VOL. 3 PRELIMINARY UNEDITED TRANSCRIPT HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR THE PERIOD: 10:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. FRIDAY, MAY 26, 1978 NO. 69

··~ May 26, 1978 The House met at 10:00 A.M. Mr. Speaker in the Chair. MR. SPEAKER: MR. NEARY: MR. SPEAKER: a point of privilege. MR. NEARY: Tape No. 3556 Order, please! On a point of privilege. The hon. member for LaPoile on Mr. Speaker, in this morning' s Daily News, Sir, both myself and the member for Terra Nova (Mr. Lush) were the victims of a vicious, personal attack by a public servant. I do not know, Mr.

Speaker, if we are developing a new philosophy in this Province, Sir, that the ministers do not answer to the House any longer for the actions and behaviour of public servants; thAt the public servants themselves now go out of their way to make vicious political statements, and the one I refer to, Sir, is '"Pearcey Defends Against Accusations." NM- 1 In the article, Sir, I read it very carefully, Pearcey did not defend the accusations :that were made in this Bouse. And, Mr. Speaker, I want to make it abundantly clear, Sir, that I did not design immunity in this House.

It was not me who said that members of legislatures and members of Parliament should have diplomatic immunity or any other kind of immunity. It was not me who designed that and I am prepared to say outside of this House what I said inside, and I did in fact repeat what I said outside the House this .ornina. Mr. Speaker, the whole purpose of the exercise was that huge amounts of taxpayer money are being used on projects where this gentleman has input and where he can make recommendations. So we feel, Sir, on this side of the House, that it is imperative that Newfoundland's Director of Ai.r Services, Mr.

Ted Pearcey, be asked to clear !UJnself of even

Hay 26, 1978 Tape No. 3556 NH- 2 MR. NEARY: the appearance, Mr. Speaker, of conflict of interest. He must answer fully the circumstances under which, and this is the point we were bringing out, under which he ferried a new helicopter from Houston, Texas, to St. John's for Sealand Helicopters, who are presently involved in negotiating a contract with the provincial government. After-all, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Pearcey must have had some influence and some input into that Sealand Helicopter contract , as already admitted in this House by the minister.

And also, Sir, has input into the work that Sealand is doing right now pending the signing of the contract itself, which the House of Assembly was told . has not been done as yet by the minister. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I must ask the hon. gentleman to bring his remarks to a conclusion because the matters where there might be a difference of opinion between the Opposition and Government, or indeed between members and a civil servant, would not . . be- directi)l: ·matte3:8- related: .r.tO""• · '' '~'-"· ·.: ,.,,,. :· : privilege so that I can then make a decision on the specific matter of privilege. MR.

NEARY: Yes, Sir. I am sorry it has taken me so long, my

preamble, Mr. Speaker, but I have to preface my prima facie case because, as Your Honour knows, members of this House are not allowed to impute motives of other members of the House, let alone, Sir, a public servant question the motives of members of this aouse. And in this article, Sir, that I am quoting from here, Mr. Pearcey says, "I have been a member of the civil service for almost ten years • I favour no parties nor do I profess any politics." And then, Sir, on in the last paragraph, just listen to this, Mr.

Speaker, the last paragraph, after making a statement: that he professes no politics then the very same gentleman says, " •••• it is a shame ••• I have been criticized, allegations have been made against me, who knows what effect this has on a person :1 s reputation • • •

May 26, 1978 Tape No. 3556 NM - 3 MR. NEARY: it appears," just listen to this, Mr. Speaker, " it lQ)pears the Liberals will do anythinR to discredit the gove%'DIIIellt11 __ ...,_This-is .the.-3'!11tleman who .jus-t-- -- ·-. made the statement that he bas no politics. Now that: is a matter of opin:lon, :t is a matter of judgl!lllent, Sir­ " to discredit the goverument and when that f.ails they start on people who have no protection from what they have said," said Mr. Pearcey ." Now, Mr.

Speake .r, in my opinion, Sir, that is a bteach of my privileges of this House, the members of this side of the House, The member for Terra Nova (Mr. Lush) is not here or the member would speak in protection of himself. Members are not allowed to say these things about other members, Sir.

If I were to get up today and if the Hinister of ~ustic:e made that statement inside or· outside the Bouse,it would be IJI11)arliamentarv and the minister would have~~- ..it...ll~- AruU-~ tbi~e ,best:.WaJ, . t ,. • ·"·- -.. ,.~ -:.,. ;,.;". -,;o._ settle the situation, Sir, once and for all wo.uld be to have· Mr, Pearc:ey appear before the House of Assembly to answer the questions that I have already put to the minister ths:t. brought on this outburst, And ~til he does so; Sir, his integrity will suffer.

May 26, 1978 Tape 3557 PK - 1 Mr. Neary: will suffer,and he is in too an important position in the government, position of trust for that to be permitted: -·-.So- H your --- Honour agrees that I have a prima facie case, I am prepared to move, Sir, the necessary motion that either the gentleman be diciplined, reprimanded severely by his minister,or that Mr. Piercey be invited to appear before a committee of this House to ans1>1er some· very· serious questions that we put to the minister in connection with the government's air services. And also explain, Mr.

Speaker, the details in connection with the Province's two new Canso water bombers that in a short period the price has zoomed from $700,000 to $1.2 million. And this is what we are getting at, Mr. Speaker, we are trying to do our jobs to protect the Public Treasury, and for that we get viciously attacked by a public servant. MR. HICKMAN: Mr. Speaker, to that point. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader. MR. HICKMAN: First 1 y, there ' is-' ne '! ·¥iocfc:nJS"a'ttad~'-"li~ aRY·-'hon"· -..-... _~ ......... ~_, __ _ gentleman of this House in the

article referred to by the hon. the member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary). The very most that coul-d ·be sai-d of it -- is that a citizen of this Province who has been attacked in this House has responded, and I would suggest, Sir, that that does not in any way constitute a breach of privilege of this House. It does not endager the immunity of this House. It does not endanger the immunity and the freedom of action within the four walls of this House of any hon. gentleman. And it is clear, it has been decided beyond reasonable doubt that that immunity stops right here in this House. And the courts are now placing a fairly restrictive

interpretation upon immunity outside of this House as Your Honour is aware because of a very recent matter that was referred to the Court of Appeal of Ontario by the Legislature of that Province. The matters raised by the hon. gentleman for LaPoile if,I would submit, if stated in this House would not under any circumstances constitute a breach of privilege. If during this debate I said that the

May 26, 1978 Tape 3557 PK - 2 Mr. Hickman: hon. gentleman opposite will do anything to discredit this government,then I would suspect that the most that Your Honour could rule was either that it was a difference of opinion or it was a breach of the rule,most assuredly not a breach of privilege. And submit, Mr.

Speaker, that no case for a breach of privilege has been made here,or even close to making a case for a breach of privilege, I realize I am not permitted on a matter of privilege to become involved in debate or refer to extraneous matters, but I can only suggest,and I do have the right to say this in response to some comments made by the han. gentleman opposite,that sure government has an obligation to defend public servants and ministers have an obligation to defend public servants, and a minister who does not defend his public servants should not be a minister. MR. NEARY: You are talking about (inaudible) MR.

HICKMAN: And no matter where the act arises, and if it is totally beyond the knowledge and control of the minister, the minister still has to answer for it. But this has· gone far beyond the ministerial responsibility when one looks at, brings before this House where a public servant goes on vacation, or who he goes with, or where. It is no concern of this House. MR. NEARY: MR. HICKMAN: HR. NEARY: MR. HICKMAN: MR. NEARY: MR. HICKMAN: If it influences his decision making - And, Mr. Speaker, I submit - - as a public servant, I submit - I submit, Mr. Speaker - - it is important.

I would love to debate the issue if I were permitted to under the rules of this House, but it is not a matter that is debatable on a question of privilege. And there has been no prima facie case made or even close to making a prima facie case simply because a citizen of this Province decides to defend himself in public. He has no immunity, If he has said one thing that is libelous - MR. NEARY: He has not defended himself - MR. HICKMAN: - he has no immunity, he has no immunity, Mr. Speaker, if he made, uttered one word that is libelous then the hon. the gentleman for LaPoi.le (_Mr.

Nearyl and the hon. the memher for

~'av 26 . 1 978 Tane 3557 PR - 3 !lR. B I~..AN: Terra Nova (Mr. Lush) has their rights which they can exercise like any other citizen of this Province. !fit . ~lEA.!~Y: This is the highest court in the land and we are e ~ercis ing our rlgh ts. Do not be so slimey, boy . !iR. SPEAKER: Order, please ! As 1 have stated before that there are matters which are brought up on which the Chair will indeed invite contributions because of the complexity of the matter. and there are other areas in which the ~air has to use it disc retion to decide whet her enough argument has been submitted on which to make a rational decision. And in this case, having ._

:-Jay 26,197..; :•liZ. SPEAKER: Tape :;o. 33.5.S Ali-1 heard the non. member to my right,who brought up the matter,an<i having heard the submission of the han. gentleman to my left,it is of a nature whereby I am now in a position to make a decision, It is not a matter of such complexity that I would need to canvass further opinion. What I have ~o point out is that the Chair is not in a position to decide on a number of matters which are related here.

The Chair does not decide upon the merit of different opinions between government and ~pposition,or between any members,whether in government or Opposition.and a civil servant. Nor am I in a position to decide on the prooriet'll of remarks by a civil servant nor again whether there may or mar not be a conflict of interest on the

part 1 or his competence in the performance of his official duties. The single matter on which I have to 1:1ake a decision is whe.ther there is a prima facie case of ·.,n .acil of privile ;;e, And readir.g the re!llilr !,s from t:'le same source the hou gentleman read them: "'It is a shame. I have ileen criticized, allegations r~ve been made against me.Who knows what effect t i'lis has on a person's reputation~ ... It appears the Liberals will do anything to discredit the government and when that fails they start on people who have no i?rotection from what they say," said Hr.

Piercey.' As I say, it is not =or me to decide on the propriety of the remarks, their wisdom his c;:omoetence in the performance of his duties, whether or not he is involved or anybody is involved in a conflict of interest situation, but merely whether in that there is the substance of privilege; whed1er there is,for exampls,intimidation toward a member, harassment, gross insult or matters of that nature. In my opinion there is not evidence of a prima facie case of breach of privilege. The other matters are outside my jurisdiction. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, a point of order, Sir. MR • SPEAKER: A point of order. MR.

NEARY: In order to get this matter cleared up, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move, seconded by my colleague 9 the 1.1eruber for Burgee-

' . ~ :ray 26,1973 Tape j o. 355b ,\li-2 MR. NEARY: Bay d' Espoir (Mr. Simmons), Sir, that this gentleman, the Director of Air Services, before the budget is closed, Sir, that this gentleman be invited to come into the nouse to answer questions that we put to the hon. minister, Sir, to answer questions and to give evidence in connection with this whole matter which is very, very serious indeed. MR. HI CKi1AN: ~Ir. Speaker, to that point of order. ..JR. SPEAKER: The hon. Government House Leader • MR.

HICKMAN: Tnat motion is clearly and absolutely out of order, contrary to the rules and cannotti submit,be accepted by the Chair. MR. SPEAKER: All motions of a substantive nature, have to have notice of motion at the appropriate time, so I could not accept that motion now. :1R. NEARY: Would that be Orders of the Day? HR. SPEAKER: Notices of 1-iotion. ~1R. WELLS: A point of privilege, 11r. Speaker. - MR. SPEAKER: A matter of privilege. HR. WELLS: :1r. Speaker, this may take some time for me to outline out I propose to start at i~ now ~1ich is the earliest opportunity.

Yesterday when Your Honour was u~t in the Chair,a matter arose-and I have the transcript here now •mich is quite thick and it would be pointless to read it,but I think we can all agree on the subject matter that arose in the debate, :he subject matter essentially was references by the member for Burgee - Bay d 1 Espoir(Hr. Simmons) to alle!!;ed telephone conversations made by or between me and same 0~1er party.

I will tell Your Honour now Hhat I know of the matter ,because there is a very fundamental and important point I think here to do with the whole running and privileges of tl1is Rouse. wbat I gather both from the member for Burgee- _ Bay d' Espoir (Mr. Simmons) and more particularly from the member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary)

~i<: y 26 ,1978 Tape :{o . 3.358 Ar.-3 !·CR. lo;ELLS: w:.o entered the debace ,is ti1at at some tioe soce pe r son taped a private telephone conversation between me and a man nruaed Andrew Davidson, that that tape was - I do not know but this is what I ga ther from what they say- :bat the tape ·.tas ;nade and afterwards reduced to writing and this ai<W been referre d to on one or two occasior- .s i n t he Uouse and I t:hink the hon. wember fo r LaPoile 01r. Neary) at one stage, one or two occasions I heard him say he was proposing to table it . tlow they i1ave also - MR. NEARY: If the bon . gentleman waats me to. I do not particularly want co. ·.

~[ay 26, 1973 Tape 3559 MR. R. lo.'EI>I.S: If the han. gentleman would please let me finish my remarks. The gist of what is in this alleged taped telephone conversation • !~r. Speaker, has been ruade clear by the hon. member, both members,in~olved in this on several occasions,and the gist of it is that I was critical of the government. Now let me deal with that matter first just to lay that matter in perspective. Mr.

Speaker, as an elected member and as a citizen of this country I have a right to be critical of the government 1 this government or any government.I support this government in the House because I happen to believe that it is giving the best government that is capable of being give~ right now in the Province of Newfoundland . and I make no bones about that. But I have had at times been very critical of it, critical in this House 7 critical outside the House,critical in Caucus,critical to the members of government to their faces for that matter. That part does not bother me at all, it does not bother me, Mr.

Speaker, at all.

But what concerns me,because this could affect every man or woman in this House,is this: can someone tape 2 telephone conversatiar,ar say they taped a telephone conversation with a member: can, they then reduce this to writlng,and can another member - is it within the rules of the House and our parliamentary practice for another member,who was not the person on the other end of the telephone but in fact a third party, who has no knowledge of what •~as really said 1 can that member1 any member, any of us bring into the House such a transcript or a tape and say,aerelthis will be made part of the public record?Now as I say,in this case to me it matters not a damn- and I do not knm~ if that is parliamentary or not; if it is not I will withdraw it, Mr.

Speaker, whether the thing is tabled or nat,whatever it is.I have no idea of what it is; but if that is what it is 1 criticism of the government 1 I could not care less, ~l r. Speaker, llut there is such a fundamental point here because,you see 1 tonight I could go and make up anything -.

:•ay 26, 1978 Tape 3559 m-r - 2 MR. R. lffi..LS: about any member of this House of Assembly and come in here on Monday and say,' Look what I have been gioren. Look at this here, Mr. Speaker, Let me refer to this, let me read from it: This is the danger.

It is a danger that some han. members in this House may have a great deal to fear because they are dealirg with people that are not the most scrupulous in the world,and there is no need for me to name nat11es,and if they do not ah;rays say things in this House that these certain people might agree <v.i.th, they might find themselves facing a very, very much greater difficulty than I am facing, which is no difficulty at all,over criticism of the government, as I say which does not bother me the slightest,but that is the point. ~ow let us•take what do we know about this alleged tape,this alleged transcript.we know what the member for LaPoile (Mr.

Neary) said yesterday,that it was given to him anonymously, given to him, the member for LaPoile said, and it is in the transcript,that it was given to him,this trarscript or tape was given anonymously and he said we <.rill - MF. HR . the HR. ~ "R . s. NEARY: R. WELLS: hon. member s. NEARY: R. ·:'ELLS: said. I did not say that. The record will shm~ what (Inaudible) private and confidential (inaudible) Anonymous•·-was the 'N'Ord, the record will show.That is something we can check into, Mr. Speaker. MR. SD!I10NS: Has the member ever seen the transcript? NR. R. HELLS : Of course not. No,I have been given no - MR.

SH1MONS: Row could he be sure (inaudible) <vhen he ,lid not hear himself on the tape.

~'ay 26, 19 78 Tape 3559 m.1 - 3 ~!R. R. WELLS: Hell,! was here in the Rouse. I was here in the ~ouse. I heard. SOME RON. MEMBERS: Oh, 9h! ~ffi. SPEAKER: MR. R. WELLS: this will - Order, please! Order, please! It is somewhat a comrlex matter and ~'r. Speaker, the point is that ~. STI~ONS: You have lost your whole argument now. "!R. R. lVELLS: '!o, no I was here in the House and I heard what was said and t~e record will show it. tlut here is what we know, ~!r. Speaker.

We ~:not• that someone allegedly transcribed a te~ephone conversation and distributed it to third parties two of '·1hom, or one of vlhOJ!l at any rate, or one or two or however many,are here in this House. We know that the members who are in this House have no personal knovTledge of any such thing , they only have, if '"e are to believe them, which we must, I suppose,what somebody else gave them. ~low I am going to read

section 178 of the Crimial Code because this is interesting. MR. !'<EARY: threaten me! MR. R. ~JELLS: }ITL S • !TEARY : Do not threaten me! Do not No threats at all, but my rights are as important - Oh, no! Not when we get down in front of your buddy, the chancellor (inaudible) MR.. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. R. WELLS: Hr. Speaker as anybody else's in this House.And it is not just my rights as a member,it is the rights of all us. MR.. NEA..'tY: Let us not be sauctimoneous. MR. R. WELLS: Yes. And the hon. member might remember the rule of silence he has reminded us all about so often. Alright?

"ay 26, l 'l7~ ~!F • ~TEARY : NR. R. HELLS: Tape 3559 Boy, you are some man. Yes. The Criminal Code says, "Everyone by means of an electro-magnetic:, acoustic:, mechanical or other device wilfully interec:epts a private communication is guilty of an inditeful offence and liable to imprisonment for five years." Now, there are DH - 4 •.

May 26, 1978 Tape 3560 PK - l Mr. Wells: certain cases when you can intercept a telephone conversation, but the point is that the person ~1ho purports to have that conversation, the tape or transcript of it, the private communication, the onus is on that person to prove how he got it, where he got it, and if it is authentic. So that at the moment what is alleged could say anything and we have no way of knowing, certainly I have no way of' knowing, this House has no way of knowing, whether it is authentic. So that is a very fundamental point, Mr. Speaker.

But then comes another and even greater and a more fundamental point and it is this: we,as citizens of this country, we are not in communist Russia where the big stick comes knocking at the door in the middle of the night, we are in a country that has some rights to privacy; and we are members of a House of Assembly trying to do the job that we were elected to do, and we have a right also to a certain degree of privacy.

And there are privileges ~lhich members of this House have, and one of the privileges surely is the right of a member, or any member not to -have letters · intercepted, ----·­ telephone calls intercepted, matters of this sort then done. And it is bad enough to have it done, it is disgraceful to have it done, but it is even worse to have it then touted and brought into the House of Assembly and referred to o~ tabled,it makes no difference, by other members who were elected to serve the people of this Province. Now we have in this House of Assembly, Mr.

Speaker, a great many honourable, decent, fine Newfoundlanders who are representing people who elected them1 and I do not say this on this side of the House only, that is on the other side as well . The member for Conception Bay South (Mr. Nolan), the han. gentleman who sits next to him, the han. gentleman occupying the front row here, and many others whom we have dealt with ever since we have been elected, who are honest, honourable, decent gentlemen.

•. May 26, 1978 Tape 3560 PK - 2 MR. NEARY: The rest of them are not, is that what the "1on. gentleman is saying? MR. WELLS: Well,! wonder what they think, and the people of· Newfoundland, and I hope this House - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh' MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! I must require that there be no interruptions. MR. WELLS: If anybody is suggesting that they are other than honourable, well then that is their problem, Mr. Speaker.

But the point is, the point that I am making is what do members in this House generally speaking on both sides feel about having their private telephone conversations taped and having another member come into the House and saying, 'I was not party to the conversation, but here is a tane of something you said, or here is a transcript of something you said.' How do the members feel about that? And I ~· onder how do our constituents- everyone, on both sides of the House- 1 wonder how they feel about that? Is that. fai.r .. bal.n . ~ . .:~ ~"' MR. NEARY: They would love to know what the hon. gentlman said. MR.

WELLS: Well, I will teil them what I said if, I presume what it is all about. But the point is, is that fair ball? Is :that what the peoole on the North, and the Northeast, and the South, and the west coasts 10f this Province and Labrador want when they send people to this House? MR. NEARY: They would love to know what their (inaudible) MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, order! MR. WELLS: They would love to know it, and I suspect they are getting the word, Mr. Speaker. But that is the question before us, not how critical I was of the government. That is neither here nor there.

If that is what it was then I probably said it, who knows? And I certainly for one do not mind. But the question is can some third party tape conservations? Can they intercept conversations? Can they go through my private mail or your private mail, Mr. Speaker, or anyone's? Can this sort of thing go on? And then if you find another member in the House of Assembly who is prepared to deal with it, prepared

f May 26, 1978 Tape 3560 PK - 3 Mr. Wells: to table it, prepared to refer to it, prepared to handle it, if they can find someone in the House then they have got it made, because they come into the House then and it is released and distributed without any of the restraints that would be on the outside of the House of Assembly. And this House of Assembly is often referred to by some hon. members as the Highest Court in the land. MR. NEARY: That is right, and that is why we have to bring this stuff in here. MR. WELLS: I hope it is. MR. NEARY: We can bring anything in here. MR.

WELLS: Would the hon. the member, please~ He will have his turn, he always does. MR. NEARY: Oh~do not worry,I will. MR. WELLS: So then well be quiet for the moment would you please? MR.. NEARY: No. I will be quiet for the Speaker, not for the hon. gentleman. MR. WELLS: Mr. Speaker, would you ask the hon. gentleman to restrain himself until his turn comes. MR, SPEAKER: Order, please! It is important, indeed essential that there be no interruptions, and that every hon. member who speaks speak without interruption. MR. WELLS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The ooint thnt I would make - MR..

NEARY: I had to make my point in a hurry, Mr. Speaker. Why does not the hon. gentleman make his point of privilege? MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. liiELLS: Mr. Speaker, surely I am entitled to as much time as I feel is necessnrv to take to outline this point of privilege. MR. NEARY: You have gone beyond the time now. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I feel I have to interject here because I cannot allow the judgment

7 Hay 21i, 1978 Tape 3Sii1 HR . SPEAKER: of the Chair, the authority of the 6hair which is the authority of the House,to be under­ mined or criticised. Wh~t han. members think, obviously I have no jurisdiction over,or control or knowled~e or particular interest,but what he said is in my area of responsibility and I would ask the han. Opposition House Leader to withdraH the previous remark. "lR. NEARY: I withdraw, ¥r.

Speaker, but nevertheless, Sir, I hope the rules apply to both sides of the Rouse.I could not finish my prima facie case and the han. gentleman is making a political speech and Your Honour is letting him go ahead and do it. But I withdra~r if Your Tionour thinks it is unparliamentary and not in order. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! TJI.•T - 1 !he han. gentleman has withdrawn. I think that the preliminary comments were unnecessary.! will not go as far as to say that they were unparliamentary because - HR. NEARY: MR. R. WELLS: a ruling. MR. SPEAKER: Sit down while the Speaker is making a ruling.

Be quiet while the Speaker is making Order, please! it is my interest to enforce the authority of the House and not to split every possible hair.I require that in order to enforce the authority of the House that it is essential that the rules be enforced.! am not interested in taking that kind of analitical examination of every remark to split hairs to enforce that as long as the general principle is enforced, So leave it at that, Ron. member. ·.

~I11y 26, 1978 Tape 351'1 HR. R • WELLS : Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Nr. Speaker, I was posing the question really why is this chamber,why is parliament often called the highest court of the land? The reason is simple, l·fr. Speaker: because the people in it are the elected representatives of the public,of the larger people of the whole country, province, dominion whatever it be. That is why it is called the highest court of the land. h'hy are we while speaking in this House not subject to the same restraints that we are subject to when we are speaking outside of this rouse? The answer~is simple, Hr. Speaker.

It is because in that broader context we may be or car be called the hip,hest court in the land because we have rules and regulations to police ourselves which are not applicable outside to us when we speak in here. See,nobody in our society is without restraints.There are restraints,the restraints of law,of decency and common sense or whatever,but certainly of law which applies outside the chamber. Inside the chamber there are a set of rules which we apply and impose upon ourselves ,and if 'Je cannot impose them upon ourselves they are imposed upon us by the other members,by the body of the Rnuse.

And that is what is at stake here, ~r. Speaker, that is the real tssue here, the issue of whether people outside the House 'Jho are not members of this House,whoever they may be,can do things and using, which they could not or would not say outside or distribute outiide but under the guise of finding someone inside that they can distribute. It is a sad commentary on the House, I suppose, Mr . Speaker, itself when somebody will be used as a pawn of peop]e outside the Rouse because that is what it would appear MR. S. NEARY: Do you have some name or somebody? TJW - 2 -.

:-lay 26, 1978 Tape 3561 ~m.. R. WELLS: Hhoever acts for a third party in bringing material into the House of which he himself has no personal knowledge is acting,! would suggest,as a pawn of some­ body outside the House. }!R. NEARY: You acted as a pimp for the same gentleman. HR.R. WELLS: That is completely out of order and has to be withdrawn, ~r. Speaker. 'lR. SPEAKER: to withdraw that remark. MR. S. NEARY: !'J! . P. \.JELLS: Order, please! Order, please! I must ask the han. gentleman I withdraw. Pot-1 i!racious, ~!r. Speaker. .~.t any rate, Hr.

Speaker, this is what has ~appened in this case and this is fundamental to the operation of this parliament if it is going to operate at all.If it operates in this manner,if it operates so that someone outside can do something, hand it to a willing subject inside and get away with it,if that is the way parliament is going to operate in Newfoundland, }!r. Speaker, it is just as well not to be a member of it, it is just as well we did not have it,because it is not public business that is being discussed,it is personal and private vendettas if things sink to that,and this, ~~r.

Sneaker, is the other fundamental issue that I think faces Your Honour. Now the other thing is that it seems to be argued, }lr. Speaker, that anything can be tabled in this House. ft~ything! ~is House, Mr. Speaker, is for the conduct of public business.Jhat means the business of the public of Newfoundland, the spending of the monies of the public of ?!ewfoundland and all other matters which can be categorized as public business. ·.

:·lay 2G, 197 o Tape i~o. 3562 Ali-1 NR. WELLS: If a ~ember of this House and someo~e else have an altercation or a row tonight outside the r:ouse, is tilat public business to be brought into the House2 If somebody writes a private letter, if I write a private letter to the hon. the member for Terra Nova (f'lr. Lush), for example,in a private capacity and not as a member of the House, is that something to be brought into the House and tabled? Of course not, ~lr.

Speaker, because ordinary common sense rules and holds surely that ti1ere are public matters and that there are private matters and it is not within the rights oof anyone to use this public House where the business of the public of ;;ewfoundland have to be discussed and decided for private matters, for private correspondence, for private tapes of telep~one conversations of private matters. That is completely, I would suggest, Mr.

Speaker, out of order, completely out of order,and not only would one nave to refer to the rules to find that but ordinary common sense would indicate the same thing,because the House instead of dealing with public matters would very quickly fall into a case where it was nothing but private squabbles, political vendettas, all that sort of thing would occupy the time of the House and not the business of the public of Newfoundland. Now that is a very fundamental point. }~. Speaker, you might ask is there any authority- MR. NEARY: When are we going to get to the point of privilege, Mr. Speaker? NR.

WELLS: A point of privilege is being made and is being made,one would hope,without interruption. HR. NEARY: It is just a big, colossal bluff. 7he han. ge11tleman is twisting and turning his words , that is all the hon. gentleman is doing,begging for mercy. MR. WELLS: this. HR. SPEAKER: HR. lffiLLS: Hr. Speaker, I think you have already ruled on Order, please! The hon. gentleman need not take his headlines from the Daily News talking about - MR. NEARY: Begging for mercy! MR. WELLS: No mercy, no mercy my friend! My -.

:-ray 26,197:; Tape .;o. 3562 Ati-2 ~iR. V.iELLS : point of ?rivilege will be made in my way, i4 my fashion anci without interference from the i:J.ou. gentleman. T:1e hou. gentle!Jlan cannot get me off track or anything like that,so if he wants to interject he is perfectly entitled if he wants to, Mr. Speaker. MR. NEARY: }fR. lffiLLS: The hon. gentleman went off track a long tiMe ago. It just prolongs the thing. lle will argue back and forth the House all day , because while I do not usually enter into this nonsense , I can do it if I have to. ;...JR. NEARY: - the rules. !IR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I must ask hon. gentlemen not to interrupt 1 and also the han. gentleman to my left to oear in mind that the substantive matters to be debated on the issue would of course be debated if and when there is a prima facie case. Now it is tne submission whereby the Chair can make a determination on that which is at issue. :rR. -"TELLS: Thank you, Your Honour. I would refer,Your Honour, to Beauchesne, the fourtn edition, page 134, Secti0n 159. I am going to read it because it should be all part of the context of my remarks.

"Reference to a publil:....d.q.c..ument in- he.., !>ossess.io.a. . o ~ cQmtlic..tee .which is...no .t .,t.aking . __ action on it is not irregular, but reference to the proceedings of a committee or the evidence heard by the committee cannot be made in the House before the committee has presented its report." We are not concerned with this but I am reading the whole section. "A Llinister of the Crown is not at liberty to read or quote from a despatch or otner state paper not before tile House, unless he be prepared to lay in upon tile table.

This restraint is similiar to tl1e rule of evidence in courts of law, whicn prevent counsel fro~ citing documents which have noc been produce~ in evidence. The principle is so reasonable that it has not been conteste<l; and wnen the objection has been made in time, it has been generally acquiesced in." Now here comes the gist of what I am saying. "It has oeen admitted that a dccument which has been cited ought to be laid upon ti~ table of the House if it can be done without injury to the public interest. Tile same rule, however, cannot be held to apply to

l :\Z-3 }!R. • . .-c:LLS: private leuers or memoranciol. Cn the 18th : tay, 1865, the attorney - general , on being asked by Mr . Ferrard if he woulc! lay upon the table a written statement acd a letter to 11hich ite llild referred on a previous day, in .answering a question r elative co the Leeds Bankruptcy Cour t, replied that be had cade a statement to the Rouse upon his own responsibility , and that the doc~~~:~ents he had referred to being private , he could r{ot lay them upon the table .

Lord Robert Cecil contended that the papers , i:laving been cited , should be produced ; but che Speaker decla r ed that this rule applied to public documents only. " An4 of course t<lis is substantia t ion for what I nave been saying, :.:r. Speaker , Public aocuoent s are one thing , it is it: the public interest and concern co know 1o1hac is in public document.s ; bu c private documents, sure l y , and what could be mor e priva t e t!lan a clandest i nely taped telephone conversation if in fact it is accurate, if in fact that is what it is , whatever it might say . ! suppose I shc~ld be i&deut~c! :o the hon.

May 26, 1978 Tape 3563 Mr. Wells: gentlemen opposite for saying that what I said was critical of the government, otherwise I would have no idea what it said. PK - l This is the whole point: anybody can say anything, anybody in today's electronic world can tape a conversation, cut tapes, splice them, do all sorts of things,! am told,to produce anything as far as transcripts are concerned, anybody can produce anything purporting to be anything. But even if it is true, how private,could anything be more private than a confidential or a private telephone conversation one person with another? How can that, Mr.

Speaker, be public? If it is public, a public document, a public thing,by all means if it is referred to it must be tabled. But when a thing is private,surely, Mr. Speaker, to allow private matters, private letters, private things to be tabled would open the flood gates to everv1:flino under the sun, real and spurious.

If this was a private letter, say it was a letter that I wrote to a certain individual anywhere, it would not matter who or where, and it was brought and sought to be referred to and tabled in·this House9 that would be bad enough, but at least it would be a document that contained my signature, there would be something to stamp its authenticity, How much worse is it, Mr. Speaker, to come along with something nobody knows the veracity or truth of. Nobody is before the Bar of the House to swear or to give evidence as to the truth of the thing. How long, Mr. Speaker, in this House can we tolerate this sort of thing?

So, Mr. Speaker, the question of privilege is this, if the hon. members have opposite a tape of a conversation of mine which they claim to be a valid tape - and the y , I would suspec:t, do not know whether it is valid or not- but if they have it, I would ask for a ruling of this House as to whether (1) it is a oublic or a private document, that is the first thing; and secondly, Mr.

Speaker, whether if it is a private document, and something not intended for publication, whether it is tableable- if that is a word or not, whether it can be laid on the Table of the House, or whether it comes,as I contend it does,under this particular rule that says that ·.

May 26, 1978 Tape 3563 PK - 2 Mr. Wells: private matters cannot be tabled,obviously,because this is a public House of Assembly for the conduct of the business of the public of Newfoundland, not something to bring in and lay on the Table and thrash around private matters ~1hich are not public and were never intended to be public in any sense, quite apart from the possibility that there may be criminality involved. As for the content, yes,I am. I am grateful to the hon. members opposite for saying what was in the tapes or whatever they are. AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). MR.

WELLS: Well they certainly said I was critical of the government, and that seems to be the subject matter. Well if that is what it is, that is fine. Thank God, thank God it does not day I MR. NEARY: The hon. gentleman merely confirmed what certain (inaudible). MR. WELLS: As I say,I am grateful for that much because somebody could produce a tape saying any of us had murdered somebody and disposed of the body if this kind of rule is to be allm~ed. So I thank them for saying that it was only that I was critical of the government. Thank God for that. Because I can be critical of the government at any time.

And at times I have been very critical, and I dare say I will be again. That does not bother me, Mr. Speaker. But what does bother me is something which I consider to be so fundamental to the privileges of every member in this House, because any of us are subject to this kind of victimization if anybody outside of the House has the motive or the wish or the desire to take that kind of action against us. Anybody can turn up with anything and say, 'Look, there what you said, what you did: anything at all, and all he needs is somebody inside of the House to bring it forward.

Surely that cannot be democracy, Canadian democracy, Newfoundland democracy in action in the people's House. It cannot be, Mr. Speaker, If it is then I think that we would all have something to be ashamed of because we would have to be ashamed to be a part of this. This would not be a House for the

May 26, 1978 Tape 3563 PK - 3 Mr. Wells: conduct of public business. As I say,this would be a House for t he conduct of private vendettas of people who are not here, not able, not capable or presumably not wantinn to come before the Bar of the House and say openly and formally what they are alleging and trying to get before the House through the backdoor by means of other members. So, Mr . Speaker, this is the point of privilege, and IllY contention is, Mr. Speaker, that if a document is not capable of being tabled by reason of being a private document, and a document who authenticity is not certain by any means then a member cannot

~lay 26, 1978 Tape 3564 EC - 1 MR. ~TELLS: cannot refer to it either in debate, because if you refer to it you are supposed to table it, but you cannot table it in this case because it is private and who knows whether it is authentic or not? So that therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is a breach of the privileges of the House to refer to it. And this is the whole point. As I say, I am grateful for one thing only, and that is that I was critical of the government. If my bon. friends opposite think that confirms what they think, well, thit is not a matter that bothers me in the slightest.

What concerns me is something very fundamental, because who knows what it could be tomorrow about any member of this House alleging him to have said or done something.

This cannot be, because obviously it is disallowed by the rules, and this is not a new rule,· this is a ···rule· tha~ was- enun-c'i 'ated --and- referr-e-d to here in Beauchesne in 1865, and it obviously, Mr.Speaker, arises out of parliamentary history, arises out of the necessity for Parliament to keep that kind of thing from occurring, because if we are the highest court in the land we have to make our own rules, and Parliaments in this system, Mr. Speaker, have made these rules.

I !Just say, I inquired, :!r.Speaker, as to whether this sort of thing has ever happened before, and as far as I can ascertain it has never happened before in Canada or elsewhere under our system where somebody would purport to tape a telephone conversation of a member and then hand it to a member who would then try to introduce it either by referring to it or by seeking to table it in the House of Assembly. It has never been heard of to my knowledge before in the British-Canadian system~and I think that says something. And it is unfortunate and rather sad that it should have occurred herem the Province of ·.

. · Hay 26, 1978 l!R. 1~ELLS: our Legislature, HR. SPEAKER: HR. NEARY: Tape 3564 EC - 2 Newfoundland, Hr. Speaker, in and I ask for your ruling. The hon. the member for LaPoile . Mr. Speak~r, all we got from that alleged point of privilege made by the hon. gentleman is the hon. gentleman is begging for mercy, Sir. The hon. gentleman's feelings have been hurt. The hon. gentleman can twist and turn and squirm all he likes and drag all the red herrings he wants into this matter, Mr. Speaker, but the fact remains that there is no point of privilege.

The fact of the matter is, Sir, and the hon. gentleman put his finger right on it when he was winding up his few remarks, that gentlemen have made statements outside of the Souse that they would not make inside the House. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the House and tell the hon. gentleman that the person with whom he carried on this telephone conversation is quite prepared at a moment's notice to come into this House to answer questions from members of the House,from the hon. gentleman who carried on the conversation with Mr. Davidson on the telephone. ~1R. HELLS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR.

NEARY: I am speaking to a point of privilege and th·e hon. member should take his seat. MR. WELLS: . HR. SPEAKER: No. A point of.order, Mr~-S~eaker. Actually, when there is a point of privilege, my understanding is that there cannot be interjections on a point of order. l1R. HELLS: Very well, Mr. Speaker. MR. NEARY: The fact of the matter is, Sir, that my hon. friend for, I would say, the last six or seven years, has carried on a personal relationship with Mr.Davidson . ~R. WELLS: That is false . ·.

May 26, 1978 Tape 3564 EC - 3 l!R. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, it is not false. The hen. gentleman will remember that Mr. Davidson wrote an

article called Watergate in Newfoundland and ~r. Davidson took it to the hen. gentleman. I am not sure if the hen. gentleman was in the Cabinet at the time or a private member. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I must point out that this has nothing to do with length of submission but nature of submission, that at this point matters are supposed to be submissions to the Chair, not debate of matters between two hen. members, submissions to the Chair for the purpose then of making a decision so that the Chair will be aware of hen. members' views in making a decision of whether there is a prima facie case of substantive matters, Differences of opinion, debatable matters would not be in order to pursue at this time. The bon. member. MR. NEARY: No, Sir, I am merely mentioning it, Mr.

Speaker, to establish a relationship, because the hen. gentleman in his submission left the Rouse with the impression, and probably some of his own colleagues, that he never saw or heard tell of Mr. Davidson, when in actual fact - MR. WELLS: completely. MR. NEARY: Not so. That is _off the point ~o, Mr. Speaker, there is a relationship between the hon. gentleman and - MR. WELLS: A telephone link, yes. l!R. UEARY: That is right. The han. gentleman telephoned Mr. Davidson and ~r. Davidson telephoned the hon. gentleman. ~!R. ~TELLS: On occasions. --

:!ay 26, 1978 Tape 3564 EC - 4 ~fR. NEARY: On occasions. So, Sir, there is a relationship, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members should not be under the false impression or illusion that that - MR. HELLS: That is out of order. MR. NEARY: MR. SIMMONS: There was no false impression given. No, Mr. Speaker, it is in order. ~ho is interrupting now? ·.

-· \ May 26, 1978 Tape 3565 PK - 1 Mr. Neary: The fact of the matter is this, Sir, that there is a relationship, and it has been going on for some time. MR. HICKMAN: Wrong,. I am sure. MR. NEARY: Now. Mr. Speaker, in the course of that relationship and the relationship with the government,the Premier at one point. and the hon. gentleman should know this because the Premier has already mentioned it in the House, and the hon. gentleman was talking about situations that never developed under the British Parliamentary system. Well,we could used Mr.

Nixon,! suppose, as an example, but we do not have to go that far away. We have a similar situation here as Watergate, it is called Salt l'latergate in Newfoundland, Watergate South of the Border. But the Premier of this Province already admitted in this House that for his own protection, .so he says, that he had to tape conversations betweenhim and Mr. Davidson. And we have the former law partner, law partner of the han. gentleman,who came to my house and told me in a four hour conversation that he too had to tape conversations between him and Mr. Davidson allegedly,as he said.for his own protection. MR.

WELLS: Mr. Speaker. I know nothing of this. MR. NEARY: No. But, Mr. Speaker, it is very important because the han. gentleman does know, but the Premier - MR. WELLS: No,this is outside. MR. NEARY: No this is inside the House. The Premier already admitted in this House that he had to tape conversations - but the hon. gentleman should sit in on more sessions of the House, keep in tune with what is going on. MR. WELLS: The hon. member is quite in tune with what is going on. MR. NEARY: The hon. gentleman, Sir, is not in tune. AN HO~. MEMBER: Never was. MR. NEARY: Now,Mr.

Speaker, as far as this particular transcript is concerned, Sir, this matter unfortunately, unfortunately the House itself,which should have dealt with this matter of the Scrivener affair, refused to deal with it. We tried to get a public enquiry, I have been

May 26, 1978 Tape 3565 PK - 2 Mr. Neary: trying for three years to try to get a public enquiry, we tried to get the House resolved into ·a Committee of the Whole, a Select Committee of the House. We have tried to resolve this matter in the House, Sir, which is the Highest Court in the Land. Members on the government side, government through brute force has denied us the opportunity to deal with this matter in this House,where it should be dealt with,in my opinion, Sir, and that is one point in which agree with the han. gentleman.

It should be dealt with in this House, not in a lower court, not by the police, because we,as elected representatives, Mr. Speaker, are the only ones who can deal with this matter. And so, we have been refused. Now, Mr. Speaker, in the carrying out of my duties as a member of this House, Sir, I come into all kinds of documents, I come into all kinds of private and confidential information, sometimes it comes from anonymous sources. This particular transcript did not come fro~ an anonymous source. MR. HELLS: : ( . =- ·· Youc are ·qttite -sul"e--·on ·' that? .,_ · ----~ · .. ,, - ~ MR.

NEARY: I am quite sure on that. I am quite sure. I am absolutely sure. I am positively sure. Because I also have the tape to back it up which I would be prepared to lay on the Table of the House if I were forced to. MR. WELLS: l~oul d the han. member 1 ike to say who the source was? MR. NEARY: Who the source was? No, Mr. Speaker, once divulge a source of information in this House about where I get information, then I will never again-nobody will ever trust me again, and I will never net anv information. But, Mr·. Speaker, - MR. WELLS: MR. NEARY: gentleman - MR.

WELLS: Shame! - I am prepared to do this, and the han. Shame! •.

i May 26, 1978 Tape 3665 PK - 3 MR. NEARY: If the han. gentleman wants my source I am prepared to do this: am prepared,if the House will agree to set up a Committee of this House to look into this Scrivener affair, I am prepared· to ask the source of my. information to-appear before the Bar of this House, and I believe the person would be willing to come and give evidence. Now does that answer the han. gentleman? MR. WELLS: It has nothing to do with my point of privilege, Sir. MR. NEARY: Well it does, Sir, because there is really no point of privilege. But, Mr.

Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the House refused to deal with this matter, we pawned it off on the police, we pawned it off on a lower court. Now, Mr. Speaker,! - MR.

SPEAKER: Order, please! must point out to the han. gentleman, that a number of substantive matters which have been debated previous1y,or which may be debated again,are really outside of the area we are here dealing with, which is essentially an allegation by the han. gentleman to my left that, in his opinion, there is a prima facie case that it would .. be . a~eacl!~.of •. il.i-~i.lf.il.ege.,l~--1i.~~ :MI9.'le\::>:.,..,.><'lt: ~•" ~' c; .;_. :-..;; , ~ .,,..,.. ... . ~- · ~~- -­ of certain documentation and the related questions of whether this is public or private , and whether it can be tabled and can be referred to.

But the whole context in which this larger issue really is outside the quite specific area in which I have to made a decision. MR. NEARY: Well, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Your Honour's ruling, but this is a part of the larger issue,Mr. Speaker. It is not a private document,by the way. It is not a private conversation as the hon. gentleman tried to lead the House to believe. The han. gentleman, Mr. Speaker, could have said to Mr. Davidson, he could have said,'Mr. Davidson,! do not wish to discuss public matters with you on the telephone, and r wish to

:lay 26 , 1970 Tape ).Ia . 3566 terminate the conversation! But ti::e hon. gentleman did not say that, The hon. gentleman carried on the conversation and in the process of carrying on the conversation did in fact confirm certain other charges and allegations that are made about his colleagues, i-Ir. Speaker • _so therefore once this happened it is not a matter, for instance,of the han. gentleman calling up the Minister of Justice and saying, "How are you feeling today? Let us go on a picnic on the weekend. How is your wife and family? " It is not that kind of a conversation, Sir.

It is a conversation about business of the government, business between Mr. Davidson and the government that the ;,on. gentleman was commenting on. And the hon. gentleman knows that it is ;;erfectly legal in Canada, perfectly legal for anybody to tape a conversation for his own protection and bring that tape and transcript down in court if you are having a court hear:; .. ng. The hon.gentleman knows that, and the han. gentlecan can threaten - MR. WELLS: NR. NEARY: Not for a third party in the House of Assembly. A third party, Sir!.

We-have an obligation in this House. ::e nave an obligation when we come across wrongdoing or appearances of corruption or graft or shake-downs or influence peddling, if we have evidence of thilt sort of t;1ing it is our duty to briag it before this House, is it uot? MR. WELLS: Do t!1e decent thing ! Is there anything in the conversation which }'OU have and I have not that there is corryption or graft on my part? :-!R, NEARY: (lo, Hr. Speaker, The only thing that I can say to the han. g~'telman is this. HR. WELLS: Well say it,for Heaven sake! I mean - ~!R.

NEARY: The only thing I can say about the han. gentleman is this, Siq tl1at there is a feeling abroad, and my hon. friend referred to it yesterday and that is what brought it on, that all is not rosy as far as protecting the public treasury is concerned with this adcinistration. Aad my hon, friend in his remarks to Mr. Davidson merely confirmed our

d.2..Y 2r~,l97o T<::pe :;o, 3566 !·JR. ~lEAFS: fears,sume of our fears tilat this may be true, that the public treasury is not adequately protected. And therefore even as a citizen of this Province if I came into possession of this kind of information it is my duty as a citizen,let-alon~~ elected member of the House of Assembly,to bring tilis before the House. But the document has not been tabled yet and so therefore this is another reason why the bon. gentleman does not have a poiut of privilege. But the document, Hr.

Speaker, if Your Honour "ill remember, Inspector Nurphy came to see Your Honoux; one nigilt and asked Your Honour if he could come to ~y office;and under false pretences - it was not Inspector Hurphy 1 s fault.- whoever worked out the wording of the warrant to search - and I am dealing with that now as Your Honour knows. I am trying to have that quashed because it was improperly done and it was illegal and a violation of the Criminal Code. The llinister of Justice should charge somebody for having the police officers come into my office with a search warrant uncer false pretences.

But anyway, Sir, they came looking for transcripts and this happened to be one of the transcti.p.ts... .. And .. L .told. the. . ~~~~ .•. t.he.y . .,d.id~not.....get.~"the _traosrripts,- --- .~,-- ____ .. by the way,that they came for, I later gave them to them and I will give the R01P any other information that they want,but in the process, Mr.

Speaker, I am not giving up my rights as a member of this House because I think we should be dealing with this matter in the House and not p:::.>ming it of£ on the RC!'IP or a lower court but that is my own personal opinion, Sir and my own opinion as a !llember of this House.

But I told the RC:~,when I did give them the transcripts when I got back in the Province,that these particular tapes and transcripts I would treat as private and confidential in order to allow them to carry out their investigations,as tne hon. l1inister of Justice has reminded us so often,without interference, without being impeded in any way. >\nd that is why the transcripts, ar. Speaker, have not been tabled in the House and the tapes have not been laid on the table, because I did have a call from the RC~~ a couple of weeks ago asking me if I would hold off on tabling the ·.

:lay 26 , 1973 Tape :<o. 3566 .r.; - 3 l!R. NEARY; transcripts because all they are afraid of, ,tt. Speaker, in this whole matter,is that we· m:l,ght nave a reoccurrence of what hap~oened before that tile evidence cou:~d very easily be d7stroyed. If you table soQething and it becoQes public,then evidence could be destroyed. The information will be reproduced in the Daily News.­ i1R. R. WELLS: Is the hon. Ulelllber sq.ying that if a conversation of Qine was t&bled something might be destr9Yed? I mean, be clear. ~e you saying that I am involved in anything? :!R. NEARY: ~ir.

Speaker, the il.on, gentleman is not going to - HR. R. WELLS: Let us be fair about this. Be fair about it. MR. NEARY: What I am sayiilg is, ..: what I am saying, Sir, is this.; if I table documents - Mr. Speaker, let the Minister of Justice get it straight now. If I table documents,for instance if they were investigating a certain matter and I tablet documents in relation to that matter and tipped off the person,for instance,and he had evidence in his possession or in his apartllient or in his .:lm\lSe-.m:;: itt l<UtS ostore ~~' ~rl11"t~-" ""~.·-"'·<c'"·"'"' , .• evidence. And, Mr.

Speaker, let us make no bones about it,that I have grave suspicions. Sir, that in this whole matter we are talking about that evidence has been destroyed. MR. HICKMAN: i:'lR. NEARY: lYhy d.o you not tell that to the RalP? Well ·the RQ!P will be told that in due course. lfuen they come back to me they will be told that a certain gentleman was seen do~ in Robin Uood Bay burning documents

~~ay :!6, 1 fJ78 "'ape 1567 !11-1 - 1 ~~. S. NEARY: the morning after the affadavit was tabled in this House. So, !!r. Speaker, I intend to keep my - HR. lzy_Lts·: Hell, you knotv, do you intend to · cast suspicion on everybody's part? "'R. S . ~'EAR.Y : No. It is nobody in th:!.s House. But it had to do with the PC Party, it had to do with the Tories. He was a !-tigh ranking official of the Tory Party. }'R . SPEAKER : Order, nlease! Order, please! .'\ctuallv tJe are in a muc~ broarlP.r area than the area of submission on the prima facie case of privilege.

The specific matter is whether it is a breach of the hen. gentleman's privilege to rny left; that this material be tabled, that is specifically it and various reasons pro and con with respect to that. but these issues on other matters are reallv extraneous to the submission on prima facie. Ron. member. ~fl).. S • NEARY: l:!ell, ''r . .

Spea,k~, .~I,. ~~.J:,_:t.4'~<j un,_-_,,_.~, my few remarks because, as Your Honour 1'Tlmvs, I think Your Honour probably has his mind made up that there is no prima facie case, that the hen. gentleman's feelings are hurt, that if Your Honour ruled otherwise then members of this House couid not function, Sir. '!embers have a duty to the people '.rho elected them and to the people of the Province as a whole, and t·re cannot, Sir, when we come into possession - nmv t·re have to use our own discretion and ~1e have a responsibility and an obligation to make sure that when we put evidence on the table of the !louse, Sir, that the evidence is hard evidence that will stand up and, "r.

Speaker, u e have not had the opportunity to do it in this particular case, the Scrivener affair, and all the other things in connection with Hr. Davidson who was at one time a buddy of rny hen. colleague,the member for Kilbride C!r. Wells), who advised ~ir. Davidson on one occasion to take his Hatergate in ~<ewfoundland to the newspaners; not to take it to his colleaJ!ues, the member did not take it to his colleagues, 'take it to the net.rspapers,' he said.

HR. S. NEARY: 'Very serious matter, take it t.o the ne~vspapers,' the hon. gentleman advised him. ~!R. ~VELLS : Taken very lightly. HR. S. NEARY: Now, }ir. Spea.'i(er, the hon. gentleman then I hope will not try to leave the impress~cn that Mr. Davidson is a stranger to the hon. gentleman }!R. ~VELLS : He kept in touch with me - MR. }TEARY: - kept in touch with the hon·. gentleman - H!1..HELLS: - only by phone. NR. NF.ARY: - kept in touch with the Premier, kept in touch with the !-linisters of the Crown. A.""l !:ION. 1-'IDffiEF : (Inaudible) ! ~.

S. }.'EARY: No, I only me·t the gentleman reeently so he is no friend of· mine . I only met him in recent ~veeks, in recent months, and that may surprise the hon. Minister of Justice. MR. S. NEARY: I just - accidentally he ca:me, I was having a coffee. I only met the gentleman. -personally in the last few weeks in case the hon. - I beg your pardon1 AN RON. MEMBER: Who introduced you to him1 MR. s. NF'..AR.Y: Who introduced me to hilll1 Sir, the gentlel!lan introduced himself. ft.N UON. !<EMBEP.: Oh, yes.

MR . s. ~lEAF Y: The same as he din - no, he did not introduce himself to the member for Kilbride because the Tory bagman at one time w~ in the metnber' s office - they were law partners and they fell out - and ~r. Davidson went to my hon. friend with a Watergate in Newfoundland article. My hon. friend advised him to ta.Y..e it to the newspapers. ~m.. WELLS: Yes. Take it to the police, tru~e it anywhere.

''ay 26 , ·1'?78 'Tape 35117 np - 3 MR. S • ~TEARY: Not come to the government and say, 'Look, Mr. Premier, this man is going around with a document that strongly condemns the government that I am supporting.' Did the hon. gentleman not do that? MR. WELLS: MR. S. NEARY: his colleagues? l!R. HELLS: Take it an)"•here. Did the hon. gentleman inform I have not the faintest idea what hanpenE!d years ago, ,.rhether I informed mv colleagues. ~. S. NEARY: Was the hon. gentleman rubbing hands, hoping taat there would be a little bit of dirt involved?

MR. 1,JE'LLS: ' 111. • S1' F' AKE:R: You know, this is incredible (inaunible) Order. nlease! Order, please! We are getting into matters which are completely irrelevant to the decision I have to make. Perhaps relevant to something, but irrelevant to the prima facie submissions which hon. members are recognized to make. MR. S. NtARY: Mr. Speaker, before I conclude, Sir, one point that the Hinister of Justice seems to be tormented about and that is the RCr~ making statements that evidence could be destroyed and that is an actual fact that evidence could be destroyed. Beg your pardon? A:: P,ON . ~!'!BEl' : ''R .

S. ':EAl'.Y: that statement? I!J.I !!ON. t'EMBER: HR. S . ~rEARY: (Inaudible) Is the hon. gentleman <vorried about (Inaudible) Mr. Speaker, if '"e had the opportunity to look into the Scrivener affair and the Davidson affair, Sir, and bring witnessess into this House and deal with the matter ourselves, as it is our duty and responsibilit y to do, then the whole matter would be cleared up. And so, Sir, I am not ~oing to be frightened or scared by the han. gentleman raising this point of privilege and threatening the Criminal Code, as the hon. gentleman knows that that --

':ay :!6, 19 7R Tape 35f;7 DH - 4 :'R. S. :lEARY: is just merely a threat to try to silence members in this House. Under

section 159, ~~r. Speaker, of Beauchesne page 134 , and the hon. gentleman read it out, there is no prima facie case and Your Honour would be doing the House a grave injustice indeed if Your Honour ruled that there was a prima facie case and --

~ay 26, 1978 Tape No. 3568 NM - l MR. NEARY: referred the matter to the Committee of Election and_ Prl.vilegu 1 Members would no longer be able to function in this House, we would have a dictatorship, Sir. And so far, I have been here sixteen or seventeen vears and I have not seen any abuse of the privilege of tabling documents in this House. I have not seen it vet. I have been here much longer than the han. gentleman. Any documents that have been put on the table of the House have been substantial documents that can be backed up.

And at the present time the RCMP is investigating one and in the process of that investigation my bon. friend may have a visit from the RCMP, because they have the transcript. And if they do then my hon. gentleman can talk to the RCMP instead of dragging red herrings into. thfs House. MR. WELLS: The hon. gentleman is dragging red herrings into this House. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espair.

I think I should point out here that when a matter of some complexity is brought up, the han. gentleman who brings it up and the first person to reply or make their submission on the opposite side, · I do give a certain leeway. Some might argue too much, some might argue not enough, but one has to use one's judgement. If there are then further submissions I do require that they be briefer and more to the point since when there is one from each side who is given that fuller range. then obviously I think good sense requires that any other submissions then be of a more brief and tight nature.

The bon. member for Burgeo-Bay d'Espoir. MR. SIMMONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is not my intention to be very long on this matter at all. I think, as my colleague has just finished saying, that it looks like a fairly open and shut case. I could not help but be amazed with the stellar performance put on by the member for Kilbride (Mr. Wells) earlier. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps I will have to raise this as a separate matter of privilege unless Mr. Speaker wants to deal

May 26, 1978 Tape No. 3568 MR. SIMMONS: with it with my bringin~ it to his attention now, that the member~in making his alleged point of privi1ege, said that some of the member$ of the Bouse were honourable and decent. I do not think he can NM- 2 by inference say what he cannot say directly, and he certainly by inference implied that there were persons in this House who did not have decency or honour and on hav!ng that called to his attention he further dug himself in by saying something to the effect that you could interpret from it what you wanted or something of that essence, that nature.

I believe that is a matter he is going to have to withdraw, Mr. Speaker. He has inferred that some of us are without honour and without decency. And coming from a gentleman, ~r. Speaker, who in the very process is giving us a lecture on decorum and dignity it is a bit hard to take, Mr. Speaker. To the point '; at-' the ··begiilttil'ig"t~'f•"· ·>-~ ,_ • .;._ .. ., _.c .. .. - - · -- ___ .. his remarks he referred to some remarks I had made and from there on I must admit I lost him. I did indeed lose him.

I do not know exactly what his point-of privilege is or indeed how it would arise from develonments in the Bouse yesterday, and that is my first point. Whether indeed his point of privilege or hiR alleged point of privilege is based on anything, certainly it is not based on remarks I made in the House yesterday. I expanded my remark to refer not specifically to any tape or alleged tape at all.

I expanded my remarks to refer to certain things he had said outside the House as opposed to what he has said inside the Bouse,and he may find that it comes under the general heading of his being critical of the government, He was much more descriptive than that, much more descriptivie than that. And if you can call those you support a bunch of crooks and still support them, well it is beyond my idea of consistency, Mr. Speaker, and that is what we were talking about yesterday. •.

:~ay 26, 1978 Tape No. 3568 ~ - 3 )iR . SIMlo!ONS: But the point I want to make, because he appeared, he used a facade , or the false premise of basing his remarks on something that bad grown out of the debate in which I had participated yesterday at the time I was participating indeed. And there is notb:itut in anytb~g I said yeste rday thac could be the basis of such a point of privilege, so that at the very l east , ~: r. Speaker, what he raised is a hypothetical situation and,as Mr. Speaker knows, that is not the realm in which Mr. Speaker deals.

~1ay 26, 1978 Tape 3569 EC - 1 ~R. SIMMONS: Finally, Mr. Speaker, the member for Kilbride (Mr. Wells) has made reference to

Section 159 of Beauchesne. He read the first several sections, but I think his case was based on 159(3) and there it points out, and I quote in part: "On May 18, 1865, the Attorney General, on being asked by Mr. Ferrard if he would lay upon the table a written statement and a letter to which he had referred on a previous day, in answering a question, etc., replied that he had made a statement to the House upon his own responsibility and the documents he had referred to being private, he could not lay them upon the table." t!r.

Speaker, I submit that the gist of 159(3) is not that private documents cannot be tabled, but rather that the House cannot oblige a member to table what is alleged to be a private document. It is a matter then, Hr. Speaker, of whether the House has authority in that particular matter, not whether the member himself has the freedom or not to table the document. And the case described here in 159(3) is that the person who had been asked to table said that he felt he did not want to table and he gave his argument, and at that point the House did not oblige him to table.

Now the argument I hear the member for Kilbride putting this morning 1 and I believe this is the essence of his alleged point of privilege, is that the House ought to place a restriction oti a member that in certain instances he will not be permitted to table. I suggest to him and to the House, Mr. Speaker, that there is nothing in the precedents, in the authorities, that would support a move by this House to prevent someone from tabling a document. I can see the other possibility, and it has happened in this House, indeed, where under given circumstances the member is not required to table. But,as I am sure Mr.

Speaker would appreciate, ·.

~1ay 26, 1978 Tape 3569 EC - 2 !1R. SIH~ONS: that is the other side of the coin. It is one thing not to oblige somebody to table, but it is quite a different thing to prevent him from tabling. MR. NEARY: ~R. SIMMONS: That is right. And I submit that in 159(3) there is no support for the argument that you can prevent a member from tabling a document if in his wisdom as a member of this House, exercising himself responsibly, he feels it is in the best interest to table a document. I do not think there is anything in the authorities that can give support to the argument that he ought to be prevented from tabling.

MR. HICKMAN: MR. SPEAKER: Leader. MR. HICKMAN: brief words on this. Mr. Speaker. The hon. the Government House If I may have a couple of very Firstly, referring to 159(3) 1 I would in particular refer Your Honour to the top of page 135. The ruling was that he could not, ·not that he would not: "the documents he had referred to being private, he could not lay the!\1 upon the table." Oh, oh! MR.

HICKMAN: And Lord Robert Cecil contended that the papers having been cited should be produced. v7ell, the Speaker declared that this rule~ the rule that it could not be laid upon the table of the House, it being a private document- applied. Well, Mr. Speaker, as I understand the submission made by the bon. the member for Kilbride (Mr. Wells),the only issue before the Chair, really, on a question of privilege is,one, whether a telephone conversatio3

Mav 26 , 1 9 7 " Tape 3569 :c - 3 t~at has been allegedly ta p ed when one party to the conversation was unaware of the fa ct th at it was being taped,and then handed to a third party,either by way of the tape or by way of the tape and then that tRird party h as i~ transcribed, but there is, I gath er - \Jell, there has to be - the h.on. gentleman f=om LaPoile (.t r. ~<eary) has been h_olding up a transcription - ~Jbeth er or not that can then be laid on t he table of t he House by an hon . member . It is a fact, t!r. Speaker, that any hon. member tabling anything in this IT ouse stands by i~.

MR •• EARY: ~hat is righc. And if it shoul subsequently b e discovered that there is an untrut h in it, then the bon. gentleman would have to be dealt with by the Bouse under the appropriate rule. :-1R. :SEARY: it . I am quite prepared to stand by }!R . H ICia:A.~: Secondly, )f r. Speaker, I am quite certain that that kind of evidence would not be ad missi b le in a court of law · - MR . NEARY: MR . H:I CKMAN: MR. NEARY : ~CR. BIClU'tAN: Yes, it hAs be en a n d is . And I am sure that i t bas not b een. Well I am sure it has been . Wel l . I bow t o th e han . g ent l ema n from LaPoile (Mr.

Neary), but I say, having practiced in the courts for over twenty years, that ·.

May 26, 1978 Tape No. 3570 NM - 1 MR. HICKMAN: that would certainly offend the hearsay rule, having it admitted before a third party. The first thing, for a very obvious reason, the ~curt would. have to be satisifed,­ number one, that the tape was not doctored or capable of being doctored, which is very easily done. Secondly, the person who transcribed the tape and thirdly, you are still smack up against the hearsay rule in trying to admit it by ~lay of a third party. The han. gentleman from LaPoile (Mr.

Neary) said that the han. member should have said to this gentleman Davidson, "I wish to terminate the conversation." MR. NEARY: That is right. MR.

HICKMAN: Now am I to assume that ever y time any han. gentleman gets a telephone call,and the person on the other end of the line starts to invade a field that he feels may not be the most desirable thing to talk about,he should say, "I t~ate.-tl~J.a.:~ ,~~,_~;~, .1f..he;. ~es..no£, . t · e;mi na·te ... ~.,. ,::; ·.,;~'"' ·""'-·· ,, ;.,,_ it, if he does not hang up the telephone on the caller that then there could be some sort of implied consent to this clandestine . taping of a telephone conversation. MR. MURPHY: MR. NEARY: They have to do it now (inaudible).

If he was as unsavoury a character as the han. gentleman said he was he should not have even talked to him. MR. WELLS: I knew he was unsavoury. MR. HICKMAN: Mr. Speaker, may I MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! MR. HICKMAN: Mr. Speaker, there is, apart altogether from the confidentiality, there is another area that I think is appropriate to direct Your Honour's attention. It is not possible to admit into this House by way of a tabled document, language that would be inadmissable or unparliamentary if it came - MR. m:ARY: That is another reason Ihave to table it.

May 26, 1978 MR. HICKMAN: hon, member. MR. NEARY: · MR. HICKMAN: MR. NEARY: MR. HICKMAN: Tape No. 3570 NM- 2 - if it came from the lips of an Would the hon; gentleman ·tabl:e it'f · If,for instance,there is vile language - Well there is. - in a report or a tr~nscript then- ~rtainly it could not be tabled in the House because it could not be said jn the House. The word that the hon. ~entleman used a few minutes ago, that dreadful word that he had to withdraw, if that was in that tape the tape could not be admitted. MR. NEARY: There is worse than that in that tape. MR.

HICKMAN: Well now, Your Honour, that you realize that there are unparliamentary comments in the tape and/or transcript,! would ask that in dealina with the hon. gentleman from Kilbrfde::!:.s ·::_"{Mr.:;o.:c:Wetls)'::':llio .tiom.•Jtihat~il~~~otftt-c·,~~~ th~il'>!~ ...., . >_ • .;..;~..;. · •. ;.; : """'· """--'·~ ·, admission by the hon. member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary),who holds these in his hand, · that contained '· therein - is'un-parliamenea:rv - ' ~--- - -·· · · language. MR. NEARY: Well,swear words. I do not know if swear words are unparliamentary. :!o!R. WELLS: MR. NEARY: MR. WELLS: MR.

SPEAKER: ~CKMAN_:_ relevant to this point. What? Who said - what? The hon. gentleman. What did he say? Order, please! Order, please! That too, Mr. Speaker, I say, is very But if I may in concluding, and I realize I am not permitted to debate, that very fundamental principle that the hon. gentleman for Kilbride (Mr. Wells) refers to, the confidentiality of telephone calls, if that is going to be allowed to become the subject matter of public knowledge and public debate,then there is really is no room for anyone in public life in this Province.

j - May 26, 1978 Tape No. 3570 W..! - 3 MR. HICKMAN: And may I in· conclusion, Mr. Speaker, because I hear ~reat talk about immunity of the House, and I intend, I think Your Honour has already read the decision and I am going to get copies for all members of the Blection of Privileges Committees, the question of immunity very recently was referred to the courts by the -not immunity,but confidentiality - was referred to the courts by the Legislature of Ontario.

And the question, amongst other things that the court had to answer was whether or not information comin2 to an hon. member of a provincial legislature or the Parliament of Canada, can be - the confidentiality rule applies. MR. NEARY: I have already said I w.ould tell who gave it to me providing the House hears him. MR. HICKMAN: No, but the han. gentleman, I have heard him say from time to time, I cannot make these ~hings public to people because I lose my sources. MR. NEARY: That is right. MR. NEARY: In this particular case I am prepared to make my source known - MR. HICKMAN: That confidentiality rule - MR.

NEARY: - if the hon. gentleman will agree to deal with this matter in the House. MR. HICKMAN: Mr. Speaker, the confidentiality rule does not apply to bon. members outside the four walls of this House. MR. NEARY: Outside, but inside. MR. HICKMAN: And if an bon. gentleman has information that has come to him in his capacity as a member, the confidentiality rule does not protect him and does not apply. MR. NEARY: That is nonsense! MR. HICKMAN: And I intend, Mr. Speaker, to send to the member for Bay de V~rde - I will send the members of the Committee a copy of that very recent decision - MR.

NEARY: I know what you would do.

May 26, 1978 Tape ~o . 3570 m-1 - 4 MR. RIC!O'.AN: - which has been adopted by - you know and is obviously now binding upon all legislatures in this Province. MR. NEARY: poli~ical persecutions - mt. SPEAKER: We know about your persecutions, Order, please! Well , the argument has been close ~ an hour,or approximately an hour,

:ray 26, 1978 Tape 3571 EC - 1 :!R. SPEAKER: I will need time to think about it, to make note of the points made and,in fairness, to get a transcript of the submissions. It is not fair to han. members when the matter of submissions are at some length and the whole House hears it for an hour, for a decision to be made without giving due consideration to the arguments, which cannot always be done by listening. I find it fre~uently necessary to have material in front of me.

So I will reserve a decision on this and give it at the earliest opportunity, which I have no doubt will be Monday. ~e only have another hour and forty-five minutes today. STATE~ENTS BY MINISTERS MP. SPEAKER: Forestry and Agriculture. MR. MAYNARD: The hon. the Minister of Mr. Speaker, I have a relatively lengthy •tatement to make and I hope I have the Rouse's indulgence in making the statement.

I want to take the opportunity to again talk on an issue involving the Department of Forestry and Agriculture, which has become the subject of misunderstanding,in many areas of the Province,because of some very heavy distortion of the

interpretation of the facts as they relate to the issue, the issue being the spruce budworm problem. ~~ether or not the slanted view of the realities of the issue are intentional or simply an accident of communication, my department is concerned nevertheless that the general public may be being misled. I would like, therefore, to place before this House and the people of the Province a clearer perspective of the spruce budworm problem and the spraying programme '~e Hill use in combatting it.

-· ~!ay 26, 1978 Tape 3571 EC - 2 HR. lfAYNARD: In doing so, I intend to stress the fact that all decisions made to date have been made with the general well being of the people and resources of this Province foremost in our minds. I intend to stress the fact that the decision to spray was not made lightly and was in fact, ~ade with the most up-to-date technological and scientific expertise available today. This scientific date was screened and scrutinized with meticulous care, with individed attention being paid to all information supplied by leading scientists in an array of disciplines.

Analogous situations in other areas of North America were analyzed, the potential of suggested alternatives such as invigorated forest manage~ent and silvicultural techniques was weighed and considered, every facet of information which could have even a remote relationship to thi·s-problem -wa's-stn"tlied-; Concerns expressed by persons and groups who oppose the use of chemicals as · a combatant against the ills of nature were studied and considered, and indeed, were picked apart for any positive input they may have offered as we approached the decision-making stage.

This situation did not end, I ~ight add, once a decision had been reached. This government and the departments responsible for forestry and agriculture, for health and for the environment,continue to maintain an open door policy in this matter. We are at the disposal of any and all persons and groups who wish to seriously and intelligently discuss the ramifications and collective related considerations of the issue. This policy will continue while this government functions as ad~inistrator of the affairs of the Province. In one of the earlier letters publicly published in opposition against the spraying

:·lay 26, 1978 Tape 3571 ::c - 3 HR. HAY:lARD: programme, one gentleman stated that given the facts, most people are against the spray. I would go even further than that gentleman,and qualify ~is state~ent by saying not most, but everybody is against chemical spraying . I know of no person on earth ~ho would arbitrarily decide that chemical spraying is an ideal huo:1an activity. I do not think anybody, wi t h all mer.tal faculties funct ioninb ? roperl y would eve r ~o~e to the conclusion that spraying programmes are something to be sought after or idealized. But, :tr.

Speaker, the existence of a negative aspect of a technological and scienti!ic tool does not necessarily preclude its use when optimal safeguards are in place to reduce and virtually eliminate any risk involved in the utilization of that device . !l edical science today uses X-Ray machines to determine sickness and yet it is indisputable that radia t ion can in itself cause serious illness. Medical science uses injected bac teria to comba t illness, even though these bacteria are the carriers of illness. Th ere are a limitless

May 26, 1978 Tape 3572 IB-1 MR. MAYNARD: number of scientific precedents for the use of toxic substances to combat illness and deterioration in one form or another. The only qualifier in all of these situations is that the toxic substances are used with adequate safequards, with careful percaution and intelligent application. The decision by medical science to use any of these disruptive elements in natural environments is reached when medical scientists conclude that the end result, that is,the healthy patient, or a reduced or slowed-down illness, is worth the risk.

In the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, there now exists vast acreagesof mature and regeneration timber under severe stress due to the ravaging onslaught of budworm infestation. We believe the application of a chemical insecticide is the only effective and immediate tool at our disposal at this moment in time,which can effectively control the spruce budworm attack on our forests. There are an estimated 2.1 million cords of timber already dead, there are some 3.5 million cords classed as moribund or unlikedly to survive.

An additional 2 million acres of mature forest have been severely damaged, about 1.7 million acres of softwood regeneration has been heavily damaged~ and the mortality of fir/spruce regeneration exists or is now expected over some 50,000 acres. Mr. Speaker, you do not have to be an expert in any given discipline to realize the kind of impact this damage will have to industry, to tourism, to recreational endeavours involving the use of outdoor environment and a myriad of other areas.

I would like to refer you to the numerous statements on this problem made in public by my officials and myself, and to the statements made to this House in the past. And I also refer, Mr. Speaker, to statements that have been made in this House' over the past week that the government has refused to give information to the public. Well let me outline the infonmation that we have given to the public. In particular, in March of 1977 I outlined in detail a four point program for 1977. A further progress report was presented on May 4, 1977.

The 1977 program proceeded in accordance with plan and all reports were made public in the

May 26, 1978 Tape 3572 IB-2 MR. MAYNARD: Fall of 1977. These included the report of the Memorial University Literature Review TaskForce, the report of the Environmental Monitoring Group under the direction of the Department of Consumer Affairs and Environment, the report of the group of experts looking into the potential of forest management programs with respect to the budworm problem, and a report on the effectiveness of the 1977 experimental or trail program with respect to controlling the spruce budworm itself and to affording foliage protection, which would be the objective of any such effort .

In addition, in the Fall of 1977 the complete reports of the Canadian Forestry Service with respect to the 1978 forecast for budworm infestation and the damage assessment survey were made public. On April 11, 1978, in a Ministerial Statement to this House I outlined in detail the extent of the problem, the results of our previous efforts in this regard, governments program for 1978, and the rationale for same.

In all of these efforts, both myself and my officials, and this was reiterated in my statement of April 11, 1978, have attemo~ed to make all the facts available known to the genera·] public o·f this Province~· · I""·fai ·r-to see then, Mr. Speaker, how ' we can be accused of trying to keep information from the public. The spruce budworm is an extremely complex problem, and would caution you immediately of instant experts.

There are experts on the health aspects, there are experts on the biology of the spruce budworm itself, there are experts on the forest management aspects, there are experts on the environmental aspects, there are experts on spray technology. However, there are no experts on all aspects of the spruce budworm problem. One argument against spraying involves the occurrence of mature and overmature timber - over 60 per cent of Newfoundland's forest. The implication is that cutting practices have led to this condition.

In fact, the widespread occurrence of balsam fir, ·especially on the West Coast, is primarily due to a low incidence of forest fires. It must be admitted , however, that harvesting techniques currently employed

May 26, 1978 Tape 3572 !B-3 MR. MAYNARD: in Newfoundland are more conducive to regeneration of balsam fir . If one assumes that Bowater and Price could have operated at maximum capacity since the early 1900's and if they could have completely changed the species of trees of all their cutovers to black spruce or some other non- vulnerable budworm species,

;·av 26 . 197e Tare ~io . 3573 :-'T-1 V)l • E. ~WYNAP.D: the maximum area that ~.rould have been converted would amount to only 40 per cent of the balsam fir/black spruce forest of the island. In reality, however, it is more likely that only one-quarter of the area cut per year could realistically be modified. Consequently, there could have been no appreciable effect on the magnitude of the curret budworm problem on the island. Another rather inane statement tossed into the arena for digestion was that spraying does nothing to alter the susceptibility nature of the forest. This statement is meaningless.

Insecticide spraying is not intended to alter the nature of the forest, in fact, it is intended to retain the integrity of the forest so that conventional forest management can be practiced in acceptance with today's pattern of society. The intent of forest sprayin? is to rrolong the life of the trees Hhile the mechanisms for silvicultural techniques and non-chemical means of forest management are put into place. A much quoted report by a Doctor J.R.

Blais stating ·that spraying perp-etua:tes a··budwar!ll' eJi:f:demic'""anct strortens · the· intervals · between epidemics neglected to mention that Doctor Blais also stated that the "possible" consequences of spraying operations hardly justifies any overall change in current policy regarding the treatment of infested stands. A statement has been made and attributed to Dr. Gordon Baskerville that New Brunswick faces a collapse of wood supply t·•ithin 15 years because of spraying. !he fact is that Dr.

Baskerville has said that New Brunswick faces a collapse of wood supply in 15 years if they now discontinue to spray or to protect against the budworm. During the past twenty-five years or so, numerous forestry professionals and scientific experts have been working on this problem. However, their efforts have not been as well co-ordinated as might be desirable. Early in 1977, the ministers responsible for the various forestry jurisdictions in Eastern North America met in

7''av 26, 1'?78 Tape ~To. 3573 rr-2 MR. E. ~'AYNARD: New Brunswick and decided that a more focused effort Has required in this regard. As a result of these discussions the Eastern Spruce Budworm Council was formed. This body of senior policy officials in the various jurisdictions was charged with the responsibility of identifying information gaps and identifying specific areas in need of refinement or research, and to guide efforts to tackle these problems.

Since then some progress has been made in the areas of standardizing environmental monitoring, improving spray application technology, alternate solutions other than chemical insecticides, etc. and these efforts are. continuing. Further in 1977,the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America entered into a joint accord '~ith respect to tackling the spruce budworm problem. Previously Canada had been spending in the vicinity of 3.5 million dollars per annum on this problem and the U.S.A. relatively minor amounts.

As a result of this accord, the Government of Canada agreed to maintain its current level of funding and · the· Government· trf ·'-the "'L'nit-eti' ·states agreed---to·' ,., .. ,.. - increase its effort to a level of approximately 5 million dollars per year. Therefore, in total, approximately 8 to 9 million dollars will be spent per year for the next five years on various aspects of the problem, including the search for alternatives to chemical insecticides. Unfortunately, none are kno~~ at this moment.

This combined effort puts the spruce bud,~ orm in the category of the most researched forestry rroblem ever. this year. VR. SPEAKEF: Now we come to ~atacil, the chemical to be used While the hon. Hinister is catching his breath, perhaps I could make a brief announcement. Han. members 'dll be interested to know that in the galleries we have twenty students from the Cape John Collegiate of LaScie, accompanied by their teachers, Ann Bannister and David Brett. I am sure they would wish to welcome the students.

.. ay 26. l'J7 S ~('~'! EON. >'E}IBE~S : ''R. SPEAKE!!: "'!>. E. ~~AYNARI': :ape ::o. 35 73 Hear, hear! !!on. !Ainister. "!-3 'r. Speaker, the insecticide to be used this year in Ne~•foundland is the Aminocarb - ~·atacil. The dosage rate ~.:ould be two applications of one ounce of active in~edient in 20 ounces of oil-based formulation per acre. The first application, as I stated in an earliest address, will be applied at peak levels of the tnird stage of the larval development and the second will be applied at the fourt h sta&e· ~~o applications are necessary to achieve the ade~uate control. Aminocarb was selected for the following reasons: (

a) The recommended and approved Aminocarb for.nulation has beenscreeoed by receral henlth and regulatory bodies and contains no materials implicate<! wtt h human healt h hazard.

~ra. 1 2G, 197 J :Zap'" _io. 3.37 4 Ji: - 1 HR. :JAYNA.t~: (

b) Assessment of the 1977 experilllental spray program snowed that Aminocarb gave much better control than other ch~icals tested. (

c) Based on the environraental assessment of last year's progr~, aminocarb was less damaging to the environment, especially aquatic systems. I migh-t interject here for a moment that the adequacy of last years monitoring program has been questioned and I tvill deal with that point later on. (

d) Because ' of the newly recommended mixes for other chemicals tested, the cost of other chemicals had increased significautly. In fact, by using aminocarb only, we will he able to reduce the cost by about $400,000. (

e) AmL<ocarb is easier to formulate than other chemicals testea and requires a simpler mixing plant (thus is less accident prone). It is common knowledge at this stage that matacil is a poison, a toxic >mbstanc e , and naturally if tile hUI!lan body is exposed to it in an excessive manner, illness could result. In fact many substances we use today, even ~he flouride used when brushing our teeth, if it~· is use.d in .excessive : and- abnormal . quan.t'ities.- : can-.cause. .......... . ::-.;;;-=..! illness. No one denies that. Matacil has been used experimentally since 1965.

Full registration in Canada was granted in 1976. Therefore, information from twelve years of research has been made available to provide the basis for registration by our Federal Government. This research has satisfied the requirements of the Federal Pest Control Acts, the Food and Drug Act, the Environmental Contaminants Act, the Fisheries Act, the ~!igratory Birds Convention Act, the Ocean Dumping Act, the Canada Water Act, and the Northern Inland Waters Act and Waters Pollution Prevention Act. All of these legislative controls have been applied to the ci1emical matacil.

Scrutinizing the use of this pesticide is the Federal Interdepartmental Committee on pesticides, the Canada Committee on pesticide use .in agriculture which is a Federal-Provincial industry and university group, the National Research Council Associate Committee on agriculture and forestry aviation )again a Federal-Provincial,

:lay 26 . 1973 Tape No. 3574 J;! - 2 }!R. ~IAYNARD: university and industry group, the Xational Research Council CowJittee on scientific criteria for environmental quality- the subcommittee on pesticides and. related compaunds 1 again --­ a joint group, the · Canadian Association of Pesticide Control Officials which is a Federal-Provincial industry and university group and the Federal Interdepartmental Codex Committee of Pesticide Residues. Besides these committees, more than twenty other FedeEal-Provincial and industry committees exist relating in some de6ree or other to pesticides. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I have some copies of the procedures that are used by the Federal regulatory bodies in Canada in researching chemicals. There are five copies here for the use of han., members - part one and part two presented by Agriculture Canada, Fisheries and Environm~nt Canada and Health and lvelfare Canada. The point is that anyone who says matacil hes not been thoroughly screened and scrutinized by scientific means, and has not been .praven .as. _posing __n(k - tlu:eat. _. .to.-)mman beings .. .or .• ..the. .. ~·-"" - ·"'·u -- - ­ integrity of the environment, just is not paying attention to the facts.

Hy department and other departments of this government, as well as the Federal Government, industry and the Canadian Universities have amassed a great deal of information on t he chemical we will use and its effects on the environment which, as i1as been shown, are negligible. Our own Provincial Department of Eealth is on record as having stated that toxicity, notwithstanding, the department is satisfied that the material was duly registered for operational forest spraying and has therefore been screened by the Federal Health Officials and all regulatory bodies. Dr.

David Severs, head of the l'ledical Services Division of t he Provincial Department of Health has stated that there exists no evidence to suggest that there are any current adverse effects on the healt h of the public at large which

!a?C ~io. 3~ 7 4 can be attributed to forest spraying ~nth the material . Dr. Severs has also seated t he deparcnent has no undue concern for quantities in drinking water since even maximum: amounts normally recorded in spray programs are well belov the caximum specified by the Canada Drinking ~ater Standards acd dissipate relatively quickly. The Aminocarb-matacil ba.s now arrived in ~<e1~foundland and is being kept in storage in both Stephenville and Gander unt il utili .zation. And there were som.e charges t he other day that barrels in St~phe nville ~~re scattere d all over t ~e t~-cac.

I think one statez:~ent was that they 1;ere stored on the runway. So I went out to Stephenville to have a look and we took a few pictu r es of the barrels and where t hey are 6torea and now they are stored and I have some photographs here taat I will give hon . oe:abers i n a

May 26, 1978 Tape 3575 DW - l MR. MAYNARD: few minutes showing how they are stored. The facts are, Mr. Speaker, that in Stephenville the barrels of chemical are stored in a remote part of the airport tarmac, not the runway, they are at least · -one-quarter m±le ·£Tom· the· 'rUilWay-·sect±·on·"­ presently in use. The barrels are in a protected area inside a fence which I admit is not in perfect condition, but I will also add there is a 24 hour watch on the storage. There are two barrels which have experienced a tiny leakage, and these are stored inside.

This substance - Matacil - is not susceptible to spontaneous combustion, an explosion for example, although it can be burned slowly as can stove oil or diesel oil, but it is not a combustible material. As an added precaution, however, the fire department there has been briefed as to the presence of the chemical and its location. There are some office buildings located about one-fifth of a mile away from the temporary storage area, and the nearest domestic dwelling is quite a distance - I would say approximately, Mr.

Speaker, one mile -whereas the other day in this House of Assembly charges were made that the chemical wa:SJ.:ator.ed '•'l:.:tght:dJy , -~ d;re:.r:r:es idettt.'B::!:ID:foro-5;t.e~eo:-v~:-~~ is.;. ·:· · ~ .. ,..... .. . ,--'~ .. not so. MR. MURPHY:. Completely irresponsible. MR. MAYNARD: It is a completely irresponsible statement, that is correct. The temporary storage areas are perfectly adequate and, incidentally, the sites are routinely visited by the Department of Health. In Gander,the barrels are again stored on a remote portion of the tarmac inside an airport security fence under 24 hour watch.

There was some slight leakage there, but protective measures have been taken against these. In both storage areas all personnel have been familiarized with the handling procedure for the Aminocarb and there is no danger to either human health or the environment as a result of precautions being taken in the storage areas, contrary to

'<ay 26, 1<:173 MR. ~.AYNARD: effect. Tape 3575 D'·l - 2 earlier statements made to that Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to table some photographs of the areas; the top one is Stephenville, the next one is Gander showing exactly how remote they are from any human beings or any office buildings •• Tgere are two more photographs there showing a Matacil barrel with the label on it clearing outlining the instructions for handling the anecdotes and everything else. As I said earlier, it has been alleged that last years experimental spraying program had not been adequately monitored by scientific. means.

Let me quote to you from a statement made by the ~tinister of Consumer Affairs and Environment in a letter,a few days I beleive,to a Hr. Greg Mitchell of Ekowatc.h in Corner Brook. ''Hy department undertook to co-ordinate an Environmental Monitoring Project in 1977 and has already commenced a similar effort for 1978. An :Environmental l!onitoring Committee was set up,representing three provincial and three federal resource protection agencies, as well as the Department of Health and Memorial University.

Each member of the Committee was a professional scientist; no one in this Province was better qualified than these persons to design, oversee, interpret and report on their respective ' segments of the project. Since the study coincided with the period when universtt) students were available, it was decided to select qualified students to carry out the field work for the project. These students were chosen on the basis of high academic. standing and/or previous experienc.e,and were put through an intensive training program before beginning their duties.

Their work was supervised regularly hy post doctoral scientists from 'M:emorial University. I suggest to you, 'fr. Speaker, that there was no need to el!lploy the members of the Committee or any

"ay 2fi, 1?78 Tape 1575 ~R. ~!ATIARD: other professional scientists in carrying out field work which consisted mainly of routine sampling techniques. However, all data

interpretation was done by Committee members not by the students. Every technique used is a generally accepted method of study for the particular parameter in question." I might add to . th~ Minister of Consumer Affairs and Environment's comments that the 1978 monitoring program has already begun.

The Committee has been enlarged, the field staff has been increased in numbers per study allocation, new study techniques have been introduced and the Budget has been increased by about 56 per cent over last year. nH - 3 I must also mention that having o~served our 1977 project of monitoring, at least one other Province this year is going to begin using mist-netting to sample bird populations, following our example.

The provincial Department of the Environment is already on record as stating that the rate of Aminocarb proposed by oar department falls within the maximum range allowable under the federal registration of this chemical. In addition, the Environment Department has studied each province using Aminocarb. These provinces had conducted environmental monitoring during projects designed to detect immediate or short-term effects. Our Environment Department found that these reports indicate no serious impact on the environment as a result of the use of Aminocarb.

Our own Monitoring Program of the 1977 spray effort similarly found no significant effect of Aminocarb on non-target organisms. The conclusion of our own Environment Department then is that all things considered, the Pesticine Advisary Board and that department are aware of no conclusive scientific evidence to indicate that Aminocarb when applied in the manner and at the

Hay 26, 1~78 Tape 3575 ~lR. MAYN.A,_~D: rate proposed, will cause any significant adverse side effect on the natural environment or on human health. There have been numerous concerns expressed about the possibility of water cortamination as a result of the spray program. !)\.] - 4

May 26, 1978 Tape 3576 IB-1 MR. MAYNARD: As I mentiond earlier, the Aminocarb is even less damaging to the environment than other chemicals, especially in aquatic systems. Even though traces of Ma.tacil were found in the Corner Brook ~1ater supply last year, the quantity was insignificant when compared with the Canada drinking water standards for carbonates. In fact, even in areas directly sprayed last year, the quantities detected were well within acceptable limits under these standards . These quantities begin to break down to very low levels very rapidly and pose no health hazard whatsoever.

In addition to this, I would also like to point out to you that in Eastern North America over the past couple of years there have been three independent task forces established to consider the spruce budworm problem. - These three are the Baskerville Task Force Report of New Brunswick, the MacDonald Task Force Report of Nova Scotia, and the Rendell Task Force of Newfoundland.

Each Task Force as part of its recommendations, has stated that forest protection is a desirable objective for the short-term and that thenpplication of chemical insecticides to control the spruce budworm is an acceptable forest management activity and is required in the short-term within the jurisdiction studied. Two activies - salvage and forest managmenet - have been postulated as alternatives to a protection program, such as has been mentioned above. This they are not. I would first like to deal with the salvage question.

The objective of salvage, primarily, is to minimize the economic effects of the damage which has already been incurred in our forests by the spruce budworm. I have already outlined the extent of our salvage programme and the fact that technological reasons dictate that an optimistic estimate of the amount of salvage we can do in this Province is approximately 50 per cent of the wood which is already in the dead or dying category. During the past four years my department has constructed a total of 94 miles of access roads to salvageable stands at a cost of approximately 2.4 million dollars.

In addition, we have entered into agreements with the two major pulp and paper companies whereby they

May 26, 1978 Tape 3576 IB-2 MR. MAYNARD: are obligated to harvest from these stands a minimum of 263,000 cords per annum for five years. The two pulp and paper companies have co-operated to the extent of modifying their harvesting plans and have obligated to salvage from their limits as much wood as is possible taking into account their qualitY. guidelines. There are two other points which would like to make with respect to salvage. The first is that the amount of salvage that can be done relates very specifically to the amount of utilization possible.

It makes absolutely no sense to incur considerable expenditures and store wood now - even though you would increase employment now - at _the expense of having no wood harvesting and absolutely no employment two or three years down the road. The second point has to do with trying to increase current wood utilizing capabilities such ·as tncr.eased sawmi·ll ·capabilities, :-the · · export market, or the Stephenville mill.

Another question here is, if all cutting effort was channeled into harvesting dead and 'dying timber as currently identified, how do we de a 1 with the· addtt;; ona' 'l ' voiJ·mneS""Whi-ctf · wou 'hf*ttte···hr-ttre-1nterim-~ .. ,....., .. -·.,- -· --­ while the budworm continues uncontrolled? Government is still ·evaluating ways -and ·means to -reopen l:abrador Linerboard. One point raised was that a re-apportioning of cutting limits would mean fuller utilization of forest resources and more employment. This, of course, is a vast oversimplification of a very complex issue.

In the event that this mill is reopened in the near future, a long- term wood supply is essential. If the damage already caused by the budworm is left to expand, however, the chances of this mill being reopened would be greatly minimized. This situation, therefore, enhances the need for spraying rather than reduces .the need to go ahead with it. Forest management: The primary objective of "forest management" is long-term and is to produce, for the future, a healthy and productive forest which is hopefully 1 ess suscept-ible to future attacks by the budworm and other insects.

This was addressed in the report which was

May 26, 1978 Tape 3576 IB-3 MR . MAYNARD: made public in the Fall of 1977 which I have referred to. It is not an alternative for protection. In fact, intensive forest managmenet is an area of activity in Canada which is now receiving considerable attention irrespective of the spruce budworm problem.

May 26, 1978 Tape No. 3577 NM - 1 MR. MAYNARD: All across the Country our forest resource and industry (which nationally is la~er than agriculture, fishing and mining combined) is threatened and the economic supply of wood jeopardized because of past practices. This has been recognized in all jurisdictions in Canada for the past few vears. It was articulated in the First Ministers Conference in Ottawa in February of this year.

The year 1973-74 is a significant one for this Province with respect to forest management as in that year the Forest Land Management and Taxation Act was passed and as well the Province entered into a forest subsidiary agreement with the -Department of -Re~~:.ional . Economic . Expansion. Over the past few years millions of dQllars .- have -been spent on forest improvement, tree nurseries at Wooddale and Mount Pearl, and in the area of increased utilization. These efforts are continuing and are expected to require continuing large expenditures in the coming decade.

And I have listed some exPenditures which are very relevant: Since 1973~74 years to this.present year we have access roads - $21 million; forest inventory - $4 million; forest protection - $11 millioni forest management - $13 million; improvement-$ ~million; reforestation- $4 million; management plans and surveys - $2 million; buildings - $1.3 million; harvesting and utilization - $3.3 millinn, for a total, Mr. Speaker, of $54 million over that number of years on the forestry of this Province. And some of these expenditures obviously have been shared by the federal government.

As announced in my statement of April 11th., 1978, additional initiatives have been undertaken in an effort to further ·. minimize the effects of the spruce budworm problem in this Province. On January 24th., l978,I met with the Atlantic Ministers of Forestry, the hon. Len Marchand, the hon. Marcel Lessa-rd; and . the ·hon; ·Bud Cullen. All recognized the seriousness of the problem and agreed with me that selective salvage and forest management activities using Canada Manpower funds was a desirable use of these funds which would help the short-term economic benefits in the form of a more viable forest resource.

... \' Hay 26, 1978 Tape No. 3577 NM - 2 MR. MAYNARD: This concept was agreed to by the Ministers of Forestry nationally who met on January 25th. It was recommended ..oy.-the ·,.Premier- ·•-tn h!s report ---from the conference and agreed to by the First Ministers when they met in Ottawa in February. Since January my officials have headed a working group · consisting of officials · of Canada Manpower, DREE, the Canadian Forestry Service, and other provincial departments in preparing a realistic programme proposal for submi~sion to the federal government.

This programme is in the area of selective salvage and incremental silviculture programmes which would be over . and above what is p.res.ently. in. .the.. b.udget for .this... •. year and it is estimated in the vicinity of $23 million would create same 1790 man years of employment over the next five years, if we can get the programme implemented. Nova Scotia ·' has :a.: ~re;:;:b_udW.O.J!· IIW:i'll'iW.~m.iilP.:- . ~P~<~ »"'1?fT.lt'J,JJ:11:<~""' t"'"'"' ,, problem in the Cape Breton portion of - ~hat Province.

It does not have a similar problem on- the: Mainl:arul:-.. ,.- iiut-.:in· ..Newfotmd:lanci. '·' : ~ .:::: : ._._ ·:.::. the infestation is Island-wide. In my opinion Nova Scotia has decided to write off the forest resources in Cape Breton for a period of years after the salvage can be carried out. Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford to take that approach with the Island of Newfoundland. The forest management strategy in Nova Scotia is five elements. And there has been a big announcement about a $60 million programme with 9,000 jobs. The five elements are these.

One, wood salvage and storage; two, forest improvement programmes, three, expanded nursery facilitiesand genetically ~roved planting stock; four, spruce budworm control alternatives; and five, hardwood substitution. Only one part of that five point -.

--.T Hay 26, 1978 Tape No. 3577 tsM - 3 MR. ~YNARD: programme, Ur. Speaker, is related to the budworm problem. I think this . -p.roar4UIIIIIe-has~-aome- •· ........... ·-~·-- ·~.- ~- ··-·- ·" commendable elements and with the exception of lllilSsive wood storage, these elements have been present in Newfo\Dldland' s programme for the past few veers, as I have indicated earlier. However, I will repeat that in my opinion, in this Province, there is no benefit in salvaging and storing wood for which there is no known utilization~ at present day costs and at the eXPense of .1o?s a few years from now,

:ray 26, 1973 Tape 3578 EC - l !fR. l1AYNARD: or in improving trees by thinning and reforesting areas this year which will be destroyed by the budworm next year. Protect;:ion is required. The attack on the budworm must include all facets­ Neither is sufficient alone -and all facets are presently in the Newfoundland programme as I have previously announced. Perhaps the favourite argument used by those opposed to spraying is the New Brunswick situation. Reference has been made to the duration of the spray programme there and that it has not solved their problem.

It should be noted, however, that spraying has allowed the forest industry in ~ew Brunswick to survive,and in fact, expand. The objective of the New Brunswick programme has been to afford foliage protection:- ·· ·Th:!:s it has-do ·rie ,- ' and· · New Bruris'(iick 'forests are now green. It has been stated that in Nova Scotia where they had not sprayed the budworm count is down. This is true and it may very well be related to food supplies, since over half of Cape Breton Island now is completely devastated, and obviously, the budworm, like anything else, when the groceries run out they run out as ~rell.

But also I add that in Newfoundland, where we have not sprayed, the budworm in six short years spread across the full Island and in fact a most recent survey shows a largely expanded area of heavy infestation on the Avalon Peninsula. to spray the Avalon. But have no fear - I am not going A reference has also been made to the State of Maine and its intention with respect to ·.

May 26, 1978 Tape 3578 EC - 2 HR. ¥.AYNARD: spraying which has been misinterpreted and therefore, misrepresented. Essentially the State of Maine has decided to spin off the operational aspects of spraying to private enterprise, while government retains regulatory control over the choice and application of insecticides. There has not, therefore, been a decision to stop spraying in the State of Maine. The role of the government, in other word~ the 4 per cent - and that is all, Ur.

Speaker, that the state government put into the spray programme in Maine - was 4 per cent of the cost and they have decided to withdraw that, which I submit to you, is not going to have a very significant impact on the spraying programme. The government of the State of Haine will -not physica-ll-y- -carry ·out: the spray- -programme itself but will allow the public sector to do this.while the government will continue to choose the chemical to be use and decide how it will be applied.

Myself and officials of my department and others are meeting continuously with concerned groups and individuals in an attempt to allay any fears which may arise through this programme. set up information programmes to make the general public aware of the government activities. Any person or individual in this Province or elsewhere, for that matter, has access to all information related to this work. Anyone who has a concern can call in1 or write or come in in person, any my officials will openly discuss any aspect of the programme with them.

There is no problem in coming up with literally thousands of alternatives to the spraying programme. Ask any person you meet on the street corner

Hay 26, 1978 Tape 3578 EC - 3 HR. }1AYNARD: and I am sure that person will come up with a dozen offerings. But unfortunately, only a pitiful few of the solutions expounded actually have any worth. We could, for instance, suggest trans- shipping the infested trees to Mars, We could suggest using witchcraft to put a curse on the budworm,hoping it will go away 1 We could also get down on our knees and pray that tomorrow the insects will be gone, but I guarantee you, Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the budworm popu~ation of this Province will still be there,eating away at our forests as enthusiastically as it was yesterday.

Some of the arguments used against the spruce budworm spraying programme are reminiscent of the emotional arguments - and it is emotional - used against the Newfoundland sealing industry. As any Newfoundlander will testify, these arguments were simply that - emotion based on the cosmetically appealing appearance of the baby seals. The argu~ents tad no basis in fact, although the protesters of the seal hunt did manage to smear the good name of Newfoundlanders. The government is not inmune, however, to these arguments, no matter what their basis.

We understand the natural concern created in many Newfoundlanders by the announcement of a chemical spraying programme, but I suggest to you, Sir, that it is a misunderstanding of the chemical - Matacil- that creates the most fear and there have been many who have capitalized on that fear, and whether or not for a noble motive, have helped to nurture that fear and concern. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

"ay 26, 197R smm HON. ~El-'BE~S: ~. SPEJIKER: Tape ~o . 3579 l?.T-1 Hear, hear~ Before recognizing the hen. gentleman to my right, I ~•auld like to Helcome to the House of Assembly on he half of the members, a number of Grade IX students from Assumption Junior High in Avondale accompanied by their teacher, Miss Peggy Dunphy. I know hon. members join me in >Jelcoming these students. S0ME H0N. ~!ID'BEl'S: Y_R. SPEAKER : ~'R. G. FLIGHT: Hear, hear! Ron. member for Hindsor-Buchans. Thank you, }'r. Speaker. ~r. Speaker, it is difficult to answer this kind of a ministerial statement.

I will give the Einister credit for having gotten a copy of the statement to me shortly before he announced it, as ·soon as he got it, I think, but I did not have time,as he knmJs,to study the statement. But in listening, Sir, I followed with him, and all we have here is a defence of the Government's decision to spray. Nothing else, no new insights, a defence of the Government's decision to spYay;- • · 1-'r. Speaker, the ~Unister makes some interesting points here.

He·sa±d · in 1978 he met with four -or··five· ·cabinet·min±sters· in Ottawa to look at the possibility of having Ottawa co-operate with funding a program that would help salvage and a massive reforestation and a proper reforestation program. Well, it was about time. The Minister knew in 1973 that this Province was facing a massive onslaught of spruce bud<.•ot"T". i''hy does he Nait until 1978 to sit dot-'ll? MR. E. "!<AYNARD: That is another misstatement. MR. G. FLIGHT: I will yield to the Minister. •fuen did the budworm occur in epidemic - !·'R . S. NEARY: SOME ~ON. MEMBERS: YF..

E • MAYNARD : In 1972 when the P.C. Party came - Ot, oh! If the hon. member will keep his yap shut I might be able to answer the question from the hon. gentleman from Windsor-Buchans (1-'r. Flight). ~<ll> • S • NEARY : In 1972 . ·.

-~ ~·ay 26, 1978 Tape No. 3579 RT-2 ~'F.. E. }'AYNAPD: The budworm appeared in the Humber Valley, ~r. Speaker ,. in 1971 1 for the information of the hen. member. It did not infest the Province in major proportions until 1975. ~'R. S. NEARY: · 1-'P.. SPE-AJ<ER: }'P .. G. FLIGHT: SO!<E HON. MEHBERS: ~'P. SPEft KER: In 1972. Order, please! '"lr.