because he thinks it

is no good. But why does he not play all the evidence?
Maybe the Conne River indians do not have a claim to

any terriotory, maybe they do not,but I Voelieve it

is unfair for the Premier to come into this House and

say they did extensive research which they have not
done. The Premier also saidflwe are sit

down with the groups,’meaning the Indian groups,’and
recognize right from the start that they are different

from the rest of us on the Island.‘ Mr.Speaker, what

a laughfwhat a laugh! It was only just last Winter,
Mr.Speaker, when this government had it in its power,

and the money was there available to assist the native
people in recovering their skidocs and their caribou

meat that was left in the country because of bad weather,but
this government did not see fit to do it. This government
could not stand on its two legs and support those people,
instead we had to go to the Germans to help those Inuit and
Indian people and help them to retrieve their
caribou meat from the interior. Does this government care?

No, Mr. Speaker, this government does not care. If it


December 2,1983 Tape No. 3634 ah—2

MR.WARREN: cared it would have been

in there the first day it was requested. And from that
day, Mr. Speaker, this is one of the reasons why the
Executive Assistant to the Minister of Rural Development
(Mr. Goudiel,Mr. White,was released of his duties, because
Mr. White stood up for the principles of the Inuit

people at that time. He requested that the department

act and help those people to get their meat and their
skidoos out of the country. And I wonder if this

is one of the reasons why Mr. White is no longer employed

with that department? Mr. Speaker, in conclusion —

MR.CALLAN: Are you going to read the

MR.WARREN: I will read another letter


MR.5IMM5: Are you going to table it?

MR.WARREN: I will table any letters,

yes, my friend. Mr. Speaker, I want to quote a copy of

a letter that I received in 1979 and it shows and I
hope that this will sum up, Mr. Speaker, the frustrations
of the native people of Labrador as it pertains to
governments. I am not pointing particularly to the
provincial government but to both governments. Mr.
Speaker, this letter was written by the late William
Edmunds,who was then the President of the Labrador
Inuit Association. It is not necessary to repeat the
first paragraph, it is just congratulating me on my
election and so on. The second paragraph, ‘I am

sure you will agree with me when I say that the Torngat
district is one of the most neglected financially

not only in the Pndnce but in the whole of Canada.I

could add that there is also


December 2, 1983 Tape No. 3635 MJ – 1


a special area in another sense as it contains in your hunt
population in the Province. This fact alone makes it completely
different from all other districts. The Inuit people are
different, they have different dreams and hopes than does
the average Canadian. Theirs is not a world of pavements,
highways, automobiles, offices and high—rises‘- sxh asthe
Tiffany_flmw¢s-‘but of water, ice and snow, hunting, trapping
and fishing and a healthy environment‘— which the minister is
trying to destroy at Strange Lake, their healthy
environment. ‘Government Services such as housing, social
services, are geared to the outside world and are more

often detrimental than beneficial to the native population.

MR. SIMMS: What are you reading from there?
MR. WARREN: I will table it,do not worry.

Mr. Speaker, it says the

problems are, and I repeat,’A lot of these problems,by

the way,are initiated by the provincial government.‘ Mr.
Speaker, the native people in this Province do not have
any ambitions of running this Province, they also do not
have any ambitions of separating from the Province. The
only ambition they have is to be respected. They were the
first born of this Province, they were the first settlers
of this Province before it became a province, They were
the first ones here,so let us respect them and let us not
take away the little that they have left. I am hoping,
Mr. Speaker, in concluding,ang I am Sure that

the Minister of Rural, Agricultural and Northern Development

(Mr, Goudie)’who espouses being a Labradorian and

‘being proud of being a Labradorianl will show his

convictions and naturally will support the resolution as I

will support the resolution. And not only support the resolution,

but to stand up and show once and for all that we have to respect


December 2,.l983 Tape No. 3635 MJ ~ 2

MR. WARREN: these people, that these people

cannot be trod on any longer. It is through the good graces

of the Labrador Inuit Association and the N¥I Association,

these two groups have been the powerful force that is
forcing this government to at least listen to their
desires and their ambitions.And their desire and ambition,
Mr. Speaker, is to be treated as true Canadians and true
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. with that, Mr. Speaker,
I support the resolution that was put forward by the
Premier and I hope and pray, Mr. Speaker, that this
resolution will open the Premier’s eyes to realize that
the native people who live in Labrador are part of this
Province. There would not have been any need for the
Premier to bring in this resolution if he had done his
homework in November l98l,but, Mr. Speaker, he was too
headstrong,as he is in many other things,and what has

happened now is that


December 2, 1983 Tape No. 3636 SD – 1


we have to have this debate,and I hope that the benefits
derived will be the benefits for the minority groups in this
Province. And sometimes, Mr. Speaker, it is worth our while
to listen to what those minority groups have to say,whether,
they are French Canadians, whether they are natives or
whether they are some minority religious group,because,

no matter who they are, whatever they have to say sometimes
let us not be to high and mighty not to listen to them
because they are,an important segment of our society. And
with that in mind, Mr. speaker, I support the resolution.

MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): The hon. Minister of Rural,

Agricultural and Northern Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
MR. GOUDIE: Mr. speaker, I am not quite

sure how to begin this debate this morning, After listening

to the gentleman who represents Torngat Mountains (Mr. Warren) V
yesterday and again today,perhaps I should not say I,am Klw
embarrassed to follow him as he obviously does not understand
what this resolution is about and he sure does not know what‘
he is talking about. All he has done for the last hour or
so,combining his words yesterday and today,is quote from
letters from some place or other, letters that he has not
tabled-and I do not care whether he tables them or not, it

does not matter to me— quoting so-called experts on native

peoples in Newfoundland and Labrador and in Canada, offered

n9 ,°n – – .

MR. SIMMS: Yes, and British Columbia. 7
MR. GOUDIE: In British Columbia, yes, of course.

He offered no opinions on anything. I have to congratulate
him for one thing and that is in the last couple of minutes
of his speech he did make reference to one of the greatest
and certainly most effective native leaders we have had in

this Provincelin my recall of the last thirty years or so,and


December 2, 1983 Tape No. 3636 SD ~ 2

MR. GOUDIE: that is the late Bill Edmunds,

and I want to have a couple of words about him a little

later on.
MR. WARREN: A good man, a good man.
MR. GOUDIE: I must compliment him for that,

although I think he just happened to slip it in as an after
thought at the tail end,which is the way he usually approaches

In any event, Mr. Speaker, the
gentleman says he is going to begrudgingly support this
particular resolution. The only elected representative in
this Legislature who represents the majority of native
peoples in this Province is going to begrudgingly recognize

the righs of native peoples in the Constitution of Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame, shame.
MR. GOUDIE: The man should hang his head

in shame and resign from the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
MR. GOUDIE: ‘I never thought I would ever

be embarrassed, Mr. Speaker, to recognize a fellow
representative from a Labrador riding in this Province.
MR. WARREN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): -A point of order, the hon.

member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARRENJ -Mr. Speaker, if the minister
would look back over Hansard he will see that right from the
beginning I said that I would support the resolution. I said
today on two occasions I would support the resolution. And
that is more than the minister would do in 1981, and he is a

true-blooded Labradorian.

‘MR. OTTENHEIMER: _ To that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, the hon.

Minister of Justice.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Obviously it is not a point of


December 2, 1983 Tape No. 3636 SD ‘ 3
MR. OTTENHEIMER: _ order but it is a point of great

rudeness because the hon. gentleman from Torngat Mountains (Mr.
warren) spoke for over an hour without one interruption or

a point of order from the hon. minister,and he should extend
the same courtesy to that hon. gentleman who has only spoken

for a minute and a half.

MR. HISCOCK: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): To that point of order, the hon.

member for Eagle River.

MR. HISCOCK: Mr. Speaker, he may have spoken
for an hour but he did not at any time end up saying that

the Minister of Rural, Agricultural and Northern Development
(Mr. Goudie) should resign. The member for Torngat Mountains
(Mr. Warren) is,like all members of the House of Assembly,

in here by the due wishes of the people and it is up to the
people of each district to turn around and decide whether they
should resign or turned out of office in a general election.
so it is not a point of order, Mr. Speaker, whatsoever and
it is not a point of rudeness either.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, the hon.

Minister of Culture, Recreation and Youth.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I just want to

make the point that the member for Torngat Mountains raised
the point of order,and it is very pleasant indeed to see that
his colleague from Eagle River (Mr. Hiscockl now agrees that
it is not a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, I rule
there is a difference of opinion between two hon. members.

The hon. Minister for Rural,

Agriculture and Northern Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
MR. GOUDIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


December 2, 1983 Tape No. 3636 . SD — 4

MR. GOUDIE: – I did not say that the hon.
gentleman from the Torngat district {Mr} Warren) did not
support the resolution. I said he supports it begrudgingly,
which was obvious for the last hour that the hon. gentleman

spoke to this resolution. He has no interest,


December 2, 1983 Tape No. 3637 NM – 1

I do not think, in promoting the welfare or raising the
concerns,or acting upon the concerns of the residents of
Torngat district, again I will repeat, the district in

this Province which has almost a total population of

Native people. There is one other community in Labrador,

in my district, the community of Shesheshit,which has an

Indian population, there is a community down here on the

Island part of the Province, Conne River, that we are all

aware of, and there are Native peoples in a few other
communities scattered throughout the Province.

So that gentlemen

represents the majority of native peoples in this Province,

and he stands here and begrudgingly supports this resolution.
MR. BAIRD: He should resign.

MR. GOUDIE: He is confused, Mr. Speaker.
He deliberately miscontrues information, he has been doing it
since he has been a member of this Legislature, and persists

in doing it again. Just let me give the hon. gentleman, through
you, Mr. Speaker, one example, He says that the Premier does

not consult, I think he meant with anyone in the Province but

he certainly refluxed specifically to Native people, that he does
not consult with them. He raises something about a resolution
that was brought in here a couple of years ago and expresses
great concern that the Premier,and myself, he mentioned me
specifically several times, did not have the nerve to support
Native peoples, etc., etc., etc. I want to assure the hon.
gentlemen and all members of the Legislature, Mr. Speaker, that
I most certainly support native peoples. Perhaps, thankfully,

in my opinion, but perhaps the gentleman may be upset that he


December 2, l983 Tape No. 3637 NM ~ 2

MR. GOUDIE: is not sitting around the

table in Ottawa involved in these discussions, an opportunity

which I have to take part in —
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GOUDIE: — and something which I

do with a great deal of pride, Mr. Speaker, and will continue
as long as the Premier and this government designates me as
one of the people to represent Native people in this Province
at the national level in the constitutional talks. when
that particular resolution that he referred to, which was
brought in a couple of years ago, Mr. Speaker, was dealt
with, I met with all the leaders of the native groups in

the Province and talked with some individuals about their
concerns. They wanted to be assured that their rights and
aspirations were going to be covered under the Constitution.
The proposal put forth by the Premier, as I understand it — –
perhaps I misunderstood it but as I understand it-_was to
assure the native peoples of Canada that within a year,I
believe, subject to correction by the Minister of Justice
(Mr. Ottenheimer), he is better informed on a lot of the
details than I am, but I understood within a year or two
that native peoplesv rights would be debated under the
constitution and appropriate amendments made thereto, which

is what we are in the process of doing here right now.

Talk about consultationi

The Premier and myself made telephone calls, his staff made

telephone calls, sent letters to the leaders of the three

native groups in this Province, the Labrador Inuit

Association, the Naskaupi Montagnais Inuit Association and _
the Federation of Newfoundland Indians, indicating to them,
prior to the first First Ministers‘Conference,that such a

conference was taking place dealing with aboriginal


December 2, 1983 Tape No. 3637 NM — 3

MR. GOUDIE: – issues, and rights, etc.,
are you prepared to come into St, John’s, or select a
location, to talk about your concerns so that we may address
them a little more accurately and in turn present them during
the discussions at the First Ministers’level? There was
one response, Mr. Speaker, from the three groups,and that
was from the Labrador Innuit Association. The other two
groups, the NMIA and the Federation of Newfoundland Indians
either did not have an interest or did not care that we
wanted to represent them during the constitutional talks.
They did not wish to meet with us. As a matter of fach
they stated they do not recognize the Government of this
Province,and I believe they further do not recognize the
Government of Canada but I am not sure about that, but they
certainly do not recognize the Government of this Province.

I sat in for about three
hours, Mr. Speaker, along with my colleague, the Minister of
Justice (Mr. Ottenheimer), the Premier, and representatives
of the LIA, downstairs in the Cabinet Room, and discussed
their concerns and they had with them a Mr. Charlie watt,
a gentleman who I believe at that time was with the ICNI,
the Inuit Committee on National Issues. And the
discussion I thought was extremely fruitful. We presented
our position to them on constitutional matters. They in
turn presented theirs, and we walked out of the meeting
with agreement,as I understood it. And the positions that
they put forth were subsequently put forth by myself, by
NY colleagues the Minister of Justice ‘end the Premier,at
these constitutional talks. H

So,do not anyone get the
impression that the Government of this Province does not
consult with Native peoples or any other groups in Newfoundland

and Labrador. It does and will continue to do so.


December 2, 1983 Tape 3§38 PK — 1

MR. GOUDIE: _ The Premier, he says,
betrayed the Native people, betrayed the Native people of
Labrador,specifically he was referring to,and made reference
to an activity which took place last Spring involving the
west German Air Force at Goose Bay airlifting some caribou
from the interior of Labrador out to Nain,and also assisting
the hunters with their equipmenh and so on,which was in

the country because of an early and heavy thaw.

Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman
does not mention? and. of course, why whould he mention this? It is
not in his best interest, although it is in the best interest

of the report that he presented-

AN HON. MEMBER: And in the people.
MR. GOUDIE: — And in the people,obviously.-

my staff and I were in touch with leaders up in that area
and explained to them that funding was available under the
Native Peoples agreement,’If you want to hire a chopper in
the next houn hire a chopper, hire an aircraft, go in, haul
out what you want.‘ No, Mr. Speaker,theyvwould not take
advantage of it’ ‘would not use the funds. So someone

else is brought into the fray, That was at the time the only
way that the government of this’Province could assist. We
agreed to make choppers available, we agreed to pay for the
helicopters, we agreed to fly the meat out and everything
else , which was done by the West German Air Force, which

I though was a great humanitarian act on their behalf,and
they have been complimented, I personally did it myself as did

my former executive assistant.

MR. WARREN: So did I.

MR. GOUDIE: Good! Good! At least he

had the decency to do that.

In any event, Mr. speaker,
it was late in the game when the West German Air F°rCé finallY

came in and did something about it; some of the meat was spoiled


December 2, 1983 Tape 3638 PK – 2

MR. GOUDIE: ‘ and there were other difficulties
as well.

All I am suggesting is that
the government of the day, this administration in place now,
made an offer to resolve the problemtthe offer was rejected.
I do not think we can go any further than that. If we had
made the decision to go ahead and do it anyway,then the hon.
gentleman would stand in rthe House and say, You are making
decisions on behalf of the Native people and ramming it down

their throats.

MR. ANDREWS: There You 90-
MR. GOUDIE: so what do you do? You do

the best you can.

AN HON. MEMBER: You did what?
MR. GOUDIE: Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to

make reference to a gentleman. fine of the other things that
the gentleman representing Torngat disrict did not do was
talk about Native people. he did not discuss them at all.

I do not know if it is because he knows nothing about them

or has no concern for them,or is just furthering his
political futurefi I understand he_is running for leadership
of the party. I was also told that he is going to decide by
the 24 of November whether or not he was going to go and make
his announcement. Now I do not think he made an announcement,
I did not hear an announcement. %érLgps he did, I have no

idea, I did not hear it.

MR. ANDREWS: It was a quiet announcement.
MR. GOUDIE: ‘ V‘ A quiet announcement.

we1l,perhaps he is delaying
a little bit further until after the by—election is over
before he makes that type of announcement. I do not know.
MR- BAi§D: V Pro$ably he is looking for a‘.”



December 2, 1983 Tape 3638‘ PK”; 3

MR.’GOUDIE:’ That is the problem, trying
to get a seconder. I do not know what his asperations
are for not talking about the Native people or their

concerns in his discussions on the constitution –

MR. ANDREWS: . He knows nothing about.
them. I I –
MR. GOUDIE: ~ and I cannot and will not

attribute motives to the hon. gentleman, but I did compliment

“him on one thing,and that is the only thing I can compliment

him on in his speech which lasted an hour or so, and_that

was his very minor reference to the late Bill Edmunds.

I thought Bill Edmunds,‘ in my knowledge~of him, I knew the man
for about thirty—five years, spent twenty-five years at

Goose Bay working for the most part with the American Forces,

walked out of there with awards of


December 2, 1983 Tape 3639 EC — 1


all kinds from the American Forces for the contribution
he made to their particular service in the Goose Bay area,
twenty-five years of operating heavy equipment, snow re-
moval equipment, without an accident, without a minute of
down time. He dragged himself up by his bootstraps and
went on to become a contributor to the lifestyles of

several communities on the Coast of Labrador –

§§;_§§2§§E§L An interpreter for CBC.
MR. GOUDIE: ~ an interpreter for CBC,

amongst other things, raised a family and became, in my
opinion, the most effective leader the Labrador Inuit

Association has ever had so far.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GOUDIE: Perhaps there will be greater,

I do not know, but he, until his death, was certainly the

‘most effective leader I have seen up there and had the

respect not only of his own people, his own peers, but the

respect, I am sure, of every member of this caucus and

certainly, every member of this government.

‘SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR- NEARY= And the previous government.
MR. GOUDIE: Well, someone else, Mr. Speaker,

can speak for the previous government, I suppose. I do not

wish to at this particular time.

I sat around the constitutional
table, if you will, in Ottawa, in company with other repre-
sentatives from this Province and it gave me a little bit
of pride. I think I was the only person who can be referred
to as ‘native’ who was sitting as a member of a government
at that particular time, other than the Northwest Territorial

Government, which was represented in part by James washee,

and which, after the most recent election will continue to


December 2, 1983 Tape 3639 EC —_2

MR. GOUDIE: ‘ be represented by him, as
I understand his portfolio to be.
But one of the things that

caused me a little bit of chagrin — I do not know what about ,
other people who attended that conference – was that the

gentleman from Torngat Mountains (Mr. Warren) continued .
to berate the Premier of this Province, which is his right,

it is the way he does things. But I have to say one thing,

Mr. Speaker: I was not particularly proud of our

Prime Minister, the First Minister of this country, when

he stood around that constitutional table and said, ‘Are

we going to have to go through these prayers again?‘

The native leaders of this country stood there, in their

faith, in their commitment, and wanted simply to begin the

constitutional talks with a prayer, and that was the response

they got from the Prime Minister of Canada!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame! Shame!
MR. GOUDIE: ‘ Now, that is something to be

proud of! That is something for the Liberal caucus of this

Province to be proud of!

MR. ANDREWS: He is not a statesman.
MR. GOUDIE: Statesman! He had a reputation

for being a statesman for a few years but he has certainly
gone down, and I think that was obvious in the remarks of

summation by the native leaders at the end of that First

Ministers’ Conference when they,rightfully so and very
effectively, put him in his place, and,hopefully, he will

stay there.

In any event, Mr. Speaker,

I should not spend all my time, I suppose, referring to
the remarks of the hon. gentleman from Torngat Mountains

or the Prime Minister.

MR. WARREN: No, boy, say something good.


December 2, 1983 Tape 3639 EC — 3

MR. GOUDIE: I thought everything I said
so far was good, Mr. Speaker. I most certainly thought it
was appropriate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

7980>e‘xs{sé:ii 2‘,‘1“9‘8’3 ’ ates; “NB”. 3 6216″ ‘ah-“‘1’

MR.GOUDIE: ‘ one of the items covered
in this resolution, Mr. Speaker, that I want to just
make a brief reference torand I do not recall the hon.
member for Torngat Mountains (Mr.Warren) referring to
it, he may have and I may have missed it, but one of
the great inequalities in terms of legislation.

which has been in place in Canada for a great number

of years,hopeful1y is soon to be abolished, and that

‘is what is referred to as the Indian Act. I do not

know if hon. gentlemen opposite know the Act, I do

not know it in detail, I know of it, I know some of
the things it says. But,as the Premier pointed out in
his remarks yesterday,there was division between the
native peoples themselves in terms of whether or not
female Native people should have – what?-equal rights,
I guess is the proper term to use. Under the old
Indian Act, for instance, if a Native woman married an
non-Native she automatically lost her rights; however,
the reverse is not true. If a Native male married an
non-native,he did not lose his rights. That has been
a great bone of contention for a great number of years,
obviously from the female point of view more so than the
male. I think that is understandable. I understand
there is a Standing Committee,or a committee of the
House of Commons which is addressing itself to the
Indian Act and I think one of the preliminary indications
is that the Act will probably be abolished. Now that
is only a suggestion, I do not think the decision has
been made. But certainly the Native female leaders of
the country made their case very well known at these

constitutional talks and,as a matter of fact,in the

‘proposed amendment now they have progressed far enough


December 2,1983 I Tape No. 3640 ah—2

MR.GOUDIE: that rights of males and
females will apply equally. And I think they,along

with the other leaders of the country,are to be congratulated
for the efforts put forth into that. The gentleman who
just finished speaking before I stood,indicated that I
should be embarrassed, I think, about the role our Premier
played and I played in relation to dealing with Native
peoples and the subsequent discussions on the resolution.
I do not recall any particular reason why I should be
embarrassed or ashamed of the way that I deal with Native
people. I was involved on the periphery in most cases,
and in some detail at the tail end of it,in helping to
put in place a $50 million agreement over five years,

a federal/provincial agreement,which will inject funds

into the hon. gentleman’s district. ‘

SOME HON.MEMERS: Hear, hear!
M.GOUDIE: I was involved,again in a

guipmaaliway in dealing with other Native people, if

you will , in Labrador, people of my racial background

who live in other parts of Labrador,where another $50
million is going into the coast of Labrador over the

next five years. As a matter of £act,I think the two
gentlemen who represent coastal ridings in Labrador,
Torngat and Eagle River,cou1d be at least a little grateful
to me,and evern more grateful to the government of this

Province for getting them re-elected.

M.GOUDIE: They would not have been re—elected,

Mr. Speaker, if it were not for the government of this Province.

They should show a little gratitude, a little bit of gratitude.

Hear. hear!


December 2,1983 Tape No. 3640 ah~3

MR.GOUDIE: Now, I would think, Mr. Speaker,
that that type of information presented in that way does
not go into his campaign literature either for the
leadership or for re—election in his district. All I

am saying, I think, Mr.Speaker, in all of this is that

I thought the hon. gentleman opposite,who just assumed

his seat before I began to speak , I was a little
disappointed that he did not offer any opinions, whether
or not this is a good or a bad thing. He did begrudgingly
say that he was going to support it. And the impression
I got was that he would not support it except for Native

people and Native peoples’ rights,


December 2, 1983 Tape No. 3641 MJ — 1

MR. GOUDIE: but certainly, if it were
something that the Premier himself only was involved in

and dealt with other matters, he would not support it because
obviously he is dead set against the leader of this government.
why, I do not know. I believe our leader here has made a
greater contribution to this Province, to native peoples

in this Province than any other leader in history, and

that can go back 400 or 500 years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GOUDIE: He did make reference to the

fact that we have not outlined our policy in relation to
land claims etc. And I find that a little confusing as well,
because I sat in a meeting room in Coppermine in the

North West Territories two years at which there were
representatives of the Labrador Inuit Association, the

late Mr. Edmonds being one of them, Fran Williams, the
present leader was another, and outlined the policy of the
government of this Province in relation to land claims.

They called for it, we had outlined our policy about

a week prior to that publicly, and I outlined it again.

‘He expressed some frustration about the fact that the

Premier or the government has not dealt with the Conne,

River reserve situation.
I think the only comment

I can make on that is to remind the hon. gentleman that the –
leaders of Conne River have the case in front of the Supreme
Court of Canada at this point in time, and it has been there
for some time. They are dealing with it. Obviously, when
they are done with it and a decision is rendered, then we
will. But at this point in time, we have stated quite clearly
to the residents of Conne River — I have personally, so has

the Premier – that we do not recognize aboriginal rights


December 2, 1983’ Tape No. 3641 MJ — 2

MR. GOUDIE: in the community of Conne

River. We recognize them on the Island part of the Province.

MR. ANDREWS: Anywhere else?
MR. GOUDIE: That is correct. Specifically

in this case to Conne River. We recognize aboriginal
rights in Labrador for the Inuit and the Naskaupi Mantangnais
Indians and they in turn have gone on to offer some claims

partially in the Province of Quebec.

MR. ANDREWS: It would be interesting to
find out what the Liberal position is on aboriginal rights
on the Island.

MR. GOUDIE: It most certainly would. I
have never heard it addressed, Never ever heard the issue
raised other than a criticism,or a comment of criticism

such as the type that was put forth this morning.

MR. ANDREWS: _ Does the Opposition have a position?
MR. GOUDIE: I do not know. I would

gladly yield if one of the hon. gentlemen opposite want
to outline the Liberal position or policy on native rights

in this Province.

MR.CmMER: Orewaithflr flrwrkm.
MR.GflmIE: No, no takers, Mr. Speaker.

Well, all I want to do is
indicate to the hon. House that I still fully support the
amendment that is being put forth here today that was
moved by the hon. the Premier. I certainly do not do it
grudingly, Mr. Speaker, never did, never will/and I look
forward to continuing in January/for instance,in Yellowknife,
in February in Toronto,and hopefully in March in Ottawa,in

continuing to have an input into these Constitutional

»talks. I will part of the provincial delegation to attend

and take part in the discussions,and the native peoples of
Labrador and Newfoundland know, as they have known since

I have been the minister responsible for administering agreements,

that I am available to them, the Premier of the Province is


December 2, 1983 Tape No. 3641 MJ -’ 3

MR. GOUDIE: available to them to discuss
their concerns. As a matter of fact, the hon. gentlemen
might like to know that I have made arrangements already

to sit down with some native leaders,when we get together in
Yellowknife,to discuss the specific concerns of their
communities- never mind the Constitutional issues,that
obviously is a major significance“ but we are going to

sit down and discuss other concerns to them as well with

a view to resolving their problems. That is the way it has
always been, that is the way it will always be. And

I support with a great deal of pride, Mr. Speaker, not only
because the Premier of this Province has moved the resolution
or the government of this Province is involved in the’
discussions, but because, Mr. Speaker, the talks taking

place now,and the talks that will take place


December 2, 1983 Tape No. 3642 SD – 1

MR. GOUDIE: in the future,will ensure for
all time the rights, the privileges,and guarantee the
aspirations of the native peoples in this country not only
to a fair and equitable living and lifestyle,but will most
certainly give them a greater deal of hope for their future
than they have had in the past,and will put in place
guarantees for them to assure that their aspirations are
met. And I support this resolution with a great deal of

pride, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate

indeed that the hon. gentleman who just took his seat spent
the first ten or fifteen minutes of his few remarks berating
my colleague,the member for Torngat Mountains (Mr. Warren»
who made one of the finest speeches that I believe I ever
heard made in this hon. House. Mr. Speaker, one thing that
the hon. gentleman should not do is to accuse my hon. colleague
of not having the interest of the native peoples at heart,
because hon. members supporting the administration do not
believe that. If there was ever a man alive on the face of
this earth who is doing more to further the rights of native
peoples, Mr. Speaker, it is my colleague,the member for

Torngat Mountains.

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe
anybody in this House believed what the hon. gentleman said
about my colleague not being sincere, not having the interest

of the native peoples at heart. Mr. Speaker, is that a true

.statement? Is it?

MR. TOBIN: Garfied is going to beat you too

if he runs for the leadership.

MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, we talked
this morning quite a bit about observing the rules of this

House, Ignorance is one thing that is not tolerated in this


December 2, 1983 Tape No. 3642 SD

MR. NEARY: House. The Government House

Leader (Mr. Marshall) seems to have some kind of a class
hang up; if you are not in the hon. gentleman’s class then

you are accused of all kinds of vile things in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask to have the rules enforced. I did not

interrupt the hon. gentleman who just spoke and who just took

his seat. And I think it is time, Mr. Speaker, for the

crowd there opposite to realize that they are not out in
Feathers or in Friends or in the Sea Breeze or in some of
the other taverns of this Province. they are in the House

of Assembly and it is time they realized that.

MR. TOBIN: we do not know about clubs.

I ask Your Honour

Mr. Speaker,

to enforce the rules,p1ease.

MR. SPEAKER (McNicho1as): Order, please!
MR. NEARY: You would swear you were in a
beer garden to listen to the comments of some of these people.

They are not at a hockey game, they are in the House of

The hon. gentleman is revealing


an obsession. He is always talking about beer gardens.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, one indication

of how the Labrador Inuit Association feel about my colleague

was when he managed to pursuade the west German Air Force to
remove that meat that was on the ground that would have spoiled

if my colleague had not come to the rescue of the Native people

in the Northern part of this Province. Now, Mr. Speaker, this

is only one illustration. I have met in the last year or so,
since I became Leader of this Party, leaders of the Inuit
Association, I have been in Goose Bay and I talked to Native
peoples. ‘They have come to Confederation Building and they
have come to my office. Mr. Speaker, I do not think that they

have a more warm and friendly feeling for anybody in this Province

than they do about my colleague who worked among them for

’ _ L 7988

Dee‘ér£{i§e‘?-‘2”, 1983 ‘7rap”e‘i€e’; ’36‘4″3’ NM ~


so long. And I dare anybody to dispute that, including

the hon. gentleman who just berated my colleague for

not being sincere and having the interest of the Native
people at heart, Mr. Speaker, And I will read just one
letter,as testimony to what I am saying, from the Labrador
Innuit Association. “2 May 1983, Mr. Garfield warren,
M.H.A.,Torngat Mountain District, Confederation Building,

St. John’s, Newfoundland. Dear Garfield, Please accept

our gratitude for the role you played in averting a potential
catastrophe of major proportions. The contact and influence‘
you were able to execute on our behalf was a decisive

factor in putting together the caribou airlift operation

in such a short time. Final counts indicate that 15,000

pounds of caribou were saved and an estimated $79,000 worth

of machiney, gear and fuel.
“The membership of the

Labrador Innuit Association has been informed of your
“Yours truly, Frances

Williams, President of the LIA.”

Now, Mr. Speaker, that
is just one letter of testimony to my hon. colleague for the
outstanding work that he is doing for the Native people of
Northern Labrador. And he is, Mr. speaker, hon. members
cannot dispute,that my colleague is about the finest
district member in this House. Even the media of the Province
acknowledges that.
MR. TOBIN: Bill Rowe said it the
other day. Bill Rowe said it the other day.
MR. NEARY: Mr. speaker, could Your


December 2, 1983 Tape No. 3643 NM — 2

MR. NEARY: Honour enforce the rule?

15 there a rule against ignorance in this House, Mr. Speaker?

MR. TOBIN: If there were you would

not be here.

MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Drder, please!

MR. NEARY: If it is not there,we should

one in. We should amend the rules that ignornace would be one
of the reasons why you would be named in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, even the media

acknowledge the fact that my colleague is a hard worker, that

he is sincere, that he is a good district man, and is doing

a good job for the – ,
MR. WINDSOR: That is who you should

get to campaign in Terra Nova.
MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman

just gotthe fright of his life down in Terra Nova. If I were

the hon. gentleman now I would just keep quiet today.

MR. WINDSOR: You come on back down Nfii me-
We will see who gets the tright. I

MR. NEARY: > V i V Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon.
gentleman who just took his seat obviously was smarting under
some of the remarks made by my colleague about the Premieg

in the constitutional discussions, Vhow he let the Native
population of this Province down. i will be very kind to him.
I would say he let them down, Mr. Speaker. Now how does

Mr. hdrian Tanner feel about the hon. gentleman who made these
remarks? My hon. colleague was quoting from the report earlier
and we are prepared to table it. These are not my words, not

my C511é5§fie’§’1words, these are the words of Mr. Adrian Tanner,


December 2, 1983 Tape No. 3543 NM — 3

MR. NEARY: who is—what?
>‘mThe chief advisor to the support group. He said,

“The speech of Joe Goudie, Minister of Rural, Agricultural

and Northern Development, added very little except to make
Goudie sound very ill at ease with the issue. Although he
made a great thing of his Indian and Inuit heritage,he was
unable to explain his own contradictory position. He

admitted that the previous Tuesday he had stated publicly

that he was in favour of reinstatement and could only explain
his support for Peckford’s action in dropping the clause by
The debate faded

saying the end result would be the same.

away without a vote.”
Now, Mr. speaker, we are

prepared to table this report if Your Honour so desires. And

that statement is not made by a politician. What I am saying,
Mr. Speaker,‘is that I will stack my hon. colleague’s sincerity

and his good intentions up against the member for Naskaupi wm.Goudie

any day in the week.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what are
we debating here? Well,we are debating a resolution that will,
if passed by all ten provinces of Canada, will bring about a
resolution of an item that was not included in the Canadian
Constitution when it was passed. That is what we are debating
here. And the Premier had as good an opportunity as anybody

at that time to remain adamant,


December 2, l983 Tape 3644 PK — 1


to stand firm on behalf of these people and say No, there is
going to be no constitutional agreement unless and until

the Native rights in this Province were protected.

But he was jumpy and jittery

I suppose,like all the other premiers were and anxious to

get an agreement, so , Mr. Speaker, he agreed,the hon.

Premier agreed to drop that particular item in the constitution,
he agreed to drop it. But, Mr. Speaker, the sad part of it

is this,then he brought a resolution into the House of Assembly
in order to cover up for his letting the Native people in

this Province down , to distract from the fact that he had
shown a great sign of weakness, that he had not stood up

for the rights of the Native people,then he brought a resolution
into this House.

And.listen to what the

resolution says, Mr. Speaker, ‘Rights Of the pboriginal

peoples of Canada. 34 (1) The existing aboriginal and

treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby
recognized and affirmed.‘ Now the key word there is the
‘existing’. That is what my hon. colleague objected to

when this resolution came before the House, Mr. Speaker.

That is what my hon. colleague objected to,’existingi,

because as hon. members know,and the member for Naskaupi

(Mr. Goudie) probably is more aware of it than any other ‘H
member of this House,that they have no agreements, there

are no existing agreements. And therein lies the problem

and that is why my colfiéigue objected to the resolution.

MR. WARREN: But he supported it.
MR. NEARY: Then the member for

Naskaupi , I am reminded by my colleague, supported the
resolution knowing that it was futile, it was useless, it
was a useless amendment‘the existing aboriginal and treaty

right} And that is the key word, Mr. Speaker, and that is


December 2, 1983 Tape 3644 PK – 2

MR. NEARY: what my colleague objected
to and that is why my colleague said,and he has very strong
feelings On this/that he grudgingly supports the present
resolution before the House. The reason he use that word
‘grudgingly’ is because too much time is being wasted in
rectifying this matter, and there was too much of an
indication of weakness on the part of the Premier of this
Province when he walked away from the Native rights at

the constitutional conference, Mr. Speaker. That is why my

hon. friend used the word ‘grudgingly’,
My hon. friend supports

Native rights wholeheartedly,but he just wanted to make a
point about the fact that the Premier had let down the
Native population,aided and abetted and supported by all

hon. members there opposite.


December 2, 1983 Tape 3645 EC — 1

MR. WARREN: “‘W And the minister was his key supporter.
MR. NEARY: m’ we should thank my hon. colleague that that

resolution did not go through back in 1981, that that
resolution did not pass this House, because God only knows,
if it had —

MR. WARREN: The natives would have been
worse off than ever.

MR. NEARY;’ _ if it had passed and the
constitution had been amended, God only knows what would
happen to the native population in this Province with that
kind of wording. It was very cleverly wordedl ‘existing’.
So, Mr. Speaker, what has happened now is that wiser heads
have prevailed and the ten provinces of Canada are now in

the process of having a resolution that obviously was drafted
by somebody other than anybody in this administration,
because if this administration had their way they would have
the word ‘existing’ in there, which does not mean anything,
that could do .o;; harm than good, that could strip the native

population of their rights and privileges.

MR. TOBIN: . They Call it Provincial Report.
MR. SPEAKER (Dr. McNicholas): Order, please!
_i___.___._________________ .

MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, this resolution

obviously was worded by somebody other than anybody in the
present administration, because the wording now says:

“Any rights or freedom now exists by the way of land claims

and agreements or may be so acguired:’ Underline that, “or
may be so acquired.”

MR. WARREN: That is right.

MR. NEARY: Mr: dpeaker, these are the key
words. That makes a big difference, Mr. Speaker.

MR~ CARTE§‘- The member’s time is up.

MR. WARREN: No, he has lots of time yet.


December 2, 1983 Tape 3645 EC – 2

MR. NEARY: My hon. colleague, the member
for Naskaupi (Mr. Goudie) can twist words all he wants,
but we are wholeheartedly supporting this resolution,
because we believe native rights should be protected.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman
raised another matter that is dear to my heart,because I
had the opportunity when I was Minister of Social Services
to renegotiate a native agreement. All the hon. gentleman
is doing is carrying on a procedure that was brought about
by the terms of Confederation when the native population in
this Province were put under provincial jurisdiction,
provincial control, whereas, as hon. members know, in other
parts of Canada they come under the direct jurisdiction of
the federal government. And this is the only province in
Canada where the provincial government looks after the native
population, native rights and so on.

when I was minister, I had an
opportunity to renew an agreement. All the hon. gentleman
did was to carry on something that we had started. ‘Now,
Mr. Speaker, it could be argued, I suppose, that it was a
mistake at the time of Confederation to so do. The hon. gentleman
nods. You know, on reflection, Mr. Speaker, I might be
tempted to agree with the hon. gentleman. what I am arguing
now is it may have been a mistake not to allow the native
population of Newfoundland and Labrador to fall directly

under federal jurisdiction as is the case in other parts

of Canada.

MR. GOUDIE , we might not have the same problems
if things had been done that way. ‘7 7 in
MR. NEARY: V Rrobably not. ‘My hon. friend

says that we might not have the same problems.


December 2, 1983 Tape 3645 EC — 3

MR. NEARY: ‘ Getting back to the agreement,
my hon. friend did renegotiate and sign an agreement.
But, Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to renegotiate and sign

an agreement but it is another matter to deliver on that

MR. WARREN: That is right.
MR. NEARY: I do not believe many houses

have been built in Northern Labrador in recent years.

MR. WARREN: Not one in Nain in the last

three years.

MR. NEARY: My hon. colleague says not one
in Nain in the last three years, and I understand they need
forty or fifty houses up there now.
So the big problem with the

agreement is that the hon. gentleman has not delivered on the
agreement. And I must say that I went to Northern Labrador

last year with my co1league,and last winter I went to


December 2, 1983 Tape No. 3646 MJ — l


Rigolet, Mr. Speaker, I went to Davis’Inlet. Now hon.
members may recall that Davis Inlet was one of the communities
in Northern Labrador that was relocated back in the 19605.
When my hon. colleague was living in Northern Labrador,
living and working there, Davis Inlet was relocated and

it was one of the most beautiful communities, I suppose,

in Northern Labrador.— two rows of houses, two roads,
beautiful trees- it was a beautiful place. I went back
there last Fall and I must say I got the shock of my life,

I could not believe W that a community could deteriorate

so fast. It was heartbreaking, Mr. Speaker. So something
has gone wrong, something has gone off the rails in Northern
Labrador,and that is why we hear my colleague day in and

day out in this House raise these matters. They are very
serious matters and we hear of professional people making
statements and compiling reports outside of the House.

so the hon. gentleman may have

an agreement that was pnmfided for by a Liberal administration
in this Province,- and I not arguing about the merits or
demerits or whether or not the native population should

have been provincial jurisdiction or federal but the
agreement is there,and what my hon. friend should do is’
deliver on that agreement.

So, Mr. Speaker, I do not

know if there’is very much else I can say about this
resolution. As I indicated,the key words are, ‘or may be so
acquired.‘ Now, Mr. Speaker, I feel that if we had proceeded
with the original resolution, the one that was drawn up

by the administration there opposite, the wording no doubt
drafted by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ottenheimer) or

in the Premier’s office, the native population, Mr. Speaker,

‘would lose confidence in their elected representatives and in


December 2, 1983 Tape No. 3646 MJ – 2

MR.NEARY: their government and in this
House of Assembly. and they would be wide open for abuse.

God only knows they are getting hemmed in enough now, their
lives are being so regulated for them now that they can

hardly turn. Their hunting and their fishing rights, their
traditional rights, Mr. Speaker, practically every Session
that goes by in this House there is some intrusion into native
rights.simply because the people who make these regulations
and draft the legislation do not understand the background,
they do not understand the tradional rights of these people
and they do not understand their culture. You cannot regulate
fishing and hunting for native people or trapping people the
same as you do for the people on the Island here. You cannot
do that, Mr. speaker. My hon. colleague realizes that

we are moving that direction, we are hemming the native
people in as much as we can.

MR. WARREN: ’ And the federal government too,
both of them.

MR. NEARY: At both levels of governent,

we are boxing them in and we are frustrating the people,

“The hon. gentleman knows that.

MR. WARREN: > They have got to pay for their
fishing 1icenoes.. ) V
MR. NEARY: Yes, that is right they have

to pay for their fishing licence now. That is right.

MR. GOUDIE: What about caribou?

MR. NEARY: I do not think they pay for
their caribou licence.

MR. GOUDIE: Unlimited number of caribou.
MR. NEARY: V They do pay for their caribou

1icence,do they?

MR. NEARY: They do not need one.


December 2, 1983 Tape No. 3646 MJ – 3

MR. NEARY: Anyway, Mr.‘ Speaker, we are
over-regulating, we are making life very‘, very frustrating

for these people, we are gradually boxing them in.


December 2, 1983 Tape No. 3647 SD — 1

MR. NEARY: And now once the Constitution-
MR. WARREN: Just look at the

Strange Lake development.

MR. NEARX: , Yes, that is right, Strange

Lakq which was raised yesterday, is an example of that. Because,
Mr. Speaker, I do not know if hon. members there opposite

really got the point yesterday when my colleague raised this
matter and I asked some questions about it. What is happening

in that area now you have aircraft flying in and out of

there, the Iron Ore Company of Canada built a landing strip

on the Quebec side of Labrador, they have camps down there.

And what they are doing, Mr. Speaker, they are interferring

with the movement of the caribou –

MR. WARREN: And the calfing ground.
MR. NEARY: — and the calfing ground. That

is what they are doing. They are doing that now —

MR. WARREN: According to biologists.
MR. NEARY: – according to the letter my

colleague had from a provincial biologist employed with the
administration, with the provincial government. And yet they
shrug it off with the feable, weak excuse that there is no
need for an environmental impact study at this moment. No,
wait until it is wiped out,like everything else they do,

then lock the barn door after the horse is stolen, Mr.
Speaker. There is need right now for an environmental impact
study on that problem in Strange Lake,which could develop
into a jurisdictional problem and then become more complicated
then it is at the moment, Mr. Speaker. so we are,whether

we care to admit it or not, we are infringing on the rights
of Native peoples every time we pass a bill in this House
that gives the bureaucrats the right to make regulations,

Mr. Speaker. I remember once when I was in Northern Labrador
when a gentleman had his skidoo and his guns and ammunition
and all his belongings seized by the Department of Resources

because he shot a white bear contrary to the regulations,


December 2, 1983 Tape No. 3647 SD — 2
MR. NEARY: my hon. colleague will remember,

and one of the regulations was that you had to put up a sign,
a sign had to be put up to indicate to the people that it

was illegal to shoot white bears now in Northern Labrador.
Well,this particular hunter had been out hunting when the
sign was put up.Andwhen he went hunting he did not know that
you were not allowed to shoot white bears so he brought back
the bear skin.And what happened? They seized it on him and
they took his skidoo and his guns and his ammunition and
everything else belonging to him ,and I fought the case and

I got it back for him. They charged him. It was ridiculous,
it was so ridiculous that the Crown would not proceed with
the case once I got hold of it,and they gave him back his
skidoo and his ammunition, his guns and all his belongings
and everything else, Mr. Speaker. But the point I am making
is that this has happened too often. I remember once, when I
landed in Postville, I had a group of people come up to the
aircraft and say, ‘Look, they have taken our skidoos and

our rifles and everything else belong to us‘. And we had

to fight that one to try to get their things back for them.’


December 2,1983 Tape No. 3648 ah—l

MR.NEARY: So I think, Mr. Speaker, it
is time that we had something entrenched in the
constitution. The Premier missed a golden opportunity
to do it. He walked out and he patted himself on the
back and tried to take credit for bringing ab°ut the
compromise, he tried to take credit for it. And in
the process of trying to get himself a little pat on
the back to try to make himself look good,he walked
away from the Native population in this Province. I
would not go so far as to say he betrayed them,but
certainly he let them down. He let them down in

the interest of his own image and in trying to leave
the impression that he made a major contribution

to the compromise that brought about a resolution

of a long,drawn—out constitutional debate. So, Mr.
Speaker, let us hope that we will get on with the
business of passing this resolution, let us hope that
the other provinces of Canada will not delay its
passage in their legislatures and that pretty soon
Native rights in this Province and in other provinces
of Canada will be fully recognized and entrenched in
the Constitution of Canada. That is the way it should
be , Mr. Speaker.

On motion, resolution carried.

Motion, second reading of a
bill, “An Act To Consolidate The Law Relating To
Compensation To workers For Injuries Suffered In The

Course Of Their EmploymentL” (Bill No. 80)


MR.SPEAKER (Aylward): The hon. Minister of Labour

and Manpower.


Read less

Leave a Reply