VOL. 3 PRELIMINARY UNEDITED TRANSCRIPT HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR THE PERIOD: 2 P.M - 6 P.M MONDAY, MAY 1, 1978 NO. 44 ' ,, ~ .• •f

May 1, 1978 Tape 1603 DW - 1 The House met at 2:00P.M. l1r. Speaker in the Chair. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege. ~!R. SPEAKER : The hon. member for LaPoile. }ffi.. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I woulft like to stand on a point of , a breach of the privilege as a member of this ilouse, Sir, and a breac:: : ~ of the privilege of the House ,in rny opinion.

And I hope, Sir, in the next few minutes to lay out a prima facie case to prove that there has been a breach of privilege.And I want to say,before I begin,that this is not a challenge of Your Honor's ruling. : t is merely to point out the ignorance on the part of the people ~Who - were responsible for asking for and the people who issued search warrants,and the officials in the ~epartment of Justice who worked out the ~•ording for these search warrants. I would like to point out to the House the implications and the ignorance of these people and the implications of what they did.

On Friday last, Sir, during my absence from the Province,RCMP officers invaded the premises of this House by entering into my office under a search .varrant and seized documents obtained by me in order for me to effectively carry out my duties to the House of Assembly and to the people of Newfoundland and La~rac'or. The incident, Mr. Speaker, as Your Honor is aware ,is -1norecedented in English history and represents the lowest ebb in the annals of this House of Assembly. It is a smudge, Sir, in my opirion, on the honor of this House which must be decried.This House must be assured, Mr.

Speaker, that it \dll never happen again,never be repeated. In our parliamentary tradition, Sir, it is recognized that parliament is supreme.This is not mere lip f -~ t I f. I ;

May 1' 1978 Tape 1603 HR. NEARY: service to an id1e .symbolic gesture. We.are proud to boast, Mr. Speaker, that not even Her }~jesty can invade the premises of the Legislature,be it in the ~arliament of Westminister in London,the House of Commons in Ottawa,or the Rouse of Assembly right here in Newfoundland and Labrador "rhich we have the honor and the privilege of serving as the representatives of those in whom the supreme power in our system lies 7the people of this Province. If a member is to carry out his obligations and duties in the functioning of this House, Mr.

Speaker, if he is to function in carrying out this supreme power which the Rouse has,then he must in the execution of his office be free from c~~rc~on supervision or limitation by the executive branc~,those who represent Her &jesty in the right of Newfoundland. As an Opposition member, Sir, it is my traditional role and duty to be ever watchful and critical of my Province's Executive Council and if I am .coerce _d : intimidated or 'Prevented from c":rrvine> nn~ of that duty it is this body which then is degenerated. What ~appened Friday, Mr.

Speaker, simply means that papers held by me,gathered in order to carry out my solemn and even sometimes awesome duty,have been seized by representatives of the Executive Branch of the government and taken it to the custody of the judiciary, ."J.lthough ,as we all know, Sir, that is a technical custody only • .And I might point out, !!r. Speaker, for the benefit of hon. members of this House who may want to DW - 2 know what doc~ents were removed from my office,it was an affidavit that was sworn to by Hr.

Davidson in 1"74 that the Premier had in his possession one year ago,it is an affidavit that was sworn in April 1974 that the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of this Province had in his possession one year ago, and it is letters relating to that affidavit,letters,correspondence bet~teen me and the Premier of this Province where I was trying to persuade the Premier to have an inquiry into this 1<1hole I J ; I 0 ' f '· !~ ' ' ·; ! it I~ ,. ' ,. ,! 1 I ~ f., '

:1ay 1, 1978 Tape 1603 MR. NEARY: matter,and a letter to Mr. R?n Basford,the Minister of Justice for the Government of Canada,dated in April of last year when I sent the document to ~~. Basford. Mr. Speaker, the invasion of my parliamentary prerr~ses by the police is simply forbidden and is so well established that it !JW - 3 ' '·

May 1, 1978 Tape 1604 EC - 1 HR. NEARY: is demonstrated by example after example that this is an immunity that members of the House have, and what happened Friday, Sir, makes me shudder. We can all recall instances where members of Parliament accused of crime have closeted themselves in their offices and the police,armed with search warrants for felony charges,have not dared enter, but have awaited his eventual exit. Hr.

Speaker, I, as a person, am not concerned over the obtaining of the papers which were taken from my office,although I am happy to say that with the intercedence of Your Honour that copies of these documents have now been returned to me by the police. I would h~ve been more than delighted, Mr. Speaker, to make these documencs,and any other documents that I have in connection with this mattertavailable in the administration of justice. Indeed, Hr. Speaker, some of the documentation of alleged wrongdoing by · the government and the Progressive Conservative Party had already been tabled in this House.

Copies were in the hands, as I say, of the hon. the Premier and the Minister of Justice and other members of this hon. House and they were fully available.

I am concerned, Sir, that where serious charges are laid in the House against government,that a precedent has been established by the action that took place the other day, probably through no fault of Your Honour, but through the fault of those who were very poorly advised outside of this House by the magistrate who agreed to a search warrant t~ come into a member's office by the RCMP themselves and by the officials of the minister's department, and I do not know whether they consulted with the minister before they worked on the wording of the affidavit and the search warrant. I k t r f t' " ~. ' . t f

May 1, 1978 Tape 1604 EC - 2 MR. NEARY: There is no way, as I said, Mr. Speaker, in which a member can effectively function if his offices are subject to being invaded by the government police to prevent his having available to lay before this House evidence of corruption in government when it exists. I am, however, Mr. Speaker, delighted that the government have admitted that the bribery was effected and this is mentioned in the search warrant. And I also note, Sir, that the matter of $5,000, which we can deal with during the Oral Question Period today where payment was made, that we can deal with this matter.

I, of course, Sir, insist that the government must answer these questions. Mr. Speaker, i am not interested in the innocence or guilt of Mr. Davidson. ~hat is a matter for the courts and the judicial process. I am interested in getting to the bottom of this question that virtually answers itself, Sir, and I have been for the last year and a half, and at one stage had agreement from the Premier in his private dining room in front of the ~inister of Transportation and Communications that this matter would be dealt with swiftly and that there would be a judicial inquiry - a year ago. Mr.

Speaker, I believe this is a very, very serious matter and I believe it is one that has to be dealt with in this House at once. The sovereignty of this House, Sir, must not be destroyed. On~y after I brought this matter before the House, Sir, about seventeen months ago has the Minister of Justice now taken action on the allegations and charges that were laid in the House at that time that I brought before the House. I ! f 11 t t !; . r: - E' !

May l, 1978 Tape 1604 EC - 3 MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, the only reason that I raise it today, Sir, as I say, is not to question Your Honour•s · ruling . I am sure that we will - at least I hope we will have an opportunity to debate this matter at some len gth, maybe even this afternoon. And I ask Your Honour and I ask memb ers of this Bouse to think about the implication of what these people did when they agreed to have my office searched. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, what would have happened if a would-be Hitler would hear t h at a hlember had evidence that the would-be despot was corrupt.

Friday past, Sir, would becooe the alack Friday when ~ewfoundland became a dictatorship. The threat is real, Sir. T~e Bouse should and must take prompt action by resolution of some kind or other to hav e this matter cleared up immediately, this afternoon if possible. I ask this, Mr. Speaker, in the name of the House and the body politic and not for and in my own interest. Som: !JON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! f • :I . I

May 1, 1978 Tape 1605 (Afternoon) PK - 1 MR. SPEAKER: The han. Minister of Justice. MR. HICKMAN: Mr. Speaker, to the point of privilege of the House raised by the han. member for LaPolie (Mr. Neary), the matters that he has referred to this afternoon were also, if Your Honour will recall, dealt with very fully, and with a great deal of concern, by both the hon. the Premier and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition on Friday morning when Mr. Speaker announced that he had given permission to. the RCMP to execute the search warrant which had been issued by a magistrate of the Provincial Bench of Newfoundland.

Consequently it seems to me that whilst every han. member of this House is concerned and determined to maintain the immunity of this House, and the immunity of all members duly elected to the House,that Your Honour, as I recall it, in your ruling indicated that havi~g very carefully perused the document presented to you, and having checked with the judicial officer to verify the authenticity of the document, and after consulting with your counterpart in the Parliament of Canada,or his officials, you came to the conclusion that as this"matter has been raised first in this House, and as the investigation by the police had been requested as a result of certain documentation tabled in this House,that you felt that in the interest of the appropriate investigation that you should grant permission.

And I think that it is significant that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police fully realized that in order to effect the search warrant which had been issued by the court, after the court had duly considered whatever was presented to them- and I am not party to that because I do not know- realized that before they could execute that they would need the permission of the Speaker. So it seems to me that the police cannot in any way be faulted for the steps that they took.

They did not go to the offices of the hon. the Minister of Industrial Development, or the office of the hon. the member for Lapoile to execute a search warrant which had been properly issued by the court, but rather they first came to Mr. Speaker. And as I see it , Mr. Speaker having explained very ' -'

May 1, 1978 Tape 1605 (Afternoon) PK - 2 Mr. Hickman: clearly the rationale behind it, and spokesmen for both parties, both the bon. the Premier and the hon. the Leader of the Oppositiorrmade very clear on Friday that whilst they were most concerned t~at this not be taken as a precedent, and I would say that from the statements made in the Rouse by the two bon. gentlemen, and by the Chair,that in no way could this be regarded as a precedent and that to all intents and purposes it was done without prejudice. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. HICKMAN: Wait now!

And these two bon. gentlemen at the same time made it very clear that they were not faulting his Honour with the decision in this particular case. The concern was one of precedent~ not of the action taken in this particular case. At the same time,and this was said very, very clearly in particular \ y the hon. the Leader of the Opposition,who made a very forceful plea not only for the immunity of the House, but for the immunity of the ministers of the Crown in their ministerial capacity outside the environs of the House.

It seems to me that these matters were dealt with by Your Honour in the full knowledge of all the relevant facts. At the same time, Your Honour very properly druw to the attention of the Rouse that under our Standing Orders we have a provision for a Committee on Privileges arid Elections that has never been filled or functioning or activated,certainly not since 1949.

And I had indicated to the House at that time that I would hope on Monday to be able to give a notice of a resolution for the appointment of that Committee after consultation with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and I would anticipate giving that notice of motion today, and I would anticinate that that Committee would then very promptly set itself to work to lay ,r>,·m guidelines and rules for presentation to this House on the immunities of hon. members of the Rouse and their rights and privileges as contained therein. So it seems to me, Mr.

Speaker, that what the bon. the member for LaPoile has said is in effect a corroboration . ~ _;r f i

!.fay 1, 1978 Tape 1606 EC - 1 MR. HICKHAN: of what was said in this hon. · House by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. " the Premier on Friday and that the concern of this House is very much directed toward the question of immunity. There is no doubt at all that when an investigation is ordered it is totally within the prerogative of the police and the Crown law officers to follow the procedures laid down by law, and I am sure that in this case they follow.ed these procedures very, very correctly indeed. ~1R. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for St. John's East. MR.

HARSHALL: I would just'like to pass a few words,if I may. First of all, I do not wish to cast any doubt whatsoever on the gravity of the matters brought up in the House by the hon. the member for LaPoile(Mr.Neary) and to in any way attempt to slough off or say that the issues raised are not very serious and grave issues that have to be ~oked into.

But I do wish to address myself to the immediate matter that is before - I think, the issues of whether or not search warrants can be executed in the hands of members of the House of Assembly, elected members, are really hypothetical issues, and I think the real point of privilege is the immediate point of privilege that the member rises on concerning the search warrants that were executed on Friday themselves. So what I am going to say, I would like to be taken into context and not in any way derogating from the fact that the matter should not be regarded as a very grave and serious matter. I r [· I I

May 1, 1978 Tape 1606 EC - 2 MR. MARSHALL: There are one or two things that· the han. member made that I think, you know, bear a little bit of explanation. First of all, he said Parliament is supreme, which Parliament is,supreme. But, Mr. Speaker, the other issue also in this particular case is really that what is supreme is the rule of law. Now what is the rule of law? The rule of law is the basic conduct by which all persons in society are directed,including elected members who have no immunity from the operation of the rule of law.

The rule of law in that sense,if one wishes~could be described as the civil deification to which all people must bend, both citizens and elected members of this House. So I would certainly agree that Parliament is supreme, but whether or not - AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) HR. MARSHALL: Now, Mr. Speaker, the han. gentleman can have his opportunity. I do not wish any interjections,if I may, particularly from the hon. gentleman. But the rule of law, I would contend, is supreme and above that of Parliament in this particular instance.

I also note that he indicated that a member should be free from the Executive Branch exercising its discretion in this manner, an improper exercise of discretion, with which I would entirely agree, But I would point out that in this particular case what we have here, and it would appear to be a marked distinction, it is a case where a judicial inquiry was agreed upon by _ this hen.

House - a police investigation, not a judicial inquiry, but it was agreed and all persons agreed that there should be a police investigation into the very grave and serious accusations which were brought against a member of this House itself. Now having agreed to a judicial

May 1, 1978 Tape 1606 EC - 3 MR.

MARSHALL: inquiry - I keep using the word-judicial inquiry, but what we mean is a police inquiry and a police investigation - it appears to me that in this particular instance that I do not see how the Legislature on the one hand can say there should be a police investigation~ut the normal, usual methods bearing in mind the normal, usual protections that are available to all , citizens should not be employed in the carrying out of that particular investigation, and that would involve resort to search warrants and any other means that would be available to the law enforcement agency.

The thing that I point out in the particular instance here is that the search warrants were executed after the House had given its consent to the police investigation. Now in the event that a police investigation involved search warrants from outside into members' papers that the House had not first passed upon, there might be a distinction. But I would like to draw these issues to the attention of the Chair as well, because I think that they are just as relevant as certainly the relevant charges that were raised by the member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary).

We are considering here one breach of privilege, this specific breach of privile 2 e, wh ich certainly, search warrants in members and what the rights of members ~ their immunities or what have you, certainlY have to be sorted out, there is no doubt about that. But I do feel that this is a particular instance where it is not the - Parliament is supreme, certainly Parliament is supreme, but the rule of law is supreme as well. We - ~ entrusted this wisely to a police investigation '

Nay 1, 1978 Tape No. 1607 NN- 1 l•.ffi.. MARSHALL: rather than aD investigation through the House of Assembly itself and I think that was necessary. I think that was a wise decision by the House because unfortunately,for one reason or another, this House stands in such a repute,in my opinion, in the eyes of the public, that nothing but an "i:ldependent'; whatever that is, investigation with a full setting forth of the facts before the public will satisfy to restore some of the confidence that I think all of us agree that perhaps this House needs to regain in the eyes of the public.

But as I say, and I want to emphasize that here we are, we are dealing with the rule of law, the fact that we are all subject to the rule of law, be we elected members or not, and particularly in this case where I think there is a real distinction where the House gave its consent. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the Opposition. 1-'R. W. ROWE: I rise to say a word or two, Sir, on this point of privilege raised by my hon. colleague, the member for LaPoile.

I realize, Sir, we are not permitted to get into debate on a point of privilege but there are one or two matters which have I ' been raised by members opposite which should have a comment or two on them. First of all, Sir, nobody in this hon. House ~muld ever claim to be above the law. Nobody would claim that the law does not apply to a member of the House equally as to any other member of society.

What is claimed though, and nobody can dispute this, that in his capacity as a member of this House, a merrber is and should be subject to and have the privilege of certain immunities and certain privileges to allow him or her to carry out his duties, to play his proper role as a merrber of the House of Assembly, not to avoid the law, Mr. Speaker, nobody is saying that, but to carry out his role. So I hope that dispenses with one of the points raised by the member for St. John's East (Mr. Marshall). Nobody claims to be outside of the law in his actions as a member or as a private citizen. _, . . 'I ..•

Nay 1, 1978 Tape No. 160 7 NM- 2 MR. W. ROWE: Secondly, Sir, the fact that the House by its representatives,the Premier and myself for example, may have agreed to· a police investigation is totally irrelevant, totally irrelevant. An invescigation was insticuted by the Minister of Justice and the Department of Justice and it did not need the permission of this House or any subsequent approval of this House or -::atification by this House. So the points made by the han. the member for St.

John's East regarding this House having approved an investigation, cherefore that gives the police carte blanche to do whatever they •·rant to in the offices of members of this House, Sir, is a total red herring and totally irrelevant to the point in issue. Now, Sir, another point I would like to make is that there is a distinction to be drawn here. The Minister of Justice seems to think that what happened in the past and what 11 we are going to do in the future are one and the same thing. In fact they are not.

An han. colleague of mine has risen to talk about a breach of privilege in the past, which happened to him as a member of this House and whic.li he believes affects the privileges of this House. The fact that the han. the }tinister of Justice may in the future, today or tomorrow, move a resolution to set up a committee on privileges and immunities to deal with that subjecb in the future is again totally irrelevant to that point, }1r. Speaker. What my han. colleague is complaining about is a breach of his privileges as a U·ember of this House which occurred in the past. Now what exactly is b.e complaining a f?

He is complaining of the fact that in his absence from the Province the RCMP or the police force, presumably acting on the authority of the Department· of Justice, went down to a magistrate and got a search tlarrant to search his office, a crime was alleged in order to show a reasonable and probable cause for getting the search warrant, the police officers then came to Your Honour the Speaker, and received permission, presumably, to go down to his office and make a search. Nobody in this han. House

~fay 1, 1978 Tape No. 160 7 :-.1-! - 3 ~lR. liT. ROW: had any kno1ded ge of that, Sir, until after the f.act. The Premier and I were summoned to Your Honour's office five minutes before the Rouse opened at ten o ' clock in the morning on Friday and we were told that search warrants had been issued and that Your Honour had given permission and that in fact, I was told subsequently, that at that very moment the search was then in progress, the pol~ce ~ere dm~t~s. Ei~~er the Premie r or myself a.t ::bat priv ate meeting said, "As we understand it, 11.r.

Speaker, you are telling us, you are not consulting with us, you are telling us?" And as I understand, tlr . Speaker said, "Yes, we are telling you that this search warrant has in fact been issued!' There vas no consultation. the police, Sir, - . r . f l I f ( I t t ~ I ~. f t

May 1, 1978 Tape 1608 (Afternoon) PK - 1 Mr. W. Rowe: and I am not blaming the police, they are trying to do their job. I had a conversation with one of the gentlemen today, and we talked it over in an amicable fashion and he said he is doing his job and so on - the police, Sir, did not come to a member of this House beforehand, namely, my colleague and say to him,'We understand you have some documents in your possession which may bear on this investigation which we have quite properly being asked to conduct.

Would you mind giving us those documents, turn over those documents to us?' At which point my hon. colleague would have, as he said this morning to the police, 'With a heart and a half you can have these documents. What do you want? What do you think is relevant? You can have copies of them or you can have the documents themselves and give me copies back.' MR. NEARY: They did not get them in the search, and I have since given them to them. MR. W. ROWE: In fact they did not, Sir, through, I do not know, these, maybe thoughtlessness, just pure thoughtlessness, No request I arrogance, or lack of courtesy or what?

I do not know, maybe none of was made to my han. colleague, and I would assume no request of my t colleague on the other side of the Rouse as to whether he had documents which may bear on this which might be passed over to the police. i: In fact, in effect, what we are presented with is a fait accompli: I; $ ,· the police show up with a search warrant and start going through the files of my han. colleague.

I went downstairs and told the police that perhaps what they should do, because we did not want a precedent established of an office being gone through by the police in this manner, perhaps what l~ ,. they should do is seal the office of my hon. colleague, wait until he returns to the office, and ask him for the documents. My han. . l colleague got back in the Province yesterday,or this morning 1 the police came to see him, and he gave them the documents which they could not find in his office, having already violated, if no existing immunity or I

May 1, 1978 Tape 1608 (Afternoon) PK - 2 Mr. W. Rowe: privilege, which we may have some doubt on, at least the spirit of the independence of the Legislative side of government against the Crown and the minions and the agents of the Crown. But, Sir, the Premier and I rose here on Friday morning and said, in effect, that we agreed to what the police had done in going through the offices.

And by that I want to make very clear what I meant; by that I meant to say that my colleague and I, and all of our colleagues on this side of the House,had do desire whatsoever to keep back any information from the police, and that we would give it to them, So we did not care really,in effect, in practice, whether in fact that they had a search warrant or not. have been in there searching with our pure permission. They could We also mentioned on Friday something which is even more strong than what I just said, Sir, that we hated the thought of this becoming a precedent.

And whichever way we look at it it is in fact a precedent now. The Speaker is entered.in the Journals of the House as having given permission, stated that he gave permission to the police to go through an han. member's office, and that now becomes a precedent of this House.

I do not know whether Your Honou~ - I am not questioning Your Honour's ruling-! do not know whether Your Honour should first have called the House together in a private session convened to go over the situation, Your Honour I believe exercised Your Honour's judgment in the best manner possible, and everybody on both sides of this House has complete respect for Your Honour, but perhaps a private session of the House to go over the matter might have been in order or not, I do not know. in any event. It may be all academic But what I do want to say, Sir, is this,that no member of this hon.

House. and no minister of this government can operate unless they have complete confidentially in the way they operate, have complete immunity from any encroachments as a member from the executive, the Crown or any agents of the Crown,whether it be ministers or police or what have you, It is impossible to operate. It may be a different f

May 1, 1978 Tape 1608 PK- 3 Mr. W. Rowe: situation if an actual charge is laid against a member. I do not know. If an actual charge, a serious criminal charge · is laid against a member, perhaps in that case I might be willing to concede that the police might go to the magistrate or someone else and get a search warrant and go through the affects of that particular member.

But in the present situation is what we have done in this House, and Your Honour has done, and the police have done, all we have to do under _present precedents, Sir, is to allow a police officer ,either under direction of the Crown or not, or on his own volition, to go down to a magist:rate,who may not be the greatest paragon of the law in the land, - I I -.I I ; f 1 - ~ f f

May 1, 1978 Tape 1609 nw- 1 MR. W.N. ROWE: and say to that magistrate that he has reasonable and probable cause to suspect that a crime has &een commited and mention the crime. The magistrate t~~es that police officer's word for it,grants a search warrant and the police officer then goes up and presumably can go in and search the minister's or member's office. I do not know what the case would be if he did not even go to Your Honour. He perhaps went to Your Hon,our . out of courtesy. ''lhat would happen if he did not bother going to Your Jonour, just went to the office itself and conducted the search?

What I am saying, Sir, is that we have nm~ under the existing situation~ and my han. colleague has suffered from this,the possibility of harassment ,w·e have the possibility of intimidation of hon. 1!1embers,1ve have the real possiblity that han. members ~rill be hampered in doing their duty as a representative of all the people- each member represents all the people in this Province-because we may have a drying up of sources of information because a person nmv knows or believes that any info=ation he conveys to an han. member,particularly documentary evidence or any infarmation,is now not confidential in effect but can fall into the hands of the police perhaps at the instance of any police officer.

What I am saying, Sir, is that certainly we should set up a committee,which we discussed on Friday and the minister will undoubtedly make a resolution to that effect a little later in the afternoon,but I believe we should also in the person of Your Honour deal with thP actual breach of privileges which is being complained of by the han. member,my han. colleague the member for LaPoile. And we should establish, Sir, a couple of things hPre now,namely,that what happened to my hon. friend was nat a precedent.

T~e shonlrl establish that Your Honour will not grant further permission to police officers who may show up 1vith warrants unless Your Honour first comes to this House,and perhaps in private session convenec, in order to make sure that the matter is fully aired.

Nay 1, 1978 Tape 1609 Dlo/ - 2 MR. W'.N. RJWE: We should also perhaps make .it clear far and wide now,publicly,that any police officer who wishes information from an han. member of this House should do him the elementary courtesy, Sir, of coming to him first without going to a magistrate and getting a search warrant,come to him first and in a cou~eous,sensible manner ask him if the information may be made available. Per~aps the member may have very good reason for not making the information available,but at least that kind of a courtesy should be extended.

So let me conclude, Sir, by saying there are two distinct issues~one is what we shall do in the future by way of actual rules of privileges and immunities which this committee will submit to the House;but we also need to deal with this problem which my hon. colleague has raised,what to do with his particular case,and make a public statement,! believe, Sir, that what happened to r.im in fact was perhaps not oroper and- ·: certainly it did not establish any precedent and that also it should be clear~in case there is any misunder~ standing about it 7 that my han. colleague having being searched, having his office searched,there is no-the police said this to me when I questioned them on it,what are they doing,and they ,, ! said of course you must realize that your colleague is not involved in anything himself,personally,in no way is he involved in any of this.

He is in fact the nature of a comptainant in this case and all we are noing is trying to get ~nformation. I expressed to them that I thought it was a funny way for the police to act to swear out a search warrant ag~inst a complainant- and perhaps I thought to myself at that time there might have been a little political reason for so doing,! did not know.

But the point is~in other words,try to even up the score;a se&rch warrant on that side and a search warrant on this side-but the point is, Sir, that we should not and : we should go on the record as not tolerating this kind of interference by the executive arm of govermr.ent. And certainly we should make it clear that until this committee on rules

May 1' 1978 Tape 1609 m• - 3 MR. W.N. ROWE: and privileges brings in its recommendation to the House of Asseobly that the police should,! think,not sho~., up and expect to have the permission of Your . FI~n~n~. to have a search warrant executed without the concurrence of this han. House. SO!·lE RON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: The bon. member for Kilbride. }ffi. R. WELLS: Mr. Speaker, this is in a sense an historic thing because as far as I know it is the first time that it has happened in this House.

I gathered from what has been said it is the first time since Confederation,! do not about pre-Commission Government d«ys what the rule was if any insofar as these matters are concerned • .:m. NEARY: There is no precedent. lo!R. R.

WELLS: I think it is fair probably to say that there is no precedent in our House.! think we are all ~lac~d. in a position in discussing this matter here of not really knowing,because I am sure none of us have had occassion or reason to go into it to find out what has happened in other jurisdictions and I confess to you I do not know. ~ 'Rnt I think there are two aspects of this,as our colleague,the Leader of the Opposition has said ., one,what took place in this case and~ two,•7hat we should do about the future.

In this case,as I recall what happened,the han. the Attorney r~neral announced that a police investigation would take place.The police investigation was agreed to on both sides of ; ' :. t ! r t

May 1, 1978 Tape 1610 EC - 1 }fR. WELLS: the House. In fact, I do not think there was a voice raised against it. That being so, there was no dispute about that.

I gather then that the next thing that happened was that the police went under the authority, I presuQe, of the Criminal Code - that is the only thing they could go under - and went and got a search warrant from one of the magistrates, And I gather then that they came to Your Honour and said, 'We want to execute the search warrant; and Your Honour then called together the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition and discussed it with them, informing them that in Your Honour's own discretion that you had decided that they would be allowed to execute the search warrant.

I take it that is a perfectly correct statement. Now, of course, that being so, I do not think we can argue at this stage whether Your Honour was right or wrong. I think that is over and done with. We can discuss in this C~mmittee that the Attorney General says that he is going to ask to be set up in future, can deal with the procedures that should take place internally in the House if it ever happens in future. But so far as what is over and done with, I think we have to accept that as having happened and that is all that can be done about it.

Now on the question of whether it should have happened or not, or whether it should happen in future - perhaps that is the best thing for me to address myself to - I would say this, I have never -heard of anyth-ing which would suggest or say that anyone, because they were elected to a House of Assembly or a Legislature, was in any sense placed above the law. I do not think any of us - AN HON. MEMBER: Who is saying that? MR. HELLS: No, no, this is my comment. I do not think any of us in any sense are above the law of the I I I l I i ~ I

~ay 1, 1978 Tape 1610 EC - 2 MR. WELLS: land. If,for argument sake, any of us this afternoon had information with respect to a piece of stolen property, a safe or something stolen out of XYZ warehouse last night,for argument sake, I do not think in any way we would be immune from disclosing that information just because we were members of the House of Assembly - I would hate to think so. In no ~ I sense should the people's Uouse be something that would shield people from providing information to the police.

That is one thing, and that seems to me to be paramount, because the other thing is, of course, that we are not the makers of the Criminal Law. The Criminal Code of Canada does not emanate from here. We are legislators and we are elected here to pass our opinions and views on legislation and debate the public issues, etc., etc., but unless something can be worked out by this Committee and by this House that would-change the situation, I honestly do not believe that we are in any sense any different from any other citizen on the street.

Now the question arises about the police, Did they act with propriety in coming to Your Honour first? I think that was a courtesy, Your Honour. I think that they might well have had the right. I do not know, because as I say - now I know as much as anybody else, I suspect, in this House, about these matters, I do not think any of us would dare to say we are experts in it, it has never happened before. I DR. KITCHEN: It had better not happen again i either. _J MR. WELLS: Well, that may be so, but the ~ han. gentleman is not the constitutional of - AN HON. MEMBER: But it has happened. MR.

WELLS: The han. gentleman, I suggest, is -

Hay 1, 1978 Tape 1610 EC - 3 l1R. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR ." WELLS: - not a constitutional expert and he will have his opportunity to say what he likes. DR. KITCHEN: You are darn right I will have my opportunity. Get to the point. MR.

WELLS: Very well, but the point is, Your Honour, that what was done certainly should not in any sense - what is done in these circumstances - lead anybody to believe that when a matter is being investigated by the police in a legitimate investigation, agreed to in this case by both sides of the House although that does not matter, there should be no suggestion that anybody here is above the law of the land. And I think that is a~ important point to make.

The other thing, of course, Your Honour, is that if this particular thing is over and done with - and I agree · that the Committee should examine the whole question - maybe there is something that can be worked out. Now I do not know. I understand from what has been said that the han. gentleman was not present in the House or available to the police when they came to execute the warrant so that he was not there - }!R. NEARY: But I was the night before - HR. HELLS: That may be· I do not know when they got the warrant.

That is something that would have to be determined, whether they got the warrant on Thursday or on Friday. AN HON. MEMBER: Thursday. MR. WELLS: Thursday. What time, does anybody know? AN HON. MEHBER: Sometime in the evening. HR. \<ELLS: Sometice in the evening; evening/night sort of. . I ' i

May 1, 1978 Tape 1610 EC - 4 AN HON. HEHBER: They visited Hr . Speaker at ni~ht . MR." WELLS: I see . ~ did not know when they visited Mr. Speaker. But if when they came to execute the warrant the bon . gentleman had been present, it r.~ay ~otell have been that the y WO"uld ask whether he woul d propose to giv e them what h e had . ~aybe they would, but at the same time I think the police have learned probabl y by experience in these matters t ha t it is no good to just go and ask with out being backed up by the authority of the Crown and the court -. . I I ' I '·

~'ay 1, 1978 Tape No. 1611 NH - 1 HR. WELLS: by having the warrant in their possession and I think they do that all the time. All in all, Mr. Speaker, I think it is a very serious matter. I think what has been done has been done ,and certainly I think we would all welcome the establishment of this committee to find out what the true constitutional position is and to be able to advise the House and to be able to· advise Your Honour if the thing should happen in the future. ~. SPEAKER: The han. member for Conception Bay South. MR. NOLAN: Mr.

Speaker, I rise to address myself to the situation now before us because,as I attempted to indicate an Friday, I believe it is one of the most important things ever to come before the ilouse. There has been considerable mention made of our friend, the member for LaPoile (Mr.

Neary), because hi.s premises were searched, but let us remember also, that the Minister of Industrial Development's premises were also searched and if I am not mistaken- and I do not want to divulge anyt:ting privately, the han. gentleman opposite can ·speak for himself- I am told that a member or members or the Royal Canadian l1ounted Police entered the office space of an hon. minister here in this House and found it t~as the wrong office they were in. So these are matters that we have to address ourselves to. The danger, and I realized this on Friday when I rose, Mr.

Speaker, you may recall that when I did rise that I was informed that t·Te had a spokesman from both sides of the House, the hen. the Premier on the one hand, and the hon. Leader of the Opposition on the other, and then I rose on a point of order. And the reason was that it is not because of the individuals concerned, I rose because of what was happening, perhaps in pure ignorance if nothing else because I had never come up against it directly before,and tlhat our han. friend from Kilbride (Mr. Wells) atates, then no more is he.

And what I said then, if you may recall, and I do not have the Hansard before me, I could not understand f I I f \

Hay 1, 1978 Tape No. 1611 Nl1 - 2 ~.NOLAN: why every member, or many members in the House of Assembly, did not rise then on Friday morning and address themselves either under a point of order or a point or privilege, whatever parliamentary device we could exercise. Now I hope in using these remarks, Mr. Speaker, I believe that I am on permanent record, both in this House and through the media, of having expressed my admiration and respect for Your Honour in decisions and his conduct alt~ays in this HousP- of Assembly and I do not think I have to make any excuses here for what I am saying now.

But I think it is a tragedy that we did not find- we can find often times reasons to hurl abuse and God know what back and forth here. But why we did not rise to a man on Friday, not to interfere with the law, that is not what we are here for, but to determine what our rights were.

For example, if the han. the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition were summoned to the Speaker's Office,as they were, and not consulted but told what had happened, then under a point of order 7 I would think, or through some legal procedure within our House, we could have addressed ourselves to the problem as we sought at that time. And I do not know, I have not had an opportunity of course to talk to the Minister of Industrial Development, our hon. colleague in this House, but his office was searched. And I do not Jr.nm~ how he reacted. But we have not consUlted with him.

Or even if he is absent,and no roatter what member of the House of Assembly this may have happened to, unfortunately it is ahvays a bit risky because of the political climate in this Province. But I have always felt, since I have been a member of- this House, that if the rights and privileses of any member, no matter where they sit or what party they represent, are in jeopardy in any way, then we must do all that we can to see that they are protected. Because it is not just for the members present; if we go on precedents,

Tape *o . 1611 ~~- 3 HR. NOLA.~ : as so often we have in the past, we have to see to it that the righ ts of membe~s of this House of Assembly aYe protected. Let me gi ve you an example. W:UJ. anyone deny that there have been private conversations back and fo~th between membeYs opposite and myself? Have t here not been .perhap s private correspondence from time to time.either in this ses:;ion or in previous sessions ,becwe en ,, q • r . I ;. I < I

May 1, 1978 Tape 1612 (Afternoon) Pk ~ 1 Mr. Nolan: hon. members and myself? And if they were confidential, which they were, what assurances do we now have? I am not.in any way attempting to, by the way, question the authority or the respect for the RCMP or in fact the local Constabulary. But what I am saying is that,because I feel that we failed on Friday to address ourselves to this situation when it arose,that we may have indicated to the public if we cannot look after ourselves what hope have thev got in here.

That is what I thought on Friday, and that is why, members may recall - I am pleased to see my han. friend for St. John's Centre (Mr. Murphy),and pleased to see that he is well, I hope, and I am sure I express the feelings of all members opposite that we heard he was ill - but on this point I rose on Friday to indicate that something should have been done then, and it is in the Hansard, and it should have been done I said,this morning~ and that is when I believe that all members should have addressed themselves to this problem. Now I will grant you, Mr.

Speaker, that perhaps I· since we have never faced it before, perhaps members on both sides were stunned by the reaction, becausv. it is not a common every-day occurence in the House, but it is something I would assume where we have learned a lesson, and,as our hon. friend opposite stated, I do not think we are about to let it happen again,particularly with the Committee that the Minister of Justice, I believe, is going to announce later on this afternoon. But in rising on Friday I wanted to say that and indicate that I did not agree with the method in which it was done, and I still do not.

But that is something that is past. I was also under the impression, and I do not know whether I should say it here or not, that perhaps we as members of the House of Assembly ma¥ have discussed - this earlier today, possibly in camera, but I am not sure of my facts or information on that, and I am certainly subject to correction, Mr. Speaker, from you,as always. So these are some of the things that I see. And I would hope that we will have, Mr. Speaker, perhaps from you I < at a later date a clear definition of the authority, the jurisdiction of

May 1, 1978 Tape 1612 (Afternoon) PK - 2 Mr. Nolan: His Honour, the Speaker, in a case like this. I know you were good enough to mention your discussions that you had with Legislative opposites,perhaps,in Ottawa, and what the jurisdiction is there.

We are told, for example, that while in here the authorities may not be able to get at us,as it were, but, I believe, did it not happen in the House of Commons at Ottawa that some member at one time made some statement in the corridors outside and he was picked up,I believe by the police, I am not sure, But, I mean, ·what is the House of Assembly, when you say we have certain rights here, we must watch our immunity and so on?

Is it only in this particular House7 Is it in the office of the minister, whether it is in this building or not7 Is it in a law office or a drugstore or wherever the member happens to work or have his office and so on? These are some things that I think we hav~, not only for the public,but for all of our sakes, must·: be cleared up because there are grave misconceptions on this point it seems to me. So that is really all that I want to address myself to at this time, Mr.

Speaker, except to say, as I said on Friday,that I was very much concerned by what had happened, and I wish that we had to have an opportunity in this House to discuss it on Friday morning before any search warrants were issued and so on, rather than in doing it the way we are trying to do it now. But I am hoping we have learned a lesson. MR. SPEAKER: I have listened with interest to the submissions of han. members, I am sorry, I did not recognize the han. gentleman getting up. The han. member for Burgeo-Bay d'Espoir. MR. SIMMONS : Mr.

Speaker, I would just like to say a word or two on this subject without dragging it out unduly. I think it is an important issue, and perhaps it is an issue that we should hear from all members on either side now or at some other appropriate time. Mr. Speaker, it was agreed that the police investigation should have been undertaken, It is agreed that the police should have access to information which was in the possession of my colleague, the member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary),and the Minister for Industrial Development. Nobody '· ! 1. ,. '

May 1, 1978 Ta~e 1612 (Afternoon) PK - 3 Mr. Simmons: disputes these faces. But they are vecy irrelevant to the issue which is being raised as a matter of privilege by my colleague for LaPoile. The concern here, Mr. Speaker, is with the method used to get the information. The concern here is w±Lh the implications of that method, the implications for us as m.embers of this House. Now the member for St. John's East (Mr . Marshall) · says the House gave its consent. There is no consent given, Mr . Speaker, on the matter which has been raised. .. ': ' I

May 2, 2978, Tape 1613, Page 1 -- apb MR. SIMMONS: We do not have to consent to police investigations. That procedure is well known, particularly to the member for St. John's East (Mr. Marshall), I am sure,because of his own training and career outside this House. The House certainly did not give its consent on the matter of allowing the police to serve the warrants. It is regrettable, Mr. Speaker, that the House was not given the option of giving or withholding its consent on that matter.

I believe that had the House been given that option some arrangement could have been worked out whereby the police could have gotten the information which the member for LaPoile and the Minister of Industrial Development may have had in their possessions, information bearing on the subject of the investigation. The real issue, Mr. Speaker, is whether the mem~r~p _ of this . House can pursue its role unfettered and unintimidated. Only this weekend, by way of example, Mr.

Speaker, since this incident happened in the House of Friday, I had been talking to an individual previously and he arranged to get certain information for me. He delivered it to me on the weekend and at the time he gave me the document he particuarly requested that I not leave it in my office. He was quite serious about it and he went on to point out his concern should this ever come into the hands of anybody, particularly public, then it could be embarrassing for him and for some other people. Now, we have had that kind of caution already, and I am sure other members will have it.

The public is beginning to perceive that it does not have the same freedom in dealing with members of the House that it had before Friday morning, before the , I f. • ..

May 1, 1978, Tape 1613, Page 2 -- apb MR. SIMMONS: incident which we are discussing right now. Mr. Speaker, finally, we cannot undo what has been done. At the same time, we should not make light of it or try to explain it away. I feel very strongly that your freedom as a member of the House, your freedom as an individua~ begins to be bartered away the moment that you rationalize that it is alright to do something because of special circumstances, even though that something is something which on principle should never be done anyway. I believe now, Mr.

Speaker, today, or as soon as we can all discuss this more fully, either in camera or publicly, I believe we must give notice that this will not happen again. And at the very least, Mr. Speaker, however parti~ular or apparently justified the circumstances may be at a given point in time, at the very least the House itself must be given the option, the choice of deciding what is prudent at the moment or what is required at that particular moment. It is a House decision and at the very least the House should make that decision. MR. SPEAKER: The han. member for St. John's West. DR. KITCHEN: Mr.

Speaker, I am almost afraid to be a member of the House of Assembly when the confidentiality of what we do is breached without our agreeing to have it breached. I have in my possession, as I am sure every other han. member has, documents, recorded conversations, notes and things that constituents give you,which people give in confidence because they have problems that they expect a member to look after. I keep these things in my office because there is no other place to keep them and I would hate, while I would '· t ~ ·

... ... May 1, 1978, Tape 1613, Page 3 -- apb DR. KITCHEN: be away, for somebody to tell someone to go in and have a look at Kitchen's office and see what is in there. It is pretty serious, not only the documents, but then I think about the conversations that we h9ld on the phone frOm time to time. Some of these conversations are rather interesting. The other day in this House someone tabled some biiis about telephones which I thought was a pretty serious question. We dealt with that one properly by taking it out of the hands of the executive branch and putting it under Your Honour's control.

I am wondering too about wiretapping. People talk about wiretapping and about bugs in offices. This is the atmosphere we are getting into here. spies! i. •, ~ ii J ·' :·· .; ;~ I I r -f ;, r

May 1, 1978 Tape 1614 EC - l DR. KITCHEN: If we are going to have to opera~e in that milieu then there is very justifiable fear of being able to operate as a member of the House of Assembl~. MR. NEARY: Having my car followed all weekend with my colleague driving it. DR. KITCHEN: And having your car followed around all weekend when someone else was driving it, very good. But it is more serious than that, because I suppose the main purpose we are here is to bring up before the House of Assembly points that have to be brought up for the benefit of the people we represent.

And sometimes a member's duty is very hard, like the duty of the member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) last week. It is a hard duty to perform. Now if we are forced to be afraid that if we bring these things up all sorts of things will happen,then the tendency will be not to bring matters up -to have sort of a little ladies' tea party affair and all the main events of government would take place somewhere else. So I think the confidentiality, Mr.

Speaker, of what goes on and what members document, not as people but as members, not as members of families or people conducting a business - I can see the difference between being a member and doing your other occupations, those who have other occupations or other roles to perform in life - but we are talking about our central. role as members of the House of Assembly and that is all we are considering at this point. And we should not be afraid to bring up points which have to be brought up in the public interest. Members have great confidence in the police. I am not altogether sure that I always

May 1, 1978 Tape 1614 EC - 2 DR. KITCHEN: have confidence in the police. Someiimes the police can be wrong. I listen to the news on the radio from time to time, and television, and I see that very often other jurisdictions are having problems with police per~aps acting a little bit further than their jurisdiction would indicate. There is nothing that guarantees that the police always act in the public interest any more than that the member of the House of Assembly might always act in the public interest.

So just because people are acting on behalf of the law even where there is a judge or a lawyer does not necessarily mean that they are doing it in the public interest. They may think they are, but they could be wrong. An RCM policeman was in my office the other day inquiring about an investigation that is going on in another jurisdiction. He brought up the silliest little item that I have ever heard tell of being brought up and I laughed at him. I exclaimed, 'Do not be so foolish!

What are you,presuming guilt?' 'Oh, yes, we are presuming guilt.' So I am not at all sure that we have to have confidence in the police any more than anyone else. They often do not act correctly. Sometimes they act correctly - probably usually they do. I do know this though, that one of the most serious things we can do is give too much power to the police, which is exactly what happened in other jurisdictions in the late 1930's and early 1940's when people had the =ight to go into your house and do pretty well what they wanted to do with you. We are not going to have that · in this country.

They can hide behind their uniforms and hide behind the laws all they like, but there are certain fundamental rights that people have that are not to be violated. The police have to be controlled. They have to be controlled, and there is only one group to control the police and that is elected representatives. The House of Assembly controls the police i . I - '­• ~ . I

May_ l, 1978 Tape 1614 EC - 3 DX. KITCR"!i:N: here - AN liON. MEM:B~R: Rear, hear! DX. KITCHEN: a~d the House of Commons co·ntrols the police on a national scal .e, and we have to remember that, that we control the police. What I want to lead up to is that I believe that we made an error here Friday, a very serious e·rror, and I do not W·ant to go any further than that. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! DR, KITCHEN: :But it must - MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I think r must point out that eve·ry hon. member has the right to challenge the specific ruling made.

I underst .and the comments of hon. gentlemen have been not specifical~y on thae,but in terms of guidelines in general for the future and also in terms of the propriety of action on behalf of the police or members of the executive. Certainly I do not cast in any doubt wh~tsoever the right of any hon. member to challenge the rule of the Chair, the specific rule Friday, but it has to be done in one of two ways: a direct appeal, which is not debatable; or notice of a substantive motion, which is. But . I I· I: L n

}!ay 1, 1978 Tape No. 1615 N}J- 1 MR. SPEAKER: as far as the specific rule went, those are the ways in which it may be challenged. The han. member for St. John's West. HR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe that we have to have it so that the law, the RQ1P or wha~ever, must never, never, never search the offices of members of this House, And as representatives of the people I believe that these offices have ·to retain their confidentiality, as do the phones,and that there are to be no spys, no· viiretaps or anything else. We must be empm~ered to do our duty for which the people have elected us.

And no other course of action is possible • we have to have protection to do our duty properly. Thank you, Sir. SOME HON. HE!1BERS : Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: I w~ll give my decision on the point of privilege as soon as I can, as soon as I have had· opportunity to- I have had an opportunity to listen - to weigh the submissions of various members and to consult specific ' authorities, which are al\Jays, obviously,helpful. MR. SPEAKER: MR. ROUSSEAU: STATEMENTS BY ~INISTERS: The hon. Hinister of Labour and Manpower. Mr.

Speaker, as han. members are aware, 550 members of the United Steelworkers of America, Local 7713 at Advocate !lines, Baie Verte, went on stril:e at midnight on February 12th., 1978. Since that time contact has been maintained with both parties to the dispute. I have personally met with both parties on a number of occasions and on Harch 29th., 1978, I requested both parties to return to the bargaining table <vith the conciliation officer. ~1eetings were subsequently held in Corner Brook but a settle~ent was unable to be reached.

Indeed it appears that a misunderstanding has developed on the items whica may or may not have been agreed to at these meetings. Friday past I received a telegram from Martin Saunders, the President of Local 7713, United Steelworkers of America, requesting I,

~!ay 1, 1978 Tape No. 1615 ill'! - 2 !·fR. ROUSSEAU: a meeting to clarify ~•hat was or was not agreed to at the Corner Brook meetings. I have given consideration and thought to this request and as a result of my deliberations over the weekend ·, I have decided to appoint a mediator in the dispute bebveen Advocate .Mines and the Steelwor~ers Local 7713. This action was taken under sectin 80, subsection (2) of the Labour Relations Act. The mediator will be Gordon Easton of Corner Brook, and I have wired him this afternoon outlining all the matters in dispute as I perceived them. I might mention here, Mr.

Speaker, there are eleven issues ou·tstanding in occupational health and safety, there are nine issues outstanding in other issues,and there are six issues which have arisen since the strike. I have also instructed the conciliation officer to fully brief Hr. Easton and to make all documents in his possession available to him. Meetings will be held at a time and a place designated by the mediator.

I have also wired the company and the union this afternoon and I was talking by telephone with both parties this morning, informing them of this decision and requesting their full co-operation in attempting to resolve the dispute. It is my intention to make no further comment on the situation until such time as I have received a report from the mediator. ~!R. SPEAKER: The han. member for Ilaie Verte -White Bay. ~1R. RIDEOUT: Mr.

Speaker, I am happy that the minister has taken some action to appoint some independent person to sit down and mediate bet:-.reen the company and the union that are involve.d in the dispute at Baie Verte. I think it is vitally important that both sides understand, and apparently they do not at the moment, both sides understand \ I [, r ' •

:·ay 1 , 1978 Tape ~o. 1615 :~ - 3 ~!R. RIDEOUT: and come to some common agreeme .nt about exactly what :.s or what has been, or what has not been agreed on . There are cwo· different groups of thought in the town at the moment, the company is saying one thing through letters to their staff and so on an~ the union,of course,are saying another. And somewhere in bet:ween obviously is the truth of what was agreed to and I am delighted that the minister has appointed Gordon East on , who I believe is an excellent person for this type of assignment. I hope that he will be able to get both sides together very quicly and I would hope that some positive results will come about because of it. . l ! t

May 1, 1978 Tape 1616 PK - 1 NOTICES OF MOTIONS MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice. MR. HICKMAN:- Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following resolution that the following hon. members be appointed as members of a eommittee on Privileges and Elections to consider the privileges and immunities of this han. House; the hon. member for St. John's East, (Mr. Marshail) the hon. Minister of Justice, the han. the member for Kilbride (Mr. Wells), the han. the Leader of the Opposition, and the hon. the member for the Strait of Belle Isle (Mr. Roberts).

ORAL QUESTIONS MR. SPEAKER: The han. Leader of the ' Opposition. MR. W. ROWE: I would like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Justice, the Government House Leader, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, as the han. Minister of Justice probably knows,the reasonable and probable cause shown by the peace officers to obtain the search warrant from the magistrate in St. John's to search my colleagues offices indicated that between the lst.of January 1975 and the end of January - or the 1st. of January 1976 at St.

John's, one Andrew Davidson Sr. without reasonable justification or excuse and with intent to extort $5,000 did induce,are the words used, Sir,"did induce the government of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador by threats to expose government corruption to pay to Andrew Davidson Sr. $5,000 contrary to

Section 305, Subsection (1) of the Criminal Code.'' In other words, Sir, the government has alleged,in order to get this search warrant,that the government paid under threat, under a threat of exposing corruption,by extortionist±c methods used by Davidson, the government in fact paid Davidson $5,000. Now would the han. Minister of Justice as Minister of Finance kindly inform the House who authorized the payment of $5,000 to an extortionist? MR. SPEAKER: The han. Minister of Justice. MR. HICKMAN: Mr. Speaker, number one, I am not familiar with the I l ~-

May 1, 1978 Tape 1616 PK - 2 Mr. Hickman: contents of the affidavit that the bon. gentleman - MR. W. ROWE: There you go again, the same old story. MR. HICKMAN: I am familiar with the contents of the affidavit just read. MR. W. ROWE: Same old story. MR. HICKMAN: It is not an old story. Well if it is an old story it is a correct one. I am not familiar with the affidavit or the portion of the affidavit referred to by the bon. gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition.

He knows as a lawyer that in filing an affidavit in support of an application for a search warrant,the police officer or officers filing such affidavit must first indicate to the court the nature of the investigation that they are conducting and the nature of the charge of the offense that may have been committed; it cannot be under any circumstances accepted as proof positive of anything other than the nature of the investigation and the essentiality of obtaining this search warrant.

But I would hope. that no one in this House would suggest that an affidavit in support of a search warrant is proof positive that a crime qas been committed. It is the procedure laid out in the Criminal Code enabling the police to carry out an investigation into allegations that have been made. SOME RON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh! MR. HICKMAN: You know, and any lawyer, in fact any law student, would know that. MR. W. ROWE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary. MR. W. ROWE: Mr.

Speaker, this is a warrant, Sir, an affidavit in support of the information laid in order to get the warrant, presumably drafted by the RCMP on behalf of the Department of Justice,or indeed perhaps by somebody in the Department of Justice. As a matter of fact the wording indicates that somebody in the Department of Justice perhaps was involved in it. What I am asking - which therefore appears to me, Sir, to be an admission that the government paid $5,000, since the sworn affidavit by the agent of the government is that Mr. Davidson did in fact induce the government to pay $5,000. . . ;

May·•l, 1978 Tape 1616 PK- 3 Mr. 1¥. Ro'lile: Well, Sir, the hon. Minister of Justice cannot have his cake and eat it ~oo. In order to go down and get this search warrant, an agent of his deparonent admitted that money was paid by the government under extor~ion. Now what I want to know and I would wish he would tell the Rouse is who would have given that au~hority in his department ? Was it the Treasury Board? Some particular minister? Some Deputy Minister? Who authorized the paY!Jieot of $5,000 of public funds as admitted by an agent of the government, who authorized tha~ payment?

And would he also indicate to the Rouse whether to pay an extortionist's demands is in fact a crime in itself? ~ I ·. '· ... !

May 1, 1978, Tape 1617, Page 1 -- apb MR. HICKMAN: The question, Mr. Speaker, is purely hypothetical. The first part of the question~ I do not know who, if any, authorized any payment and if I did I certainly would not disclose it to this House in the course of an investigation. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. HICKMAN: I most definitely would not. You know, the hon. gentlemen were asking a few days ago for a police investigation.

Now a police investigation has been ordered and I want to assure this House that when a police investigation has been ordered, as I said the day I made the statement, they will conduct their investigation unimpeded and in no way will there be an interference by me or direction from me or by anyone else as to how - MR. SIMMONS: MR. HICKMAN: MR. SIMMONS: this House Friday. MR. HICKMAN: (Inaudible). Friday. With the police? The Premier (Inaudible) in In no way will there be any interference with the conduct of the police in the course of an investigation.

And how they carry out that investigation is totally and absolutely up to them. The law officers of the Crown stand ready, willing and able to help the police at any time they seek legal advice. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary. The hon. member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Would the hon. the Minister of Justice, Sir, inform the House if and when he was under any suspicion at all that Mr. Davidson was attempting to extort the money from the public treasury? Had suspicion of blackmail?

Did the hon. gentleman have that in the back of his mind, and if so, when did the hon. gentleman · ' - I .I I t h ,, !': -. · ~ .. t I

May 1, 1978, Tape 1617, Page 2 -- apb MR. NEARY: first think of it? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Justice, MR. HICKMAN: Mr. Speaker, surely the hon. member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) does not expect me to answer that kind of a question? Number one, is that it would be libelous if I answered it in the affirmative~ and secondly, I am certainly not going to make any comments that will in any way affect this investigation. by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or the Newfoundland Constabulary. I just will not do it. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question, Sir. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary.

The hon. member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Would the hon. Minister of Justice indicate to the House if the Premier had ever told him, say a year ago April past, if the Premier informed the minister that he felt that he was being blackmailed by Mr. Davidson? Did the Minister of Justice have any knowledge of that? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice. MR. HICKMAN: The hon. Premier certainly did not tell me that, Mr. Speaker. MR. NEARY : Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary. MR. NEARY: My question then is to the hon. the Premier.

Why did the hon. the Premier shield this information from the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER MOORES : Mr. Speaker, first of all I do not consider this shielding any information. If what the hon. member is referring to are the affidavits that were circulated to the press and to various members of this House at that particular time, I would have thought " il } ' • ~ . I . I r ·"' I f -

May 1, 1978, Tape 1617, Page 3 -- apb PREMIER MOORES : that the person who circulated them would have been the person who should have gone to the police for an investigation. Sir, if every crackpot letter that comes into my office or any other minister's office had to be dealt with as I consider this to be, we would be asking for police investigations all the time.

However, as the han. member saw fit to table that and previous affidavits in the House, I can understand, of course, why the police investigation is being held and I suggest that as the police investigation is being held everything all members of this House can do to co-operate with the police should be done. And the sort of things, Sir, I am referring to in co-operating with ~he police, the tapes and transcripts that were mentioned by various people in the House previously, I am sure they will be made available to the police.

I know in my own case where there was a tape involved, that transcript was made available to the police within minutes after it was involved, over one year ago. So, Sir, I would assume that all other members who have information relevant to this case or any other investigation, would, of course, have made that information available to the police by now. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. the Premier, Sir. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary. MR.

NEARY: The hon. the Premier just revealed to the House, Sir, that for some reason or other the hon. the Premier had the taped conversations between the Premier and Mr. Davidson. Why did the Premier not inform his Attorney General, the Minister of Justice of this matter? j ! \ . .. .f t . t ~

May~. ~978, Tape ~6~7, Page 4 -- apb MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER MOORES: Simply, Mr. Speaker, that I had not involved the Minister of Justice in that there was any abuse, or blackmail, or extortion because I would think that is something that the police have to prove before we say that someone is guilty. MR. NEARY: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague indicated it is already pointed out in the search warrant, Sir, that $5,000 was in actual fact paid to Mr. Davidson by the pUblic treasury.

And my han. colleague in cross-examining the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Finance wanted to find out who authorized this. Could the minister tell us who the President of Treasury Board was at the time that thi~ $5,000 was paid out to Mr. Davidson? Who was the President of ':['reasury Board at that time? . i. l:

!-lay 1, 1978 Tape No. 1618 ;m - 1 ~. NEARY: No, the minister was not. Well,all right~ If the bon. gentleman was the president, a supplementary question for the hon. gentleman, Would the hon. gentleman tell us who pushed this - thing through Treasury Board, and at whose request was this payment made? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Transportation and Communications. HR. DOODY: The only payment that I am aware of that ~•as made to the Andrew Davidson group while I was President of Treasury Board, was a $5,000 payment for services rendered on behalf of a study of the Grimsby port facilities.

The bill was considerably higher than that but after discussion with ~r. Davidson he agreed to settle for his expenses and that was in the nature of $5,000. MR. NEARY: A supplementary question then, Mr. Speaker. ~!R. SPEAKER: A supplementary. !IR. NEARY: The han. gentleman has just confirmed, Sir, as President of Treasury Board, former ¥~nister of Finance, that Mr. Davidson was in actual fact paid $5,000. AN RON. ME~mER: For work done. MR. NEARY: That is correct, for work done. Then it was not extortion as stated in the search warrant. It was a legal - MR. DOODY: I never said it. MR.

NEARY: No, but this is what the search warrant says. MIL. DOODY: I do not know if that is the same $5,000. MR. ~EARY: Hell was there any more? Did l1r. Davidson receive any more money from the Public Treasury? HR. DOODY: Not that I know of. ~1R. NEl1.RY: And ~•hen the hon. gentleman authorized that $5,000, did the hon. gentleman feel that ~ rr. Davidson was ext~rting the Public Treasury1 MR. DCODY: I do not make judgements on that sort of thing. That is for the law· to do. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, did the hon. gentleman feel ;• lj .

May 1, 1978 Tape No. 1618 NM- 2 MR. NEARY: that this was a legitimate bill and that the government were paying Mr. Davidson $5,000 for work that had been performed by Mr. Da-vidson in his company? Is that a fact. MR. DOODY: That is why .he was paid. MR. NEARY: That is why he was paid. Well, Mr. Speaker - MR. W. ROWE: So it was not extortion. ~!R. NEARY: So then, Mr. Speaker, we have now established that it was not extortion. ~1R. IV. ROWE: And you get officers of the Crown going down swearing out false evidence. PREMIER MOORES : A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has come up. MR.

NEARY: Was it a bribe? }fR. SPEAKER: Order, please! PREMIER MOORES: I am just wondering, Sir, if this is a trial on the defence of Mr. Andrew Davidson or not this afternoon. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, what I would like to know, Sir, from the hon. the Minister of Justice, is the minister al~are of anybody in the Cabinet, or anybody on the government side of the House, that has ever been threatened with exposure of corruption in government? Does the minister know of any of his colleagues who have been threated eitr.er by Hr.

Davidson or anybody else for exposure of corruption in government. ~!R. SPEAKER: The han. llinister of Justice. l-!R. ~UCKMAN : Hr. Speaker, if I am aware of it I most definitely will not make it public when there is a police L<vestigation going on. HR. W. ROWE: Oh no. !1R. HICKI!AN: And I most definitely will not. And that is such ·' I I -~ .t

Hay 1, 1978 Tape No. 1618 N!1 - 3 MR. HICKMAN: a ftmdamental rule, and I draw it to the attention of the House, that when applications are made to a court for a search warrant and an affidavit is presented, that the court very carefully examines that to see whether or not there has been compliance with the Criminal Code of Canada. }!].. SPEAKER: The hon. member for LaPoile. HR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, I cannot help but coming back to the statement made in reply to my question to the hon. the Premier again about taping conversations, If the hon. the Premier felt that he was being blackmailed, 2nd obvioulsy he did because the hon. gentleman told me a year ago down in his private dining room, and I suggested to the hon. the Premier at that time, for his own protection, that ae should appoint a public enquiry, why did the hon. the Premier not proceed with that enquiry as he promised me in front of the P!esent Hinister of Transportation and Communications that he was going to app.oint?

Whv· was ::hat enquiry not set up if the Premier felt that his position '~as in jeopardy, that he was being blackmailed, or shook down or an attempt was being made at extorting money from the Public Treaeury, or from the PC Party for that matter? J$R. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER MOORES : Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to have a slightly mixed up memory.

The question under revie'~ at that time that he mentioned to me was an investigation into the Health Sciences Complex, '~hich <.vith various officials of govemment departments, and various chartered accountants, certainly was done at that time to our satisfaction and I would assume that !1r. Davidson or whoever was involved in any actions that are improper, that this police investigation ~;ill find it out. A~d I am sure, Sir, that that is the case. But I know lots of people, Sir, have had recent chats with Mr. Davidson, so maybe we should be having statements rather than questions. I I l f. :~ • r ! ,,

!lay 1, 1978 Tape :.;o. 1618 S~l - 4 PREMIER !!OORES: For instance, Sir, I understand on Friday past, the airplane tickets left at the counter of Air Canada for some hen. people •.:ere paid for by !:lr. Charlie Silver, of South Orange, New Jersey, who is one of ~~. Doyle's fro.nt tten . As the bon . metliber for LaPoUe (~!r . Neary ) was t!:le benificiary of one of t!:lese tickets, Si r, as I Wlderstand it, to go down South to mee~ whoever he met down South, maybe he could give us more recent information that I have. ~!R . SPEAKER: The hon. member for LaPoile. l ~ !, ri· ,, r ~ ·~ ' f

May 1, 1978 Tape 1619 EC - 1 MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER : The hon. the member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I am just going to ignore what the hon. gentleman ~aid for a moment. I am going to come back to the Minister of Transportati~n, Sir, the former President of Treasury Board. That was a beatiful, that was a nice piece of information. The bon. the Premier thinks that by playing the mugs game that he is going to win. HR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! I would ask and require the hon. gentleman to ask a question. HR. !lEARY: Mr.

Speaker,.! want to ask the Minister of Transportation, the former President of Treasury Board - I want to get this clear and get it on the record, Sir, that when this payment of $5,000 was authorized to Mr. Davidson there was no indication, no evidence at all of wrongdoing, there was no evidence at all that Mr. Davidson was trying to shake down or extort money from the Public Treasury, is that correct? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Communications. l!R. DOODY: The $5,000 payment that was made to that group at that time was for a study that had been done on the Grimsby port facilities.

It was not in the amount of the invoice for which government had been billea. We did not think that the work which was done warranted the amount of money that Mr. Davidson had charged us. We talked to him and negotiated with him and he agreed to settle for a $5,000 amount which covered his expenses and perhaps a little more than his expenses, but certainly not much ~ore.

May 1, 1978 Tape 1619 EC - 2 UR. DOODY: And that was what he was paid for and that was what was authorized. And that was all done legally through a Treasury Board minute and done through the Financial Administration Act. HR. NEARY: A question for the hon. gentleman. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary. HR. NEARY: Did anybody at any time when the minister was considering this matter before Treasury Board indicate to the minister that this $5,000 would have to be paid to Davidson to keep him quiet so that he would not reveal an affidavit that he had before the last provincial general election?

Was there any indication of that to the minister to cover up - HR. SPEAKER: The hon. t~e Minister of Transportation and Communications. MR. DOODY: From memory, I had no conversation with Mr. Davidson and if God spares me I never will. The bill that came in, Sir, was handled just as any other invoice would be under these circumstances and was paid for for services rendered, and that was the only involvement that Treasury Board had in that particular effort, Sir. MR. NEARY: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary.

HR. ~tEARY: Will the hon. gentleman indicate to his recollection, to the best of his knowledge and me~ry, Did any of his colleagues in Cabinet indicate to the minister that this bill must be paid to silence Mr. Davidson or to ~ · keep him quiet or to pay him before the election so he will not reveal a document that he was carrying around called an affidavit? Did anybody indicate to the minister that this bill had to be paid in order to keep Mr. Davidson quiet

May 1, 1978 Tape 1619 EC - 3 MR. NEARY: before the last election? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Communications. MR. DOODY: No, Sir, if that had been so undoubtedly Mr. Davidson would have been squealing or screaming or whatever it is he does. The amount of the bill was far in excess of $5,000, the amount that we settled for. It was done on a businesslike basis in taking due note of the expenses that we felt that he had incurred and what we felt that the work that he had done was worth.

There was never any discussion to my memory or to my knowledge of any of these weird and wonderful things that the hon. the member discusses and describes. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the hon. gentleman. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary. MR. NEARY: Would the hon. gentleman indicate to the House if any of his colleagues indicated to the minister, to the President of Treasury Board, that we should make it a round figure - the bill was in the vicinity of $9,000 and some odd dollars -make it a round figure of $10,000? Did anybody ever indicate that to the hon. gentleman? l:!R.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Communications. :m. DOODY: No, Your Honour .. I-!R. snmo:-rs: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary . HR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the member for Burgeo -Bay d'Espoir. ~fR- snmous: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the hon. the Minister of Transportation, or if he is not in possession of the facts I am looking for, perhaps I I ! t r i -f

Hay 1, 1978 Tape 1619 EC - 4 ~1R. SU1MONS: the hen. the Premier. Was t here some kind of a contract with the Davidson group to do this study or was it on a cost plus basis? I am a little puzzled that there was a bill submitted. Was it just submitted out of the air,or on the basis of the work he felt ne had performed or they had performed as the case may be, or was there some undertaking by government, some contractual arrangement or some other agreement whereby the Davidson group would perform certain work for a certain fee? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Communications. MR.

DOODY: My understanding was a requisition came down from the departme~t involved that there had been a commissioning of the Davidson group to do such a study. The study itself appeared to Treasury Board to be something less than adequate in terms of the amount of money that was charged and so Treasury Board refused to recognize it for the value which was placed on it by the Davidson group. 11R. NEARY: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. HR. SPEAKER: A supplementary. }IR. NEARY: Yould the hen. gentleman indicate if the government have received bills from Mr.

Davidson for work done on other projects in this Province, and would the minister tell us what these projects are? HR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Communications.

May 1, 1978 Tape 1620 PK - 1 Mr. DOody: I would have to search my memory and look it up. There were bills received for other projects allegedly done, other work allegedly done in the Province. I have seen no supporting documentation on that, nor has any money been paid on that account. MR. NEARY: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary. MR.

NEARY: Would the hon. gentleman indicate to the best of his memory if this work had to do with storing oil on Bell Island, the Conne River Bridge, the Codroy Valley Bridge, and one or two other bridges in this Province? l>lould it have anything to do with these projects? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of ~ransportation and Communications. MR. DOODY: The storing of oil on Bell Island does not strike a responsive cord, and I am sure it would have had we received a bill for it, The Conne River Bridge and the Codroy Valley Bridge both strike reponsive cords.

There seems to be invoi~es I think received for these, but there was no documentation. When the bills were received Treasury Board sent them back, ~sked for documentation,for copies of studies. There were never any copies of studies received as I remember it, and so the bills were ignored, unpaid. MR. NEARY: A supplementary. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for LaPoile,' MR. NEARY: I thought that would strike a responsive cord with the hon. gentleman. Now would the hon. gentleman tell the Rouse if there is an outstanding amount owed to Mr. Davidson, and this is in dispute and the government has refused to pay Mr.

Davidson this amount? Or has Mr. Davidson being paid any of this amount from any other source other than from the Public Treasury? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Transportation and Communications. MR. DOODY: To the best of my knowledge, Sir, the only money that has been paid to Mr. Davidson from the Pnblic Treasury was the $5,000 amount that we discussed earlier on that Grimsby study, That was the - . I .. '· I

May 1, 1978 Tape 1620 PK ~ 2 Mr. Doody: only amount that was paid. These other amounts, these other invoices that were described, as I said 1government refused to accept because of the fact that to the best of my knowledge there was no work done. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Burgee-Bay d'Espoir. MR. SIMMONS: I have a question for the Minister of Justice. The minister indicated last Thursday or Friday that he expected today to have a report on the fire at Elizabeth Towers last week. Does he now have that report? Or could he indicate to us any of its contents; if he does have the report? MR. SPEAKER: The bon.

Minister of Justice. MR. HICKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I indicated that I not a report into the investigation ~ecause,as I pointed out to the House,these investigations are carried out in St. John's by the CID and outside of St. John's by the RCMP in consultation with the Fire Commissioner. But I did - so that report will come in in due coarse to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Fire Commissioner,over and above ascertaining the cause of any fire, also very properly directs his attention to fire safety, precautions, or rules and regulations that are implemented in any particular building or institution.

And in that respect I was advised that the Fire Commissioner met one day - I would wish that they would stop using these lOSOls, but any event on Friday,I think it was,with the Board of The St. John's Housing Corporation ~nd indicated to them certain additional fire precautions and measures that he would like to see implemented, received from the Board an assurance that these would be carried out with absolute dispatch 1 and consequently felt there was no need to serve an order on them directing them to do it. MR.. SIMMONS : A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR.. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the original questioner. MR.

SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister gave the answer, I did not hear it. He said Friday that by Monday, today,Monday, he would be able to indicate to the House the results of a report into the I - I .. I ' t " r ! I It ' ,.

May 1, 1978 Tape 1620 PK - 3 MR. SIMMONS: cause of the fire at Elizabeth Towers. Now, Mr. Speaker, can the minister now indicate to us whether that report is complete on the cause of the fire at Elizabeth Towers early on the morning _of last Wednesday? And while I am on my feet,a related question: Can he indicate to the House whether the report on the cause of a fire on Signal Hill Road the same morning about four hours after is available? And furthertcan he indicate whether the police suspect arson in either or both cases? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Justice. MR. HICKMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I cannot nor will I say what the police suspect of anything in either of these fires. MR. SIMMONS: They often say it themselves. MR. HICKMAN: I know. Well,I will not say the police say it. But I have heard statements made from time to time following a fire or immediately at- the site of the fire,'I suspect arson: And if there is anything that upsets the investigating officers is that kind of a statement, because immediatel~ the statement is made, if there was indeed

an act of arson,the police's investigative process is very duly, very seriously hampered li II I~ I~ ' ,,

~lay 1, 1978 Tape ~~o. 1621 N~! - 1 HR. HICK~1AN: and that is a difficult case to prove anyt·Tay in law and they find that their investigation has been very seriously interrupted and affected thereby. Indeed,if hon. gentlemen will recall we had a series of fires two or three years ago and they started public speculatio~ that as they were all in the same kind of institutions that there must have been some arsonist or other involved. The police were,with the fire commissioner of the day, trying to affectively conclude investigations.

They never did get to any investigations, We then directed that there be a magisterial enquiry into all fires just in case there was something could come out that would come out under oath, because the police do not investigate under oath, that the police had missed and,you know..we just ran up against a blank wall and I think that it was regrettable that this speculation had gone on all that time.

There is no doubt at all that their ability to investigate was seriously hampered. \-lith respect to both these fires, I repeat what the procedure is; that the· Fire Collllllissi.oner, .if it is at all possible, attends upon the fire and ascertains what is going on. He has two things to do, one is to assist the police YTho automatically investigate a fire in any building or structure where there is a large number of people, or if the cause of the fire is unknown, in any large building they do it as a matter of course anyway, and in t:1at respect his report goes to the - say,in St.

John's to the CID .~ho ~·Till in turn send it in to ·the Director of Public Prosecutions with whatever evidence they acquire. The Director of Public Prosecutions or one of the CroYTn prosecutors will then go through it very carefully concerning themselves only with one aspect, whether or not there is any criminality. Tney do not concern themselves with fire safety. The fire safety falls under the jurisdiction of the Fire C01111111.ssioner t . r and ~•ith respect to Elizabeth Towers, he has already taken a remedial action.

But the cause of the fire will go into the police files and certainly I would not ?e prepared when it does come in to, at this time, make it public. And I knm~ that these investigations are not done overnight.

l1ay 1, 1973 Tape No. 1621 MR. l-7. ROWE: A supplell'.entary on that, Hr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. Leader of the Opposi ·tion. ~m. W. ROWE': I would like to ask the Mi.nister of Justice if he has received any report, interim or otherwise, or oral or -...:tit ten, from the Fire Commissioner~ as of now, as of today' s date, as to a possible cause of the fire at Elizabeth Towers? Doea he have any report from the Fire Commissioner, oral or written, interim or in any other way? HR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Justice. MR. HICK11AN: Mr.

Speaker, I can only repeat what I said earlier, that as of now I have not received a report, nor indeed do I anticipate receiving - it will come to my department - for a while yet on the cause of the fire. But I have received an indication from one of the senior officials in my department as to what - a report, you know he has conveyed it to me this mnrning, told me this morning - as to what action the Fire Commissioner has taken very properly and very quickl.y in discharge of his responsibility in the field of fire safety.

But the cause of the fire,that ~oes into the police, I have never heard of anyone making that public. And again, you know, if w·e are going to have an effective police force, and if l{e are going to have effective investigations , we cannot cou~uct them in public. ~m. SH1!-!0NS: A supplementary. UR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir. :1R. SU~·lONS: I must try one more time with the Minister of Justice. There has been tlm very serious fires. The · cause of these fires is of tremendous interest to a lot of people.

Can the minister indicate, without giving us his homily on safety again, about which we are all concerned and can make equally long and perhaps

!-:ay 1, 1978 Tape 1"0. 1521 ... - 3 MR. :HICKMAN: 100re profolllld !;peeches, can he te.ll us at what point we will know - the House and the mell!bers of the public· - will know whethe-r there is anything about the cause of tnese f:lres, anyth:ing that lllight be related to criminality? .\t what t:oint down the pipe will the public know, or more importantly will action be taken'? How soon is this report fo-rthc011dng'Z How soon will action flow from it! Are we talking hours, days, weeks? That is the real question we are putting to the minister. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. ~nister of Justice. NR. RtCKMAN: Mr.

Speaker, we are most definitely talking abo·ut some time and I base this on the eJ~:perience of every investigation into a serious fire that I ha:'ve SeeJ!:- in eleven years as Attoriley General. Let me say now, and I have a note here that p I " •· l ' I f

May 1, 1978, Tape 1622, Page 1 -- apb Mr. HICKMAN: with respect to th.e Elizabeth Towers the specific cause is unknown. SOME HON. MEMBERS: ')h, oh! MR. HICKMAN: No. no. As of now, because the investigation is ongoing. It is unknown. The same situation prevails with respect to that fire and the other two. PREMIER MOORES : Three. MR. HICKMAN: Well, no. Two plus two, four all told. We have had very serious fires in the City of St. John's in the last forty-eight to seventy­ two hours. What I draw to the attention of this han.

House is that if today, for instance, I stood up and said, With respect to a particular fire the Fire Commissioner has said to me that the cause of the fire was electrical, you know, that the cause of the fire was electrical, or that the cause of the fire was by a pot burning over on the stove and three or four or five weeks or months later, at the conclusion of the fire investigation by the police,they uncovered some action which indicated criminality and a person was charged, then I can tell you my statements that had been on a particular date would come back to haunt me and would not be in the best interest of the investigative process.

All I can assure this House is that cases, investigations into the cause of the fire by the police take a fair amount of time and they are ongoing right now, all of these and any other fires that occur, unfortunately, throughout the Province. The police move in very quickly. We always have a problem with respect to fires, as there seems to be a great anxiety after a fire is over for some other authorities to get in and make the area look most attractive. MR. SIMMONS: (Inaudible) report of the police investigation. -. -. f l

May 1, 1978, Tape 1622, Page 2, -- apb ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that I leave the Chair. MR. NEARY: Before Your Honour leaves the Chair, a point of order, Sir. MR. SPEAKER: A point of order. MR. NEARY: I would like to inform the House, Mr. Speaker, that on tomorrow I will be very happy, more than delighted,to table"for the benefit of hon. gentlemen in this House the documents that were taken from my office yesterday by the R.C.M.P. On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Heading IX, Recreation and Rehabilitation, 901-01. The han. member for Stephenville. MR. MCNEIL: Mr. Chairman, according to the statistic from the first major national survey on Canadian participation in fitness and arnatuer sports which deals with people fourteen years of age and over - this survey was conducted by the Fitness and Amateur Sports Branch of Health and Welfare in Canada - and this report stated that Newfoundlanders rank the lowest of all Canadians in, first of al~ exercise participation and, secondly, sports participation with the exception of one recreational survey of T.V. watching.

Newfoundlanders in that category rank top in all Canada. The national survey also pointed out that Newfoundlanders' sports preference was, first of all, swimming, and ice hockey. Also the report pointed out that 54 per cent of the male population participated as opposed 46 per cent of the female population. Keeping this survey in mind 1 may I ask what our government l i f ! I f. . f !

May 1, 1978, Tape 1622, Page 3 -- apb MR. MCNEIL: is doing to encourage more participation by our people in exercises and sports programmes? I would like to say, ~nd . I

Nay 1, 1978 Tape 1623 DH - 1 l1R. W. ~~NEIL: maybe. it will be in order to congratulate the department in its efforts in· staging the Newfoundland Summer and Winter Games,as well as its efforts in the Canada Summer Games. I think the efforts in that area,which actually deal mainly with the high school segment of our population,! think the efforts in that area a:~ very well indeed.

But I am concerned with the people below that level,for example,the elementary and the primary school children in our school system who are deprived to a great extent in their curricu.cum in receiving any type of physical education activity or recreation. I think that the department has a responsibility to encourage the Department of Education in the different school curriculums for some type of a daily physical education activi~y program in these levels because, as we know, that the child's , life is mostly made up of activity of different sorts which contribute to the development of that child in later life.

I think-that if we had our system going from the primary to elementary to high school level that we would see in the adult programs more participation,and I thin_~ this is why in the national survey that we see very little participation in the adult educational or recreational programs. Last year in the Speech from the Throne it ~~as stated that the government would direct to insure that recreational facilities were fully utilized in the Province.

In my own district we are blessed in many re~ards with a lot of recreational facilites,but in one area,in the area of aquat i cs, we have had a swimming pool whirh was built ; i th the assist~n~P of the RC Parish who ran it for a few years,the Parish ran it by operating a little bar over its facility. It was an older type building,a former airport terminal which they : received at a nominal cost and they renovated it themselves at their own expense. But over the years of pperating they found it quite difficult to maintain it on its own revenue. . l

Ha y 1, 1978 Tape 1623 HR. t~. }!cNEIL: The decision that the board of directors decided at that time was to either extend their bar facilities.,which involved the selling of alcohol and that type related beverages,or to take out the bar facility altogether and fry to encourage - government assistance to operate the swi~ ming pool facility in its entirety. Since that date they have closed down their bar hoping that the govermnent would provide assistance. l'hat is over two years ago.

Today the pool is closed and there is still no governme1;1t involvement in that facilit y _thus depriving the people of Stephenville of any aquatic facility. These and other relateq facili ·ties around the Province ;for example in the area of stad:lums, many comonmities find themselves :lu a position after they get the stadiUJ:l that they have difficulty in op_erating the stadium to its JJaXimum potential.

Prior to the last election h.'lle gove~nt was initiating ·an action program to assist co11111unit;Les that have ntadiwns or swilllllling pools of that natqre. an assist:ant program whereby they could operate the facility at a~maximum capacity. After the election was over the government dropped that program. For ex31!1Ple ,in tbe Stephenville area again with the stacHum,the council found them­ selves in a position whereby it had I ' i

May 1, 1978 Tape 1624 EC - 1 MR. McNEIL: to drop all of its summer type programmes, again, I think, under-utilizing a facility. Now if it is the government's policy to utilize the facilities to the maximum extent, could the minister indicate what approach his department will be taking and if he has any plans in the future to upgrade the progra~me for assistance?

With regard to the swimming pool in Stephenville, I would request the minister,if he could i~dicate to this House if his department is in any negotiations at the municipal level or with the owners of the complex to get in operation again an aquatic programme for this coming summer, and if his department does not have any plans for that facility do they plan to provide any assistance to the munici~ality in providing a new facility? Also another matter I would like to point out is in the area of rehabilitation.

Several years ago, again during election time, the government had stated in its Budget, in its 1974 - 1975 estimates really, that they would be offering $500,000 to renovate a building on the Harmon complex, the building number was 341• as a home for retarded children in the whole Bay St. George area. Since that time the approach to that particular problem was assessed by the department and again, in conjunction with the local people,asked to assess the total need in that area. The reports came back from the community people at that level that they first of all wanted a group home for mentally retarded children.

They outlined a proposed building, they submitted their reports to the government, and again with no further action. A second report was sent from the Bay St. George Association for the Mentally Retarded , I . .

May 1, 1978 Tape 1624 EC - 2 MR. McNEIL: requesting assistance for a work orientated rehabilitation centre for the mentally retarded adult, and again the government failed to assist the local group in their efforts, and bearing in mind they had made a previous commitment of $500,000 to that group for such work with the mentally handicapped. Mr.

Chairman, if it is the intentions of thi~ government, and it seems to be~ like with just prior to elections, new schemes especially in recreation and rehabilitation are announced and immediately after election time then they are dropped, if this is the type of policy we will never advance very far beyond the primary level of the physical education needs in recreation and ~gain for any o~ the basic needs for handicapped people. The submission from the Bay St. George Association for the Mentally Handicapped was again put forward to the department as of November 18th and to this date we have not received any reply.

So the minister in replying, if he could indicate if his department will be progressing with any plans in this area for,first of all, the mentally handicapped people and,secondly, for any recreational groups and facilities in the Bay St. George area. HR. CHAIRMAN: The bon. the member for Ferryland. -.I ! ! ~' I 1 ..

}'ay 1, 1978 Tape 1625 DW - 1 HR. C. POn'ER: ~!r. Chairman, I would like at this .moment to-before I get on I intend to speak again on the rehabilatation side of the Department of Rehabilatation and Recreation, but for these few brief Moments I would like to speak specifically about the recreation programs as we have in our Province,what they hope to do and what they have been doing,and I ~ill give some humble suggestions as to possibly some means of improving that systen in the future.

Before I get on,and I hope it is quite in order,that I would like to congratulate the staff of the recreation part of that portfoliotin particular Don Johnson,who is Assistant Deputy Minister of Recreation,that although he himself is not no great specimen of pure physical endowment,he,•certainly has done everything -in his power as an individual within this Province to improve that department of recreation to make it grow and prosper, and he has done everything in his power to enco~rage other New- foundlanders to get involved in rehabilatation and recreation.

I would also at this moment like to thank and give particular notice to the staff and partici- pants of the Canada Summer Garnes of 1977. I think it is a real shame that within Nellfoundland one of the great feats that took place in 1977 has gone very much unnoticed,that during the Summer Games of 1977 the Newfoundland contingent won an award for the most imoroved provincial te~,that they have improved from the Summer r.ames previously 64 per cent from the Sunmer G~mes irnmerliately previous.

The only other team that had a positive improvement was the team from Quebec~who had a 13 per cent improve~ent.F.very other provincial teams represented in the Canada Summer Games actually had a negative factor and did not in fact improve their medal standing in those games.

So I think it is a ,great accomplishment and sort of an award for the whole department,not only the partici- pants themselves in the Summer Games but for the llhole department of recreation that our atheltes improved that much over a very, very short period of time.And I think it has to go back at least in small parts that recreational progralr.S !:hat llere set up by this .,­:. r

!':ay 1, 1"178 Tape 1625 "P. . C • POWER : government and the moneys that were made available to recreational bodies across this Province. ·Certainly those Summer Games teams should be commended, and it is somewhat of a shame that that one fact that our team improved 64 per cent of the previous games was a little ~it overlooked. I would like to go back for a moment,before I get involved in the actual programs that are no~T involved in recreation, to explain my feelings on recreation and sports and to the value that they have within our Province. I remember the other the member for Trinity - Bay de Verde :Mr. F.

Rowe) mention ; d that it was a bit of a shame that our government only spent or only had allocated $100,000 to combat,I think,drug and alcohol addiction.And I thought that was a very very precise and exact stater.~nt that there is only a $100,000 allocated for drug and alcohol addiction.

But in reality that is money,that $100,000 is spent on trying to cure a problem that is already there.But in reality we as a Province are spending many,many millions of dollars in the prevention of drug and alcohol addiction,because every dollar you spend in recreation,whether it be in parks or wildlife, whether it be in an atheletic program or anything of that nature, every dollar you spend in those leisures based activities is actually a prevention of drug and alcohol addiction 1whic:'l is a severe problem within our Province.And I would like let it be known that we are in effect only spending a S100,000 on the cure, but <Je are spending something like $17 million on the ;:-ravention thro_u~h wildlife,youth services, rec:reation,parks and cultural af~airs.

That $17 million is in ef ~ ct spent to prevent . those very serious problems,especially for our youth,that we have. The problems that we have in f recreation vary from anything from a stadium program where we subsidize electrical rates within stadiums to a cost ot about $30C ,000- and I IIIUS"t just go back for a minute to a stadium because, .L f

lay 1, 1978 Tape 1625 MR. C.

PCt·IER: as the ll!l!mber for Stephenville Of~. ·HcNei1) ll!l!ntioned,stadiums are a very great source of recreation. ~c! the member who stands by the door understandS T11'l feeling towards a stadiUJil is that: our government and the govenunent previ.ous,some- times if no.t discriminated against certain areas certainly did not encourage the building of stadiums because they were too· expensive to build~capital oost,but also because they were too expensive to maintain. \Iorking on the. assumption that a stadiu;m should be pay for itself,my argument is that when it comes to our youth•Hhen we talk of recreation or when we talkc:of school systell1S -that the pay for itself idea is not really·a very credible one;that when you take into accoun!; that a stadiwn,sure,may lo~:;e a few dollars Spending ,money, __ . but the fact that th~ maY produce citizens,atheltes 1 who will work better in indust-ry,who will c01;1tribute more to our communities th;u; tQ.e dollar signs that you put or. the

Hay 1, 1978 Tape 1626 EC - 1 HR. POIVER: loss of a stadium or the few dollars that a statium loses each year, or the few dollars that the government has got to subsidize it is the really important factor. The important factor is the type of individuals and the type of communities that you build, and certainly no one can deny that the value of recreation in this Province proportionately affects the influence and direction that has c~me from recreational programmes of this Province.

In Ferryland district we still have a stadium problem. \Ve do not have the stadium that I have sought for for so long and that many of our citizens have sought for, n~t because this government refuses to give money, but because this government has a programme set up that allows stadiums to be built by municipal governments.

And that is a little bit unfortunate in my area because we have ~any small communities that are not municipally incorporated and,as such, they cannot benefit from that programme. ,, And I, as the member for Ferryland, representing many unincorporated communities, will do everything I can to try to get government to change that policy to allow recreation committees or recreation companies or arena companies to take control for the maintenance and building of an arena.

As such that has not happened, and I can understand government's point that a $1 million venture certainly has got to be taken care of by a very creditable group, and very often companies or committees that get organized piecemeal die by the wayside and they are not as permanent in nature or as stable as a municipal government. Certainly that is one problen that we have

~· May 1, 1978 Tape 1626 EC - 2 MR. POWER: to overcome. But certainly I wantto put to an end that idea that stadium and recreational facilities should pay for themselves, because the real value in those things is like a hospital or a school where the values are long-term and cannot be counted on a very short term. Again, being a young person, I find that most of the recreational programmes that we have are designed for the young.

I think our Department of Recreation and the recently appointed Minister of Recreation is going to do some things to change that around - not necessarily spend great deals of money but there are many, many ways in this Province that we can encourage people to get involved in rec:eational and physical activity programmes without the spending of ~oney; things like cribbage tournaments, chess tournaments, the recreational value oi wildlife, and I might say at this time also that I have suggested in the past and will continue to suggest that the Department of Rehabilitation and Recreation should be changed somewhat so that Rehabilitation is in an area where it belongs, in the medical field, and that Recreation is in a field by itself where you will have things like recreation.

And the minister may not be overly enthused about the idea, but I think that the government should actually have a ~epartment of Recreation that takes into account things like youth services, wildlife, parks and cultural affairs- all under one department rather than separated,with wildlife being in Tourism, for instance. Wildlife is one of our prime recreational sources, but it is involved in a department that is not primarily associated with recreation. You take Rehabilitation.is in with Recreation . r t - t r .

Hay 1, 1978 Tape 1626 EC - 3 HR. POWER: and really has very little to do with the actual recreational field, and I honestly think there would be a little bit more efficient use of our money if we put it together so that we have all our recreational facilities together. And I suggest recreation, youth services, wildlife in particular, parks and possibly cultural affairs under one heading, one department. And then have rehabilitation and health and programmes like that that fit together.

Again, I have to say, in the area of recreational facilities, our Province has a great deal of them in the form of school gymnasiums that are almost never used by the~pulation of this country. Almost every school gymnasium in this Province, especially in rural Newfoundland,is closed at 3:30 in the afternoons, AN RON. ME:HBER: No. MR. POI-TER: Not in your district but in mine. And in many other districts they are closed at 3:30P.M., they are not open on weekends, they are not available to the public, the adult public who pay school taxes and who pay the general taxes to build and maintain schools.

In some districts it may not be a problem; in mine and in many rural districts it is a very severe problem. And I think that our Department of Recreation combined with our Department of Education are going to have to get their heads together on this problem to find some way, either through so~e kind of recreational grant as they do in Alberta where they have a programme where grants are actually given to municipal governments and then used for school hiring of gymnasiums and the recreational facilities that are involved in our major high schools around this Province. ~ I! .. I~ . t t-• -~-.. •

Nay 1, 1978 Tape 1626 EC - 4 m. P.OHER: I th~nk we, as a very poor province ~n newfoundland of a little over a half million people c~nnot afford to build a large facility simply for playing basketball or playing floor hockey or swimming; you have to build a facility that can be used by all aspects and all parts of the public, used by everyone. And I think this is a case here where the Department of Recreation and the Department of Education have simply got to get their goals toge t her for the good of all of the community, not just one part, whether it be the school part or the adult part, but for everyone's good. ' ,: -, I' -.i ~ I

}fay 1, 1978 Tape ~o. 1627 NM- 1 HR. C.

POWER: With those suggestions that I have, again in recreation-and the member who spoke previous to me says that we may· not be doing enough to encourage people to get involved, But in our government this year we are spending, and we as a government do not have all the money we might like to have, but 1ve are spending close to $6 million, or well over $5 million this year in actual recreation programmes alone, capital cost and keeping things going, that $5 million can go from an arena programme to where I can get $5,000 to complete a Calvert softball field, or I can get $2,000 as a grant to maybe help out a mobile swimming pool, or something like that, or where we can get $1,~00 to run off a minor hockey programme as we did last year.

Those types of things, they are not Come By Chances, they are not Labrador Linerboards, they are not the $300 million that you are spending in Education, but every dollar you spend in recreation has a really great value, a value that it encourages our young people to get involved, to understand that competition is valuable, that you do not always win, hopefully r do not always lose, to understand that what you get from recreation ,. is a feeling, an attitude, an attitude that helps you become invol ved t in the Province more fully, an attitude that helps you become a better citizen and contribute more fully to the Province in whatever field of endeavour you may join.

As I say, I have other things to get into about the Department of Rehabilitation, which I have some ideas about, and an idea which I 1vas very closely associated with a few .. years ago, but again I would like for members to remember those things. The greater and more functional use of our school gymnasiums; maybe,on a government's vie~Vpoint,a little bit more of a reorganized Department of Recreation which takes in . ! the recreational aspects, the leisure based t·onies that our Province is spending and put it under one department; and the fact that money spent in recreation is not lost. It is not money that

:·lay 1, 1978 Tape ~o. 1627 ID! - 2 MR. C. POWER: you can get back toEDrrow. It is not an investment dollar where you can say, I am going to make ten per cent on today, but they are long-term dollars, spent primarily on the youth of our Province and for the sake of the future of our Province, which I think are dollars that are certainly well spent. Thank you, !fr. Chairman. HR. CHAIR"!A.l(!: Order, please: If the hon. member will permit me one moment. Ron. members of the Committee will be rlessed to note that ~7e have twenty-three young ladies visiting us today. These are girls from the St.

Pius Tenth Girls' School and they comprlse the Sixty-seventh Brownie Pack. They are accompanied by their teachers, Hiss Noreen Duff, Claudia "'Connor, and Eleanor Dominic and I am sure hon. members would wish to give them a hearty welcome. smm RON. '·!E!IDERS: Hear, hear! ~!R. CHAIRl1AN: The hon. Minister of Rehabilitation and Recreation. MR. RICKEY: Thank you, i1r. Chairman. I would like to thank my han. friend from Windsor - Buchans (Hr. Flight) for yielding. I will not delay the Committee very long. I do want to answer s c;me of the questions at least that have been raised before they slip my mind.

First of all in relation to the point made by my hen. friend from Trinity - Bay de Verde U1r. F. Rowe) with regards to alcohol and drug addiction, I want to simply point out to him a couple of things which I am not sure he is aware of, I certainly cannot disagree with him when he says that more money is required. I think it is fair to say that at least at this particular time there is an unlimited amount of money required to develop a programme - to adequately fight that particular problem. I do not think anyone quarrels with that.

We have the problem,of course,of revenue, limited revenue and we have to split it up the best way we can. I want to tell ~y hen. friend that this is indeed a historic day insofar as his comments were concerned the other day i n connection with alcoholisw and drug addiction, bLt ·l ;I ! r

~ !a.y 1, 19 77 Tape :o. 1627 HR. lUCKEY: especially alcoholi.s111 ~and that is because of the fact that just a little more than an hour a go the detolca.tion centre on Deanery Avenue, off Patrick S·tteet was officially opened. unfortunately I .c,ould no