VOL. PRELIMINARY UNEDITED TRANSCRIPT HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR THE PERIOD: 2:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. MONDAY, MAY 29, 1978 :m. iO

:-Iay 29, 1978 Tape 3592 EC - 1 The House met at 2:00 P.~[. ~r. Speaker in the Chair. :·!R. SPEAKER: Order, please! Before calling the routine orders, I will give han. members my decision on the matter on which ! heard argument Friday and informed hon. members that I ~auld ! would give my decision today. I will preface it by saying that it is the most difficult matter on which I have had to decide during the three years I have been in the Chair, much more difficult than other matters which were quite controversial and not without complexity, but this the most difficult one.

The matter on which a decision rests was formally and technically put forward under a submission on privilege, and argument was heard from two han. gentlemen to my left, and two han. gentlemen to my right, at that time. Substantively, the matter to be decided is in effect the following, and although there are two ~ays of putting it, it comes to the same thing. One way of putting it is: does an bon. member have a right to table the tape of a telephone conversation and transcript thereof involving another han. member, without that other hon. member's permission?

Another way of putting it is: does an han. member have a right to require that his telephone conversations remain private? Because the decision I give will decide, in this instance, those two matters, they are two sides of one coin or two aspects of one question. I should say :hat I am not aware of any situations which might be regarded as precedents in this House, in the Canadian House of Commons or in British practice. Beauchesne,

section 159, subsection (3), ~.,.hich 1 ID l

Xay 29, 1978 Tape 3592 EC - 2 1-!R. SPEAKER: I will not read, deals essentially with the question of when documents must be tabled. We are now in a situation where I have to make a decision on whether certain documents may be tabled. That is what this decision is. The decision is not that at this ti~e certain documents must be tabled, but whether certain documents may be tabled. And that is where I find paragraph (3) of 3eauchesne,

section 159, of no guidance to me. In my opinion there are two rights involved, two rights of members. There is the ripht of freedom of speech which every hon. member has. It is not absolute, no right is. There are limitations; a reflection on the royal family, matters sub judice, unparliamentary expressions, and, obviously, that members are responsible for what they say. There is also the right of a member to privacy of communication with respect to his letters or correspondence in that sense, and with respect to telephone conversations.

In the submissions put forward on Friday. there were two areas on l-lhich I t.till not comment and I think I should point out why because the submissions were at some length and reasoned. There ware submissions which were of a political nature dealing with Mr. Davidson, his alleged or possible relationships with others, alleged wrongdoing with respect to party financing, etc. I regard all ~f those matters as political and not matters on which my decision is involved.

There were also submission with respect to the Criminal Code, the possibility of criminality involved in the procurement or use of this material, and the rules of evidence, the adoissability of evidence, with reference to the hearsay rules and possible breaches of other statutes.

May 29, 1978 Tape 359J EC - 1 MR. SPEAKER: I have to say as well that I will not deal with those matters. I do not have the authority to deal with those matters. These are matters which must be decided, if they are to be decided, in another forum. These are matters on which a court could, and has the jurisdiction to make decisions, not the Bouse. What I have to apply, therefore, is not the political considerations and not the legal considerations in the sense of matters reserved for decision in court, but a very specific area of law, if one wishes, what May calls the law and custom of Parliament.

That is ~hat I am limited to, and that is what is applicable here. Now I refer to tuo rights, the right of freedom of speech and the right of a member to privacy of communication, In my opinion, it is not possible in this instance to reconcile those rights. As I said, I have no direct precedents on which to go. I obviously cannot say, 'Well, there is no precedent, I will not make a decision.' I cannot say that, for I would be abdicating the responsibility of the House. The decision has to be made, What I have to do, since I cannot reconcile the rights, is to use the general principles to this specific instance.

I have to establish a hierarchy of those rights. Since I cannot reconcile them, then I have to establish a hierarchy. They cannot both be fully operative in this instance. If I am to give a decision, these two rights cannot be fully operative, cannot be reconciled, so there has to be a subordination of one to the other or a priority of one to the other. In establishing that all I can do is go to general principles. I do not intend to read

Tape 3593 EC - 2 ~~lR. SPEAKER: them at length, but ! ~ill make two brief references to them, and it is these general principles that I apply. Beauchesne, page 110: ''Freedom of speech is a sacred principle and if there is a place where it should be fully respected that place is the Parliament of the nation, and it is the Speaker's responsibility to see that this principle is not infringed upon.•: The expression, "Parliament of the nation" also refers that to Parliament of the province. I not only assume, I am sure that that that principle applies here likewise.

Similarly, in ~ay, page 73, I make two brief quotations: ''Freedom of speech is a privilege essential to every free council or Legislature.'' And further on: ''There could be no assured government by the people or any part of the people unless their representatives had unquestioned possession of this privilege. 11 Applying this general principle of the law of Parliament as I understand it, and given the necessity of establishing a hierarchy, then I give the weight in respect of those two rights, I give the priority to the freedom of speech.

In saying that I think I should point out, as is obvious, that this is not licence, this is freedom. I would refer just briefly to a decision of Xr. Speaker ~ichener which I quoted earlier in a different context, the source being Hansard, House of Commons, Ottawa, April 9, 1969, a different context but it is the principle and the corollary, I think, to the principle of freedom of speech to which I have given priority in this instance, and I will quote it briefly: 11 ! indicated that I did not

Hay 29, 1978 Tape 3593 EC - 3 >!R, SPEAKER: think a matter of privilege would arise unless he were prepared to assert on his own responsibility that the House had been deliberately misinformed by the minister, thereby imputing some impropriety or improper conduct to the cinister which would raise a question of the privilege of the Douse.'' The point I wish to make is that having given priority to freedom of speech, obviously there is a concomitant responsibility on the han. member with respect to its use. In short , my decision is that the documents may be tabled.

May 29, 1978 MR. WELLS: MR. SPEAKER: !1R. WELLS: on that matter, Tape No. 3594 A point of privilege. A ooint of privilege. Since !-fr.

Speaker ~as made his ruling I would ask that as these conversations have not been seen or not been shown to me, these ~lleged tapes of conversation that Your Honour has ruled may be tabled - they have been referred to in debate in this House on several occasions, the west recent which was last Thursday and again on FridaY when these ooints were ar~ued - I would ask Your Honour that these be tabled forthwith and !-i'M - 1 that I, on the point of privilege,then be enabled to examine them as soon as they are tabled and to read them and to comment upon them to this House. SOME HON. MEMllERS: ~~: MR.

NEARY: Hear, hear! The bon. member for LaPoile. Your Honour knows I indicated to the House the other day, Sir, that these matters were under investigation by the police and I assured the RCMP that I vould not table any future documents without consulting with the RCMP. The documents have not bee QUOted from, as my bon. friend knows. Therefore I am under no obligation, Sir, and neither is my friend, the member for Burgee - Bay d'Eapoir (Mr. Simmons) to table the documents at this particular time. And I think it would be improper for the han. gentleman to try to enforce that, because as the bon.

Minister of Justice has so rightly pointed out sa often in this House, that we must be careful about tabling documents about matters that are under investigation because it could inpede the progress of the investigation. The bon, Minister of Justice I believe subscribes to that principle, when the police are im•estigating a matter or matters that it is far better to let them proceed on their own course and before, at least I would, Sir, table the documents, I think I would have to clear through them in all justice because I have already agreed that I would not table any more documents without 1~15

May 29, 1978 Tape No. 3594 };"M - 2 MR. NEARY: clearing it with the RCMP and t am sure my han. friend YOuld not wish me to do that. But if the hen. gentleman wants to see the document, Sir, I would consider showing the han. gentleman the document. It does not necessarily mean that I am going to do it privately. I may consider it. MR. WELLS: Mr. Spe~er, a point of privilege. MR. SPEAKJ!R: The hen. member for Kilbride. MR. WELLS: I do not want to see the document privately. I want nothing! :·J'hatcver :tc~.s to be done now I suggest, Your Honour, be done in this House publicly.

If the bon. gentleman does not propose to table them I would ask him to provide a copy to me and I will have a press conference this afternoon and read them to the press and deal with it that way. If he refuses to do that, Mr. Speaker, I can only say that I will go to the RCMP and use whatever leg~l or other means are open to me to get a copy from them, or to get from them an assurance that they have finished with this particular transcript or tape of my conversation, if such it is, in the investigation, and then come back to this House and ask again that they be tabled and dealt vith. MR.

SPEAKJ!R: The bon. member for Burgeo-Bay d'Espoir. MR. Sll!MONS: There is one other aspect, Mr. Speaker, I think needs to be commented on before you make a ruling, The original request from the member for Kilbride (Mr. Wells) a moment ago in raising his point of privilege, was that the document• be tabled. My colleague from LaPoile (Mr. Neary) has commented on one aspect but there is another aso~ct and that is that except in those cases where a document is directly quoted from, and therefore Hr.

Speaker would require that the document be tabled because of the document having been quoted, which is not the case here, !ir. Soeak.er, and I submit that it is some~hat of a hYPothetiral request from the member for Kilhride (Mr. Wells) in that it is my understandina that Mr. Speaker cannot order a request that a ~ember table any particular /J I

May 29, 1978 Tape No. 3594 NM - 3 MR. SIMMONS ; document except for the kind of cause I have mentioned, where a document has been quoted from. In the normal course of events it wuld be my underst.andinp; that !ir. Speaker, or the House, cannot order a member to table a given document. ~· SPEAKER: As the matter is at this moment. the operative effect of my decision was that the documents may be tabled. The matter now raised is whether they must be tabled, That is a ~~tter to which I would have to give some consideration. That is a separate matter and if the~e are any ocher submissions I will hear them.

If not, I shall have co consider that because it is a somewhat separate matter. MR. SPEAKER: The han. member for Kilbride. MR. w'EJ.LS: There is one brief submission I would make and that is /}

:!ay 29, 197B ':ape 3595 EC - !. ;-1R. HEllS: for approximately three weeks now 1 to the best of ny recollection, this has been referred to. I cannot renenber if anything has bean quoted out of it, but ~t least it has been referred to in the House and Your Honour is aware of these references. And one ~ecber particularly, the ~enber for LaPoile (~lr. ~eary) has on occasion got up with what purports to be a transcript and gone to another cecber and said, 'Look, read this,' - the ttettber for Burgee - Bay d'Espoir (Er. Simnons). Now this, in tty view, ~r.

Speaker, is playing a game in the House, so that I would ask Your Honour to bear in ~!nd that the person a~out whose conversations this is, which is me in this case, has not had the opportunity of seeing what is there. We do not know what is there. It is almost like a Kafkaesque trial where you do not know what the charge is or anything like that, but something is being constantly referred to but then in the end, not produced. So I would ask Your Honour to bear that in mind in considerin~ the rights and privileges ~hen Your Honour is making a rtecision. ~!L H. !T. ROHE: }!r. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKE"t: The han. the Le~der of the Opposition. MR. ':.)'. N. RO'HE: I have not been in the House on all occasions when the documents have been referred to. I have been in the Rouse on several occasions and have read press reports and so on, Sir, but it is my submission that in my experience in this matter there has been no direct quotation from this document, and therefore. Sir. there is no requirement that the document be tabled, no requirement that ~our Honour force any member who has

Tape 3595 :::c - 2 ~rR. rJ. ~. ROPE: quoted from a document to table this document, point number one, Sir, and that principle has to be rigidly adhered to, I would submit, Your Honour. Secondly, Sir, we have no objection co tabling the document if, after ::;y hon. friend here clears it with the :tC:!P,as we undertook to do and as I jointly with him undertook, Sir, some weeks ago to do with regard to all documents concerning the so-called Scrivener affair 1 fir, once we have cleared it with the RClW that it is not going to impede their investigation in any way or in any form.

So we have no objection to tabling the documents if the hon. member demands that they so be tabled, even though they have not been directly quoted from.

But, Sir, in doing so, if the han. :nember insists that these documents be tabled and we, as a matter of courtesy, table them to oblige him in a matter of courtesy, then, Sir, he has to realize that there is no way that any member of the Bouse who may have these documents in his possession and therefore tables them as a result of this request, there is no way, Sir, that that member can, of course, stand behind the validity or truth or otherwise of those docucents. HR. !IC.\RY: That is right. HR. H. :-1.

ROHl!: But, Sir, with that proviso and with that consideration in mind and that condition in minC, we would gladly give the han. member a copy of it, Sir, today for that matter, and when it is cleared with the police we will table the documents. this matter up, :tr. Speaker. We have no desire to cover t:e will table them, but there has to be that proviso and that condition attached to it, because we would be doing it, Sir, purely as a matter of courtesy t:o the han. meober. ;~P. • !11 C !GlAli: :-m. SPEAKER: :-:r. Speaker. The hon. the. ~linister of Justice. !

:!ay :!9, 1978 Tape 3595 EC - 3 :IR. HIC!:HAH: ':le seem to be getting into a ~uch broader sphere now than just the conpulsory tabling of a document. The proviso that the han. the Leader of the Opposition seeks to impose I would find unacceptable because there is a fundamental principle - AN HO~f.

HEmlER: ~m. ii!GK!!AN: (Inaudible) ~o, but the second principle that has been raised by the bon. the Leader of the Opposition The most fundamental principle of all next to the freedom of speech is that if an han. gentleman tables any document in this 9ouse, he or she stands unequivocally behind the truthfulness of every ~ord contained therei~. And if it is subsequently discovered that that person has been misled unwittingly, that is still not a defence. So that proviso, in my opinion, would not be an acceptable qualification to add to the tabling of any document, ~tr. Speaker.

And the other thing, as I mentioned here on Friday; if a document that is t~blcd contains unparliamentary language ~hich would not be acceptable and which would be in breach of the rules if said by an hon. gentleman, again the same rules prevail and apply to the document that is tabled. ~m. !'... ~JELLS: ~fP.. SPEAKER: ~!R. R. HELLS: If I oay, ~r. Spenkcr. The hen. the member for Kilbride. From what the Attorney General has said, yes, if the documents are tabled, I expect the hon. member tabling them to stand behind them, stand be!lind the ::ruth of them. This is fundamental.

Because, ,as I understand, what the Leader of the Opposition has said is that when they are tabled, well, that is all right, we tabled them, but we do not stand behind them. And as the han. the Attorney Gener.'ll says, that is fundamental that when it is tabled it is stood behind.

Xay 29, 1978 Tape ~0 , 3596 NM • 1 MR. WELLS: I can say this much, that ~hen they are tabled, Mr. Speaker, I ~ll ask that they be referred to the Committee of Privileges and Elections so that they can be enquired into and examined into. and I expect them to be stood behind. l!R. SPEAKER! MR. NEARY: The hon. member for LaPoile. The han. gentleman, Sir, cannot have his cake and eat it too. The bon, Speaker and bon. members of the House know that we have been pushing for a public enquiry into the Scrivener affair for a lonR time.

Now we could slap these documents on the table of the House anytime we wanted to if ~e wanted to be irresponsible and malicious. But we have not done that, Sir. We are trying to pre~s the goverr~ent into public enquiry, at vhich time ~tnesses could be called,as Your Honour knows, before a Select Committee of the House, before the House resolving itself into a Committee of the Whole, Following which we could use this documentation to cross examine witnesses that could be brought before the House. It is about time, Mr.

Speaker, that this House started to run its own affairs, and not as the Minister of Justice has so often done, pawned off things that have been raised in this House on lover courts, on courts below the Bouse of Assembly,which is the Supreme Court of this land. And if we do that, Sir, then the documentation could be very easily put on the table of the House.

The gentleman on the other end of the conversation could be brought in before the Bar of the House, could be questioned by my han. friend as to why he taped the conversation Was it for his own protection]-las it for any other reasoni The Premier could do the same thing, the Minister of Justice. We could have witnesses before a Select Committee of the House, the transcript itself and the tape. I do not have the tape here but the tape could be laid on the table of the House, or present it to a Select Committee of the House. So, Mr. Speaker, the han. gentleman cannot

May 29, 1978 Tape !io. 3596 MIL NEARY: have it both ways, Sir. We have no objection, as my bon. colleague said, of tabling the transcript and the tape, the tape which goes with the transcript, to backup the transcript, and then bring witnesses into the P~use, because obviously, Sir, I was not on the other end of that conversation. I did not intercept the conversation and the only thing I can do in order to validate the authenticity of the tape and the conversation is to have the gentleman who was on the other end brought before this House.

And I am sure my han. friend would not object to that if he wanred t" ~et at the truth. MR. SPEAKEJS MR. HIC!O'.AN: The bon. member for Grand Bank. Pr. Speaker, if I may make but one comment in response to what the han. gentleman from LaPoile (Mr. Nearv} has said: Let us make this abundantly clear, Mr. Sneaker, that when the bon. gentleman from LaPoile (Mr. Neary} tables it, he does, whether he has the opportunity to cross examine Mr. Davidson or not, he does vouch for the authenticity of what is there - MR. NEARY: Do not be so foolish! MR. HICKMAN: - when he tables it.

Secondly, and this is subject to my checking ~ith Hansard, but I feel reasonably cer~ain that upon checking with Hansard, one ~ill find that when this matter was first raised and the affidavits tabled, that the Opposition asked fnr a ~alice investigation.

And vhen I made a statement a couple of days later sayin~ that I had directed there be a police investigation following consultation with my departmentrofficials, that it was a matter that fell within that scope of activity, I feel quite certain, but I say this without checking Hansard, that the bon. the Leader of the opposition got up and commended me, or the government, for the action that was bein2 taken and said this i~ the kind of procedure that we feel should be implemented in this case. (] {

• May 29, 1978 Tape ~io. 3596 UM - 3 !{R. NEARY: He could get the Public Enquiry or a select committee. We have been trying for two and a half years for that, MR. SPEAKER: MR. HARSHALL: The han. member for St. John's East. Mr. Speaker, I just ri•e to make a few comments and one of the comments on vhat the member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) had stated the Attorney General has already pointed out to the House, I think it is a basic principle that ~e all have to comply with, that if anything is tabled in this House, that the tabler stands behind the truth of the matter and the member for LaPoile (Mr.

Neary) as ! understood it, indicated that he could not verify the truth of it unless the person was here before the House. MR. NEARY: MR. !-!ARSHALL: No. No. I did not say that. Well~! misunderstood then. Because obviously the fact of the matter is before anyone dares to table anythin~ in the House ur make a statement there, they stand behind the truth of the statement alleged. The only other thing I wuld say, Mr. Speaker, is that the document, as I understood it, as ! heard, the document in question was referr.ed to.

The hon. member for Kilbride rose oo an immediate point of privilege at that particular time and having been referred to, I think unless it is found to be in the matter of public interest that it not be tabled, that it so has to be tabled. MR. SPEAKER: Hen. members will recall that the decision I made at the beginning of this afternoon's session was that the material in question may be tabled. 1

'!ay 29, 1978 Tape 3597 EC - 1 ~-!R. SPEAKER: The point has now come up vhether it now must be tabled. That is a matter on ~hich I shall have to have some checking done as to questions of fact to see Yhether it must be tabled, but in so doing the decision will only be that it must, or that there is no need that it be. I Yill certainly not be making further reference to what what bon. aembers have referred to as a proviso.

Han. members are responsible for ~hat they put into the possession of the House whether in a speech, in a tabled document,in a petition, whatever, and that is an al~ays operative principle ~hich accompanies freedom of speech. So that is operative and cannot be, in my opinion, in the Rouse of ~ssembly, negotiated out, because tllat would go to the very root of parliamentary responsibility. can be negotiated out.

So I do not think that The other question o~ which I will give a decision is ~hether when the decision is given that the documentation must then be tabled or whether there is no requirement that it be tabled at that tine. So I t7ill give my decision on that as soon as I can. A!TSHERS TO QUESTIONS FOR HHICH N"OT!CE HAS SEE:: GIVE~! ~!:<.. SPEAKE?. : ~!R. H. COLLI:iS: The han. the :Iinister of Eealth. ~r. Speaker, ! have the answers to some questions asked in the name of the hon. the member for LaPoile (~r. ~eary). The answer to Question ~os. 49, 1, J, 4, 19, 62, 2, 82, 63, 61, 40, 17, 16, 5, n.nd 75.

That must be about 75 per cent, ~r. Speaker, of the questions asked.

~:ay 29, 1973 Tape 3597 EC - 2 A:I HOH. ME!!IlER: A bad performance. ~~R. NEARY: A lit~le better - not quite good enough yet. ~m. SPEAKER: The han. the ~inister of Consumer Affairs and Environment. !!R. XURPHY: Xr. Speaker, this is in answer to a question by the hon. the ~Cl3ber for gindsor - nuchans (~r.

Flight) asked me on 'riday with reference to the lead contamination of the Exploits River, and this is a tabulation of the past seven years, the anount of lead in the river as compared to Canadian standards - the year 1971, fifteen parts per billion and the Canadian standard is fifty- that is JO per cent; 1972, five- that is 10 per cent; 1973, seven -14 per cent; 1974, seven- 14 per cent; 1977, four parts per billion - that is 8 ~er cent; July 4, 1977 less than two parts per billion which is less than 4 per cent of the allowable, if you like, 50 per cent which is the permissible in drinking water of the inland waters of the federal government.

ORAL QUESTIONS ~R. SPEAKER: The bon. the Leader of the Opposition. !!R. W. M. ROWE: If the !!inister of Justice has come in, ~r. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to hi~. !!r. Speaker, by way of

preamble to the question, there has been now a nuaber of serious fires in the Province, particularly in the area of St. John's. Elizabeth Towers had a serious fire some weeks ago,and there was fire which burned down a building or two there at the botton of Sisnal Hill Road,and a hryuse in St. John's the same day or the day after burned with a number of deaths involved, a school in Ferryland district a day or tYo a3o, Sir, /) / i

1978 '!.'ape 3597 EC - 3 a church in St. John's burned down, two more houses, Sir, this corning, with sooe serious injuries and certainly the risk a! very,

RT-1 ••n. 1 '. "'O~<'E: --·----- ve~; serious injuries if not death. !1R. ~EARY: The St. Bride's School. The St. Bride 1 s School as vell, !!r. Speaker. It has nov reached the point tJhere any reasonable man :::ust ask the han. ~"inister of Justice if his e:t;pert advisors suspect there may be a lunatic on the lanse, if there is any suspected arson in all of these or any of these serious fires, :;ir. "P SPEA.l\EP: Hnn. ~rinister of Justice. ~rr.

Speaker. nothing has come to my attention fron etther the Prosecutorial Division of the Department, or from the Fire Comt:lissioner, vhich '.muld indicate to r:te that there is any arson.'ist on the loose. That is in anst·:er to the general questicn, I •,>auld repeat that bec~use the last I ·~auld want anyone in ':iewfoundland to believe when it is not factual that there is an arsonist on the loose.

That ~vould be totally irresponsible of me to allou, and I hope it ~uld not happen. t·.'ith respect to the fires ,r went into some detail here recently with respect to the procedure that is follm-;ed 1Jhenever there is a fire. Let ree first deal t.Tith the Sit:! of St. John's. Because of the ne~J rules ~.,.hich 1.,.ere implereented tt.:o or three years A.go ~y the then fire CoMmissioner at the request of my Department, nnd in pctrticulnr the Director of Publ.1c Prosecutions, 1:henever a fire occurs tn St.

John's now, when the alarm goes in the fire station the C.I.D. division of the ~!eufoundland Constabulary are i;r.mediately· nlerteC and they imnediately go to the fire. Obviously, if it is a ::itchen Hre, or that sort of thing, they do not botl:er to spend very much time at it. The reason for it is very obvious that what t-~e •.:rere finding was that if you left the investigation of fires to the ~ornal procedure, particularly when a building has been destroyed or substantially damaged that the :1unicipal authorities, not just in

"3Y 29, 197R Tape ~:o. 3598 'fP. A. !!In1'fS: St. John's but in any rr.unicipality, have an obligation to clear up that debris as quickly as possible, and in the exercise of their responsiblity they ·.:auld do that sor.:etimes within a day or so after a fire occurred. Then, when the C. I.

D., or the R.c.~:.P., and they both have officers skilled in the investigation of arson, t..•ent in looking to try to ascertain the cause of the fire, the evidence had all been disturbed and they •·ere lookin~ at a nice, level piece of !!round, So that :'aS all he en overcome, :;ith respect to the fires in 0uestion, T checked ~.>ith the f.li.rector of Public Prosecutions as late as Friday past and asked o;rhether he has received the police report on a.ny of these fires that the hen.

Leader of the npposition had referred to, and the answer ~·rc.s "~:o, not o1.s of Fridav'', '~ow I did a ched· uHh him a[:!ain this :nornin;::! and I asl~ed tf he had any i.dea of the status of the investigation~<md he informed !:1e that the procedure that is followed in all of these investigations and whatever materials are taken by the Fire Commissioner's office that they consider to be relevant to their investigation and/or by the police, that they are then sent to the P.C.V.P. laboratory in Sackville for analysis, and that reo:port comes ~ack.

But it is not until the total package is complete-and the Fire Commissioner's report goes to the police, and the police attach the Fire Commissioner's report as an appendix to their report to the Director of Public Prosecutions­ when the Pirector of Public Prosecutions receives the report, he does one of tuo things: If the report indicates strong evidence cf criminality, obviously charges are laid; if, on the other hand, ,,1hich is so frequently the case in fires, the Fire Commissioner and/or the Police sav, 1 cause of the fire unknot.m 1 , if it is at all a major Hre the !Hrector of Public Prosecutions has the autl:ority under t!:-:e ,~_ct as ar::ended just t':m or three years ago to direct a fire enquiry by a magistrate.

The purpose for that fire enquiry is not really to determine the cause of the fire but it does mean that the ~ritnesses t,:ho were exnmined by tbe Police,t.,ho •,:ere nO:: under oath when exn:nined,

"av :;n, 1978 Tape ~:c. 3598 ure then put under oath, and at least you have the satisfaction of i:nowing they have been examined by a magistrate and sometimes hy 3 crown prosecutor. So, in these cases, as t say, as of Fr~.day the reports uere 'I

:.w.y 29, l97G '.::'J.pe ::o. 3599 .>.or: in but they arc all being investigated. And if t:l;e cause of r:.tB fira is obvious, if the fire conmissioner says f.:J.ult:.y wiring file closed. :1R. SPE..\l(ER: HR. W'.:L i?.OtiE: A supplementary please, Sir, on this. A supplementary. I •,.;ill start wit~t che first of this rectnt state of fairly disasterous fires, Sir, the one in Elizabeth Towers. Did I understand from t:w ::1inister correctly t:tat he has received no report preliminary or ot~w:rwise on the possible cause of ::::·us fire? Is ::::tat correct? T~~t is correct, Mr. Speaker. :·tr.

Speaker, has he or !lis department received any oral report or any indication from ~tis expert advisors, includinG tne Fire Commissioner or people L~volved in the police force as to possible or probable cause of the fire? }!R, SPEAKER: The hon. minister. :IR. HICiafA.:~: Hr. Speaker, the only -report- and I say, I have not received a report.

I have not received a report on the status of the fire but han. gentletten w-ill recall th.:tt immediately following :hese flres and tHO of tuem occurred on Wednesday, April 26th, that was tvhen they st.arteJ,and there was another one on April 28th that I asked for ;.md .:1nother one on April 29t;l. ! askeU for a report then and I \...new that they could not, no-one could tell oe or it was unlikely they could tell tile cause of the fire.

I indicated to the house at th<J.t tioe t!'.nt I had been advised that the - Let us take first Elizabeth Towers, the big concern il:l!nediately following the fire in Elizabetit Towers,as bon. gentlemen lc1ow,was the question of securit:y ani the fire precautions und regulations and fire safety· progra.'":ltle tlut \;as being followeJ in that institution that withjn a matter of t• .. ;cnty-four hours the Fire Commissioner had net with the St.

Joim. 1 s Housing Cor?oration and laid ci.ot..n fire protection ;;lethods anJ security to be followed forthwith ::l::hi told me tha:: the board said they would L-:1plei:Jent then '.-:ititout delay and 11 0

J~-! - 2 ~JR.HICY.?:-L\li: consequent.ly he did not have to furnish an order or serve an order upon tha:t. T.ut is t~H! only report I luve received on Elizabeth Towers which I iuve passed on to this House. On the others it is ouch the same but with respect to one of then that sace day there vas an indication as to what th.::y tuoughc: ::~ay have been the cause of tile fire but obviously l would be uuch more prudent: to ""ait uncil the report comes in anci zivas a fin;. i.."'ldication as ::.o <,;hat caused the fire.

I repeal: that if the Fire Commissioner and ti1t:: pvlic.e say the cause of the fire was f.:1ulty 'Wirin6 - :IR. ;iEARY: ~IR. HICKa,~ .. 'r. :1R. ::EARY: the House.. :-m •• HICY:-!A:i: :TR.. :lEARY: dR. H!C~-L-1::1: :·IR. NEARY: liave ti1ey said that in the case of Elizabeth Tm:ers? ~lo 1 they have not said anything. :1o, but the ninistcr is leaving tbe '.o.-Tong L--:lpression with No, I a:n not trying to. ~:ay I repeat­ That is a for instance. For instance. That is a for inst.lnce the hon. minister w.1s - Hr.

Speaker, I vas setting forth verl clearly to this U:ouse as t:le request of the i1on. t:le Leader of c:1e Opposition clu; proc~:::euures titat ;1re followed - :!R. HICK:-L\::1: ::J.-t. :t:t::.l..-~Y: :-Ez. :irc::-:.t,.::: It is aot ~ ~ucstion of proving arson. If the evidence c,::J.t. :>~ere bas be:en a crin:irul act then tne Director of PuLL!.c Prosecutions will lay ~ char;c without reference to anyone,or what<:!ver prosecutor is assiGn~c that particular case. !{ti.. NE.\itY : iiithout reference :o !::te ninizt.:r?

He never cco.es to me, I repeat, I want to keep it that way and the han. gencle=an the Leader of the Cpposition,if he will refer to the Steele Commission Report where he deals with Crow-n prosecutors 11 I

:1ay 29,1970 Tape ::;o, 3599 will recall that the Steele Commission Repcrt recomcended that we could give consideration here to virtually giving Cro~n prosecutors almost the same independence as judiciary. That is what I was dealing with but I said on the other ~and if the Crown Prosecutor comes to the conclusion that whilst the police have acquired all of the evidence that they can acquire and that it is desirable tbat the same witnesses be placed under oath and appear before a magistrate or if it is a serious fire :lR, ~lEARY: But that is ~ kind of a stall,is it not? :m. UICKHA:i: :{a, no, no, :'lr. Speaker.

Let me give this House an exacple. Han. gentleman will recall two years ago or three years ago there was a lot apprehension and concern in the Province over a large number of fires in nightclubs that occured during a specific period of ti:·:te. All of these investigations had been completed and in some of them the cause of ti.1e fire ;.;as readily identified and in others the report was cause unknown. I directed the Director of Public Prosecutions to order Hagisterial Enquiries into all of these fires as an added investigative process, which he did. They were all held but t.hey did /;!, /

~!.ay 29, 1978 Tape 3600 EC - 1 MR. HI CKHA!T: not turn up any additional evidence, but at least we were secure in the knowledge that ~e had exhausted every avenue - !!R. !!EARY: A nagisterial inquiry has not been ordered into any of these - ~o, because none of the reports have been r~ceived yet, ~r. S?eaker. !!P. • !! F.:AR Y : !!R. HICKHA!T: All right.

And I add, because I know that the comment from the hon. gentleman from LaPoile (~r. ~eary) ~:ho ::as saying that ~y conrnents on where the cause of the fire is identified that I was trying to relate that to any particular fire, I am not, I was si~ply saying that the procedure is that if when the report comes in and says cause of fire - you know, faulty wiring, the file is closPd. ~R. H. ~. ROHE: MR. SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition. MR. H. ~. ROHt::: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary.

A supplementary, the han. the As I understand the bon. ninister, as of Friday afternoon, no report on the Elizabeth Towers fire had been received by his department, Anybodv in hi~ department? is that correct? I asked the Director of ?ublic Prosecutions if he had received anv reports on the fires and he sa!.d, '~!o. Does the hon. ~inister have any idea or has he received any word from anybody who is investigating the fire as to when a report might be expected in this particular fire, ~r. Speaker? ~!It. !!IC!C!A~T: No, not from anyone doing the investigation, but I inquired of the Director of Public

Hay 29, 1978 Tape 3600 EC - 2 Public Prosecutions as to whether he knew when we could anticipate starting to receive reports on these one, two, three, four, five fires - six major fires that l1ave occurred in the Province during the past few weeks, and he told cre that he understood that a lot of that stuff was either in Sackville or on its way back from Sackville, and presunahly, ue will start receiving reports very shortly. Jut that is pure speculation on his part because of the fact he is aware of what progress is taken to date. ~!r.

Speaker, just a final supplenentary has cone up - A final supplecentary. - as a result of the bon. minister's last answer. What is the proced~re when this material or report or analysis of evidence comes back from Sackville? Where does it then go? HR. HICKMAN: To the police. MR. il. N. ROWE: To the police department? To the Chief of Police? C.I.D? Who does it go to? MR. HICKMA~l: Not just with respect to fires, ~!r. Speaker.

I say this without detailed knowledge as to ho~ an investigation is carried out, but it is my understanding that whenever there is an exhibit that in the opinion of the police requires analysis by the laboratories in Sackvilla, ~ew Brunswick, that the investigating officer !n some instances at least, takes it up himself and delivers it to someone in Sackville. MR. H. N. ROWE: I am talking about coming back. -i MR. HICKMAN: And then it is brought back the same way, because as the han. the Leader of the Opposition will recall, on several occasions in criminal cases there

Hay 29, 1978 Tape 3600 EC - 3 !!R. HICKHAN: have been allegations by counsel for the accused that this exhibit that has been put in that was analysed in Sackville, New Brunswick,may have passed out of the hands of the Crown, because it was suggested it had been mailed back or sent by express and somebody could tamper with it. So my understanding is that in most cases, but do not hold me to this because I do not know in all cases, but in most cases the exhibit is actually delivered and then brought back by the police if it is an exhibit that is going to be used in evidence in a subsequent trial.

So when the report comes back - you knov, the exhibit with the report attached to it - that report is part and parcel of the investigative report that is submitted by the police. You know, they have statements from witnesses, they have the Fire Commissioner in the case nf a fire, the Fire Commissioner's report and professional advice, and they would have the report of the laboratory in Sackville, all attached as part of the whole, being the total investigation by the C.!.D. And we have prettv good inspectors in both police forces in the Province to deal ~ith that kind of investigation.

B1tt I ghould alert this Bouse that it is an investigation that is very onerous. ~R. !lEARY~ Hr. Speaker. HR. SPEAKER: member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: A supplementary question, A supplementary, the han. the Mr. Speaker, do ! understand the hon. gentleman correctly that here you have a very serious situation ~here a fire occurred at Elizabeth Towers and there is a very great urgency to this matter because it involves members of this House and so forth, that the minister

!by 29 t 1978 Tape 3600 EC - 4 MR. UEARY: has not taken it upon himself to find out if the report is yet back from Sackville in connection with this fire? I mean, the minister must be responsible for the running of his department. The minister seems to be very vague and general about some of the answers that we are given, about procedures and so forth. I am sure the minister must have taken it upon himself to find out how this investigation is going, when the report will be in, if the evidence is now back from Sackville.

May 29, !978 Tape 3601 IB-1 MR. NEARY: Can the minister give us any information at all on this matter. MR. SPEAKER: The han. Minister of Justice. MR. HICKMAN: Mr.

Speaker, not only did I think I was not being vague but in my own mind,I was thinking that r was being far too specific with respect to investigations that are ongoing because, you know,as the hen. gentleman said earlier today I do have an obligation to avoid being specific on any investigation that are ongoing, certainly not until I know what the outcome is going to be because if the outcome of any investigation results in some action being taken by the police, I do not want to be in a position, nor should I,where something I have said in this House prejudices the rights of any party.

That is why I am always so careful. In this case I felt I was being much too detailed in my answer. I repeat that because of questions that have been asked in this House on this particular matter and, you know, questions starting on May 1 or April 29 or there abouts, I enquired,which I usually do not do of normal investigations going on,but in response to questions in this House I enquired periodically of the Director of Public Prosecutions as to whether or not he had received police reports on any of these fires.

I feel quite confident that because of my enquiries when he does receive them that he will come and tell me. I am sure they a11 will not come in at the same time. But on Friday he was in my office and I asked him and he said no. And I said, "Have you any idea when we will start receivim!: them?11 And he said, 11 I do not know precisely but I would imagine very soon because he said it is my understanding that at least some of the exhibits that have been sent in connection with some of the investigations to Sackville have now been returned." But that is hearsay to him.

They do not tell him until they get the report. But obviously the police are in and out of his office every day on other matters. He has a pretty good idea what is going on. So let this House rest assured that these investigations are being dealt ~<lith very promptly by the police,and I say that ) J

May 29, 1978 Tape 3601 PK - 2 Mr. Hickman: knowing the length of time they are so often involved in investigating fires. Because quite often the report will back saying, cause of fire unknown. And a responsible Crown prosecutor will go back and say,"I want more evidence. Try another angle," as we did on these cases that I referred to, always, unfortunately without any success. MR. NEARY: MR. SPEAKER: MR. NEARY: A supplementary question, Mr. Soeaker. A supplementary, the han. the member for LaPoile. Mr.

Speaker, I am not trying to be stubborn with the han. gentleman, Sir, but the han. gentleman just made a statement that worries me considerably and that is that the Chief Crown Prosecutor happened to be in the minister's office on Friday, the minister asked the Chief Crown Prosecutor, Mr. Kelly, I presume, if any of the reports had yet heen received on any of these fires, and Mr. Kelly, the Chief Crown Prosecutor, told the minister that as far as he knew some of the exhibits had been returned from Saskvil1e in connection with some of these fires. But the minister then added, Sir, that this is hearsay. MR.

HICKMAN: MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, this is frightening to me because - Hearsay to me. - hearsay. No,the han. gentleman implied that it was hearsay to Mr. Kelly, and hearsay - MR. HICKMAN: To me. MR. NEARY: - well,I do not care if the minister indicates hearsay to him or Mr. Kelly. But, Sir, can you imagine the Chief Crown Prosecutor saying to the minister,"! understand that certain eJ<hibits have been returned from Saskville.'' ''I understand 11 - MR. HICKMAN: Right. MR. NEARY: - without making it a statement of fact to the minister,or saying,"! do not know, Mr. Minister, but r wi11 find out 1" or 11 Mr.

Minister, yes, exhibits have been returned.'' It is confusing, Mr. Speaker. And I would like for the minister to clear it up because it is really frightening, this kind of a conversation bet\'Jeen the minister and the Chief Crown Prosecutor where it is hearsav, the

May 29, 1978 Tape 3601 PK - 3 Mr. Neary: minister calls it hearsay. It should be factual or it should be nothing at all when the minister is dealing with a gentleman in a responsible position like the Chief Crown Prosecutor. Is it a fact or is it not a fact? Will you go out and find out, and let me know? Because I may be asked in the House and I do not want to go in and quote the Chief Crown Prosecutor as saying, we11 I heard, heard, well I heard too, and so did the Leader of the Opposition. is true or not.

And that is what we are trying to find out, if it And the Chief Crown Prosecutor should know, and the minister should know. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please~ I must point out that the proceedings should be limited to questions and answers. MR. NEARY: Well, Mr. Speaker, I \•Jant to ask the minister is it hearsay or is it factual? Is it a fact that some of the exhibits have been returned from Saskvi11e in connection with some of these fires? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice. MR. HICKMAN: Mr.

Speaker, you know, that has to be the most stupid question that has been asked in this House in a long, long time. ~ffi.. SIMMONS: We are about to get the stupidest answer, too. AN HON. MEMEER: In the doorway. MR. HICKloiAN: We11. you know, the common from some gentleman outside the House does not have to be resoonded to. !1R. W.ROWE: Your campaign manager. MR. HICKMAN: The han. the Leader of the Oooositio~ should not be nasty because if he does I am going to tell, I am going to suggest to the han. the member for Burgeo-8ay d'Espoir {Mr.

Simmons) that he read the first two years of Hansard on the Education votes - MR. W.ROWE: That is the 110 votes you got. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh~ MR. HICKMAN: -in 1972 and 1973. 71 >/

~!ay 29, 1978 Tape No. 3602 ~!R. SIMMONS: I wrote it and he read .Lt. HR. HICIC'.AN: In 1972 and 1973. HR. SIMMONS: Then he did not honour it "W"hen he got in Cabinet. HR. HIC!OlAll: But, Mr. Speaker, ma.y I repeat that I have been asking, which is not normal practice but only because of questions in this House, the Director of Public Prosecutions whether or not he has received the report on investigations into the number of fires, police report, and he has told me no. HR. NEARY: !!R. SIMMONS: But added.

But when I spoke to him on Tuesday or Friday, I did exactly the same thing as the hen. the Leader of the Opposition asked me today, I said, "Have you any idea "..!'hen .,.e are going to start receiving some of these!" MR. NEARY: Yes. MR. HICK}!AN: And he said, I do not know. MR. NEARY: He said, "I understand." HR. HICl0lAll: But he said - HR. NEARY: Go ahead. HR. HICIC'.AN: He said, "I understand from the police ,'1 you kno.,.,understand and what I say is hearsay- HR. NEARY: by the way. MR. SPEAKER: HR. HICK:<.&~: ~o, you did not add the police before, Order, please! Order!

"I understand that some of the reports have been coming back to the police. 11 A purely logical explanation- HR. NEARY: Not hearsay. HR. HIC!21AN: - hearsay, because obviously if you are in the CID and the fellow w-ho is investigating a particular fire, if you happen to know that it is on his desk, or he has just come back from Sackville with a bunch of exhibits, and if this other person tells the Director of Public Prosecutions, without getting into a long ( 0

~·!ay 29, 1978 Tape No, 3602 ~. HI~~~! dissertation on the la~ of hearsay, that is hearsay. It is only if ~. NEARY: He was not told by the police. MR. HIC~~~: It is only if the police officer who is directly involved in the investigation comes in and says, ·~r. Prosecutor, I have today returned from Sackville with exhibits," that that is direct evidence, 'lR. NEARY: Does the minister kno~ if that happened? :ill.. HICKY.AN: But the hearsay rule, you Y..now,and I welcome the opportunity, if this is what the House wants me to do is to give hen. gentlemen a lecture on the hearsay rule. But I see Hr.

Speaker shaking his head and I do not know if that is because Your Honour is knowledgeable of the hearsay rule or if you have come to the conclusion that a lecture on the hear~ay t'Ule at this time will be totally irrelevant to the Question Period and assuming that it is the latter t ~ill take my place, 'JR. NEARY: A supplementary, ~r. Speaker. XR.. HICKHAN: Is this on the hearsay rule? ~rn.. SPEA.;;:ER: A final supplementary~the ~~n. member for LaPoile and then I will hear a supplementary from one other hon. gentleman. XR. ~tEARY: Hr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the ~inister of Justice again, Sir.

He has further confused the matter of the discussion betueen him and the Crown Prosecutor with regard to the exhibits bein~ returned from Moncton. I am not askin2 the minister whether the report is final and in the hands of the Cro~~ Prosecutor, but did the Chief Crown Prosecutor tell the minister in his office on Friday that the police uet'e now back from Moncton with certain exhibits that were brought over in connection ~ith these fires and brought back again? Did the Chief Crown Prosecutor say to the minister, 11The CID ~,.no are investigating this, the investigating officers have told me this, or I just

!·tay 29, 1973 Tape ~o. 3602 ~N- 3 :<R. NEARY: heard it, it was coffee talk. 11 HR. HICK!1.\..'i: I am perfectly happy to go back over it and over it and over it again. Did I ask the MR.. PECKFORD: Go back over it again. :<R. HIClO'.AN: All right. I will go back over it again. I asked the Director of Public Prosecutions on Friday if he had received any reports on the fires and he said no.

I did the next lo~ical thin2, I guess as much out of - well I do not know t.tl:y - for information and I said, ".A.ny idea T.~hen I am going to receive them?" And he uid, 11 ! think it will be soon because I understand that some of the exhibits that went to - ~ffi. NEARY: From wham did he understand? MR. HICK!.Wi: - Sackville, New Bruns~ck, have now been ret~ed to the police. !1R • NEARY : From whom did he understand this? MR. HICKMAN: !here was only one person he could get it from and I - MR. NEARY: From the CID. - did not ask him from whom he got it.

But the only loRical conclusion you can reach is that in his daily discussions ~th police officers coming and going - MR. NEARY : Okay. All right. MR. HICK!W1: on cases, But that is only an assumption. MR. ~EARY: A supplementary, Sir. MR. SPEAKER: I had indicated that that will be the final supplementary from the hen. member for LaPoile, that I would hear one additional supplementary and I will he~r that from the hon. member for Trinity- Bay de Verde (Mr. F. Rowe), and then I will recognize the hon. gentleman for Fogo (Captain Winsor). )""v f f <

:1ay 20, 1978 Tape No. 3602 ~l!t - 4 '!R. F. ROWE: Mr. Speaker, to the ~inister of Justice, in answer to one of the questions - I ~~ getting ~ore confused now than ever - but did I hear the minister correctly ~hen he suggested that in some cases when the Director of Crown Prosecutions gets reports back on fires in the past and he feels that these reports are not satisfactory, the report presumably from the ern, that he would then return the report back to the ern or ask for a second report, did I hear

May 29, 1978 Tape 3603 PK - l Mr.F.Rowe: the minister correctly on that one? And secondly, I will add this to the question, Sir, if that is so, cou1d this have been the case in the case of any of these recent fires that we have had in and around the city in the last month or so? MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Minister of Justice. MR. HICKMAN: To my knowledge, Mr.

Speaker, the Crown Prosecutors and/or the Director of Public Prosecution have not as of today, certainly as of Firday past,received any reports from these fires other than that verba 1 report that I referred to in this House on May fires had occurred and are now being investigated. that the But what I said was,and I have said this so often in the House,that quite often when the police are conducting an investigation that they come in and they submit to the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Crown Prosecutors a report of their investigation, the Crown Prosecutor reads it, and having read it he says, 11 Look,there are a bunch of ho 1 es in this that have got to be plugged~· So he goes back - it is not a question of sending back - he goes back to the investigating officer and says,"Wi11 you go andre-interview the following witnesses and ask them about these aspects?" MR.

F. ROWE: MR. HICKMAN: yet come in. MR. F. ROWE: MR. HICKMAN: MR. F.ROWE: Could this have been the case in the recent fires? No. As I say, to my knowledge the reports have not the minister - I mean~I cannot say; I said, 1 to my knowledge.' - is not absolutely sure. would think that if the reports had been received when I put direct questions then I would be told , no, they have not received any reports. And as of now - MR. HICKMAN: MR. F. ROWE: Would they have been sene back? MR. HICKMAN: I am not aware of any reports having come in as of Friday. It might be down there today for a 11 I know. ~R.

"EARY: (Inaudible). MR. F. ROWE: That is what I am trying to get at.

r~ay 29, 1978 Tape 3603 PK - 2 I~R. HICKMAN: That is right, You know, as I say,to my knowledge they have not come in and been sent back. And if they were mind you that would nat distrub me because that is the usual practice. MR. HICKMAN: MR. FLIGHT: MR. SPEAKER: MR. FLIGHT: ORDERS OF THE DAY Orders of the Day. Mr. Speaker. r4otion 9. The han. the memher for Iii ndsor-Buchans. I wish to move under St:anding Order 23, Hr.

Speaker, because of the Province-wide protest against the government 1 S spruce budworm spraying programme by citizens l'lho are convinced that their physical well-being will be endangered, as well as the severe damage to wildlife and the environment,! move under Standing Order 23 that this han. House do adjourn to hold an emergency debate on the decision to spray, seconded by the han. the member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary). SO~E PON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I know it is not required to hear argument under this, As a matter of fact think it is unusual to SO do because our practice in this sense is th~ ~~mP AS in the House of Commons. And Standing Order 26{1) there is comparable to our Standing Order 23, "Mr. Speaker shall decide without any debate whether or not the matter is proper to be discussed. think that has usually been our procedure and I think it is probably a good idea to say that that is our procedure, and it will be done that way. As han. members know,Standinq Order 23 is a matter ivhereby it is infrequent that leave is given.

It has been done once during the past three years, and it is a matter in which the Speaker's judgment has to be used. Again I refer to Standing Order 26, sub-section (5) in the House of Commons. And our practice is identical but it is very well worded here. I think it is better worded than our own Standing Order, but our precedent follows them and it is a statement of our precedent

May 29, 1978 Tape 3603 ~1r. Soeaker: as well as practice in the House of Commons. 11 In detennining whether a matter should have urgent consideration 1 Mr.

Speaker shall have regard to the extent to which it concerns the administrative responsibilities of the government or could come within the scope of ministerial action, and he also shall PK - 3 have regard to the probability of the matter being brought before the House within reasonable time by ather means.11 Obviously I am aware and han. members are aware that there is an Address in Reply on the Order Paper, that there js a Budget debate on the Order Paper. \ole are also aware that under both headings han. members are speaking in a conte~t in which they have unlimited time.

The matter must be urgent, That is the first criteria; and obviously I think the matter is urgent. debate must be urgent. And the Chair has to exercise discretion with respect to whether there is a reasonable expectation within a reasonable period of time that the matter be dehated. Here we are dealing with time parameters with respect to this matter. I have to use my judgment of what han. members seem to consider urgent, and

May 29, 1978 Tape 3604 EC - 1 l!R. SPEAKER: not insulated from what the public appear to think urgent, and it would appear to me if Standing Order 23 has meaning - and I think it does, it must as long as it is there - then this is a matter which falls within that criterion and 1 therefore, the Chair's position here is to say that it is in order. By having said that it is in order, ! now ask whether the hon. gentleman has leave. have leave? Does the hon. gentleman Not having leave and at least t~elve members rising in their place, ! call upon the hen. member who moved the motion. SOHE HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR.

FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I can say for this side, Mr. Speaker, that we are grateful for Your Honour's ruling, and I believe that all of Newfoundland will have reason to be grateful for His Honour's ruling on this particular motion, because it is time that the spray programme in this Province that we are looking at be debated fully and completely. And, ~r.

Speaker, in openinR the debate, I wish to refer to a passage of the ~inister of Forestry's statement dated April ll, 1978, paragraph of the statement. just one short I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman so early in his remarks, but it hAs just come to my attention that we have some students in the galleries whom I would like on behalf of all hon. members to welcome from Nova Scotia School for Girls in Truro, a number of exchange students, sixteen from Grade VII to Grade XI accompanied bv Mrs. xcNutt, and from Pleasantville School for Girls and Boys, Pleasantville, St. John's, Grades VII

Hay 29, 1978 Tape 3604 EC - 2 aR. SPEAKER: to XI, sixteen students accompanied by their teacher, Mrs. Belbin. I know han. ~embers join me in welcoming both the students from Pleasantville, St. John's and the students from Truro, Nova Scotia. SOME HON. MEMBERS: ~R. SPEAKER: Windsor - Buchans. MR. FLIGHT: Rear, hear! The han. the member for It is interesting to note, Hr.

Speaker, that there are some students from Nova Scotia in the galleries, and I would suspect before this debate is over that Nova Scotia and Nova Scotia's approach to the budworm spraying programme in Newfoundland or their approach to the alternatives, as opposed to a spray programme will be referred to many times. Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to read this passage from the minister's statement: are aware, the current budworm outbreak began in 1971 and continues to present.

In the Fall of 1976 the Canadian Forestry Service made a forecast that in 1977, budworm defoliation would be moderate to severe over three to four million and light over some four to five million acres of productive forest. The total area of infestation of 8.7 million acres represents about 90 per cent of the total productive forests there are in the Province.'' Now, Mr. Speaker, the minister says that the outbreak began in 1971. Based on ~hat we know about bud~orm and the effect that budworm has on a productive forest, it takes four to five years to kill trees so attacked and so infested, which means, Mr.

Speaker, that this government or the administration, the people responsible, whether it Yas the minister or his department or the

~lay 29, 1978 Tape 3604 EC - 3 HR. FLIGHT: Canadian forestry people in conjunction with the Department of Forestry in Newfoundland, aware that the attack was taking place, having watched New Brunswick's experience for the past twenty-five years and aware that with the kind of an infestation we had in 1971 that our forests could be totally endangered, made no move, !>!r. Speaker. 7he.re had been no move made to combat the spruce budworm infestation in this Province until we got into a panic situation last summer, and that panic situation brought about an experimental spray programme. Mr.

Speaker,it is interesting to note that the minister set up an advisory committee to talk about the alternatives for the Labrador Linerboard mill. It is also interesting to note that the chairman of that committee was the President of Price (Nfld.). It is now very significant to note that recent

!1ay 29, 1978 Tape !io. 3605 :i'U - 1 ~- FLIGHT: statements in the press indicate that Price (Nfld.) may indeed be interested and may be considering seriously taking over the Labrador Linerboard mill. It is no secret, ~r. Speaker, that in this Province, the primary reason that the Labrador Linerboard mill ~ad to close down was because they did not have an economic - MR. HICK!'.AN: MR. SPEAKER (Collins): :,<R. HICKl'.A.~: Mr. Speaker, to a point of order. A point of order has come up. As the han.

Speaker said when he allowed this motion, t.his kind of debate has to be strictly related to the motion. '-lR· FLIGHT: ~.ffi.. H!ClG'"..A!l: It is st.rictly related, And I submit that anything other than the danger to health and/or the desirability of spraying for the spruce budworm is not debatable in tlUs House. ·~at is happening with the Linerboard mill or whether the Linerboard mill could take dead wood is not part of this debate. MR. FLIGHT: MR. F. ROWE: MR. SPEAKER: MR. F. ROWE: Yes it,is. To that point of order. The han. member for Trinity - Bay de Verde.

Sir, if there was ever anything relevant to this debate it is an industry directly connected to the woods industry in this Province and the effect the spruce budworm might have on the forestry in this particular Province. Sir, ! do not know why the hon. House Leader has gotten up on a point of order because it is simply not a point of order, Any reference to any industry related to the forestrJ surely, Sir, is directly related to the motion moved by ~y hon. colleague and r suggest that the so-called point of order suggested by the Goverr~ent House Leader, Sir, is not a point of order' whatsoever. :tR.

SPEAKER: Order, please! Ron. members will realize that this is a proceeding that w~ do not get into ver; frequently and

:fay 29, 1978 Tape :!o. 3605 MR. SPEAKER (Collins): perhaps if I just read one item from our Standing Rules and also again re-read the motion it might clarify matters.

Subsection F (2) of Standin£ oraer 23 states, 11 Not more than one cA.tter can be discussed NM - 2 on the same motion." N"ow the motion in question reads as follows: 11 Because of the province-wide protest against the government's spruce budworm spraying programme by citizens who are convinced that their physical well being will be endangered as well as severe damage to wildlife and the environment, I ~~ve~ move, under Standing Order 23, that this hon. House do adjourn to hold an emergency debate on the question to spray." So it would seem from the subsection in our Standing Rules, one

section and from the wording of the motion discussion should take place in regard to spraying~ it should take place in regard to budworm infestation 1 and it should take place in regard to damage; it says severe here but I presume that would be a subjective

interpretation so I would say any damage to wildlife and the environment. So those are the areas it ~uld seem to me that debate is concerned with; that is the budworm infestation, the spraying programme or proposed programme,and damage to wildlife and the environment. ~. SPEAKER: MR. FLIGHT: The han. member for Windsor-Buchans. Xr.

Speaker, surely there is nobody in this House, and this is not to the point of order, it is simply to go on with the debate, surely there is nobody in this House vho thinks that they can debate the decision to spray without talking about what the effect of the spray will be, why we have a spray programme, what are the conditions that have led us up to a spray programme? And l mean I am surprised, ~r. Speaker, that the han. Minister of Justice would rise on such a point of order. If we cannot talk about the - !-!R. HICKY.A.."l: Are you surprised that Mr. Speaker held it? MR.

FLIGHT: - if we cannot talk about the effects that I I

~!ay :!9, 1978 Tape No. 3605 ~m.. FLIGHT: the spray programme will have, because that is the basis of the fear of the people, and they are asking questions, they want to know why it is that we find ourselves into a position where we have to endanger~ possibly endanger the well-being of our people and certainly possibly and most definitely damage the environment and the ecology. And so, Mr.

Speaker, I intend to - until the Speaker calls me out of order - I intend to pursue what obviously is germain the effects of a spray programme on our forest and ~hy we have ROtten ourselves into a position where ue have to spray a~d how we can get ourselves out of a position where we have to spray. And, ~r. Speaker, we cannot refer to the spray progr~e without referrin~ to the cost. Mr. Speaker, I will say again, that

Tape ::a. JGOG !;.H-1 >'iR, FLIGHT: there was an indication a few days ago tnat Price (ilflti·) t-:ould take over the Linerbcard operation. :·iow it is very significant when we look at the amount of dacage that we have co our forestr; and the alternative of spraying that an economic wood supply was withheld ftom Labrador Linerboard mill while we had five million cords of dead \.;ood on the limits of the two paper comp:mies,boc:h of which ·.1ere represented on thac: advisory board.

One of the alternatives, one could make the case and say that had that advisory board oet their responsibilit::.es and zade only the infested timbers on their stands available to Labrador Linerboard n:ill, tben we ·,;auld have salvaged that wood and,most i!:lporta;;,tly by .:ay of looking at fighting the budwot"' .. 1 infestation, then the land from ~uich this wood was salavaged could have been now reseeded, reseeded ~ith a strain of w~od that is less susceptible to budwcrm infestation. Hr.

Speaker, we have th~ performances of the minister has said time and time aga~n that the decision to spr.:1y •...ras not the result of pressure from the paper conpanies. '..iell,maybe it was not. but I believe it was, !·Ir. Speaker, I believe the paper companies had a great deal to say on whether the Province would spray or would not spray and that again opens up the old forest ~nagement that this Province has practicL~ this past fifty years. Wny is it? Let some han. gentlemen opposite tell me why it is that Price and Bowaters have got to come to eentral Newfoundland, ~n the Glenwood area,and cut black spruce.

Aiter cutting on their o~n limits for fifty years they have to cor:-.e int.o Cent.rill ~kw'foundland to cut black spruce because they need,in order to make the pulp they are producing they need a cLxture, there must be a mix~ure of balsam. fir and black spruce, How is it that Bovaters !.f practic.inr; the kind of forest management that -..-e believe :tas to be practiced, how is it that they did not re-seed and re-forest in the areas.

They knew, there is all kinds of evidence to in.dicate that wt;.en you cut the natural growth in .:n areu •.that some people refer to as nuisance trees g:=ow up, oo.:sam. fir replace , The pulp inLustry cannot survive on black spruce so why, if Bouaters were practicing the kind of forest management that we needed in this Province to sustain the kind of pulp operations .,..e have Oad • and they were also aware of

:tay 29,1973 !ape ::o. 3606 AH-2 :-!1;. FLIGl:IT: the :iew Brunswick problens, why tlid they not re-sef-d and instead of having all balsam fir that is totally susceptible to the budworm ,wi1y did they not re-sed the areas they cut so that they ..,auld have had a mixture? It was costing them a lot more money to come to Glen~od and ta~ black spruce. They were watching all the forest that they had on their lease on which they were cutting growing up L~ balsam fir. and growing up so chid: that a rn.an was smothered when he 1Mal~:ed into it. Ur.

Speaker, we may today be into a situacion where we are looking at a dangerous situation in our forests. Let me say that every oember on this side vill have a chance to :1ave imput into this debate. We are as well aware as anyone on the ocher side or anyone in the Province of the value of our forestry to the economy of this Province. People, Mr. Speaker. for ten, twenty or fifty years ;1ave been challenging the governtaent, have been saying-before this budworm debate is over~ it may have been a blessing in disguise, Mr.

Speaker; the budworm may have been a blessing in disguise because there were people who. knew forestry in this Province who were questioning che ability of our forests without the budworm to continue to yield an allowable cut for the paper companies over the ne.xt .twenty-five or Chirty years, without a budworm spray progr~e. Because of the kind of forest management we have had in this ?rovince questions were being raised as to whether or not our forestry could sustain the production of the two paper companies let alone a third one 1without a budworm situacion.

The only reason was that there were some deep-rooted fears about the kind of forest management that we were witnessing in this company both by the Crown and by che two paper companies involved. Hr. Speaker, the damage to date -we have five million cords dead on the stump that without a salvage programme will be lost. ¥\ salvage programme will accomplish two things, l!r. Speaker; it will give the Province the benefit, the economic benefit that comes fro~ using that five million cords of wood in whatever capacity it is usedj

l~ay 29, 1978 Tape 3607 PK - 1 Mr. Flioht: going after that wood, we wou.id put in the forest access roads that we need to practice the forest management that minister talks about so much, the thinning, the reforestation, the reseeding, The roads have to go in anyway, so we might as v1e11 put them in now into the areas that have the dead timber in the process of taking out the dead timber and salvaging it, and using it in a way tl1at Jt will have some economic benefit to this Province.

In the process of doing that we will be opening up our forest stands for re-seeding, reforestation, thinning and a11 of the things that will be needed anyway if we are going to guarantee that we wi11 have a growth that can sustain our pulp operations over the next twenty to twenty-five, thirty, or forty or fifty years. Mr. Speaker, all that has been happening, the people of this Province have been concerned and have asked questions of the minister- what are the a1 ternatives to a spray programme? What is the effect of a spray programme? And, Mr.

Speaker, except in general terms the minister has not addressed himself totally to one of the questions asked. He has never indicated as to whether or nat this Province has looked at an export market. He ~as never indicated whether or not this Province is looking at real reforestation. There is a great fear going out in this Province, Mr.

Speaker, that v1e are going into a spray prograrrrne in a way that we may get on a treadmill, If the Minister of Forestry was in a position to stand up and say we are going to spray this year, but at the same time we are spraying we are going to bring in effect, we are going to put in place a reforestation programme that might two years down the road make it possible for us to pull out of the spray programme, then maybe the people of this Province would accept it. They may accept the spray for one year, and accept the dangers that goes with it. But, Mr.

Speaker, there is more and more reason to believe that we have started a spray programme with nothing else in mind but a spray programme and n~xt year we will spray again, and next year we will spray again. The han. the ~1inister of Mines and Energy shakes his head. Well,! would like to be ab1e to shake my head. I have seen no statement by the Minister of Forestry that would indicate that we are giving

May 29, 1978 Tape 3607 PK • 2 Mr. Fliaht: consideration at this stage other than the spray programme. The spray programme, Mr. Soeaker, will have the effect of adding one year to the life of a tree, if we spray for ten years we will extend the life of that tree, assuming it is not cut, for ten years. Mr. Speaker, -we are going to be spraying trees that Price (Nfld.) will not use far twenty years. We have today in this Province hundreds and thousands, if not millions of cords of overmatured timber.

The paper companies at this point in time have harvested the most economical timber, that is, timber that is located closest to the mills. That is one of the reasons, Mr. Speaker. It is common knowledge based on research that the budworm attacks overmatured timber, and it has eaten its way out of overmatured timber, it 1-'lill then go into the second gro\'lth. And \'/hen the budworm infestation prohlern started in this Province there was plenty of overmatured timber and the people responsible did not move. They did not move. They did not .. say to the paper companies, Go in and start harvesting.

Leave the second growth alone. Let us go in and take the overmatured.11 They did not move to put in access roads to get into the overmatured. It appears that from 1971 to 1975, Mr. Speaker, there was no concern whatspever about the spruce budworm was doing to the forests of this Province. There was an awareness~ but there was no concern. There was no corrective action taken.

And suddenly in 1977 with the paper companies doing tours on their limits, bringing people in and showing them the disaster, showing them the damage~ the ~1inister of Forestry panicked, and said that we have a panic situation on our hands, we have to spray. And, Mr. Speaker, there is a fear in this Province, there is a deep rooted fear and a real one maybe that the Province is going into something that they know nothing about. They have not been able to answer the questions on the long-term effects of either Matacil or any of the other chemicals that have been talked about, You hear the Minister of Forestry, Mr.

Speaker, saying that if people use

May 29, 1978 Taoe 3607 PK - 3 Mr. Flight: Raid they should not be I'JOrried about a spray programme. No tvonder the people of this Province, Mr. Speaker, mistrust the authorities who are talking on behalf of government. It is up to a person 1 s se 1f, I know hundreds of peep 1 e, Mr. Speaker, \•Jho uses Raid, but they take all sorts of percautians with it, but at least it is their choice if they want to submit, if they want to - anyone who v1ants to use Raid, if they want to subject themselves or their children to any possible side affects detrimental of raid, they make the decision.

But when we go into a massive spray programme, Mr. Speaker, ~t1here we know that we can only account for 30 per cent of the insecticide used landing. and we have no idea where the other 70 per cent goes then suddenly people have been subjected to a danger over which they have no control. Seventy per cent 7 1

~fay 29, 1978 Tape ;lo. 3608 141 - 1 ~·!R. FLIGHT: of the spray that w~uld be sprayed in this forest based on research done in other regions indicates that only thirty per cent of the spray used can be accounted for. And we are spraying within one-sixth of a mile of towns in thi~ Province knowing that seventy per cent of the spray can go any­ where, not ~owing where it is going to go. We are spraying over watersheds. It is obvious, Mr.

Speaker, that the most productive parts of our forest are in the river valleys and. around the lakes, becnuse any bon. members who took the time to look at the areas to be sprayed, you will find that. And, Mr. Speaker, the ~[inister of Forestry says that paper companies had no input into wnere we spray, It is significant to note the ~ajority of the areas to be sprayed are either areas that are presently undercut or areas that the companies will cut over the next two to three years. It is significant, ~1r.

Speaker, that practically eve~J headYater in this Province that ~eans anything to the economy by Yay of ~ldlife or salmon runs, practically every headwater in this Province is going to be sprayed. And the people who have made the decision to spray know no more about what Hatacil will do than I know about flying to the moon and back. Mr.

Speaker, I am surprised in an area such as Port au Port, the great salmon fishing rivers, ~obinsons, Flat Bay, HarrJS, Fishels, Highlands, that have contributed greatly over the years to the inshore sport fishery, and of course it provided the basis for our salmon runs, provided and fed the commercial salmon.

I am surprised that we have not had more people uprising and demanding that before you spray you will tell us categorically, and they have got a right to de that, the people of this Province have a right to be told that the Government of Newfoundland, who is about to undertake a spray programme, can tell them definitively what ..,ill be the adverse effect of this spray programme. Is there a danger to our fish

:lily 29' 1978 Tape ~o. 3608 ~N - 2 ~. FLIGHT: population? Is there a danger to the wildlife population of this Province? And, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Forestry not in one statement ... not only the Minister of Forestry; the Minister of Health, the Minister of the Environment, the Premier, not in one definitive statement have they assured the people of ~ewfoundland that they are aware of what the side effects of the spray programme will be. The thing is, Mr. Speaker, '~<·e all know that it will not kill the budworrn. It '>till prolong the life of the tree for one year.

So 100 years from now we will still be spraying to prolong the life of the tree for another year. We will keep trees in this Province alive for 100 years. And in the process we may ~ipe out everything else in the Province. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, everything that I have seen done as a me~er in this House, most everything that was ever brought in, Mr. Speaker, is a precedent. We are only t~nty-six years old as a Province and we seem to lean for legislation, the Minister of Tourism ~th his hunter capability test says it is tot<'.lly, I think~New Brunswick's - ~ew arunswick' s? MR. CALl.All: "R· FLIGHT: ~!R.

CALU.." : MR. FLIGHT: Yes,it is. Totally New Brunswick's, that is ~cod. PC you see. That is understandable. So, llr. Speaker, if ~e are goina to take that kind of an attitude, if the legisla:icn we are goin~ to brin~ into this House is goin~ to be based on legislation en precendents set in other Provinces, it would do well to apply tha same principle to forestry. fi~d I will read, ~r. Speaker, some ~embers have probably read this, but here is the hon.

Vincent MacLean, Nova Scotia's ~nister of Lands and Forests, and it has got to be understandable that any Newfoundland person, anyone in Newfoundland who has read this has got to question the logic of Xr. ~~cLean 1 I

:fay 29, 1973 Tape }!o, 3608 !:1R. FLIGHT: as opposed to the logic of the Ne~foundland Government in supportin~ and fo~stina on l{ewfoundland the spray progratlllle, "We feel that it is far better from a forestry point of view to suffer our loses now rather than spray and prolong the inevitable, as Ne•N Brunswick has done.

The forests of ~eY Brunswick," no~ thi" is the !1inister of Forestry in Nova Scotia, "The forests of New Brunswick after ~~enty-five yeras of spraying certainly are "" - 3 not the envy of anyone involved in protler forest ma.nagement. 11 After twenty-five years spraying, this minister anci his colleagues had the courage, faced with just as serious a budworm ?roblec in Nova Scotia as we have in t{ewfoundland, a Province whose economy depends just as much on the forestry as ours does~ has the courage to say, '~e will face our loses now and

Hay 29, 1978 Tape 3609 EC - 1 ~R. FLIGHT: as opposed to spraying t.te t.till consider the alternatives: And it appears to be working. The egg mass count in Nova Scotia is dot.tn to 50 per cent t.tithout a spray programme. The egg mass count in New Brunswick is up 40 per cent with a spray programme. So obviously, the spray programme has had no effect on the budworm itself. ~ow, Mr. Speaker, let us get into the affects, the dangers of the chemical that we are going to use. It is a fact, Mr. Speaker, that vhether one wants to read anything in this or not, Hatacil is not registered in the United States for sale.

The l!inister of Forestry has leaned time and time again on the fact that six or seven federal agencies have approved Xatacil. Well, the fact is ~he minister knows that those six or seven federal agencies know nothing about the adverse affects of Matacil and have not tested Hatacil, and are not aware and could not give any evidence at all based on any research which they have done of the side effects of Matacil to the environment, its ability to break down in water, the effect on the nervous system of people or animals, wildlife, but yet, Xr.

Speaker, in spite of the fact that the Forestry Advisory Committee because of these reasons strongly o~pose the use of Matacil and recommended that penetrithion be used. The minister decided to use Hatacil, and as a result, people in this Province are askinp;, :by are we using Matacil when we do not know the long term - or short term, for that matter - adverse effects on our ecology? Reye 1 s Syndrome, Mr. Speaker • It Yas interesting ,A fev nights ago on T.V. there vas a documentary on Reye's Syndrome, and the case was made that there have been seven or eight cases of Reye's Syndrome uncovered in

May 29, 1978 Tape 3609 EC - 2 MR. FLIGHT: Toronto this past year or so, and obviously, there has not been a spray programme in Toronto, but it is very, very pertinent that the medical authorities there said they believe that every case of Reye's Syndrome in Toronto was associated ~ith the use of a pesticide, that that child was exposed to pesticide. The fact is that all the research that has been done up to this point shows that Reye's Syndrome comes as a result of exposure to a pesticide. And, Mr.

Chairman, we are about to expose a lot of our population to a pesticide, one which we know nothing about, and we are going to do it on the pretext that that is the only solution to the forestry problem in this Province. Mr. Speaker, there is no short term danger to the wood supplies of the paper companies of the Province. The spruce budworm is not posing a serious short term threat;- it is the long term threat we are talking about. Now, Mr. Speaker, when we talk long term, we have already passed six years and we have done nothing. Long term can only be twenty years, one third of that is gone.

Had we been practicing proper forest management, had we been thinning, had we been re-seeding with strains of timber that were less susceptible to the budworm, w~ might not be in the position today to have to force a spray programme on a province, a spray programme that may have no effect whatsoever in helping to control the budworm- indeed, it will not -but will place the health of our people and the well-being of our ecology in jeopardy. Mr.

Speaker, I do not have it to read from here now, but I have read articles where four million birds in one spray programme in New Brunswick were killed - documented, four million birds in 1975. And the minister stands up and says, 'There is no evidence that

!-fay 29, 1978 HR. FLIGHT: environment. 1 Tape 3609 EC - 3 there is any danger to the Mr. Speaker, we did an experimental spray programme last summer and I simply ask that the Environment people would go back now into the area ~e sprayed. They know the bird population for last year. They know as they did their monitoring whether there was a good population of bird life in the area.

May 29, 1978 Tape 3610 PK - 1 fir. Flioht: They know the population of the shrew. They know the conditions in the watersheds and the ponds in the area that they sprayed. Why are they refusing to go in cow and determine if the bird levels and the insect levels and the fish levels are as was then. That is the kind of thing 'tie have to know, r4r. Speaker. We do not want to go back into a forest next Summer and find that everything including the natural enemy, and there are natural enemies in this Province of the budwonn, they have all been killed.

Why does not the Minister of the Environment send his people back into those areas and determine what the long-term effect of that spray programme was, and then come out and tell the people of Newfoundland. And if the bird population is the same and the insect peculation is the same~ and there is no apparent damage to our fish, then fine. Tell the people that type of thing, and you may not qet the kind of opposition to a spray programme that is building up in this Province right now. Mr.

Speaker, another thing that has not been done in this Province when we are talking about the spray programme, in defending a spray programme, I have not seen printed - and certainly I as a member of the Opposition with no more research assistance the research staff that we have cannot he expected to reel these figures off the top of my head~ but I would if I \'Jere the minister - r do not know what Price (Nfld.) and Bowaters required last year as a cut. What was their allowable cut,for instance, last year?

Any debate as to whether or not the forests of this Province are in jeopardy because of the spruce budworm infestation would be premature unless the minister,defending his spray programme, could tell the pe-ople of Newfoundland exactly what Price 1 S and Bowater 1 s requirements were last year, what they vlill be for the next eight or ten or ten or fifteen years. It is very well for an official of Price (Nfld.) or the minister or an official of Bowaters or any other paper company to stand up and say that if he does not spray the operation will be in

t~ay 29, 1978 Tape 3610 PK - 2 l~r. Flight: jeopardy. That is a pretty vague statement when we are looking at millions of acres of wood in this Province. They have not scratched the surface an their limits. I saw a recommendation not long ago that appears to me to make a lot of sense, that it is time we took a look at the limits that those paper companies have. We know that they have practiced bad forest managemen.t. They have not practiced any forest management.

Forest management, their way of practicing it 9 where there are millions of cords of wood on their limits that will never benefit this Province, and would never have benefited if there had not been a spruce budworm problem and would never have been cut. He knm·l that. But we need to know to determine whether or not the spokesman for Price and Bowaters are right. We need to know how much wood they cut per year. And how much they are proposing to cut for the next six, seven or ei01-Jt or nine vears as to whether or not their 1t100d supply is indeed en- dangered. ~le do not have those kinds of facts.

Why does not the minister tell the people of Newfoundland? By and large most people in Newfoundland are fairly educated. Let them relate to the amount of wood that we require to go on, to maintain our forestry as we know it now, to the amount of wood that is in jeopardy that will die aver the next eight or ten or fifteen years as opposed to a blanket statement saying'~we have to spray.Our forest industry is in jeopardy:~ Mr. Speaker, I have a statement here somewhere that vmuld frighten you to death. Listen to this. the Minister of Forestry for New Brunswick says this/'! do not like to see people dying.

This is one of the things that I really would not like to see, but at the same time knowing the forest is as it is, my decision vwuld have to be with the forest." ihat is a statement from the Minister of Forestry in New Brunswick - HR.F.ROWE: What did he say? MR. FLIGHT: -iii do not like to see people dying." And by the way,to the han. the Leader of the Opposition,! was not aware of it when he asked me a fe1t1 days ago, but British Columbia have pulled out of the spray programme. All HON. MEMBER: Right. /

May 29, 1978 Tape 3610 PK - 3 Mr. Flight: Pulled out of it, pulled out because they admitted publicly that they did not know what they were doing, and until they were sure, until they had a Pesticide Act, and until they were in a position to monitor and determine what the long-term adverse effects of a spt·ay prograrrme were, they would not go into it. The Minister of Health in a recent press release in Newfoundland indicated~one could read into it, that the forest is more important than people.

He indicated that in a press release that he made recently , within this past week, depending on bow one read the press release. But our people are frightened. They do not need those kinds of statements from the Minister of Health. !-fR. H.COLLINS: MR. NEARY: SOME HON. MEMBERS: MR. NEARY: SOME HON. MEMBERS: MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible} stuck in my craw (In£udible) What is that? Oh, oh! What is that? Oh, oh! What was that remark? It could be interpreted as saying that. As a matter of fact; as the minister -

Y.ay 29, 1978 Tape ;io, 3611 }~! - 1 }!.R. FLIGHT: knows it was interpretad as sayin~ that. People in the media in Newfoundland int:erpret that statement: as bein~ that. So I am not placing my

interpretation. I am simply saying that the people of this Province- he said, "The reason we are into thiA debate is to try to ease the minds of the people in this Province who are concerned as to what a spray pro~rarnme will do to their children, cheir Province and their - xn,, !fEARY: They want to stnp it, XR. FLIGHT: It is the ministry who has ::be expertise available to them to ansYer,, If the ministers were prepared to give the people of this Province all the evidence, or admit they do not have the evidence - MR. NEARY: They do not have it.

MR. niGHT: - s•y, '~e are going anyway, We are going to spray anyway, regardless." And that is the situation we are into, Mr. Speaker. We are going to spray regardless, MR. H. COLLINS: MR. SPEAKER: MR. H. COLLINS: I have a statement here Mr. Speaker, on a point of order; A point of order. (Inaudible) because the record might show that the hon, member made the statement that I was more concerned about the forests of this Province than I was about the health of the people. I cannot permit that to go on the record unchallenged and I would - HR. FLIGHT: I ~ithdraw (inaudible). MR. H.

COLLINS: I would ask the hon. member to withdraw that statement, ~r. Speaker. MR. NEARY: To that point of order. ~r. Speaker, ~r. Speaker, what my han. friend said, it would appear from remarks and press releases and statements made

~1ay 29, 1978 Tape No. 3611 W:1 - 2 MR. NEARY: by the han. gentleman, it ~auld appear that the han, gentleman was more concerned about trees than he was about people and that is a fact, Sir, because everybody in this Province heard what the han. gentleman said, including the han. gentleman 1 s constituents in Gander and that is the way they interpreted his statement, Sir. Now the hon. member for Windsor-Buchans (Hr. Flight) is not responsible for ;.triting the minister 1 s press releases.

The han, ~entleman should be r.~re careful in his ~~oice of worjs, In my opinion, Sir, it ~s just a oatter of opinion between tva han, gentlemen, Sir, and there is no point of order. ~1R. SPEAJ<'J:R (DR. COLL!~!S}: Is the han. member rising is support of the point of order? AN HON. !1EMBER: no. !io. MR. SPEAKER: The issue in the point of order is ~ether the hon. member for Windsor-Ouchans (Mr. Flight} has interpreted an alleged statement by the han. minister in such a way that it leads to an impression that the hon. minister dicl not feel he gave or thought he gave.

I think this is more than just: a difference of opinion bet",ol'een t:~ members. Han. ::1embers will reali=e that a statement cannot be made to be in order if it is out of order on its own strength. It cannot be made to be in order if it is ascribed co someone else or used in a hypothetical situation. So I would have co ask the han. member if he would ~thdraw the statement unless he - SOHE RON. :iEl1BERS: Oh, oh! XR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I would point out that when a ruling is given from the Chair it assists the Chair greatly if han. members do not interrupt. I vould ask the hon. ::1~ember for

~iay 29, 1978 :ox - 3 !1R. SPEAKER: Windsor-auchans (Mr. Flight) if he would withdraw the statement unless he is hi~elf making a charge. In other vords, if he is reporting whac someone else is stating but not himself holding that opinion,as chis would relate to a ruling that the Speaker made earlier today, but if he is hicself making a definitive statement, a definitive charge in that regard, well this w~uld be an entirely different matter. ~IR. FLIGHT: Hr. Speaker, I have no desire to make any definitive accusations. I simply put an

interpretation, I am entitled to interpret. When I read a press ~clease it is up to me to interpret. Newfoundland has got to do it, the people who it is directed to, and I simply interpreted it as meaning - it could be read that w~y, I said. I have no desire to embarrass the ~inister. My concern is not with the minister at this' particular time, Mr. Speaker, it is with the spray programme 1 the effects it ~11 have on this Province, and whether or not it is necessary, being just as concerned and just as knowledgeable about the value of our forest£ as the !:linistr;, as that minister or any other minister.

H.y concern at this time is not making political points or embarrass the minister. It is to see that the right - try to expose this situation and try to force that government to prove that they are doing the only and the right and the proper thing and that the better interest of this Province is in mind. Let me read from this - obviously here is a source that is going to have to be considered. Mr. Speaker, one of the ministers in speaking in some Question Period a few days ago,indicated that we ~ere ~aking a political issue out of the spruce budwonn effect.

Listen to what !1acTaggart Cowan, former Chai~an of the Science Council of Canada said, per se, generally about spraying. "The actual operation control progra!:'l!!l.e

!1ay 29, 1978 Tape ~{a. 3611 :.11 - 4 MR. FLIGHT: is so complex and chaotic that except in the crudest sense ;.;e have no knowledge of how much sp~ay will actually reach the spruce budworm or where the remainder will lodge in any given operation. 11 And you r.ronder why the people in Gander are concerned? They are going to spray over Gander Lake. And here is the past Chaiman of the Science Council of Canada saying that we have no idea where the najority of it will lodge. '1 0

May 29, 1978 Tape 3612. EC - 1 MR.

FLIGHT: 11 McTaggart Cowan, former Chairman of the Research Council of Canada, said that research into effects of the budworm programme done to date lacks vigour, planning and control, and one wonders whether there has been more concern with appearing busy than shedding light on the risks and the benefits~~ If those kinds of statements coming from those kinds of qualified people do not leave the people of Newfoundland wondering who is telling the truth, who is withholding vhat, does not make them worry, frightened to death as to just what vill be the long term effects of the programme we are going into: Mr.

Speaker, having moved this motion then it is my understanding that it will be my responsibility to close the debate. MR. J. CARTER: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not think the han. gentleman will have a chance to close the debate. This is not that type of a motion. I would like that clarified and I would like the introducer of that motion to know that before we close down. MR. FLIGHT: I thank the han. member, Mr. Speaker. When I have as much experience in parliamentary procedure - MR. SPEAKER: (Dr. Collins) Order. please!

That point that was brought up may not become an active issue in actual fact, but it ~ill be looked into and I will inform the han. r::~ember HR. FLIGHT: before the afternoon is out. Mr. Speaker, as I understand it I have roughly four or five minutes left, I will say now that maybe one of the most icportant side effects of the proposed spray programme is to focus attention of the people of this /1

Hay 29, 1978 Tape 3612 EC - 2 HR. FLIGHT: Province on the lack, the total and absolute lack of forest management or total lack of concern for what has been going on in our forests up to this point in time. In 1971 we had the message that our forests were under a severe budworm attack. ~othing happened. Nothing happened this past four years, so maybe, ~r. Speaker, one of the effects of the spruce budworm controversy will be to focus attention again on the lack of concern that we, as a province, have had on one of our most vital and most important areas of our economy. Mr.

Speaker, the Xinister of Forestry has said, 'tle will spray regardless of what the people think, 1 He said that. And, Mr. Speaker, I would say again that I do not believe in government by referendum, but I tell the minister that if the opposition to that spray programme builds up to the extent that I expect it to build up, if the petitions come into this House that I expect to come in, then he will find out that 75 per cent or 80 per cent of the population of this Province will be against the spray programme and he will have their names.

Now if he is going to go ahead and spray then in spite of that kind of representation,then we may as well shut down this House of Assembly and declare this a dictatorship. Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province are worried. They are not getting the answers. They have been given no evidence that the spray programme as proposed by the Department of Forestry will have any effect in lessening the budworm infestation. They are frightened that in spite of all sorts of presentations opposing it the government is showing a lack of concern /}"'1 ( I .

Hay 29, 1978 Tape 3612 EC - 3 NR. FLIGHT: for the health and welfare of the people by deliberately spraying watersheds, deliberately spraying within quarters of miles, one-sixth of a mile of any given town. We are still into an experimental stage. There are millions of acres of valuable wood on Bowaters limits and Price limits and Crown limits that could have been sprayed this year in what is really only our second year in what is the eaphasis of a spray programme. But instead they callously decided to spray the headwat~r.the water supplies, the fringes of municipalities, towns in this Province where there will be a direct -Mr. Speaker whenone considers this

>lay 29, 19i8 Tape ~;o, 3613 ~:t! - 1 HR. FLIGHT: If there is any possibility at all that the chemical Y4tacil can have an adverse effect on people's health,then we are going to spray the people, ·.;a are going to test the people. We are ~oing to be guinea pigs. Because we could have taken the same acreage. If we are going to spray one million acres in ~1ewfoundland today we could have selected that million acreage without any fear that the population areas of this Province would have been effected, that is, effected directly, by the spray.

But instead we selected areas that guarantee that seventy per cent of the spray that we are ~oin2 to release from those aircraft might indeed fall on populated areas in this Province, Now does that make sense? Is there any member on that side of the House who believes that there may be a millionth of a chance that ~atacil may adversely effect the health of our people, that there is a danger, knowin~ that that is a possibility ~e w~ll stand up and defend the government's attitude to spray water supplies. to spray towns, to spray within one-sixth of a mile of a community? That is absolutely stupid?

That is absolutely callous and stupid and irresponsible to have ever selected the sites that are indicateC on that map. We have all kinds, millions of acres of second growth, the kind of timber we are out to protect., and look what we decided. I want to hear the minister indicating, he has been asked a question already, Mr. Speaker, why the sites selected, why indeed they were selected, the sites selected within a mile, within one-sixth of a mile, within one-half a mile of populated areas. And, Xr. Speaker. to allude to something else. The minister is lucky in a sense.

There is not in this year's pro2ramme anyway and there may ~ot be in next year's programme, there is no intention of spraying the J..valon ?eninsula. And I

Xay 29, 1978 Tape No, 3613 ill\. FLIGHT: suspect that may have been deliberate. I do not know ~hat the percentage of infestation is on the Avalon Peninsula. But I suspect that if the word went out that the Avalon Peninsula, the environs of St. Jor~'s were to be sprayed, we would have another demonstration in front of this buildin~. But by and large the greatest percentage of ~he population of Newfoundland is on the Avalon Peninsula, concentrated in the St. John's area and away .from- they are not afraid of the effects of ~1atac.il or any spray being used, But I suspect if the people outside of St.

John's who intend get involved and intends to oppose the spray program, if they to suddenly get the sympathy of the people on the Avalon Peninsula, of the people in St. John's and that portion of the populntion comes out opposed to the spray prograrn,or not necessarily opposed to the spray program but simply demanding that the government indicate that they are aware of what that spray program is going to do in this Province, that. is the issue in this debate. We are not opposed to the spray program.

We are simply saying chat ~e are entitled to know what the effect will be and whether or not it will do anything co improve our forests or to add years t.o the trees. What will it do to our environment? That is the purpose of this debate, not to oppose a spray program per se but so that we as a government are a~le to tell the people of this Province just what. they can eXpect as a result of the spray program, what the long-c.erm adverse effects will be and what the short-t.erm benefits will be. And to this point, Mr.

Speaker, the Government of }iewfoundland have failed dismissally to do this to the people and as a result we have the kind of protest that we are about to see shaping up in this Province right now. As a result we have people •.;orried, concerned and afraid with no proof of what they are risking. If the government could indicate that this is the only possibility and that there are not other alternatives, that the spray program in itself will have a 1

'tay 29, 1978 T.lpe :1o. 3613 J~1 - J >fit. FLIG!IT: financial or any other beneficial effect, and if the goverru:;.ent could indicate '.lhat W'e can expect as adverse effects, what effect it will have on our environment, on the health and wellwbeing of our people,maybe we would not see the kind of opposition we are going to see 1 Hr. Speaker. To this point the governr:.ent have not addressed themselves to what the people of Newfoundland fear with regards to the spray program that is presently bein2 forced on them without them having had the benefit of any imput. Thank you, ~!r. Speaker. ~R.

SPE}.KER: Order, please! 1f the han. members will permit r:le just for one moment. The question has come up whether the han. member who moved the notion can speak again in the debate and to clarify this perhaps I could just read subsection (

b) of Standing Order 53 which states as follows: "A reply shall be allowed to the mover of a substantive motion but not to the mover of an amendment to the previous question or an instruction to a committee. 11 So the question comes dow"n to whether this is a substantive motion or not and I would refer han. members to

::ay 29,1973 Tape :'lo. 3614 Al~-1 (Dr.Collins) page 277 wilich states as follows,

part v;ay dow-n the page. "The motion that this House do now adjourn caved •.,;;1en there is no question before the House is a form of substantive motion." So this motion that ~e are now debating is a substantive motion;therefore the han. member would have the opportunity to close the debate if the occasion arises. The Leader of the Opposition. It appears nobody vanes to speak over on the other side Er. Speal:er. I will certainly yield and have the back and forth type of - :!R. J. CARTER: ~1R.W.ROWE: I am prepared to ::>peak. As long as I am not giving up :.ny right to speak, Sir.

Obviously somebody has to rise, in yielding I can speak later. But it is understood, Sir, that ~!R. SPEAKER: (Dr.Collins) It is understood that the aon. Leader of the Opposition has ~:ot spoken but is yielding his place. to the han. member for St., .J'oim 1 s North. Mr. Speaker, I just want to get clarification. Can w~ speak more than once on this motion or is that - SO!l!: HON .:IEHBERS : Oh, oh! HR. SPEAKER: (Dr.Collins) Order, please! Perhaps I could clarify • !he mover of the motion,~hich has now been clarified as being a substantive motion,may speak in closing the debate.

So ~e may speak tvice , but other bon. members r.,;ould speak in the normal way, that is, for forty-five minutas,except that the Preoier and the han. Leader of the Opposit.ion ~uuld have their own prerogatives in this regard. Did I understand chat the bon. member for St.John's ~orth was about to speak? }W~. W.RDWC: As long as I have it understood I reserve the ri&ht to speak. )ULSPEAKER:(Dr.Collins) It is underst:ood the han. Leader of the Opposition has not spoken in the debate. If the han. member for St. John's ~orth speaks, that is understood, lion. member for St. John's ~orth.

;-!ay 29,1973 Tape ~lo. 3614 AH-2 ~rR.J .C.',RTER: :-1r. Speaker, I think t.bac there are some points that should be made in this debate and the first one I would like to make is that chemicals can be good servants but bad masters; chemicals in :hat sense are like fire. And the question arises should we leave the present infestation that 'Ne have to nature or should ~:e attempt to do someti1ing about it1 i{hat should our attempts be? If we do nothing presumably ::~ature will heal these scars in one hundred or two hundred years. iffi. l..rhiTE: :-a, J. CA.E'..TEK: Or ten or fifteen or twenty.

The hon. o.ember .;aici ten or fifteen It cannot happen in ten or fifteen years Oy natural means because the spruce budworm will go until it is checked by lack of food or some HR. 'WHITE: (Inaudible) 1704 :m.J .CARTER: TI1ere is another factor cnat the han. member is ovcrlookin£. I would appreciate no interruptions but however I a::t prepared to deal with legitimate points as they come up. One of the points that has been made of course is that this present spruce budworm infestation,or really it should be called a fir budworm,I suppose,because the t~ee chat it attacks is a fir tree and not a spruce tree.

It is pretty voracious and it will eat almost any kind of coniferous tree but it seems to prefer the fir tree. Of coursc 1 the fact that we have mismanaged the woods for so many decades means that there has been massive regro\o."t::1s of f: .. ~· tr-2es that have grown so closely together that. a spruce budvor:n r:1erely ha;:; to turn its head to be chewing on another tree. It does not have any difficulty getting from tree to tree so it is able to go thro;.;gU these trees like wildfire and that is one of the reasons why we have such a heavy infestation.

In an ordinary virgin forest or crow~ climax forest this would not be the case. Therewould be some specie mix and saoe trees would die and others would, because of the room left. to them~ 1.uuld be able to grow that nuch better and would take their place and you would hardly notice. There is always somE::t:1ing L"1 the woods chewing at leave:;; and trees. Insects should not. be regarded as invaders 1they are perfectly natural. Itis only w·hen the insect: population ,gets out of control ti1at t~ey are a danger and a protle::t as the spruce budworm now is. 7

3614 AE-3 ~£R. J .CA?.TE:l: So if we; do aot do anythiag, given the state of the woods as they are no'.I-,With all due deference to the ::~ec:ber for Lewisporce (:lr.iJhite),if ve do not do anything we are looking at about one hundred to t;.;o hundred years before the woods look after themselves, by the tice all the crowded fir trees are killed off ~~d replaced by another species that can perhaps hold and regenerate itself in our forest land. 71/

f1ay 29, 1978 Tape 3615 PK - 1 Mr. J. Carter: Now I am told that it takes a spruce budworm about five years to kill a tree, that a tree can sustain a bad attack one year, it eats some of the needles, there is sti11 enough vigor left in the tree to produce more new buds for the next year and this can happen perhaps as long as five years before a tree is finally finished by the spruce budworm. So if in any point in its infestation the attack can be stopped so as the tree is given a breathing s'Pace presumably then it will live for another five years.

In other words, if in year three you can somehow give it a breathing space it may then take until year eight before it is killed even given - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, no! Oh, no! MR. J. CARTER: I have watched trees, infested trees, and, you know,I have observed them, I am not just talking off the top of my head. I have observed this, and I am concerned about it. And my observations plus what I have read lead me to believe that if a coniferous tree is given a breathing space,its natural ability to regenerate itself that it will 1ast for, you know, it will last for another few years before it is finally killed.

Now, of course, if the infestation is particularly heavy the tree will perhaps die in less than five years, and if the infestation is slight it may live for ten or fifteen years; and it may assume peculiar shapes if the top is killed and the bottom branches fan out. And, of course, whether the tree survives or not it is only of academic interest because it is so misshapened that it is no good for a saw log, it is not much good for timber; or for pulp wood, it is probably only good for firewood, and it is a misshapen thing, it is more in the way than anything else.

So spraying is only a stopgar.solution as far as I am concerned. I do not think anyone in their right senses thinks that we have in order to maintain our forests ~>Je should spray every year. I do not think we should spray all of our forests, I think spraying is not the ideal answer. r do not necessarily rely on spraying of the woods to solve our problem. The solution to our problems are much more long-term. And at the end of the few remarks 71

May 29, 1978 Tape 3615 PK - 2 r~r. J. Carter: have to make I will make some particular recommendations that think would help out. You know,we have to make the choice:do we want a forest industry or do we not? And what is our forest industry worth to us, 8 nd what can it be worth to us? I think han. gentlemen should be very, very grateful that this is 1978 and not 1878. Because if we had an infestation back in 1878 and tried to attack it chemically,what kind of chemicals would we have had at our disposal?

Now medieval man used Bordeaux mixture which is a mixture of lime and copper sulfate, which is quite poisonous, and not degradable. Our ancestors in the last century had arsmic of lead. I do not know if han. gentlemen would prefer arsenic of lead. That is not degradable or self-degradable. If you spread that around your house and come back in 5,000 years it is still just as lethal, just as poisonous, and probably just as much of it around. So I am glad there is no ar'senic of lead being proposed.

I am f!lad there is no calcium arsenate, am glad there is no mercurybichlorid~ all these are extremely dangerous, very toxic, poisonous, and thedeat,h people die from them is a horrible one. So thank goodness we are not living in the last century. The ~_chemicals that we propose to use today at least have a very short life, and they revert to harmless elements very shortly. Now a few years ago there was ~ui te a fuss about DDT. and Aldren. Aldren was an insecticide that was mixed in the fertilizer, and proved to be a boon against all sorts of root maggots and cutworms and various insects that attack crops.

But it was found to presist. ~t persisted in the soil, and it presisted in the tissues of animals that ate material that had been sprayed or protected by Aldren,and it accumulated. Although a person could in~P.st some of it without any apparent harm, it stored itself in the body fat, and once the person, for one reason or another last \'teiqht either ;:u:cidental1y or on purpose,then this DDT or Aldren,these particular chemica1s,would reassert themselves, vmuld reappear and cause problems. So these have been banned and very wisely so.

Hay 29, 1978 HR. J. CARTER: need to be sprayed. Tape 3616 EC - 1 And a great many crops do not Aromatic crops~ herbs, onions, certain types of flowers,- calendulas, I think, are resis~ant to insect attack, because they are aromatic; so the problem does not exist, does not occur for all crops. In fact, it has been estimated that only a very small percentage of the world's crops need to be protected by spray of any kind.

And also, cost of mankind's efforts against insect attack and disease is done by breeding resistance stock, For instance, there is now rust-resistant wheat and canker-resistant potato, and in time,perhaps, there will be a spruce budworm resistant fir tree, but there is not at the moment. This would be the long term hope. But in the meantime, t-1hat do you do while these resistant strains are being developed? And I think of a particular farmer in Coledale, Alberta, who by himself farms 2,300 acres of land. A lot of it is grain and a lot of it is potatoes.

And when his potatoes break through the ground he sets them with a potato planter. When his potatoes break through the ground~there is the Colorado potato beetle just waiting to devour chem. So he 'phones up the spray 'plane and asks them to come in,and they spray his acreage with some relatively rapidly degrading chemical and the Colorado potato beetle is conquered. And he goes ahead and has a good crop of potatoes. And I would like han. gentlemen opposite,and in fact all bon. gentlemen, to consider this following fact.

I do not mind a person being against a particular spray - I think we should all look before we leap- but are the bon. gentlemen making a fuss about Matacil and yet sitting down and eating apples or having

Xay 29, 1978 Tape 3616 EC - .2 XR. J. CARTER: a feed of pork and cabbage when they go home, because those two crops, apples and cabbage - apples particularly- are sprayed once a week during their bearing lifetime. ~iR. FLIGHT: With Matacil? MR. J. CARTER: Not with Matacil, but with various chemicals that presumably degrade. But an apple tree is first sprayed with something to cut down the amount of blossom, because the hybrid apple tree would produce so many apples that it would break its branches. And then it is sprayed against various insect attacks on the average of once a week during its entire lifetime.

Now I cannot see a person being afraid of a spray 'plane in the distance that is hopefully keeping away from populated areas and from watersheds - and I would agree with bon. gentlemen there, that these spray 'planes should keep away from inhabited areas and from watersheds - but I cannot see hon. gentlemen objecting to spraying infested woods and yet at the same time not having something to say about cabbage and apples. ~~n. WHITE: Spraying period. XR. J.

CARTER: Well, if the bon. gentleman wants to cut out all spray he had .better tighten his belt because he is going to be a lot thinner than he is now and so will most of us, because we are supporting an unnaturally large population on this earth by virtue of chemical warfare of various kinds. MR. FLIGHT: HR. J. CARTER: ~fR. FLIGHT: ~!ay I ask one ouestion? Yes, Sir. Has the member familiarized himself ~ith the areas being sprayed? i1R. J. CARTER: Yes, and I have also familarized

Hay 29, 1978 Tape 3616 EC - 3 MR. J. CARTER: myself with the intention of the government not to spray when they pass over watersheds and not to spray if there is any sign of human habitation so that the areas that we are talking about being sprayed are, I understand, uninhabited. ~R. FLIGHT: No. You are wrong. HR. J.

CARTER: No, I realize that there are inhabited areas within the boundary that is to be sprayed, as the member showed on the map, but, for instance, any town or settlement or any habitation whatsoever in the path of the spray 'plane, the pilot would turn off his spray at a sensible, reasonable distance from that inhabited area so that there should be practically no drift in any inhabited area.

I think that is very important, and I agree with the bon. gentleman when he has concerns, but I would say that it is my understanding that the chemical, Mataeil,is one that does self-destruct very rapidly and also is a very specific narrow guage chemical which aims itself at the stomach enzyme of the spruce budworm, so it is a very concentrated attack against not the spruce budworm, but against the stomach enzyme of the spruce budworm, without which it cannot digest its food and must die of starvation and I y

!!ay 29, 1978 Tape 3617 IB-1 !1R. J. CARTER: that this chemical is not necessarily unsafe. It is a very specific chemical. It is a very specific poison against a very specific target, not even the spruce budworm but the colenestres enzyme in the gut of the spruce budworm. So some may not be touched by it, It depends on the particular enzyme makeup of the gut. So this is another point. It is not a broad spectrum insecticide like DDT or like aldren or like,say,the commoner poisons that I mentioned earlier like arsenative lead or calcium arsinate.

These are board spectrum that kill everything, birds, fish, mammals,man, horses, cows, pigs; whatever it gets in contact with it will poison including the han. gentleman if he got to close to it or ingested any. Also these are poisons without any antidotes and they are very bad and thank goodness we are living in the present century and,not a hundred years ago. So, what should we do? Now these are the recommendations I have to make and I think han. gentlemen opposite would agree with me. First of all,we spray very carefully.

I do not think anyone in their senses would suggest that we blanket all of Newfoundland vith the spray even if we could do it. Even if we could devise some method for blanketing Newfoundland with spray we would not do it. We spray very carefully, We avoid watersheds I think that is the first thing. and we avoid people. The second recommendation is that either through harvest or through controlled burning we destroy some infested areas altogether, clear out the woods, clear out the infestation and start again where possible.

Now it may not be feasible to do this over a vide area but some areas should be completely cleaned. 1 J

Hay 29, 1978 Tape 3617 IB-2 MR. J. CARTEF: We should investigate a specie change. We should look for a tree that will grow, will survive in our climate which will grow faster and resist the attacks of other spruce budworm. Ue should encourage an active programme of reforestation. Every time a tree is cut a tree should be planted. We should not just clear cut and then allow for nature to replant. We should set out more woods roads, far more woods roads. Our fores