Among the Imponderables

Double Speak Tom Rideout

2007-04-11T20:31:00.000-04:00

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

2007-04-11T12:17:00.000-04:00

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:

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.
Status Quo Variance. Province of Newfoundland and Labrador with more or less seats in both the House of Assembly and the House of Commons.
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.
Labrador Territory - Aboriginal Self Governance. A territory governed by representatives from Nunatsiavut, Innu Nation, Labrador Metis Nation and the settler population.
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.
Quebec. Join the province of Quebec, 1 seat in the House of Commons, 4 out of the 125 seats in the Quebec National Assembly.
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

2007-04-11T10:21:00.000-04:00

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

Governance Debate Petition

William Keough

2007-04-11T10:05:00.001-04:00

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

2007-04-11T09:41:00.000-04:00

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."

Labrador Governance Input

2007-04-07T17:08:00.000-04:00

Thanks for offering your input into this debate.

Labrador Governance Input

Name:

Position

Location:

Email Address:

Do you feel Labrador should consider independence?

Do you feel Labrador is adequately represented in the House of Assembly?

Do you feel Labrador is adequately represented in the House of Commons?

What is your view of partisan politics and its impact on Labrador unity?

Would you support a non-partisan system, i.e. Nunavut Model?

How do you see aboriginal governance impacting Labrador as a whole?

What would a Labrador Territory have to look like, to get your support?

What would the benefits be of Labrador self governance.

What would the draw backs and challenges be of Labrador self governance.

Do you feel there is a link between Governance and the reported alienation in Labrador?

Please provide additional information or comments:

Fly the Labrador Flag!

2007-04-07T15:49:00.000-04:00

It is among the imponderables if Premier Danny Williams will change the provincial flag. I am sure it is purely coincidental this idea came up after my August 29, 2005 article but it very interesting to me in any event and he seems to be wondering out loud.

There really hadn’t been much talk about flags until the Canada flag was lowered. That decision created all sorts of varied opinions across the province.

In Newfoundland popular opinion seems to support the Pink, White and Green flag. There are different opinions on what this particular flag actually represents. There is one consistent theme I keep hearing, claiming it originated in St. John's in 1840 and was created by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Newfoundland, Michael Anthony Fleming and is symbolic of a tradition between local Protestants and Catholics.

Wikipedia explains during annual wood hauls for the Anglican cathedral and Roman Catholic cathedral, considerable rivalry developed between the two groups involved. The Protestant English marked their wood piles with the pink flag of the Natives' Society, while the Catholic Irish used green banners. The threat of violence was such that Bishop Fleming intervened, and persuaded them to adopt a common flag, on which the pink and green would be separated by a white stripe to symbolize peace. The pink symbolized the Tudor Rose of England (The Protestants) and the Green symbolized St. Patrick's Emblem of Ireland (The Catholics). The White is taken from St. Andrew's Cross (St. Andrew is the Patron Saint of Fishermen and Scotland).

Personally I don’t see how it particularly represents Newfoundland very well. It certainly doesn’t represent Labrador. It seems to have evolved into a more broad meaning of independence because it was flown prior to joining confederation in 1949.

If I am reading the reaction correctly in Labrador, there is only one flag that conjures any sense of pride amongst the people and that is the Labrador Flag. The Labrador flag is over thirty years old now. It was in 1974 when Mike Martin of the New Labrador Party and Labrador Brotherhood movement presented Labrador North MHA Mel Woodward this flag in the Provincial House of Assembly.

The flag is truly representative of Labrador and has stood the test of time. Despite being presented in the House of Assembly our provincial government has yet to fly the Labrador Flag at provincial buildings, even after the name of the province had changed.

It’s my opinion that Newfoundland and Labrador are so distinctly different that no new provincial flag would create any sense of pride. Labrador and Newfoundland are culturally and physically so different. So there are two options that could work if you want to keep the province united and one option that would go a long way toward helping Labrador join Canada on its own merits.

Option A is to fly the Pink, White and Green flag side by side with the Labrador flag throughout the entire province. This would be representative of our distinct differences and acknowledging that very fact would go a long way in alleviating any alienation throughout the province.

Option B is to fly the Pink, White and Green flag in Newfoundland and fly the Labrador flag in Labrador. That would make sense as well.

Option C is to fly the Pink, White and Green throughout the entire province on provincial buildings and continue to suppress the Labrador Flag. This option would go a long way toward enflaming alienation in Labrador and contrary to the recommendations presented by the Royal Commission on Renewing and Strengthening our Place in Canada.

It’s important to stay tuned on this flag pondering. It creates lots of healthy debate but I encourage fellow Labradorians to start flying their flags proudly.

Why is it a shame to ponder?

2007-04-07T15:37:00.000-04:00

Let me first start this article by saying I am not advocating anything but it is among the imponderables why the word separation conjures so many negative connotations in Labrador. It is seems like the word is almost taboo and if you say it your considered radical or an evil separatist. If you even think it there is an element of guilt. Somebody has done an exceptional job making Labradorians feel inadequate in their ability to challenge the status quo or even having a public debate.

So I do have a question. Why is it that when Bill Rowe and the Evening Telegram build a case for separation it is perfectly acceptable and it goes virtually unnoticed without even as much as a ripple effect? Back in June Bill wrote an article titled “Should Labrador Separate?”

Personally I enjoyed some of the points he discussed. He not only looked at it as being good for Labrador but it could also be a very good thing for Newfoundland. When the topic is generally discussed in Labrador nay-sayers quickly shoot you down saying Newfoundland would never allow it to happen. But are we sure about that?

When looking at territorial status Bill comments on how the Upper and Lower Churchill combined with mining activity and military flight training would see the region prosper. Other valid points were made like being able to have much better health services, education, ferry services and highways. The point was also made that a self-government working in its own self interest would encourage further mineral processing in Labrador and what about more productive direct negotiations with Ottawa on 5 Wing Goose Bay.

Bill’s final very legitimate point was the aspirations of the Innu, Inuit and Metis could be far better dealt with by a territorial government with the same aspirations than a St. John’s government with millions of other priorities. I could go on for a while building other benefits but I thought his final points were interesting for you to see. Those where the points on how Newfoundland would be better off without Labrador.

Bill argued Newfoundland would be much more productive focusing on its concerns instead of being constantly pre-occupied with legitimate Labrador concerns. Here is one very good quote, “And honestly, wouldn’t Newfoundland have done a better job of managing and bringing in a superior economic return from its own fishery, forestry, mining and offshore oil and gas, as a tight little island, instead of being beguiled by pie-in-the-sky lucre from yet another “grand imperial concept” like a Churchill Falls or a Voisey’s Bay?”

On one side the province is trying to promote the development of Gull Island and Muskrat Falls but on the other hand they are trying to demand a billion dollar power line to the island. I don’t think that leaves anyone in a good bargaining position considering additional complexities such as the Innu and Metis land claims covering that region. We don’t exactly make an attractive investment climate.

None other than Bill Rowe outright claims, “If I were a resident of Labrador, I would be pushing for a referendum on whether Labrador should sever its ties with Newfoundland, and in such a referendum I would vote yes. If I were consulted as a resident of the island of Newfoundland on whether Labrador should be encouraged to go its own way, I would support such an initiative.”

I couldn’t agree more that the constant bickering would finally end between the two regions and there is merit in the point we would be far better off as separate and supportive but non-dependent neighbours.

So way to go Bill Rowe for having the courage to touch the subject, I can only ponder now if the Premier will pick up the ball and run with it as it would benefit Newfoundland as you say.

Labrador Husky vs. Labrador Retreiver

2007-04-07T15:14:00.000-04:00

When it comes to the official dog of Labrador, further debate is required. I am leaning towards the Labrador Husky! The retreiver to me is more like a pet, the Labrador Husky has deep roots in Labrador tradition.

The Labrador Husky greatly resembles the wolf. It is slightly smaller than the Canadian Eskimo Dog and the Alaskan Malamute, but larger than the Samoyed and Siberian Huskies.

The Labrador Husky is an unknown and often misunderstood breed. It is not a mix between a Labrador and a Husky, but a pure bred dog native of Coastal Labrador. It is similar in a lot of ways to the wolf. They do not bark, but can howl like a wolf.

They generally weight between 60 -100 pounds (27-45 kg.)

The Labrador Husky is native to Coastal Labrador. It belongs to the northern group of dogs, which include the Siberian Husky, Samoyed, Alaskan Malamute and Canadian Eskimo Dog. The breed was most likely brought to Labrador by the Thule Inuit around 1300 AD and introduced to the Dorsets. The dogs were used as sled dogs to carry heavy loads. Inuits first lived in Alaska (900 - 1000 AD). Over the centuries, the Labrador's ancestor had become cut off, geographically, from the other northern breeds. To maintain the desired qualities of strength, vigor, stamina and intelligence inherent in their dogs, the descendants of the Thule Inuit had allowed the Labrador to breed with the native wolf populations. This practice continued until the invention of the snowmobile, when dogs were no longer needed to pull heavy loads.

Labrador Boundary

2007-04-07T15:11:00.000-04:00

Stay tuned.

Labrador Coat of Arms

2007-04-07T15:08:00.000-04:00

Coat of Arms, Stay tuned.

Labrador Flag

2007-04-07T15:07:00.001-04:00

Stay tuned.

Labrador Tea - The Official Plant?

2007-04-07T15:00:00.000-04:00

Stay tuned for information on Labrador Tea.

Ode to Labrador

2007-04-07T14:48:00.001-04:00

Dear land of mountains, woods and snow,Labrador, our Labrador.God's noble gift to us below,Labrador, our Labrador.Thy proud resources waiting still,Their splendid task will soon fulfill,Obedient to thy Maker's will,Labrador, our Labrador

Thy stately forests soon shall ring,Labrador, our Labrador.Responsive to the woodsman's swing,Labrador, our Labrador.And mighty floods that long remained,Their raging fury unrestrained,Shall serve the purpose God ordained,Labrador, our Labrador.

We love to climb thy mountains steep,Labrador, our Labrador.And paddle on thy waters deep,Labrador, our Labrador.Our snowshoes scar thy trackless plains,We seek no city streets nor lanes,We are thy sons while life remains,Labrador, our Labrador.

Labrador Icons

2007-04-07T14:47:00.000-04:00

In the spirit of building a nation, this blog will highlight Labrador icons that help form our unique identity.

Ode to Labrador
Labrador Flag
Labrador Coat of Arms
Labrador Tea - Official Plant?
Labrador Retreiver vs. Labrador Husky - Official Dog
Labrador Boundry

"Should Labrador Seperate" by Bill Rowe

2007-04-07T13:25:00.000-04:00

Monday June 6th, 2005

Let me first start this article by saying I am not advocating anything but it is among the imponderables why the word separation conjures so many negative connotations in Labrador. It is seems like the word is almost taboo and if you say it your considered radical or an evil separatist. If you even think it there is an element of guilt. Somebody has done an exceptional job making Labradorians feel inadequate in their ability to challenge the status quo or even having a public debate.

So I do have a question. Why is it that when Bill Rowe and the Evening Telegram build a case for separation it is perfectly acceptable and it goes virtually unnoticed without even as much as a ripple effect? Back in June Bill wrote an article titled “Should Labrador Separate?”

Personally I enjoyed some of the points he discussed. He not only looked at it as being good for Labrador but it could also be a very good thing for Newfoundland. When the topic is generally discussed in Labrador nay-sayers quickly shoot you down saying Newfoundland would never allow it to happen. But are we sure about that?

When looking at territorial status Bill comments on how the Upper and Lower Churchill combined with mining activity and military flight training would see the region prosper. Other valid points were made like being able to have much better health services, education, ferry services and highways. The point was also made that a self-government working in its own self interest would encourage further mineral processing in Labrador and what about more productive direct negotiations with Ottawa on 5 Wing Goose Bay.

Bill’s final very legitimate point was the aspirations of the Innu, Inuit and Metis could be far better dealt with by a territorial government with the same aspirations than a St. John’s government with millions of other priorities. I could go on for a while building other benefits but I thought his final points were interesting for you to see. Those where the points on how Newfoundland would be better off without Labrador.

Bill argued Newfoundland would be much more productive focusing on its concerns instead of being constantly pre-occupied with legitimate Labrador concerns. Here is one very good quote, “And honestly, wouldn’t Newfoundland have done a better job of managing and bringing in a superior economic return from its own fishery, forestry, mining and offshore oil and gas, as a tight little island, instead of being beguiled by pie-in-the-sky lucre from yet another “grand imperial concept” like a Churchill Falls or a Voisey’s Bay?”

On one side the province is trying to promote the development of Gull Island and Muskrat Falls but on the other hand they are trying to demand a billion dollar power line to the island. I don’t think that leaves anyone in a good bargaining position considering additional complexities such as the Innu and Metis land claims covering that region. We don’t exactly make an attractive investment climate.

None other than Bill Rowe outright claims, “If I were a resident of Labrador, I would be pushing for a referendum on whether Labrador should sever its ties with Newfoundland, and in such a referendum I would vote yes. If I were consulted as a resident of the island of Newfoundland on whether Labrador should be encouraged to go its own way, I would support such an initiative.”

I couldn’t agree more that the constant bickering would finally end between the two regions and there is merit in the point we would be far better off as separate and supportive but non-dependent neighbours, so way to go Bill Rowe for having the courage to touch a subject most won’t.

Interview with M.P Larry Bagnell

2007-04-07T13:12:00.000-04:00

Monday, January 2, 2006

It’s among the imponderables, what leaders across Canada’s north think of territorial governments and how things are going in Canada’s territories. This is the third in a line of interviews with people from across the north. Mayor Gordon Van Tighem highlighted some very good points from his perch as the Mayor of Yellowknife. One of the most important points made by Mayor Gordon Van Tighem was the realization that people in Nunavut had no ill feelings towards the people in the North West Territories; they simply did not want to be governed from there.

I couldn’t help but draw the amazing parallel here in Labrador. Most all of us have family and certainly friends from Newfoundland and we love them dearly, however that needs to be differentiated from where decisions that affects our lives should be made.
So this week I was very interested to hear from the Member of Parliament for the Yukon Territory. Through his work as Executive Director of the Association of Yukon Communities, Larry Bagnell became well known throughout the Yukon Territory, for being a tireless worker and a reliable campaigner.

A graduate of the University of Toronto with two Bachelor degrees, one in Arts and the other in Science, Mr. Bagnell’s lifelong dedication to community service was recognized in 1999 with the city of Whitehorse’s Volunteer of the Year Award. This award recognized his work as President of the Yukon Chapter of the United Way, President of Yukon Learn, and President of Skookum Jim Friendship Center, and as a Board Member of the Miles Canyon Historic Railway Society, the Yukon Science Institute, and the Commissioner’s Potlatch. Other organizations benefiting from Mr. Bagnell’s involvement include the Canadian Cancer Society, the Anti-Poverty Coalition, the Yukon Arts Center, the Heart and Stroke Fund, and the Association Franco-Yukonnaise.

Larry Bagnell was first elected on November 27, 2000, following a narrow victory, 70 votes difference, over the then sitting MP. But before that, Larry Bagnell had had a lengthy career in the federal government, which culminated in his appointment as the Director for the Yukon of Industry Canada. During this time, he managed programs in economic development, science and technology, tourism, small business, industrial development, and international trade and he led a number of trade missions. His legislated skills were well utilized when Mr. Bagnell played a key role in the creation of the Yukon’s new Municipal Act.

On December 12, 2003 the Prime Minister appointed The Honourable Larry Bagnell to the Queen’s Privy Council as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs with a special emphasis on Northern Economic Development. Nearly six months later, on May 24th, 2004 the Prime Minister, The Right Honourable Paul Martin met the Governor General, Adrian Clarkson and asked her to dissolve the Parliament. As a result, the Honourable Larry Bagnell had to face the people's judgment on the work he had done for them, for the past four years. And the Yukonners' response was unequivocal, he was re-elected by a margin of 2511 votes, a far cry from the 70 votes difference he had obtain when he first got elected. On July 19th, the Prime Minister re-appointed the Honourable Larry Bagnell to the Queen's Privy Council but this time as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources.
The Honourable Larry Bagnell has a lot to be proud of and many would say that he's only getting started; and even though he agrees he would however argue that getting engaged to Melissa Craig is probably the best thing that ever happened to him.

Larry I notice you were the former Executive Director of the Association of Yukon Communities? It’s a similar organization to our Combined Councils of Labrador. I am just curious what the relationship is like between that association and the Yukon Territorial and the Federal Government?

“Traditionally the Federal government never directly dealt with the AYC. On programs there is an excellent relationship with FCM and the Federal government. The Green Municipal Fund is a good example. The Yukon territorial government does engage. The association represents the large majority of towns in the territory and the government would ignore it at its peril.”
The territory's modern history began with the explorations in the 1840s of Robert Campbell and John Bell, fur traders for the Hudson's Bay Company. Several trading posts were built on the Yukon River, and before long prospectors began to search for treasure. The Canadian government acquired the Yukon from the Hudson's Bay Company in 1870 and administered it as part of the Northwest Territories. After the famous gold strikes in the Klondike River region in the 1890s, thousands of fortune hunters arrived in search of gold. This colourful period was recorded in the writings of Robert Service and Jack London.

To meet the need for local government created by the influx of prospectors, the Yukon was made a separate district (1895) and then a separate territory (1898) with Dawson as capital. Whitehorse became the capital in 1952. Native land claims and the desire for provincial status are two issues that have dominated territorial politics in recent years. The land claim by the Yukon by First Nations numbering about 7,000, was approved by the federal government in 1991.

The government consists of a federally appointed commissioner, an elected legislative assembly of 17 members, and a 5-member cabinet appointed by the majority party of the assembly. The territory sends one senator and one Member of Parliament to the national parliament.
The Yukon is currently governed by the Yukon Party and Dennis Fentie. This is now their fourth term in power. What does this Party stand for and what do you contribute to their rise in success?

“The Yukon Party was originally a conservative party and when Mulrooney became so unpopular they changed their name. I think in Saskatchewan they have the Saskatchewan Party as well.”

Why is there such a push for provincial government status? What are the pros and cons of that?

“There happens to be a move toward responsible government. Over the years the territories have been gaining provincial type powers. On April 1, 2003 a devolution agreement was signed giving the Yukon virtually all the powers of a province. There is also a new funding formula. There is less of a push at the present time to be a province, now that they have new powers over lands and resources. Resources under the ground also now rest with the Yukon. Devolution agreements will also be negotiated with the North West Territories and Nunavut.”

“The Federal government realized the territorial government matured and it was now time for the next step. The capacity is there. I think right now the budget is roughly 70% federal, 30% territorial.”

What is the relationship like with NWT and Nunavut?

“The three territories are working well together. With small populations we need to work together. We have similar challenges with small populations, aboriginal ancestries, geography, land claims, permafrost conditions and marketing the north. The Canada Winter Games will be held in Whitehorse in 2007. We had to work together on that. They have secured more health care funding by working together.”

Would a Labrador Territory create a greater influence for issues common to the north?

“I know Labrador has joined the northern forum at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. In areas where they have common issues it would make sense for Labrador to work with the territories and the northern parts of the other provinces.”
How will the land claims affect the Territorial Government in the Yukon?
Well the land claims have been signed for quite some while now. Each first nation signs an individual agreement. Eleven out of fourteen have signed. It’s creating fourteen first nations governments of equal power to the territorial government in a number of areas. It’s like a third order of government or fourth if you consider municipalities. In many ways they have as much power as the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador for example. They can choose to take on education, health care, some municipal type powers and so on. The first ones to sign are doing well. The Old Crow first nation owns half of Air North and a number of other businesses. They are using their money to make investments.”

In Labrador there are three Aboriginal claims but all of different ancestries. If the three of those groups where in agreement do you think they would have enough influence to form a new territory in Labrador?

“Nunavut was a bit of an exception because the majority was aboriginal. In Labrador you have more third party interests. “

What advice would you give to people interested in pursuing the idea?

“The thing is the territories where always there. They did split one in half to create a new territory. There would have to be a constitutional change. I believe seven provinces with fifty percent of Canada’s population would be required to make a constitutional change. “

So this wraps up comments from MP Larry Bagnell. As a sitting member of parliament the comments where not as explicit but at the same time raise some interesting points that warrant further investigation. The whole concept of devolution agreements that are now giving to the territories the same powers as provinces is very intriguing and adds to the debate on Labrador governance.

Interview with Mayor Gordon Van Tighem

2007-04-07T13:07:00.000-04:00

Monday, December 5, 2005

It’s among the imponderables what leaders across Canada’s north thing of territorial governments and how things are going in Canada’s territories. I thought it would be a good idea to talk to a few of them and draw some parallels with Labrador’s aspirations to be a territory in the future.

My first contact was his Worship Mayor Gordon Van Tighem, the Mayor of Yellowknife. He was born in Calgary, Alberta, a graduate of University of Manitoba and a lifelong learner. He moved to Yellowknife from Edmonton in 1992 with his wife Carol and 3 children. His election to Mayor of the City of Yellowknife was in October 2000 and re-elected in 2003. Prior to his election as Mayor, Gord served as Executive Director of the NWT Community Mobilization Partnership for one year after 3 years as Chairman of the Volunteer Board. He chose early retirement from the Bank of Montreal in 1999 having served for 24 years in marketing management, spending the last eight years as NWT Territorial Manager. He has broad experience with a variety of organizations such as the Yellowknife and the NWT Chamber of Commerce and as a Founding Director of the Stanton Hospital Foundation and the SideDoor Youth Centre.

Mayor Van Tighem was involved in many volunteer organizations including: Edmonton Ringette, Edmonton Federation of Community Leagues, Scouts Canada, Junior Forest Wardens, Parish Council, Arctic Winter Games, Sport North, NWT Federation of Shooting Sports, NWT Wildlife Federation, Canadian Wildlife Federation, Ducks Unlimited and the Model Aeronautics Association of Canada.

Outside of serving the City his main interests now include family activities, boating and fishing the many lakes surrounding Yellowknife and camping and hunting in the Mackenzie Mountains.
Gordon in 1992 when you first moved to Yellowknife an overall majority of voters in the Northwest Territories and the Nunavut area approved the proposed boundary for division of the two territories in a May plebiscite. What was the feeling like at the time in Yellowknife?
“The focus at the time was on how we get ready on our side. There were NWT constitution and governance issues. The drive was from Nunavut. The NWT side was much more how we move forward practically. The Dene, Metis and business community all had different concepts for the NWT constitution.”

Was there any resistance on behalf of Yellowknifers?

“There was a group that would question the economic efficiencies. Our population was going to decline from over 70,000 to just over 40,000. Do you need that much government infrastructure with so few people? Other than that it was more of a supportive type environment.”

Since the separation of the two distinct regions have you noticed an improvement in government services and programs?

“On the NWT side the change was small. At first people thought that there would be reductions. Out migration and skilled workers stabilized. Nunavut decided to decentralize their government so probably a much bigger impact. Prior to the separation the government had regional offices in Cambridge Bay, Rankin Inlet and Iqaluit. A lot of people chose to stay in NWT and consult to Nunavut. Out migration didn’t happen as anticipated. The population declined slightly in 1996, rebounded with the diamond industry by 2000.

Do you feel as a Mayor you now have improved access with a smaller NWT government?

The access to government is similar but there is more focus now in the NWT. Getting consensus was more difficult before with the life-style differences. For them it is also much more focused.
What is the relationship like between the municipalities and the territorial government?
“In general it has been healthy and growing. Government is working to devolve duties to communities and attaching funding to these initiatives in more instances.”

What is the relationship like now between the two regions? Is there much cooperation?

“Recently all the territories are working cooperatively and there are successes in health care, transportation and education. Together the Territories have more clout. All acting together has been very effective as a result.”

What about between the cities of Iqaluit and Yellowknife?

“It’s been an interesting evolution. When Nunavut was first formalized we went on a trade mission to Iqaluit. There was a perception they hated us. It ended up they didn’t like taking direction from the NWT government but had no problem dealing with the businesses. Transportation is a challenge. We deal with Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver and they deal with Montreal and Ottawa. The fuzzy feelings are there but no real big increases.”

In Labrador there are three Aboriginal claims but all of different ancestries. If the three of those groups where in agreement do you think they would have the power to form a new territory in Labrador?

“I think Nunavut has the benefit of a common ancestry. Historically with different ancestries it’s much harder to get an agreement. If all three in Labrador were in agreement they would have a great influence. The power to do it still rest in Ottawa.”

What advice would you give to people interested in pursuing the idea?

“The biggest question I would have does it make sense? Do a t-chart of what’s good about it and what’s not. It’s a huge decision. The aboriginal groups may have community wellness and educational issues that sometimes have priority over governance type issues. It’s hard for everyone to understand the aboriginal people deal with Ottawa directly with a lot of things now and the rest have to go to the province or territory first.”

“Some interpretations of the NWT act called for the extinguishment of territorial governments all together at a point, but there are other intervening issues that prevent that from happening. As an example, there are municipalities with legislated authority in place and so on.”
Is there much talk about provincial status in the NWT?"

“It’s an ongoing off to the side topic that comes up from time to time on a regular basis. In reality our population is not that different from many small cities in Canada, but we govern a significant land mass. On the other hand the city of Toronto is bigger than several of the provinces. There are huge differences in governments across the country. Through the Federation of Canadian Municipalities the Territories we will often include Prince Edward Island now as well. They were severely under funded when considered on a per capita.”
“Canada may put money into the territories but they take it out on resource royalties. The land and what’s below still belongs to Canada. In a province it belongs to the province. With resources you also have to think about the long term as non-renewable means they are going to diminish over time once exploited. How do you maintain revenues in the long term from non-renewable resources? Ability to tax becomes a longer term stabilizer.”

Accountability Project

2007-04-07T12:02:00.000-04:00

Welcome to the Great Labrador Governance Debate and Accountability Project. This blog is intended to track very specific commitments to Labradorians. There is no greater fraud, than a promise not kept and this blog will attempt to establish if the promises made, were promises kept!

Danny Williams Metis Commitments
Danny Williams Sir Robert Bond Commitment
John Hickey, Trans - Labrador Highway Commitment

Stay tuned......

If there are specific commitments you would like this blog to track please let me know.

The Danny Williams Metis Commitments

2007-04-07T11:53:00.000-04:00

October 8, 2003

Mr. Todd Russell, President
Labrador Metis Nation
P.O. Box 460, Station C
Happy Valley - Goose Bay, NL, A0P 1C0
VIA FAX: 896-0594

Dear Mr. Russell,

At our meeting on Friday, September 12, 2003, I outlined a number of commitments a Progressive Conservative government would undertake with respect to the constitutional rights of teh Metis people in Newfoundland and Labrador, and the involvement of the Labrador Metis in the benefits that would accrue from development of the Lower Churchill and other resources in the region. The commitments include the following:

A Progressive Conservative government will acknowlege that the decision in the Powley case applies to Metis in Newfoundland and Labrador, and will participate with the Federal Government and the Metis Nation in negotiations to define and enforce the specific rights affirmed in the Powley decision and other rights protected under s. 35 of the Constitution.

We will work in partnership with the Metis people of Labrador to promote and strengthen Metis communities and culture, and to ensure the Metis and all residents of Labrador share in the benefits that accrue from the development of Labrador resources.

We will involve the Labrador Metis Nation, as we will representatives of all residents of Labrador, in the process of negotiating a Lower Churchill Development Agreement.

Newfoundland and Labrador needs the participation of the Metis community if the province is going to realize its full potential for social and economic growth. I look forward to working with the Labrador Metis Nation to benefit the Metis community and all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Sincerely,

Danny Williams, Q.C., Leader

UPDATES.............The moment of truth!

April 11, 2007, Tom Rideout shocks Metis world with land claims revelations.

April 10, 2007, Labrador Metis Nation launches series of Double Standard advertisements.

March 2007. Metis hunters are charged in provincial court.

Fall 2006. Metis hunters are confronted during caribou hunt.

July 19, 2006, Labrador Metis wins landmark Duty to Consult case in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador related to Phase III of the Trans Labrador Highway. The Provincial Government appeals.

The Governance Debate

2007-04-07T11:32:00.000-04:00

Welcome to the great Labrador Governance Debate. In this blog I will track the points of view from as many prominent citizens as I can on Labrador Governance.

To have your say, click here! We want to hear what you have to say!

Brian Lee Crowley, President, AIMS, Part I, Part II
Gordon Van Tighem, Mayor, Yellowknife, North West Territories
Larry Bagnell, Member of Parliament, Yukon
Bill Rowe, Open Line Host, Evening Telegram Columnist
Dr. Sir Wilfred Grenfell
William Keough

Stay tuned for input from ..............

Bill Rompkey, Senator
Todd Russell, Member of Parliament
John Hickey, MHA
Yvonne Jones, MHA
Wally Andersen, MHA
Jim Baker, MHA
Ron Barron, Former Labrador Party Candidate
Mike Martin, Former Labrador Party MHA
Brandon Pardy, Former Labrador Party Candidate
Leo Abbass, Mayor, Happy Valley - Goose Bay
Graham Letto, Mayor, Happy Valley - Goose Bay
William Andersen, President, Nunatsiavut
Tony Andersen, Vice President, Nunatsiavut
Wade Earle, Mayor, Red Bay
Chris Montague, President, Labrador Metis Nation
Daniel Ashini, President, Innu Nation
Peter Penashue, Former President, Innu Nation
Stanley Oliver, President, Combined Councils of Labrador

Please let me know if there are others I should approach to add to this debate.

Questions:

Do you feel Labrador is adequately represented in the House of Assembly?
Do you feel Labrador is adequately represented in the House of Commons?
What is your view of partisan politics and its impact on Labrador unity?
Would you support a non-partisan system, i.e. Nunavut Model?
How do you see aboriginal governance impacting Labrador as a whole?
What would a Labrador Territory have to look like, to get your support?
What would the benefits be of Labrador self governance.
What would the draw backs and challenges be of Labrador self governance.
Do you feel there is a link between Governance and the reported alienation in Labrador?

If there are other questions you feel should be asked please let me know.

Governance Options

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.
Status Quo Variance. Province of Newfoundland and Labrador with more or less seats in both the House of Assembly and the House of Commons.
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.
Labrador Territory - Aboriginal Self Governance. A territory governed by representatives from Nunatsiavut, Innu Nation, Labrador Metis Nation and the settler population.
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.
Quebec. Join the province of Quebec, 1 seat in the House of Commons, 4 out of the 125 seats in the Quebec National Assembly.
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.

Interview with Brian Lee Crowley Part II

2007-04-07T09:27:00.000-04:00

I remain confident Labrador needs to assert itself once again like it did in the early nineteen seventies and good information from credible people will help facilitate healthy governance discussions. This week I share the rest of my interview with Brian Lee Crowley. Crowley is the founding President of AIMS, Atlantic Canada's public policy think tank. He has headed the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council (APEC), taught politics, economics and philosophy at half a dozen Canadian Post Secondary Institutions and been constitutional advisor to the governments of Nova Scotia and Manitoba.

He has been a Salvatori Fellow at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, a diplomat for the EEC Commission, an aid administrator for the UN in Africa, an advisor to the Quebec government on parliamentary and electoral reform and a Parliamentary Intern at the House of Commons in Ottawa.

He is a media commentator, a former member of the Editoral Board at The Globe and Mail and his articles appear in national, regional and local newspapers. He holds degrees from McGill and the London School of Economics. He is a member of numerous international boards and societies. He is an author of many books and other publications including two projects on the Canadian health-care system.

In Labrador there are three Aboriginal claims but all of different ancestries. If the three of those groups where in agreement, do you think they would have enough influence to form a new territory in Labrador?

“I have no idea if they have an interest. The obstacles are significant. Certainly the major thing aboriginal groups are seeking is self government, and it is entirely possible that they might see territorial status for all of Labrador as possibly offering a vehicle for a more comprehensive kind of self-government. Nunavut was in part carved out of the NWT so that there would be a government at the federal/provincial/territorial negotiating table that would have an aboriginal majority and Ottawa saw that as being positive. Aboriginal people in Labrador might well conclude that interests would be better represented in such an arrangement.” Logistically what hurdles would have to be overcome as it relates to the Canadian constitution? Can they be overcome?

“I stand to be corrected but in order to change the current boundaries would require a constitutional amendment and, at a minimum, the agreement of the provincial government.

There are two possibilities under the constitution and it would require some study to know which was the relevant one. Section 43A of the Constitution Act of 1982 states “An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to any provision that applies to one or more, but not all, provinces, including (a) any alteration to boundaries between provinces, and (b) any amendment to any provision that relates to the use of the English or the French language within a province, may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province to which the amendment applies.”

“If granting Labrador territorial status did not fall under this amending rule, then it would likely fall under the general amendment formula with agreement from at least seven provinces with fifty percent of Canada’s population. Section 38 actually reads (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by (a) resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons; and (b) resolutions of the legislative assemblies of at least two-thirds of the provinces that have, in the aggregate, according to the then latest general census, at least fifty per cent of the population of all the provinces.”

“The first option would be the preferred one for Labradorians because many provinces may fear opening up a can of worms with regard to distinct areas within their own provinces that would like more autonomy or greater power.”

Currently Labrador leads the province with its self-sufficiency ratio. There is a known inventory of iron ore, nickel, hydro-electricity, uranium, natural gas, aboriginal government infrastructure, a fishery, growing tourism and military infrastructure. Do you think this combination with an obviously low tax base would provide for a vibrant economy of less than 30,000?

“That is an empirical question. I am not in a position to speculate. It needs to be studied completely. I wouldn’t be surprised if it could but it is a matter of facts. A report on this specifically should be commissioned probably before an Estates General in Labrador so everyone had that information.”

So this concludes my interview with Brian Lee Crowley. Brian makes a final point about a commissioned report. I will follow up that point with an article of its own. Such a report would be particularly useful for all of our inputs into public policy and there is a Nunavut example of one such report. Other points about the constitution and the concept of an aboriginal majority government should generate some healthy discussions in Labrador. Labrador governance is a legitimate topic and I trust you will feel comfortable raising the subject on the entire gamete from the Premiers offices, to the department of Labrador Affairs, to municipalities, to aboriginal self government to Labrador self government.

Interview with Brian Lee Crowley

2007-04-07T08:39:00.001-04:00

It’s among the imponderables what credible people outside of Labrador and across Canada’s north think of the current Labrador governance structure. Back in late July and early August I touched on this subject and pondered why people were in fear of discussions on the subject. Most people will only whisper the thoughts in private conversations. There is a clear lack of information on the subject so I thought I would spark some debate by interviewing a series of credible people with nothing to fear. I hope you enjoy their perspectives in the weeks and months to come.

Brian Lee Crowley is the founding President of AIMS, the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies, Atlantic Canada's public policy think tank. In its ten years of existence, AIMS has brought a distinctive and influential Eastern Canadian voice to regional and national debates over public policy in areas such as transfer payments, social policy, fiscal and tax policy, health care, education performance and accountability, equalization, regulatory burden, Canada-US relations and much more. AIMS is one of the world's most honoured think tanks. It is a four time winner of the prestigious Sir Antony Fisher Award, which recognizes excellence in public policy think tank publications and projects. No think tank in the world has won this honour more times than AIMS. In its tenth anniversary year (2004-05), AIMS also won the Templeton Freedom Prize for Institute Excellence. More than 200 think tanks world wide are eligible for the Fisher and Templeton prizes.

Among his many books and other publications, Crowley co-authored two projects on the Canadian health-care system both of which won the Sir Antony Fisher Award. In recognition of his health-care work, he was named to the most influential recent provincial health-care inquiry in Canada, the Alberta Premier’s Advisory Council on Health (the Mazankowski Committee). The Council’s Chairman, former Canadian Deputy Prime Minister Don Mazankowski, called Crowley the "intellectual architect" of the committee’s report. Crowley is a much sought-after media commentator on health-care policy and has spoken to scores of national and international conferences in recent years on health-care reform in Canada.

Crowley has headed the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council (APEC), taught politics, economics and philosophy at Dalhousie University, University of Manitoba, University of Winnipeg, le Collège Universitaire de Saint-Boniface, the City of London Polytechnic and the Université d'été at Aix-en-Provence and been constitutional advisor to the governments of Nova Scotia (Charlottetown negotiations) and Manitoba (Meech Lake negotiations). He has been a Salvatori Fellow at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, a diplomat for the EEC Commission, an aid administrator for the UN in Africa, an advisor to the Quebec government on parliamentary and electoral reform and a Parliamentary Intern at the House of Commons in Ottawa.

Crowley is a frequent commentator on political and economic issues for the CBC, Radio-Canada and many other media, and is a former member of the Editorial Board of The Globe and Mail (one of Canada's two national newspapers) and of the National Political Panel on Morningside with the late Peter Gzowski on CBC Radio. His articles appear in both national newspapers and numerous regional and local newspapers, including regular columns in the largest circulation newspapers in Nova Scotia (the Chronicle-Herald), New Brunswick (the Times & Transcript) and Québec (La Presse, the largest circulation French language daily in North America). He has had his own weekly current events talk show on the Eastlink cable network, reaching 250,000 households in Nova Scotia, PEI and southern New Brunswick. He holds degrees from McGill and the London School of Economics, including a doctorate in political economy from the latter.

He is a director of three organisations: the Society for the Advancement of Excellence in Education; Civitas, which promotes an understanding of the principles of a free and ordered society; and the Maine Public Policy Institute. In addition, he is a member of the Research Advisory Board of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy (Winnipeg), and the Nigerian Institute for Public Policy, Lagos, Nigeria, an Adjunct Faculty Member at the Center for Media and Public Policy, The Heritage Foundation, and a member of the Leadership Council on Energy Restructuring, both in Washington, DC.

So Brian you are a busy man and AIMS is without a doubt an important public policy think tank in Atlantic Canada. We want to ask you lots of questions about governance in this country. There is a theory that if Labrador and Newfoundland were governed separately they would be more focused and achieve better economic results as opposed to holding out for the promise of mega-developments. What do you think?

“Let me just say the ideal government is self government, each person deciding things for themselves. Every other form of government is a compromise. The further away you get from this ideal the more dissatisfied people will be. Very large countries with large populations tend to be very distant and autocratic from their populations. There are trade offs. In Newfoundland and Labrador there are well-defined differences between the two parts. One example would be the very different ways they are connected to markets in North America. The question becomes can you have a single government that can reconcile these diverse interests or are they simply too diverse. It would be expensive to have a separate government but on the other hand you would get a government more in tune with Labrador’s needs. You don’t want to be saddled with a government where the costs outweigh the benefits and you don’t want a government that only looks out for others’ interests either.”
The Atlantic Institute for Market Studies does a lot of research on equalization reform. How would Labrador fare as a territory in Canada’s current equalization environment versus the one AIMS advocates?

“That is a good question. It would take some research to determine how Labrador would fare. The three other territories do quite well out of equalization, large natural resource endowments and the federal presence. The North West Territories, for example, have been enjoying an economic boom because of the diamond industry. Labrador would have many of the same strengths and advantages.

I have serious reservations about the equalization formula. It gives to the weaker regions more government than they need and in turn fosters reliance on Ottawa instead of incentives to develop their economies. We need to be self supporting and creating value. It’s not in Labrador’s interest to fall further into that system.”

“I have no reason to believe Voisey’s Bay and other operating mines are the only non-renewable natural resources that could be developed in Labrador. If you took non-renewable natural resources out of the equalization formula it would encourage further development. A government of Labrador not overly dependent on equalization would push harder for more development.”

It would appear from maps and literature that Labrador is often omitted from Atlantic Canadian initiatives. Isn’t it fair to say Labrador is more comparable to the territories in relation to ancestries, geography, populations and so on? Is there room for Labrador in Atlantica?
“My impressions are superficial. It appears to me Labrador and the Territories have obvious similarities. I suspect part of the problem is the government in St. John’s concentrates its efforts on the island where the population centers are. It’s hard to get their attention. If you can’t get their attention how are you going to get Ottawa’s? I am not being dismissive but the name change of the province was, I fear, more window dressing than substance.”
“Labrador isn’t shown on the Atlantica map because Atlantica is an economic concept, not a political one. If there were appropriate infrastructure across the Strait of Belle Isle, for example, Labrador would be part of Atlantica because it would be connected to continental markets through the territory of Atlantica. As it stands, Labrador is not part of the economic entity Atlantica attempts to describe, but we take no pleasure in that. We merely observe it as an economic fact, and a fact that has been recognised by your own political leadership, nor is Labrador the only piece of a political jurisdiction that falls outside Atlantica. Part of Quebec and New York for example are excluded. It’s all about connections and access to North American markets. Labrador would absolutely be in there if it were properly connected across the Atlantica territory.”

In Labrador there are three Aboriginal claims but all of different ancestries. If the three of those groups where in agreement, do you think they would have enough influence to form a new territory in Labrador?

“I have no idea if they have an interest. The obstacles are significant. Certainly the major thing aboriginal groups are seeking is self government, and it is entirely possible that they might see territorial status for all of Labrador as possibly offering a vehicle for a more comprehensive kind of self-government. Nunavut was in part carved out of the NWT so that there would be a government at the federal/provincial/territorial negotiating table that would have an aboriginal majority and Ottawa saw that as being positive. Aboriginal people in Labrador might well conclude that interests would be better represented in such an arrangement.”
What advice would you give to people interested in pursuing the idea of a territory in Labrador?
“Well I would look at two experiences that are relevant. One would be in Quebec. They held an Estates General (États Généraux), a gathering together of all the communities. They pulled together the leadership to deal with the issue of Quebec’s future. Labrador could do this to discuss its place in Canada and the world. In the sixties the Quebec Estates General galvanized Quebec society to gain control of their own destiny.”

“In the West in the seventies there was the “One Big Province Movement”. The provinces in western Canada had a strategy to improve their position in Canada by combining to become a single huge province with major clout. The conference that was held to discuss that idea gave birth, for example, to the Canada West Foundation.”

“Labradorians have to get together and decide what they want. They have to decide to either fight for a territorial status or for more power within their current structure. They are legitimate topics. Territories do enjoy autonomy but they are still wards of Ottawa, a step down from provincial status. Their powers are gifts from Ottawa. You have to think would you want to be in this position vis à vis Ottawa.”

Logistically what hurdles would have to be overcome as it relates to the Canadian constitution? Can they be overcome?

“I stand to be corrected but in order to change the current boundaries would require a constitutional amendment and, at a minimum, the agreement of the provincial government.

There are two possibilities under the constitution and it would require some study to know which was the relevant one. Section 43A of the Constitution Act of 1982 states “An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to any provision that applies to one or more, but not all, provinces, including (a) any alteration to boundaries between provinces, and (b) any amendment to any provision that relates to the use of the English or the French language within a province, may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province to which the amendment applies.”

“If granting Labrador territorial status did not fall under this amending rule, then it would likely fall under the general amendment formula with agreement from at least seven provinces with fifty percent of Canada’s population. Section 38 actually reads (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by (a) resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons; and (b) resolutions of the legislative assemblies of at least two-thirds of the provinces that have, in the aggregate, according to the then latest general census, at least fifty per cent of the population of all the provinces.”

“The first option would be the preferred one for Labradorians because many provinces may fear opening up a can of worms with regard to distinct areas within their own provinces that would like more autonomy or greater power.”

Currently Labrador leads the province with its self-sufficiency ratio. There is a known inventory of iron ore, nickel, hydro-electricity, uranium, natural gas, aboriginal government infrastructure, a fishery, growing tourism and military infrastructure. Do you think this combination with an obvious low tax base would provide for a vibrant economy of less than 30,000?

“That is an empirical question. I am not in a position to speculate. It needs to be studied completely. I wouldn’t be surprised if it could but it is a matter of facts. A report on this specifically should be commissioned probably before an Estates General in Labrador so everyone had that information.”

So there you have it, some very good information from Brian Lee Crowley. Brian has nothing to fear and I am sure his life will go on after this article is published. What did you find most intriguing about these comments? I’ll continue to follow up with these sorts of questions and see how leaders in the Yukon, North West Territories and Nunavut feel about the subject. I promise you that their responses are interesting and hopefully with enough good information we can have sensible debates about a subject that often has a stigma attached to it.

There are several points that Brian highlights that I felt were particularly useful, especially as it relates to the concept of an Estates General. Labrador has a forum annually at the Combined Councils of Labrador and this year it is titled “One Labrador”. The majority of stakeholders, aboriginal groups and municipalities will all be in attendance.

As a follow up to government’s unwillingness to attend last year’s meeting maybe there is no better time to have a closed door and frank discussion.

Brian makes a final point about a commissioned report. I will follow up that point with an article of its own. Such a report would be particularly useful for all of our inputs into public policy and there is a Nunavut example of one such report. Other points about the absence from Atlantica due to the lack of transportation infrastructure, the constitution, the ideal form of government and the concept of an aboriginal or Labrador majority government spark numerous ideas. I have faith that research and information will bring clarity to many of our debates in Labrador, without it our views are polarized from years of hard knocks and ultimately none of our diverse interests will maximize their potential.

Among the Imponderables

2007-04-06T23:36:00.000-04:00

A revolution is coming - a revolution which will be peaceful if we are wise enough; compassionate if we care enough; successful if we are fortunate enough - but a revolution which is coming whether we will it or not. We can affect its character, we cannot alter its inevitability. John F Kennedy

I thought that would be a good way to kick of Among the Imponderables, and so, my fellow Labradorians, ask not what your Big Land can do for you; ask what you can do for your Labrador.

Welcome to “Among the Imponderables”. After you read the following text, I think you will agree it is a fitting title to discuss the issues by Labrador.

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 Keough
National Convention debates
October 17, 1947