Double Speak Tom Rideout

Please listen to these audio clips. They speak volumes about government double speak, the commitment to aboriginal rights in Labrador and the contridictory regime that controls Labrador.

On one hand the LMN are a fact of life and the government is prepared to recognize.

Clip 1: "Now we have said again as a government we're prepared to recognize in terms of harvesting andgathering and hunting that the LMN are here, they're a fact of life."

On the other hand when asked to participate in a land claim settlement, "not likely", "god bless you both."

Clip 2: "I mean there was a time when Andy Scott was Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development when I get a phone call from him saying if we were to negotiate a . . .a land claim settlement with the Metis of Labrador based on political considerations would the province participate. And I said not likely. We negotiate a land claims agreement with the LMN or Conne River or the Inuit in Labrador or the Innu whoever our Aboriginal population is based on the Baker Lake criteria, the criteria laid down by the Government of Canada that governs land claim negotiations. So if you want to do something different Andy Scott go do it yourself at your own expense with theLabrador Metis and god bless you both but don't expect us to be part of it."

This is the quote shocking the Metis world. The provincial government has repeatedly blamed the Federal government for the impasse on LMN land claim negotiations. Minister Tom Rideout on April 11, 2007 acknowledges they were asked to join in a land claim settlement and the reply was "not likely", "god bless you both".

Governance Options

It is among the imponderables how many governance options there are for Labradorians. It would be easy to mistake this blog as a seperatist blog but I reiterate it is intented to foster a governance debate.

Seperate territorial status for Labrador is just one option up for debate. Personally I think it is an under explored option but to aid in the fostering of more debate let's consider what some of the options are:

1. Status Quo. Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. 4 out of 48 seats in the House of Assembly. 1 out of 308 seats in the House of Commons.
2. Status Quo Variance. Province of Newfoundland and Labrador with more or less seats in both the House of Assembly and the House of Commons.
3. Labrador Territory. A detailed devolution agreement with the Government of Canada, 1 seat in the House of Commons, 18 seats in Labrador's own House of Assembly.
4. Labrador Territory - Aboriginal Self Governance. A territory governed by representatives from Nunatsiavut, Innu Nation, Labrador Metis Nation and the settler population.
5. Labrador Province. All the same powers as a regular province supported by Labrador revenues, 1 seat in the House of Commons, 18 seats in Labrador's own House of Assembly.
6. Quebec. Join the province of Quebec, 1 seat in the House of Commons, 4 out of the 125 seats in the Quebec National Assembly.
7. A non-partisan system. All members would be elected as independents and the elected leader would choose from those elected who would form his or her cabinet.

This quick list demonstrates that if Labradorians were ever consulted, they would have some options to consider. The status quo has been given 58 years to date and it is worth Labradorians considering some debate around its own governance and future.

Governance Debate Petition

All past and present residents of Labrador are encouraged to sign the petition below.

Governance Debate Petition

William Keough

William Keough was born in St. John's in 1913.

Keough worked as a union organizer and the editor of a labour newspaper. Rural Newfoundland and Labrador heavily influenced Mr. Keough especially through the poverty and unemployment during the Depression.

His speeches to the National Convention display a man who was concerned for the average person and he felt that union with Canada offered the best hope for ordinary people. He later served as a cabinet minister in the provincial government. Here is one of his speeches during the National Convention debates in 1947.

“Among the imponderables” is the impact we may expect the development of Labrador upon our economy.

The pertinent question is, in just whose interest is that potential to be developed, the people of Labrador or the people of Newfoundland? It seems to me that until now the people of Labrador have fared none to well at our hand. We haven’t gone out of our way to provide them with even minimum public and social services. I understand that luxury roads of the type of the Topsail Road are few and far between down that way. Indeed I understand that roads of any type are as few and far between down that way as streetlights and railways and other public amenities. Come to think of it, in the days when we did have responsible government, we never thought it worth our while to extend to the people of Labrador the privilege of ballot. Indeed, we didn’t get around to giving a second thought to Labrador until it seemed as if we might get something out of it.

It would be interesting to know the thoughts of Labradorians when they hear some of our political pundits raising the roof over the raw deal Newfoundland’s gotten from somebody or another. It must sometimes occur to them that Newfoundland doesn’t do so badly itself when it comes to dishing out raw deals. I have a hearty dislike of that mentality that is concerned with Labrador only to the extent that it may be exploited for Newfoundland’s advantage. The most that we have any right to expect of the development of Labrador is the provision of sufficient revenue to support the public and social services the Labrador people have every right to expect. These we are in any case obligated to provide even if Labrador should go undeveloped. If we make no effort to provide them then I think that Labrador people would be quite justified in seeking to terminate their dependency upon us.

If we’re going to insist upon self-determination let’s not draw the line at the Strait of Belle Isle. The people of Labrador to are surely entitled to a voice in the disposition of their own destiny…What’s sauce for the land of the Gander is sauce for the land of the Goose.Bill KeoughNational Convention debatesOctober 17, 1947

Dr. W.T. Grenfell

From 1925.

The melodramatic, black armband wearing, nationalist-romantics who are drowning their 58-year-old sorrows in a politically correct beverage this evening, must remember one thing: Don't ask Labradorians to mourn for a nationhood you never shared with them or their ancestors.Vive le Canada!

Labrador Fishermen 100 P.C. Strong
For Confederation, Says Dr. Grenfell

(Canadian Press Despatch)
Vancouver, B.C., June 1.—Confederation with the Dominion of Canada, as a means of solving some of Labrador's chief problems, was advocated today by Dr. W.T. Grenfell, of Labrador fame, who arrived here from the Orient after a trip around the world, during which he studied conditions and problems of fisher folk.

"I have come to this conclusion," he said, "after talking and living with the fishermen of the Labrador coast. They are 100 per cent. strong for confederation, and it is my personal opinion that Labrador would be better off as part of the big country. At present, 3,000 fishermen on the coast are without a vote in any country."

From the back file of the Winnipeg Free Press, February 25, 1928:

Grenfell Disappointed at Award in Labrador Case

Toronto, Feb. 24.—Sir Wilfred T. Grenfell, famous medical missionary of the Labrador Peninsula, on arrival in Toronto for a lecture engagement today, expressed some disappointment at the recent privy council ruling which gave Newfoundland the larger portion of the Labrador Peninsula. He declared the people of Labrador always wanted to belong to Canada, "and do yet. Other people may have different opinions, but that is mine. They would have united with the Dominion even thirty years ago."