December 6, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 52


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

This afternoon we are very pleased to welcome some distinguished visitors to the Speaker's gallery. We wish to welcome the following persons: William Andersen III, a former member of this House and President of the Labrador Inuit Association.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Tony Andersen, Vice-President of the Labrador Inuit Association.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Toby Andersen, Director of Land Claims, Labrador Inuit Association.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Gus Dicker, Director, Labrador Inuit Association.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Ben Ponniuk, Director, Labrador Inuit Association.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Zippie Nochasak, Director, Labrador Inuit Association.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I am also pleased to welcome Jim MacKenzie the chief negotiator for the Government of Canada for Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Senator William Rompkey, together with his wife Carolyn.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: In the galleries as well, we have a fifteen member delegation of the Labrador Inuit Association and also, I do believe, we have some members from other groups in Labrador, including the Metis.

Welcome to our House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements in the following order: the hon. the Member for the District of Carbonear-Harbour Grace; the hon. the Member for the District of Port au Port; the hon. the Member for the District of Bellevue; the hon. the Member for the District of Bonavista North; the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Buchans.

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize a truly exceptional volunteer fire department from my district.

Mr. Speaker, the Harbour Grace Volunteer Fire Department recently held its Annual Firefighter's Ball at the Harbour Breeze Lounge in Harbour Grace. This was an opportunity for the over 150 volunteer firefighters, junior firefighters, and the ladies auxiliary to come together to pay tribute to the men and women who volunteer their time to ensure the safety of the Harbour Grace region.

Mr. Speaker, it was also pointed out at this dinner that the Harbour Grace Volunteer Fire Department, which was founded in 1830, will next year celebrate its 175th Anniversary. It also remains the oldest volunteer fire department in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, fire prevention is another way in which the department helps to keep the community safe. Due to their efforts in fire prevention, the town has continued to see decreases in the number of fires year after year. This past year the brigade responded to forty-six calls, a decrease of twenty calls. Mr. Speaker, this is indeed tremendous work.

Mr. Speaker, two students were also provided with scholarships at this event. Tara Snow of Harbour Grace was this year's winner of the $500 Harbour Grace Volunteer Fire Brigade Scholarship. Tara is currently a student at Memorial. Bradley Hunt accepted the Charles G. Pitcher Scholarship from the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Fire Chiefs and Fire Fighters. Bradley is a student at the College of the North Atlantic.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in honouring all members of this Province's oldest volunteer fire department, the Harbour Grace Volunteer Fire Department.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. J. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Mrs. Anastasia Lainey, who passed away at the age of 103 years, on November 24 of this year.

She was a wonderful lady who had twenty-nine grandchildren, fifty-one great-grandchildren, and twenty-three great-great-grandchildren. She was born in Mainland-La Grande Terre (in French) on July 21, 1901 and has lived there ever since. Her husband, Louis, died in his forties, leaving her with eleven children, the youngest being four years of age, to raise on her own.

Mr. Speaker, she was much revered in her community. She was known to all as "Nana" and she served the area as a midwife for twenty-five years delivering a total of 202 children.

I attended the funeral in Mainland, in their new church. They had a wonderful choir which sang in French and English. The service was a fitting tribute to her life. The residents of the community will miss her, as well as her three surviving children: Norman, with whom she lived, and her daughters Agnes Moores and Mercedes Hinks.

She was indeed a mother to the whole community and she will be deeply missed by all.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour two constituents of mine who exemplify the words dedication, caring and commitment.

Mr. Speaker, Clayton and Laura Johnson celebrated their seventieth wedding anniversary on November 16, 2004. Mr. Speaker, they were married at Jacques Fontaine in 1934 and have remained committed together since that time.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. and Mrs. Johnson have four children, ten grandchildren and fourteen great-grandchildren. Many were happy to join them as they celebrated their anniversary at the Blue Crest Seniors Home where they currently reside.

Mr. Speaker, the dedication that Mr. and Mrs. Johnson have shown to each other is tremendous, and is truly a testament to the celebration of marriage.

They are truly an example of the spirit of sharing love and togetherness, and I wish today that they continue to show their love for another seventy years.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating Mr. and Mrs. Clayton Johnson of Jacques Fontaine on their seventieth wedding anniversary.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week, Hockey Canada officially announced the roster of Team Atlantic for the World Under Seventeen Hockey Challenge. The event will take place in Lethbridge, Alberta, from December 29, 2004 to January 4, 2005. This year, Team Atlantic will boast six players from Newfoundland and Labrador.

While I congratulate each of these outstanding young men, I would like to make special reference to Sam Hounsell of Pound Cove, New-Wes-Valley. Making this team is a great accomplishment for any young player, but when the player is from a community the size of Pound Cove it is certainly an achievement worthy of recognition.

The Under Seventeen Hockey Challenge is the first step in Hockey Canada's Program of Excellence. This program identifies potential prospects for the Under Eighteen and World Junior teams, and achieving success at this level of sport is an admirable feat that should not go unnoticed.

Sam began his playing career in the Beothic Minor Hockey system in New-West-Valley. When he was just thirteen years old, he played as a regular with his high school team. He also played in the Central Triple A League in Grand Falls and the Tri-Pen Triple A League in Harbour Grace where he was classified as one of that league's top defencemen.

Sam's success is due in large part to the tremendous commitment of his parents, Roland and Beverly Hounsell. Realizing Sam's talent at an early age, they made every effort to foster his development and provide opportunities that would enable him to achieve his goals. Never losing sight of the larger picture, they were always conscious of instilling in their son values that would allow him to face all opportunities with a sense of maturity and strength. Now, his success is a reflection of their devotion and hard work.

Sam is currently living and attending school in Victoriaville, Quebec. He is now an under aged junior defenceman playing for the Victoriaville Tigers of the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League. The demands associated with playing hockey at this level are great. Young players must train, travel and, of course, many are forced to move away from home and loved ones.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Despite all of this, Sam continues to be a straight A high school student. He is an ambassador for his team, his community and this Province. He is someone whom we should all be proud of. This exceptional young man is living proof that with talent, hard work and a positive attitude, anything is possible. Sam should serve as an example for us all.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask all members of this House to join with me in offering congratulations to Sam Hounsell and wish him, and his team, the best of luck in the upcoming World Hockey Tournament.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize a constituent of mine who has recently been acknowledged for his accomplishments in the field of music.

Mr. Speaker, Michael Snelgrove, a resident of Grand Falls-Windsor and music teacher at Exploits Valley High School, was recently admitted, on his first attempt, as an Associate Composer to the prestigious Canadian Music Centre. Acceptance as an associate composer to the Canadian Music Centre involves a rigorous screening process to which Mr. Snelgrove can attest. Very rarely has anyone been admitted on their first attempt and according to Mr. Snelgrove, he has attained his greatest musical achievement.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Snelgrove is only the second resident of our Province to ever achieve this honour.

Mr. Speaker, there is more good news. Mr. Snelgrove has also been selected as the winner of the Centennial Song Contest held by the Town of Grand Falls-Windsor. His song, Celebrate 100 Years, will become the theme song for the town over the next year, when Grand Falls-Windsor celebrates 100 years. Celebrations are planned throughout 2005 and I encourage everyone to come and join in the festivities. It will truly be a memorable year.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating Mr. Michael Snelgrove on his accomplishments and extend to him sincere best wishes for his continued success.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize December 6 as the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. Established in 1991 by the Parliament of Canada, this day coincides with the sad anniversary of the death of fourteen young women who were tragically killed on December 6, 1989 at L'Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal. These women were targeted because they were women and had chosen to study engineering, a field traditionally dominated by men.

The Women's Policy Office is often asked why they focus on violence against women when violence against anyone is unacceptable. However, women represent the majority of sexual assault victims and spousal assaults experienced by women tend to be more severe overall, more frequent and cause more serious physical injury and psychological harm.

Violations against woman can take many forms. The most common categories are psychological violence, physical violence, sexual violence, and financial or economic abuse and spiritual abuse. The consequences of this violence and abuse are dealt with by both the women and society in general. Including health care costs, policing, legal fees, imprisonment, lost earnings and psychological costs, violence against women costs an estimated $1.2 billion annually. Health Canada calculates a cost of $1.1 billion just for the direct medical costs of violence against women.

It is worth noting, the Women's Policy Office also oversees the Violence Prevention Initiative, a government-community partnership to develop and implement long-term solutions to the problem of violence against those most at risk in our society. These include women, children, the elderly and others who are victims of violence because of their race, ability, ethnic background, sexual orientation or economic status.

By collaborating with community partners, government continues to work towards reducing violence, improving the coordination and delivery of government services and programs for victims and enhancing violence prevention initiatives at the community level.

Mr. Speaker, today is a day to think about those who live each day with the threat of violence. It is also a time to reflect on the concrete actions that we as a government and that each individual can take to prevent and eliminate violence against women. As a memorial to these fourteen young women, and to all those who have lost their lives to violence, the flags outside of Confederation Building will be flown at half mast.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for an advanced copy of her statement.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, violence against women is still very prevalent in our society today and we all have a responsibility to take action against violence in our communities, in our homes, and in our Province. There are many women and children who are still inflicted with violence. We have to ensure that we provide a safe haven for these people and provide the safety and the programs that they need to be able to make that transition as a victim back into society.

Mr. Speaker, the Montreal massacre is a sad reminder to all of us of the hatred that is sometimes fostered and the violence that is sometimes fostered against women. I think that we, as a government and as a Province, have to continue to fund the violence prevention initiatives that we have in our society today, to ensure that we have the safety and the peacefulness that is warranted to all of our women and all of our children, who have to suffer every day at the hands of violence in our society.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to rise to say a few words in response to the ministerial statement today concerning the fifteenth anniversary of December 6, the Montreal Massacre, the fourteen women who were killed simply because they were women and women studying in a non-traditional female profession, the dreams and their futures cut short for them and their families, Mr. Speaker, on that day.

I want to ask the minister: How much have things changed since 1989 when in Quebec alone, between 1995 and 2000, ninety-five women were murdered by a spouse or ex-spouse?

It is very troubling also, Mr. Speaker, to know that 80 per cent of the legislators in this country are male, and yet we have failed to find a solution to what is largely a problem for all of us in this society. In our own Province, during the year 2001 - the latest stats I could find, Mr. Speaker - shelters in our Province received 3,907 calls directly related to the abuse of which 1,282 women and children were admitted to shelters.

As a society, Mr. Speaker, we have to set the tone to wipe out such abuse. When we look today and see women's roles still defined as traditional, when we see women being paid less than their male counterparts, it is very disturbing when we see our courts allow governments to violate women's rights because of fiscal conditions. I think it is a wake up call to all, Mr. Speaker, just how much more needs to be done.

Tonight in my district, Mr. Speaker, there is a vigil to take place organized by the Labrador West Status of Women and the Hope Haven Crisis Shelter, 7:00 p.m. at the Carol United Church to honor and pay tribute to those who lost their lives on December 6, 1989, but also, Mr. Speaker, to remind people how much work is needed to still be completed in removing abuse from our society.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the serious issue of tobacco use in Newfoundland and Labrador, as it continues to be the leading cause of preventable illness and death in our country.

More than 45,000 people will die prematurely this year in Canada due to tobacco use and at least 1,000 of them will be non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke. This year in our Province, 112 deaths will be attributed to the effects of second-hand smoke. This year, second-hand smoke will result in 784 hospitalizations and cost our health care system some $11.9 million.

In 1994, through the Smoke-Free Environment Act, smoking was banned in public places such as daycares, schools, hospitals and recreational facilities. Incremental progress has been made since 1994 to expand our smoke-free spaces to include restaurants, shopping malls and libraries, just to name a few.

A decade later, the time has come to launch a more aggressive attack on the fight against tobacco and preventable illness. This fall, organizations such as the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association, the Federation of Municipalities, Alliance for the Control of Tobacco, and the provincial Cancer Society have all said the time has come for a smoke-free Province. Municipalities including the Cities of St. John's and Mount Pearl and other municipalities in the Northeast Avalon have also endorsed the move to ban smoking in the last remaining public smoking places - bars and bingo halls. In addition, we have heard from over 120 private citizens in support of a smoke-free Province.

Your government has heard you and has listened. Today, Mr. Speaker, I am announcing our government's commitment to, "Shutting the Last Door on Second-Hand Smoke". Our government is moving forward with a smoking ban in bars and bingo halls, and will introduce legislation to create a 100 per cent smoke-free Province in all indoor public places and workplaces as early as the Spring of 2005.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Beginning in January, there will be consultations which will allow individuals and organizations to offer their perspective and provide input on the best approach to achieve our goal. Consultations will also assist government in determining target dates for implementation.

As a result of further smoke-free legislation, we hope to continuously improve the health and wellness of the people in our Province, and to offer more protection for our hospitality workers who are routinely exposed to the harmful effects of second-hand smoke.

It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that all members of the House will endorse the leadership government has demonstrated today and work with us toward a healthier, smoke-free Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate my hon. colleague across the House, Mr. Speaker. This is indeed a good move for government and a good move for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. There has been a long time lobby for the Alliance for the Control of Tobacco in our Province, and that lobby has been joined and supported by a lot of voices from around Newfoundland and Labrador, including the Federation of Municipalities, the Federation of Labour, and many others.

As well, I, myself, brought a resolution, a private member's resolution, to the floor of the House of Assembly in this session asking for the government to look at this particular legislation and to implement it in our Province. I am pleased to see that they are responding.

I am also pleased, Mr. Speaker, that they will take an approach of consultation, because over the last number of weeks in this Legislature we have asked the government to look at consultation with regards to the FPI Act, and to look at consultation with regard to the snowmobile legislation that is presently before the House. We have not seen the consultation, we have not see a select committee of the House, so I am pleased that the minister is prepared to consult on this particular issue, but I am even more pleased, Mr. Speaker, to see that government is intended and willing to move towards a smoke-free Newfoundland and Labrador for the protection of our citizens and those who are harmed every day by second-hand smoke.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, too, are very pleased to see that government has adopted this policy and made the commitment for a smoke-free Newfoundland and Labrador. I congratulate them on doing so, but I have to recognize, of course, that is a commitment that they were not prepared to make when directly asked to do so by the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association in the last election.

I am very glad that they have listened to what people have had to say, and responded to the lobby by the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association, by the Alliance for the Control of Tobacco, and by the very positive and important lobby and effort by the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities, who took up this challenge individually and collectively.

I think it is a very, very important step. It is going to provide for significant public health protection for people who are exposed to second-hand smoke in public places, but also, and just as significantly, Mr. Speaker, for the occupational health and safety of those people, those workers, in these place who have been, for many, many years, subject to second-hand smoke. Given the number of deaths that the minister has talked about, the 112 deaths attributed to the effects of second-hand smoke, and the 784 hospitalizations, this is a policy that is long over -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated to the hon. member has expired.

Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. HARRIS: Given the 112 deaths that the Minister of Health has acknowledged would be related and attributed to the effects of second-hand smoke in this Province this year, and the 784 hospitalizations, this is a piece of policy, and hopefully legislation very quickly, that is long overdue in Newfoundland and Labrador. We support it fully.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers. Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, today is a very historic occasion for the Labrador Inuit Association as their Land Claims Agreement comes before this House of Assembly. Unfortunately, in advance of a most significant debate of the LIA Land Claims Agreement, the legislation was not tabled in this House, and on Friday afternoon we had to go ask for a copy of the legislation, this legislation with its seventy clauses and not inconsequential, as you can see, so we could prepare for the debate today.

The Premier brought forward the openness and transparency act on Thursday of last week, and I ask: Why is he not providing the elected members of this House with legislation on a timely basis before it is introduced and debated in this House of Assembly?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I spoke to the Opposition House Leader about this, this morning. The process is very simple. When first reading is introduced - and we read first reading on Thursday - there has been no attempt, and I want to repeat, no attempt by government, whatsoever, no instructions have ever been issued, nor would they be issued about when to table bills. The fact that a process is in place, that when a bill is read the first time the legislation is normally tabled. So, the question that the Leader of the Opposition has asked, from its premise, is fundamentally wrong, because he has assumed that the Premier is not providing legislation. That is, fundamentally, not the case. I will say, and I think, that we have had a very good relationship in providing legislation.

For example, last week we were scheduled to discuss the Transparency and Accountability Act, and it came to my attention that the bill was not tabled at an appropriate time. What did we do? We delayed the debate until some time after until everyone had the opportunity to discuss it. So, there has been no attempt by this government to not table legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Most members of the Legislature are seeing this document, for the first time, as they sit right now.

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday morning past this government made public their openness and transparency legislation at a media briefing and our members were asked to comment on legislation they had never seen and never reviewed. It is ironic, this government says they are going to try to be open and accountable and then they do not provide advanced copies of legislation for Opposition members and others to research.

I ask the Premier, again, Mr. Speaker: Will he commit today, in this Legislature, to providing copies of legislation at least one day - not a lot to ask - at least one day in advance of their tabling in the House of Assembly to ensure that Opposition members can review the legislation and solicit input from stakeholders outside the House of Assembly?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, we have always provided legislation, normally, in advance of one day. We try to get it to the Opposition in the week before.

First of all, the legislation that the Government House Leader refers to as being debated today emanates from an agreement that his government signed in August, 2003.

AN HON. MEMBER: Made public

MR. E. BYRNE: Made public in 2003. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I am really perplexed by the Leader of the Opposition talking about the Transparency and Accountability Act when over eight days ago I offered the Opposition House Leader and the Leader of the NDP a technical briefing on that piece of legislation or any other piece of legislation and up until today they have not taken advantage of that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the answers from the Premier to the questions that I am asking of the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to Bill 45, the changes to fees for snowmobilers, the new legislation tabled in this House that introduces those fees for groomed trails, it again was brought forward without any advanced copy being given to the Opposition and little or no consultation, obviously, with stakeholders in the Province. Our office, Mr. Speaker, has been bombarded with complaints from outdoor enthusiasts who are outraged with this flawed legislation.

Mr. Speaker, as I ask the Premier this question, the Premier personally, I ask the Premier this question who personally promised the Wildlife Federation for Newfoundland and Labrador and outdoor user groups that an outdoor bill of rights would be developed by the government. The question for the Premier is: When will the people of the Province see this outdoor bill of rights and why are the snowmobile changes not part of this overall plan to protect outdoor rights that he personally promised?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, that is it. I am gone beyond perplexed by the Leader of the Opposition's questions. This must be free-for-all Friday.

Let me quote for Hansard. For example, his own critic, the official spokesperson for the party said that his side would be supporting this on Thursday. The fact of the matter is that there is a piece of legislation before the House, we are debating it. Nobody -

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: People on this side of the House will support this bill, quote unquote, the Member for the Bay of Islands. That is what I see, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: The fact of the matter is this, Mr. Speaker, we are in Committee stage of debate. There is nobody rushing the piece of legislation through. There are no closure motions put in place. The Leader of the Opposition again fundamentally is trying to purport or leave an impression that we are trying to ram things through or rush things through. My advice to the Leader of the Opposition is this: The parliamentary process will continue. In the interest of that, tell him to talk to his own critic over there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is unfortunate that the Premier refuses to speak for himself about commitments that he personally made to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier also made other promises to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. He promised, in writing, that his government would not introduce additional fees for outdoor recreational activities, and that his government would form committees and consult before decisions of this type were made.

I ask the Premier again, if he is in the Legislature, why has he broken these promises and decided to introduce user fees without forming a committee that represents all sectors of the snowmobiling population in Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, obviously our policy of openness, transparency and accountability has struck a nerve with the hon. members opposite.

MR. SULLIVAN: They're not used to that.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: They are not used to that. They do not recognize what it is all about, because they never had any of it when they were in government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: We have a transparency and accountability act. We have a new purchasing act. We are going to put in fixed terms. We are going to clean up government. That is what we intend to do, and obviously hon. members opposite do not want us to do that. Well, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want us to do that.

As well, what we inherited from you, Sir, was an absolute mess. You understand that and you know that. We inherited a fiscal mess, and we are in the process of cleaning that up as well. We are going to clean up the finances and we are going to clean up government, and at the end of the day the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will be a lot better off for our efforts.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognized the Leader of the Opposition. The shouting is occurring from both sides of the House, and the Chair is having difficulty hearing the Leader of the Opposition. I ask him now to continue with his question.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What the people of the Province want from the Premier is to keep his commitments that he made, in writing, that there would be no fees.

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious again that Bill 45, the changes for snowmobile use, is not acceptable to a large number of outdoor users in the Province. Once again, government attempted to rush through a piece of legislation without any considerable debate or public consultation as promised personally by the Premier.

I ask the Premier again, now that major concerns have been raised, will the government commit to withdrawing the current piece of legislation and holding consultations like they are going to do for the smoking changes, to ensure that the changes that finally come forward are well thought out and have broad based support by snowmobilers in Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, fundamentally, the Leader of the Opposition is absolutely, totally, incorrect in his assumption that government is trying to rush something through. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The minister responsible, who has brought forward the legislation, said last Thursday in this House, so everybody could be aware: Take all the time necessary. We will answer any questions that are put forward. There is nobody trying to rush through legislation.

The fact of the matter is, there was an impression left by a member of the Opposition that they were supportive of the bill. So, in the absence of any of that, let me provide the assurance that the minister has already given. If the Leader of the Opposition wants us to reaffirm it for his own peace of mind and comfort, let me reaffirm it again: We are in Committee stage. You have an opportunity to discuss and debate the bill, to put forward any amendments that can be discussed, but let me be unequivocally clear - and you already know it - that the impression you are trying to leave, that we are trying to ram or rush something through, nothing is further from the truth. It is not happening.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, a couple of other quick topics for the Premier.

Today is a very important day for Labrador, so I would like to ask a couple of other issues concerning commitments made by the Premier personally - not by his House Leader, but by the Premier personally. I ask the Premier: When can the people of Labrador expect to see the Labrador office of the Premier established, that he promised in all of the public media after he did not name anyone from Labrador to the Cabinet and closed out the office of the Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs in Labrador? He promised a Premier's office over a year ago. When can we expect it to open in Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are now in the process of program renewals, as the members of government and hon. members opposite are aware. We have had discussions with people in Labrador about some of the confusion that has arisen in the past with regard to Aboriginal Affairs, Labrador Affairs, the setup in Labrador, the process for getting information through, to and from, Labrador.

As a result, we did not want to sort of precipitously just set up an office, just go and put it in place for the sake of doing it. We will be setting up that office. We will be setting it up in the very near future, but not until we have gone through a proper process within government; because, when we do it - unlike the hon. members opposite when they were in government - we just want to do it right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It has taken over twelve months so far, so I expect they might get it right some time soon.

Mr. Speaker, another commitment of this government and this Premier was to hire a Deputy Minister for Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs to be situated in Labrador. The position has been vacant for almost a year. Can the Premier update us as to when he might get around to actually filling the position and situating it in Labrador as he promised?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I do not know where the hon. Leader of the Opposition gets his information. As I said, he must be talking to himself, because every time he stands up his information is absolutely incorrect, Mr. Speaker.

The portfolio has been in place. There has been a deputy minister there. The position has been vacant. We have advertised for another deputy minister. That process is in place, and when it is completed we will be appointing a deputy minister. The process is in place.

Whatever kind of impression he is trying to give to the public here is absolutely erroneous, it is misleading, and it is wrong for you to do that. You know the difference. You were Premier of this Province, you were in control of the government, and you know how the process works. We are doing it and we are playing by the rules. We cannot do any more than that. You know that; you understand it. Why do you try and mislead the people of this Province and mislead the people in this gallery? That is absolutely wrong and it is irresponsible of you to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the lectures from the almighty Premier but I will speak for myself, as I have always done in fifteen years in politics.

Mr. Speaker, he did not take the time to advertise for his new Commissioner for the Public Service Commission, his lifelong friend, who was appointed just a couple of days ago, over the weekend.

Mr. Speaker, over a year ago, in the Blue Book, before the election, the Premier committed to establishing a senior position from the Mines Division of the Department of Natural Resources to be situated in Labrador West - fourteen months ago, Mr. Speaker. When are they going to get that right and finally put that position in Labrador West?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we have been extremely busy. Nobody knows better than the people on this side of the House just how busy we have been as a government since we took office. We simply have not stopped. We are working day and night, seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day.

With regard to Labrador issues - the hon. member shakes his head over there. It is very unfair for the Member for Torngat to shake his head. We have devoted a lot of time and a lot of interest to Labrador. You know, we did a trip together ourselves this summer at your request. We went up and I saw firsthand the concerns of the people in Labrador, and, quite frankly, it broke my heart. There were issues up there that were very sensitive and very serious. I thank you, Sir, for inviting me up on that trip and I thank you for accompanying me.

Labrador is a huge priority for this government. I will state it here, and I will state it now, we will deliver for the people of Labrador. I make no apologies. We were doing absolutely everything we could, but we had to deal with the absolute mess that you left us in this government. It was a disgrace, the way you left it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am going to give the Premier lots of opportunity to deliver for Labrador right now.

The government has now combined the Labrador Health Board with the Grenfell Regional Health Services Board. This new board will take the responsibility of serving the large geographic area of the Northern Peninsula and all of Labrador. This board will also have a debt that reaches almost $14 million.

I ask the minister: Will he and his government agree to pay down the debt or will this board be forced to cut medical services in Labrador and on the Northern Peninsula in order to pay the $14 million bill?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member knows that we are in the midst of organizational change and structural change. We have just recently appointed our chair's designate, we are presently undergoing the process with respect to the hiring of CEOs and that will be announced during the month of December, and in due course, as well, and in the very near future, we will be naming the remainder of our board membership, all four boards, I say to the hon. member, in due course. When these individuals, I say to the hon. member, are in place, we will meet with these individuals who will then have the opportunity, on behalf of their respective boards, to make decisions in conjunction with government and to work with government as we work towards the rationalization of the changes that will be put in place.

Mr. Speaker, when that process is complete, and in due course, we will work with issues in terms of future planning and in terms of deficit issues, whether, for example, this government will pay off the entire deficit -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, many of the people in Labrador have only the bare essentials in health care services in their small communities. Most of them are provided through small clinics, and all other primary health care services are offered through Happy Valley-Goose Bay and through St. Anthony.

Minister, I know there is a process that you are looking at under program review, but can you give your assurances today that they will not have to make any cuts to that essential medical service and that government will, indeed, pay down their debt?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, this government will, as it always has been, will and continue to be sensitive to the needs of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. In due course, Mr. Speaker, the appropriate decisions will be made. In due course the appropriate decisions will be made when the appropriate individuals are in place. We will move forward, as a government, in conjunction with these new individuals to ensure that the decisions that are in place, are in the best interest of all Newfoundlanders and all Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, last week I asked the minister about the Labrador Medical Travel Program and the new dollars that the Premier says we are going to receive from Ottawa, but the minister did not give me any details. Mr. Speaker, this money was announced two months ago. Since then dozens of more residents in Labrador were referred for treatment to St. John's and Corner Brook and had to resort to fundraising in order to afford the cost of an airline ticket.

I ask the minister to please tell us today: When will money be available to help cover the medical costs of patients from Labrador? Because we know there is more federal money coming, and I have confirmed it with our MP for Labrador as well. When can you tell us when the money will be available to cover the medical costs of patients from Labrador who are being referred to the capital city and to Corner Brook for serious medical treatment?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A similar question was asked several days ago and at that time I identified and recognized the priority areas that were identified by my colleague, the Premier, during the Health Summit in September, 2004. And, yes, I concur with the hon. member when she mentions transportation of the North as a priority issue. It is, and I assure the hon. member that it is a priority issue along with issues such as wait times, wait lists, home care, Aboriginal health, issues of health concerns in the North, generally. I can assure the hon. member, the matter that she raises will be included in those priority issues that have been identified by the First Ministers of this country and the appropriate decisions will be made in due course.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Mr. Speaker, last week we learned that the FPI plant in Harbour Breton was closing, throwing 350 people out of work in that town. A month prior to that we learned that North Atlantic Sea Farms was going into receivership, putting in jeopardy anther 200 jobs in that region. We understand that the assets of this company have now been offered for tender.

I ask the minister, can he tell us if the assets of North Atlantic Sea Farms will remain in Bay d'Espoir and the jobs associated with them protected?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows - and most people would know, I guess - there is a receivership process that is taking place as it relates to North Atlantic Sea Farms. The closure date for the Request for Proposals was November 26. My understanding is there have been a number of offers made by various companies to receivers to take over the assets of North Atlantic Sea Farms.

As for whether they will stay in Bay d'Espoir or not, I can only say that I am reasonably confident that the assets of North Atlantic Sea Farms will remain intact in Bay d'Espoir, but, of course, that is something which the receiver will determine at the end of the day. I can say that the initiative which government took back a couple of months ago and announced on November 2, that there would be a feed financing program available for fin fish aquaculture in this Province, will certainly go a long ways towards securing the future of aquaculture production on the South Coast.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

He mentioned that program, and my second question will be pertaining that.

Mr. Speaker, this minister led the people of the Province and us, on this side, in particular, that the new Aquaculture Working Capital Loan Guarantee Initiative program would actually save North Atlantic from bankruptcy. It is my understanding that North Atlantic Sea Farms actually applied for funding under this program and were denied. Can the minister tell me why they were denied funding?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I most certainly did not lead anybody to believe that North Atlantic Sea Farms is going to get access to this program. We put a program in place that was modeled, specifically, on a New Brunswick program. If the member wants to, he can go outside and talk to the media afterwards who were in the media centre in this building when I did the press conference. The question was asked directly: Will this help North Atlantic? And I said: It may help North Atlantic but I cannot guarantee that North Atlantic will access this program. I said that to the people on the South Coast and said it to the people of North Atlantic and the aquaculture industry. What we said is: There is a program here. There is a criteria that will apply. If any company, regardless of who the company is, meets the criteria they can have access to the program. In this case, North Atlantic did not meet the criteria. It is not my place to tell why they did not meet the criteria. This is private information related to a business. If the people at North Atlantic want to divulge why we said they could not access the program, they can but I cannot.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the minister, when he announced his new program on November 2, stated: "The aquaculture industry in Newfoundland and Labrador is strengthened by today's announcement." It is our understanding that, to date, North Atlantic Sea Farms is only one of two companies that have applied for funding because the guidelines are so stringent that no existing aquaculture operation can qualify.

Can the minister confirm that this information is correct, and is he willing to change the criteria of this program so that it will indeed strengthen the aquaculture industry in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, you strengthen an industry by giving a program that allows strong companies to grow, not by watering down a program to the point where we lose the millions of dollars that the member knows was lost in the aquaculture industry over the past number of years.

The program that we have developed, Mr. Speaker, is a very strong program. It was brought about by us at the request of the Newfoundland and Labrador Aquaculture Industry Association. They told us what they wanted to see in a program, the people at North Atlantic Sea Farms told us what they wanted to see in a program, the people in the aquaculture industry from outside the Province told us what they wanted to see in the program and we delivered exactly that program, the New Brunswick program, Mr. Speaker. The program is solid. The criteria is solid. We have done - in the program that we have implemented - a service to the industry by providing them with a good program. We have also protected the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador so that we do not take their money and flush it away.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier, and it concerns video lottery machines in the Province. The fact the Premier, I think, understands - and all residents understand - the damage that they have caused to our citizens in a few short years. People have taken their lives, many families have been destroyed financially and other ways. Last spring when I raised this with the Premier he seemed to understand - I think he was genuine - when he said that he knew people himself who are faced with these problems.

I want to ask the Premier today a question that I asked last spring. Will he commit, in the September municipal election, to having the issue of whether or not the people of this Province want to have VLTs in their communities or in their Province? Will he commit to having that placed on the ballot next September as a referendum vote?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I thank the hon. member for that question and for continuing to raise that issue. It is an issue that is very important to all of us. I think we see it everyday. We see it in our own families and friends, and we know some of the severe hardship cases that have been created throughout the Province, and indeed throughout the country as a result of VLTs. It is something that we, as a government, are very concerned about.

The Minister of Health has spoken on this particular issue. The Minister of Finance has spoken on this particular issue. A big part of it, of course, is looking at where the problems are, and trying to solve the problems, and trying to treat the addiction and making sure that the remedies are available throughout the Province for people who have been afflicted by this.

We both know, of course, that there was a referendum held in New Brunswick some time ago, and I was quite frankly very surprised by the results of that referendum, which actually supported keeping VLTs in the Province.

I do not necessarily want to go ahead precipitously to do that and find ourselves in that position with the same kind of result, so hopefully we can use the process of program renewal now to do a proper assessment of exactly where the situation is, just how bad it is, to get some good criteria and some research and some data on this particular issue to get the magnitude of the problem.

We know it is serious. I would like to see some empirical data now to see exactly what the affliction is, and then we will move on from there, but your point is very well taken.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier, the programs that may be offered, these VLT machines are spread into every nook and cranny of our Province. It is not possible to put treatment centres in every community in this Province where people are experiencing the problems.

I do want to ask the Premier: When can we expect a more vigorous campaign against restricting the use of VLTs, against providing the 2 per cent of revenues taken in by them, that the Finance Minister said he would commit when they made government.

Again, the problems created by VLTs in our Province, I do not think we need a study. I think the personal testimony of people who have been affected is clear. Because the referendum vote may have failed in one province, I do not believe that is a reason for not doing it here.

Again, I ask the Premier, when can the people expect some help? Again, (inaudible) referendum.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, this is a priority for this government. There is absolutely no doubt about it. We are very sensitive to it and very much aware of it. In the last Budget, with the limited means that we had, and with the limited resources, we did put additional funding in it. If I remember correctly, it was $100,000 that we added on. We would hope to increase that funding.

I also had a meeting with the Chair or the President of the Atlantic Lotto Corporation, I guess probably a couple of months ago, and specifically said to her that I felt there was a need for them to step up and put more money towards addiction.

It is a priority for this government. It will not fall off the priority list, I can tell you right now. We will be looking at increased funding. It is a problem that we have to deal with and we should deal with it, and we owe it to the people of the Province to deal with it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We have time for a fifteen second question and an equally short answer.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: To the Minister of Finance, when can the people of Labrador West look forward to the day when they are not discriminated against in receiving transportation subsidy to access health care in Happy Valley-Goose Bay that other residents of Labrador are receiving. and have received for many, many years?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Department of Health and Community Services actually has a program on medical transportation assistance that is non-discriminatory, for anybody who has a particular need, in assisting them to receive medical attention in their particular area.

The Department of Finance does not run any such programs at all. The Department of Health is the one that runs the programs. We are very cognizant of the costs of people trying to access health care in most parts of the Province; Labrador, too, in particular, but many other remote isolated communities too. The Department of Health has a program in place, and certainly if the minister wants to speak to that, but there is no program under my department to deal with that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

During Question Period, the Chair received a note notifying the Speaker that Mr. Todd Russell of the Labrador Metis Nation, and five other members from his organization are also in the gallery today, and we also want to welcome them in particular.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Report by Standing and Select Committees.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Labrador Affairs.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act. (Bill 57)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The private members' motion under Standing Order 63, standing in my name on the Order Paper, is proposed to be debated on Wednesday coming. It is related to the public automobile insurance and the formation of a select committee.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Did I hear the hon. member correctly? He said that the motion standing in his name now on the Order Paper will be the motion that we shall debate on Wednesday?

MR. HARRIS: That is correct, Mr. Speaker. Standing Order 63 does not provide an exact procedure for motions, other than those by the Official Opposition or government in private members. So, in keeping with our discussion last Thursday, I am just giving notice that the motion that we would propose to have debated on Private Members' Day is the motion standing in my name as it relates to public automobile insurance.

MR. SPEAKER: As per the statements made on Thursday last, that would be the motion that would be discussed on Wednesday.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today on behalf of my constituents in the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair as it relates to government's decision, Mr. Speaker, not to clear snow on the road between Red Bay and Lodge Bay.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very essential piece of the highway system in Southern Labrador. It joins the region from the Labrador Straits and the Coast of Labrador. Prior to the last few years, there had never been a road connection in that particular area. Since then, hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent to build roads right throughout the district in connecting a number of communities. The government opposite has chosen not to clear snow on this section of road for almost four months of the year, simply because they are unwilling to invest the dollars that are needed to correct the problems that exist with this piece of highway, and are unwilling to spend the money that is essential to keeping the roads open in that region.

Mr. Speaker, nowhere else - nowhere else - in this Province would you see an essential piece of highway closed to the public. The communities in my district depend upon this piece of road. They depend in the greatest sense of the word, because they use it to be able to access services, access airports, access fuel supply, and that is going to be cut off from them.

Prior to the road being constructed, many of these communities had storage tanks in their communities where they could store fuel for extended periods of time, but when the highway went through they took out those storage tanks because they did not want to have any future risk to the environment by storing tanks that were unnecessary to them.

Mr. Speaker, the businesses had warehouses where they could order in freight shipments and store them for extended periods of time in the winter months, and when the road went through they took out those warehouses because they did not have a need for them.

Mr. Speaker, the Labrador Transportation Fund, which is administered by the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Aboriginal Affairs, and the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Labrador Affairs, earned $2.9 million last year in interest. That was what the Labrador Fund earned. Now, no member from Labrador has input into how that money is spent. No, because the only member from Labrador on the government side is not part of the committee that administers the Fund on the Labrador Transportation Initiative, and therefore the people in Labrador are not being treated fairly when it comes to where this money is being invested.

People in my district should not have to see the road closed for four months out of the winter, Mr. Speaker. They should not, and I think that the government should reconsider its decision. I talked to the minister several times, myself. I have asked him to reconsider this decision, to leave this road open for as long as they possibly can during the winter to allow people to have access to these services. Mr. Speaker, I plead with him today to give this strong consideration -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

On petitions, the hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the hon. Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: The Government House Leader said today that I supported the bill for the snowmobile legislation, Mr. Speaker. I just want to bring to the attention of the House, on three occasions I said - and I read from Hansard, Mr. Speaker: I am sure the Government House Leader would concur that both sides will try to have this legislation....

Mr. Speaker, I said that on three occasions. I spoke to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. One of the agreements that we had on Tuesday was, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair brought it to my attention, as the critic, that the roads that have no connection to the main highway receive a grant now to have the roads groomed.

I spoke to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, and he committed to me on Tuesday that these grants will stay in place.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

While the Chair listens to what the hon. member is saying, a point of order should relate to some procedural thing that has happened in the House relevant to our procedures. It is not a time when members can argue between each other as to who said what on one side, who said what on the other.

I ask the member to get to his point of order. I will give him a few more seconds to do so.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, what I am trying to say is that my comments were misrepresented, because I was told on Tuesday by the hon. minister that the grants were in place. On Thursday it was confirmed to myself and to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair that the grants were not going to be in place after March 31, 2005, and the minister who initiates those grants is the Minister of Transportation and Works. When the member found out that was the minister who they had to trust, she said, no, we cannot support this bill, I was given a commitment.

To the Government House Leader, who is standing up and making false accusations that I made these commitments, it is just absolutely not true. Absolutely not true!

MR. E. BYRNE: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader, speaking to that point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

All I quoted from Hansard, and I will quote it again - there are not my words, these are the hon. members: People on this side of the House will support this bill. That is all he said, Mr. Speaker, and I will rest my case with that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A point of order is not a time to engage in the resumption of debate. There will be plenty of opportunity when we next go to Committee of the Whole House on this particular bill for members to engage in those exchanges and to clarify points that they might wish to make at that time.

There is no point of order, and the Chair makes that decision on that particular point.

Further Petitions? Orders of the day.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Order 9, Second Reading of a Bill, An Act To Ratify And Give The Force Of Law To The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement, Bill 44.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 44, An Act To Ratify And Give The Force Of Law To The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Ratify And Give The Force Of Law To The Labrador Inuit Claims Agreement." (Bill 44)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to rise today in this hon. House and introduce Bill 44, the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement. This is a historic day for all members in this Chamber, it is a historic day for all members of the Inuit Association, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and, in fact, the entire Nation, Mr. Speaker.

The passing of this bill will be a significant step forward for all of us, and it represents the fruition of nearly three decades of long, hard work by a lot of people. This Land Claims Agreement is the first comprehensive land claims agreement to be concluded in Newfoundland and Labrador and in Atlantic Canada, making this a truly significant milestone in our Province, the country and the history of Aboriginal people in Canada.

The Labrador Inuit vote on this Agreement, Mr. Speaker, took place on May 26, 2004. That was among the highlights of my career in public office; to stand in this hon. House as the Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs and inform members and the Province of the overwhelming endorsement that this Agreement was given by Labrador Inuit.

After nearly thirty years of work on this very important agreement, on the part of the provincial government, the Labrador Inuit Association and the federal government, it is truly an honour as minister to introduce this legislation in this House today.

This past August, Mr. Speaker, I once again visited Labrador. It was an excellent opportunity for me, as minister, to hear first-hand the concerns of Aboriginal people in the region.

During my visit, I visited Nain, Natuashish, Hopedale, Postville, Makkovik, Rigolet, North West River and Happy Valley-Goose Bay. I had meetings with the Sheshatshiu Innu Band Council, the Innu Nation, the Labrador Inuit Association, the Mushuau Innu First Nation, and seven town councils located throughout the region.

During my time in Labrador I saw with my own eyes, Mr. Speaker, how important this agreement will be to the Labrador Inuit and received representation on just how badly needed the Agreement was, in fact.

But before I go any further, I would like to take a moment to review the history of this agreement and exactly how much work has taken place to get us to the point where we are in this hon. House today.

In 1997, Mr. Speaker, the Labrador Inuit Association filed a statement of claim with the Government of Canada. The following year, in 1978, the Government of Canada accepted the Labrador Inuit claim for negotiation, and in 1980 the Province agreed to participate in those negotiations.

I was a member of the Peckford Administation, Mr. Speaker, which accepted the basis for this claim back in the 1980s. Little did I know I would be the minister responsible for introducing this legislation in the House in 2004. I want to thank the Premier for making that possible.

A framework agreement setting out the matters to be negotiated was reached in 1990. In 1999, the parties initialled the Agreement-in-Principle and it was signed in 2001.

In August, 2003, negotiators for the Labrador Inuit Association, the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador initialled the final agreement that triggered the start of the Inuit ratification process. This included the appointment of a ratification committee, comprised of a jointly appointed independent chairperson, Carol Brice-Bennett, and members appointed by the LIA, the federal government and the Province.

In order for the Agreement to be accepted, Mr. Speaker, 50 per cent plus one of all eligible voters had to vote to approve the Agreement. As everybody realizes, that is a very high threshold and I guess a legitimate question is: Why was the threshold so high? Because a yes vote would extinguish any future rights for the present Labrador Inuit and generations of unborn Labrador Inuit. I remind this House that there are approximately 4,300 eligible voters on the official voters list.

On May 26 of this year, on the day of the Inuit vote, I made a statement in this hon. House encouraging all Inuit who were eligible to vote for the Agreement to participate in the ratification process. I was pleased to see that several hundred individuals had already voted via the advance poll and mail in ballots. I said then that the ratification vote was the most important decision that the Labrador Inuit would make for their future.

The endorsement of the agreement can be described by two words: overwhelming and definitive. It was overwhelming in that individuals who did not vote were counted as a no vote. The task facing the Labrador Inuit Association was daunting: not only did they have to convince Inuit to vote for the agreement, but they also had to ensure that those individuals physically made it to the polls to ensure the acceptance of the negotiated agreement.

That they were able to get 85 per cent of eligible voters to the polls and that over 75 per cent of eligible voters cast a ballot in favour of the agreement, is a definitive endorsement of that agreement. And remember, as I said previously, there were 4,300 members scattered from Nain to St. John's and other provinces and territories around the country and, indeed, around the world.

On that day, Labrador Inuit spoke clearly and they spoke loudly. We in this hon House, across Newfoundland and Labrador and across the nation, have heard them.

Mr. Speaker, this brings us to the present day and the next step on this journey toward the realization of this agreement, and that is the passage of this bill in our Legislature.

Earlier today at a news conference, the Premier and I, and Mr. Andersen, President of the LIA, spoke about some of the advantages of a negotiated land claims settlement. Land claims agreements bring clarity and certainty to land ownership and management of our resources, benefitting all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. This will result in a stable environment for development and investment.

The costs of a land claims settlement, Mr. Speaker, are much less than the cost of not reaching a settlement. With a settlement, all the people of the Province can advance with more certainty along the road to economic development. Without a settlement, uncertainty and misunderstanding will slow the Province's economic and social development. Land claims settlements will support greater self-reliance for the Labrador Inuit. The self-government provisions of the Agreement will provide Inuit with the ability to control their own affairs and to forge a new future.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would submit that this legislation that we are voting on here in this hon. House today is met with a single question: What does it mean? The answer is simple: everything.

The ratification of this legislation means everything to the Labrador Inuit. It means having a voice, a say, in land and non-renewable resource management, ocean management, economic development and the Voisey's Bay project, from which the Nunatsiavut Government will receive 5 per cent of provincial revenues from the subsurface resources in the Voisey's Bay area, as well as Impacts and Benefits Agreement with the Voisey's Bay Nickel Company.

The agreement also includes provisions related to national park protected areas, wildlife and plants, fisheries, archaeology and fisheries matters. In short, this agreement is everything in terms of having a prosperous and meaningful future for the Labrador Inuit, this Province and this country. It means a brighter future for Labrador Inuit and for all of us.

This Agreement will go a long way toward improving living conditions in Inuit communities. It will go a long way toward giving those communities hope for the future, Mr. Speaker. As a result of this agreement, the Labrador Inuit will exercise great responsibility and further autonomy over their affairs. This includes land and non-renewable resources, self-government, and economic development.

There are several points I want to highlight in this legislation and elaborate for the benefit of members in the House and for the people of the Province. The Labrador Inuit have created their own constitution that comes into effect with this Agreement. The Agreement establishes two levels of government: the Nunatsiavut Government, with jurisdiction primarily over Inuit at a regional level, and five Inuit community governments - one in each of the five Inuit communities of Rigolet, Makkovik, Postville, Hopedale and Nain.

The Agreement also provides for the establishment of Inuit community corporations for Inuit who live outside the Labrador Inuit Settlement Area. All levels of this government, Mr. Speaker, will be democratically elected.

Under this Agreement, the Nunatsiavut Government may make laws to govern Inuit residents of Labrador Inuit Lands and the Inuit communities for matters such as education, health, child and family services and income support. The Nunatsiavut Government will also have jurisdiction over its internal affairs, Inuit language and culture, and the management of Indian rights and benefits under the Agreement. The Nunatsiavut Government may establish a justice system for the administration of Inuit laws.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Government of Canada, and the Nunatsiavut Government will negotiate a fiscal financing agreement every five years to provide funding to the Nunatsiavut Government for the provision of programs and services to the Inuit, and, if needed, to other residents.

The first fiscal financing agreement has been negotiated and will come into effect once the Agreement comes into effect. The Labrador Inuit will continue to be eligible to receive federal and provincial programs and services.

This Agreement, and additional agreements to be negotiated in future years, among the Labrador Inuit, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada, will provide key programs and services such as health care, education and other social programs and services to be delivered to the Nunatsiavut Government to Inuit and all residents in each of the five Inuit communities.

Land is a key component of the Agreement. Under the Agreement, two categories of land were created: The Labrador Inuit Settlement Area, or LISA, and the Labrador Inuit Lands, or LIL. The settlement area consists of 28,000 squares miles, or 72,520 square kilometres, of land, and 18,800 square miles, or 48,690 square kilometres, of ocean extending to the limit of Canada's territorial sea. Inuit will have special rights in all of these areas.

Within the Settlement Area, the Inuit will own 6,100 square miles, or 15,800 square kilometres, of land referred to as the Labrador Inuit Lands. It is in this area where Inuit have the most rights and benefits.

On Labrador Inuit Lands, Inuit will have the exclusive right to carving stone, ownership of over 1,500 square miles, or 3,950 square kilometres, of quarry materials, and a 25 per cent ownership interest in subsurface resources.

The Agreement provides that existing surface interests in Labrador Inuit Lands, such as cabin owners and outfitters, will continue under their current terms and conditions. Applications for renewal or extensions of such interest will be made to the Nunatsiavut Government.

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will, with the Nunatsiavut Government, and within three years of the effective date of the Agreement, develop a comprehensive land use plan for the Settlement Area. The Nunatsiavut Government will approve the land use plan as it applies to the Labrador Inuit Lands and the Province will approve the plan as it applies to the Settlement Area outside of Labrador Inuit Lands.

The Nunatsiavut Government may establish other protected areas within Labrador Inuit Lands. A protected area agreement with the Nunatsiavut Government will be required for any new protected areas in the Settlement Area outside Labrador Inuit Lands that may affect the rights of the Labrador Inuit under the Agreement.

In terms of economic development, impact and benefits agreements must be negotiated between the Nunatsiavut Government and developers before projects can proceed in Labrador Inuit Lands and before major developments can proceed in the settlement area outside Labrador Inuit Lands.

The Nunatsiavut Government is also entitled to receive 25 per cent of provincial revenues from subsurface developments in Labrador Inuit Lands. In the Settlement Area outside Labrador Inuit Lands, the Nunatsiavut Government will receive 50 per cent of the first $2 million and 5 per cent of any additional provincial revenues from subsurface resource developments.

There are also provisions in the Agreement that pertain to water management and Inuit water rights, as well as ocean management. In terms of water management, there is a provision for the Inuit to have the right to use water for personal and domestic purposes throughout the Settlement Area. Any developer in the Settlement Area who proposes to use this water resource must first negotiate a compensation agreement with the Nunatsiavut Government.

Labrador Inuit will have the right to harvest wildlife and plants and fish for food and social and ceremonial purposes, throughout the Settlement Area . A co-management board appointed by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Government of Canada and the Nunatsiavut Government will be established as the primary body for making recommendations to government on the conservation and management of wildlife and plants in the Settlement Area.

With the exception of those interest holders accommodated under the Agreement, the Nunatsiavut Government will control who may harvest wildlife and plants in Labrador Inuit Lands. The Nunatsiavut Government will control Inuit harvesting for food, social and ceremonial purposes throughout the Settlement Area.

As a result of concerns expressed by non-Inuit harvesters in the Upper Lake Melville region between the Agreement-in- Principle and the Final Agreement, a couple of significant changes were made to the harvesting provisions in the Agreement to provide for greater access for non-Inuit to Labrador Inuit Lands. The Agreement provides that non-Inuit cabin owners on Labrador Inuit Lands can continue to harvest for non-commercial purposes in areas where they have traditionally and currently harvest. Also, non-Inuit harvesters harvesting for non-commercial purposes in tidal waters may access the shoreline of Labrador Inuit Lands to establish temporary camps.

The Nunatsiavut Government has the exclusive right to authorize new outfitting and sawmill operations in Labrador Inuit Lands, and first right to establish new operations throughout the Settlement Area, Mr. Speaker.

A tripartite co-management board will be established to be the primary body for making recommendations on the conservation and management of fish.

Existing commercial fishing licenses are not affected by the Agreement, Mr. Speaker. Inuit will be guaranteed a percentage of new or additional commercial fishing licenses for specific species within the Settlement Area and adjacent waters. They will also be granted 70 per cent of the new fish processing licenses in the Settlement Area.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, Labrador Inuit will control who may fish or establish aquaculture facilities in Labrador Inuit Lands and will have the first right to establish aquaculture facilities in the Settlement Area.

If I may, Mr. Speaker, I will take a moment to speak about some of the cultural aspects of this agreement, more specifically archaeology.

The Nunatsiavut government will be the permitting authority for archaeological activity in Labrador Inuit Lands and the Inuit communities.

Artifacts found in the Labrador Inuit Lands will be owned by the Nunatsiavut government and artifacts found in the Labrador Inuit Settlement Area outside Labrador Inuit Lands will be jointly owned by the Labrador Inuit and the Province.

In our Blue Book, Mr. Speaker, our government made a commitment to not accept or ignore the unequal socio-economic conditions of Aboriginal communities. We committed to relationships that were built on equality and respect. Working with the Aboriginal leaders, we want to assist Aboriginal peoples in fulfilling their desire to become more self-reliant. This includes resolving Aboriginal land claims and providing Labrador Inuit with the tools to exercise genuine control over their own affairs.

Mr. Speaker, this Agreement does that.

The Agreement does not address right for any Aboriginal people of Canada other than Labrador Inuit, and does not affect the Aboriginal rights that other Aboriginal people may have in the Labrador Inuit Settlement Area.

As I advised this hon. House last week, the criteria to qualify as a beneficiary under this Agreement is extremely broad. In fact, more than half of the beneficiaries live outside the Settlement Area, including anyone with 25 per cent Inuit ancestry. Those living outside the Settlement Area enjoy many of the benefits of those living inside, from hiring preferences at Voisey's Bay to access to federal programs such as non-insured health services and post-secondary education funding. While the harvesting provisions are only available within the Settlement Area, the benefits were sufficient to satisfy the 60 per cent of eligible Inuit voters outside the area, of whom 70 per cent voted in favour of the Agreement.

This point is important, Mr. Speaker, in light of the concerns raised by the Labrador Metis Nation with the Agreement. Many members of the LMN may now be eligible to become beneficiaries of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement. This addresses a concern raised by many people, particularly in the Upper Lake Melville area, who lost their membership in the LIA when the criteria became more stringent in the mid-1990s. Now, as a result of improvements in the Agreement, some of the people, and others who were never able to be beneficiaries before, have an opportunity to enjoy the same benefits as the majority of LIA members will have - the 60 per cent who live outside the Settlement Area now, Mr. Speaker. This is an example of why the land claims process has an Agreement- in-Principle stage so the public can view the Agreement-in-Principle, consider the likely outcome of the process, offer their opinions, and negotiators can consider those views in the Final Agreement. That is exactly what happened here, Mr. Speaker. The people spoke and the LIA and the two governments listened. It is as simple as that.

An individual can only be a beneficiary of one land claims agreement at a time, Mr. Speaker, but there may be cases where a person meets the criteria for more than one claim. If an LMN land claim is accepted in the future, and some of those people living outside the Inuit Settlement Area also qualify as beneficiaries of an LMN claim, they may opt out of the Inuit claim and back into the LMN claim at that time. There is nothing to prevent them from choosing to do so.

At this point, we do not know whether the LMN claim will be accepted by the Government of Canada. That is a decision for the federal government to make, and one I have urged them, and this government have urged them, to make quickly. If the LMN is able to demonstrate that the people it represents form a different society of Inuit than that covered by the LIA Agreement, it may be able to have its claim accepted, should it meet the accepted test for comprehensive land claims in Canada. The LMN has been assured by the federal government that it will assess their claim on this basis. There is nothing in this Agreement that will prevent this decision from occurring. This Agreement will have no bearing on whether or not the LMN claim is accepted. We expect the LMN claim to be evaluated solely on it merits, and I have every confidence that the federal government is examining their claim on that basis.

I want to once again, Mr. Speaker, assure members of this House and members of the LMN that, should the federal government accept the LMN land claim, and subject to our own independent assessment to ensure it meets the established criteria, the Province will join with the federal government in settling that claim. If the LMN claim is accepted, and overlaps with the Labrador Inuit Settlement Area, then the LIA and the LMN must negotiate an overlap agreement, as the LIA is doing now with the Innu Nation and the Nunavik Inuit of Quebec.

Furthermore, I say to this hon. House today that even if this Agreement would negatively impact the Labrador Metis Nation - and we believe that it will not - this government will not use anything in this Agreement to influence the federal government in making a decision on the LMN land claim.

This Agreement constitutes the final settlement of the Aboriginal rights of the Labrador Inuit in Canada, and exhaustively sets out the rights of the Labrador Inuit, that are recognized and confirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Government has negotiated a fair land claims agreement for the Inuit, taking into account the general public and third party interests.

It pleases me greatly, Mr. Speaker, to have the support of both Opposition parties this afternoon, and I am pleased to have an all-party agreement to have this Legislature deal with this legislation today. The Crown's relationship with the Aboriginal people of this Province truly transcends partisan politics. I know that this is particularly significant to the Member for Torngat Mountains who has worked hard on behalf of the Labrador Inuit for many years.

The next step is for the three parties to sign the Agreement, Mr. Speaker. A signing ceremony, as I understand it, will take place in Nain early in the New Year. The federal government will then introduce ratification legislation into the House of Commons which we anticipate will happen in the spring of 2005. I encourage our federal counterparts to ratify this Agreement expeditiously.

Mr. Speaker, there are so many people that deserve recognition for this accomplishment. I have earlier referenced the Inuit ratification committee, but I would also like to mention the President of the LIA, Mr. William Andersen III, who is with us this afternoon, and the negotiating teams for the Labrador Inuit Association and the Government of Canada who have been steadfast in their dedication to reaching this Agreement.

In particular, I would like to thank the dedicated public servants who formed the provincial negotiating team. This Agreement represents the culmination of many years of hard work, persistence, resilience and creativity. I would like to acknowledge and thank John Berniquez, Cheryl Brown-McLean, Mark Bugden, Ruby Carter, Deanne Chafe, Mary Hatherly, David Hughes, Tracy King and Bob Warren who were recently honoured with the 2003 Public Service Award of Excellence.

I would be remiss if I did not also take the opportunity to recognize the co-operation and collaboration of countless other officials in government who have assisted this group throughout the negotiation process.

I would also like to mention the directors and staff at the Labrador Inuit Association. It would not be complete if I did not also recognize the Labrador Inuit Association members who have since passed on. Their hard work and determination is their legacy for the Labrador youth of today and for the future.

This is a day of days for the Labrador Inuit, our Province and our government. We have all worked incredibly hard and have waited decades for the realization of this dream. I say to the Labrador Inuit Association and its members, the Government of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada: congratulations.

Kuruasuriurga Nunatsianit Pitaagasto. I apologize for mangling your beautiful language, but for those who did not understand what I attempted to say in Inuktitut, Mr. Speaker, what I said was: I am pleased that you have your beautiful land.

I am humbled, pleased and privileged to move second reading of this bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I must say, I take it as quite an honour and a privilege myself to be in the Legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador on what is one of the rare, but truly historic days that we encounter as people who are entrusted by the people in the Province to provide leadership and be involved in these kinds of very significant advances for the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I will not take a long time. There are other members on our side who are much closer to this and it is much more near and dear to their hearts than for me personally. I am just so pleased to see us advancing as a Province and as a group of people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I know that the Member for Torngat Mountains and the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair would like to speak in this debate. There may even be, as I understand it, an opportunity to consider a potential amendment in the Committee stage with respect to one aspect of this particular agreement that we will also participate in.

Mr. Speaker, these few comments - because we are in second reading agreeing, in principle, to the whole concept. We have with the Labrador Inuit Association a group clearly recognized as the distinct Aboriginal Group in Canada, under the laws of Canada, and their rights protected under the constitution, as was pointed out by the minister in his commentary. We have now the culmination of many long years of dedicated effort on behalf of a lot of people to get to where we are today and where I hope we will be very shortly in the House of Commons, the Parliament of Canada, so we can bring this process to its rightful and proper conclusion.

I would mention, if I could at this point in time, one other significant turning point from my own point of view because I have had the great privilege of being a member of this Legislature for fifteen years; half the time that it has taken the people to try to work out this arrangement. I thought I had been here a long time but it is half as long as the people who have been trying to bring this to a conclusion. So you can see, it is not simple, it is not easy, it is very broad based, it is complex, it is comprehensive and it is the right thing to do. It took a lot of people a lot of time to get it done but I think there should be an era of celebration in accomplishing it.

One thing that did happen from the 1980s on through, and the time frames that the minister pointed out when he was introducing the bill for second reading, was that at points in time, even though there was a negotiation going on, it stalled. There was not a lot of progress being made. Obviously, that is why it took thirty years. There were some years when very little happened and some years when a lot happened.

I think I would be remiss, from this side of the Legislature and representing this particular party now in Opposition, if I did not acknowledge - because I know of it from my own personal involvement - of the added impetus that went towards getting to this point when Premier Tobin was here leading a Liberal government, because he convened a series of extraordinary meetings in a process that had stalled. Members of the negotiating committee and others would recognize, I think, for a period of time at one point in that particular juncture, there were a group of them, I think, cloistered in hotels in Montreal and Ottawa for something like twelve or thirteen or fourteen days, and they finally said: We need to move beyond the framework. We need to make sure we are really going to make a push here. We are going to give this the extra effort. We want all the negotiators to commit to getting to the agreement-in-principle, which happened while he was the Premier. I think as much as could be said historically, and historians will look at that, it could be said that there may have been as much significant progress made in a three or four year period because Premier Tobin believed in it personally and wanted the agenda to move forward on a timely basis as maybe had happened in ten, twelve, or fifteen years before that. Sometimes that extraordinary political leadership from the provincial government, from the federal government, from the Labrador Inuit Association itself needs to surface over a thirty-year period to make sure that you do make significant progress and get to a point that we are at today.

We were very fortunate, by the way as well, in that same period of time because we had the now President of the Labrador Inuit Association in our caucus, in this Legislature. We were joined afterwards by the now Member for Torngat Mountains and a retired member, Mr. McLean, from Happy Valley-Goose Bay, who ended up with the ministerial responsibility for this very issue. They then, because the leadership was shown by the Premier, knew full-well that they had the full unfettered support of the provincial government in making significant progress occur. The staff, of course - many of them I have met and many of them are here today - have worked tirelessly and endlessly, along with the LIA negotiators and the federal representatives over the years, but never harder than they did in that three, four, or five year period getting to the agreement-in-principle. Once that was reached, then there was still detail to be done before you got to the final language which is in a document like this. It is another great piece of work done in a fairly short period of time, compared to the long history of the whole saga that has now led us to where we are today.

I think that what happened though is this, the representatives of the Labrador Inuit Association never did get discouraged. They never did give up. They always believed. I am sure there were times when they were very frustrated. You would have to be, if you started a claim back in the 1970s and it is 2004, and you are finally seeing a vote occur in a Legislature. They always believed and all of their leaders and negotiators stayed true to the task, even through the ebbs and flows, and we get to where we are today.

The other thing that the representatives of the Labrador Inuit Association did is that they kept preparing themselves and their members for the new era that they are about to walk into. A new era for them with, as the minister was describing, a real opportunity to have a real say and to self-determine, in many respects of their lives, what the future will be for the Inuit of Labrador.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I would only ask that the Premier today - and I commend this government, as well, for on a timely basis moving the process to this stage. Because, again, there are many items on the agenda for a government, and I acknowledge that fully. This is an item that - the Government of Canada hopefully will deal with it expeditiously, as soon as it passes this Legislature and as soon as the signing ceremony is held - a full effort will go forward to encourage them to do their last part on a timely basis.

I do commend this government for bringing the legislation forward now, in this particular session, so that we could keep making the progress and getting to that end date which is now only just a few short months away.

I would suggest as well, if I could, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier and the government, that the same kind of leadership that I just ascribed to Premier Tobin during his tenure, with respect to bringing this to this stage, is the kind of leadership that I think people hope for in Labrador with respect to the Labrador Innu claim, which again is at a certain stage of development and can be pushed forward to an Agreement-in-Principle and to final conclusion with another thrust from the provincial government and their own negotiators; because we have the same kind of thing, as the minister would acknowledge, that is happening where a claim that has been around for a long time has come nowhere close to reaching the finalization that this particular claim rightfully is achieving here in this Legislature today.

The other thing I would ask, Mr. Speaker, because I do agree with this fully in principle, having been Premier of the Province in which we initialed the final documents that are here, and having participated in several different stages of the negotiations with different committees and different working groups, I would ask that the assurances given by the minister with respect to nothing that is happening here being prejudicial or possibly adversely or negatively impacting the Labrador Metis Nation, that the same or similar words, and just as strong, would be uttered by the Premier himself on behalf of the government so that there is no misunderstanding; because I can say this with absolute certainty, Mr. Speaker, that every single time I was involved in any one of the issues with respect to this land claim for the Labrador Inuit Association, there would be a point or a juncture in the session where people would say, and the question would be asked: Now, are we all sure and confident that what we are doing here is not going to adversely or negatively impact on other claims that are also there before us in Labrador - the Innu claim and the hopes and aspirations that the Labrador Metis Nation have as well?

The answer given to me, and other politicians and other officials who were in the room, always was, as the minister stated today, that our understanding, the government that I participated in, was that there isn't anything here that is being done that would cause a problem for the aspirations and the hopes of the Labrador Metis Nation or the Innu Nation that are in the process of a legitimate claim as this point in time.

I think we cannot say that too strongly for the record, because that has been my understanding of it in a full fifteen years of involvement with a government in Newfoundland and Labrador and this Legislature that, that is the circumstance. I think there would be, again, at least some comfort - I think the Metis Nation, in particular, take some comfort - from the words of the minister, and I am sure they take comfort if the same words are echoed in some similar language by the Premier when he speaks to this issue.

The other thing that I would say, Mr. Speaker, and I will not take a long time, is this: I recognize one particular gentleman who is here today, who is going to have a role in Ottawa, and that is the Senator from Labrador, Senator Rompkey. He, along with the Member of Parliament, Mr. O'Brien, will have a real role to play in that next stage in terms of encouraging the Government of Canada in that caucus to do in their Parliament what we are going to do here today.

The reason I mention the Senator in this Chamber and this context is because, with my father, I worked on election campaigns for the Senator dating back to 1972, when he was the Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador. So, either as an elected member or as a Senator, I am saying, in my few comments here today, that I have been around for half of this while he has been around for all of it. I can tell you one thing, the Inuit of Labrador know that they have had a constant supporter and friend in the Senator today, when he was an MP and now as a Senator - when he was the MP for Labrador alone, the first ever MP for Labrador separately in the House of Commons for Canada - and I know that they can count on his support, along with Mr. O'Brien as the Member of Parliament, in urging the Government of Canada to act on a timely basis to go through the same process that we are going through here today.

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my few remarks, thereby encouraging those like the Senator and the MP to take the lead from this Legislature today and push for the successful conclusion of this with the Government of Canada, and again to commend the Premier, the minister and the government, for doing this on a timely basis here in Newfoundland and Labrador, the right thing to do at the right time in our history.

I can tell you this: Given the opportunity that they will now seize with both hands, and firmly, as a people in Labrador, the Labrador Inuit, all of them, with their own new opportunities, they will stand on their own two feet. They will seize and control their own destiny in a way they could only hope and dream about before. I will tell you one thing that I am confident will happen: they will help all of us build a greater and better Newfoundland and Labrador. I commend everyone involved in the process.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak in this historic debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is indeed, as well, for me today, a great honour and a privilege to stand here in this House, in this chair. I think it is appropriate that I spoke as the third Premier. The former Premier spoke first, the recent Premier spoke second, and I spoke third because I am the new - I cannot say I am the new kid on the block - I am the new person on the block. I am delighted to be here. I am very proud to be here. I am very privileged to be here, quite frankly. I just happen to be in the right place at the right time, and will ultimately have the honour of signing this Agreement when it is completed.

I certainly welcome you, Mr. Andersen, and your delegation. I welcome the Senator. It is unfortunate that Mr. O'Brien is unable to be here with us today. He played a critical role in this. I also welcome all the members in the gallery, all the members of the LIA who are here with us today. It is truly an historic occasion. I think the minister said it was a day of days, and well put. It is a unique debate. It is a unique opportunity that we have here in this House today, to talk about something that has never happened here before. It is a very, very special moment. It is a very symbolic moment.

It is amazing that over a period of twenty-seven years this has happened; but, again, as the minister said in introducing, or in speaking at second reading, that it has transcended partisan politics truly. It is interesting that it started with the Moores' government, and hopefully it will be concluded quite soon with our government, but it has been the work of all governments.

I thank the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for acknowledging our contribution, but it has only been a small one. This particular government's - it has only been a small one. The hon. leader's government has moved this and made a significant move when that was executed during your term, Sir.

As well, we acknowledge the contribution of former Premier Tobin, who accelerated it. That is truly acknowledged. It certainly was a cause of his. I know the work that he put into it. I was aware of it, and he certainly advanced the file.

As the minister, of course, is aware, during the Peckford government this moved forward, so it is truly a work of all of us and all parties. I think we should all be proud of that, as well as the members for Labrador. Really, I probably should have waited to hear the Member for Torngat because I am looking forward to hearing him speak. He speaks in this House on behalf of his people with great emotion. I have seen him at times being moved to tears on behalf of his people. Sir, I admire you and I respect you for that. I am looking forward to your comments as well.

It has been a collective effort. It is so nice to see this happen. We can come together on things, and we do come together on things, and things that are in the best interest of the people of our Province. It is so nice to see it work. We have done everything we can, as a government, and we made a commitment to Mr. Andersen that we would try to expedite this and fast-track it and do absolutely everything that we could in order to bring it to fruition and to finalize this matter. Twenty-seven years is a long time. I practiced law for over thirty years. It seems like a lifetime for this negotiation to have gone on so long, but it is truly a credit to your negotiators, to the negotiators, the public service, everybody who has been involved in this. It has been and it is a difficult process. It is a very complex negotiation. What you have achieved here is something absolutely remarkable. It is historic because it is the last, of course, in the country, but it is the first in our Province. What has been done has been a labour of love, I am sure, but there has been a lot of hard work. You have a very good product here, and I think that everybody is certainly delighted with it.

What has happened here is fundamental justice. It was interesting this morning when I heard the remarks of Mr. Andersen. I just took some notes as to what he said: It is a new era of trust. We have now reached maturity. He talked about a shared commitment. He talk about unity and hope. He talked about hope and pride and self-determination.

That is really what it is all about. It is interesting when we speak as a Province and we talk about our relationship, Newfoundland and Labrador's relationship with Canada. We talk about self-determination, being masters of our own destiny, and self-sufficiency, and having pride and having respect, and that is really what it is all about for you and your people, except to a greater degree. You were there before the Europeans; you were there before the Vikings. Your people really have not gotten the respect that they truly deserve. There has been some social injustice that has been committed with your people, and that is now finally being corrected. It is wonderful, absolutely wonderful, to be part of that and see it come to fruition. It must give you tremendous satisfaction to have done this.

I know this morning you acknowledged the leaders who have gone before you, and the work that has gone into it, and the dedication and the devotion, but for your people - and I saw it when I travelled to the North Coast, and again I mentioned it during Question Period, I do thank the hon. member for inviting me there. I had been up before, but not on the same type of trip, and you cannot believe it and you cannot appreciate it until you get to see it first-hand, and you see exactly what you are doing for your people but also the difficulties that your people experience. Again, I cannot help but keep repeating it, you see it in the children. The children have a chance. They are young enough to have a chance. What you are doing in self-government is now finally giving them that hope. You even used the word hopelessness; it is now hopefully gone away this morning, and we remove that by having self-government. Now, there is a whole new opportunity for a type of independence whereby they can have that self-respect. I think they can feel, as a people and as young people, that they have a future and they can work towards the future.

Having done this is a huge step forward, and what it does is creates a positive relationship between our governments, a positive relationship between the provincial government, the federal government, and your government, Sir. Whatever we can do in order to help that, we certainly will.

I must say I was moved, though, by the needs that are there, with the Aboriginal people and particularly with the Inuit people. I think we have to address that, the social injustice that has happened over the years and the price that has been paid by people who are now adults. We do have a chance, we have a chance as a government and as a people to make a real difference here, and we cannot just pay lip service to it. Fortunately, we have the strong voices of people, like the Member for Torngat, who are able to put those issues before us and keep them in our face, for want of a better term. Mr. Andersen and his group, the people who work for you, the support staff that you have with you, the people who are communicating for you, they are getting that message out.

As I said today, as well, there are some interesting relationships that have developed now in the Province. The former Premier and the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs have a relationship with Paul Okalik from Nunuvut, who you yourself have a relationship with. When I am at First Ministers' Conferences, the Premier of Nunuvut mentions the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and yourself. We are now, sort of, having more of a national relationship that is developing and we can learn from our own experiences and we can do things better and hopefully do them right and even improve on what has happened before in this country. I am hoping that your government, Sir, will be a model government for the entire country, and I certainly look forward to that.

The other thing, of course, is just from an economic perspective. There is an opportunity here now, there is a lot of funding that is going to be going into setting up your government. It is a statement to the world that you now have an economic opportunity, that, as a Province, we are now going to be working in conjunction. It is, I think, a very positive statement to the rest of the country, that we will be working together with Nunatsiavut in order to develop the North. We have tremendous opportunity, we have tremendous opportunity in Voisey's Bay which is now proceeding and, of course, your government will have a percentage of that. In fact, we hope through negotiation with the federal government we can eventually increase that percentage, because your percentage is a percentage of our percentage, and as our percentage goes up so will yours, and that will mean a greater return to your people. As well, if there are any new finds in that particular area, of course, you will get 25 per cent of that. That will give you an opportunity to get the funding.

What is really is the analogies are the same with our own province, because as we try to develop Newfoundland and Labrador we are asking, through things like the Atlantic Accord, to get a bigger piece of our action, to have a bigger stake in what are our own resources. That is exactly what you are asking for yourself and that you are receiving as a result of this. It is interesting how similar we are in a lot of ways. We haven't gone through the same hardship, as a people, that you have, but we have the same issues of independence, integrity, respect, dignity, self-determination and masters of our own destiny and just moving forward. This is an opportunity, I think, for your people to get the self-confidence that they need, that we all need as a people within this great country of Canada.

I thank the Government of Canada and the Senator, of course, for his involvement. The Leader of the Opposition spoke very highly of Senator Romkey and his contribution to Labrador, which has been significant, Sir, and I certainly commend you for that. He still does it. He is still an advocate. He is championing our causes now, as we speak, in Ottawa on issues like the Atlantic Accord. I was away at school in 1972, otherwise I would have worked for you as well if I had been in the Grand Falls area, but unfortunately I did not have the opportunity. A great Newfoundlander and particularly, a great Labradorian.

It is people like Senator Romkey and other people in this Province, and the Member of Parliament, Lawrence O'Brien, who have done wonderful things for their area, for their districts. That is where the real pride of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians comes because we all pull together on issues. The fact that we have gotten over our partisan politics and moved together in such an expeditious manner, even recently, I think is a credit to all of us.

The other thing I want to mention too, and I mentioned this morning in my remarks at the press conference. This is not about doing a favour for the Inuit people. This is not about giving them some undeserved special treatment or caving into unreasonable demands. This is about giving your people what they are entitled to. It is fundamental justice. It is long overdue. They will get what they deserve and it has finally come. It is unfortunate that it has taken so long to do it, but it is very fortunate that it has happened. In our lifetime we can see it and hopefully we will see the fruits of your labour and the fruits of the labour of all the people who have been involved in this process.

I can say, in conclusion, that it will allow us all to move forward individually and collectively for a stronger, more prosperous and a more resilient Newfoundland and Labrador, and your government, Sir. As well, we are all so very appreciative of one anothers cultures, one anothers heritage, one anothers gifts and what we bring together as a community and as a community of Newfoundland and Labrador and the new community of Nunatsiavut.

I thank you very much for all your efforts. I thank everybody who has been involved in this. I commend all governments. As I said, we were fortunate enough to come in on the end of this very, very important occasion. To be part of it is just indeed a great honour. My hat is off to you, Sir, and my hat is off to your people. We look forward to working with you and your new government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, am singularly honoured to be present today for what has been referred to as a historic moment for Newfoundland and Labrador and, in particular, the Inuit people of Labrador who have achieved an agreement that establishes for them, and for us, a new government within our Province, the Government of Nunatsiavut.

For anybody who knows the history of Canada and in particular, the history of this Province, the advent of Aboriginal rights and recognition of Aboriginal rights to the extent that they are recognized today has been slow in coming. The achievement of an agreement after twenty-seven years is one indication of this but the fact that the past twenty-seven years have been spent in debating, considering, looking at what might be, have also assisted the parties and in particular, the Inuit, in achieving a better agreement; an agreement that they are now satisfied and have ratified and wish to have implemented, because things have changed.

Even in the last twenty-seven years we have seen the recognition in our Constitution nationally of Aboriginal rights and the requirement of governments, such as Newfoundland and Labrador and the Government of Canada, to negotiate and recognize Aboriginal rights, and accept and defend and promote the kind of self-determination and self-government, such as is contained in this Agreement here today. That is what we are doing today, in addition to acknowledging and ratifying through legislation an agreement, we are creating in part ourselves, the Labrador Inuit people and the Government of Canada creating a new order of government that is not provincial, that is not federal, that is municipal.

When you look at the powers set out in the agreement for self-government, it sets out the powers of the Nunatsiavut government in environmental protection, in education, in health, in lands, in social family youth and children services, in housing, intergovernmental affairs and many other aspects of the government that we, in this Province, in this Legislature, take for granted and pass laws with respect thereto for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. So, this is indeed an historic occasion and I am very fortunate to be a Member of this House of Assembly and to sit here and participate in seeing this come to fruition.

I do want to also congratulate all those who have been a part of this over the years in terms of providing the leadership from the very beginning, providing the assistance and advice that the Inuit have received and that has been a part of the piece that is extremely important. Because this is a treaty but it is not the kind of treaty that we have come to disrespect in this country in the past where the treaty rights and the treaties that were signed were designed to take things away from Aboriginal people on behalf of the government, that the treaties are sometimes used to insist that Aboriginals have given up their rights. This is a treaty reached by a self-governing people who have the right to decide, through referendum with legal advice, with assistance for many years, to come to an agreement that they make freely and themselves. I think that is an important distinction as a modern treaty, a modern agreement that acknowledges and respects the right of the Aboriginal people, to have the agreement meet their needs as well as reach whatever compromises that need to be made with the Government of Canada or the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

As an individual, as a member for the Legislature and as Leader of the New Democratic Party of Newfoundland and Labrador, I am very pleased to endorse this legislation and to be a part of seeing it come before the House of Assembly and be passed and go on to be recognized across the country.

As well, looking at this agreement, looking at what has taken place, we have to recognize that this is something of long-term significance as well. The act of the Labrador Inuit and the leadership in bringing this agreement about, I also have to say is an act of courage. It is an act of courage to come to an agreement that is going to have long-term significant impact on the Inuit people of Labrador. I know that the negotiations, the responsibility for convincing, to the extent that it was done, the Labrador Inuit people that this was an opportunity for them to accept is something - that responsibility weighs heavily on the shoulders of the people who were involved. I think we ought to recognize that here in this House, as well, and governments ought to recognize that in the future, that this agreement, we hope, will stand the test of time, and thirty years from now the Inuit can look back and say this day was a day that started the process of taking us forward, satisfying our need for self-determination, being the key that brought about the advancement of the Labrador Inuit people.

We also have to recognize that just as many people in this Province have concerns about Confederation, have concerns about the Terms of Union, that there may need to be some adjustments in the future; that if indeed this agreement does not satisfy the needs and aspirations of the Labrador Inuit people, as they now envisage them in a realistic way - and I do not mean any expectation that the whole world is going to be better and every problem is going to be solved, but if there are fundamental difficulties with things as they transpire over the next number of years, that we also have to recognize there may be a need to be flexible, and a willingness to review arrangements if it does not meet, indeed, the test of time.

Our own government is doing that now with the Atlantic Accord, which was signed nearly twenty years ago. We should be willing, as a Province and as a government, as a people, to recognize that if there are fundamental problems with this process, or how it transpires historically in the future, that we should be willing to recognize that there may need to be a review and adjustment.

There is also the concern that has been raised recently - and I do not want to, in any way, take away from the importance, significance and celebration that we have today for the Inuit people of Labrador, but I will reference what the minister referenced and what was referenced by the Leader of the Opposition - the concern that has been raised that this agreement may have unintentionally - because I know it is not the intention of the LIA, and it is not the intention of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that has been stated by the minister who is a former Premier, by the Leader of the Opposition who was Premier when this process was engaged and going on, and in fact when the final agreement was reached there was no intention and no expectation by government that this Agreement will negatively affect the claims, the Aboriginal claims, advanced by the Labrador Metis Nation.

I encourage and urge the minister to make the commitment that he made today, that not only does government recognize and believe that the Agreement that is before this House today does not affect the claims under the Aboriginal rights of the Labrador Metis Nation, that government will not seek to use this Agreement to limit or hinder the claims advanced by the Labrador Metis Nation should such claims be accepted by the Government of Canada. I think that is a very important commitment and statement and stipulation to be made on behalf of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, I think we can celebrate together with the Labrador Inuit Association and their membership and the Inuit people of Labrador, the completion of the circle of European settlement in this part of the world with now an agreement and a recognition that Aboriginal and Inuit self-government, through an historic agreement such as we have before us today, can be a way in which the Labrador Inuit can have a future that is controlled by them, control over their culture, language, health, education, and other services that assist in the self-determination of the Labrador Inuit.

It is not for me to analyze every clause of the Agreement and make my interpretation of whether it is as much or more or less than what should be there. That is something that the Labrador Inuit people, through their leadership, have undertaken. That I respect, and I look forward to the future and the development and work that will be done by the new Nunatsiavut Government in acting on behalf of the people, the Inuit people of Labrador.

I just want to quote, with complete agreement, a statement made by the President of the LIA today, William Andersen III, on the occasion of the news conference. He said: The advancement of any group in society strengthens us all. This is the true legacy of this agreement.

I would say, on our behalf, what he said on behalf of the Labrador Inuit: As milestones such as today bring us closer to our goal, Labrador Inuit look forward to building on this accomplishment to strengthen relationships, explore common goals and develop further the dialogue and understanding we need to meet the challenges of the future we all share.

I also look forward to building on what has been accomplished under this agreement, to ensure that the Labrador Inuit people are best able to meet the significant challenges that they face, and that we all face, in the future. I wish the Government of Nunatsiavut, all of the people who made this possible, a very optimistic future, a very positive future, and one that we hope we can play a role in making as positive as possible.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to give my view, as it relates to Bill 44, An Act To Ratify And Give Force Of Law To The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement.

Mr. Speaker, very seldom have I stood in this House to speak to any bill with a prepared text. Today, I felt such strong emotion with regard to this particular issue, I felt that it was necessary for me to do so. I would say that today, however prepared my comments may be, they are heartfelt and they are sincere, and I hope they will bring clarity to my position as it relates to Bill 44.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation that rises for debate in the House today has been after many years of struggle, lobby and hardship for the Inuit people of Northern Labrador. It has been a culmination of more than three decades of work to claim what is, and always has been, their right to self-government and to independence.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened for many years to great leaders of the LIA, people like William Barbour, Tony Andersen, and their leader today, William Andersen III. Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to sit and talk with Inuit women leaders, like Ruth Flowers and Zippie Nochasak, and to listen to what they have had to say as they carried forward with this dream. And, yes, I have looked in wonder and admiration to people like Isabella Payne, Toby Andersen and Chesley Andersen as I saw them over the years put their own lives on hold as they worked towards this process for their people.

Mr. Speaker, I have watched their struggles, and many times I have felt their pain. I would listen to the Member for Torngat Mountains, my colleague and my friend, in this House of Assembly as he would rise on many occasions to add his voice to the cry for dignity and respect in his homeland for his people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this House, not to vote against the Inuit people of Labrador but to vote for the same freedoms and independence for my people, for the same dignity and same respect for the Metis people of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I represent the very strong views and serious concerns of a great number of my constituents and all Metis people of Labrador with regard to one aspect of this proposed treaty with the LIA.

While the proposed LIA Treaty specifically acknowledges and protects the interest of other Inuit descendant organizations in Canada and list them by name, and while it protects the overlapping interest of the Quebec Inuit represented by the Makivik Corporation, as well as their defined beneficiaries, as not being included in any decision to surrender rights. This treaty, Mr. Speaker, remains silent on the 6,000 Labrador Metis. Silent on the mixed blood descendants of the Inuit, descendants of those who have inhabited the coastlines from Blanc Sablon to Cape Chidley from time immemorial.

The proposed treaty we have before us today is very complex. I certainly do not think and I know it was not the intention of the LIA to stigmatize or exclude the possibility for settlement of a claim with Metis people. I know that, Mr. Speaker. I have asked the government to give me the greatest assurances possible that this treaty would not prejudice the future acceptance of a claim for Metis in Labrador. Those assurances have not been satisfactory to the leadership of the Labrador Metis Nation, to their President, Todd Russell, to their elders and their members, and therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is not satisfactory to me.

Mr. Speaker, they have accepted the word of the government opposite in terms of the Powley decision earlier this year. They accepted and they trusted that they would be given full consideration as it related to the Supreme Court decision of Powley. In the months that followed, government withdrew that commitment and now the Labrador Metis Nation needs more than the words spoken of one minister to give them the clarity, the assurances and the certainty that they will need for their people to carry forward with their claim to the federal government.

Mr. Speaker, the Province knows that the Metis can only establish a claim with the federal government based on Inuit or Innu descent. They are primarily mixed blood Inuit, therefore references to the LIA treaty that characterizes this claim as the last Inuit claim in Labrador or in Canada could be interpreted by some as providing for the exclusion of Metis rights.

Government has not provided any concrete safeguards in the treaty for Metis people. Yet democracy, Mr. Speaker, means protecting, protecting the rights and the interests of all, especially our minorities in society.

Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker, the problem with this Treaty is not what it provides for the LIA and the Inuit people, but rather it is what it implies about the Inuit Metis of my district and of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I am a Metis and I am very proud of who I am. I am descendant from the bloodline of Inuit and the English. The people in my communities and in my hometown are all very proud of our ancestral roots, our Aboriginal bloodline, and the vast majority of them are of Inuit descent. Mr. Speaker, these people wanted assurances, they wanted clarity and understanding from government as it related to this bill and this treaty, and they feel that they have not received that.

Mr. Speaker, while I support the principles of the bill that is before us, and I support a good claim for the Inuit people, for I am very proud of what they have accomplished. Today, Mr. Speaker, I stand for my own people, to protect their culture and their inherent rights. I stand in hope that one day we too will be free to govern in our own homeland.

Mr. Speaker, today I honour the struggles of people like Don Davis, Uncle Kenny Mesler, Guy Poole, Marie Rumbolt and Maude Russell. I applaud the work that they have done - Sandy Campbell, Don Kippenuck and many others. They, too, want to be free to live a life of dignity and respect like our Northern Inuit cousins and to pass on a proud legacy to future generations that is founded on a past that have been proclaimed by Metis people.

Mr. Speaker, this is very difficult for me today. It is very difficult because I, too, am part of a minority. I, too, am part of an Aboriginal group. I know first-hand the struggles it takes to get to where the Inuit people are today.

It is with great admiration and the greatest respect for the Inuit people of Labrador that I congratulate them on their land claim, but the Metis people of Labrador have to be heard. They have to be safeguarded. Their rights, too, have to be proclaimed as Aboriginal people in Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I will again move in the committee session of this House an amendment, and I will ask and plead the government's support on that amendment to ensure that the assurances and the safeguards are there for the 6,000 Metis people of Labrador. I can only hope that the government will be willing and will vote to support that amendment so that I, too, can stand proud with the Metis people of Labrador and support the accomplishments of our Inuit cousins and the tremendous strides that they have made over the years.

I ask hon. members to consider that, as we move through second reading of the House and into Committee. I will ask with the greatest sincerity for you to support that amendment to protect and to give assurances to another Aboriginal group in Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

That will conclude my comments, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you for the opportunity to stand in this House to participate in Bill 44. I know that my hon. colleague from Torngat Mountains will speak today with great pride for what his people have accomplished. I, too, hope that some day I will be able to stand to speak with great pride for the future accomplishments and land claim achievements of the Metis people of Labrador for whom I belong.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to speak to the bill which is long overdue. Mr. Speaker, it is pretty difficult to try and put twenty-seven years of anger and frustration into a twenty minute speech. Mr. Speaker, the Aboriginal people, the Inuit people, have struggled over the years. God knows the troubles and trials and tribulations that we had to overcome, and today we reached a stage that many of us thought would never come, a day when our bill to give us self-government would come before this very House.

Mr. Speaker, there are so many, many people who were involved that I need to recognize: our negotiators, Toby Andersen and Isabella Payne, who carried the majority of the negotiations in the last five or six years. Mr. Speaker, I saw Toby leave his wife Maxine and a young family behind time after time to travel away for a week, two weeks, to go to Ottawa, sometimes for almost a month. I saw Isabella Payne carry her little girl sometimes out to St. John's for negotiations. Mr. Speaker, they had a mandate given to them by the Inuit of Labrador to go out there and negotiate on their behalf.

I had the opportunity of working with a group of people, a site committee, to try and look after compensation and an apology as it related to the Inuit people who were relocated from Hebron and Okak, and I had the opportunity of working with Gary Baikie and (inaudible) and other people, and I hope the hurt that they endured, that at the end of this claim there will be reassurance given to them. Perhaps the anger and hurt that they had, there will be a healing process which they will be satisfied with.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the past members of the Labrador Inuit Association who had a big struggle. President William Barbour carried the file for many, many years, and I spent many days and nights on the phone with him trying to find ways in which we could find solutions as the problems arose. Mr. Speaker, I am also reminded of Bill Edmunds, a former President of the Labrador Inuit Association, my brother-in-law, who lost his life to cancer. I am glad to see his son Randy here today in the gallery, to know that his father's work - along with the other presidents - will now become a reality.

I want to thank Premier Brian Tobin, who travelled the Coast of Labrador, came back and, Mr. Speaker, he said: I am ashamed. He went on to say: Not ashamed of the people, but ashamed of what he saw: makeshift schools, no roads, and lack of housing.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Member for Exploits Valley, who I can say, beyond a shadow of a doubt, as a leader, did more to advance the Labrador Inuit Land Claims than any other politician in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: A leader, a Premier, who gave me, an Aboriginal person from the North Coast of Labrador, the opportunity to sit in his Cabinet as a Cabinet Minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, many times we faced devastation, and there were times when the Opposition, I am sure, could have asked questions; not that they knew the answers, because we, the government, did not know how to deal with the serious problems.

Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize a former Leader of the Opposition, the Member for Kilbride, who many, many times, rather than raise questions in this House, came over when he was Leader of the Opposition and said, if there was anything they could do to help us out, then he and his party would do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, that shows values, and to the member, for that, I say thank you.

Mr. Speaker, the greatest people God ever put on the face of this earth is our elders, and today I am glad to see some of our elders here in the House of Assembly. It was these people who built our foundation to build our communities, to make us believe in who we were, Aboriginal people, Labrador Inuit, and to carry on, not because of what they wanted for themselves but for future generations.

Mr. Speaker, if I could, I would support this bill in fond and loving memories of people like Frances Campbell from Rigolet, a trapper, a hunter, who lived off the land. I support this bill in memory of Uncle Bill Andersen, who founded the Combined Councils on the North Coast of Labrador, that grew into the Combined Councils today, because he believed that smaller communities should never, ever, be left out. It is a bit ironic that, after Uncle Bill passed away, his wife gave me his necktie. I can say with great pride today that I wear his tie in the House of Assembly and thank him - because I know he is listening - for the tremendous work he did. People like Aunt Susie Andersen of Makkovik, Labrador, when there were no doctors and nurses on the North Coast of Labrador, a midwife, who at times travelled in blizzard conditions to go and assist a mother who was about to deliver a baby. She delivered over fifty and never lost one. I see people from Hopedale, like Uncle Chesley and Aunt Jessie Flowers, who opened their doors time after time after time to people travelling through, and, when people thought the last bit of food was gone, a plate was put on the table to feed someone else who came along and a bed was done for them.

Mr. Speaker, Uncle George Sheppard of Postville who, at the age of eighty-two years old, walked in snowshoes from Postville to Makkovik to raise funds for the children at the Janeway hospital. I remember Jerry Sillett, an Inuit of Nain, the first one to get elected, who was out in St. John's on a dialysis machine. Mr. Sillett passed away some years ago, but it came Christmastime, very dear to the Aboriginal people, to the Inuit, he wanted to go home and the doctors would not let him. On this particular morning, as we sat in a room at the Health Sciences, Mr. Sillett was crying as the doctors told him he could not go home. The doctor said: Mr. Sillett, if you return to Nain, you could probably die. In his own broken English language, he looked at the doctor and said: If I die in Nain, I die at home and I will die happy.

I want to thank Beatrice Watts, who passed away earlier this year, for the tremendous amount of work she did to ensure that all people, regardless of where you live, especially on the North Coast of Labrador, were entitled to a good education.

Mr. Speaker, to the Inuit women, I hope that this agreement brings forward a lot of answers for them; because, if there is a bunch of women in this Province and in this country who have gone through hurt, despair and neglect, it is the Inuit women and I wish them all the best.

Mr. Speaker, we have a lot of youth in our gallery here today, who have come here, and their future looks very bright. As they go out and get their education, they will play a part in the new government, that we have a bright future. I will say to them, work hard for your people. If you make mistakes and say things, then take the time to correct them, because if you do not correct the mistakes of the past you can never build a brighter future.

Mr. Speaker, let me be a perfect example of that. On Thursday, I stood in this House and the Minister of Tourism who was bringing forward a bill, I attacked him and his bill, and I said things about the Opposition, even some members on my side of the House, because I was angry at what had happened in the past, but that was wrong, Mr. Speaker, and today I withdraw these remarks. I will say to the minister that my concerns are still there, and when he rises in the House tomorrow or the day after to address his bill, rather than condemn him, I will stand here and ask questions on behalf of the people I represent.

Mr. Speaker, when this bill goes through, I want to remind the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the NDP that it is not going to be easy. We do not just give the Labrador Inuit a land claims deal. We still have to shoulder a lot of the problems that need to be fixed, and this government, and this Opposition working with them, I am sure that we can provide a better future.

Mr. Speaker, I know today where the heart of my colleague from Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair is, as she talks of people. It is very difficult, and I am sure that she, in her own mind, made her decision to stand with her people. I can say to them that, for the Member for Lake Melville, I know that he is torn in many ways; because, as the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, the majority of her people in her riding are Metis. The Member for Lake Melville has a large number of people who are Metis, a large number who are Innu, a large number who are Inuit. I am sure that he has grappled with himself many times. I can say to you, Member, that whatever decision you make, whether it is yes or no, I can say to you that I will fully respect your decision.

Mr. Speaker, it has been a struggle, there is no question. Someone once said: Until a person or a people lose their freedom do they really know what it means. The Aboriginal people, the Inuit on the North Coast of Labrador, struggle. There were times when we questioned the provincial and the federal government; and, yes, there were many times when we questioned ourselves.

For me, as an Aboriginal born on the North Coast of Labrador, I never thought I would see the day when I would be in a government that would do the final deal with the Labrador Inuit Association, which we initialed in August 2003. I never thought that I would be the person who was appointed to the position of Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs. Today, to see this happen, I can say it is a great day. It is a day that we longed for many, many, many times. The anger and hurt we felt along the way, I hope that this Agreement brings about a change to that. I can say to the members of the Labrador Inuit Association, unless we work together to make this deal work, and if we do not work together, and if we do not make good choices, then we will have to answer to ourselves as Inuit people.

Mr. Speaker, again, a great day. I can say to President Todd Russell of the Labrador Metis Nation, I have talked with the Labrador Inuit Association and they have assured me that, should the federal government recognize their claim, the Labrador Inuit Association will negotiate an overlap agreement with them. I can say that as the Member for Torngat Mountains, I say this in the House of Assembly today, and should they - and I hope they will - get their right for a claim, then I will personally ask my association, which I am a member of, to honour that commitment and to go and negotiate with them.

Mr. Speaker, it is a wonderful day, today, for us as Inuit people. It is a start of a new life. We had our ups and downs but we stood firm and we stood tall. Mr. Speaker, through it all, we believed that there was a better tomorrow, and I believe the passing of this bill will provide that better tomorrow.

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, if I could close off and quote the words of a song that one of our seniors, Uncle Sid Dicker, who passed away some years ago, wrote in a song, and I say this because the Labrador Inuit are going to survive, and we will build a brighter future. We went through all the hard times, and I hope that the better times are ahead. Mr. Speaker, he wrote in his song: There is not much more to say, but I know we are here to stay, to fish, trap and hunt on this great shore, and most of all to me, is to have the liberty, to be a son of Northern Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today proud to support this bill, and not only to support this bill but to ask that God would bless the Inuit on the North Coast of Labrador, and the Inuit of Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

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

It is indeed a pleasure for me to sit in this hon. House of Assembly today and to listen with such passion as I listened to the Member for Torngat Mountains, who I know very well, as he speaks for his people, he speaks for his district, and he speaks for the future of the Inuit people of Labrador.

I want to say first, Mr. Speaker, that I also want to take an opportunity here in this hon. House to congratulate President William Andersen, the negotiating team and your board of directors, for thirty years of struggle. I can tell you that I have watched the Labrador Inuit, many issues coming to the forefront, many trials and tribulations. I was particularly blessed to have had the unique opportunity to have worked on the North Coast of Labrador for some twenty-five years. I have worked in every community on the North Coast of Labrador and I know most of the people who live there. I know of their communities. I know of their trials and their tribulations.

I remember starting work in 1977 and landing in Makkovik, there was no airstrip. There were many communities, at that time, that did not have airstrips. I recognize Senator Bill Rompkey who, certainly, was a key player in ensuring that airstrips was a key piece of infrastructure that came to the North Coast of Labrador and, indeed, all communities on the Coast of Labrador at that time.

Mr. Speaker, today is indeed an historic day for the Labrador Inuit, and as our Premier said this morning in a press conference: It is a day that our government will ratify this piece of legislation but it is a landmark in that it gives the Labrador Inuit Association the certainty to move forward, the certainty to provide with self-government in the new territory, in the new part of Labrador, Nunatsiavut. It gives William Andersen and the Inuit people the opportunity to move forward as we discuss and talk about their futures for their children and their grandchildren.

This agreement, Mr. Speaker, will enable Labrador Inuit to exercise greater autonomy and to manage their own affairs; something that they have wanted to do for the past thirty years. The Inuit people of Labrador have been in Labrador since time immemorial and have a very rich history in culture which makes that part of our Province so unique. As I say to the people of the Province today, the Inuit culture, the Innu culture and the Metis culture is something that we are very proud of in Labrador.

William Andersen III said that today is a significant day, not only for the Inuit of Labrador but for the people of the Province and, indeed, the country. He is indeed right, Mr. Speaker. I must say democracy has worked, 77 per cent of the Inuit people of Labrador have sanctioned this agreement and have given their leadership the approval to move it forward.

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that indeed this has to be a great day for the Inuit of Labrador and I am very pleased to be the Member for Lake Melville, to stand in this hon. House and to congratulate the Member for Torngat Mountains, the President of the Labrador Inuit Association and the Board of Directors as they move this process forward into another stage; a stage which will take it to the federal government and a stage in which they will need, again, to get approval at that level to make it all happen.

As I think about this, Mr. Speaker, over the years I have met many of the Inuit leaders and I want to also recognize the work that was done in the early years by Mr. Bill Edmunds, who was certainly - as the Member for Torngat Mountains said earlier - a driving force to bring the Inuit of Northern Labrador together with one voice to deal with the many, many issues that they had to deal with at that time and in an environment that was harsh. It was not easy to live on the North Coast of Labrador, but the Inuit of Labrador have shown great perseverance over the years.

I will say that another good friend of mine, who is not here today and someone whom I mentored for many years when I got to know him, Mr. Sam Metcalfe, who took - I remember the trip that myself and Lawrence O'Brien took with him on my first time to Hebron. As he took us through the village, or what was left of the village of Hebron, he told us about the history of the Inuit people and how those people and that community were moved - were gathered into the church and told that they had to leave their community and to settle elsewhere. He told me about where his father had been buried, where his house was. It was a very, very touching time for me and I can tell you, it was a very touching time for the Member of Parliament, Lawrence O'Brien, who was also with me. It was a great experience and it is one that I will never forget. I certainly gained a lot of respect for the history and the culture of the Inuit people of Labrador because of him and the knowledge I gained from him in the many conversations I had with him over the years.

I also want to talk for just a brief minute, Mr. Speaker, to recognize the work that Beatrice Watts did for the Inuit people of Labrador; a lady who championed the culture and the language of the Inuit people. I say here today, we have another lady in our presence who has done the same thing, a much younger lady. I recognize Zippie Nochasak and her passion to protect the Inuit language. Her and I have had many conversations of her want to ensure that the unique language of the Inuit people of Labrador is protected into the future.

Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a great day for the Inuit of Labrador. It is a great day for Labrador. It is a great day for our Province and indeed, our nation. I said in a press release this weekend that I believe the final agreement is a step forward for the Labrador Inuit, a step forward for Labrador and a step forward for our nation. It is in keeping with our government's plan to work with our Aboriginal counterparts toward the realization that their dream of self-reliance will come true.

The Labrador Inuit have waited nearly three decades for the acceptance, approval and ratification of this agreement. While it will need the approval of the federal parliament, the passing of this legislation will put the Labrador Inuit one step closer to the ratification of an agreement, and I believe that to be a positive step, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud, as the Member for Lake Melville, that I have the largest Aboriginal population of any member in this hon. House of Assembly and of any district. Approximately 38 per cent of the Labrador Inuit membership reside in my district. I must represent all of the Aboriginal interests: the Innu, the Inuit, and indeed the Metis, who I believe also have a legitimate claim to Labrador and must be recognized into the future with that claim.

I am disappointed that the federal government has yet to recognize the claim of the Metis in Labrador, but I received assurances from our Premier, from our Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, I have had extensive discussions with our Member of Parliament, and I will say that I was pleased that the Member of Parliament in Labrador, in discussions I had with him lately, this morning, feels that this particular piece of legislation, as it moves to the federal House of Commons, will be passed, and he assured me that he is supporting the Labrador Inuit as they move into that process.

Again, I want to say congratulations to all concerned. I feel good to sit in this hon. House today with so many of my fellow Labradorians as we ratify this agreement, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say a couple of words here today about the Innu Land Claim, another very important claim that must be ratified, it must be worked out, and I, certainly as the Member for Lake Melville, plan on working hard with the President of the Innu Nation, Mr. Ben Michel, and the Innu Nation membership as we move that particular claim forward; another very important step for another very important Aboriginal group in Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

I want to talk about the Metis. I want to talk about the 6,000 people in Labrador who are Aboriginal, who come from a rich Aboriginal ancestry. I want to say that many of them in my district - and over this past weekend I had the opportunity to speak to many of them, through e-mail and through telephone conversations - they have a major concern, as the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair alluded to earlier.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, I feel that the Labrador Metis need to move their claim forward with the federal government. I certainly impress upon the federal minister to take a more active approach, and to certainly push and move the negotiations of the Labrador Metis into a new phase. They, too, have been twelve years struggling for what they believe to be their right as Aboriginal people. We, as a government, must recognize that the Metis are Labradorians who live in Labrador - they are not going (inaudible) - and we have an obligation to ensure that they, too, receive the benefits that other Aboriginal groups and organizations receive in this country, and indeed this Province.

I want to assure Todd Russell and the directors of the Labrador Metis Nation that I will, wherever possible, champion their cause because I believe they have a legitimate right. When I have Metis people in my district coming in, wanting assistance for education, health care, housing, these are the real issues that the Metis people want clarity to. Although we received assurances from Justice and other officials, I find it a little bit disconcerting for me here today wondering whether the Metis will have that into the future.

Mr. Speaker, this is a great day for Labrador and for the Inuit of Labrador. I will say that, as a non-Aboriginal who went to Labrador when I was five years old, I have grown up with many of the Aboriginal people there. I have learned much about their culture and their heritage. That is what makes Labrador so unique and so great. It is because of this unique culture and heritage. I hope, as we move forward, that this particular agreement for the Inuit will provide for their children and for their great-grandchildren, and for their great-great-grandchildren, a means of self-reliance through self-government to form their own destiny, because that is what the leadership wanted when Bill Edmunds and those other leaders started the Labrador Inuit Association some years ago.

Mr. Speaker, I saw a lot of passion here today, and I want to say I appreciate the words of the Member for Torngat Mountains, whom I have a great respect for and who has always stood up for his people in this hon. House. Again, my sincere congratulations to you, to your people, to your membership and to your leadership on this historic event in this hon. House this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for this great opportunity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to rise on this historic occasion, to have a few words to say about the recent Land Claims Agreement.

Mr. Speaker, as MHA for a part of Labrador, Labrador West, I certainly do not have the number of Aboriginal people or Metis people in my riding; however, there are a number of LIA members who took part in the recent vote that ratified the Land Claims Agreement. I am proud to speak here on their behalf and acknowledge William Andersen III, the negotiators for the LIA, and the various levels of government in reaching a conclusion that is acceptable to all parties.

I would also like to acknowledge the presence of William Rompkey, Senator Bill, who certainly is no stranger to Labrador and has spent a great deal of his time over many, many years dealing with all residents of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say again that this is an historic occasion. While this Agreement may have been thirty years plus in the making, I say that is a very small, short period of time - maybe too long to reach an agreement, but certainly a short period of time - when we compare it to the number of years and centuries that the Aboriginal people, the Inuit, have occupied Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I think it shows clearly to everyone that negotiating for over thirty years to reach where we are today demonstrates the passion that the Inuit people have for their communities, the patience that they have, and the self-preservation. All of these things, Mr. Speaker, are not only required to reach a satisfactory set of negotiations, but they are also required to live and survive in the areas of Labrador that, due to weather and other severe things that we have to deal with, they are an important part of your life in being able to live and survive for centuries and centuries in a harsh environment. That patience and determination have served them well during the past thirty years, in particular, as they sought to get what they deserve for their people during that period of time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that while this is an historic event, it is not the be-all and end-all. I am sure that the Inuit will agree, that as we go forward and as they move forward with their agenda, through self-government, that there will be problems that will come up that are not anticipated today. Again, as the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi said, we have to recognize that there may be things that have to be dealt with that are unforeseen today, and there is no way they can be predictable in order to make this work as effectively as it can.

Mr. Speaker, I have sat in the House of Assembly here for almost six years now, and during that time I have had many occasions to listen to the Member for Torngat, as time after time he rose in the House of Assembly and put forward, to members of the House and to the people of the Province, the plight, the hardships, the difficulties, that people in his area, on the North Coast of Labrador, had to deal with, problems that did not exist in other parts of our Province, and things that were of need that many people in our Province just take for granted as a day-to-day occurrence.

I can say in all honesty, Mr. Speaker, that I certainly appreciated talking to the Member for Torngat, and listening to him as he defended and put forward the case for the people in his district, and things that they needed. You can tell, everybody in the House today and whoever is watching on television, that when the member rises and speaks about the North Coast of Labrador, it doesn't just come from here and reading words on paper, it come from the heart and everybody who listens can feel that and know that when he is speaking for them he is, indeed, doing just that, speaking for them and not just of them or about them. I congratulate the member on all of his hard work over the years since I have known him in the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, hopefully the Inuit people will have a brighter tomorrow and hopefully this will make a great deal of difference in their future. I know, as a Member of the House of Assembly, as a member of the New Democratic Party, that we will support them in every way that we can and, if there is any help that is needed from us, then we will certainly rise to the occasion and do what is necessary to make sure that the agreement that was negotiated in good faith during the past number of years, indeed does what it is intended to do and what it is supposed to deliver to the people of the North Coast.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to conclude by saying that, with regards to the Metis land claims, that it will take place, I certainly hope. I know we have had discussions, as well, with the President of the LIA that there is, from their perspective, nothing in here which intentionally or that they see will infringe upon the rights of the Metis Nation. I know that as time goes forward, whatever support may be needed by the Metis Nation in assisting them get a land claims agreement with governments, that the Inuit people will certainly work with them, as the Member for Torngat has already announced.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I congratulate all levels of government and the LIA for their perseverance over the years to finally have a dream come true of getting in a position where they can have self-government and better able to look after the needs of their people.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. minister speaks now he will close the debate on Bill 44.

The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me take a few moments in concluding debate on second reading, to thank all of my colleagues, on both sides of the House, who took part in this very historic debate here today.

I want to especially thank our colleague from Torngat Mountains for the passion and emotion that we could feel in the tremendous words he had to offer to this moment here today. I thank all hon. members. I think everybody spoke with passion. They spoke their beliefs as they see them, and I think all of us recognize the history of the moment. This is not just some other piece of legislation. This is a treaty between the Aboriginal Inuit of Labrador, the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. This moment has never happened in our history before. This will be things that you can tell your children and grandchildren that you participated in. So, for all of us who have had anything to do with this moment, it is a tremendous historic moment.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to take another moment before we move to the next stage of this bill to make a comment on an amendment that may be put before us in committee. What I have to say is this, even if we agreed with every single iota of the amendment, as a government, even if that were the case - and I believe that the amendment only says in different language what is already in the agreement. You know, it does not say anymore than that - but even if we agreed with every single iota, the fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that this government does not have the right to unilaterally make changes to a tripartite agreement.

This agreement is a tripartite agreement, Mr. Speaker, between the Labrador Inuit Association, between the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. There are only two ways that any amendment can be made to this agreement. One is by consent, and I have no reason to believe that the LIA or the Government of Canada have consented to this proposed amendment. It is a tripartite agreement and I have no evidence before me or before this House that any agreement has been reached with the other parties.

The second way that this agreement can be amended, Mr. Speaker, is if some other aggrieved Aboriginal group feel that their rights have been impaired on the Labrador Inuit Lands, there is a provision in the agreement to go to court and have an independent arbitrator, a court - to have a court decide whether in fact that is correct. Now, if a court of competent jurisdiction says: yes, some other Aboriginal group who has a claim to Aboriginal land on the Labrador Inuit Land, yes you have been injured. Then that decision automatically triggers an amendment.

So, these are the only two ways, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation can be amended. One would be by agreement of all parties to it, and I do not know that to be the case. Secondly, would be if a court of competent jurisdiction found that another Aboriginal group had in fact been injured by this agreement. No other way. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because this is a treaty. This is not just a piece of legislation. This is a treaty, something magic and historic that has never taken place in our Province before. It has taken place in other provinces in the country but not in this Province, Mr. Speaker, and that has to be recognized.

A couple of more matters I would like to address, Mr. Speaker, on that is simply this. I have informed this hon. House in previous occasions that we have asked our legal officials to look at this legislation and the agreement that it purports to put into effect. On every time we have done that, Mr. Speaker, we have been advised that this legislation does not extinguish the Aboriginal right of any other Aboriginal peoples in the Labrador Inuit Lands Area. As a matter of law, Mr. Speaker, we would have to say that the agreement cannot validly extinguish Aboriginal rights of any distinct Aboriginal groups who are not party to it. The agreement explicitly contemplates the possibility that other Aboriginal groups might also come to an agreement. However, the fact of Aboriginal ancestry is not in itself sufficient to support a claim to Aboriginal rights and title.

Members of the House should know and understand that the criteria for Aboriginal rights and title was laid out by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Baker Lake case. Let me remind the House what they are, and these are the criteria that the Government of Canada, in analyzing the claim of any other Aboriginal group, whether they are in Labrador or on the Island, or whether they are on the Grey Islands out in White Bay, it does not matter where they are, this is the criteria that the Government of Canada has to - this is the test that any group who wants to make the claim for title has to meet. This is it. Let me remind the House what it is.

This is the test that the Labrador Inuit Association passed when they submitted their claim back in the 1970s. First of all - this is the Baker Lake test. The Labrador Inuit had demonstrated that they were an organized society which had exclusively occupied a specific territory - referred to in this agreement as the Labrador Inuit Land Claim area - at the time of the assertion of European sovereignty and have continued to use and occupy this territory to the present day.

Now, that is the Baker Lake test as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada that must be met by any Aboriginal group in this country, including an Aboriginal group in Labrador, if they are to have success in making their case. Once the federal government stats this test up against the group, and if they decide they passed that test, they inform the province. Then the Province does its own due diligence to determine whether or not we agree with that. For example, the Government of Canada ruled that the Nunavut Inuit in Northern Quebec met the Baker Lake test. We said they did not, because we did not agree that they had met the Baker Lake test for territory in Labrador. As a result of our due diligence, that claim did not proceed. The Government of Canada had to find another way to settle with that particular group.

So, it is not automatic, Mr. Speaker. There is a set of criteria. The group has to make the argument and present the evidence that they have met that criteria. The Labrador Inuit Association had to do that, the Labrador Innu had to do that, and the Labrador Metis Nation will have to do that if they are going to successfully advance a claim.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to say again that my friend, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, has been in this House long enough to know that a tripartite agreement cannot be unilaterally amendment by one party to it. It can only be amended if all three parties agree, and we have no evidence of that having taken place.

Mr. Speaker, having -

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: What is wrong?

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: I am answering the question now. I say to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, there was only once today that there was any hint of partisanship creeping into this debate, and it did not come from this member.

Mr. Speaker, having answered those questions, which a minister is expected to do when he rises to close debate, I now move second reading.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 44, An Act To Ratify And Give The Force Of Law To The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Ratify And Give The Force Of Law To The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement. (Bill 44)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time. When shall the said bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Ratify And Give The Force Of Law To The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 44)

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 44, An Act To Ratify And Give The Force Of Law To The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself in a Committee of the Whole House on Bill 44.

Is it the pleasure of the House that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

A bill, "An Act To Ratify And Give The Force Of Law To The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement." (Bill 44)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Clause 1.

Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Clause 2.

Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 2 is carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

CHAIR: Would the Committee like to go clause-by-clause, or if there is one -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Absolutely.

Clause 3.

Shall clause 3 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 3 is carried.

On motion, clause 3 carried.

CLERK: Clause 4.

CHAIR: Clause 4.

Shall clause 4 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 4 is carried.

On motion, clause 4 carried.

CLERK: Clause 5.

CHAIR: Shall clause 5 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 5 is carried.

On motion, clause 5 carried.

CLERK: Clause 6.

CHAIR: Shall clause 6 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 6 is carried.

On motion, clause 6 carried.

CLERK: Clause 7.

CHAIR: Shall clause 7 carry?

The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I stand to speak with regard to clause 7, and to propose an amendment. This amendment is moved by myself, and it is seconded by the Member for Exploits, the Leader of the Opposition. I could ask the Table to have a look at it now if you wish.

CHAIR: The Chair understands from conversation around the Table that it is advisable for the Committee to take a brief recess to look at the amendment. With that, the Committee will take a temporary recess, to return when the Chair and the Table make a decision.

The House is in recess.

Recess

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

CLERK: Clause 7.

CHAIR: Shall clause 7 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'?

Clause 7 is carried.

On motion, clause 7 carried.

The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have an amendment that I would like to propose under Bill 44, section 7.1. I understand from your consultation with legal council and the Table that the amendment is in order. I will now proceed to read the amendment into the record.

"7.1 Notwithstanding anything in section 7 - as we have just voted on - and for greater certainty, the provisions of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement and the provisions of this Act are without prejudice to:

"(a) the aboriginal rights of any other aboriginal peoples based on traditional use and occupancy of lands in Labrador, whether partially or wholly within the Labrador Inuit Claims Area; and

("b) their negotiation of a land claims settlement in respect thereof."

Mr. Chairman, the minister spoke in closing debate in second reading of the bill and he said that there is a test that the Labrador Metis and any Aboriginal group must meet in order to have title. Mr. Chairman, that is a challenge, no doubt, that the Labrador Metis people have embarked upon with the federal government, and is proceeding, Mr. Chair, with regard to that claim and title. What we are doing here today, Mr. Chair - and questions were asked of the minister in the House earlier in the week - is to give the assurances and the clarity to the Labrador Métis people that their land claim, if it was to be accepted by the federal government, would not be prejudice by any statements, comments or terms used within the LIA Agreement. Now, the minister in the House of Assembly, in responding to these questions, basically made comments almost identical, if not similar, to what is being proposed in section 7.1 as an amendment to the actual legislation.

Now, Mr. Chair, I defer to the minister with regards to his comments, that this is an amendment to the treaty. I disagree. It is not an amendment to any treaty, to the LIA treaty that has been negotiated in a tripartite fashion with the provincial or the federal government. In fact, Mr. Chair, it is an amendment to the legislation that can only be voted on by the forty-eight members in this Legislature to ratify that very treaty. And, Mr. Chair, the amendment that I moved and was seconded by the Member for Exploits and the Leader of the Opposition, is to do just that.

Mr. Chair, the purpose of me moving this motion today, or this amendment I should say, it is meant to address the hundreds if not thousands of Labrador Métis members who reside in the Upper Lake Melville area and the Sandwich Bay area and who have historic and continued use and occupancy within the Labrador Inuit Lands Claims Area, but living outside the Labrador Inuit Lands as they pertain to the actual agreement.

Mr. Chair, since they are included within the definition of Inuit for the purposes of the LIA Claims Agreement, their interest, individually and as part of a distinct society collectively, represented by the Labrador Métis nation might be interpreted as being extinguished without their participation or consent. Mr. Chair, this clause prevents the interpretation from being validly made and in the same way that the provisions of the Labrador Inuit Land Claim Agreement protect the interests of the Nunavut, Inuit and the Inn.

As I stated in my comments earlier today, that protection is afforded to those other Inuit groups and to the Innu, Mr. Chair, but it does not give the same degree of protection and clarity to any claim that could be accepted or possibly negotiated for the Labrador Metis people.

Mr. Speaker, in two of the four Inuit claim agreements to date, and in all agreements involving Indian claims, agreements within a jurisdiction but not including all Indians, it has been the constant practice of lifting out particular communities and their members. Mr. Speaker, that, as I said, has not been done with regard to the Labrador Metis. The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement is the only agreement to date to depart from this precedent, again underlining the presumption of some that it is truly the last Inuit claim to be settled in Canada. This cannot, of course, be accepted, as the Labrador Metis Nation claim has yet to be decided upon, and has also, with constant federal encouragement, been advanced as an Inuit descend claim. I think everyone in the House of Assembly knows that. Mr. Speaker, that is the very context of what is causing the debate and lending to the insecurities that have been expressed by the Labrador Metis Nation thus far.

Mr. Speaker, I feel that this amendment's only purpose, really, would be to put into legislation the words, the commitments, and the validations that have already been expressed in the Legislature by the hon. minister himself on several occasions, and that perspective of the government, Mr. Speaker. Whereby this legislation is and will be enacted and voted on in this Assembly, in this Chamber, by the forty-eight members who are here, and whereby it does not, Mr. Speaker, impact upon the contacts, the content, or the negotiated and voted upon context, of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement, I see absolutely no reason why the amendment could not be accepted by government and all members of the Legislature, voted upon, Mr. Speaker, just to give the security, just to give the assurances and the clarity to another Aboriginal group in Labrador.

It is none of our intention, I am sure, Mr. Speaker, in this Legislature today, to do anything that could prejudice against any other Aboriginal group in this Province. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I think it is all our intentions to do what is completely opposite of that. Our intention is only to foster and move forward with land claims settlements that are in the best interests of all of our Aboriginal people. Mr. Speaker, in ratifying and voting and giving that honour to any Aboriginal group in this Province, I would not want it done with prejudice to any other group.

I ask my hon. colleagues in this House of Assembly today to give serious consideration to this amendment that I have proposed. Please, I ask you to do that, and I ask you to vote to give the greatest accuracy and the greatest clarity that we can give to Metis people in Labrador at this present time without at all impacting upon that which has been ratified, or about to be ratified, for the Labrador Inuit peoples of Labrador.

I think that our ability to do that, Mr. Chair, is within this Legislature. It lies with the forty-eight members who are here. I listened earlier to the Member for Lake Melville, when he talked about supporting the Metis people of Labrador and doing what he could to move forward their cause. I hope today that he will support this amendment and that he will encourage his government, whom he is a part of, to support this amendment and to do what is fair and right and just for all of our Aboriginal people, without prejudice to any of them but only to serve them better and for them to serve their people better.

I ask that all members give that their greatest consideration and I welcome the comments of my colleagues in this House of Assembly on this amendment today.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Before I recognize the Government House Leader, the Chair has consulted with the Table officers and has decided, notwithstanding the directives in Marleau and Montpetit, page 666, the Chair rules that the form of the amendment is in order and that the debate should certainly continue.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This is a minor but an important point before my colleague, the Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs, deals with the amendment put forward by my colleague, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

I believe we need an agreement, because normally the House closes, for people who are watching or are in the gallery, at 5:30 p.m. If someone does not put a motion forward, it automatically recesses according to our rules. I just want to be clear with all members that we do have agreement to stop the clock at 5:30 p.m. to proceed with the debate and let it continue and ensue until its natural conclusion.

With that, Mr. Chairman, we do have agreement as noted by the Opposition House Leader and as indicated by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, and for that I thank them.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The Chair understands there is an agreement, as the Government House Leader states, and, with that, the clock will stop at 5:30 p.m.

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like rise in support of the amendment just presented by my colleague from Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. This is an important amendment because of the things that have been said earlier. The Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair very passionately and eloquently spoke about the reasons why the amendment is being brought forward, in her earlier speech, in recognizing the work and efforts of Todd Russell and others of the Labrador Metis Nation. It is not a frivolous amendment. Ordinarily, I think it would be regarded as a friendly amendment - ordinarily. I recognize that this may not be ordinary circumstances because we are dealing with what essentially is a constitutional issue, a treaty, and other parties are involved.

I want to advise the House as to why I do not think it is a frivolous amendment, because the Labrador Metis Nation, in anticipation and concern about what the effect of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement might have on their cause, engaged the services of a Professor of Law of the University of Ottawa, Bradford W. Morse, who wrote them an extensive opinion on the implications of the final version of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement dated December of last year. After an extensive review of the Agreement, he concluded as follows, and I will read it out because I think it is important how he phrased this, having conducted his analysis: As a result, it does appear that the Labrador Metis Nation has good reason to be concerned about the implications of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement for the Labrador Metis Nation.

Then he goes on to say: At the very least, the Labrador Metis Nation would be wise to seek clarification and crystal-clear reassurance from both governments that the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement does not, in fact, have the negative impacts that have been identified above.

Then he says: Even if the intention of all three parties may not have been to abrogate or derogate from the section 35 rights of the Labrador Metis Nation and its members, in the final analysis what will count is how the agreement will be interpreted in the future by the federal, provincial and the Nunatsiavut governments and ultimately by the Canadian courts.

I guess it is in that spirit, Mr. Chairman, that the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair puts forth this amendment which, in my view, is not an amendment to the agreement but rather, perhaps, a statement of law that the agreement and the act "...are without prejudice to: (a) the aboriginal rights of any other aboriginal peoples based on traditional use and occupancy of lands in Labrador, whether partially or wholly within the Labrador Inuit Claims Area; and (b) their negotiation of a land claims settlement in respect thereof."

I think that seems to reflect the sentiments expressed by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs earlier today. I, personally, do not believe that the passage of this amendment to the act would have any negative effect on the Agreement itself, what is being proposed and what we are hoping to accomplish today, and it would give some comfort to the very sincere concerns raised by the Labrador Metis Nation and spoken about so passionately and eloquently today by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair and the Member for Lake Melville, who expressed similar concerns about the desire of the Labrador Metis people to have the same recognition, the same respect and dignity and ability to negotiate an agreement as have the LIA.

Obviously, we recognize the claim of the Metis Nation will be subject to whatever legal tests the Supreme Court of Canada - if it comes to that - would be required to consider, whether it be the Baker Lake case, as was mentioned, or whether it be the Powley decision or any other decision, or maybe it will be the Labrador Metis Nation decision that will ultimately decide whether the claim is accepted or not. I do not think we should prejudge that, but, at the same time, I think if the government sentiments are that the sentiment that is contained in here, that the statement as contained in here, is correct, then I do not see why they should not support that legislation. Even if, Mr. Chairman - and I do know what my colleagues opposite will do in respect to this amendment - they feel for some reason they cannot support the amendment, for some legal or other reasons having to do with other parties or the Government of Canada, or not wanting to fool around with something that is already tripartite, I do not see why the minister cannot give the kind of - I go back to quoting Professor Morse - the kind of clarification and crystal-clear reassurance that is being sought here by an amendment to the legislation by, in fact, saying through the House that they do not consider that the provisions of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement and the act, act as a prejudice to the items listed in (a) and (b).

Even if the government does not support this legislation, and my early indication is that they may not, I think it would be in the best interest of everybody in the Province, both the Inuit and the Metis and everyone else, that this debate be concluded without rancor and without any sense that the claims of one group are acting to the prejudice of the other. I do not think the LIA leadership want to see that happen; nor do the Labrador Metis Nation wish to feel that the success of the Labrador Inuit Association in reaching this agreement is going to act to the prejudice of them.

I would encourage all hon. members to consider seriously the amendment, and I would urge the government to support it, but if the government feels that it cannot, as a government, then I would urge that the minister, on behalf of the government, provide the kind of clarity that Professor Morse suggested was necessary to give the LIA the kind of assurance that I believe it needs to feel that they have not been negatively affected by what is happening here today, which I believe is such a wonderful and positive thing for all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and obviously, in particular, for the Labrador Inuit.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and the Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am not going to impose on the time of the Committee by repeating the arguments that I put forward when I closed debate on second reading. Members on both sides of the House clearly heard my arguments. I think they were valid then and I think they are valid now. There are just a couple of things I would like to say.

I do not agree with my colleagues who say that by accepting an amendment to this bill we are not accepting an amendment to the agreement that is attached to it. What does the bill do? It says: An Act To Ratify And Give The Force Of Law To The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement. Included in that Land Claims Agreement is a section which says that it is the view of all parties to the agreement that this agreement only affects the rights of the Inuit people of Labrador. So, if we amend the legislation to say something else without the agreement of those who signed off on this, it would seem to me, by logical extension, that we have amended the agreement.

Now, I do not disagree with the amendment. I agree. The Land Claims Agreement and the provisions of this act are without prejudice to other Aboriginal groups that might have rights in Labrador. We have said that. I have said that in this House in a ministerial statement. I said it introducing the bill today. All I am saying is - and I am prepared to give an undertaking to this effect that we would, as a government, discuss this possible approach with the LIA and with the Government of Canada. I do not see anything wrong with that, but to agree to amend the legislation that enforces the agreement unilaterally on our own - and I understand, I had an opportunity to speak to the LIA during the break. I understand that they do not support this happening. It could only happen if they were to be supportive of it. To ask us to do it unilaterally, I cannot see how we could do that, but having said that, in the interest of co-operation and in the interest of being fair, I would be prepared to discuss that possibility with the other parties. To go any further than give that kind of an undertaking at this point in time, I think would be highly inappropriate.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I do not particularly want to prolong this particular debate either, other than I will tell you one thing. What we are now doing on which should have been clearly and cleanly a day of celebration, a landmark day in the Province, is we are into a circumstance that arises when the opportunities are not given enough in advance to have a look at the legislation.

Let me just take a couple of minutes to talk because I, as well, fully and totally disagree with the so-called logical extension that the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Aboriginal Affairs just put forward. I would invite the Premier to stand and give his interpretation of it. What we have, Mr. Chairman, is this. We have a bill before us, that I described earlier today, just laid on the table today. The first time members opposite have seen it in this form. They had not seen it until it appeared on the table this afternoon at 1:30. As a matter of fact, the version that was sent to me on Friday was this one, very different, just a draft of part of this. Very different. You can tell by just looking at it now.

Mr. Chairman, a serious point to make, and I do not intend to belabour this, and it is up to the government whether they support the amendment or not because you can take the argument that the minister just made which says if it reflects everything that I believe in and everything that I feel then it cannot possibly have any adverse or negative impact on what we are going to pass here today. But, if he gives an undertaking that says: Oh, I will discuss it with somebody later on. Then it is too bad. The barn door is closed, the horse has already gone. Because if this Legislature votes for it just like it is today and it has not been amended, than what arguments are we going to hear in the Parliament of Canada when it is debated? We are going to hear exactly what he just said: Oh, it has already been approved in the Legislature in Newfoundland and Labrador, we cannot amend it, and the LIA have already looked at it. Two out of three have already voted for it. That means that the Parliament of Canada becomes the proverbial rubber stamp. It means you are going to send up a piece of legislation that nobody - why bother to read it? Why bother to have the debate? Why bother to stand up and do anything? Why not just throw it on the Table in the Parliament of Canada and tell people: you have no choice folks, vote on it. No point in talking about it, no point in talking about your concerns. You cannot possibly amend it.

It is in three different sections, Mr. Chairman, and I will take the time to go through it from this point of view. There is the front section. There is a preamble. I guess you could argue it is in four sections. Nobody suggested any amendment to the preamble. There is a Part I that talks about the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement. Let me just read section 3, which nobody on this side proposed an amendment to. Section 3(1) says, "The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement is a treaty and a land claims agreement within the meaning of sections 25 and 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982." No one is disagreeing with that. We are going to vote on that. By the way, we have already voted. We have passed it. This Legislature has already passed that. The forty-seven members here entitled to vote, other than the Chair, have agreed. That is now the law, by the way, in Newfoundland and Labrador. After third reading, right? So, you can be technical about it but for purposes of what we are entitled to do, as elected members, we have now passed that into law. The only chance we had to change those words, we went right past it today. Nobody stood on section 3 and said we want to alter those words. So, unless there are going to be no words, I would say to the minister again, agreed to, those are the words that this Legislature has given approval to today. It is a treaty.

It goes on to say (2), "The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement is ratified..." - listen to this, section 3(2) "...is ratified, given effect, declared valid and has the..." full "...force of law." - in Newfoundland and Labrador. Did anybody stand up and say we wanted to amend that? No, we did not. Nobody tried to amend that. So, there is no more opportunity for any member of this Legislature to try to amend those words. We have gone past that.

We got over to section 7, and we did not amend section 7. Section 7(1) talks about, "The Inuit own the estate in fee simple in Labrador Inuit Lands, subject to the terms set out in the... Agreement." Nobody amended that. Then it goes on to say (2), "A person's interest in Labrador Inuit Lands other than the estate in Labrador Inuit Lands referred to in subsection (1) is, except where otherwise provided under the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement, extinguished." So, section 7, which extinguishes the right, is not amended.

All that is being asked by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair is that you add a new section 7(1) that says - let's take the minister at face value for the words that he spoke: that in extinguishing those rights on behalf of the Inuit, that it is of no consequence in terms of what the Metis are hoping to accomplish some time in the future. He said: I agree with that. How does putting that into a new section here change anything? It does not take away from, it does not diminish, anything that is in the agreement.

I talked, Mr. Chairman, about there being four parts: Preamble, this part - seven sections of which we have already decided to move on with no amendment. We are asking for an amendment to new section 7.1, and I do not believe, to my knowledge, there are any suggestions that we amend any of the other sections up to - there are seventy clauses. There is no motion from anyone on this side, that I am aware of, to ask for any other amendment in any other clause of the bill. From clause 15 on is the third part. There is the preamble, there is the section that puts the bill into effect and law, which we have already basically done without amendment, and then there is consequential amendment, which says, because of the agreement that the LIA have already voted on through a democratic process, and approved, because of that agreement there will be amendments to some thirty-five or forty pieces of provincial legislation to bring it in line with the agreement. That is what the rest of it is. That is what we would normally refer to as a bit of housekeeping. That is just making sure that one bill does not conflict with the other bill.

Guess what you get then? You get the fourth part, Mr. Chairman, of what is before us today, which is what the LIA voted on. The agreement itself that was signed by a government that I led starts right here, starts on this particular page. It was not any part of the first - remember, twenty-six pages before that. There are twenty-six pages in here that never, ever went to a vote of the LIA, but from page twenty-seven on it has been voted on by the LIA. There is nothing in the amendment that purports to change anything in what the LIA have agreed to, not one jot, not one word, by the minister's own words, that changes the intent, not a word of it.

We are going to vote to put it into law. We are not going to change a single word of what the LIA, the third party, agreed to, and the minister still wants to say that we cannot do it by ourselves. What are we? Are we the per verbal rubber stamp? What did we get elected for? What are we having this debate for? Why are we here? Because we have an opportunity to say, without in any way diminishing a great accomplishment, and without in any way, impacting on that agreement that has been voted on by the membership of the Labrador Inuit Association in Newfoundland and Labrador, we can put in a few words that give a little bit more comfort, no guarantees but a little bit more comfort, that the minister is willing to say in a speech but does not want to put down on a piece of paper. He is willing to stand on his feet and say it, so why resist putting it in here?

He said just a few minutes ago, as I heard him, that he did not see how it would diminish anything in the act, but he just says: It is not unilateral action. If we are not allowed to amend it in any way, shape or form, there would be a real problem - if we went past page twenty-six and moved an amendment to page thirty-seven of the actual agreement, it would be ruled out of order in this Legislature, because it is wrong, because a government signed on to that in Newfoundland and Labrador, a federal government signed on to it, initial and agreement, it was voted on by the LIA, and there is no one proposing to change a single word or it; not a single word.

Again, I will not prolong it Mr. Chairman. We should put it to a vote. I will certainly support the amendment - others might. I do not see why the members opposite would not support the amendment. There is no downside. There is only a bit of an upside for another group that are hoping to have a day to celebrate like the Inuit of Labrador are going to celebrate today, and so we should celebrate with them.

They have a concern legitimately raised from another group, the Metis Nation, that even if we move the amendment it does not guarantee them a thing. It takes nothing away from the Labrador Inuit Association, not one thing, but gives some small additional comfort to another group that also have hopes and aspirations about a future that might be brighter. For some reason, we have a government in office that resists putting it in with a rational given by the minister that holds no water, that has no substance, that is not founded on fact. I cannot understand, for the life of me, why it is not given serious consideration, but again we are the minority, they are the government of the day. I commended them earlier for bringing it forward and actioning it. I do not see one thing to be lost by accepting the amendment, except that you will have the Metis Nation not sure of what level of support in the future they have from the government of the day, the current government.

I could get into a more partisan debate about how many people mentioned the Metis today, how many people mentioned the Inuit, how many people did not. The fact that I invited the Leader of the Government to talk about the Metis, the same as the minister did, and he did not. I will not do that today. There is opportunities for that in the future. I say, Mr. Chair, there is nothing to be lost and we should give the amendment serious consideration.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman..

I am going to be very brief. I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is just missing the point on this, quite frankly, with all due respect.

This is An Act To Ratify And Give The Force Of Law To The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement. In the last section of the preamble it says, "....WHEREAS the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement requires that legislation be enacted by the province to ratify the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement." That is the purpose of this act, that is the purpose of the legislation.

Section 2, "In this Act, ‘Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement' means the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement signed on behalf of the Inuit of Labrador as represented by the Labrador Inuit Association, Her Majesty the Queen in right of Newfoundland and Labrador - a document which was signed, I believe, by hon. members opposite - and Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada as set out in the Schedule attached to this Act and includes amendments made to that Agreement." The purpose of this document is to ratify the land claims agreement.

The amendment which we received today has two very important words in the front of that amendment, and those two words are - it says, "That Bill 44 be amended by adding a new section after section 7: 7.1 Notwithstanding anything in section 7, and for greater certainty, the provisions of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement and the provisions of this Act are without prejudice to;" Now, notwithstanding anything in section 7, means that this particular amendment overrides section 7. This, then, becomes the document that overrides section 7.

Section 7 says, "The Inuit own the estate in fee simple in Labrador Inuit Lands, subject to the terms set out in the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement." That is what section 7 says. The amendment says, notwithstanding that, this overrides.

The Inuit people would be wrong to agree to this right now, because what this does is actually diminishes the claim and their right to estate in fee simple. Unfortunately, what has been missed here, Mr. Chairman, by the hon. Leader of the Opposition - and I can understand, it is a fine legal point, but it says, "Notwithstanding anything..." He knows, as well as the rest of us know, what a notwithstanding clause means, and that is exactly what it means.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Again, unfortunately - unfortunately, because we need not be having this somewhat prolonged debate - the Premier, Mr. Chairman, has again done what he oftentimes does in this House, and that is quote very selectively, and not completely, from a particular section that he used.

Let's go back to section 2 that he read, and let me talk about the piece that he conveniently left out. Here is the problem. It talks about the agreement between the parties represented, "...the Inuit of Labrador as represented by the Labrador Inuit Association..." - I believe he read that part - "...Her Majesty the Queen in right of Newfoundland and Labrador..." - he read that part - "...and Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada..." - he read that part.

The purpose of this act is to ratify the agreement signed by these three parties. Guess what he left out? You all have your copies there; read it. The agreement signed by the three parties as set out in the Schedule - not in section 1, section 2, section 3, section 4, section 5 of the act, and parts of the act which the LIA never, ever, voted on. It was not negotiated with the LIA. It was not signed off in any signing ceremony that I attended on behalf of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, because those words did not exist until Friday afternoon, last week, so how could anybody sign off on them? A year ago, in August, when we had the signing ceremony, what was signed off on and what the section says is that the parties cannot agree to change what is in the Schedule unless all three of them change it. That is the point that I was making. Anything after page 26 in this piece of legislation needs the consent of all three parties, because all three parties signed it before. It can only be changed if all three parties signed something different and something new.

This section 7 - and to raise the spectre of a notwithstanding clause, the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution of Canada. How many times has it been used in the history of the country so far? Not very many. To compare this amendment to the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution of Canada is a stretch by anybody, I would suggest, Mr. Chairman.

I think it is unfortunate that again the Premier will not take this a little more seriously in this debate and look at the fact that you can, in this Parliament, our Parliament that the people elected right here in Newfoundland and Labrador, can give some more small assurance to another group without diminishing anything that is in the Schedule, which can only be changed if three parties agree.

I know it is probably like anything else, I am probably wasting my breath talking to this particular government and this particular leader today because he has his mind made up, and we know over here what that means.

I think the Member for Torngat Mountains, I understood, Mr. Chairman, might want to speak to the amendment. I will not belabour the point, other than to say it saddens me to see the attitude and approach taken by the minister and the Premier who obviously do not agree. They are not on the same page, because the minister says: I don't see anything wrong with it, except three parties have to agree to it.

When we point out that is not true, that is not the fact, three parties do not have to agree to this, this is our Legislature, then the Premier jumps up with another reason. Oh, it is like the notwithstanding clause now, all of a sudden, in the Constitution of Canada, a brand new excuse.

If there is an excuse that the government wants to use to explain to the Metis Nation, the representatives and members of the Metis Nation of Labrador, as to why they do not want to do this, stand up and make the excuse. It does not hold water with any of us, and I do not think it holds water when it is given any fair-minded scrutiny, but if that is the excuse that somebody wants to give, use the excuse, because there is no diminishment here of what is happening in the substance of this act today.

The government, through the minister and the Premier, might want to take the approach that they are obviously determined to have, which is: They brought it in, they are not going to change a word in it.

Give five or six different reasons if you want to, but that does not stop us from having a responsibility as elected members to speak for all of those, because this particular bill does have impact on the Inuit. There is already provision for overlap agreements with the Innu, who I am assuming - and I heard the Member for Lake Melville say that they are making progress on those particular talks, because that is another recognized claim.

We have another group whom we have known for a decade or more now in the Province who are trying to go through the process in another place, in Ottawa, to hopefully get recognized. That has not happened yet, and this government, for some reason today, resists any notice that they might want to give them some kind of comfort, even though I think anyone who looks at this dispassionately in a fair-minded fashion would find that this suggested amendment does nothing to diminish what is being accomplished here today, but could in some small way hold out a glimmer of hope, an extra glimmer of hope, for the Metis. On a day when we are celebrating one group making great strides, we have a government that does not want to reach out a hand at all to another group who are hoping to maybe get there some time in the future.

Again, Mr. Chairman, as I said, I will not belabour it. I believe it is unfortunate; but, again, I cannot make the point, I do not think, any more clearly than I have tried to in the couple of representations that I have made.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to continue to try not to fall into any partisan discussion on this day. We are prepared to hold a hand out to any other group in Labrador that may have a claim, but I want to make reference to what the Leader of the Opposition just said.

Again, you know, he talks about the Premier, in particular, not giving the whole story. Well, the Leader of the Opposition, in his remarks just before he sat down, did not give the whole story. This bill has several parts to it, as he mentioned. There is Part I and then there is Part II, which deals with the claim itself. Then there is the Consequential Amendments. Then there is Part III which says Commencement. Clause 70 is a Commencement clause, and then it says Schedule. In other words, the Schedule is part of the legislation. That is the point, the Schedule is part of the legislation, and the Leader of the Opposition just gets up and makes this argument that it is not. It is. It is written right here on page 4 that the Schedule is part of the legislation, and if we were to change that - I am not saying that we could not change it at some point in the future, but if we were to change it today - by passing this amendment, we would have to have approval of other parties to the amendment, or to -

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: It is not nonsense. The Schedule is right here after Commencement, and the Schedule is this, Mr. Chairman. That is what the last government signed off on, he says, was the Schedule. Well, part of that Schedule was a clause which said that the only people in Labrador that this agreement has an impact upon in extinguishing their rights is the Inuit people. That person, when he was Premier, the hon. member, when he was Premier, passed an Order-in-Council signing off on that. The Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair was the Minister of Fisheries. I assume she agreed with it. It was passed by Cabinet, and that, if we pass the amendment, will affect this Schedule which was signed off on by the previous government. I cannot understand the logic of that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I can say that, after consultation with the members of the Labrador Inuit Association, I will be voting against the amendment; and, in consultation with the Labrador Inuit Association, they feel that the amendment is basically almost the same thing that is covered in 2.10 of the tripartite agreement that was initially signed by the Province, the federal government and the Labrador Inuit Association.

Mr. Chairman, again I am assured by the Labrador Inuit Association, that should the federal government accept their claim that they will negotiate an overlap agreement and do whatever is necessary to deal with the Metis Nation should their request be given by the federal government. Again, Mr. Chairman, I am told by the people, the Labrador Inuit Association, who I supported and I will continue to support, that section 2(10) is basically the same thing as the amendment. If we put the amendment in here we are basically changing, or giving grounds to change, the part of the agreement that has already been signed off between the federal government, the Province and the Labrador Inuit Association.

Mr. Chairman, my fear is this, as a Member of the Labrador Inuit Association, if we begin to make changes to what has already been signed off, I hope that things do not occur. I know that it is certainly not the wish of the Metis Nation; I know that. But, Mr. Chairman, the Labrador Inuit Association believe that what is in the amendment here is basically what is in section 2(10) that has already been agreed to. They have agreed, basically, that they will certainly sit down and negotiate any overlap with the Metis Nation.

Again, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the people I represent, I cannot stand today when the vote comes and vote for that motion, or the amendment.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

MR. HICKEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I did not see this amendment until I got a copy of it just about an hour ago. I want to make some comments, Mr. Chairman, because this is, indeed, dear to my heart.

Over the weekend I had talked to many of the Metis people. I told the Metis people over the weekend that I talked to - and I talked to some of the elders. (Inaudible), who I have known for a long, long time, an elder in our community whom I have great respect for - Metis, many young Metis.

I want to say, Mr. Chairman, I was not part of a government that negotiated this with the Labrador Inuit Association. I understand the Member for Torngat Mountains, the Leader of the Opposition, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair were part of a government that negotiated this. For me, as the member coming in - this is my first term - I believe that we did not do as well as probably we should have to provide clarity and some reassurance that the Metis of Labrador are not going to have the legs, as they say, cut out from under them. It is fine, we can talk to fifteen different lawyers and you will get fifteen different interpretations. It is for the young people in my district, Mr. Chairman, young Metis people; elders who have an Aboriginal ancestry, who have, in my view, Aboriginal rights. I am going to vote for the amendment, Mr. Chairman, because I think it needs clarity and it needs certainty, and I do not think we have that here today. Having said all that, I do not want in any way, shape or form to see the rights of the Inuit people of Labrador diminished, but we have to ensure also in this House, that we protect all of the rights.

I can tell you as the Member for Lake Melville who has the largest Aboriginal population, I want to say to you here today, Mr. Chairman, that I will not support action that will take away the rights of the Metis people of Labrador. That would be, in my view, an injustice. I will not support that but I will support an amendment. I just want to be on the record, Mr. Chairman, that my constituents, many of them which are Metis, come first. They were the ones that put me here and I will always take the lead from the people who voted me to this hon. House of Assembly.

Thank you very much.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I have listened attentively to the views and perspectives of my colleagues today, and, Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed with the opinions of the government as it relates to this amendment. I thought that this was an opportunity, on such an historic day and historic occasion in our Province, to reach out a hand to another Aboriginal group in Labrador and able to give them the assurances that are required to move forward with their own application to the federal government on land claims.

I had hoped, Mr. Chairman, that before this day had ended I would be able to stand here as another member from Labrador and support Bill 44, and support my hon. colleague for Torngat Mountains, but without the approval of this amendment I am afraid that will not be possible. We have to have assurances for the Metis people in Labrador. My attempt at bringing an amendment into the House of Assembly today was just to do that. It was not to belabour discussions in this House. It was not to hold up procedure, or anything of the sorts. It was merely to seek the clarification and the assurances that I need for the people that I represent as they move forward with future claims.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the co-operation of the Labrador Inuit Association when they say that if there is an acceptance of a land claim federally by the Metis people of Labrador that they would be more than willing and prepared to negotiate overlapping claims. I appreciate that, but the issue that I speak of today has nothing to do with negotiating overlapping claims, it all has to do with where they stand in having a final claim accepted by the federal government.

Mr. Chairman, the contacts that have been used in the agreement in the references to Inuit people in Labrador could very well cause harm to the Labrador Metis people. My only point today in bringing this amendment in, in offering up this discussion, in providing an opportunity in this Legislature, in this Province, to give support to the Metis people was only to enable them to go forward with the federal government to try and secure a land claim for their own people. That was the only intention.

I am sadly disappointed today to know that government has hid behind all kinds of legal jargon and excuses in this House not to accept this amendment. It has nothing to do with the treaty that has been negotiated with the Labrador Inuit people. It does not impact it. It does not take away from it. The only thing it does is that it allows some comfort for the Metis people of Labrador. That is the only thing that it does. It is the only intention, I say to the hon. minister.

Mr. Chairman, I have deliberated over the weekend in any number of ways to look at how we could find that security and that clarification without taking away from the act itself, without infringing upon anything that has already been negotiated for Inuit people in Labrador. After a lot of consultation, after a lot of legal advice from a number of people, after lengthy discussions with the Labrador Metis Nation and their President, Mr. Chairman, this was the friendliest, most appropriate way that I thought, and they thought, that we could bring this amendment forward, to have it supported, passed in this House of Assembly, and as part of the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I had hoped that the outcome would be quite different and I had hoped that today we would be ratifying a claim that could be unequivocally, without prejudice to any Aboriginal group in Labrador. I thought that the minister, in making his responses in this House of Assembly, as it related to the Metis people earlier in the week, could be done in a much more concrete way and a much more tangible way by just attaching it to the act that we are about to pass.

Mr. Chairman, I guess I can only make just one last plea to my colleagues in the House of Assembly, that in ratifying this particular bill today, before you vote on the amendment be sure that what you are voting is exactly what you want. Are you prepared in this Legislature today to vote to jeopardize the future of the Metis people in Labrador? Are you prepared to vote to ensure that they may have a lesser opportunity to secure a claim with the federal government? I hope that would not be the case and I hope that we can pass this amendment today without impact, without infringing upon the Labrador Inuit people, but at the same time protecting another minority and other Aboriginal groups in our society.

I ask that you give good thought to that as this amendment is called to be voted.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I am going to, again, just take a minute for clarification.

I have in my hand the document here which is the bill plus the agreement that was reached. It took twenty-seven years to reach this agreement. In this agreement, under section 2.10.2, which is headed up, "Other Aboriginal Peoples of Canada", I do not want to leave an impression that the Metis people are being hard done by as a result of our exercise. That would be a wrong impression to leave and I think it would be inappropriate under the circumstances. I think it would dampen the celebration that is taking place in this House of Assembly today. I think we should finish this up on a good note.

That particular section, section 2.10.2 says, "If a court of last resort determines that section 2.10.1 has the effect of rendering a provision of the Agreement wholly or partially inoperative or ineffective because such provision would otherwise affect rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 of any aboriginal peoples of Canada other than Inuit, the Parties shall amend the Agreement so as to remedy or replace such provision."

That is actually in the document. That is in the Agreement. It is referenced by the Member for Torngat Mountains. That is there, that protects them, so the agreement can be amended. This is the document that was agreed to by the three parties. This is the document that they presented to us for ratification. That is what this bill is all about, to ratify that document that was agreed to by three parties. What this amendment does, and it is done with the best of intentions, I understand what your attentions are. But it does say, "Notwithstanding anything in section 7, and section 7 (1) says, "The Inuit owns the estate in fee simple in Labrador Inuit Lands, subject to the terms set out in the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement." A very straightforward sentence that says that they own the lands subject to the terms set out in the agreement.

What the amendment says that, not withstanding that, section 7, and notwithstanding that, the treaty and the agreement, this overrides. We cannot let that happen today. The Inuit leaders, the Inuit people, cannot let that happen today. That tampers with what they have agreed to and what they have decided. So there are no bad intentions here by any hon. member opposite or any members of the government or anyone in this House today or any one in the room today. I know you are trying to get greater clarification, but I would like to give you the assurance and give the Metis People the assurance that 2.10.2 does that, but, notwithstanding anything in section 7, overrides it, because it means that section 7 means nothing if this overrides. You cannot allow this piece of paper to do this today.

That is all, Mr. Chair. It is just for greater clarification.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the said amendment? All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Motion defeated.

Division.

Call in the members.

Division

CHAIR: All those in favour of the amendment, please rise.

CLERK: Mr. Grimes, Mr. Parsons; Mr. Butler; Mr. Barrett; Mr. Langdon; Ms Jones; Ms Thistle; Mr. Reid; Mr. Sweeney; Ms Foote; Mr. Joyce; Mr. Harris; Mr. Collins; and Mr. Hickey.

CHAIR: Those against the motion, please rise.

CLERK: Mr. Williams; Mr. Edward Byrne; Mr. Ottenheimer; Mr. Rideout; Mr. Taylor; Mr. Marshall; Mr. Hedderson; Mr. Jack Byrne; Mr. Shelley; Ms Sheila Osborne; Mr. French; Mr. Tom Osborne; Ms Whalen; Mr. Manning; Mr. Wiseman; Mr. O'Brien; Mr. Harding; Mr. Young; Mr. Jackman; Ms Johnson; Mr. Jim Hodder, Ms Goudie; Mr. Skinner; Ms Elizabeth Marshall; Mr. Ridgley; and Mr. Andersen.

Mr. Chair, 14 ayes and 26 nays.

CHAIR: The Chair declares the motion defeated.

CLERK: Clauses 8 to 70.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 8 to 70 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 8 to 70 carried.

On motion, clauses 8 to 70 carried.

CLERK: The Schedule to the bill.

CHAIR: Shall the Schedule carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The Schedule is carried.

On motion, Schedule carried.

CLERK: Therefore be it enacted by Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in legislative session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

CLERK: "WHEREAS the Constitution Act, 1982 (Canada) recognizes and affirms the aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada;

AND WHEREAS the Inuit of Labrador are an aboriginal people of Canada;

AND WHEREAS the Inuit of Labrador claim aboriginal rights in and to the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Area based on their traditional and current use and occupancy of the lands, water and sea ice of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Area in accordance with their own customs and traditions;

AND WHEREAS the Inuit of Labrador as represented by the Labrador Inuit Association, Her Majesty the Queen in right of Newfoundland and Labrador and Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada have negotiated the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement in order to define and achieve certainty with respect to their respective rights and powers in relation to the aboriginal rights claimed by the Inuit of Labrador;

AND WHEREAS the Inuit of Labrador have ratified the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement in accordance with its terms;

AND WHEREAS the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement requires that legislation be enacted by the province to ratify the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement;".

CHAIR: Shall the preamble carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The preamble is carried.

On motion, preamble carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Ratify And Give The Force Of Law To The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 44, An Act To Ratify And Give The Force Of Law To The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 44 is carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South and Deputy Speaker.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report Bill 44 passed without amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 44, An Act To Ratify And Give The Force Of Law To The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement, passed without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, report received and adopted, bill ordered read a third time presently, by leave.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move third reading of a bill, An Act To Ratify And Give The Force Of Law To The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement. (Bill 44)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 44, An Act To Ratify And Give The Force Of Law To The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement, be now read a third time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Ratify And Give The Force Of Law To The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement. (Bill 44)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill is now read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Ratify And Give The Force Of Law To The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 44)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Aboriginal Affairs.

MR. RIDEOUT: We would like to have a standing vote on third reading.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: We can do anything by agreement.

MR. SPEAKER: By agreement, we will have a standing vote on third reading because there has been some time pass. We can do anything - on third reading, by consensus.

Is the House ready for the question?

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, we are, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion on Bill 44?

All those in favour, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Williams; Mr. Edward Byrne; Mr. Ottenheimer; Mr. Rideout; Mr. Taylor; Mr. Tom Marshall; Mr. Hedderson; Mr. Jack Byrne; Mr. Shelley; Mr. Fitzgerald; Ms Sheila Osborne; Mr. French; Mr. Tom Osborne; Ms Dianne Whalen; Mr. Manning; Mr. Hickey; Mr. Wiseman; Mr. O'Brien; Mr. Harding; Mr. Young; Mr. Jackman; Ms Johnson; Mr. Jim Hodder; Ms Goudie; Mr. Skinner; Ms Elizabeth Marshall; Mr. Ridgley, Mr. Grimes, Mr. Parsons, Mr. Butler, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Langdon, Ms Thistle, Mr. Reid, Mr. Andersen, Mr. Sweeney, Ms Foote, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Harris, Mr. Collins.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against the motion, please rise.

CLERK: Ms Jones.

Mr. Speaker, forty ayes and one nay.

MR. SPEAKER: I declared the motion carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Motion carried.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do believe that the Lieutenant-Governor is on his way. Essentially, for people who tonight may be watching the televised part of what we are doing, and for those people in particular in the gallery tonight, what that essentially means is that the bill will receive Royal Assent tonight and be proclaimed. It is the only thing we are doing tonight, and it will bring force and effect to what we have just passed, effectively, immediately. I wanted to just take that opportunity to explain the parliamentary procedure for those who are with us today.

Mr. Speaker, before that happens, I do want to give notice that tomorrow, invoking Standing Order 11, that the House not close at 5:30 p.m. tomorrow, and further give notice that the House not close at 10:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We do expect the arrival of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor momentarily. The House will take a very brief recess until that time.

Recess

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: Mr. Speaker, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor has arrived.

MR. SPEAKER: Admit His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: It is the wish of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor that all present please be seated.

MR. SPEAKER: May it please Your Honour, the General Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has at its present session passed a bill, to which, in the name and on behalf of the General Assembly I respectfully request Your Honour's assent.

CLERK: A bill, "An Act To Ratify And Give The Force Of Law To The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement." (Bill 44)

HIS HONOUR THE LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR: In Her Majesty's Name, I assent to this bill.

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to say a word or two because I think this is a memorable day in the history of our country and our Province. My constitutional obligation, as the Lieutenant-Governor, is to deal with the legislation adopted by the House in accordance with the constitutional conventions, and I believe I have done so by assenting in the name of the Queen of Canada to this bill and thereby completing the legislative process and making it law.

I would like to say a word or two, if I could, and I realize that I am simply, in all likelihood, echoing views that have been expressed in the debate here in the House today, but this is a momentous and a memorable day in our history as a people and as a Province.

The House today has ratified an agreement and, in my role I have made it law, but this agreement is the result of a very long and very arduous negotiations, indeed, going back thirty years. I think it appropriate as Lieutenant-Governor to congratulate all, everybody who has made this possible, the Premier, the Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs, the hon. gentleman from Lewisporte, the Leader of the Opposition who, as Premier, played a major role in bringing this agreement forward, and the former Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs, the hon. gentleman from Torngat Mountains, and all who worked with them, the officials, the advisers, and especially those who worked for the LIA and spoke for it, William Andersen III, the President, a former member of this House, William Barbour, the former President of the LIA and all of their colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, it is a day to be remembered, a day to be honoured, a moment in our history, as I have said, one which I believe will bring great benefits in the years ahead to the Inuit, to the people of Labrador, the other people of Labrador, and to all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and to Canada. It is a privilege, Mr. Speaker, to have been part of it today.

Thank you.

I assume you will have me back again before Christmas, so I will hold the greetings of the season until then.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Acting Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before moving the adjournment motion, I would like to take the opportunity, on behalf of the Premier and the government, to remind all hon. members of the reception to be held in the government members' common room immediately on the rising of the House for hon. members, of course, and invited guests.

Having said that, I now move that this House on its rising do adjourn until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 of the clock.

MR. SPEAKER: It is now moved that this House do now adjourn until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 of the clock.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Motion carried.

This House now stands adjourned until tomorrow at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 p.m.