Volume 3 PROVINCE OF NEWFOUNDLAND THIRTY-SIXTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEWFOUNDLAND 3rd. Session VERBATIM REPORT TUESDAY, APRIL 2, 1974 SPEAKER: THE HONOURABLE JAMES M. RUSSELL Number 39

April 2, 1974, Tape 1005, Page 1 -- apb The House met at 3:00 p.m. Mr. Speaker in the Chair, MR. SPEAKER: Order please! PETITIONS: MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Member· for White Bay South: !!_R-!.~~-.!l.9.!J_~_.:_ Mr. Speaker, I beg leave of the House to present a petition I have received from well over two hundred residents of Westport in the District of White Bay South.

I crave the particular indulgence of the House because, not wanting to mislead the House I should in~onn the House that strictly speaking the petition is out of order on two grounds; (1) it is asking for funds for a project ·over which this House. really has no control, namely, a school in the community of Westpprt. Al.though we vote funds for the Denominational Educational Committees. Sir, we do not ourselves. determine where the schools go.

Number (2) it is a copy of a petition, Sir, A copy of a petition which has been sent, numerous copies have been sent to the Department of Education,for example, the Denominational Educational Committee, Mr. William Rompkey,the Member of Parliament for Grand Falls­ White Bay-Labrador, in Ottawa, and perha1>s ot:hers as well.. - I do not know even if the original has been sent to any of these bodies.or if the original was kept back and copies sent. I would assume that I have the leave and indulgence of the House to present this petition because it is a very important matter to the people concerned.

I will just read one or,two excerpts, Sir, from the petition to give an idea of the feeling of the people, the tenor of the feeling of the people of Westport. They say: "We have all seen magnific~nt school building been erected all around our island. Millions of dollars spent for libraries, gymnasia, labratories, equipment etc. but every time the smaller schools seem to be forgotten. They sti~l stand but barely. They still provide cover for our children, but barely.

They still withstand the pressures of increasing numbers without increasing space and they still strive to produce a product in the face of ever-increasing odds and difficulties created by 3034

April 2, 1974, Tape 1005, Page 2 - apb , the mdening gap of educational inequalities and the ever increasing problems of deterioration. "Unless the provision of educational facilities is \ based.on a r.ore equitable formula than presently exists, then we are afraid that most of our small communities will be stymied in their search for improved educational opportunities for their children.· .Sir, they gc, on to say: "When officials are presented with this expressed fear they respond with sor.ietbing like this. 'What can we do?

Present legislation will not permit us to build iu:proved structures in areas ·where small numbers of students exist."' The petition goes on: ''If this is indeed the case, we say; 'Change the legislation. Upgrade certainly but upgrade everyone. l.fuy spend one million dollars in one place where one quarter of a million would have solved the problems?· If $500,000 can be spent on one hundred high school students in one community'" (referring to a central high school I believe in my own district) '''surely $50 thousand can be spent on one hundred students in some smaller comlliunity.

We do not intend to be foreotten and we do not ,.,ant to be left behind. We feel that our children are as important as any others and should have equal opportunity to an ecucation. "' Sir, with that

preamble the petition then goes on and makes reference to several resolutions passed by the body of people in Westport. One of the resolutions: "Be it resolved that immediate steps be taken to construct a six-room school in Westport_." Another resolution: "Be it resolved that a new school contain a gymnatorium, a small library and a small laboratory." Another one: "Be it resolved that the Green Bay School Board make an iVllllediate request .. to the Denominational Educational Co11111ittee for sufficient funds to complete a six-room .school in Westport to contain facilities as described above and th~t this be done so that· construction can begin as soon as it is possible." 3035

April 2, 1974, Tape 1005, Page 3 -- apb Sir,the petition goes on to say that a ieneral meeting of the people of Westport has shown that further action will ho.ve to be taken if positive results are not obtained from this petit~on. llavinr, to pay forty dollars per year to the Green nay School Tax Authority nnd seeing practically nothing returned to the community becomes very disappointing to all wage earners of Westport.

It has been decided that if further action is required all suppo~t of the school tax authority (there is a bit of a threat here) will be withdrawn until such time as someone decides to do something about the matters raised by this appeal. Sir, I am in full support of the burden of this petition. I realize that we in this House do not decide where schools are built. We decide how much money is granted under our Constitution to .the Denominational Educational Committees and the Denominational Educational Committees in conjunction with the school boards decide where schools are built.

I realize that, Sir, but I think it is also fair to say that it is certainly equitable to air this problem publicly in the people's forum, the people's House, and to make known as publicly as I know how the feelings of the people of Westport about the existing school facilities and the structure in which their children are now being taught. I support it, Sir, wholeheartedly 3036

April 12, 1974 Tape 1006 PK-1 JIR SPE_AKER: The honourable Member for Hermitage. MR R. SII-'MONS: Hr_. Speaker, I certainly take pleasure in supporting the petition presented by my colleague, the Member for White Bay South. Had we the time and this were the right place, I should certainly tell you so~ething of the background and the seriousness of the problem to which the petition relates. Let me instead, Mr. Speaker, endorse and voice my support, completeiy, for the petition, for the burden of it.

To point again to the essential problem which undErlies this to which the petition alludes, I believe that this has been a part of the building progral!tl!le of the Green Bay School Board with which it was my pleasure to have been associated for so1:1e years and during tj:ie period when this matter became one of priority.

The dilemma here is one which is reflected in a number of parts of the province; so I rise to make the point again that the solution in Westport, the solution in Triton and Roberts Are, in Baie Verte and in a number of other communities which are on that priority list for new buildings, the solution lies with~

(1) An authorization of guaranteed, long-term financing by government over a twenty or twenty-five year period;

(2) The making·available by government of a substantially increased amount of money for capital purposes in school construction. I can only hope that both of these items will be announced when the budget is brought down in the next few days. HR SP'EAY...ER: The honourable Member for Green Bay. HP.. A. B. PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, I should like to support the petition presented by the honourable Member for White Bay South. Bei~~ familiar vith the Westport - Seal Cove Area as well as Fleur de Lys and Coac?t:::an's Cove, Min~'s Bight etc. in the honourable member's district, I too would like to support the petition.

I sµpport it· ta perhaps a different way than the honourable Member for Hermitage because it has been my contention,for the past year and a-half or Go, that of the millions of dollars 3037

April 2 ,· 1974 Tape 1006 PK - 2 that have been sp_ent by the Green Bay Integrated School Board in the past number of yea.rs, in those communities that come under their jurisdiction, very little has been spent in the smaller communities to help alleviate some of the very pressing problems, not necessarily, Mr. Speaker, in the way of a totally ne,~ building but :fn the way of sufficient funds,whether they be $10,000 or $20,000 or $30,000,to help bring the standards of educational facilities in these real small col!11llunities _up to Gome decent level. It gives me great pleasure to support this petition.

I only hope that the board sees fit in the coming year to go along with the recomr.iendations of that petition. MR, SPEAKER: I would just like to make a note here, although honourable members are in agreement with presenting this petition, I do not think we should sort of take it as a precedent to accepting such petitions under circumstances pointed out by the honourable the Member for White Bay South,that it was asking for the expenditure of funds and it was a copy of the petition. I do not think we should allow such petitions to be accepted all of the time, Are there any other petitions? MOTIONS MR.

SPEAKER: The Hon, Minister of Finance. HON. J. C. CROSBIE: (MINISTER OF FINANCE) : Kr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave of the House to introduce a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Property Loss Reserve Fund Act." MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. HON, H. R. V.

EARLE: (MINISTER OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING): Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to present Mr. to the Bouse a bill, "An Act To Amend The Asses811lent Act," and further- .. more, a bill "An Act To Amend The Department Of Municipal Affairs And Housing Act, 1973;" thirdly, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Community Councils Act, 1972." QUESTIONS HR. SPEAKER: The honourable Member for Bell Island. MR. S. A. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of very mild questions for the Hon. the Premier. I am not going to ask him how the food is over at Memorial University.

Sir, aa the honourable House knows ~O:lR

April 2, 1974 Tape 1006 PK - 3 that in the last few days an unexpected windfall will come to New._ foundland as a result of the tax on Western oil. 3039

April 2, 1974 Tape 1007 IB-1 oil, what I want to ask the Premier is will any of this unexpected revenue, this increase in the equalization frant for Newfoundland, will any of this money be usP.d to help limit the cost of living for our people in this prov1.nce by subsid:f zing milk or transportation or reducing the tax on heating fuel or gasoline: · ~Tl~ !'Q!)J-F.S_:.. Order Pnper, Mr. Speaker. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I clo not know how to r;et a quest:lon like that on the Orc!P.r Paper.

Sir, I wonder if the honourable the Premier would inform the House if there :f.s anything new on the appointment of an ombudsman in th:f.s Province? MR. SPEAKER: I think that is the sort of question which could very well be placed on the Order Paper. MF. NEARY: The honourable Premier is goinP, to answer, Mr. Speaker, I believe, •No." MR. MARTIN: A question, Mr. Speaker, wh:f.ch I would like to direct to the honourable the Premier.

A couple of days ago by way of explanation I would like to say that I sent a letter to the office of the Premier explaining the situation in several coastal Labrador communities relating to a shortage of gasoline. I am wondering if the honourable the Premier has received that communication and if any action has been taken. MR. MOORES: Well, Mr. Speaker, no I have not but I certainly will look it up this afternoon and I will gladly pass on the answer to the honourable member from Labrador South as quickly as I can. MR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, about,oh last week, the early part of last week, I wired the honourable the Premier inviting him to attend a public meeting on Bell Islaad,to discuss the serious problems that are arising in the ferry service between Bell Island and the local mainland. Would the ~ Premier indicate to me if he has received that wire and if so, when I can expect a reply? MR. MOORES: I have received the wire, Mr. Speaker, and I have wired the member back. ~fR. F. ROWE: Mr. Speaker, I woald like to address a question to the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Would the minister undertake to table 3040

April 2, 1974 Tape 1007 11:1-2 the list of proposals that the Provincial Government has made to Ottawa for the expenditure of DREE funds for highway construction between Deer Lake and St. Anthony, in other words, the Great Northern Peninsula Highway? MR. T .P. F.ICKEY (MINISTER OF TRANSPORTATION AND COW.'lJNICATIONS): Mr. Speaker, I think I indicated the other day that we are not in the position to do that at this particular time. I do not know what the situation will be when the DREE Agreement is signed. Maybe the honourable member might wish to direct his question at that time. ~- F.

ROWE: A supplementary question, ~r. Speaker. Has the minister made st>ecific motions to Ottava for the expenditure of DREE funds for capital construction on the Great Northern Peninsula Highway? ~ffi. HICKEY: It is included, Mr. Speaker. MR. F. ROWF.: It is included. Another question,to the Minister of Transportation and Communications, Mr. Speaker. Have the engineers of the minjster's department drawn up a specific plan for a proposed higbwaY through the district of St. Barbe North? MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that under advisement. , NR. MARTI~: J have another question, Mr.

Speaker, which I would like to direct to the honourable the Premier. So as not to be shot down, I would like to have permission to give a couple of words of explanation. Last year I asked the same question and since it is the beginning of the celebrations for the Twenty-fifth Anniversary I would like to ask ~hether or not it is now offical policy that the name of the province be Newfoundland or Newfoundland and Labrador and what steps have been taken in this regard to put the proper name on celebration documents. ~-~...:')RES..:.. Mr.

Speaker, as I understand i·t,the off1cf.a.1 name as it always hai:: been and never was changed, is the Province of Newfoundland. However, ~ this ~overnment, as the past government did and certainly it will be our intention that it be 3041

April 2, 1974 Tape No. 1008 NM - 1 "The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador," MR. ROBERTS: Is that the policy of the administration? MR. MOORES: That is what is on the letterheads, so I guess it is, MR. ROBERTS: On some_letterheads, a ~eautiful selection, different types of names, all on the same dates. MR. MOORES: That is my position, MR. ROBERTS: Okay. You might tell the Minister of Tourism as he is unaware. ORDERS OF THE DAY: MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Hermitage. MR.

SIMMONS: Mr, Speaker, last Friday I directed a question to the Premier which he took notice of 0 I wonder if he has the answer to the question. To refresh memories,the question related to the road construction which had .begun at Gaultois,last November,and which I was suspended about the middle of December. My question was: "What plans the Department of Rural Development or whatever other department of government has to continue with the construction in the spring'?" Could he answer the question today'? MR. MOORES: Mr. Speaker, I have not got the answer yet.

The Minister of Rural Development has been ill these last few days and as I said last week,as soon as I get the information I will gladly pass it on. MR. SIMMONS: Thank you. Another question I would like to direct to the Minister of Transportation, Last week we were talking about the Conne Causeway. the proposed causeway to Conne that is, Conne River, At that time the minister indicated that approaches had been made to the federal government. I wonder ~ould he indicate to the House what federal department his departlllent is dealing with on this matter? MR. HICKEY: Mr.

Speaker, as I understand it, the CoDB11Unity of Conne River has a fair percentage of people who are Indian in one way or another,back a generation or sopand that the whole question of financial assistance f.rom the federal government was pursued under the prospects of obtaining a ninety - ten per cent agreement with the federal government. I indicated to the honourable member at the time that my department 3042

April 2, 1974 Tape No. 1008 NM - 2 and to my knowledge the government had not gone through the Department of Regional and Economic Expansion with regards to this project because of the fact that any agreement with the federal government under the Department of Indian Affairs certainly would be more beneficial to the province, obviously more beneficial to the community. MR. SlM!iONS: For clarification, his department is dealing with the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs on the matter, ls that correct? MR. HICKEY: No, Mr. Speaker, my department is not as such.

The project constructing the bridge of course is a matter for my department but the matter in relation to whether the population or a sufficient percentage of the population is Indian and any agreement between Indian Affairs and the government of this province would be under another department as such. MR. SI.MM,ONS: Supplementary: Perhaps I will phrase my question another way. Mr. Speaker, is the province dealing on this matter with the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs,so far as the minister knows? MR. HICKEY: It is my understanding that we are, Mr.

Speaker, and as far as I know we cannot sit down and discuss actual dollars and cents or pay,cost-sharing arrangement until certain things are worked out. MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Bell Island. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, •! wonder if the Acting Minister of Social Services would inform the House if arrangements have been made to send out the social assistance cheques now in two installments or in one? Have the cheques already gone out? Will they be going out the middle of the 'IIOnth? What will be the amount of the social assistance cheque the middle of the month?

Will it be half of the total or will it just be an installment? Would the minister care to inform the House just what is happening in this regard1 3043

April 2, 1974 Tape No. 1008 NM - 3 MR • . OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, yes. Comencing this mootb,Aprtl; the cheques will be mailed out twice monthly. Th~ actual elates, whether that will be the first and the middle or the middle and the eod,that I am not in a position to say 3044

April 2, 1974, Tape 1009, Page 1 -- apb MR. OTTENHEI11ER: Did I say something? I am not used to being acting minister yet. Anyway, what dates they are being mailed out I am not sure of but they are going out twice monthly. I certainly presume it will be half the amount in each case - whatever the entitlement per month, it will be half of that. :P.R. HEARY: Hr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would tell us whether the cheques will be golng out on the fifteenth and the last day of the month? Will it be the fifteenth and the last day? Is that the way it will be done? MR. OTIENHEIMER: Mr.

Speaker, I would have to check to be sure. I do not know what dates they are going out but I know they are going out twice per month. It will be either the first and the fifteenth or the fifteenth and the thirtiet~. Which it is I do not know. Of course, it would only make a difference as far as I can see the first month. That is the only time it would make any difference. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I must say that that was very enlightening. I am more confused now than when I asked the question. I wonder if the minister would undertake to get the information for the House?

Because it is very important for ,them to understand what period they are getting paid for . Would the minister undertake to get that information? MR. SPEAKER: Motion (1) is the motion moved by the honourable Member for St. John's East. Revising the Standing Orders: MR. ?·'AR.SHALL: Hr. Speaker, this is a motion that has been on the Order Paper for a long period of time and it is also a matter that has occupied the consideration of certain members of this House, also for quite a period of time.

In the first session of this Assembly, a collllllittee was set up pr constituted for the purpose of reviewing the procedures and rules and Standing Orders under which this House operates. Pursuant to the charge of the committee, there were five on the government side and three on the opposition side. We held several, not several, we held many meetings, actually six, seven or eight meetings of long 3045

April ·2, 1974, Tape 1_009, Page 2 -- apb duration. We had certain papers prepared, Position papers they were called, with references to suggested changes and topics with respect to the rules. This Standing Order here, then constitutes the sum total of the unanimous recommendations of the committee or vhat ve feel are the unanimous recommendations. There was a certain amount of debate as to whatwere the unanimous recommendations, about two or three weeks ago or a month ago, when this session first started. I think that that has been resolved now or I would hope it has.

Be that as it may, perhaps the best way to lead into this is to go through the Standing Orders themselves and explain them to the House. (That is the proposed changes.) Some of them are consequental, some of them are not consequental.but I think it is probably necessary to explain,in a little bit of detail anyway, the changes that are going to be. The first one, the first change is an amendment to Standing Order 4(

c) which is what I would call a routine change. It is a change that has been recoII11Uended by the members of the permanent staff here in the House of Assembly who attended these meetings, which is merely in Standing Order 4(

c) to add between the words "intermission and if" the words "or at any such other hour that has been ordered by the House at a previous day's sitting for the commencement of business of the House on the following day." Ybat this does really, is that the Speaker of the House has to take the initiative with respect to a quorum of the House at three o'clock and eight o'clock. There have been some questions ~n times past, ,,hen the House has adjourned to a time other than three o'clock or eight o'clock in the afternoon for purposes of a funeral or vhat have you.

That change is really not consequental but is necessary in order to give the Speaker the power to take the initiative in determining whether a quorum is present when, as happens very rarely, the House meets after the established hours. Number

(2) Is one I think that should be welcomed. Standing 3046

1~r1~ 2, 1974, Tape 1009, Page 3 - apb Order 4(<

l) reads; "That when the Speaker's attention has been directed to the fact thc1t theTe has not been a quorum present, the Speaker shall cause the bells t o be rung and sh.all cause the count to commence when three minutes have elapsed from the ringing of the bells. While the Rouse is being counted the doors rer,ain open and members can come in during the whole time occupied by the counting.! ' During our study 3041

April 2, 1974 Tape 1010 IB-1 of the Standing Orders, we had the benefit of the similar Standing Orders and rules of procedures in other Houses in Canada, in other provinces • . Generally speaking, I think in just about .every House this provision was there. As it presently exists right now, as everyone knows, it is almost like a charade where the permanent employees of the House, the cl erk of the Rom;e or the assistant clerk, has to make the count and sometimes he has to go around and count it almost as if he is ,etting over a hangover while he is waiting for members to come in.

This is the way that it had been goin~ on before. So, what we are going to do now is we are go:1.ng to provide that the bells will ring end after three hours then the count will begin - AN HONOURABLE }!EMBER: Three minutes. MR. MARSHALL: Three minutes,yes. Not a great inconsequented change but one which really probably makes the House a little more meaningful because of the present way it exists, it is not very satisfactory where the clerk has to get up and count in the indignant manner that he has to. Similarly we are going to just amend Standing Order (5).

If honourable members could refer to the Order (3), by putting the words, "Or may cause the House to be collllted by one of the clerks of the House." As it presently exists, the Speaker,.under that Standing Order,is the one. who has to perfonn the count himself,under the rules. This has not been done so we are changing it to relate to pTactice, to custom and to convenience and to the most efficient manner. Amend Standing Order 7 - Now I should prefer to refer back to this in a few moments when. we come to the provisions with respect to the enlarged question period.

This relates to the adjournment of the House at six o'c~ock on Thursday, the procedure of which has been changed to conform with a procedure we have with respect to the pursuit of questions which the Speaker rules to be not a matter of urgent public importance or the answer is not satisfactory, We will COIM! to that in a moment because that is a matter of much more import than some of the other matters already referred to here. 3048

April 2, 1974 Tape 1010 IB-2 Standing Order 14 is going to be amended (This concerns the daily routine of business)to conform with present practices. Now, the Speaker starts the proceedings by calling, ,;Presenting Petitions: ''Notices of Motion•, etc., and statements of ministers usually come in before petitions,as a matter of practice. So, we have changed that so that there will be a reasonable directive to members to know when the various items of routine business come in.

So, now it will be Statement cf Ministers, Presenting of Petitions, Presenting Reports of Standing and Select Committees, Notice of Motion, Answers to Questions for which notice has been given and Oral Questions. In conformity with the practice that this government has adopted and which the opposition has given us credit for implementing since we have been in government.there has been an oral question period every day. We saw this in operation here today. It exists not formally under the rules, as it ought to exist. It exists really by sufferance I suppose one might say.

But, this government made the decision that it, in its attempt to make the Legislature more meaningful, was going to allow an oral question period. The amendments deal to a large extent with the oral question period. these rules The next one,and taking them in order - they do not all relate to the same subject - Number 6·, which is Standinp.: Order 25. This relates to written answers to questions which have been placed on the Order Paper.

They are to be printed in the verbatim report of Hansard - I suppose we call it Hansard of the day, so that there will be a ready reference to the answers to que1Sti~ns which are given. Number 7 is one of some substance which I shall go into now. This is Standinv, Order 31. This is a new Standinr, Order. It provides that the oral question period which bear in mind did not exist in practice prior to the advent of this government on the scene, that the oral question period will not last more than thirty minutes,includinp. supplementary questions and points of order. In these periods,questions on 3049

April 2, 1974 Tape no. 1011 Page 1 - MW' matters of urgency may be addressed orally to ~inisters of the Crovo provided, however, thnt Mr.

Speaker shall disallow any question which he does not consider urgent or of public importance;"(as he has the right to do right now under the application of Beauchesne and the principles of the House of Commons )"provided also that if in the opinion of the Minister to whom a question is addressed it requires a lengthy answer, he may require it to be placed on the Order Paper;" (this is similar to other jurisdictions as well) "and provided also that the Minister to whom a question is directed may take such oral question as notice to be answered orally at a later sitting, but where any such reserved question requires as its answer a lengthy statement, such statement shall be given under the ordinary daily routine proceeding "Statements by Ministers." This is to prevent blocking of the oral question period with answers from previous days.

I migh~ say that this Section (31) is similar to the provisions adopted in the House of Commons but adapted to suit our purpose. Generally speaking, the form and substance of it is similar to that in the House of Commons: Under (b): "Mr.

Speak.er, may allow a reasonable number of supplementary questions arising out of a Minister's reply to an • oral question." Under (c): "In putting any oral questions, no argum~t or opinion is to be offered nor any facts stated except as far as may be necessary to explain the same; and in answering any such question, the Minister is not to debate the matter to which it refers." This also is similar to the ruling under Beauchesne as we presently have 1'. for the answering of questions. It is to be engrafted in our Standint Orders in the same manner as it is in other jurisdictions.

Under (d): "Oral questions must not be prefaced by the reading of letters, telegrams, newspaper extracts or

preambles of any kind." ' This again is similar. ;__rnder (e): "A Minister may in his discretion decline to anawer ·any qµestion." Thie also is the same and perhaps it is not a rule that is generally known by all members of the honourable House. Sometime• 3050

April 2, 1974 Tape ,no. 1011 Page there appears to be a feeling that a minister must answer a question,but he may decline to answer here as he may decline to answer in -any parliamentary body. 2 Under (f): "The Speaker's r~lings relating to oral questions are not debatable or subject to appeal." Now this is going to be dealt with, though the members do have a protection.

In the event that they do not agree with the Speaker's ruling or in the event that they do not like the fact that a minister declines to answer a question, they have a right,for a half an hour which we are going to implement here on every Thursday afternoon, which in other jurisdictions is sometimes called "The Late Show", to debate the failure to answer the question, the ruling that it is not a matter of urgent public importance or what have you. This is covered under (g). Under {g}: "A Member who is not satisfied with the response to an oral question or who has been told by Mr.

Speaker that his question is not urgent or not of public importance, may give notice that he intends to raise the subject-matter of his question on the adjournment of the House. The notice referred to herein, whether or not it is given orally during the oral question period, must be given to the Speaker not later than 5:00 p.m. of the same day." In other words.during the question period, if somebody does not like the answer that he gets, if he receives an unsatisfactory answer or if he does not agree with Hr.

Speaker's ruling that th"' question is a matter of urgency or of public importance,then he has · to by 5:00 p.m. that same afternoon give notice in writing to the Speaker that he intends to raise the subject matter of his question at the adjournment of the House.

Under (h): "At 5:30 p.m. on every Thursday the Speaker may notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 14, deem that a motion to adjourn the House has been made and seconded, whereupon such motion shall be debatable for not more than thirty minutes." Now within this thirty minute time on Thursday afternoons a member is given five minutes within which ta bring forth arguments with respect to the unsatisfactory 3051

April 2, 1974 Tape no. 1011 Page 3 nature of the answer. The lliinister to wh0111 it is directed is given five minutes in which to respond or similarly the member is given five minutes to debate as to why it. is a 111atter of urgent public iur,,ortance and the minister is given the opport\mity to reply within five minute .s. The Speaker then shall decide the order in vhich such matters are to be raised 3052

April 2, 1974. Tape 1012 RH - 1 and not later than 4:00 P.M. on any Thursday, the Speaker shall indicate the matter or matters to be raised at the time of the adjournment of that day. So this generally. then is a new innovation in this House. It is not unknown in other jurisdictions •. It is used quite effectively in the House of Commons.

Where the question period has been instituted here, instituted from the point of view that it has been brought into practice, it is necessary, I think, in order to make a meaninP,ful question period to have a half hour period in which members can really let off steam, in effect with respect to the nature,of the answers given rather than, hopefully, to have the question period occupied throughout the whole til!le each day with . points , of order and with appeals of the Speaker's ruling and what have you.

So that then is a new innovation of the committee here and it is a procedure that I hope will be used in the House and should prove of benefit to the workings of the House of Assembly. Then we come on to

section - Order 43,

section VIII. We revert, away now from the subject upon which we were engaged. Under

section 43, this is not real~y of great consequence but one that could cause technical problems. "The Chairman of the Committees who shall also be Deputy-Speaker shall be elected at the commencement of every l)arliament." Now there was some discussion when we first assumed office as to whether or not the Deputy-Speaker could be elected at that time or whether we had to wait until the Address in Reply was completed.

So, in order to avoid any difficulty with respect to this matter,we are providing that the Deputy-Speaker shall be elected at the commencement of each t>arliament, which seem.9 to be the most sensible vay. Now the next one is one that caused a certain amount of debate, a fair amount of debate after it was decided by the committee that it would be implemented I understand that the Opposition had subsequently, had certain obsevations vith respect to it and had changed their minds, that is the Opposition mer:.bers of the co11D11ittee.

Under the t>resent Standing Order 51 (b), the Speaker of this House or the Chairman of Committees if he is in the Chair.is-only able to draw 3053

April 2, 1974. Tape 1012 RH - 2 a member to order for irrclevance,for · not being relevant. In every other Standing Orders that we have research,with the exception of Quebec, the words "or needless repetition" were added. In other words Mr. Speaker or the Chairman, after having called the. attention of the House or the committee to the conduct of a member who persists in irrelevance or need­ less repetition,may direct him to discontinue speakinr,. The only machinery that the Speaker had in times past was to call a member to order, as I say, for not being relevant.

I think it is quite obvious that it is also necessary for the same rule to be in as is in other jurisdiction to give the Speaker the right to call a member to order for needless repetition. I do not know how it happened to get dropped from the original draft of Order 51 (

b) because obviously they are all copied from, originally I suppos~ from the British House of Conmons but it could possibly be that the words"or needless repetitionMwere dropped because of inadvertence or what have you, But certainly it should go in in there. The committee report that was made, that was filed in this House. indicates and I just quote that"Since the meetings of the committee,(meetings that occurred two years ago) the undernoted members have reassessed the proposed amendment to Order 5 (

b) and feel that it o~ght not to be incorporatea into the Standing Orders of the House of Assembly." They were signed by the three members of the Opposition, that they draw to issue with them at that time. I do not think that their reason was valid and I think it is a very necessary item to r,o into the Standing Orders. It is included in this motion, Mr. Speaker, because it is the sum total of the unanimous rec0111111endations of the committee. When the committee met we had the clerk of the House,who was in attendance as secretary. We had the law clerk, Mr. Harry Cummings, Q.C. who is now the Registrar of the Supreme Court, in session, We also had secretaries there to take 3054

April 2, 1974 Tape 1013 IB-1 minutes and to record the proceedings of the committee. These minutes were subsequerttly typed and circulated to all mem~er6 of the committee and this was on it and it was one of the unanimous recommendations of the committee. Now, Standing Order 84 - this is under 10 - Standing Order 84 has heen amended to provide the machinery for a much larger committee system than we presently have, The committees that we have presently under Standing Order 84 are both inarlequate and archaic.

They are the committees on priviler,es and elections which must be there, on Standing Orders and the library, ( There is no real necessity ?or the library to be there.) on miscellaneous private-bills and on municipal affairs. That was in the days - these rules were drafted in the days when local government was not a matter of - there was not much local government on the island so we had a committee of the House to deal with these matters of municipal affairs. It is ohviously quite archaic now and I do not know if it had been appointed by the previous government in the past,which I have no doubt it actually was.

We have not bothered to appoint such a committee. It only acted as a proforma committee because it certainly die not really, I believe, discharge any duties. So, we are enlarging then the committees. The committees are going to be as follows. First of all, there are goin~ to be three co1TD11ittees corresponding with the breakdown of the functions of government as determined by this government in its major successful restructuring programme. The Government Services Committee, a Social Services Committee and a Resource Committee.

All three of these will consist of not more than seventeen members and not less than nine members. The Public Accounts Committee~ also constituted here, formerly· a Public Accounts Conunittee,which shall consist of seven members. Privileges and Elections Committee, that is a previous one that may come up from time to time. It has been sought to be used in recent times. It is to consist of five membets. The Standing Orders Comrrittee is to consist of five members. This will 3055

April 2, 1974 Tape 1013 IB-2 be the successor to the present Rules Committee, of course. I guess one of the first jobs will be to rewrite the Standing Orders and edit the commentary on it. Now, the }(isc~llaneous and Private Bills Committee is to consist of five members. I might state that the· Private Bills Co=ittee also has been rather archaic in practice because the practice has been,and one cannot quibble with the past government,of bringing in bills relating to private interests in with the government bills the~selves.

There should be a procedure here set up whereby a private organization has the opportunity to have its bill presented before the House. This is the reason for a Prjvate Rills Committee.

Now, I do not think there is too much need to really go through all of the consequent·changes although there were necessarily a number of consequented changes to Standing Orders following after that with respect to committee - except to say that these committees can sit, they are not select committees as such but they -are committees that can sit while the House is in session or out of session and will die then when the assembly itself ends. So, this is then the machinery to enlarge the committee system. How effective that can be will have to be determined in the future.

The committee system is a very valuable organ of government,some people say. Others seem to indicate that it is not as useful as it has been trumped up to be, Certainly if these committees are to be of any utility at all, it is quite evident that there will have to be a great deal more staff available,for use of the cormnittees as constituted,than there are. However, I know that it is intended to elowly but surely, if you like, over a period of time; it is the presP.nt intention of the government to keep these committees as active as possible. Now, there are certain 3056

April 2, l':J /4 ·.i:ape llJl4 P£-l ones here that, of course, will have to be and ought to be appointed very shortly; such as the Public Accounts Committee. The Public Accounts Co11U11ittee, in this House I think should perhaps function very actively and certainly much more actively than it has in past years. Then the final one there is Order 89, c·ur No. 15. I direct honourable members to the rest; No •. 11, No.13 and No.14'. Really if the honourable members should like me to go over them piecemeal, I shall; but really they only relate to the 11ormal types of procedures for coI:llll.ittees of this nature.

No.15 is Order 89: "The Clerk shall display in some conspicuous part of the House a list of the several standing and select committees." Now, Mr. Speaker, this is the sum total of the unanimous recom­ mendations of the committee. This col!IIIlittee was, I think, a very valuable cOl!IIllittee which did a good deal of work in the time allotted to it. I must say the Leader of the Opposition, when he was speaking in the Address in Reply, on February 7, made a few observations about the inconsequential nature of the recommendations and the committee itself.

I was temptea and as a matter of fact I have three or four or five pages here in reply to him; but I do not think there is any need to reply to him. One is almost tempted, when one hears statements such as that, to say that everyone contributed but the fellow who is talking; which is not true. In all fairness, every member of the connnittee made a contribution with the various papers they put in. They put a lot of long hours into it. The collllllittee could not come up with any recoll11llendation with respect to time; that is unanimous agreement with respect to time.

Obviously the committee, certai·nly on the government side, where we are all accustomed to discussing thin1s and agreeing with things and cocrl.ng out as one, could have come out with a recommendation on time in this committee itself. We thought it only fair to confine the committee's recommendations to the.unanimous findings of the co111111ittee itself. These are the unanimous findings. I would like to thank all members of the committee 3051

April 2, 1974 Tape 1014 PK-2 for their work, the honourable Member for White Bay South, the Hon. Leader of the Opposition, the honourable Member for St Barbe North; in the Opposition, and the Hon. ?~inister of Education, the Hon. Minister of Finance, the llon. Minister of Mines and Energy and the honourable }~mber for St John's South. I do hope that the committee will continue. I have to say one thing though: Even though this is the unanimous recotmnendation of the committee itself, there were a few things that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition referred to in his speech that I really cannot let go. Wait now!

Where is it here? It is so hard to get through to read between the o~her types of observation~; hard to read between the observations that are made. He spent most of the afternoon talking about that great and illustrious firm of Marshall, White and Ottenheimer, that afternoon. AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Could the honourable member repeat that, Mr. Speaker? MR MARSHALL: Well, let the advertising go; I do not think I will get too many ·clients from the other side of the House. Anyway, he said that we had a very capable staff; which I have said.

"Let the conmiittee go back to work," he said in ringing tones, "but the real issue of this House is the issue of whether or not we should look at limiting debates," That is what the Leader of the Opposition said, I did not say it. It is here. "Should we or should we not?" "We hear on the other ~ide"(that is over here) "a number of complaints of how lengthy debate is." I must say that on our side, from time to time we do find it hideous.

"Should we deal with that?" "Should we look elsewhere, to other jurisdictions?" Be goes off into the type of needless repetition that we are trying to avoid in our original motion. Then he goes on to say, after • "he gets through with that illustrious firm, "But it has come to nothing!" !.'It has come to nothing!" That is not the firm, this is the committee." We have laboured and laboured almost in vain.

Indeed, Sir, the only substantive point in the report is one which we originally agreed on but on reflection and upon seeing the cond~ct of the Chairman of Conmdttees decided we could not accept, and accordingly the report had an addendum noting ourdissent on that point." 3058

April 2, 1974 Tnpe 1014 PK-3 Chairman of Committees, we decided we could not accept; and accordingly the report had an addendU111 noting our dissent on·that point." In other words; I gather froJll that then that the Oppositio.n is in favour of needless repetition. In any event, Mr. Speaker, the Hon·. Leade2' of the Opposition said that 3059

April 2, 1974 Tape No. 1015 NM - 1 government has not come to grips with the problem of limiting debate and I think in all fairness that this government has come to grips.

Surely now the opposition does not think that a government that comes to grips with such weighty problems as regaining our hyd~o resources, the forestry management of this province, such weighty problems as the expulsion indeed of the honourable member for Bell Island,is going to leave such an idea as a matter of time to just rest in limbo without inviting this House to consider the matter of time which I will agree with the Leader of the Opposition, goes to the very essence of the problems in this House and is something that ought to be tackled by someone and obviously by the Legislature and obviously by this government which is giving the leadership in this Legislature.

The government intends to do just that, to accept, not only to accept the invitation of the Leader of the Opposition but also to acquit its duty in this field as it does so adequately in others. At the present time,in the interest of conviviality and anticipation of great support from the other side, this motion only relates I say again to the matter of the unanimous recommendations of the rules committee. I look forward to hearing what the opposition has to say about it.

I would particularly hope, I do not see that there is any necessity of repeating the words that the Leader of the Opposition said on February 7 last,that I inadvertently read here. with respect to the Deputy Speaker, I think that that particular issue has now been settled for once and for all and I would not in closing " the debate like to have to go into it but if I have to I shall because this happens to be a matter - the Deputy Speaker is a man who is obviously, as well as this matter, very close to my heart.

So in the interest in the nonpartisan attitude that was prevalent at the Colonial Building yesterday, in the interest of improving the rules of this House in the best manner possible, Mr. Speaker, I have much delight in presenting these unanimous recollllliendations of the ~011DD!ttee and h·ope that eventually they will receive the wholehearted endorsation of this House as well as other motions.which may come up before 3060

April 2, 1974 Tape No.- 1015 NM - 2 the sitting is up,with respect to other pressing matters that the Leader of the Opposition referred to. AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. MA..'ltSHALL: Well I could not stand it. I could not stand it. MR. SPEAKER (Mr. Stagg): The honourable member for White Bay South. !-IR. WM. ROWE: Mr. Speaker, the-honourable the Government House Leader may have to use his three pages of notes, vindictive, spleenful notes be has down on paper,before this debate draws -to a close or when he clues it up.

Before we get into the substance of this, Sir, I do hope that somebody goes over the copy of these rules as provided for in the Order Paper and cleans up some of the grammatical errors, Sir, in it and some of the inconsistent language. For example, 7 (f) "The Speaker's ruling relating to oral questions are not debatable," you know that kind of grammatical ignorance. I do not know who drafted it, Mr. Speaker, it should be, "Speaker's rulings relating to oral questions are not debatable," or "The Speaker's ruling is not debatable." One or the other you know, I mean - MR, MARSHALL: Inaudible. · MR. WM.

ROWE: Well for the purpose of - MR. MARSHALL: I can say that the rules were impeccably drafted by the best source that I could find. MR . WM. ROWE: Himself. MR. MARSHALL: But I could also in~icate, Mr. Speaker, that they were also proofread by the second best source I could find.which is the honourable the member for White Bay South. So perhaps we can get together afterwards. MR. WM.

ROWE: Sir, when I proofread it, if the honourable House Leader is going to be completely truthful, that is not give one half the story, If he would care to table the draft which I sent back to him,with the annotations which I made showing the many elementary errors made in drafting, Sir, and the corrections suggested, I would have no objections whatsoever if he wanted to table that. I think this probably slipped through. It is probably a typing error. 3061 ....

• April 2, 1974 Tape No. 1015 NM - 3 Also. Sir, _before I get into the main substance of this, throughout the rule .a as changed there is reference to standing committess, (That is okay.) ·There-is reference to select committees and special committees, N.ow I do not know if they are meant to be one and the same• a select cc:>mmittee and a special committee or whether there is a difference in the terms of art used there.-.

Maybe the honourable the Bouse Leader can clarify that for us as well, Sir, when he clues Up the debate, because I think tbe thing should be consistent one way or the other unless we are talking a.bout t}J.ree differe •nt kinds of comm.ittees. I do not see any refe .rences there now but it o.ccurs time and time again here where there is a reference made to a select committee and then there is some reference made to a special committee. I mean to save 3062

April 2, 1974, Tape 1016. Page 1 -- apb confusion or to spare us from confusion, Sir, I think there should be some consistency there. In any event, the Rouse Leader, Sir, is considered these rules,from the talk we have heard outside the House and inside the House, prior to the meeting of the c0111111ittee, during the ~eeting of the committee, subsequent to the meeting of the committee. He considers these rules to be the pinnacle, Sir, of his career, These few paltry rules we have before us now are the pinnacle of the honourable House Leader's career. Talk about reach · exceecing ~rasp, ¥.r.

Speaker, I am sure he meant to do more when he waxed eloquent and at length on the matter of changing the rules of the House. Perhaps he hoped to achieve more but in any event, now he produces as the \,Ork of this committee; and I will go into the reason as to why these are only a few paltry rules, what he now produces is not very impressive. If it be the pinnacle of his career, Sir, it is like a can who grasped after the top 9f Mount Sinai and found himself flat on his back in the Dead Sea a thousand feet. below sea level. Not a pinnacle, Sir, but a trough.

The peak of the honourable member's career is one thousand feet below sea level. The collllllittee, Sir, did not grapple with any of the main points and problems affecting parliamentary discussion and rules. It did not go into any of the thorny problems at all, Sir.

The I committee,under the chairmanship of the honourable the House Leader · and under his guidance and in spite of the fact that many good suggestions were made by my colleagues and colleagues on the other side of the House, whenever there was an argument or whenever there vas a sign of dissent on the part of members.the matter was dropped~ in a hurry. If it occurred to the House Leader that it was a thorny problem,we did not really grapple with it. The House Leader stayed on the outer rim, Sir, of the basic issues. He stayed on the periphery, ~id not go into the centre of the problem at all.

Questions, for example, as have been raised by the Leader of the Opposition on time for debates, cutting off debates and that 3063

April 2, 1974, Tape 1016, Page 2 - apb includes, of course, questions like closure, whether there should be closure, guillotine provisions and all this kind of thing. Sir, remembering always that the Leader of the Opposition had not reco1T1111ended that time be cut short for debates, debates generally or the amount of time for a person to speak, the honourable House Leader stayed away from all those questions.

Questions like the whole matter of Supply, Conunittee of Supply and difficulties encounter¢d there he_did not go into at all although the Leader of the Opposition made some, I think, good suggestions that could have been looked at. Trade offs! A trade off situation! I do not remember the details now but I remember reading them at the time and being impressed with some and not impressed with others but - we zeally did not go into it too much at all, Mr. Speaker, we stayed on the periphery, on the outer rim of the whole basic problem.

The only thing of any substance at all that there was unanimous consent on, Sir, and that was hurriedly agreed to,was the question of oral questions. I am pleased to say, Sir, in all humility, that it was your humble servant who submitted to the committee the provisions for, or most of the provisions there, they were altered somewhat in committee. not very much but in an inconsequential way they were altered somewhat.

The oral question period wbich provides formally for oral questions to be asked early in the day's proceedings,for a half­ hour, and in the event of a member being dissatisfied,really, for any reason,there is a provision to debate the subject matter at another time. I think, Sir, that that was a salutary addition to the rules of this House. Al,.t~ough, Sir, there has been, contrary ~ to ~hat ~he House Leader said - I do not know where he was three or four years ago, Mr.

Speaker, when he sat in this House but although the practice was not much utilized in the early days of Confederation for some reason or other, there has always been provision in our Standing Orders, implicitly if not explicitly,for orals questions to be asked on the Orders of the Day being called. 3064

April 2, 1974, Tape 1016, Page 3 -- apb As a ll'.atter of fact, the honourable the Minister of Finance and Hr. Wells, who was then a member of the House, made great ·use of ·it when they sat on the opposition side. This was not anything brought in by th.is government, Mr. Speaker. I do not know why the House Leader thinks he has to take credit for everything good that ever happened and has to turn his back on anything bad that ever happened. Nobody looking at him or seeing his performance in this House or outside 3065

April 2, 1974. Tape 1017 RH - 1 would every mistake him for a saint or a martyr. He is an ordinary hmnan, mortal Mr. Speaker. There is no need for him to carry on in a pious, pseudo-virtuous way, no need to do that. Things happened before he was born, I would venture to say. Things ~appened after he was born that were bad. He did not cure everything by being born and I would not say that he is completely spotless as a parliamentarian or as a member of the Government. By that I do not mean that he is guilty of any wrong-doing but he is cettainly probably guilty of lapses in judiment and errors in judgment, Mr.

Speaker. He does not have to take upon himself credit for every good thing that has every happened since the world began. Oral questions were asked at great length before this Government ever got into power. The only thing that has happened now by unanimous consent of the committee and hopefully the House is that they will be formalized, certain! formal procedures are set out which will allow oral questions to be asked. Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any need to spend much time on this,as the honourable House Leader said. There was unanimous con­ sent on these matters.

It is only too bad we did not spend more time at the call of the Chair dealing with things on which there was not immediate unanimous consent. We probably might have been able to iron out some of our difficulties and come in with some very substantive changes to the rules. But he did not see .fit to do that, Mr. Speaker. So, there the matter rests. There was one matter which I should deal with and that concerns Clause (9), I believe, of the propos~d new amendment. "Mr.

Speak.er or the Chairman,after having called the attention of the House or of the committee, to the conduct of a member who persists in irrelevance or need­ less repetition may direct him to discontinue his speech and if the member continues th~ speech, Mr. Speaker may name him or if in committee the Chainnan shall report him to the House." In other words, Sir, if a member of the House persists in irrevelence or needles repetition, the Speaker may have him removed from the House or the Chairman may have him removed from the House presumably, by reporting 3066

April 2, 1974. Tape 1017 RH - 2 to the Speaker. The Speaker can name him then. We agreed with that at the time, Mr. Speaker. The honourable member for St. Barbe North and the Leader of the Opposition and myself, we agreed with that provision at the time because, Sir, at the time we were naive, I would say stunned about what was goin~ to happen i~ this House. A~ HO~OL'RABLE MEMBER: Lapse of judgment. MR. ll.M. ROWE: Not a lapse of judgment because we did not know certain facts, you see. It was not a lapse of judgment.

A lapse of judgment vould be where you had the facts there and you make a' stupid decision based on those facts,but at the time we made the decision, Mr. Speaker, ve did not have all the facts. For example, we did not know that perhaps, ve did not realize that perhaps all occupants of the Speaker's Chair or the Chairman's Chair might not view that position with the impartiality and dignity to which the Chair, that Chair or anyone occupying it,deserves. He must, of course, pass upon it himself.

We had an occasion last year where we had to move during private members day a motion of censure on a Speaker who shall remain nameless. Now, that never came up for discussion nor vote, Mr. Speaker. I do not know what would have been said at the time. It never came up because we never got that far along in private members' day before the House itself adjourned until the next session.

So, it never came up for debate but it certainly occurred to us then that because there may be lapses in a Speaker's judgment, not necessarily Your Honour or the Speaker, not necessarily Your Honour,who is the Chairman and Deputy Speaker,or the Speaker himself, but there may be a person in that Chair, Sir, who may not have the same judgment, the same maturity as someone else, may not have all the judgment and maturity necessary to equitably and objectively and in a non-partisan fashion acquit himself of his duties in that Chair.

Ve had good reason, I believe, to doubt or to believe what I just said and to doubt whether in fact some persons always have the capacity to be completely impartial and non-partisan. We did not want, Sir, a Speaker who might on occasion freak out, so to speak, on a particular issue, using an additional club or weapon to beat down .the minority members 3067

April 2, 197 4 • Tape 1017 RH - 3 of the House. The Government is okay, Sir, because they always have the force of the majority. They can appeal the Speaker's ruling and have it overturned. Well, it is the minorities in the House, the Opposition, for example, the leader of the New Labrador Party any other minority parties, groups or individuals in the House who need protection from the tyranny of the majority and perhaps from the fact that a Speaker on occasion may not be completely impartial and may in fact, as I mentioned before, may freak out on a certain issue.

Now, Sir, if you look at this proposed amendment which we agreed to at one time but which subsequent facts convinced us that we should not agree to - if you look at this you will see that it gives the Speaker or the Chairman really the power to decide who is persisting in irrelevance or needless repetition. He decides that of his own volition, his own judgment. He decided that in his own discretion, be that discretion good or bad, be his judgment good or bad. He decides that.

He decides if a man who is trying to emphasize a point and make sure that his point is being driven home, the Speaker decided whether that man is persisting, that member is persisting in irrelevance or needless repetition. That is a very str.ong power, Mr. Speaker, for a Speaker to have. It can be appealed to the majority of the House. The Speaker, Sir, let us not be foolish and naive~the Speaker is chosen by the majority of this House, usually chosen unanimously because everyone wants to look dignified and everythiug, a Speaker by the majority of the House. The majority is the Government party in the House.

The Speaker is invariably chosen from among the partisans of .the majority side of the House, the ., Government side of the House. He is elected as a P.C. or a Liberal and which ever one forms the Government they, in effect, name the Speaker, the Premier names the Speaker. That is what happens, Mr. Speaker. Let us not b' silly about it and pretend that . the Speaker is someone who descends from Mount Olympu~ with all judgment, non-partisan, completely objective and reposes in Your Honour's Chair and metes out objective . 3068

April 2, 1974. Tape 1017 RH - 4 judgment on every point that is raisec;l. The Speaker under our system is a partisan figure. Hopefully, when he gets in the Chair he is not quite so partisan as he was when he was running for election and got elected, hopefully. Btit we are dealing with human nature and we know that there will be a tendency on the -Speaker's part not to antagonize the party to which he belongs and the government which he ran for or for which he ran during an election. So, that Speaker 3069

April 2, 1974 Tape 1018 who was before going on the Chair a partisan figure involved in the acrimony _of party politics, the bitterness of campaigns and in the 1B-1 case of the deputy speaker, may in fact get involved in acrimonious debate in this House and become annoyed and bitter at what is said in the House and takes strong exception to what is said by a member or the personality of a certain member. That man finds himself in the Speaker's Chair on occasion as Your Honour does and then is called upon to mete out objective .judgements when points of order are raised or to be completely objective.

That same man is the man who decides what is irrelevant or needless repetition. Mr. Speaker, on reflection and because of certain consequences, certain acts, certain facts, events which have occurred in this Rouse, we think that that is too strong a power for a Speaker to have, to decide who is persisting in irrelevancy or needless repetition and may direct . him to discontinue his speech 'and name him,which means,of course, that he would have to leave the House, presumably until some motion is brought in to decide what is to be done with him.

So, Sir, we do not agree with that and that is why we subscribed our names to the report as unanimously in favour of all other provisions . except this one whi.ch we were in favour of before hand. Because of certain actions in this House we are not talking theory, we are not talking about what could happen. We are talking, Sir,! would submit about what in fact did happen in the House and what happened outside the Rouse by a person occupying the Speaker's Chair. We do not think a Speaker should have that kind of power.

Therefore, Sir, we shall use whatever procedure is available to u~.I do not know if we go through all of these clauses, clause by clause or whether we have~ to put in an amendment. I understand that a two-third majority is necessary to get this passed. So, I do not know what amendment - 1 must confess, SiT, 1 have not looked up all the procedures involved but whatever is the procedure we would like to s•e that particular clause ' deleted from the proposed amendments to the rules of this House. All of the other ones, Sir, with this exception we can go along with 3070

April 2, 1974 Tape 1018 IB-l this, certainly the committee unanimously agreed with it. Now, Sir, one or two other matters: The honourable government House Leader referred ominously to the fact that perhaps other things are going to come intc, the House later on. Now, I am wondering if the House Leader is listening. I am surprised he is not in his seat listening to the debate, Mr. Speaker. If the House Leader is listening, perhaps he vould like to inform the House-what he meant when he said . that other matters might be brour,ht into the House, other rules.

Was he referring to what the Finance }'inister had to say when he said, they are not going to bother with the usual procedures for amending the rules of the Hosue, Mr. Speaker, whereby a two-thirds majority is, I believe, required. What they are going to do is bring in a bill, a government sponsored bill, and ram it through the House, changing the rules, to cut down on debate, . i to muzzle opposition spokesmen, to stifle questions and debate. ~r. Speaker, That is what the Minister of Finance had to say. Now, will the House Leader tell us,when he speaks, is that what he intends to do?

Or as in so. many other situations, was the Minister of Finance once more on a frolic of his own, differing completely from the government policy and the government position on a particular issue? As we have seen, Sir, in the field of recreation, for example, where the ~.inister of Finance said there was no more money for recreation down tn _:the honourable member's district,and nearly caused an uproar. Then the Premier came out several days later anc3." said, "I do not care what anybody says" - and he looked at thP.

Minister of Finance who was on the same stage I believe - "1 do not care what anybody says, we are going to spend money on recreation." So, here we have a complete conflict and contrary situation between two members of the same governme~t. Now, is thJ.s the same thing happening now? Will the House Lea~er tell us what the govermaent's policy is? Is the government's policy to bring in a bill and ram it through the House in a partisan fashion as the ~inister of Finance already has said publicly, they wili do? Or was the Minister of ,• Finance once more out on a limb, once more on a frolic of his own?

Could the House Leader now tell us whether they are once more going to disown the 3011

April 2, 1974 Tape 1018 , IB-3 _Minister of Finance on this particular issue? For example, •nother example - you know, I know whereof I speak, Sir, I will only give two examples. When the Leader of the Opposition brought a motion into this House to commend Joey Smallwood for his role in Confederation, seconded by the Leader of ·the government,who presumably \ was giving the government's position only to have it destroyed, the government's position destroyed by the Minister of Finance once more,and one or two other members of the House who once more said, Mr.

Speaker, "No, I will not go along with this." Was there ·, you know, a conflict again, a contrary situation between two members of the same government? In both cases, one the Premier and one the Minister of Finance. So, I would ask the House Leader to clear up that situation. Is it government policy to bring a bill into this House, ram it through the House ·and by a simply majority, in a partisan fashion stifle debate, muzzle debate, stymie quest:1.ons being asked? Is that the policy of the government_, as indicated by the Minister of Finance?

Sir, I do not know how many other members wanted to speak on this particular issue._ I will soon sit down. I think we have made most of the points that we have, we desired to make. One only question remains, Sir, when does the - If the House Leader would not mind listening every now and then, Sir, it would be a great pleasure, I must ·say.

The House Leader, Sir, you know he is.piously, virtuously gives the impression; "Oh!Everybody is going to be listened to in the House, take all shades of opinion;• etc. and he is a no more disinterested man, I would say, aside from what he himself has already decided or the government has decided.

I would ask the minister when he hopes to have the Standing Orders printed,which persumably will be passed by this House this afternoon, Hopefully if we are going to adhere to some of the provisions, especially the ·oral q~estions period which, while not complicated, will warrant some perusal by members to see exactly what they have to do. Does he intend to have these amendments incorporated into the Standing Orders and printed in the similar booklet to this one as soon as possible or 3072

April 2, 1974 tap e 1018 18-4 is he goi ng to wait until the Minister of Finance brings in his bi ll, the bill to stym i e debate, to cut off question .s or what? What is the situation there, ~r. Speaker? So, Sir, I think that is probably the main burden of what we have to say. I would say to the House Leader, the government House Leade~, t hat if he intends to carry on with 3073 ,. /

April 2, 1974 Tape no. 1019 Pagel - MW a further amendments to the rules, good amendments to the rules, then I think they should get to work on it as soon as possible.

Members of this side of the House are eager and willing and anxious even to sit down to try to come up with good rules on our own initiative and volition or to look at some of ~he better rules passed by other Rouses in Canada, Great Britain and so on that have stood the test of time, that are good rules, that do not stifle debate but which expedite business and efficiency in the House but allow the necessary leeway for questioning and debate of issues, questioning the ministers of the government, questioning and criticizing the governmeny by opposition members.

As long as rules can provide those two often conflicting requirements; namely, the need for debate and que~tioning and also the need for some expedition, some efficiency in getting business through the House, Sir, we on this side wi11 have no objections.

Indeed, Sir, we will recommend some ourselves, I would commend to the House Leader the suggestion that we do get tog~ther once more and try to grapple with some of the real issues affecting the business of this House, not these peripheral ones, not these sort of outer circled recommendations which while in a way helping somewhat,do not really go to the real problem, Sir, with those few remarks, I can say with pleasure that we agree with all the provisions, with all the proposals here except the one alre~dy adverted to; namely, that ~e do not think that the Speaker should have the power to •say that a member is needlessly and irrelevantly being repetitious, He snould not have that power and then have the power consequently to have the member removed from the House MR.

F.. B. ROWE: Mr; Speaker, the Hon. the House Leader on the . opposition side baa l think made the majov points that have to be made concerning this particular motion. However, Sir, 1 would like to refer to Section (5) and (6) of this motion and solicit an answer to a couple of questions that I wish to put to the Hon, House Leader on the government side. 3074

April 2, 1974 Tape no. 1019 Page 2 I would like to refer first to Section (5) (e), which states: "Answers to Questions for which notice has been given." In Section (6) (e): "The Clerk of the Bouse shall cause written answers to q\l,estions which had been placed upon the Order Paper to be printed in the Verbatim Report of the day on which such answers are tabled unless such answers are of a lengthy or a large nature in which case the Clerk shall make them a Return." Now the question I would like to put to the House Leader is really this: Does this mean that the answers to all questions will be written or can such answers be delivered orally by the minister in question?

Could the Bon. House Leader just indicate the answer to that question now? MR. MARSHALL: Obviously, if the questions are asked orally during the oral question period, the answers are going to appear in the Verbatim Report of Hansard anyway. If they are answered at a subsequent day, they are going to be in a subsequent days - that is orally answered. If they are written answers, they are to appear in it also.

What happens now is that where there are ~itten answers ~d when you get the Verbatim Report, you can go over the oral question period but nobody really knows the answers to questions that have occurred on the Order Paper. MR. F. B. ROWE : Yes, Mr. Speaker. Well the point is that the ministers can still answer the questions orally,that is to written questions placed on the Order Paper _. Hr.

Speaker, I would like to suggest that probably with reference to Section (5) in the motion, 14 (e) 1 that we add in brackets to "Answers to Questions for which notice has been given," that: we put in brackets, "except on Wednesday" or "exc;!!pt: on Private Members' Day." Now, Sir, the reason why I make that suggestion should be obvioua to this honourable House. Hr. Speaker, last year we had a number of occasions on which we were debating a Private Members' Bill, moved by some honourable members on this particular side of the House and the Minister of Finance, 1 submit, Sir, abused the rules or used the 3075

April 21 1974 Tape no. 1019 Page 3 rules and regulations of this House to spend an hour or two answering questions that had been placed on the Order Paper by members of the opposition. In other words, Sir, the Minister of Finance had taken thirty or forty questions from the Order Paper and coincidentally or accidentally decided to answer these questions at long length on Private Members' Day thus reducing the time that could be spent on Private Members' Resolutions, coming from this side of the House, Sir.

I would submit that this is legal and technical but an unfair method of stifling debate on Private Members' Resolutions. Mr. Speaker, I would make the suggestion to the Hon. House Leader on the government side that in 14(

e) that he add,in brackets, "except on Private Members' Day." I think, Sir, that that is a reasonable and fair request, that Private Members' Day not be used and abused by honourable ministers on the government side answering questions that had been placed on the Order Paper. Nov one other reference, Sir, to Private Members' Day. I admit quite readily, Sir, that while I was serving on that committee, I did not make this point that I am about to make now nor the_point that I just made•that is simply a function of the fact that I did not cease to think after the last meeting of the committee.

Sir, I would submit that it might be an idea if the Government House Leader (I do not know what particular clause to refer to in the motion, Sir) give some consideration to splitting Private Members' Day right down the centre and giving one-half of the time, in other words, one and one-half hours, to Private Members on the government side and then the other half of Private Members' Day to Private Members on the opposition side. Sir, the reason I suggest that is that I think tha_t either side of the Bouse can tack the Order Paper with Private Members' Resolutions.

Nine members on this side of the House can walk in during the very first sltting and .place nine Private Members' Resolutions on the Order Paper. I would submit, Sir, if history is to repeat itself, it is very unlikely 3.076

April 2, 1974 Tape no. 1019 Pag~ 4 that we will get to the eighth or ninth Private Members' Resolution. This would mean that honourable private l!lembers on the other side of the Bouse "1ould not have an opportunity to have their particular bill or resolution debated . The same thing can occur from the other side of the House. If the government shoul.d wish to 3077

April 2, 1974 Tape 1020 PK - 1 stifle debate, they can stack the Order Paper on the very first day ' by· throwing down thirteen or fourteen Private Members' Resolutions.

I think the only protection, Sir; against this type of a situation is to take Private Membera' Day and make one-half of Private Memben' Day available for backbenchers on the government aide and one-half to Private Members' Day available for debate by opposition members,however .. many parties we may have on the opposition aide of the House, I think this is only . fair, Sir, Of course, if indeed ther~ are no Private Members' Resolutions from one or other side of the House,that the Private Members' Resolutions that are on the Order Paper will be debated for the full three hours, of Private Members' Day.

So, Sir, I would like the honourable House Leader to take these couple of points or suggestions that have occurred to me since the last meeting of the committee into serious consideration. I vould like, of course, for the minister to accept the recommendations or the suggestions. I do not know what we would have to do in order, whether we would have to move amendments to this particular motion or what is necessary. Probably the honourable House Leader on the government aide could move amendments themselves when this is going through at committee stage or whatever stage it goes through.

Thia is just debated ana passed here, is that correct? MR. MARSHALL: The honourable member might be aware this is a resolution - MR. ROWE1 F. B. Right. MR. MARSHALL: It is being debated a11 a .resolution as such and will not be going into committee like an ordinary bill, KR. ROWE, F. B. So J!l&Y I ask the honourable HoU&e Leader what strategy or what technique could be used? Would not amendamts at this stage be necessary to alter some of these clauses? AN HON. MEMBER: MR. ROWE1 F. B. Amendments. Amendments, okay. Well I would suggest, Mr.

Speak.er, that the honourable the Bouse Leader take these two points into consideration (1) add to 14 (e)~except ( 3078

April 2, 1974 Tape 1020 PK - 2 on Private Members' Day"and, secondly, that where the appropriate clause comes in that equal time be given to both side of the House on Private Hembers' Day for the debate of Private Members' Resolutions. That is all I have to say on this particular motion, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Member for Bell Island. MR. S. A. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak at any length on this resolution. My colleague the Member for White Bay South. Sir, put the position of the opposition very well indeed.

My only contribution to the debate, Sir, is to make a few general observations while we have the opportunity under the resolution to discuss the rules of the House, the decorum of the House and all the other things that we have heard the House Leader on the _goveTDJDent side mention so often both inside and outside of this House over the past couple of years. Sir, there is something in this resolution that I really cannot put my finger on. There is something sinister about this resolution, Sir.

Not that I distrust the minister who brought it in, Sir, but there is something about this resolution, Sir. that leads me to believe, maybe rightly or wrongly, that the minister and the government, the minister is speaking on behalf of the government in this particular resolution,that the government somehow or other, Sir, are attempting in a kind of a cute sort of way to restrict the activities of members of this honourable House. I get that impression, Sir, rightly or vrongly.

I would submit, Your Honour, it is rightly and my colleague the Member for White Bay South put his finger on a very, very important matter, Sir, that of the part dealing with repetition and tedious remarks by members of this honourable House to be decided by the Speaker. All the House Leader has to do is snap his finger, say to Your Honour,"The Member for White Bay South .is being tedious and repetitious. The Member for Labrador South is being tedious." HR. W. M. ROWE: If you persist,the Speaker names you. 3079

April 2, 1974 Tape 1020 PK - 3 MR. NEARY: If you persists,you are named. Mr. Speaker, I do not know where I got the impression, but I certainly got it somewhere that this House like all other Houses in Canada and the House of Comm~ns in Ottawa patterns itself after the Mother of Parliament, Sir. Westminster, the House of Commons in Westminster, in the United Kingdom. How many times in this honourable House, Mr. Speaker, have ve been reminded of that. Well, ~ir, they would not dare attempt to restrict the activities of members in the House of ColllllOns in England, as Your Honour knows. They would not dare.

The House of Commons is suppose to be a free institution, freewheeling debates, say what you want to say, get it off your chest, ask all the questions you want to ask 9 cross-examine ministers if you want to. You know, Your Honour did a course in the House of Commons, I understand,in Westminster, did a course over there for three, four or five weeks. I am sure that Your Honour if he could speak in this debate and inform the honourable minister and members on the government benches that they would hang their heads in shame if they heard some of the recommendations that are made in this resolut"ion.

We &Te suppose to pattern our Legislature after Westminster. What a joke~ Mr. Speaker! Rhat a joke! We have heard a lot of chaw from the minister on radio and television about the wonderful improvements they were going to make in the rules of this honourable House. We have heard a lot of lip from the Premier, in two campaigns and over the past .;,uple of years,about this House was going to function under the committee system. This is the first evidence we have had of it now;· a weak attempt in my opinion, Sir, very, very weak, very feeble. They talk about a Reve.nue and Audit Committee.

They do not spell out - m HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. NEARY: A Public Accounts Committee. They do not spell out, Kr. Speaker, if that c011DDittee will be entitled to hire staff, to hi~e legal counsel, to employ the services of a firm of chartered accounts if it were to be necessary. 30Rn

April 2, 1974 Tape No. 1021 NM - 1 You cannot do it right now. Sir, l happen to be on a committee two years ago in this honourable House; the auditors were appointed, Sir, but under duress, Mr. Speaker, under severe objections from th~ Minister of Finance. That committee should be free to send for civil servants, Sir, to send for officials of this govet'Ill!lent, to send for documents, to subpoena witnesses if they want to. Then all we get in this resolution is just a very feeble reference to the public accounts committee. So as I say, Mr.

Speaker, and Your Honour was there and saw it, if we are going to boast about the fact that we pattern ourselves after the Mother of Parliaments. the House of Commons in Westminister, Sir, then I hope we practice what we preach. Mr. Speaker, in the House of Commons in Westminister (and I had the privilege, Sir, of sitting in the public galleries.) members are free. This is what made the British Empire famous, Sir, throughout the world. This is what made the British Empire so great, that the House of Commons is free. Members could go in feeling that there were no restrictions placed on them.

There was no hatchet hanging ,over their bead. Nobody sitting on the government benches waiting to whistle the knife in between their ribs, or stab them in the back. none of that, Sir. When you walk into that House of Commons, Mr. Speaker, you get the feeling of freedom. It is in the air. It is all over the place. But not in this honourable House, Sir, not in this honourable House. I have seen situations in the House of Commons in England - at1d Your Honour knows that they have benches over there. They do not have comfortable chairs and seats and desks like we have in this honourable Bouse.

Why the Leader of the Opposition is so close to the Prime Minister that be can almost reach out and touch him on the tip of the nose. If he wanted to give him a punch in the mouth he could probably reach out and do it, they are so close to one another. If all the members of the House of Cou:m!>ns, Sir, in England, came on the same day,there would not be enough room in the House to accommodate them all. Your Honour blows that ia .oeca~se they are working 3081

April 2, 1974 Tape No. 1021 NM - 2 under the colllJ'Qittee system. It is generally felt that they would not all be in the House, they would not be all present on the same day,but if they did there would be standing room only, they would not be able to sit down. Mr. Speaker, I have seen, we talk about the decorum of this honourable House, Sir, I have seen members in the House of Commons in England come in, take out their newspaper, kick their feet up on the bench in front of them,and all they have is long benches, the Prime Minister even does it, kicks his feet upon the table.

There is a table in between him and the Leader of the Opposition. Be puts his feet upon it, and I have seen members come in, read their newspaper _ and then lie down on the benches, sprawl out, stretch out on the bench, put the newspaper over their faces and go to sleep, in the House of Commons in England,and we pattern ourselves after the Mother of Parliament • . Then, Mr. Speaker, we hear so much chaw, so much lip about the decorum of this honourable House, yet . we take our example from Westminister.

There is not the chance of a snowball, Sir, in - no I cannot say it h-e-1-1, to change the feeling in the House of Commons in Westminister,because they are free. They feel free and • they can say and do as they please without anY. restrictions and as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, during the oral question period in the House of Commons, most of the questions come from the private members on the government side of the House, the most embarrassing questions come from members on the government side of the House. You would not dare do that here, Sir. Why are we so timid in this honourable House?

Why are we so afraid to speak out? Why, Sir? Because you always have that feeling that the majority on the government benches, maybe not all of them . but •ome of them, Sir, are ready to· drive in the dagger, bury ~he axe dO\n;l in your skull. I only wish that members, all members of this honourable House, I know Your Honour has be~n there, I wish that all members could 3082

April 2, 1974 Tape No. 1021 NM - 3 just go over and take a look and see what is going on, see the freedom they have, more so I would say than down on Hyde Park corner and God only knows they have freedom enough down there, as Your Honour probably knows.

They a·re protected, protected by law and yet in this honourable House we see the Minister without Portfolio coming in with a resolution to restrict the activities of members of this honourable House where all he has to do is lift his finger and say to Your Honour, "The member for Fogo is tedious and repetitious•" Your Honour will rise in his place and say, ''Yes, that is so." What recourse does the honourable member have? He cannot even appeal Your Honour's ruling and if he persists in trying to make his point the best way he can he is named by Your Honour and flung out of the House.

What kind of nonsense is this, Sir? It could be for fourteen days. We saw something that is unprecedented in British Parliamentary history happen in this honourable House last week, unprecedented, Mr. Speaker. MR. MARSHALL: Would the honourable member permit a question? MR. NEARY: No, the honourable minister will have his chance to get up and speak when I finish. MR.. MARSHALL: Inaudible. MR. NEARY: There you go, Mr. Speaker. That is the kind of sarcasm you would expect from the honourable minister, the kind of snide remark that the minister is becoming noted for, get his little dart in whenever he can.

Go outside the House and get on radio and television, talking about the great reforms that we are going to have in the House of Assembly, the great reforms we are going to have. Sir, this resolution is certainly nothing to boast about. The c01J1111ittee has laboured . long, Sir, and has brought forth a nit in 1lf'j opinion. One 111atter that the honourable minister did not refer to at all. Sir, that is a matter that has been ?f some concern to me for some time passed and I noticed it more, Mr. Speaker, when I was sitting in the public galleries for four days, when I had a chance to 3083

April 2, 1974 Tape No. 1021 NM - 4 observe close-up, with my own eyes, the proceedings of this honourable House. The very fi_rst thing that strikes a stranger coming into the public galleries of this House, Sir, ,' 3084 J

April 2, 1974 Tape no. 1022 Page 1 - MW the very first thing is the number of seats that are vacant on the government benches. Now, Sir, the first day - I did not keep a record of attendance but I observed it. very closely for four days. At 3:30 P.M. one afternoon, Mr. Speaker, there were twenty-two vacant seats on the government benches. How many are over there now? There are twenty-three vacant seats there now, Sir. This is not just today, Mr. Speaker, this applies every day. The absenteeism in this honourable House, Sir, is terrible. It is the worst that I have seen in thirteen years.

I have been sitting in this honourable House for thirteen years. At least when former Premier Smallwood was over there, he never left his seat, Mr. Speaker. He never left his seat. We sometimes wondered if his kidneys were functioning at . all. He had a good bladder, Sir. He never left that seat, Sir, never left it. Now we have a Premier who never sits in it. AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). MR. NEARY: Who is the only speaker in the House? AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). MR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker~ I heard that honourable gentleman last night at the Confederate Banquet and I would say that he is in b~tter shape; he is in better shape today at age seventy-three than the Bon. Premier. He is in better shape. Exhausted,he says. We had a man who sat in this House seventy-one years of age and who never left his seat and gave some leaders~ip in this honourable House. He worked eighteen hours a day and negotiated with some pretty tough birds and some pretty tough companies. Mr. Speaker, the absentee-ism is really, really terrible. It is shameful, Sir.

I am not suggesting that we keep a record of attendance in this honourable House but, Sir, honourable members -are being paid a good stipend, they get good pay for representing their various districts, Sir. The ministers get good, fat cheques twice a month, plus their House of Assembly pay. I am not denying it to them, Sir. At least, we should give the taxpayers who are footing the bills 3085

April 2, 1974 Tape no. 1022 Page 2 some appearance in this House of Assembly. We, as Members of the House of Assembly, are doing something in their best interests. leadership has to come from the leader. of the party, Sir. He has The to lay down the law. We are not children. We are not in kindergarten. The Hon.

Leader of the Government Benches should lay down the law and say, "Look, you were elected not to go down on the eighth floor, not to go down on the fifth, sixth or seventh floor, down to your office, you were elected as a Member of the House of Assembly and your first duty is in that hon~urable House." Does not anybody understand that? It is not the first time it has been said in this honourable House. I am not going to give members a lecture but we are not children. Certainly, we do not have to start keeping attendance records or punching a clock. Sir, it is a very, very grave problem.

It is one of the first things I noticed when I was sitting in the Public Galleries. At 3:30 P.M. in the afternoon, twenty-three members disappeared. Mr. Speaker, the only day that they hung around at all 1 even out in the corridors or out having a coffee, Sir, the only day they hung around is the day the Premier was scheduled to make his announcement on BRINCO. The corridors and the Common Room on the government side were buzzing with activity. Members were all over the place. As soon as the Premier came in and took his place, they all rushed in. Mr.

Speaker, no sooner had he made that statement, when there were twenty-two vacant seats. Within seconds, they had all disappeared. Mr. Speaker, some pretty illportant aatters are being discussed - well I would not say in this session because we have not had very many important matters. Once in awhile 1 Sir, the government will introduce a measure that is considered inmy opinion to_ be a pretty serious and a pretty important matter, especially when we are dealing w1,th the estimates, Sir, the spending of the taxpayers' money.

Members, Sir, do not have the patience or the courtesy or the interest to ~it in their seats and ~isten to the debate~. Maybe they do not like 3086

April 2, 1974 Tape no. 1022 Page 3 what we are saying on this side; maybe they do not like what some of their own members are saying. Maybe the secret, Sir, in this hnnourable House is to be able to sleep with your eyes open. If they do not like the debate, Sir, they can go and buy earplugs, Hr. Speaker, it is their duty and responsibility to be in this honourable House, unless they are out of the province,on government business.or ill. Mr. _Speaker, never, never in thirteen sittings of the House that I have had the privilege to attend, have I seen the attendance so bad. Mr.

Speaker, do you know who the biggest culprit is? The biggest culprit is none other than the Hon. Premier who should be in this honourable House every second of his time, giving leadership, introducing measures that are in the best interest of the people. What we have before us today, Sir, is another one of these measures because , ve have nothing any more important to discuss, nothing important, nothing. important on the Order Paper. People are looking to the House of Assembly to try to come up with a solution to the high cost of living in this province and the high cost of furnace oil. What do we get?

We spent a whole afternoon, on a day that bread increases are announced in Newfoundland, last week it was milk, today it was bread, discussing a resolution that will put no bread on the tables of the people in this province. Mr. Speaker, if this motion that the honourable minister thinks is so important to him,is going ~o make his name, if this motion is passed, it will not do one single thing for the people of this province. That is why_ I am speaking on it. Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Bonavista South says, "Why waste the time of the House.• Mr.

Speaker, what would we discuss on the Order Paper if we were not discussing this? There is nothing there of any interest or any benefit to the people of this province. There is nothing there, Sir. I never saw the Order Paper so barren of good 3081

Apru 2, 1974 Tape no. 1022 Page 4 legislation. I never saw it so bad. Why? I wish somebody would tell u~, Sir . We have been sitting here now since the last week in Janua ry, J anuary 28. Here it is the first week in April and we have not done a singl e thing that will benefi t the people of this province . AN HON. MEMBER: Thirty - four sitting days . MR. NEARY: Thirty-four sitting days. 3088

April 2, 1974. Tape 1023 RH - 1 Now the Minister of Finance told us the budget would be brought down th·e !lliddle of March and here it is the first week in April. All we are doing Mr. Speaker, is punching in time and do you know why? Be­ cause there is no leadership; there is no sense of priorities on that honourable side of the House, Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions in the last year or so the Minister without Portfolio and the Minister of Finance and the honourable Premier have talked about diplomatic immunity in this hon­ ourable House.

The honourable minister, I will remind him of a few things he forgot and I have been challenged, Sir, on more than one occasion to make the same statements outside of the House that I made in this honourable Rouse. Well, Sir, a couple of days ago, a couple of days ago, we made statements outside of this honourable House that we made in this hon­ ourable House and I dare the Minister of Finance or anybody over there to put it to the test. But, Sir, that is not the point I want to make.

The point I want to make is this, Sir, that if the Government in their wisdom wanted to change the immunity of members of this honourable House they have it in their hands now to do so. They can do it, the majority, the Government can do it, Sir. I am not recommending that they do it, not recommending it, Sir, but Mr. Speaker, if they do not do it, ·if they do not dare to do it, I hope, Sir, that they will never shove this across the House at us again. "Repeat it outside the House", as we hear the Minister of Finance say so often. Now they have the opportunity and I am inviting them. I am inviting them.

I am noe suggesting, Sir, that they do it. I think it would be a mistake. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to sound like a lecturer over at Memorial University, but every honourable member of th!~ House, Sir, should ~now why ve have immunity in this honourable House. _Maybe some of the new members on the Government benches do not understand why, Sir. Maybe they should have a seminar and explain to the honourable members what this hon­ ourable House is all about. It is a debatinp, society, Sir, and now we find the minister trying to restrict our debating and refer to the comments 3089

April 2, 1974. Tape 1023 RH - 2 of the Leader of the Opposition, Sir, by saying that it might be a good thing, he quoted the Leader of the Opposition as stating that it might be a good thing because we get rather browned off over here too.

Well, Sir, I say to the House leader on the Government side of the House.in all sincerity,and the minister already stated they were not going to change the time limit, that an~ man, any man who stands in his place in this honourable House whether it be for fifteen minutes, twenty minutes or the full ninety minutes which he is allowed under the rules, then, Sir, that man in his own way, in his own style can say exactly what he pleases providing it is not slander or providing it is not libelous, Sir, pro­ viding it is not an attack on any of the members, He should be allowed. lf it be tedious, if it be repetitious, I say ,.so what?

Maybe the member cannot do any better and I do know members of this honourable House, Sir, who are not debaters, who have to come in with prepared scripts. I am not one of these honourable members, Sir. Sometimes I use a script when I have to, when the matter is a very serious matter, I will make notes. I will not necessarily stick to the notes. Sir, all members of this honourable House are not debaters. We all do not have the ability to get up and speak off the cuff and off the top of our heads. Mr.

Speaker, why can a member not, in his own • way, express himself whether it be about a problem in bis own district or something concerning the Province as •~hole? Why not? If he repeat himself, Mr. Speaker, I say,so what? If the honourable members do not like it,buy ear plugs or quit politics all together. Nobody is forcing the honourable members to be here. Nobody is forcing them to be in politics.

If they do not like it, they can give up their big fat salaries and go on about their business, go down down and practice law, ~o back teaching, go back to the construction business, but if they are going to stay here, Sir, take it seriously, be serious about it. Do not try to restrict a man because he does not have the ability to get up and get his message across without repeating himself or because of his voice droning on putting people asleep. I say, so what? Many speeches I slept through 3090

April 2, 1974. Tape 1023 RH - 3 in this honourable H()use. Sir. the Minister of Justice is not the liveliest speaker in this honourable Rouse. Mr. Speaker. I am not saying that; Sir .• as an insult to the honour- , - able minister. The honourable minister.is not the liveliest speaker in this Rouse. As a matter of fact. I find it very tedious and boring to listen to the honourable Minister of Justice, Sir.

The ministe .r is in,­ decisive, seet!ls most times uncertain and nervous and like all other ministers on the opposite side, Sir, most times uninformed because they have not got their civil servants ther.e, their officials to give them the ;inswers. They get up in the House when they are questioned during the question period and they are very nervoul(I. Sir, if. that be the style of the Minister of iustlce, so be it! I would say, i.f I do not like it I can leave and go out, I can go to the men's room. So why, why all the hullabaloo, Mr. Speaker, about repetition and tedious remarks? 3091

April 2, 1974 Tape 1024 Why, Mr. Speaker? Becau~e it is a devious and sly way to restrict debating in this honourable House. Mark my words, Mr. Speaker, that Your Honour sitting in the Chair and myself have not always seen eye IB-1 to eye in this honourable House. Well, I respect the Chair. Your Honour has not had too many occasions to ask me in this honourable House in the last couple of years to withdraw the statements that I have made. If this goes through, ~r.

Speaker, this resolution passes in its present form, I am afraid that Your Honour will be used as a tool in this honourable House by members on the government benches. We are getting closer, Sir, to tyranny all the time in this honourable province and we heard so much yaking, so much bellyaching about the dictatorial attitude of this House for twenty-three years. It is nothing, nothing, Mr. Speaker, compared to what we are seeing happen here now. Mr.

Speaker, let me raise another matter, another matter that the honourable minister did not mention: What about the question, Sir, that the honourable Premier raised in two provincial elections and the honourable Premier talked about so much over the last couple of years? What about televising, Mr. Speaker, the proceedings of this honourable House? What about that? Did not the committee get an opportunity to discuss whether or not it is feasible, whether or not it is practi~al to televise the proceedings of this honourable House, Sir? ~aybe they did.

I would like for the minister when he is closing this debate to tell us whether they did or not, Sir, because if they did, ~.r. Speaker, if the proceedings of this ltouse were televised, we ~ould have a better informed people in this honourable province, Sir. It is s0111ething that I would suggest that the minister and his colleagues give very serious consideration to. I am not talking about televising only parts of the House, Sir. That I would be opposed to. I would not put that power in the hands of any media, ·co be able to edit and take out and put in whatever they felt right.

If we allow the proceedings of the House to be televised, then all the proceedings, Sir, both sides of the story would have to be televised. 3092

April 2, 1974 Tape 1024 IB-2 Mr. Speaker, what a rude awakening the people of this province would get if we ever allowed the proceedings of this House to be televised, what a ruder.wakening, Sir. Then they would see if their elected represen~atives are in there fighting for them or not or fighting for Newfoundland or debating the real needs of the people of this provinc~. Then they would be able to see, Mr. Speaker, what happens during the oral question period in this honoti'rable House, the question period that is ~oin~ to be expanded,! think for the better.

I hope I never hear my colleague from White Bay South raise this point. The honourable ~inister without Portfolio, the government House Leader, keeps repeating over and over again, Sir, that before this administration took over there was no oral question period in this honourable House. That is not true, Sir. I cannot say Jt is a lie but it is not true. You know, Yr. Speaker, one of the members in the opposition at the time who put rore questions to government ministers than any other member that I know apart from the honourable W.J. Brown, was the minister himself.

He had more elbow room and more freedom, Sir, than any other member that I have seen in this honourable House. His colleagues put oral questions to the ministers. Maybe they did not get the answers, Sir, and I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that if they did not, if they did not cross-examine, if they did not question ministers of the government, it was their own fault, they were too lazy to do their homework. There are members of this honourable House, Sir, who take their work very seriously. I do my homework. When I walk in here I have a question or tt,,o every day. I do not always get the answers that I want, Mr.

Speaker, but that privilege, Sir, has always existed. It was always there. The minister is nodding his head,no. It was always there, Sir, and the minister knows the difference of that. So, let us not hear any more ranting and raving on televiaion and radio, ~r. Speaker, about the great refonns ve are going to bring in in the rules of· this honourable House. I remember the minister talking about the great reforms this government were 3093

April a, 1974 Tape 1024 IB-3 going to bring in and they think in order of priorities the Newfoundland Liquor Commission was going to be a great. reform and the Newfoundland - AN HONOURABLE ~~ER: They were going to end the bulletin first. MR. NEARY: Yes, they were goinr- to end the bulletin first and then the Newfoundland Liquor Commission. ~'r. Spea ker, this - l'!R. Sl'EAKE_E._(..:'1R. STAGC-:)_:.. Order, please'. The honourable memher is cenainly stretching the bounds of relevancy now. I ask the honourable memher to get back to the motion under discussion. MR. NEARY: Mr .

Speaker, this resolution, Sir, 1s no more important than some of the other great reforms that the minister talked about. Sir, I want to draw the minister's attention to page 12 of the Standin g Rules of this honourable House, 3094

April 2, 1974 Tape 1025 PK - 1 Page 12, Rule No. 14 (

d) Asking and Answering Questions. What does that mean? It did not exjst before. How long have these Standing Orders of the House of Assembly been in effect, Sir? They were adopted on May 8, 1951, less than three years after Confederation or after the government was formed after Confederation. The minister tells us there was no such thing as oral questions. Well I must have been hearing things, Sir. I sat over on that honourable side for eleven years. Mr. Speaker, vas there a man, was there ever a man born in this province that asked more questions than the Hon. w. J. Browne in this horiourable House?

You could not keep him off his feet, and rightly so. Mr. Speaker, how much did I admire and respect the man for doing his duty in this honourable House: I did not respect his politics but he did his duty, Sir. That is what we should be doing. We should not be wasting our time, Mr. Speaker, trying to bring in little bits and pieces of resolutions and amendments to Standing Orders to restrict the activities of the members. ~'hat we should be doing, Mr.

Speaker, is to try and bring a little bit of democracy back to this honourable House and make i~ a kind of a place where a member feels at home and is not afraid and not ashamed to stand up and say what is exactly on his mind and know that he is not going to be named by Your Honour, the Speaker. This is the kind of reforms we want to see in this honourable House, Sir, not this tripe we have before us here today. HOB. E. M. ROBERTS: (LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION): Mr.

Speaker, if there is nobody else on the other side who wants - if there is I would gladly defer because we seem to have been, as always,vocal and articulate on this side of the House. Is there nobody on the other side who wishes to speak, Sir? As far as I know I will be the last aeaber on this side who wants to take

part in the debate. Well that being so, Mr. Speaker, let me say a few words to add to our position on this, because I think it has been exceptionally vell stated by my friends and colleagues, our House Leader,and the gentleman for Bell Island and the gentleman for St. Barbe North. I do not wish to add anything to what they have said because I think they 3095

April 2, 1974 Tape 1025 PK - 2 have said all that need be said,effectively and with great force and conviction. I only want to make a number of very important points but points which I hope to be made briefly and then I assume the House Leader on the other side, the gentleman for St. John's East,will reply and pre9umably we .will pass these rules this day and that will be it.

I should say, I am not yet moving it, I do wish to move an amendment 1 _I believe my colleague for White Bay South has the amendment written out but the effect of it will be basically to delete one part of the rules, the suggested rules that we find offensive,and that is the needless repetition part. I will come back to that but within due course I shall be moving an amendment on that and we will hopefully have that amendment accepted and the rules can go forward without any question.

The main point I think which I wish to make, Sir, has been touched upon by a number of speakers on this side and that point is this; that the motipn before us which represents the report of a select committee, a committee of which I was a member,does not,in my view and our view, deal with the main issues with which that committee should have dealt. The report itself, as I have said before in the House, Mr. Speaker, is quite acceptable to us with one exception and that has been dealt with and I shall be dealing with it briefly in :an amendment and therefore, I do not have to say any more.

But, Sir, the report is essentially, essentially a misdirection of effort. A committee was struck, a motion was ~ut to the House,I believe it was adopted without debate. Ah! those were the days, Sir, when we could have motions that were adopted without debate. This one~ was not even seconded by the Premier but be that as it may. Maybe that was why it was adopted. A committee was struck and I would venture to suggest, Sir, that C011D11ittee had on it quite a good representations of the members of this House and indeed had on it men on each side who tend to become involved in procedural argumenta.

The men who have made a bit of a study of parliamentary practice and who are consequently 3096

April 2, 1974 Tape 1025 PK - 3 trying to advise, Your Honour, or to misadvise, Your Honour, on the various points which are raised for decision. That is fair enough because not every member involves himself in the intricacies of parliament procedure or makes. a bit of a study of it, not every member should. Some of us do and some of us are interested. I, for one, .am interested because the rules of the House are after all the basic rules of - the debate, the basic rules by which the work of the House is conducted.

I believe that a member who does not master the rules is not able to be as an effective a member as he should be. One can master the rules without becoming an expert on them but one should have a basic knowledge of a set of rules which after all, Mr. Speaker, as Your Honour knows are unique to the British Parliament System.

Comparable rules do not exist in the American jurisdictions, they exist only in the Legislative form that we have in Newfoundland, that we have across Canada, that we have modelled on Westminster.- They are good rules, Other rules can be just as good,but they are very good rules and they have served well. They go back.some of them, as Your Honour knows 500, 600 and 700 years.

The problem with.our rules in this Bouse, Sir, the problem with which we have not dealt is that the rules were drawn up in an age·when the amount of business to come before the House was much more limited than it is today, when the pace of life in Newfoundland was very much slower than it was today, when the communications, the means of communicating information to the people . of Newfoundland were vastly different antl,I submit, vastly inferior to those 3097

April 2, 1974 Tape No, 1026 NM - 1 which we have today. I have not researched the point intensively, Mr. Speaker, but I understand that our rules basically were drawn in the early years of this century and the present rules of the House which were adopted in 1951 following two or three days of debate were drawn by a select committee but that select committee was heavily influenced by the rules which had been in effect in this House of Assembly before the suspension of responsible government in 1934,before the co111111ing of commission.

Accordingly when the committee was struck.I welcomed it and I know that my colleagues the gentleman from St. Barbe North and my friend and colleague the gentleman from White Bay South, who is our House Leader and a bit of a recognized expert on procedural matters, that . we felt that here was an opportunity to do major work. If this report that we are debating today, Mr.

Speaker, were a first report it would be a very good piece of work but unfortunately the government, deliberately and by design.let the committee drop and I can only assume from that, and I do so with regret, that the government have no real desire to reform the procedures of this House, to improve them, to bring them up to date, to enable this House to function effectively in 1974. We have ample precedent, Mr. Speaker.

We looked at rule changes in Saskatchewan and the House of Commons in Ottawa on which our procedures are based and to which we refer as the authority when our own precedents and rules are silent, they have undergone very major revision to their rules in the last few years. Ontario as well, the Legislative Assembly there have made major changes. So we have ample precedence. Unfortunately the committee would not coae co· grips with it and for that the majority must take the responsibility. Hy colleagues and I were and stand ready now to deal with this problem.

Now, Sir, the House Leader I believe has referred to this. I was not in the Chamber when he made his remarks but I believe that he did say. and if he did say _ he said so accurately, that on the cominittee I bad 3098·

April 2, 1974 Tape No. 1026 NM - 2 submitted a proposal to come to grips, to deal in a very real way with the central problem of this House, the problem that all of us, Sir, are allowed too much time. I listened with great care to what my friend from Bell Island had to ·say and I agree with him, a member should be allowed to make his point as he wishes and if I have been critical of Your Honour at times in the past it is because Your Honour does not allow members, in my view, sufficient leeway.

Your Honour interrupted to bring to order my colleague from Bell Island on the grounds that he was beiQg irrelevant and so be it! but let me say that I think Your Honour was too quick. I think that Your Honour would be wiser to exercise a little more discretion to allow a man to make his point by way of example,and example in my view is not irrelevant. MR. WM. ROWE: And comparison. MR. ROBERTS: And comparison equally is not irrelevant. I merely proffer that in a friendly way to Your Honour as a member of the Bouse. We are all duty bound to advise and assist Your Honour and accordingly I do so as best I can.

But we all have different styles of speaking. It would be a very dull House indeed, Mr. Speaker, if we did not. It would be a very dull assembly if we all made points in exactly the same way. We have in the House our schoolboy debaters and we have our schoolboy debater grown five years older, the gentleman from St. John's East. We have persons who can be eloquent, and while I agree the Minister of Justice is not a very lively speaker I heard him make at least one speech in this House that ~as one of the most eloquent speeches I have ever heard.

I think it was probably his maiden speech, Like so many men he should have quit ~hile he was ahead but he did make an extremely eloquent speech; most of the House were genuinely moved and quite close to showing their emotion with tears. They were genuinely moved when he was, as I recall it, describing the plight of the Banks fishermen who had sailed from his native Town of Grand Bank. the men who had sailed and not returned. Like so many of the speeches, Sir, that was a very gr·eat speech 3099

April 2, 1974 Tape No. 1026 NM - 3 but to read it today it does not, the printed word does not convey the essence of the House. We all have our different style, Sir. The gentleman from Bay de, Verde has a style all his own •nd I may add he is welcome to it, hut he does have a style all his own and he should have the right to make his points as best he can in his own way. But, Sir, I do not think we need as much time as we are allowed. I say that with the full knowledge that I have been known to speak .for more than five or ten minutes in this House on occasion. But I say, Mr.

Speaker, that if we could cut down the length of the speeches,provided t't were done fairly, I would suggest the work of this House would proceed more effectively, I would suggest the business of the people would be done more expeditiously, I would suggest that each of us would still be equally able to make his points effectively and with force and with conviction.

You know there is a very old joke and it is possibly apocryphal but the point is sufficiently relevant and it is worth making: It is the story of a man who went to President Wilson, the President of the United States, at the time he was President and said, ''Mr. President, if our organization were to ask you to speak to us and we were to ask you to speak for fifteen minutes how much advance notice would rou need?" The President thought, and President Wilson, as Your Honour knows,was an extremely eloquent speaker, he made some great speeches.

He thought and he said, ''Well for a fifteen minute speech,! would need a month's advance notice to p_repare that." ''Well," the fellow said, ''We have not got a month but supposing I were to ask you to speak for half an houri• (obviously figuring the President would need more time.) "Oh no," said the President, "For a half an hour's speech I would only need a week' .s notice." "I see," said his questioner. ''Tell me, Mr. President. if I were to tell you you could speak for two hours. how much lead time would you need to prepare?" ''When would you like me to start'?" W~ll, Si~. there is a lot of truth in that.

There is a lot of truth in it that a member knowing he has ninety ~inutes 3100

April 2, 1974. Tape 1027 RH - l does not have the same degree of concentration brought to bear. I ven­ ture to suggest that the Leader of the Opposition or the Leader of the Government, each of whom has unlimited time, does not have quite the same need to hone his points to a consistency. I venture to suggest that a minister introducing a bill on that principal opposition, a spokesman in reply thereto, each of whom has unlimited time, again, Sir, does not have the constraints that he should have, I say that as Leader of the Op'!)Osition.

I. say that I made, I deliberately chose that subject when we divided up the committee, the study areas. I deliberately took that one because I thought it was appropriate, Sir, that if any moves were made they should come from me, not necessarily speaking for my colleagues. We did not sit there as Opposition and as Government, we sat there as ~ight members of the House, eight members interested in a problem, ei