December

16, 1992

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLI No. 86

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: Just a brief statement. I have given copies

to my hon. friend from Humber East, and I acknowledge that she only got it a few

minutes ago, but I think she will say it is a very routine matter and not one

that requires much comment.

I simply want to tell the House, Mr. Speaker, that the

director of public prosecutions informed me this morning that he has ordered a

judicial inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of Perry Dale

Tremblett. The House conferred this power upon the director in

section 23 of the

Summary Proceedings Act. Mr. Tremblett died on 21 July 1992, while a prisoner at

the Salmonier Correctional Institution. The chief judge of the Provincial Court

has not yet assigned a judge to conduct the inquiry. The director has asked that

this be done as quickly as possible. A date for the hearing will then be set in

the usual manner. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is the second

death of an inmate of a provincial correctional centre in the last couple of

years. We approve of the government's decision to respond to the recommendation

of the director of public prosecutions to have a judicial inquiry into the death

of Mr. Tremblett last summer at the Salmonier Correctional Institution. We will

await with interest the findings of the inquiry judge. We will be particularly

interested in finding out whether any shortcoming on the part of the Provincial

Government, the Department of Justice or the Adult Corrections Division

contributed in any way to the tragic death.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I rise at

this time to seek leave to respond to the Ministerial Statement and, in doing

so, would like to advise you, Your Honour, and the members of the House on both

sides that I checked with the Clerk's office of the Province of Saskatchewan

today and was advised that the sole Liberal member in the Saskatchewan New

Democratic House, Linda Haverstock, who is also the leader of the party, is

granted leave on each and every occasion that she seeks to speak to a

Ministerial Statement. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I am advised by the Clerk's office

that leave is no longer even requested by the Speaker when Ms. Haverstock,

leader of the Liberal Party of Saskatchewan rises to speak to a Ministerial

Statement. Formerly, it was done out of courtesy, now it appears to be done as a

part of the practice of the House. So, in rising to seek leave, Mr. Speaker, I

just want to advise members of the House that that is the practice in the

Province of Saskatchewan where there is one Liberal member, a leader, in a House

where the majority is a New Democratic Party.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave of the

House?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am

certainly prepared, as one member, to give leave and prepared to ask my

colleagues here to do likewise; but let me simply say to the House in response

to the substance of the hon. gentleman's points, in my judgement this is

something that the House has to address and once we rise - and I assure the

House we will rise at some point - that is on the list of things that I will

raise with my colleague opposite and, in due course, with members - there is a

list of things, I believe, in the rules which need to be addressed - in the hope

we can reach a consensus and amend the rules accordingly.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: We give leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East has

leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Did I hear somebody say that there was not

leave?

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry, the hon. member does not have

leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have a

question for the Premier.

A few days ago the Premier informed the House that he planned

to intervene in a dispute between the Auditor General and Memorial University

concerning the right of the Auditor General to audit the university's accounts.

I want to ask the Premier: Did anyone request that he intervene in this dispute?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Did anyone...?

MR. MATTHEWS: Did anyone request that you intervene in

the dispute between the Auditor General and the university.

PREMIER WELLS: Did anyone request? Well, both parties

complained to me about the action of the other. I took it upon myself to

interpret that as a request to intervene.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a

supplementary.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to ask the Premier: What right does he have to

intervene? The Auditor General is an officer of this Legislature. The Premier

has no more standing in this Legislature than any other member. He is no more

important in this Legislature than any other member.

I want to ask the Premier: Why is he, himself, usurping the

role and responsibilities of this Legislature?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The simple answer is: I am not, Mr.

Speaker. Both the President of the University and the Auditor General complained

to the government that the other, in their judgement -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: No - complained to me, the Premier -

complained to the government.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: The President of the University and the

Auditor General both complained to me that the other was not behaving in respect

of this matter as each thought they should.

Now, if they were going to complain to the hon. the Member

for Grand Bank, if they wanted to do that, I assume they would have done it; but

they did not, they chose to complain to me.

While I am a member of the House, like every other member of

the House, I am the First Minister of the Government in the Province and it is

not to be unexpected that they might put the complaint in that direction,

because the government has certain responsibilities in respect of both offices.

The government provides the funding, with the approbation of the House, for the

university to spend. We direct educational policy in the Province. The

government has a responsibility to ensure that access to government agencies and

offices is provided to the Auditor General. If the Auditor General is having

difficulty it is perfectly normal and understandable that they should complain

to the government and not to the Opposition House Leader.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: The point is not that the Auditor General

reported to me. The Auditor General reported to this House on November 30 in a

special report, I say to the Premier. A few days later we had the Chairman of

the Public Accounts Committee, the Member for Mount Pearl, bring in a special

report to the Legislature about this matter. It is not to me that they are

reporting. The Auditor General is an officer of this House, not an officer of

the Premier or of his Cabinet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the

Premier that his actions are, indeed, improper. He is setting a very dangerous

precedent. The Auditor General is completely independent of Mr. Wells'

Administration. I want to ask the Premier why he is trying to intimidate the

Auditor General? Are you setting yourself up as the final arbitrator of what the

Auditor General can and cannot do, I ask the Premier? Is that what you are up

to?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, they have obviously struck

the bottom of the barrel if that is all they can find to complain about. The

government, because of the fact we got a complaint, are acting responsibly to

try to deal with a problem between the Auditor General and the university before

it becomes, unnecessarily, a great difficulty. Now, we have tabled the

information, we have told the House what we are doing, we explained what the

circumstances are and everything else. I can't imagine how a government could

act in a more responsible way. What does the hon. member propose we do? Summon

them both before the Bar of the House? It is utter nonsense!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I remind the Premier again

that in this Legislature he only has the rights of any other member. The Member

for Eagle River just showed the Premier that when he wanted to give the Member

for St. John's East leave. He is only a member. I want to say that the role of

the Legislature as a watchdog on taxation and government expenditure is the most

ancient and traditional important right of any Parliament. Is the Premier aware

that if he proceeds with his intervention he will have violated the most basic

privileges of this House and of every Parliament that subscribes to the British

parliamentary system? If he has intervened or if he intervenes in this matter,

that is what he will be doing, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I don't know what authority the hon.

member is reading from, but I suggest that he go and get a real authority and

look at it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to direct a question to the appropriate

minister, probably the Minister of Justice. Why, in recent times, have we gotten

rid of the consumer advocate, why indeed have we gotten rid of the position

itself?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, because we can achieve

precisely the same good, and that is a substantial one for the public interest,

at about half the cost and if I could find a way to achieve the same end in

other ways, in other words to achieve the same good at half the cost, I would be

the first to do it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay, on a

supplementary.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One wonders - half the cost to whom? When the PC party was

last in power in this hon. House, we found ourselves in a situation where the

appointment of outside parties, even with a grant from the government, just was

not doing the job in speaking up for consumers at Public Utilities Board

hearings. As a result, we put an advocate on the board itself; if the minister

is so concerned why was not someone already on the board or a new person put on

the board to represent consumers?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the first was that the Supreme

Court of Canada, in a case that went to the board, showed exactly what could

happen with a policy as ill-advised and as stupid as the policy of putting

somebody on a board who is not an impartial person prepared to hear evidence and

then weigh the evidence and make a decision.

Secondly, the mere fact that the Peckford administration, of

which the hon. gentleman was such a shining ornament, did something and it did

not succeed is hardly proof of anything except the incompetence of the Peckford

administration, which we see demonstrated daily.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Speaker, I had no idea I was an ornament

but I guess nearing the Christmas season, that is indeed appropriate.

I would like to put to the minister the following: His boss,

the Premier, was Chairman of the Board of Newfoundland Power, the minister

served on the Fortis Board, the holding company that runs Newfoundland Light and

Power, and since the Wells' administration has come to power there has been a

steady downgrading of the consumer's position before the Public Utilities Board,

does not the minister and/or his boss see themselves in a bit of a conflict of

interest in this matter?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, let me answer the hon. member

in the same spirit as he relayed the question. First of all I was never on the

Fortis board. Secondly, let me say to the hon. member that by leaving the

Premier's office and moving to his present seat in the Opposition, he has

elevated considerably the intelligence level of both places.

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

MR. WINSOR: That is some intelligent comment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation.

Talks regarding the construction of -

MR. HEWLETT: I demand an IQ test.

MR. SULLIVAN: - the Goulds bypass road has been ongoing

for over a year and the federal government has committed 100 per cent funding to

the tune of $6 million, and traffic in this area is intolerable, and with an

economy that is badly in need of capital spending not only to create jobs but to

ensure an access to the southern shore - will the minister tell this House why

his government is stalling this vital transportation link to communities along

the southern shore?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Nothing could be

further from the truth than what the hon. gentleman has just said. If this

administration wished to stall the Goulds by-pass road it would not have

registered it for environmental assessment. When I became minister, within a few

months I believe of my taking over the responsibilities of this department, I

registered the Goulds by-pass road for environmental assessment. The law of the

land requires that these projects be cleared environmentally, not only by the

Province but by the federal government. If this administration had no intention

of proceeding with the Goulds by-pass road it would not have been registered.

It is registered. Before it can proceed - and this is the law

of the land - it must clear the environmental process. It is currently going

through that process. When it clears that process, if it clears that process, it

will be listed for consideration in the capital works. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Since 1991 it's

been ongoing with several requests to have it registered. It wasn't registered

until May 14, 1992. Several months after, up to November, it still hadn't gone

to a committee for the EPR - environmental preview report. I have a copy of a

letter from the Minister of Environment, dated September 17, to me, indicating

that they are immediately scheduling a meeting with the committee and the

proponent, the Department of Works, Services and Transportation. Would the

minister inform me what has transpired and what has happened as a result of this

meeting, and what progress is now occurring?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, it's basically the same question

to which the same answer applies. This project is proceeding through the

environmental assessment procedure. The proposed routing of the road passes

through a sensitive agricultural area. Both the Department of Environment and

Lands and certainly the proponent, the department that registered the project,

the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, are proceeding as

expeditiously as possible under those circumstances. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, in fact, it's

running parallel to the water route from Bay Bulls - Big Pond in which, to my

knowledge, there was not one registered environmental complaint, and is running

through exactly the same area. Will the minister admit that his government

wishes to spend funds in some other area of the Province and, under pressures

and so on, subjected to continuous delays, have tried to delay this project now

for about one year? Will he admit that now and tell the real truth?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, if the government wished to delay

this project it would withdraw its registration of the proposal. Mr. Speaker,

the project must be cleared environmentally. It is registered and the process is

proceeding. That is this government's commitment to the project.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Premier. Why have the Premier and

his administration, after four years in office and three Ministers of Social

Services, failed to introduce in this Legislature a new Child Welfare Act?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, we have already introduced into

the House several amendments to the existing Child Welfare Act. In May I gave an

update of amendments that we had proposed and recommendations that we had acted

on after the Hughes Report. The Minister of Justice gave a similar update just

recently, a couple of weeks ago. We have now in process the remaining amendments

and the remaining recommendations of the Hughes Report to be dealt with by way

of amendment and by way of change. In fact, it will be a new Child Welfare Act.

That is in progress right now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, thank you.

A supplementary to the Premier. The Premier and the minister

know that all they have done to amend The Child Welfare Act is two days ago

introduced one simple bill, which is exactly two pages and four lines long. Mr.

Speaker, won't the Premier admit that he has known for at least two years,

certainly since May of 1991 when he got the final report of the Hughes

Commission, that the requirement in the current act for reporting suspected

child abuse is flawed and unenforceable? Will the Premier, therefore, not admit

that he and his government, by procrastinating and waiting until two days ago to

correct that flaw, have wilfully neglected the welfare of children, and

unnecessarily put children at risk?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, as I said, we acted very

quickly on the recommendations of the Hughes Commission. As a matter of fact, we

were acting on the recommendations as the Hughes Commission was ongoing. Many of

those recommendations, as I reported to the House, were followed through with

and acted upon throughout that process. I reported on that back in May.

The member speaks about acting quickly. In five years as

Justice Minister and Attorney General, what did she do about this particular

act?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I draw to everyone's attention the fact that the Premier is

ignoring these questions, just as he has ignored social services and social law

reform for four years.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get on with the question.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier: Why

has his government failed to introduce in this Assembly a simple amendment to

The Child Welfare Act to close the gap in entitlement to services of young

people between the ages of sixteen and eighteen? Premier, this is important.

There are young people in this Province at risk.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. VERGE: Why haven't you introduced the amendment?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member can't direct who answers the question.

The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the amendment she speaks of -

the fact that the ages of seventeen and eighteen is a void right now in the act,

it falls between The Child Welfare Act and other acts that it could apply to,

that category of individuals: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with that problem

right now. As I have said before, it is not simply a matter of making an

amendment to The Child Welfare Act. That might help particular situations,

situations concerning my department but age categories, per se, other

departments are involved as well. The age of becoming an adult has to be dealt

with in other departments. So we are dealing with that, Mr. Speaker. If the need

is there, and I am sure it might be, to come in ahead of the new Child Welfare

Act with an amendment to deal with this particular section, I will do so.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A question to the Premier, who is responsible for all

ministers and all departments, the Premier who is in charge of the government,

the First Minister. Mr. Speaker, will the Premier explain why children are

falling between the cracks of his departments and his ministers? Why has the

Premier failed to introduce in this House of Assembly, in four years, a new

Child Welfare Act, a new Day Care Act, a new Schools Act, all legislative reform

measures which are long overdue?

AN HON. MEMBER: Because he doesn't care.

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

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the Minister of Social Services.

Does the minister yield?

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the member for Waterford -

Kenmount is the Minister of Social Services. He is totally and completely

competent. I have complete confidence in him. He is doing a superb job.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: He is carrying on in the tradition of the

member for Placentia who is a former minister, and the member for Port de Grave

who is a former minister, in all of whom I have had complete confidence. They

have done a superb job in Social Services.

Now, Mr. Speaker, when questions are asked in the House,

those ministers responsible answer those questions. The fact that the member for

Humber East has a particular personal vendetta which she wants to display day

after day is up to the member for Humber East. Surely, Mr. Speaker, we don't

have to dance to the script that she wants to write every day. The minister has

spoken and will continue to speak for the government on Social Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Social Services. A couple

of days ago the minister announced the increase in the number of social workers

in child welfare by twenty-five. Now, can the minister confirm that his own

internal reports, which he has refused to table in the House, indicate a need

for at least sixty-seven social workers? Will he now agree to table that report

in the House of Assembly, as he has apparently agreed to The Evening Telegram to

make public the report of the Child Welfare Association of America?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, first of all the member for St.

John's East speaks about two different reports. The one that I refused to table

in the House was an internal document, strictly a management document that he

was referring to, when he asked me a previous question. We are not about to deal

with managing the department in this Legislature.

The document that I do have now, Mr. Speaker, is one that we

commissioned by a group out of the United States, and that work is complete. I

have not received as yet the final document. I have a draft of it. When that

document is received, Mr. Speaker, I see no reason why it cannot be released.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, when the minister advised the

House that an additional twenty-five social workers for child welfare were being

hired he didn't tell us how many his own departmental studies had advised should

be hired. Can he confirm that these internal documents, this internal management

study which he refuses to table, in fact suggested that there was a shortfall of

at least sixty-seven social workers?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, until I receive the final

document concerning this exhaustive study we've had done I would prefer not to

use figures that might very well be outdated. The study that we had completed

for us has been more thorough than any one that we've had done in the past.

Sixty-seven may very well be an accurate number. I don't know. The number given

in the recent report may be higher or lower.

I can say this, and I've said it publicly, that we would love

to have more social workers in child welfare, more in social assistance, and so

on. Ideally, yes, we would love to have more. Every province in Canada would

love to have more. We're all going through a crisis. Social assistance is up in

every province in Canada. I've talked to the other ministers. It's a very

serious problem. We'd all love to have ideal ratios as suggested by consultants.

But, Mr. Speaker, in these difficult times I think we've done marvellously well

in adding twenty-five new people to child welfare.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GULLAGE: On top of fifty that we added in 1990.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A financial crisis is

something that we can all share. The crisis of a child who is helpless and in

need is not something that we share, it's something that that child must bear. I

don't think that we can blame financial difficulties on the lack of services for

children in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary. He should get to it.

MR. HARRIS: Can the minister tell the House when these

twenty-five positions will be filled and when he plans to fill the remaining

number of positions that are needed to provide adequate child welfare in this

Province?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the twenty-five positions that

I announced, the recruitment process has started for them. We have to decide

where they will be positioned throughout the Province. That determination will

be made on the basis of child welfare caseloads in parts of the Province. So

they will be positioned where they are most needed.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) not where, when?

MR. GULLAGE: As quickly as they can be hired, Mr.

Speaker. I might remind the Member for St. John's East that the ratios in

Newfoundland - and I stand to be corrected; I'm pretty sure I'm right - are

much, much better than the Ontario NDP government is delivering.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for

the Minister of Energy. In the mini-Budget two weeks ago the Minister of Finance

announced a two cent per litre increase for gasoline and diesel. Can the

minister explain why a large number of retail outlets have increased their

prices by four cents a litre when it was only a two cent per litre increase

announced?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I can only explain why

companies would have increased their rate by two cents a litre, which is the tax

we put on. Anything that happened beyond that was certainly beyond government.

It was something being done privately by the companies concerned.

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

Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister, why doesn't

he check into it? Well, let me ask the minister this then. If we drive across

this Province we see gasoline and diesel prices varying by as much as ten cents

per litre, or over forty cents per gallon. Why is there such a wide discrepancy

in this Province of ten cents a litre on gasoline?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, in some parts of the Province

there have been price wars and that has driven the price down. I know recently

we've seen it in St. John's but it's not going on right now. In other parts of

the Province we've had price wars at different times of the year. In general the

average price around the island should be fairly consistent. In my view, any

differences are primarily local dealer differences.

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

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, the minister is obviously aware

that prices wars drive the price down. I'm asking why the price is constantly

increasing. Has the minister given any consideration to putting in place a

monitoring agent to at least check into gasoline prices to ensure that price

gouging, as the Member for Carbonear suggested, is not occurring? Will he start

to monitor it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, we are monitoring. We are

monitoring regularly, and a year ago we completed a study that was carried out

for a full year on what is happening to prices throughout this Province, and at

that time we decided that we would leave it to market forces to set the prices;

but we are monitoring on a regular basis.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture when he takes his seat and pays attention to Question Period like he

is getting paid for.

Mr. Speaker, for several months in 1990 the minister

commissioned a task force on agriculture to give an $800,000 donation to Bud

Hulan's campaign to run for the Liberals in the next election.

The report has been tabled and in the hands of the minister

since February, 1991. We have seen little action taken on the report and we have

heard little about it since. I wonder would the minister tell us what happened

to the report and what is happening to the recommendations?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the government

implementing a task force and making an $800,000 contribution, the fact is that

when we became the government we determined that the previous government, of

which the hon. member was a minister, had commissioned a $300,000 task force

report. We recognized that could not do the job so we made the funds that were

necessary to do the job that the agricultural industry in Newfoundland needed.

With regard to what has happened to the report, certain

recommendations have been implemented. Other recommendations are now in the

hands of senior civil servants doing cost analysis and that kind of thing. I can

assure the hon. member that sooner than later there will be decisions made by

government as a result of the recommendations contained in the Hulan Task Force

Report.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I realize $300,000 would not have been enough to do the

report; nor will $800,000 be enough to get Bud Hulan elected in the next

election, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the minister told us last

February that he was putting the report in the hands of an internal staff

committee so that they could look at it and see what recommendations they would

act upon.

Would the minister tell this House if his internal committee

has done a report and, as he just said, what recommendations are they working on

now to implement?

MR. DOYLE: This Bud's for you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I heard the hon. Member for

Harbour Main say: This Bud's for you. Well I might tell him that after the next

election I might say: This Bud's for you. You will be in the opposition.

Mr. Speaker, there is a committee of senior - very senior -

civil servants working on various recommendations of the task force report -

basically looking at the costing, the financial commitments the Province would

have to undertake.

I have met with those officials continuously over the past

three or four months and all I can tell the hon. member at this point in time is

that they are very close to providing us with the last details we need, on which

government will then base decisions with regard to the livestock industry,

Newfoundland Farm Products, the horticultural industry. Every aspect of

agriculture has been looked at and shortly there will be government action taken

on the various recommendations made by the senior review committee.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That Bud will never be for me, nor for the people of St.

George's. He might be Export Ale after the next election, Mr. Speaker.

The minister said that there have been recommendations made

and they are being implemented. Would the minister table in this House of

Assembly the recommendations that were made by the staff - table those

recommendations in the House of Assembly - or any reports relating to them so

that the agricultural industry can see what is happening with the report that

was supposed to be commissioned on their behalf? Because, they cannot find any

action being taken on it, in the meantime.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I will take the hon. member's

question under advisement and if it is appropriate to table correspondence or

recommendations from the committee to the minister or to government, then I

would have no objection in doing that. I can tell the hon. member before I sit

down though, I know with certainty, that there is no recommendation there to

establish in Newfoundland a cucumber manufacturing facility.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has expired.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, before you carry on with the

rest of the routine Orders of the Day, I wonder if I might try my luck in

acknowledging whatever share -

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. ROBERTS: Well, that is fine. The hon. gentleman might

do me the courtesy to let me ask the question. What I am going to say is

acknowledging whatever share of the responsibility is mine, if whether we might

have agreement today to take today instead of Private Members' Day as a

government day. If hon. gentlemen and ladies are not prepared to do that, then

we will go on with Private Members' Day. That is easy.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to change

the order of business.

MR. SPEAKER: The matter is resolved.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, the

Member for Grand Bank.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to present the following resolution:

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House re-affirms the

independence of the Auditor General from the administration: and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this hon. House support the

Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee in their efforts to audit the

accounts of Memorial University of Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: If members are willing, Mr. Speaker, I

would like to have an unanimous vote on this in support and then it will be

dealt with. Otherwise, we will put it on for a vote.

MS. VERGE: This is appropriate.

Orders of the Day

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I move that Motion No. 3 in the

name of the gentleman from Baie Verte - White Bay be called.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 3.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, for the last three weeks or

so, we have been a little lenient in giving notice for Private Members' Day.

Usually it has been standard that we give notice on Monday but we have been

lenient in the last three or four weeks. Government on two occasions have given

notice on Tuesday and we on one occasion gave our notice, I think it was last

Tuesday.

Yesterday, the Government House Leader stood in his place and

announced that the private member's resolution for today would be that in the

name of the Member for Pleasantville. Mr. Speaker, that is in Hansard. It is

recorded for Your Honour and I am sure Your Honour can access Hansard of

yesterday. I just would like to know what is going on. Besides the attempt to

have the legislation that is being brought before the House on a daily basis

rammed through and pushed through without debate, I just rise on a point of

order because I though that once notice was given of a private member's

resolution, that certainly would be the private member's resolution that would

be dealt with on the respective Wednesday for which the notice was given.

Mr. Speaker, I just have to question again really what is

going on. It is just unbelievable that day after day we are seeing more of this

unexpected - I do not know what the reason for it is, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. ROBERTS: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker, let me

say quite simply that as I advised the hon. gentleman as soon as I could this

morning - about ten o'clock, I think it was when I asked a colleague of mine to

speak to him - my colleagues and I on this side of the House have decided we

wish to debate this motion in the name of the gentleman for Baie Verte - White

Bay and I have so moved. We will put it to a vote and we will deal with it. As

for the hon. gentleman, I assume his quotation from Hansard is correct, I did

say that, but let me say that given the conduct of his colleagues I make no

apologies for what we have done. We are living with the rules of the House, and

doing so gladly, and we are not going to be dictated to by the tyranny of the

minority.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I say that first of all,

the purpose of notice is to give members an opportunity to prepare for debate,

and such notice -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's East is speaking.

MR. HARRIS: - such notice was, in fact, given. The

Minister of Justice, the Government House Leader has made a motion. In fact, he

has moved that a particular resolution be debated instead of the one for which

notice has been given. I look at Order 30 of the Standing Orders which says that

a motion may, in case of urgent and pressing necessity, previously explained by

the mover, be made by unanimous consent of the House without notice having been

given. But I don't understand the pressing and urgent necessity, Mr. Speaker. We

came here prepared to debate the motion by the Member for Pleasantville. The

fact that the motion may be embarrassing to the government members, Mr. Speaker,

is not a pressing and urgent necessity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Standing Order 30, Mr. Speaker, requires that

there be unanimous consent for this motion for which notice has not been given.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a

point of order.

MR. MATTHEWS: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker,

I think it is fairly obvious to anyone who knows what is going on, what is

really happening is that the Liberal caucus is not comfortable with the motion

put forward by the Member for Pleasantville and, as a consequence of a caucus

meeting this morning, it has been squashed and they want to put on the Member

for Baie Verte, because they are not prepared to debate the hon. member's

motion. Now, I just want to point out to the Government House Leader that when I

was contacted this morning by a representative of his caucus, who is the Member

for Lewisporte, I informed that member that you had given notice yesterday that

the Member for Pleasantville's resolution would be on. The member who called me

was not aware of that because he was unavoidably absent, so I want to clarify

that.

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

MR. ROBERTS: To the hon. gentleman's point of order, he

has once again confused two ideas. The motion that I moved, I suggest, is in

order, Sir. It is not debatable and is simply a motion that a particular notice

of motion be called. Standing Order 30 refers to a substantive motion and, in

this case, the substantive motion has been standing on the Order Paper for some

time in the name of the gentleman from Baie Verte - White Bay. It is Motion No.

3 on today's Order Paper. So, the hon. gentleman for St. John's East,if he keeps

it up, may eventually learn some procedure. But I am surprised, given that he

served in the House of Commons, that he knows so little. I suggest, Mr. Speaker,

that my motion is in order and is not debatable and that it should be put to the

vote and we will let the House rule.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will entertain one more point of

order.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker,

Section 29 of our Standing Orders

says: "Twenty-four hours notice shall be given of a motion for leave to present

a Bill, resolution or address, or for placing a question on the Order Paper".

Now, Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House the Minister of

Justice, the Government House Leader, stood and gave notice of the resolution

that was going to be called today. Your Honour, in helping you to make your

decision, I think we should backtrack to the Standing Orders, the rules that we

have always had in this Legislature and that clearly stated - on the day of

opening of the House every member stood and gave notice of a motion to be called

and they were called in order on a Wednesday from the Order Paper. They were

called in order, Mr. Speaker, and by unanimous agreement of this House - back in

the session of 1990, there was an agreement in this House that we would drop

that procedure, that we would have the opportunity to introduce motions in this

House and that by consent of the House, notice would be given on a Monday, Mr.

Speaker, of what bill was to be debated. Now, if we are to follow that order -

and it was quoted in Hansard by the former Government House Leader and

unanimously agreed upon, as spoken to by our leader who was then House Leader -

if we are to continue that procedure, we did not even have to give consent to

the minister to give the bill yesterday, he should have done it on Monday. But

by unanimous agreement we gave consent to the minister to bring in that bill on

Monday.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if he is going to override the unanimous

agreement that was given in 1990, then we shall revert, I would suggest to the

minister, to the original Standing Orders of this House, and that means the bill

to be called would be the bill from the Member for Pleasantville.

Now, he can't have it both ways. He cannot come into this

House and give notice and go by the agreement that we reached in 1990 as it

relates to the bill; he cannot cancel that because if he does, this House Your

Honour, has no alternative but to move back to where we were in the beginning

and that is to the original Standing Orders of this House. There is no other way

it can work. I became suspicious this morning when I was told that the Minister

of - there was a flurry of activity between the Speaker's office and the

government caucus room with the Minister of Agriculture and the Member for

Bellevue, Mr. Speaker. We became suspicious that there was something up and now

the suspicion has proven true, that is, that they don't want to call the bill

that was introduced by the Member for Pleasantville.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member has drifted from his point of order.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who just

spoke has raised a whole new issue in relation to this, and I think the position

of the government ought to be put on it.

When we formed the government, we recognized the unfair

situation that existed previously, where the government side had the bulk of the

Private Members opposition, and the Opposition was placed in a position where it

could not get timely matters on to be debated except with the leave of the

government.

MR. MATTHEWS: That is not true. Every second (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: If only they will listen for a moment.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) too long.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: If only they would listen for a moment.

The Opposition, Mr. Speaker, could not get matters on, on a timely basis because

the Opposition had to do precisely what the Member for Burin - Placentia West

has just described - give notice, one after the other on opening day, maybe two

months or three months ahead of the time when the resolution would be debated.

So there was never any timeliness in the resolutions to be debated.

Mr. Speaker, we changed that, in fairness to the Opposition,

to allow them to get matters on, in a timely fashion so that they could -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: We alternated, that is right - there was

alternation from side to side.

AN HON. MEMBER: And we are still doing that.

PREMIER WELLS: That is right, and it is still being done.

But you had to give notice on opening day, and what was wrong with that, Mr.

Speaker, was that you were debating something two months later that was an issue

two months earlier and is no longer an issue. So we altered that to be fair to

the Opposition, to allow them to raise matters on a timely basis, because we

think the public interest is best served by doing that.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in our Standing Orders of

which I am aware, that specifically says, all the notices have to be given on

opening day. They can be given at any time.

AN HON. MEMBER: We gave one today.

PREMIER WELLS: They can be given at any time; the House

Leader gave one today, Mr. Speaker. But just let me point out, Mr. Speaker, that

the reason why it was given on opening day, was that they wanted to get on the

Order Paper in order, so that they would be called in order, and that was the

practice. Now, Mr. Speaker, we changed that specifically to accommodate the

Opposition, to allow them to get matters on that were timely and relevant to the

time of the debate and, Mr. Speaker, we provided that opportunity. There is

nothing there that says: this motion is out of order. I believe, in early March,

notice of that motion was given.

AN HON. MEMBER: Six months ago.

PREMIER WELLS: Six months ago that notice was given, Mr.

Speaker, so there was timely notice of it. It was before any of the others so we

are not reverting to, we are not changing any system or doing anything.

MR. TOBIN: We have an agreement that says we give notice

on a Monday -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: - (inaudible), given notice and we would

debate the motion -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, there is an element of truth

in what the hon. member is saying, that there was an understanding that we would

give notice on the Monday before, but there was an undertaking to do that.

MR. ROBERTS: We had an understanding that this Wednesday

would be a government orders day.

PREMIER WELLS: That is right. You develop all sorts -

AN HON. MEMBER: Not (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: With these guys; not with you, with these

guys.

PREMIER WELLS: You develop all sorts of understandings

that fall down, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, there has been a little bit of

animosity developed in the House since and I give the Government House Leader -

MR. TOBIN: Full credit for developing the animosity.

PREMIER WELLS: I give the Government House Leader full

credit for acknowledging that it is not all one-sided, for acknowledging that

some blame rest on this side. I give him full credit for acknowledging that.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the people sitting in this Chamber are

supposed to be sitting in here for the purpose of conducting the public

business, and surely we can spend our time conducting the public business in a

civilized and proper way without doing a tit for tat -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: - without doing a tit for tat refusal to

accommodate the other side. We are not serving the public interest in behaving

in that way and I say, Mr. Speaker, that applies as much to the government side

of the House as it applies to the Opposition. And in Heaven's name, Mr. Speaker,

I ask hon. members to recognize that the interest of the public must come first

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: - and to allow government to proceed with

what it intends to do, and call government business today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has heard enough on this point of order and is

going to recess so that we can make the -

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Speaker, you said that before you

recognized the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker can entertain as many as he

says, and has said now, that he is not entertaining any more submissions. The

Speaker is going to take a little break to make a decision.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

What we have is that the hon. the Government House Leader

made a motion that the House move to the resolution, motion No. 3 standing in

the name of the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay. The point of order raised was

whether or not this could be done since the House has had an agreement for the

past little while that notice would be given of whatever motion it was and we

would proceed to that particular resolution. And there is no question that we

have been doing that.

Of course, the Chair can't be expected to mediate or to

correct problems relating to agreement. We have had them all the time,

agreements with committees, and the Chair invariably gets itself out of it to

say that whatever has happened, the members have broken the agreement. It would

appear that for this day, anyway, the agreement has been broken by the

government, that they are not prepared to go along with the agreement as we have

been doing it.

The motion that the member moved is in order. I refer hon.

members to our Standing Order 33, a motion to move to another order is in order

and not debatable. I refer hon. members to the annotated Standing Orders of

Ottawa which says - and I am referring to page 199 for members who want to refer

to it: During debate on a question, the motion listed in this Standing Order may

be moved. Once moved such motions take precedence. None of these motions require

notice.

There does not have to be a question under debate,

notwithstanding the wording of Standing Order 33. Again I refer hon. members to

the annotated Standing Orders of Ottawa, page 457, under Notes on Standing Order

58, which again, is the same as our Standing Order 33. It says: This does not

mean that all the motions listed in the rule can only be moved when a question

is under debate. There are countless examples of proceeding to another order

being moved at a time when no question was before the House.

So I can only conclude that the motion moved by the hon.

member is in order.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) today or yesterday?

MR. SPEAKER: Pardon?

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) the one from today or yesterday?

MR. SPEAKER: The motion moved today.

MR. R. AYLWARD: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride, on a point

of order.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I respect your ruling on the

motion that was put forward by the Government House Leader. Now, I would like

some clarification under this point of order. Since the agreement that we had in

this House, unanimously as I understand it, has been broken, and it is

recognized by the Chair that it has been broken. It's been broken by the

government this time for this occasion and also broken yesterday on another

occasion. Is it true that we will now be operating under Standing Order 53

(1) which refers to private members' motions in this House of Assembly and it

dictates the speaking time for private members' resolutions, the introduction at

a certain time during the House which has passed now, Mr. Speaker, and that we

will be debating this motion for the next two private members' days?

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair can only assume that we operate

under the rules under which we have always operated. Insomuch as the rule with

respect to giving notice has been broken, that would have to be decided by hon.

members.

MR. WINDSOR: But that is only by leave. There is no leave

in that case.

MR. SPEAKER: Pardon?

MR. WINDSOR: There is no leave to follow that convention.

If the government is going to break the rules, then there is no leave to break

the convention that is in the Standing Orders.

MR. SPEAKER: If hon. members want to get into that, I

think it should be for another time. The Chair has ruled that this particular

motion is in order and is not debatable. I call upon the hon. member to start

debating his motion.

MR. R. AYLWARD: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Kilbride, on a point

of order.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I interpret your ruling to

say that we are operating under the new rules, since the agreement has been

broken, the agreement does not exist anymore. So I interpret that as your

ruling, that we will be operating under the rules of this House of Assembly that

exist in our Standing Orders, particularly Standing Order 53.

Mr. Speaker, now that we are operating under the old rules

concerning Private Members' Day, a part of the tradition of this House,

certainly many, many precedents in this House would state that the motions

brought up on every Private Members' Day would come in order on our Order Paper.

That is the tradition in this House. Those are the precedents that have always

been set in this House until we made the agreement or until we did something

different, by leave. So the precedence of this House would be that we call our

Private Members' motions in order. I suspect that, by precedence, in this House,

we will carry on with Order No. 2 as we would ordinarily do it, from the

precedents of this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: For a two-week period.

MR. R. AYLWARD: By rules and following Standing Order 53

(1), (2), (3) and (4) this Order 2 will be debated for the next two days in this

House of Assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: Again, the Chair can only be governed by

hon. members. The Chair can't say what the rules will be. The members might

decide at another time to carry on by agreement, but the Chair can only rule as

of today, and as of today obviously we are not following that rule. Be that as

it may, the motion made by the Government House Leader is in order and it is not

debatable.

MR. WINDSOR: It is not in order. If it is in order, they

are not following the rules, Your Honour.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has made the decision. The Chair

has quoted the authorities that the motion is in order.

MR. WINDSOR: It cannot be in order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is not entertaining anymore points of order. The

Chair has made a ruling. If hon. members want to challenge the ruling of the

Chair, that is fine.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Burin - Placentia

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am looking for clarification. I

am not about to challenge your ruling. I have no intention of challenging your

ruling. I accept Your Honour's ruling, what he said. But I want some direction

from Your Honour as to how you can arrive at that ruling. There is an agreement

in this House, and Your Honour cannot take one portion of that agreement and say

that that part has been broken. The agreement has been broken! The agreement has

been broken and our privileges are being affected! Our privileges are being

affected, Your Honour!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his place.

The Chair is not going to get into debate with people. The

Chair is not permitted to get into debate with people. The Chair has simply said

that the Chair does not enter into agreement. It is not for the Chair to say

whether the total agreement is gone. The Chair simply said that it looks like,

to address the part made by hon. members with respect to tradition, the Chair

cannot be guided by that anyway, because anytime the member is working on

agreement, and hon. members know we have pulled agreements, we have broken

agreements throughout this House time and time again and the Chair cannot

mediate an agreement.

That is the difficulty the Chair is in, so the Chair can only

call it according to the rules and the rule is that the motion is in order. It

is not debatable and I ask hon. members to do as we do with all motions. Members

have heard the motion.

All those in favour of the motion, please say 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the motion, please say

'nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is carried.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

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

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. member is on a new point of

order, naturally the Chair will hear it.

MR. WINDSOR: Your Honour, as I understand it, the

procedure that Your Honour is following now is made by leave of the House, which

is in contravention to the Standing Order quoted by my hon. colleague.

It is by leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, and I want to make

it very clear that leave is withdrawn. This motion cannot be entertained by Your

Honour.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, even if we choose to revert to

the previous rules - 51 - the government still has the right and authority, and

it is at the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Just a minute now.

It is at the Government House Leader's discretion which

motion is called, and it was the motion for the Member for Baie Verte, which is

what the Government House Leader called.

Even with a reversion to the rules, notwithstanding any

previous agreements, it is still the government's right to call whichever motion

and order it so chooses, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: No it is not.

MR. FUREY: It is.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, to that point of order, if the

whole procedure governing the operation of Private Members' Day is being done by

the leave of the House, well surely the government cannot pick and choose and

ignore the agreement on the one hand and expect that the other members of the

House shall be bound by their side of the agreement on the other.

What I hear hon. members on this side of the House saying is

that if they are not prepared to be bound by their agreement then they cannot

rely on the agreement of hon. members on this side.

I was not here to make that agreement. I know hon. members

here did and I am sure they did it with the full understanding and expectation

that it was going to be followed.

Now Your Honour has allowed them to break the rule on the one

hand because Your Honour has acknowledged that they broke the agreement and are

breaking the rule. Your Honour, it only follows therefore that the whole

procedure is dependent upon the unanimous agreement of the House and it is not

present, then I do not see how we can proceed despite the passage of that recent

motion.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps it might help

if I were to offer a suggestion.

The Member for Mount Pearl, when he says leave is needed to

introduce a motion, again is falling into the area that my friend from St.

John's East fell into, with respect.

The motion that I moved, in my opinion, and my opinion does

not matter - the Speaker has made a ruling - is in order. It is one of the types

- my friend from Humber East moved a similar motion the other day on a six-month

- well it was not a six-month hoist - it was to refer it to a committee. There

are some motions that are in order without notice.

Substantive motions, as opposed to superseding or dilatory

motions, require leave or, if you are operating under the rules, require

twenty-four hours notice. My friend from Baie Verte - White Bay gave six months

notice in the instance but certainly has given the twenty-four. The motion is

(inaudible).

All that my hon. friend was doing, in raising his point of

order, in effect was challenging Your Honour's ruling and that he has no right

to do except by the stated procedure - and there is one if hon. members wish to

avail of it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride has risen a

couple of times.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I just

want to make a brief point here.

In this House of Assembly if our Standing Orders are silent

on an issue we go to Beauchesne. If Beauchesne is silent on an issue we go to

precedence of this House.

Our Standing Order 53 does not say which order of precedence

the Private Members' motions will come, so we go to Beauchesne and they don't

tell us which order we should call from the order paper.

So we go the precedents of this House of Assembly and the

precedents clearly state - and if you do any research on them at all, for the

fourteen years that I've been here, if you do any research on them - our

precedent has always been - up until this agreement, by the way - that we will

call the next order on Private Member's Day. For the government side, for the

Opposition side, going back and forth.

It has always been that way, Mr. Speaker, till we made an

improvement in here by leave, which restricted some of our rules. The

improvement that we made was we would give notice on Monday. That was the

agreement. We would give notice on Monday and then that Wednesday when the time

came we could be prepared. People on that side could be prepared. We'd know what

motion we were going to debate.

Now this week we didn't get notice on Monday, which happens

sometimes. Unfortunately it happens sometimes. So we got notice on Tuesday of

which motion was going to be brought before this House of Assembly. As luck

happened it was the first one on the order paper for Private Member's Day, so we

agreed with our old rules besides that. I suggest that if we follow the

precedents of our House that has been for the time that I've been in here, and

for the small time that I spent in the Chair, we will call the next private

member's motion on our order paper.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman made his first

case based upon the rules. Now he lost. Because rule 53(1), (2), (3), and

(4) did not give substance to his argument. So now, having not won on the rules,

because the agreement is now set aside, so we revert to the rules. Having lost

the argument on the rules, he now relies upon convention and precedent.

Let me remind the hon. member that the former, former, former

Government House Leader, who is now a judge on the high court, selected

whichever motions on Private Member's Day it suited the government of the day.

Mr. Marshall selected whichever motions suited the government of the day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask hon. -

MR. FUREY: Having lost on the rules he now has tied

himself in knots, Mr. Speaker, using precedent. If he's to use the former,

former, former Government House Leader's precedents.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, clearly what we're doing here

is trying to debate a situation that has evolved by leave of the House, as my

colleague from Kilbride has quite correctly stated. We have procedures in the

Standing Orders which are still the Standing Orders of this House of Assembly.

Except that by agreement, by leave of the House, unanimously, we have agreed to

forego those Standing Orders in favour of a new procedure that we have been

following now for the last three years. Two years.

Now Your Honour has quite correctly ruled - and I am not

challenging Your Honour's rule - and I don't need any direction from the

Government House Leader on how to challenge His Honour if I choose to do so,

thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, Your Honour has ruled quite correctly that the

government has made it clear that they do not wish to honour the agreement that

has been made unanimously by this House. Your Honour has ruled on that and I

believe, Your Honour, quite correctly. So clearly, if the government has chosen

not to honour the agreement then leave is no longer in place. In fact, I may

declare leave to follow a convention other than the Standing Order.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) revert to the rules!

MR. WINDSOR: So if we are reverting to the rules, as my

friend for St. Barbe is saying, if that is the case, which is what I am

submitting, that we are reverting to the rules, then let's follow the Standing

Orders, Your Honour, and let us follow tradition and convention in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (inaudible)!

MR. WINDSOR: Now, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry,

Trade and Technology might scoff at that. I remind Your Honour that two days ago

the Deputy Speaker, on a point of order raised by myself, ruled that indeed a

breach of convention had been made. The Deputy Speaker, Your Honour, was

gracious enough to apologise, which I didn't request, but he was gracious enough

to apologise that he had made a minor error. All I wanted was that it be

corrected and that the conventions of this House are recognised and that they be

followed.

That is precisely the same point that we are making today.

There are conventions in this House, there are precedents set in this House that

are accepted by all hon. members, and that the government is now clearly trying

to breach.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have not recognized the hon. member. I am about at the

point where I am going to call off this point of order but I will allow the hon.

member, which means I will have to allow somebody from the other side if he so

chooses.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, there is only a precedent if is

clearly and consistently established. I am not so old that I cannot remember

sitting on that side of the House in the old Chamber during Private Members' Day

with my colleague the Minister of Forestry, my colleague the Minister of

Education, my colleague the Minister of Fisheries, and my colleague for

Stephenville watching the Government House Leader of the day running roughshod

over the opposition of the day, switching, changing, and making up the rules as

they went. My colleague for Port de Grave will remember that. How many times did

we try to keep the previous government consistent and clear in dealing with

convention and tradition?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I do not what the hon. member was speaking to but he seemed

to be wandering off into debate and we are not suppose to be in debate. The

Chair is listening to get some clear direction from hon. members. I said I would

recognize one member from this side since I recognized the hon. Minister of

Industry, Trade and Technology. The Chair is about to call off this point of

order.

MR. TOBIN: The hon. member is not finished.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member is not finished?

MR. FUREY: I was just making the point that if we are to

set aside the agreement, as they chose to do, to set aside the agreement, then,

Mr. Speaker, the House reverts to the rule book. The rule book is the Standing

Orders we are all governed by. The Member for Humber East says they set aside

the agreement. Okay, the agreement is set aside. We then refer to the rules.

Rule 51 (1) which my hon. friend for Kilbride rightly point out, 1,2,3 and 4, we

revert to that. That allows the government to go to the Order Paper and present

a motion, a motion that the government feels is important. We on this side, by

the way, happen to feel that the sealing industry and the future for sealers is

very important. We happen to believe that. Why would they not want to debate

that? Why would they be frightened of debating it?

Now, Mr. Speaker, having displayed ignorance of the rules now

they must revert to convention, tradition, and I suppose they will go to Santa

Claus next if they cannot win on this one. Let us go to convention and tradition

and precedents. Precedents have to be clear and they have to be consistent. That

is how you judge them. I can tell you that many members sat on that side, the

Member for Windsor - Buchans remembers this, how often they changed the rules to

suit their own needs. The rules are clear, the precedents are clear and the

government has the right on Private Members' Day when it is right to call the

motion to call that motion it sees fit to be in order.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Your Honour ruled that the government broke an

agreement between the government and the opposition for the conduct of Private

Members' Day. The government, the Premier, the new Government House Leader and

the members opposite broke their agreement. Once again they reneged on their

promise. Your Honour has ruled that government broke the agreement for the

running of Private Members' Day. Your Honour will realize that the government,

having broken the agreement, cannot chose the parts of the agreement they would

like to keep to suit their political purpose of the day. Now, Your Honour, may

not realize what is really going on here, but the government are embarrassed by

the motion made by the Member for Pleasantville objecting to agricultural

subsidies and Canadian trade practices providing subsidies to the agricultural

industry. That motion appears first on our Order Paper. The motion of the Member

for Pleasantville objecting to agricultural subsidies appears ahead of the

motion by the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay on the seal fishery. Now, two

week ago we had a private members debate on a motion by the Member for Port de

Grave on the seal fishery and we unanimously adopted that motion.

Today we have an Order Paper which places the motion of the

Member for Pleasantville, first. Mr. Speaker, as your honour has ruled the

agreement is broken, that agreement is off, as my colleagues have said then, we

have to revert to the long standing practices and precedents of our own

legislature. For years this House of Assembly conducted Private Members' Day by

taking orders as they appeared on the House agenda.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

The hon. member is not making any new presentation, just

going over ground that as been made and the Chair is quite familiar with that.

Now, if the hon. member has something new to say the Chair will entertain it but

the Chair as heard that presentation.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, apart from the precedents of this

House of Assembly there is the matter of fairness and balance, those words have

a rather hollow ring in this Assembly, but yesterday the Government House Leader

gave us notice that the motion the government would be calling today would be

that of the Member for Pleasantville. So, members on this side of the House of

Assembly took the Government House Leader at his word and prepared to debate

that motion of the Member for Pleasantville.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Hon. member that has all been debated before. The Chair is

going to recess for another brief period.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

The Chair has considered the various points of order raised

by members to my right and the Chair rules that there is no point of order. What

the Chair has again done is made a ruling on a motion made by the Government

House Leader that the House proceed to or move to Resolution No. 3. Any member

could make that particular motion, the Chair would have to put it before the

House, the Chair put it before the House and it was carried, and as I said that

is the - and all of the - yes, the Chair called the motion and it was carried.

I call on the hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a

point of order.

MR. MATTHEWS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would

like to refer your honour to standing order 53, by Order 53(4), where it says on

Wednesday's the Question Period shall commence not later than 2:30 p.m. under

the change and the ordinary daily routine of business shall end not later than,

now 3:00 p.m., and at the time the private members motion shall be called by the

Speaker. So, really what I am saying to Your Honour, as well, I think it was

3:40 or 3:41 p.m. that your honour came back and ruled and the hon. member stood

and was recognized. So, I want to submit to you and I want to really I guess,

the point of order, wondering since the proceedings had not started until 3:40

or 3:41 p.m., I am not sure, I wanted to check the time but - 3:41 - the

minister does not know, we noted the time, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

The hon. member can carry on, we will get the time.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, we need the time of course for that,

but somewhere around that time the speaker came back and ruled and the member

stood. So the point of order is that I am wondering even if we could have

proceeded with Private Members Day today and in light of what has happened and

Your Honour with this Standing Order reading as it is because as we know we are

supposed to start by 3:00 and the speaker did not rule until 3:41 so I guess

that is the matter that I am proposing on my point of order and I guess asking

your honour for clarification on whether or not we really should be doing what

we are doing now, and that is continuing on with this Private Members Day

Resolution, Mr. Speaker, so I want to submit that to your honour for

consideration.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. DECKER: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The

three hours today, Mr. Speaker, is costing the people of this Province about

$20,000 over and above the capital cost of lights and everything else, your

salary, mine and hon. members' here, Mr. Speaker. Now hon. members know that

government wanted leave today to discuss legislation that is crying out to be

discussed, instead, the Loyal Opposition, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition which

has a duty, is engaging in a procedural wrangle with the intention of doing

nothing only disrupting the order of this House. It is totally irresponsible.

They refused to debate legislation, they would not give leave to bypass Private

Members' Day.

Now, we have a Private Member's bill and they refuse to

discuss this, Mr. Speaker. It is utterly disgraceful and I am ashamed to be

counted with hon. members opposite, who are wasting $20,000 a day, which I can

tell you, many people, many hospitals, many schools in this Province could use,

and I call upon hon. members to tell them they should be ashamed of themselves

and stop playing games.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am quite surprised to hear what the Minister of Health

says. Everyone here in this House knows what is happening. What has happened is

that the hon. members opposite have broken the traditions of this House,

starting yesterday at six o;clock, when the Government House Leader ordered the

Minister of Social Services to refuse the normal leave to allow an Opposition

member to speak on a bill when only one person had spoken on it. Following that,

the government members broke their long-standing agreement on the operation of

Private Members' Day, and what is happening really here, at whatever cost,

whether it is $20,000 a day or $20,000 an hour, what the government is trying to

do is ram legislation through this House in the dying days of the session, the

legislation that was only brought in yesterday and the day before and they have

discovered -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have asked hon. members please to keep themselves to the

point of order. The Opposition House Leader raised a point of order and the

Chair has not ruled on it. He raised a legitimate point of order, and hon.

members are going on and debating other issues. Hon. members know the situation

we are into; they know the rules, I will entertain a point of order if it is

germane to the point of order raised by the Opposition House Leader, outside of

that, the Chair is not going to tolerate any more debate.

The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So what has happened is that the normal rules and courtesies

that are extended between the Opposition and the government, in order for the

people's business to operate properly have been violated, so now we must go back

to the rule book, and that is the point of order, Mr. Speaker. When we cannot

have honour operate, we have to have rules -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: - and the rules have to be followed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. gentleman might be on his own point of order, but he

is certainly not on the point of order raised by the Opposition House Leader. If

the hon. member has a point of order after I have ruled on the point of order

made by the Opposition House Leader, that is fine, but the Member for St. John's

East is not now speaking to it. When we are on a point of order, hon. members

should be raising matters that will help the Chair by quoting from the Standing

Orders or Hansard or Beauchesne, whatever, but the hon. member is debating

something that has been debated all afternoon and he knows that hon. members

ought not to be doing that. He knows very well what the Opposition House Leader

raised and if he wants to speak to that point of order, the Chair has been

lenient to him and will allow him, but will not allow him to carry on, rambling

in debate that has been carried on all afternoon

The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Standing Order 53.1 (4), refers to the time at which the

ordinary routine of business shall end and Private Members' motion shall be

called by the Speaker. That time having passed, Mr. Speaker, regardless of what

was going on in the House, the Private Members' resolution that is being forced

upon the members, by the government, is out of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Speaker, are you going to rule on

(inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. To that point of order, the Chair has

consulted with the table and what we have done was call the order, we called it

in time, it is just that we got into procedural wrangling and that would not

preempt us from debating. It was introduced in time, as a matter of fact we got

there before the time, called the Orders of the Day, went into it and then we

got into procedural wrangling, so that would not preclude having to cancel that

debate this afternoon. We were within the time restraints.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. FLIGHT: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture on a point of order.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I won't take long on this point

of order. I'm sure every hon. member in this House will want the record in

Hansard to reflect reality and not leave a shadow over any particular member. I

would want to draw the Speaker's attention to the fact that in giving his

submission on the point of order the hon. Member for Placentia said - and

Hansard will show him, I think - that he said -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Burin - Placentia West.

MR. FLIGHT: Burin - Placentia West. I'm sorry. He said

that his suspicions, something to that affect, was aroused when he became aware

of the flurry of activity between the Minister of Forestry and the Speaker's

office. Mr. Speaker, just so that the record will reflect the reality, there was

no flurry of activity. I did not see the Speaker or the Speaker's office until

the Speaker arrived to open the House today, and I wanted the record to reflect

that reality.

AN HON. MEMBER: Apology. Be a man and apologize.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Ruling on that point of order, Mr.

Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order. Sorry, there's no

point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride on a point

of order?

MR. R. AYLWARD: No, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the

Member for Baie Verte - White Bay was introduced at 3:41 p.m. I guess his twenty

minutes are over now, so I'd like to continue the debate.

MR. TOBIN: Time's up.

MR. SPEAKER: That technically is correct. I recognised

the hon. member. So the strict

interpretation of the rules, would be that his

time is up.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I move the gentleman from Baie

Verte - White Bay be now heard.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White

Bay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: What's that, a new rule?

MR. SPEAKER: No, that's a -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: Is that a debatable motion?

MR. SPEAKER: No. I'll quote the - sorry. That's not a

debateable motion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: I don't know if the hon. the Government

House Leader can quote the - but it is in our Standing Orders. I don't know the

Standing Order right now. The Chair will get it for hon. members momentarily.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible), Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Pardon?

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) is there a point of order?

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is just waiting for -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

The Chair is just waiting to find the appropriate quotation.

The Chair apologizes. I should be able to pick it up immediately but I can't. So

I'll recess just very briefly.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Standing Order 48: When two or more members rise to speak,

Mr. Speaker calls upon the member who first rose in his place; but a motion may

be made that any member who has risen "be now heard" or "do now speak," which

motion shall be forthwith put, without debate.

But I believe in this case that the motion does not apply.

Otherwise a member would be able to speak many, many times, and the member has

lost his turn to speak. He gets another turn when the times comes, but the

question is out of order and does not apply in this particular case.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. R. AYLWARD: A little lesson in humility for the

Government House Leader, Mr. Speaker. Probably if he gets time - he is a busy

man since the constitution took up most of his time for a long while - he might

get a chance to read over the Standing Orders. If he gets another chance he

should go and have a meeting with the Minister of Finance to find out how this

House has been operating since the former Government House Leader was here,

because it seemed to be running along fairly smooth except for the last week or

so when the hon. member for -

AN HON. MEMBER: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Menihek on a point

of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: Eagle River.

MR. SPEAKER: Eagle River - sorry.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Speaker, we lost so much time here

this afternoon, I hardly think that the hon. member should be allowed to get up

and use the precious time that has now been given to him and be totally

irrelevant to the issue of the day.

We have been here to deal with the issue of the sealing

industry. It is a very important industry to this Province and the Member for

Baie Verte - White Bay should be given a chance to speak, Mr. Speaker!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl to the

point of order.

MR. WINDSOR: I just wanted to make a very brief

submission, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, the Chair has recognized the hon.

member.

MR. WINDSOR: First of all, the sealing industry is very

important. So is the economy of this Province - the resolution put forward by my

friend from Pleasantville. We debated the sealing industry last week, I say to

the hon. member. The sealing industry has the unanimous support of this House.

Neither does the hon. Member for Eagle River have the right

to tell the hon. Member for Kilbride what he can and cannot say. The Speaker

will decide when he is relevant.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order, and being that it is 4:40 p.m., I

now call on the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. R. AYLWARD: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride on a point

of order.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it from your

earlier ruling today, we have gone back to the former rules of debate on Private

Members' Day, which means that we have two days debate on this motion. The hon.

member certainly has a right to the last twenty minutes of debate, and that last

twenty minutes will come next Wednesday when the time rolls around.

Mr. Speaker, I am only following your rulings. I will

continue on in my debate for the twenty minutes that I am allowed and other

members will continue on in their debate as is allowed.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry. The hon. member is raising the

point of order whether or not now we are back to the old orders and back to the

AN HON. MEMBER: Well we are.

MR. SPEAKER: I apologize. The Chair will take a brief

recess.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order. Since there is no agreement, the

agreement is off, quite obviously we're back to the Standing Order, back to the

rules. So the Chair apologizes. The hon. the Member for Kilbride may continue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. R. AYLWARD: Another little lesson in humility for the

members opposite, Mr. Speaker.

MS. VERGE: A triumph for democracy.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, we had a -

AN HON. MEMBER: Time's up?

MR. TOBIN: No it's not!

MR. SMALL: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White

Bay on a point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMALL: Mr. Speaker, what I've seen here today is

nothing short of disgusting.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMALL: I've sat patiently here this evening waiting

to debate a motion on our seal fishery. I may be a bit upset now. But we're

supposed to be the most intelligent people in Newfoundland. We were elected by

the electorate because we were supposed to be the best.

MR. TOBIN: Is this a point of order?

MR. WINDSOR: Is this a point of order, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SMALL: What I've seen going on here this evening, Mr.

Speaker, is nothing short of disgusting.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMALL: To know that the Opposition on the other side

wouldn't allow a debate on our seal fishery.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. SMALL: Shame. Shame.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) there is no point of order.

MR. SMALL: I don't play -

MR. WINDSOR: Make a point of order and sit down!

MR. SMALL: I don't play games, Mr. Speaker, in this

House! When I get up to speak I usually speak a bit of common sense.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMALL: I've seen a lot of things going on, Mr.

Speaker, in this last year in this House that I wouldn't see going on in a

development association meeting. The people out in this Province are expecting

more out of these members. I'm really disgusted, Mr. Speaker, that I couldn't

discuss my motion today. Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Now,

Mr. Speaker, I understand the frustration of the hon. Member for Baie Verte. I

understand, his frustration, we had to drag kicking and screaming the government

into the Private Members debate in the first place, Mr. Speaker, they did not

want to have a Private Members Day so the hon. member knows, he is disgusted

with the Government House Leader, Mr. Speaker, he should be disgusted with him

because he is the one who did not want to debate, Mr. Speaker, he is the one who

did not want to debate this today, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Eagle River, on a

point of order.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a point of

order because the Member for Kilbride is misleading this House. Mr. Speaker, for

a member to stand up here now, at this hour in the day and say that he is

concerned about letting the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay speak is directly

misleading this House, Mr. Speaker, because his actions speak louder than his

words today and those of his hon. colleagues opposite. Mr. Speaker, I think that

he should be brought to task for misleading this House and apologize to the

House and apologize to the Member for Baie Verte -White Bay who does not get too

many chances to make his representations in this House, Mr. Speaker, on behalf

of the people.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The Chair has recognized the Member for Kilbride and I remind

the Member for Kilbride that he is speaking to a resolution and will please ask

him if he would now get to the resolution and speak to it.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East

Extern, on a point of order.

MR. PARSONS: That is right because I for the life of me

could not take what that hon. member said from Baie Verte - White Bay. Last week

we debated the seal hunt and that hon. gentleman rose in his place and he said:

we were at fault as well as Greenpeace. What do you want to do today spread that

bullology further? That is what you said in your last speech, that we were to

blame just as well as Greenpeace. If that is what you are going to debate then

you should sit in your seat and should not be allowed to get up.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Hon. members know the rules of the House or they ought to

know the rules of the House. If hon. members want to enhance the image of

everybody here and of all politicians than I think that they ought to be

following the rules of the House. Hon. members know the rules of the House. To

be getting up on points of order which are not points of order is an abuse of

the rules of the House. Hon. members know what we have done all afternoon and I

ask the hon. Member for Kilbride to please finish up the time we have by

speaking to the resolution.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker.

I agree with your ruling once again, Mr. Speaker. What I have

been trying to do all day is get the government side to agree with the rules of

the House. I will start off, flat out in the beginning, by saying that I agree

wholeheartedly with the hon. member's resolution. Everyone on this side, I am

not sure of the NDP member, but everyone on this side agrees with the hon.

member's resolution. We wholeheartedly support the hon. member's resolution. We

debated it last week. Now, I was not here last week so I do not know if he spoke

or not. I think I remember reading the paper and the hon. member spoke on the

motion last week. He spoke very well on it, Mr. Speaker.

The problem here today was that the Member for Pleasantville

could not get any support for his resolution and your Government House Leader

tried to bully this House. That is what happened here today, Mr. Speaker. That

Government House Leader over there tried to take this House on his back, Mr.

Speaker, which he will not do as long as this member is in the House. If I have

to move another resolution on the seal hunt so the hon. member can get his turn

to speak I will do it for the hon. member, as long as he recognizes who caused

this kerfuffle here today. It was not one member on this side of the House. It

was only one person in this House who has brought the level of debate completely

out of control. The House is completely out of control is the best way I can put

it. When the present Finance Minister was Government House Leader in this House

it did not run perfect, I will not say that, but there was not nearly the

acrimony that is in this House since the hon. Government House Leader, this new

Government House Leader took over. The point of the matter is that he wanted

absolutely no private members motion today. We wanted Private Members' Day

today. All members on this side of the House wanted Private Members' Day today,

including the Leader of the NDP.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. R. AYLWARD: We wanted a private members motion today

and the Government House Leader did not want a Private Members' Day. Members

opposite did not want a Private Members' Day, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member knows the rules of the House and when another

member stands the hon. member should yield. I do not know whether he saw him but

the Member for LaPoile was standing on a point of order.

The hon. the Member for LaPoile.

MR. RAMSAY: Mr. Speaker, what we have here is a case in

point of relevance. I think the speaker who is charged with the responsibility

of dealing with the relevance of hon. member's speeches should take into account

the speech of the hon. member and certainly bring him to task for lack of

relevance in just what the hon. member is speaking about. He has not gotten to

the substance of the motion put forward by the hon. Member for Baie Verte -

White Bay. I think in that vein, Mr. Speaker, I would ask for Your Honour's

consideration of the relevance of what he is speaking to.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order. The Chair was

listening with great interest -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair was listening with great interest to what the hon.

the Member for Kilbride was saying. There's no question that the member was

drifting a little. So I ask the hon. member to restrict his remarks to the

resolution.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Did the hon. member have a question?

MR. MATTHEWS: I just wanted to bring to Your Honour's

attention that - sometimes members do it unknowingly because they don't realise

Your Honour is standing. But I don't think we should tolerate the Government

House Leader leaving his place and walking the length of the Legislature while

Your Honour is standing. If we're going to have respect here for the Chair, for

rules, and procedures, let's all exercise respect. We can't let that stuff go

unnoticed. That's what's happening to the House, Mr. Speaker. Just that kind of

stuff. There's one set of rules for fifty-one of us, and there are different

rules for the fifty-second one. We all now who I'm talking about.

MR. SPEAKER: For the Chair, the rules are the same for

everybody. The Chair takes seriously what the hon. member says. The hon. member

will be advised accordingly. When the Chair rises, no member is supposed to

leave the House. We shall make sure that rule is enforced. I thank the hon.

member for raising it.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I apologize for

straying so much from the topic. I believe what I was saying at the time was how

much I supported the hon. member's motion, and the reason why the hon. member's

motion is not getting discussed properly in this House today. It is not my fault

that the motion was not discussed and that the hon. member lost his time,

forfeited his time, because of the antics of the Government House Leader. Not

because of what happened over here.

All day today I was looking for clarifications on the rules

of this House of Assembly so that we could get on with on your motion. So that

we could discuss your motion if that was the one that was finally called. When

the day started it was not your motion that we understood when we came into this

House that we were going to discuss. We were supposed to discuss a motion from

the Member for Pleasantville, but he couldn't get any support from members on

that side to present that motion.

So the Government House Leader tried to sneak in your motion.

What he did to you, hon. member - and I respect you - is unfair.

He wasted your resolution because that will be gone off the

Order Paper next week when it is over. The Government House Leader, instead of

putting the Member for Pleasantville's motion, as he should have done - as he

said he would do yesterday - he should have put that motion. We would have had a

debate. It would have been all over by now, and the hon. members' resolution

could have come before this House and been discussed properly.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has reminded the hon. member about what the

resolution is, and he keeps defying the Chair. There are rules for that and the

Chair is asking the hon. Member for Kilbride again to please follow the rules

and to speak to the resolution - not why we are not discussing another

resolution or what went on today.

There is clearly a resolution here and the hon. member should

be addressing the resolution.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker this resolution, as presented

by the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay, is certainly an important resolution

in this House of Assembly. It is important for many, many reasons, but most of

all I guess it is important because of the member who presented it.

The Member for Baie Verte - White Bay is the most experienced

sealer in this House, bar none. There are others who were involved in the

sealing industry, no doubt - and I know the Member for St. John's East Extern

was, at one time - but he is the most experienced member in the sealing

industry, and I note there is a conflict between his version of the sealing

industry and the Member for Port de Grave's version of what the seal industry

should be.

Mr. Speaker, both versions differ somewhat, but I would be

inclined to support the hon. Member for Baie Verte - White Bay in what he

foresees to be a seal hunt of the future, done by the inshore fishermen, done by

small boats from onshore, rather than start up a large offshore hunt again.

Mr. Speaker, one clock says 4:59 p.m. and one says 5:00 p.m.

so I adjourn the debate until next week.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: This House stands adjourned until tomorrow,

Thursday, at 2:00 p.m.