Vol ume 3 PROVINCE OF NEWFOUNDLAND THIRTY-SIXTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEWFOUNDLAND 3rd. Session VERBATIM REPORT THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1974 SPEAKER, THE HONOURABLE JAMES M. RUSSELL Number 94

December 19, 1974, Tape 2221, Page 1 -- apb The House met at 10:00 a.m. Mr. Speaker in the Chair. MR. SPEAKER: Order please! Morning I note that we have in the galleries His Worship the Mayor of Grand Falls and some of his officials. I would certainly like to welcome these honourable gentlemen to the galleries todav. MR. SPEAKER: Order Please! The honourable Minister without Portfolio: HON .

W.W.MARSHALL (Mi_I!_ister without Portfolio) : Your Honour, I wish to advise the House that I have now had an opportunity, and this is the first opoortunity I have had, to attain transcripts of the statements that were made by the honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

Since this is the first opportunity I have had to attain the transcripts I move the following substantive motion: That this House consider remarks made by the honourable Leader of the Opposition on radio station CJ ON on Wednesday December 18, 1974, at approximately 8:00 a.m., a transcript of which is tabled herewith constitutes a breach of privileges of this honourable House in consequence whereof the Leader of the Opposition shall be suspended from this honourable House for three sitting days.

The statements appended which will he tabled herewith are as follows: News item appearing on C J O N Wednesday December 18, 1974. "Announcer: 'Opposition Leader Ed Roberts says he knows the real reason why Government House Leader Bill Marshall did not suspend him from the legislature yesterdav, Tuesday. Mr. Roberts says Mr. Marshall knows in his heart that he Mr. Roberts was correct in what he said. Mr. Roberts says that the Government House Leader knows that the Speaker's ruling was shameful, that it was a perversion of precedence and knows the Speaker and Deputy Speaker have been partisan.' Mr.

Roberts; (and this is a transcript I quote) 'If he did not feel that way then why would he not move to suspend me? After all, they did not hesitate yesterday to move the suspension of Mr. Simmons, Roger Simmons the Member for Hermitage. They did not hesitate to try to fling out Steve Neary for Bell Island for fourteen davs. No! No! the reason that Mr. Marshall did not move to have me put out of the 652i

December 19, 1974, Tape 2221, Page 2 -- apb Morning House was that he knew and could not admit it but he had to agree that what I had said was right, that the Speaker throughout this debate, the Speaker and Deputy Speaker have not been fair and impartial, that they are deliberately favouring one side and that is the government side."' Now, Mr. Speaker, this is the motion which I am moving. It is a motion of privilege, I gave notice of it yesterday, a substantive motion of privilege. It remains now for Your Honour to determine whether or not a prima facie case has been made out.

I would submit that is quite evident from the words which are used because it is a breach of privilege of the House to accuse the Speaker of partiality. The words used in the transcript were that the Speaker and Deputy Speaker have not been fair and impartial. That being so, Your Honour, I would submit that we can now accept this motion. If Your Honour finds there to be a prima facie case, a breach of privilege, we can now go on to discuss this substantive motion, a breach of privilege which I rose yesterday. MR. SPEAKER: The honourable the Leader of the Opposition: HON.

E.M.ROBERTS (Leader of the Onposition): Mr. Speaker, if I may rise on a point of order: I submit that for two reasons that motion is not in order at this time. First of all, Your Honour, there is a matter of privilege before the House and that matter must be disposed of before any further action is taken. That matter of privilege is the matter the debate on which was begun yesterday by the House Leader, continued by me and adjourned by the Minister of Fisheries.

Secondly, Sir, the motion of which the honourable gentleman gave notice,just now,is superfluous as the Clerk reading the minutes confirmed today and as Your Honour confirmed from the Chair, There is a motion precisely the same as that one already before the House, therefore, a second motion cannot be moved. All of the rules of parliamentary practice are quite clear that when one motion respecting a matter stands on the &rder Paper another matter cannot be moved. The minutes of the House will show, Sir, quite clearly that there was a motion moved yesterday, there were two motions moved, , . . 8522

December 19, 1974, Tape 2221, Page 3 -- apb Morning Your Honour ruled that both were debatable, debate was begun on the first, debate had not begun on the second simply because the first had not been debated. Therefore, I submit that for these two reasons the honourable gentleman's motion at this time is completely out of order. MR. SPEAKER: The honourable the Minister of Fisheries: HON. J.C.CROSBIE (Minister of Fisheries): Mr. Speaker, on that point of order: Mr.

Speaker, in response to that point of order it is quite apparent that all that was before the House yesterday was a motion that was a procedural one that asked the House to obtain certain transcripts or tapes of statements made bv the Leader of the Opposition outside the House. It was simply a procedural motion. The House had not gotten on to the main question of whether there was a breach of privilege or not because that issue did not arise until the procedural motion was dealt with or until there was before the House evidence of what the Leader of the Opposition had said. We now have that.

That is now before the House. I would also point out and remind Your Honour that the main point that the Leader of the Opposition made yesterday when he took up all afternoon in this House, practically all afternoon in a filibuster attempt, his main point was that he did not want the procedural motion to be passed that he wanted to proceed on to the main issue which is whether there had been a breach of privilege or not. The motion now put before you by the House Leader, of course, does exactly that.

It is inconsistent,to say the leas~, for the Leader of the Opposition now to argue that the procedural motion of yesterday, which he opposed yesterday,has to be dealt with. We now have before us a substantive issue. The people of this province and their time is valuable, our time is valuable, the main issue is now before the House. It is obviously quite proper to forget the procedural motion and get on to the real issue which is now before this House with the transcript that the House Leader has now presented. This is not the same motion that we discussed yesterday. 8523

December 19, 1974, Tape 2221, Page 4 -- apb Morning This is now a substantive motion dealing with the question of privilege in the House. My submission is that we should now get on with the real heart of the matter which can be resolved very quickly if the Leader of the Opposition does what he was invited to do yesterday, apologizes for the remarks he made outside the House and withdraws any allegation that he has made against the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker. That would terminate the whole matter right here and now. MR.~OJ!.ERTS: If I may make a further submission, Mr.

Speaker: There are two motions before the House now. One of them has been debated and debate was adjourned. It would be quite improper, Sir, to proceed with any further matter of procedure until that matter is disposed of. It can be disposed of quickly but it must be disposed of in my submission. Secondly; the motion which the House Leader just made is exactly the same as the motion yesterday and so I submit, since the motion was made yesterday we cannot have a second one made a second day. A further point I would raise, a subsidiary point is the question of timeliness.

The honourable gentleman, the House Leader could have raised the question of transcripts yesterday. Those transcripts could have been obtained yesterday and I therefore submit, on that reason too, his present motion is out of order. I will go further - I think what we should do is finish off the procedural motion very quickly and then proceed to the substantive motion, the substantive motion being the one which the honourable gentleman moved yesterday. I am not trying to avoid a debate. I am anxious to have a debate but I submit, Sir, that it should be done properly and according to the rules of this Rouse. MR.

SPEAKER: The honourable Minister without Portfolio: MR. }IARSl!ALL: Mr. Speaker, what the honourable Minister of Fisheries said is quite correct. What happened yesterday was a procedural motion. 8524

December 19, 1974, Tape 2221, Page 5 -- apb I will get into the reasons for that procedural motion later on in the day. The procedural motion was oassed to acquire the tapes and if certain statements were determined to be breaches of privilege of the House, then to proceed accordingly. Your Honour severed the motion but that motion was entirely and absolutely procedural in nature and not substantive. It was procedural in nature for a purpose. In other words, this is not another motion, Mr. Speaker, this is the first substantive motion with reference to privileges of the House, the other one is procedural.

The second one on timeliness that was raised by the honourable the Leader of the Opposition; the requirement on timeliness was met when I got up immediately, as soon as Orders of the Day were called yesterday and brought to the attention of the House the fact that I was bringing before the House a matter of privilege. This has been done time and time again with people waiting or the House waiting until transcripts were available. If I had had the transcripts available yesterday they would have been brought in at the time but this is the first available opportunity.

However, I emphasize, that for reasons which I will go into later, which the hono~rable the Leader of the Opposition either does not or is incapable of understanding, it was a procedural motion yesterdav. AN HON. MEMBER: There were two motions yesterday. MR. SPEAKER: Order please! 852~

December 17, 1974, Tape 2222, Page 1 -- apb Morning MR. SPEAKER: Honourable members may recall that yesterday when this motion was first raised by the honourable Minister without Portfolio and after I had come back and divided it into two parts, that I said part one would be debatable and that I at that point said it was what I considered to be a procedural motion. The Chair is satisfied that it was a procedural motion.

The Chair is also satisfied that this is the first opportunity the honourable minister has had to bring in a substantive motion which takes precedence over the procedural motion and is ruling that the motion made by the honourable Minister without Portfolio is in order at this time. However, the Chair is willing to recess to look at the particular motion made a few moments ago by the honourable Minister without Portfolio to decide whether or not a prima facie case has been established. MR.

ROBERTS: May I suggest as well to Your Honour that Your Honour might wish to consult the tapes as to exactly what was said by Your Honour yesterday in making the ruling on that point. I do not have, my notes here, I did not bring them in with me but I distinctly recall Your Honour saying both motions were debatable and they would be taken in order and if the first one were to be dealt with then the second one would follow. Mr.

Speaker, I merely suggest to Your Honour that Your Honour might wish to consider - the Hansards are not available yet they are weeks behind but the tapes, of course, would be available - Your Honour could arrange to listen to exactly what Your Honour said yesterday. I think that is very important, Sir. MR. SPEAKER: Order please! I shall consult with the officials re the matter. MR. ROBERTS: (First

part inaudible) it came to my notice only during the adjournment. MR. SPEAKER: There is a matter of privilege before the House right now. MR. ROBERTS : There is a matter of privilege of the House. If Your 8526

December 19, 1974, Tape 2222, Page 2 -- aph Morning Honour says to wait until you have given the ruling I shall of course. I do not want to breach the timeliness rule. I have a matter affecting the privilege of the House, Sir, it also affects the matter under discussion now but I will abide bv Your Honour's ruling on it. MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the honourable Leader of the Opposition has made the point. I will make the ruling then listen to him.

The Chair has considered the matter of the motion made by the honourable Minister without Portfolio and feels that a prima facie case has been established and is willing to hear debate on the motion. MR. ROBERTS: My point of order is that this is not a transcript of a news broadcast on C.J.O.N. radio at eight o'clock on Wednesday December 18. It was not obtained from the Newfoundland Broadcasting Company who own and operate C.J.O.N. and there is no evidence at all to say that this is a transcript of any news item.

I accordinglv say, Sir, that if this matter is not immediately resolved this House is being subjected to a fraud. This is not a transcript of any news item broadcast on C.J ON, Sir. There is no evidence to support it, it is merely a typed piece of paper headed: "News item C J O N" There is no evidence in support of it at all and I say categorically and without reservation this was not obtained from the Newfoundland Broadcasting Company Limited owners and operators of Radio Station CJ ON. MR. SP~ The honourable the Minister of Fisheries : MR.

CROSBIE: On that point of order: If the honourable gentleman wants to put aside the words he uttered on CJ ON yesterday then let the honourable gentleman deny it, That would be a matter for debate on the motion that you have now accepted. As I see it there are two things that can be discussed and that is; the Leader of the Opposition can deny he said it, and · since I heard it with my own ears I am sure he will not do that. He can either deny that he said it and that can be debated on the motion 852(

December 19, 1974, Tape 2222, Page 3 -- apb now before you or the other question which is; if these words were uttered are they a breach of privilege and what penalty should there be? These are questions that now should be debated on the motion that is before you. Morning MR. ROBERTS: The matter is of infinite seriousness. Your Honour has ruled there is a prima facie case and that ruling we accept. But, Sir, Your Honour's ruling was founded, not that Your Honour knew anything about this, Your Honour's ruling was founded on a fraudulent statement. There is no evidence MR. ROBERTS: To support this at all, Mr. MR.

SPEAKER: Order please! It is not for the Chair to decide whether the statement made is a fraudulent statement or not. MR. ~OBERTS: This is not a transcript of anything - MR. SPEAKER: Order please! This is the purpose of the motion, the debate which, I suppose, subsequently will follow as to whether or not the honourable Leader of the Opposition made these remarks. MR. ROBERTS: There is no prima facie case it is founded on a fraudulent document. The prima facie case is founded on a fraudulent document. 1'!R. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, - _!:!.R_!_EEAKER: Order please!

The Chair has made a ruling that it accepts the motion that a prima facie case has been established and the Chair is willing to hear debate on the said motion. MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I - MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, point of order, Sir. Your Honour when the Minister without Portfolio introduced this motion into the House and the tapes will show this, Sir, the verbatim report of the House will show this, the minister stated that he had now received the transcripts from Radio Station CJ ON. Sir, that is not correct.

The minister has not received the transcripts from CJ ON nor from the Newfoundland Broadcasting Company and therefore Your Honour should make a ruling as to whether that should be permitted as evidence or not. 8528

December 19, 1974, Tape 2222, Page 4 - apb Morning MR. ROBERTS: MR. SPEAKER: The prima facie case is founded on a fraud. Order please! Order please! Whether or not the transcripts of the remarks made by the honourable Minister without Portfolio is a true transcript of any radio station or not is not for the Chair to decide, That is the ourpose of this dehate. MR. ROBERTS: It certainly is (remainder inaudible) MR. SPEAKER: Order please! Order please! The Chair has made a ruling and it will now hear debate on the substantive motion. MR. ROBERTS: (First

part inaudible) ruling on a fraud, MR. MARSHALL: Your Honour I will ignore that. I will ignore the accusations of fraud. MR~_Q_BERTS: Yes, because you cannot deny it. MR. MARSHALL: This transcript, Your Honour, - MR. ROBERTS: He cannot deny it. MR. SPEAKER: Order please! MR. MARSHALL: This is a transcriot of - MR. ROBERTS: It is not ----·--- MR. MARSHALL: Of what I - MR. ROBERTS: It is not. ~'.--SPE~ER: Order please! MR. ~RSHALL: Of what I heard on Radio Station C J O N and it is an exact copy - MR. ROBERTS: It is a fraudulent statement authorized by the Minister without Portfolio. MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

Order please: The honourable Minister without Portfolio has been recognized and he does have the right to be heard in silence. If honourable members on either side of the House persist in interrupting they shall be called to order. MR. MARSHALL: I will get into that again in a moment, Mr. Speaker. I am now debating the motion which is before this House but before doing so I would like to point out to this honourable House that everything possible has been done, every conceivable step has been taken by this government - MR. _ _g_O!_ERTS: Do you want to give me another chance to withdraw - 852~

-December 19, 1974, Tape 2222, Page S -- apb Morning MR. MARSHALL: Every possible step has been taken, Mr. Speaker, to avoid the stage at which we have arrived this morning. This started three days ago and it was rather unfortunate at the time. The honourable Leader of the Opposition had to be named and at the time a reprimand was issued to him. On the sub _ject of the transcript before this honourable House of statements made on C J O N by the Leader of the Opoosition, indicates that he draws issue with that.

As usual he mistakes it and he mistakes what was done for his own purposes by making a scandalous allegation that he was reprimanded instead of suspended because of the fact that I knew that the Deouty Speaker's ruling was incorrect. That is disgraceful, Mr. Soeaker and comoletely untrue. The fact of the matter is that for two or three years, in this House, we have laboured and attempted to do what we could in the climate of the House such as it has existed.

We have from time to time been temoted to take certain action but we would regret doing it to any member, least of all somebody who ' occupies the position of Leader of the Opposition. Consequently, the reason why the government moved to reprimand rather than suspend was purely and simply in the hope that the Leader of the Opposition would show a certain degree of maturity, which has been absent in the past two years, and realize that the House cannot exist or function when the rulings of the Speaker have been challenged in the way they are.

Similarly, yesterday a plea was made before this House, before the matter was even brought up and it was a sincere plea, Mr. Speaker, requesting the (The Leader of the Opposition is the only one laughing) but it was - ~R. _~q_B~ Your Honour do not realize how insincere. MR. R.Q_BERTS: It was a sincere olea and a request hoping that the Leader of the Opposition would see fit to get up and apologize for remarks made concerning the partiality of the Speaker and the partiality of the Deputy Speaker. That, Mr. Speaker, is what we would have preferred and what we would have wanted . 8530

December 19, 1974, Taoe 2222, Page 6 - apb AN HON: MEMBER: (Inaudible) MR. _Sl'_EAKER: Order please! Morning MR. )!~SHALL: It is a matter of some regret that this point was apparentl y missed in some of the media yesterday, on C B C and CJ ON but I would like to underline it.

I do not know what somebody has to do apart from the reaction nw of the Leader of the Opposition, to convince somebody that you are sincere with respect, but we sincerely, the ~overnment sincerely - if he does not want to think that I did it sincerelv let him look at the government - the government sincerely hoped and desired vester dav that the Leader of the Opposition would withdraw his remarks and invited him to do this. Re did not choose to do so. Then, the third thin g was to bring in a motion . 8531

necemhP.r 10, 1"!74 'T'ane 2223 PK - 1 'lot•• the Leader of the flrmos:1.tion chooses to interoret things he wants to, he seems to l,ave a mania for nersonalities, he loves to talk, he took p:reat del:l .ght in snen<linl!' a lot of the time yesterday talking about me bungling the motion. Now the Leader of the flnnosition has in time oast, the onlv thing that he said in this House in anvway in apnroval or anywav on the other side a few times have heen said manv times during this session that the Leader of the Rouse knows the rules hut he does not :lnternret them nroperly. Certainly I know the ruleR, Mr.

Sneaker, that is what I am over here for. Whv was a nrocedural mot:l.on hrought in? You talk about cooling neriods. For a third time vesterdav the P.on. Leader of the Onoosition was given an opportunity through th e procedural mot:1.on because it could not he hrought on immediatelv to consider and reconsider the oosition and see what could be done about apolop,izinJ!; and withdrawing his remarks hut he did not see fit to do it.

Re still annarentlv does not see fit to do it so it was our regrettable and it was most regettable that we have to bring in aga:lnst anv member but most of all against the 1eader of the Onnosition a motion of this nature. Certainly I would concur with neonle that we would much. more orefer to debate matters more d:lrectlv affect:! .ng the 1'mliness of the country but , i1r. Sneaker, it cannot be ignored the fact that his i;;tatements, the statements which were made affront the h'1sic :Institutions which ~,e have.

If the inte!!ritv of the ~neaker of the House and the nenutv Sneaker and their nart:lalitv are <mestioned, now there is a p,reat difference between talking about their oart:lalitv and disagree1np: with a ruling. even when vou are disagreeing wit h a rultng you have to do it a certain way hut everybodv disagrees with rulings that have been made by the Cha:l.r because there are alwavs two sides but it is a marlredlv different and disasterous situation when a nerson comes along and challenp:es the partialitv of the neonle making them. Now this is a transcript, "'!r.

Sneaker, a transcrint of what I heard with mv own two ears of what anneared on CJON and it :1.s a transcrint being a record of statements which I heard. I say this as a memher of 8532

December 19 , 1Q74 '?ape ?223 PK - '.' the House of Assemblv. 1-13._ RO!IF."R_!,12_:_ And I sav it is a fraud. ~ -- MARSHALL:_ And I nut it forth and I know that other memhers of the HouRe of Assembly heard and will veri.fv exactlv the self same words. AN HON. "IF.MRF.R: T,Tho is the author of the transcrint1S? MR. MARSHALL: --- -·- -- -·-- I hring this forth, >.tr.

Sneaker, anrl I hr:!np: this forth now and this House has to dedde t,ro auesti.ons, .iust merelv two ouestions: Whether or not thefle statements were made, if the Leader of the Ot>nosition chooses to deny them tlis House is ouite cornnetent to jud!!:e what thr situation jg· whether the statements were made anc1,if made, are thev an iirnue of nriv1.lep:e? These are the onlv t••m consic1erat:lonsa before th:ls House at the nresent time. We cannot afforc1 the luxurv, >1r.

Sneaker, of debatjnP. as T-•e had debated vesterdav concerning the correctne!'ls ot otherw:1.se of a rulinp; of the nenutv Sneaker because that is not in issue. What is .i.n issue are isever charges of tlie nartialitv of the r,hair. And, Your Fonour, I refer vou narticularlv to na~f' 1nn of Beauchesne,

Section ] ll(

a) defining nrivileges of the Fouse which says ''Reflect:1 .ons on the character of the Speaker al'rl accusationss of nartialitv in the discharge of his dutv conistitute a breacli of nrivileo;e. ·· Now there is nothinP. more cJear than that. Nei.ther is there anvthinp: more clear than the wordr. uttered 1'v the l,eadPr nf the npnosition and J ouote "Tliat the Sneaker throuv.hout th:ls debate, the Speaker and nenutv SneaJ,er have not heen fair and im,.,artial. TJ,;,,t thev are deliberatelv favouring one side,and that is thP government s:lde. · Now manv times, nr.

Sneaker, the debate on these m<1 tters relate unon internretation of what '!.•as said and v•hethPr what was sai r1 comes wi.thin the rules of hreach of r,riv:llPge but I woulrl sugP.est to Your Honour that jt is ahundant]v clear when a nersnn comes out and directlv savs and challenges and uses th'! t~ords ''That thr Snea1, er anrl ner,utv Sneaker have not heen fair and i111nart:!al' it hecC"T"lP~ n11i ~,.. ohv1ous1v wf.thin

Section ]l] (

a) Is a rreach of the nrivi]eges of th:! s Pouse and unfortunatel.v has to he dealt wi.th accorrlim>:],,. 853J

necemher JQ, 1074 Tane 2223 PK - 3 ~ecause, "r. Sneaker, T do not think there is any more serious hreach of the nrivileges of this House. on the question. Your Honour, other than nerhans the nersonal assault of a member, that is not a ver" nleasant situation either. ~Then you c0111e down to challeng:ln)!; the ~neaker th:fs I sav is one of the worse things that can he done.

The fact that it comes from the mouth of the Leader of the Opnos:!tion mal<es it ev,m ,,u,nie, hecause we cannot stand, I mean, we stayed here for two or threP. vean, in this House not,,, in this nresent Asseinhl v and there have been remarks that have flown back and forth across the floor. T ,=;ay, vou will note back and forth across the floor. " That ' has not been verv edifying and very conducive to the carrying on of the business of th:fs House hut this statement that was made is one of the worse that can nossiblv he made.

Now from the J!:OVernment's noint of view. and I 1ust sneak now from the ~overnment's noint of view that what we have done in this House is attem,,ted as much as we nossiblv could to raise the standard in this House of AsRemblv. We took such stens as changing, and in the interP.st of not engendering debate, I say, changing the rules of this House to nermit ouestion neriods, changing the rulP.s of this House to mal~e :f.t morP F:tr.-amHned and effective.

We have taken steps, Mr, Speaker, in our Jei?islative nroprammes. one of them with mvself, with the wholehearted co-oneration of the 'Minister of F'isher:les, the· then Minister of Fi.mmce , we moved to make sure that no monies were borrowed unless thP. Rou,se was referred to. We have moved through our other legislation, that T can think of., 1n nuhlic tendering to assure the fulleRt information nosR1ble. This 1,=; what we are earnestlv attemntinv to achieve in this HouRe. I helieve as a nersonal view that the Rouse of Assembly has to he the most i.mnortant and moRt effective or~an in our societv .

If "1e are po1ng to allot •' it to he> destroved and destroved it will he, if statements likP thts are Roinp. to he made,and it is unfortunate, T do not know how much more I can ,aav to convince this House, if it is necessarv to convince th:!.s Houc;e,that I mean it sincerelv, that this House of 8534

necemher 1°, 1074 PK - 4 Assf'mhl v or anv lepisl ative hody is the hulwarlc of our freedom. T certainlv attemr,ted a!': well as manv memhers, on hoth sides of the House, the nrevious Memher for Wh1.te 1',av South 1o1ned with me wh:IJ.e he H llS here :!_n attemr,t1nP; to ch11n1?e the ruless of the Pousf'. T vnoP the !-'ember for Labrador South is also 1.nterested and there are other memhP.rs - you should not s;inp.le neonle out. But the f11ct of the matter is, Mr.

Sneaker, it is a matter of great rep:ret, remorse and di s t,iste that a motion of this kind has to come un hefore the House, narti.cularlv Phen it comes ur, ap;ainst a person who occunies the office of Leader of the Onr,osition. Fe has from time to timP. continual]v heen acting in a manner that T have considered, ,md I i•now a 1 ot of other neon le not only on this side hut, although I feel that certain memhers on the onnosite side, some of h1s colleap.ues honestlv feel too. that he p.ets carried apav from time to ti.me. Pe f,,e]s that he must mah• certain statements.

But mv _1oh here today is not for the nurnose of casti1?at:ln2 the Leader of the Onr,osition for what he ~aid :In thP. nast hut to tallc arout the matter which is hefore the Cha:1r ri.<'ht now, ,,,hi ch is rirohahlv the most serious matter that has come un :In this As1<emblv. Your Honour, hecause Your Honour, vou the Sneaker nor the nP.riutv SnP.alcer nor this House of Assemblv nor the government of this orovince can effe~tivelv onerate if charr.es of nart:laHtv are made against vou. It is utterlv and nossiblv, it will mean the enil of anv J.-ind of p:overnment and anv kind of rational basis.

So where do we po from here? "'his debate "ill 20 on. It is a dehatahle motion, ohviouslv I t-•ould not re debating it 1f :It l-·e-re not a dehatahle motion. But I would submit, Your Ponour, that it is of such serious imnort that it should confine jtself verv closely to the hounds of relevance. I would define the hounds of relevancP. as hein p, whether or not these statements t.rere made. I do not think the Leader of the nnnosition is goin~ to denv that he has made these statements because evervone has heard them. i'R. ROIJF,l!TS: I will he as the honoura~le pentleman. ---- ~-- - - 853~

necemher 1°. 1°74 Taoe 2223 PK - 5 ''ll . "IAR~HALL: The second noint is 2otnp. to he ...tlether a breach of privilep.e of the House haa occurred. These are tne onlv two i ssues before u~. Now wha.t do ""e do from hl.'re? We have attemp t ed on two or three occasion.q as I have indicated, we have done evervthin~ but he~ the T.eader of the C'\nnoiii tion to 1'1ithdr aw an<l a1>olo.1Zize. We no» find our,.elvP.it todav with th1,. l'<tihstant ive motion hefore Ul'< to exnel him from the House for three davs . T do not know how the memberiihin of the Rouse feels with resnect to it.

J do not know ,,,hether t he Rouse now would even he satisfied , that I vould i;av the verv ]east that thev could be sattsfied,vith is an uneouivo cal and unreserved anolop.v hv the T.earlcr of the Ouposit1on for a.11 sta t ements made impusmin2 the u,martiallv of the Sneaker and the T'lenutv Snea1'er. a witlidrawal of these and an anolo2v of them and somethinp. much more, Mr. Sneaker, an undertakin~ that this will not occu r ap.ain and that t he Leader of the Oo"Osi t ion will cond uct '-tim,;elf with maturity and in a manner hefittiT\/! his office . ~~~EA'KY.R _~ The Ron.

Leader of the Oonosit i on . ::!!'· IIORFl!T!,_:_ Thank vou, 'Ir. Sneaker . "av T first of all, Sir, sav simnlv that T do not oro~ ose to deal at all with the nersonal remarks 853 6

December 19, 1974. Tape 2224 RH - 1 made by the gentleman from St. John's East. I do not intend to engage in a debate on personalities. AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. ROBERTS: I do not intend to deal with them. wishes and his friends may think what they wish. He may think what he I shall think what I wish. My friends will think as they wish and the people of Newfoundland who after all are the people who are most infinitely concerned will think as they wish. May I first of all say, Hr.

Speaker , that I have no hesitation at all and I am going to put a condition but it has nothing to do with an apology but I wish to complete my statement and I will go on. I have no hesitation in saying that I am quite prepared to withdraw the statements that I made outside the House, whatever they may have been. I am quite prepared to apologize quite fully and without any reservation, without any qualification, but I will do that only if the government will assure me and the House that we can debate the real issue. Now this has nothing to do with an apology, Sir.

I am prepared to make the apology and the apolo gy will be unconditional. If government would assure the House that they will immediately allow a censure motion which I am prepared to move or which any of my colleagues are prepared to move to be debated. if the government will allow that because the question and I app~al to the Premier, the question is just as the honourable gentleman stated it, his colleague. the Minister without Portfolio, the question is really the whole basic question of this House and the functioning of this House .

There are those of us on this side who feel rightly or wrongly that the Speaker is not impartial and we would like to debate that issue and have it aired and then have it settled. If we have that assurance, Sir, if that matter goes ahead now, I am quite prepared to apologize without any qualification. Does the House Leader wish to say a word? MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, we cannot agree to anything other than an unequivocal apology without any strings attached. This is an attempt really by the Leader of the Opposition to apologize and to skirt the issue. Now t he 853'/

December 19, 1974. Tape 2224 RH - 2 issue is the dignity of this House and I hope the Leader of the Opposition has the dignity to reply accordingly. MR. ROBERTS: I am very sorry, Mr. Speaker, that the honourable gentlemen opposite will not allow a debate on what is the real issue. My offer of an apology and let it be recorded by the press and by Hansard, was uncon­ ditional and I said so and I repeat it now. The issue is the dignity of this House but the only way I can raise it, Mr. Speaker, is through this regrettable and unfortunate issue of privilege. You see, Mr.

Speaker, there is no other remedy open to a private member. I cannot move a motion. There is a motion standing in my name on the paper and the rules of this House say that there may only be one motion standing in the name of any member at any given time except a government motion. Two or three of my colleagues, it is true, do not have a motion standing in their names. The gentleman from Bonavista North, the gentleman from Labrador North, the gentleman from Twillingate I believe are all free to move a motion. Mr.

Speaker, there are on the Order Paper at present private members' motions (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) which means it would be eight in precedence. Next Wednesday, private members' day, is Christmas Day. I venture to suggest that the House will not be meeting on Christmas Day and so there is no way that this issue can be raised except the method which I have had to use. I do so regrettably because I predict that I will be suspended from this House. I am not saying I should be but I predict that I will be because honourable gentlemen opposite have made up their mind with a firm resolve and they will do it.

I accept that penalty gladly because I believe quite sincerely that what I am doing is fighting for the privileges of this House and fighting for the dignity of this House and I, as Leader of the Opposition, am the one to raise it, not any honourable gentleman other than me. The House Leader seems to feel that I somehow should be particularly penitential or clothed in sackcloth and ashes because I am the one who is being subjected to this matter of privilege.

I say, Sir, that I should be censured if I do not raise this matter because rightly or wrongly, Sir, there are those of us who believe in good conscience and with honest conviction 8538

December 19, 1974. Tape 2224 RH - 3 that the Chair has not been impartial and that, Sir, is the issue. If the government will not allow it to be debated and I am prepared to withdraw and to apologize, I do not like to attack the Chair, Sir, - MR. CROSBIE: No, no. MR. ROBERTS: The Minister of Fisheries says, "No, no.' ' Hr. Speaker, I expect to be heard in silence. I expect to heard out. I will hear him out. I do not like to attack the Chair, Sir. It is a desperate measure because we have no other remedy available to us. I cannot sit idly by, Sir.

I would be failing in my duty as the Leader of the Opposition, as the Leader of the second largest group in the House and as a member of this House, Sir, if I did not fight for what I believe to be the true rights of this House . The basic right of this House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, and the House Leader and I are in substantial agreement on that point, the basic right is the dignity of this House and the impartiality of the Chair. I noted some of his words. I do not agree with all that he said.of course. but some of them, Sir, he and I are on all fours.

He said that the House would cease to function if the impartiality of the Chair is called into question and I agree, Sir. I agree completely and that is why this matter must be settled and that is why I regret so greatly the government will not allow it to be debated. I appealed to my friend from Labrador South, Sir, to the neutral observer in this House, not committed to any partisan side, to consider what I had said because the issue is one as the House Leader said of the very basic privileges of this House and there is no other way.

The government have refused to allow government time and we cannot use the private members' time because the rules, Sir, will insure that this matter will never come up. There is no other way that we can raise this issue which if not resolved like a cancer will destroy the body of this House because, Mr. Speaker, if honourable members feel that the Chair is not impartial then, Sir, there is no House of Assembly. We have a dog fight, we have a beer tavern brawl if we do not believe that the Chair is impartial. That is not to say we always agree with the Chair. Of course we do not, Sir. Neither do honourable 853~

December 19, 1974. Tape 2224 RH - 4 gentleme n opposite and it would be quite WTong if one side or the other always agreed with the Chai r. Indeed it is that that leads me partially to my present belief. It would be wrong if the Chair is not impartial. In a hockey game if one side feels that they have only got six men on the ice and the other team has seven counting the referee, there is no hockey game, and that is just a game. This is no game, Sir. This is what t he House Leader called the bulwark of the freedom of the people of this Province and in a very real sense, Sir, that is true.

I speak in this House not by any leave of anybody except the constituents of the District of White Bay North. They have sent me here to speak for them

December 19, 1974 Tape No. 2225 NM - 1 and I shall answer to them, Sir, and to my conscience. Every honourable gentleman on either side of this House is in the same position. Sir. w­ have created a set of rules. The House Leader,once or twice I have heard him on the radio in personal attacks on me saying that the rules go back four hundred years. He is wrong, Sir. They go back seven or eight hundred years. Some of the rules in Beauchesne and in May and in other great authorities go back to that first parliament, Simon de Montfort and the barrens met.

Some of them, Sir, are founded in Magna Carta, a document which some rebellious barrons fighting against the rules, extracted from a reluctant king at Runnymede in 1215 on a June day. Seven hundred and fifty years ago this June coming. Those men, Sir, they were barrens, they were peers of the realm, they were in open rebellion against their king and the result of that open rebellion, Sir, was Ma~a Carta, signed by King John because otherwise these men would have taken his Throne from him.

There is a long tradition, Sir, of parliament and of men who fight against what the maiority at any given time say the rules are. And that is the issue here, Sir. The issue is this House and can this House continue to function as it should and as it must~ I say, Sir, and I know Your Honour would apree, I know the House Leader would agree, that if there is any question of partiality attached to the Chair then this House cannot function. That, Sir, is the issue. Let it be clearly cut. That is the issue we should be debating now and there should be a motion.

I am prepared to move it if consent were given, to say, and I have a wording here, I did not think the government would have the courage to allow me to move it but I had a wording prepared, Mr. Speaker. MR. CROSBIE: Any motion that the honourable gentleman might move or might not move is quite irrelevant to this debate. We should be debating whether there has been a breach of the privileges of the House or not.

Some latitutde has to be given to the Leader of the Opposition but as to what motion he might or might not move with regard to the Speaker or any other member that is not relevant to this debate, the honourP.ble gentleman had yesterday to move a motion he had the day before and he has had - MR. ROBERTS: I cannot move a motion on this. MR. CROSBIE: He will have later today to move a motion if this debate &541

December 19, 1974 Tape No. 2225 NM - 2 finishes or tomorrow to move a motion. He has many days to move motions or one of his cohorts has but it is not relevant to this debate. MR. SPEAKER: Order please! While some leeway has certainly been. allotted and needs to be allotted to the honourable Leader of the Opposition, I feel that, as the honourable Minister of Fisheries said , any motion that he might make or would wish to make, whether or not the government permits it or not, is not really relevant to the motion we are debatirg now. MR. ROBERTS: Mr.

Speaker, I accept your ruling but I mean I never in my life - Well those who observe will note. Now, Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the issue is the one the House Leader defined, this House, and whether I have breached its privileges. Without admitting that I have I say again I am willing to apologize , no hesitation there, no reluctance but I say, Sir, I : hall not apologize unless there is some other way to resolve this issue of the partiality of the Chair because Mr.

Speaker, those of us on this side and I do not speak for my friend from Labrador South, he will doubtless say what he believes in due course and I know not what he believes on this point, those of us who sit on these benches, Sir, feel that the Chair has not been impartial and that, Sir, is the threat to the dignity of this House, that is what led me to make whatever statements I did make. That is what has led me to do it. That is what has forced me to do it. I have no other way to fight for what I believe genuinely and deeply to be the privileges of this House. So I did it.

I would do it again and I shall do it again if I believe it is necessary to do so for the priviler,es of this House. MR. SPEAKER (MR. STAGG): Order please! The honourable the Leader of the Opposition is dealing with a matter that is not supposed to be under discussion here this morning, whether or not the motion of censure of what he will do or what he will not do, He is to direct himself directly to the motion as brought forward by the honourable the House Leader. 8542

December 19, 1974 Tape No. 2225 NM - 3 MR. ROBERTS: Than you and I am dealing with the points raised by the honourable gentleman the House Leader and he was allowed to make them and I submit that in fairness I should be allowed to rebut them and I expect that. I believe I am entitled to it. I believe I am entitled to it and I believe I shall get it. MR. SPEAKER (MR. STAGG): The rule of relevancy is one that requires the

interpretation of the Chair and it will be strictly enforced. Whether or not the honourable the House Leader was out of order or whatever is irrelevant at this point, the honourable the Leader of the Opposition and all speakers in this debate will be requested to be strictly relevant. MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Sir, and I shall try to be relevant. 1 can only go on the asslDDption that if the House Leader says something and he is not called to order by the Speaker that that is relevant and therefore I feel it is relevant and I shall deal with it.

Now as I said, Sir, he says the issue and I quoted him, is the impartiality of the Chair. He said those words, Sir, the Chair did not interrupt him or say they were irrelevant. He says the issue is the impartiality of the Chair and I agree. That, Sir, is the issue. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries says it is not true. I say the House Leader said those words not half an hour past in this House. Everybody in the House heard him say those words. The issue.

I noted them down, "The issue is the impartiality of the Chair. 11 He went further and I believe I am quoting him word exactly, "If we cannot believe in the impartiality of the Speaker, tl,is House ceases to function'.' He said those things, Mr. Speaker. The Chair did not interrupt him nor should the Chair have interrupted him. I say, Mr. Speaker, that that is the issue and I say that if this House cannot believe in the impartiality of the Speaker, then it cannot function. I agree with the House Leader. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I have said that whatever statements I made were made because I believe this issue must be settled and I knew of no other way to settle it. It is my second choice way to settle it. But it is way ahead of any other choice, Sir, because I helieve that the impartiality of the Chair is in question, just as does the House Leader. 8543

December 19, 1974 Tape No. 2225 NM - 4 Where we differ is he feels the Chair has not been partial and I feel it has. That we differ on . MR. SPEAKER (MR. STAGG): Order please! Order please! The honourable Leader of the Opposition has questioned the partiality of the Chair and it is quite out of order for him to do so and he is called upon to withdraw without qualification, equivocation or any other reservation. MR. ROBERTS: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

But I may say it will be impossible to debate this motion because the honourable gentleman says the issue, and I quoted him exactly , Sir , the issue is the impartiality of the Chair. MR. SPEAKER (MR . STAGG): Order please! Order please! The honourable Leader of the Opposition is not going to be permitted to put riders upon his apology and if the honourable Leader of the Opposition finds it impossible to debate it under these rules then the honourable Leader of the Opposition has the right to cease debate. MR. ROBERTS: Justice will be seen to be done. Now, Mr. Speaker - MR . SIMMONS: What a J oke. MR.

SPEAKER (MR. STAGG): Order please! Order please! The honourable member for Hemitage was heard to utter the phrase, "What a .ioke," by the Chair •. this can only be interpreted by the Chair as a insult to the Chair or to the House because it comes directly upon the heels of a ruling by the Chair. I call upon the honourable member to either explain his remarks or withdraw them if indeed they do cast any doubts upon the integrity, impartiality or the general carrying out of duty by the Chair. MR. SIMMONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I was responding in an aside, not intended for the Chair.

I was responding in an aside to something my collea~ue, the Leader of the Opposition said about j ustice and I said something to the effect, what a joke to believe what he had stated and that is the explanation. AN HON. MEMBER: Withdraw. MR . SIMMONS: Nothing to withdraw, Mr. Speaker. MR. s~EAKER (MR. STAGGt: Order please! Order please! It is unfortunate that the Chair has to 8544

December 19, 1974 Tape no. 2226 Page l - MH pick up these asides and to have to iIDTJortune honourable members to rephrase, retract, apologize or ,,matever but unfortunately it is my belief that it is these muttered asides, these muffled disrespectful remarks to the Chair, concerninp- the Chair, that leads to far more serious allegations later on. Ti1e Chair is not satisfied with the explanation bv the Hon. Member for Hermitage. I call upon him now to a-polorize . . JI~. SIMMQNS: Mr. Speaker, if that is what you want, I apolog-ize . _M~.:- ~~ERTS: ( Inaudible). MR • SPEAKER (Mr. S tafIB2_ : Ap:ain the Hon.

Leader of the Opposition refers to the proceeding-s of this mominr, as a farce. There is nothing that can be more derogatory as to describe the proceedings of any !louse, especially this House, as farcical. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition is called upon to apolor,ize for these remarks. MR. ROJ.lERTS : ---------· I do so apologize for those remarks, Mr. Spaaker. '.\ay I proceed, Sir1 The honourahle Tl'ember mav proceed. MR. ltOBERTS: - --------- Thank you very much, Sir.

Now as I was saying before the recent interruptions, to put a neutral word on them, the issue in this dehate is the one stated by the House Leader. I quote him exactly, Sir, "The issue is the impartiality of the Chair.' I agree. MR._ SPEAKER (11r._Stagg): Order please'. fhe lion. Leader of the Opposition may have heard the Hon. House Leader say that the issue was the impartiality of tl1e Chair. This is not the issue.

The issue is tile motion exactly as it is put forward in the transcripts here,1 \.n1ether or not these remarks constitute a breach of the privileges of the House. it has nothing whatsoever to do with tne impartiality of the Chair. l!R. R~!!>~.:ti-!'~2.. 1lr. Speaker, I thank you. [ say that the issue as put in the motion is whether or not I made certain statements. I ,iave a copy of the motion here somewhere. lly tile way this transcript, I say again, is founded on a fraud. This is not a transcript of any remarks I n,a,k 8545

December 19, 1974 Tape no, 2226 Page 2 on CJON at 8:00 A.M. on Wednesday, December 18. There is not a shred nor an iota nor a jot nor a tittle of evidence to support it. This is a fraudulent statement brought in by the Member for St. John's East. MR. BARRY: To a point of order, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, there is no honourable member in this House permitted to use the word fuaud with respect to any motion made by any other honourable member. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition is acting as if he were a parliamentary vandal. He is vandalizing, Mr.

Speaker, the procedures of this House, He is attempting to wreck the procedures of this House. MR. ROBERTS: {Inaudible), MR, BARRY: For what reason I do not know, Mr. Speaker, I submit that he should be asked to withdraw that allegation of fraud. MR. SPEAKER (Mr. Stagg): Order please!

While the rules in Beauchesne and the ordinary customary rules that we have become aware of, whether we have observed them is another matter, are quite clear, the imputation of false or unavowed motives or something to cast reflections upon the integrity of a member is. completely unparliamentary, In the opinion of the Chair to say that a document is fraudulent, is founded on fraud and was intrdduced by an honourable member of this House, is unparliamentary.

The honourable member may say that the other honourable member was mistaken, it was mistakenlv introduced or he can used any other phrases he wishes; however, the word fraud is not to be used in this House in a parliamentary fashion. I do not want it to become a word that is parliamentary. I call upon the Ron, Leader of the Opposition to withdraw and rephrase his remarks. 8546

December 19, 1974 Tape no. 2226 Page 3 MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, of course, do so withdraw. May I raise a point of order in terms, Sir, with reference to what the honourable gentleman, the Minister of Mines and Energy said. Your Honour just, of course, gave the point of order when you said that no honourable gentleman can impugn the motives of another. I call upon you please to ask the honourable gentleman to withdraw his remarks about me, Sir. MR. BARRY: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Mr. Stagg): I would like to direct myself to that and I should have at the first possible opportunity.

However there are so many infringements of the rules that one sort of flows upon the other. The phrase that caught my ear was the use of the phrase, vandal, parliamentary vandal by the Hon. Minister of Mines and Energy. While it is a colourful phrase, I think also that it could certainly be rephrased and preferably withdrawn. Again it is something that while interesting and informative and colourful, nevertheless is something that should not become part of those phrases which are allowed by this Bouse. MR. BARRY: Of course, Mr.

Speaker, if Your Honour believes that that is unparliamentary, I withdraw it, of course, completely and utterly. I thought that the context explained it, Mr. Speaker, and that I want on to say, wrecker, parliamentary vandal, parliamentary wrecker. I withdraw the term vandal if that is considered to be fringing on the boundary of propriety. MR. ROBERTS: May I, Mr. Speaker? The motion before the House is that the House considers remarks made by the Hon.

Leader of the Opposition, by me, on radio station CJON on Wednesday, December 18, at approximately 8:00 A.M., a transcript of which is tabled here, would constitute a breach of privilege of this honourable House and consequence whereof the Leader of the Opposition shall be suspended from the honourable House for three sitting days. 8547

December 19, 1974 Tape no. 2226 Page 4 Mr. Speaker, I shall not repeat the word that Your Honour urged me not to repeat. I shall attempt to rephrase my remarks. I will just simply sav that this is not a transcript of any remarks which I made. There is no evidence to support that this is a tranac~ipt of any remarks which I made. I suspect what happened was Mr. Gerald Korbal, an employee of the government, of the people of this province, used a tape recorder and recorded part or all of what he thought was on the radio and then a document was typed from that. I suspect that that is what may have happened.

I am hereby serving notice and I am asking my solicitors to look into the question of whether or not Mr. Korbai has breached the recent Invasion of ~rivacy Act because yesterday Mr. Korbai called Mr. Carl Lake of CJON and without telling him he was recording it said, "Would you be good enough to play back the tape of what Ed Roberts said on the show yesterday?" So my solicitors will be asked to look into that point. I think it is probably a breach of the invasion of Privacy Act, which lays down some protection against taping. _AN HON. MEMllER: Watergate. MR.

ROBERTS: Well Watergate had doctored tapes and I think we have doctored tapes here too. Now, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Korbai's conduct is reprehensible but if it is illeg~l, the solicitors will deal with it in due course in the appropriate way. But I say that that is not a transcript from CJON, I repeat that statement, AN RON. MEMBER: Do you deny saying these thin2s? MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I have neither confirmed nor denied saying anything.

The motion which was before the House yesterday, which was never decided upon, as you know the Chair ruled that it did not need to be proceeded with, the motion said that recordings be brought before the Rouse and viewed and listened to and that would have established conclusively what I did or did not say. This does not establish anything, nothing. All this is is a blank piece of paper and it could have been typed up just as easily. I deny saying what this paper says I said. 8548

December 19, 1974 Tape no, 2226 Page 5 I deny that. I say bring in the recordings, bring in the video tape recordings. MR, CROSBIE: You did not want them yesterday, MR. ROBERTS: I said that the motion was unnecessary and, of course, it was, If honourable gentleman had asked me yesterday would I agree, I would have said, of course. You do not need a motion, Go ahead with it. I say that this is not a transcript nor is it a transcript. Nobody can say it is a transcript, At beet it is somebody's version of what may or may not have been said as they recorded it. MR, NEARY: It would not be accepted in a court of law.

MR. ROBERTS: It would not be accepted in any court of law, Your Honour. I could have eat down just as easily with my little hunt and peck, the biblical method of seek and ye shall find, two fingers on the typewriter and just as easily come up with a news item as this, That in itself alone would be enough to reject this motion. It is not signed. It is not authorized. It did not come from CJON. It did not, AN HON, MEMBER: It came over the radio waves, MR. ROBERTS: Who is to say, Mr, Speaker.

There is no evidence that it came over any radio waves, All we know is that the House Leader brings in a paper and says that it is a transcript, That is all we know. He would not get away with it in a court of law, not for one second. The judge would simply say (He would use hie name of course,) solicitor or the honourable gentleman will have to follow the best evidence rule and this is not the best evidence rule. CJON, 8549

December 19, 1974. Tape 2227 RH - l Hr. Speaker, and every radio and television station in Canada are required by law to keep a master tape, they call it a logger tape of every single word broadcast during their transmission period, be that twenty-four hours a day as in the case of CJON and VOCM or be it a lesser period and that tape I am told can be made available if the proper procedures are followed. So there is in existence this day in St. John's a tape which would show conclusively what I did or did not say and yet we do not have that tape before us, we do not even have a certified transcript of that tape.

All we have is a bit of paper headed, "News item, CJON, 8:00 a.m. Wednesday, December 18," and I say that that is not an accurate reproduction. I say that. MR. NEARY: Another by-line of Gerry Korbai's. MR. ROBERTS: Yes, he could have by-lined it, b-u-y lined it. Now, Mr. Speaker, so for that reason, to begin with for that reason I reject this motion and I say I shall vote against it and I ask my colleagues to vote against it. I cannot say how I believe the motion is founded and I shall not but I can say that that is not a transcript. That is not a transcript of any remarks which I made or did not make.

At the most that is some person's version of what he may or may not have heard. For all I know it may have been tossed in it from memory. Either Mr. Korba! taped it in which case the Invasion of Privacy Act applies or it was reconstituted by him or somebody else from memory, one or the other. I invite honourable gentlemen opposite to say whether it was taped in which case I am told by my legal friends that there is a possible action under the Invasion of Privacy Act, a criminal action.

You cannot go around in Canada anymore, Sir, taping recordings, tape recording things over telephones or otherwise without following the proper procedures. You just cannot. The Parliament of Canada have made it illegal and I say that if Mr. Korba! or anybody else taped that without following the proper procedure then, Sir, they have reached the criminal code, not the criminal code, the Invasion of Privacy Act which has crm.inal sanctions. That is something the Premier and the gentlemen down below, if they thought it all they did not think about but it is there and it is to be dealt with. 8550

December 19, 1974. Tape 2227 RH - 2 I invite honourable gentlemen opposite to say if they wish where this came from, this document. It did not come from CJON, Mr. Speaker. I repeat that statement. It did not come from the master tape, from the so-called logger tape. I do not know if CJON were asked or not. Maybe they were asked and refused, maybe they were not asked but it did not come from the official record which by law must be kept. Those tapes are kept twenty-four hours. I am told they are recorded on great big reels of tape but they are there.

If the proper procedure is followed I am sure they can be obtained. It is a legitimate purpose for which they should be obtained and I have no doubt that they can be obtained but the proper procedures were not founded. In the government's anxiety to condemn, try and execute me as quickly as they can, in their anxiety to do that, Mr. Speaker, they have fatally bungled their case. They may or may not have a case but there is still no evidence before this House.

I deny this transcript and I say there is no evidence before this House, no evidence of any substance, this is not evidence worth anything, this is self-serving, manufactured evidence,that there is not before this House any evidence of what I may or may not have said on CJON at 8:00 o'clock, Wednesday, December 18, 8:00 o'clock in the morning and that is the point on which this motion is founded. That is the point, clearly that is the point.

The words of the motion say so, that this House considers remarks made by the honourable Leader of the Opposition on radio station CJON on Wednesday, December 18, 1974 at approximately 8:00 a.m., a transcript of which is tabled herewith, constitute a breach of privileges.

So the case falls on that alone, Sir, and if honourable members opposite are prepared to be even, fair-minded about it they will reject this motion and if they feel that what I may or may not have said con­ stitutes a breach of the privileges of the House, they will bring some evidence before the House as to what I said, they will get certified transcripts or they will get copies of the tapes. I am sure they are available. I am sure that if this House passed a motion requesting them 8551

December 19, 1974. Tape 2227 RH - 3 I am sure they would be made available, why not? What I said, I said but I say that this motion should fall. It is incredible. Not only do they want to execute me in the parliamentary sense by excluding me for three sitting days but they are going to do it on manufactured evidence, on no evidence at all. There may or may not be evidence to support their case but they have not produced it. It is an unheard of proceeding. Of all the kangaroo courts ever seen in the world, what this government are trying to perpetrate in this House is the worst.

Then the Minister without Portfolio has the gall - MR. SPEAKF.R (Stagg): Order, please'. Order, please! I took a couple of extra seconds to consider the honourable gentleman's remarks and they do impugn the motives of honourable members. I think the phrase "kangaroo court ", I am not sure of its origin but it is certainly one that - MR. ROBERTS: It is not a complimentary phrase. MR. SPEAKER (Stagg): Certainly not complimentary and the

interpretation of this Chair is that it is unparliamentary and the Leader of the Opposition is asked to withdraw that remark. MR . ROBERTS: I do withdraw, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you for your ruling. I do not think it had been ruled upon in this House before. It has often been used and we now kl"oW. Well that is fine. In any event the nature of these proceedings. Sir, speak for themselves. The government have brought in no evidence of substance. I deny that doc\Jlllent as being a transcript of anything I said at 8:00 o'clock or approximately 8:00 o'clock in the morning, I deny it.

AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Very carefully worded. MR.ROBERTS: ----- Very carefully worded, Sir, very carefully worded and very sincerely meant. AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: He does not deny it - MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, if the honourable gentlemen opposite wish to try me for statements which I made - AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: We do not want to try him. - MR. ROBERTS: If they wish to try me for statements which I made, Sir, if they feel I should stand my trial then let them produce those statements. 8552

December 19, 1974. Tape 2227 RH - 4 They have not done so. That is all I am saying. This is not evidence that would be of any value in any court of law. I invite the Minister of Justice, a member of the bar, who has been noticeably silent in debate throughout this current portion of the session, to enter into the debate. He will probably have a few things to say about me. He has been itching for a chance to get his own back but I invite him to adjust himself to that point. The Minister of Education, the Member for St. Mary's, is also a member of the bar.

I invite him to speak to that point, any other point he wishes of course, but to that point. The Minister of Mines and Energy, very anxious to enter into debate and I have no doubt, looking fon~ard to the opportunity to give me what he would consider a scalding and a roasting. I invite him to address himself to that point and similarly the Minister of Fisheries who is preparing himself to deliver a mightly broad-side against me in his typical bullying fashion. I invite him to consider this point as to whether or not - MR. SPEAKER (Stagg): Order, please! Order, please!

"Typical bullying fashion" is a phrase that is uncomplimentary, abusive and insulting. I ask the honourable gentleman if he wishes to make uncomplimentary remarks with these? There are certainly uncomplimentary remarks which are not unparliamentary. In the

interpretation of the Chair the last phrase is an unparliamentary remark. MR. ROBERTS: I thank Your Honour and I do try to make my remarks parliamentary but until Your Honour has interpreted a phrase there is no way to know whether Your Honour considers it parliamentary or not. (I wonder if the page could bring me another drop of that delicious water. It is about the only thing the government have not taxed yet and they are working on that I have no doubt.) Now, Mr.

Speaker, as I have said, I invite honourable gentlemen opposite to address themselves when they speak,among whatever else they care to say,to the point of whether this evidence is valid. I say it is not. I cannot say more than it is not because that is a complete statement. It is not , it is not a transcript. I deny that docwnent 855J

December 19. 1974. Tape 2227 RR - 5 which the House Leader opposite h3s put forward as being a transcript. Now. Mr. Speaker, the other poin t of the motion or the oth er part of the motion i~ that I breached the privileges of the House. I assume I am in order to say a few words on chat aspec t of i t. The ~ot~on accuses me of having said so and say s that certa i n statements are a breach of t he privileges of the House. Well I say they are not .

I say that whatever I said was true and I say, Sir, the basic definition of the breaches of the House, l do not know if i have the exact wor di ng here in Beauchesn e , I shall find it if Your Honour will grant me about a second or two. The honourable gentlemen opposite will read the statemen ts abou t impugni ng the :iJnpartiality of the Chai r and t hey will read those and we will hear a great deal 8554

December lQ, 1°74 '!'ape 2228 about that, thev are there and they can read them and •~e will nay proner heed to them but the basic definition, I wish thev would index Beauchesne, I really do. What is the nrivilege nage, John. you know all of these things by heart? Page 1nn is it? That ts the one I need. Thank vou! PK - l The basic definition of orivilege is set forth in the rulings. I am looking for the exact words, I cannot find them hut in anv event they are there and the citations)evervbodv ~nows them.

The noint I am trving to make 1s that the basic breach of the urivileees of the Fouse is a l:lbel, anything which a C:ourt of Law would consider a 1 ibel. M'v colleague the gentleman for !lell Island was accused and the House in due course found him guiltv of having libelled the ~inister of Finance as he then was; - AN H~"I. ME}lB_ER: Inaudible. "R. ROBF~TS: Well T voted against it. I feel that it was an improner ·· "!R. NEARY: It was the wrong urocedure. ~--~0_.:'\F.RTS: Yes. In anv event, the point is, vou kno~,, that was an examnle of a libel being a breach of the nrivileges of the House.

That is evidence, strong evidence sunoorting the noint T ~ade. Well I would sav, Sir, the basic nrincin]e of law :Is that where something is true there is no libel. a clear unannroachable ooint of law. Nobodv can argue with it. If a statement is true there is no 1:1.bel. I sav, Mr. Sneaker, that whatever I said outside this House and there has been no evidence as to what I said or rljd not sav. the government had started to get it and then decj_ded not to follor ,, through with that. I will come back to that noint.

Whatever I said or did not sa" outside the Fouse, whatever I s11id was true. '!'here iR no libel and there is no hrP.ach of the nrivilep,es of this Hou,se. :'.!_R. _S_l'EA~_ (STAGG): Order, nlease! The honourable member is dealing with th1ngs that he mav or may not have said outside of the House. The honourahle !'lember :Is directed to de11.l "With the noints under discusi,ion whtch are formed in the motion and the annendix to the motion which set out the allep;ed words of the honourable member. AnotJ,er. deh::ite on what he did or did not RAY, the truth or other"Wise is irre]evant. 855~

necember JO, 1°74 Tane 2228 PK - 2 ''l>.. 1l0BF.l!TS: Thank vou, l'r. Sneaker. I 1ust wanted to establish t}e - --------~ noint th.<1t what T said ,..,as true hut Your Honour, as I understand Your µonour's ruling he said t have to deal with the transcrint, T thi nl< Your Honour used t'fie word "Ann end ix' , and if ever a resolution need an annendectomv done on it is this one,~CP should oav for it.

You vnon, T can tal~ about this document hearing in mind ;i_o-l'lin and I reiterate it or re-re-rF-re-re-reiterate it that I denv it hut the government have accused me of having said - the government accused me, Your Honour will agree, that accusation is in here, of havtng said that throu1,hout this de.hate the Sr,eaker and Deputy Sneaker have not heen fair and imnartial. That they are deliberatelv favouring one side,and that is the government side. Is that correct? I mean that is one of the things of which I stand accused thi.s dav in this µouse.

Tam reading the last cnunJe of words. 0h, T stand accused of it ;i.s mv colleague for Twillinirnte tells me, not convicted. AN HON. 'fP.1BF.R: He said alleged. t~. ROBERTS: Yes. I mean that is ,,rhat thev ,iccusP_ me that I said. 'rhev make the accusation. There is no ouestion in the motion as to whether or not I said it. The motion is that I did sav it. Well T say 1 <lid not. That is one of the reasons I vote against tMs mot:'-on hut Your !lonour will a~ree that I read the alleged transcriot, the nurnorted transcrint accurate]v. AA T correct?

Now, Sir, the auest1:on :Is 1f I said those things are thev a hreach of the nriv1lege of the House? ~ight? I say, they are not because T s,iv thev are true. I say that the statements are correct. Now whv do T !'av them, "r. SneaJ,.er? ~~- SPF./oKF.l!. (STAGG): Order, nlease'. T.he honourahle member can onlv he internreted as having ~aid that the statements here are correct. That statement is amonp, other thin~s auoting from the statement, and T nuote froM what thee Hon.

Leader of the Onr,c,Rit1on said ' That the Sneal,er throughout this del-,ate the Sneaker and the Denutv Speaker have not heen fair and imr,artial." Now the Chair interprets his last 8556

Decemher 1°, 1Q74 Tape 2228 PK - 3 remarks as having admitted that he said these things. There can he no mistake about that I listened verv carefullv to it. So the Hon. Leader of the Onnosition must withdraw and anologize for having said these things with no eauivocation, oualification or reservation. MR. ROllF.RTS: I withdraw without reservation, hesitation, e<1uivocation un<1ualifiedly and so forth, Sir, of course. reading a note somebody had sent me). (I am sorrv lam just Now, Mr.

Sneaker, as I ,-,,as saying the alleP,ed remarks in the transcript or the alleged remarks in the alleged transcrint to he auite nrecise, I am alleged to have said that the Sneaker and nenutv Sneaker have not been fair and 1mpartial. That thev are deliberatelv favouring one side, and that i.s, the government side. li!ow if Tam alleged to have said those, Hr. Sneaker, ~•h" would I allegedlv rave said them, if I did in fact say them as is allege~? Why m:l~ht I have said them? The allepation has heen made that T did sav them. There has been no proof. The allegation :Is made that T said them.

Whv might I have said them? I might have said those remarks because of the curious train of events which ensued in this House two or three davs ago. Order, nlease'. The honourahle member is not nermitted to say indirectly what he cannot say directly. The honourable member has alreadv been brought to order about two or three . minute!' ago on this very same noint. Again, the honourable member is not going to he nerm1.tted to sav indirectly or infer indirectlv what he cannot sav directlv. MR. ROBERTS: I am not attemnting to say indirectly, '-'r. Sneaker, what I cannot sav directly.

I am about to refer to some events which transnired in this House two or three days ago, and this relates d:!.rectlv, :In mv submission, to the point raised bv the House Leader that ,,•hat we are talking ahout here is the dignitv of the House. I said earlier, and J was not interrupted by the Chair - now there was a different 2entleman occunying the Chair but it :Is the same Cha1.r, Sir, i.t is a verv imnortant noint. I said earlier that the is!'ue in this debate :l,s the i.ssue nut hv the honourable gentleman about our rules and about referees and imnartially. I nronose to touch unon that matter, Mr. Sneaker.

Your

necemher lQ. 197~ Taoc ?.228 PK- 4 11onour will rule me out of order if Your Ronour feels I am out of nrrler. J merelv oo1nt out that earlier in this dav. in this debate l nade exactlv the same noint. I am about to amoli{v t hat no1nt. ':'our Uonour,who is not Your Honour, Your Ronour in a narli.amentarv sense hut another honoural-le ~entleman occunyin~ the C.hnir whtch Your Honour no1-, occunics did not rule me out of order on 11nv 11.rouncl. Order . nlease! The Ron. the 1.ea.der of the nooosi t ion is not to be oemitted to lecture to the Chair on what he is about to savor what he is not goin~ to sav.

The honourable memher mav sav what he inte nds to r.nv and then t he Chai r wil l rule whrther it is relevant. i rrel evant , nennissible, not oemissihle or whatever hut the Chai r 1.i; not l!oing to sit idlv bv and be lectured to hv the honourable memher or told its dutv. out 1ts rlutv in t he hest ~-av i.t nossibly can. The Chair will carrv "IR. R_OBERTJ?_: it myself. 1'h.<1nk vou, ~r. Sneaker . l could not have better said 855ti

December 19, 1974 Tape No. 2229 NM - 1 Now, Sir, two or three days ago in this House a motion was moved, an amendment was moved to that motion. MR. SPEAKER (MR. STAGG): Order please! AN HON. MEMBER: What has that got to do with this? MR. ROBERTS: Everything. Ml. SPEAKER (MR. STAGG) : Order please! MR. ROBERTS: Everything. I am not allowed to tell him because I would be ruled out of order. MR. SPEAKER (MR. STAGG): Order please! Two things, first of all previous debates are irrelevant to this motion, I have said that earlier and I repeat it now.

Also the Chair and the person who occupies the Chair is referred to as His Honour, Sir, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of ways that the Chair can be referred to but never as "he." MR. ROBERTS: Even with a capital "H", Sir. The deity is referred to with a capital "H". MR. SPEAKER (MR. STAGG): The honourable the Leader of the Opposition's contempt is noted. I will not go further with it. It appears as if sometimes these things are lost. However, further references by the honourable gentleman to the Chair, other than by one of the acceptable phrases of which he knows all, will not be tolerated. MR.

ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Now as I was saying Your Honour, Sir, I do not propose, by the way, I have no thought of refreshing any previous debate, I want to refer to the rules of this House, Sir, and I am merely identifying which rule I am speaking to. It was ruled in this House that a six month hoist motion was not debatable. MR. CROSBIE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker, the honourable gentleman is now referring to another debate which is completely irrelevant to this motion. He is referring to other events which have no relevance to this motion.

This motion deals with statements made about the Speaker and Deputy Speaker outside this House which constitute in our opinion a breach of the privileges of the House. What led to those statements being made or why they were made or other debates in this House, are completely irrelevant and should not be listened to in this debate. 8559

December 19, 1974 Tape No. 2229 NM - 2 MR. ROBERTS: May I make a submission before Your Honour - MR. SPEAKER (MR. STAGG): Order please! The honourable the Leader of the Opposition was just brought to order saying that the reference to the previous debate was out of order. I went on at some length and dealt with another matter at the same time. The honourable the Leader of the Opposition was then given the floor because he has the right to be heard, to be heard in silence, have his ninety minutes.

The honourable the Leader of the Opposition then says exactly the same thing or begins speaking of exactly the same thin~ as before. Now, I direct the honourable member to Standing Order 51 (b) , which says, "Mr.

Speaker or the Chairman, after having called the attention of the House, or of the Committee, to the conduct of a member who persists in irrelevance or needless repetition, may direct him to discontinue his speech." Now this is a very serious rule and indeed when it was brought forward became the subject of some acrimonious debate but it is nevertheless a rule of this House and the honourable the Leader of the Opposition has been debating matters which are irrelevant, it has been brought to his attention and then proceeds to debate exactly the same thing.

Now the gentleman may be brought to order, he may be told to discontinue his speech and should further irrelevant remarks be made it is quite possible that this will happen. But it is not something that the Chair wishes to do and it is certainly something that would only be done very reluctantly but it can be done. MR. ROBERTS: Sir, I thank you and I agree it is a very serious rule and it is a very serious matter and T have no intention of reopening any previous debate. But I do protest as strongly as I can.

The motion before the House has to do with the privileges of the House and I intend, until and unless Your Honour forces me to desist, to refer to the rules of this House because I submit nothing could be more relevant to a motion that the rules have been breached, that the privileges have been breached, than the rules of this House. I submit further, Mr. Speaker, that it would be unconscionable in the extreme to prevent me from - AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. 8560

December 19, 1974 Tape No. 2229 NM - 3 MR. ROBERTS: I am not repeating. I am not being irrelevant. This is the first time I have raised this matter in this debate and I submit it is germane in the utmost to the motion. I propose not to go over any debate. I propose to refer to a series of rulings in this House. I submit that that is relevant and germane. Now, Mr. Speaker, as I was saying - MR. SPEAKER (MR. STAGG): Order please!

Just in case the honourable member feels that he has won his point and can now expand upon it, he has not made the point, nor is the Chair going to entertain references to a previous debate. It is quite clear under the rules of any parliament that the Speaker's ruling, the Deputy Speaker's ruling, is not to be the subject of a further debate. It is only done so in the proper form,. Honourable gentlemen well know that. MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of debating them, 1 am merely going to elucidate them, to say what the rulings are.

You know I should have made the point that it is asking a man to be judge and jury in his own cause to have the present Speaker and Deputy Speaker in the Chair during this debate. AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. ROBERTS: No. They should have left the Chair and some man whose character is not at issue as the House Leader says it is at issue here, a man like the gentleman from St. John's South should have taken the Chair. MR. SPEAKER (MR. STAGG): Orier please! Order please! Well the honourable gentleman has said what he has said and very little can be done about it now. However, these remarks are uncalled for .

They are certainly irrelevant to this debate. They can be the subject of a proper motion as the honourable gentleman well knows. MR. ROBERTS: Thank you , Mr. Speaker. Well I have a choice, I can either persist in what I believe is relevant and get flung out which is what they would like. MR. SIMMONS: Tell the truth and pay the consequences. MR. ROBERTS: Well I have been telling the truth all along. MR. SIMMONS: Tell the truth. 8561

December 19, 1974 Tape No. 2229 NM - 4 MR. ROBERTS : The truth is that a ruling was deliberately overturned in this House without any debate, any argument and flying in the face of a well established precedent. That is the truth. MR. CROSBIE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this has been ruled irrelevant time after time and t submit to Your Honour - A.~ HON. MEMBER: Big "Bully Boy" is up again. He is up again. MR. ROBF.RTS: He is hearing the truth obviously. MR . CROSBIE: What contempt you have for the institution. Mr.

Speaker, the kind of institution - mem~ers opposite should be in a different kind of institution. Mr. Speaker, it is quite irrelevant for the honourable gentleman to make references to these other debates or appeals or rulings that were made. The question before the House is tPe contempt shown for this House and its traditions by statements made outside the House. MR . SPEAKER (MR. STAGG): The point of the Minister of Fisheries is correct. The honourable member is dealing with a matter that can onlv be dealt with ~n a rroper and very precise form.

It has been brought to his attention on a number of occasions, at l east four or five occasions. I do not know what else I can say except that the Chair must at times fall back on the rules, some of the more unappealing rules and I suggest to the honourable member that he can continue. He does not have much time left. He may continue. MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I have three-quarters of an hour left. The clerk informed me that I started at 10:48 A.~. - 10:48, 11:48, that gives me twenty-eight minutes after twelve, do~s it not? Eighteen after, I am sorry. eighteen after twelve, so that is at least half an hour.

It is little enough to deal with the enormity of this motion. All I was saying was the truth, Sir, and if the truth is to be ruled irrelevant then I have to accept that ruling. But what I said was the truth. The documents support it and although I am not allowed to refer to them and I do not, I have distributed them widely outside the House and I shall continue to do so. The truth is contained in the records, the ;ournals, the llansards of this House, and the truth is there. What I said was true. 8562

December 19 , 1974 Tape No. 2229 NM - 5 A six month hoist: is debat .able in t .his House and it has been so ruled and debates haye been held. AN HON. MEMBER: Name him, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (MR. STAGG): Order please! MR. ROBERTS·: Go ahead. Name me. F..xecute me. Do anything you want with me. MR. SPEAKER (MR. STAGG): Order please! Order please! Under the provisions of

section 51 (b), it having been brought to the honourable member's attention on a nmnber of occasions, he is now directed to discontinue Ms speech and I recognize another honourable member. The honourable Minister of Fisheries, ~. ROBERTS: There is- closure. AN HON. MEMBER: Hear: Hear! HR. CROSBIE: Mr. Speaker, this is not a motion that anyone speaks on with any relish- 8563

Tane 2230 PK - 1 '•!R. ClWSllIF. '. Hr. Sneaker, the honourable gentleman needs some kind of assistance or attention from other than us, nerhans it can come from un ahove, I do not know. AN HON. Mf.'.M!IF.ll.: Waterford llr1dp,e ll.oad. 'All.. S'PEAKF.R _ (STA(X;) : nrder, nlease! ''P. r.1tOSJ\ IF., ----- - - As T was sav:lng, '-'r. Sneaker, ><R. SPF.A~F.ll:(STAr.r.): Order nlease! All honourahle gentlemen have the dutv to he relevant i.n this nebate. T suggest to the lion.

"ini.ster of l'-fsher1es wh:lle he mav not have been able to restrain himself .in his remarks concern:lnp the Leader of the Or,nosit:lon. he must direct himself to the no:lnts under discussion. A°' JlON. HF.MJlFP • In,iud1.hle. - - -------- l'.rr:> CROSB IF.: i•r. Speaker. hef ore I was interrunted bv a raucous hee have,this is not a dehate, Mr. Speaker, that anvbody p~rticir,ates in with /lnv ilmount of rplfsh hpcause what we ilre witnessing here, Mr. Snellh•r, from what we havf' w:1 tnessed :l.n the last counle of davs. from what WE' have ~,ri.tnPissed outc;ide of the Houise :Is iln attemnt liv the flon.

LPader of the 01,no,sition to lir:l.ng th:1.s :1.nstitution and its members ;ind the o~ficer,s ,~ho renresent it into contem!'t ann to destrov anv ~ossfhlP functioning of this House.

Yr-stPrdav we had the isnectacle of the Leader of the Or,noisition snp,'ll,inp for ;i lmost t~•o hours and forty minutes onnosinP. a motion put hpforp the HouisP thitt Wf' ol,titf.n cert;i-fn tnmscr:l.nts itnd recordings. anv;,ncin<> the arp:111.,ent that thi.s was the wronr. motion to dehate and that we should 1'P de1'atinP: a moticin that dealt with ~•hether or not nhat he s,dd outside the Ho1rne s,as a !-reach of the 'lriv1le11:es of the llou""· 'l'oc'la" wP have a motion nro,,erlv before the Hou,ae which we are nm-, d1scus,ainP: ha,aen on the statements made outside of tlie House an<l the l1 onourahl e s,entleman arr.uPs that we should not now lie discussing rhis.

HP Pants tanes J,roupht in, he wants recordings brouf!ht in ana vesterrlav he at.t.emntec to have renorters SUT1l\11oned to the Rar and a]] tli1,a. a Irina of delaving tactic. when ~11 that the honourable P'PntlPman has to do, ~r. ~Tlfealrer, nr had to do was to onenlv and 8564

necemher 19, 1g74 Tane 2230 frankly withdraw the remarks that he made and anologize to the Sneaker and to the House. PK - 2 Now just to nut this into the nroner context. ~'r. Sr>eaker, let me sav this that the p,overnment real5 zes and the government are well aware that if the Leader of the /lpposftion is susnended or anv member of the Opposition that nol1ticallv this is not desirable from the no:lnt of view of the government.

That noliticallv honourable gentlemen onnos:fte mav feel that they are going to gain great mileage out of this so that thev can spread calumnv across the nrov:fnce that the ii:overnment are hu] lving them and imspending them from the House. Recause thev realize, ~r. Speaker, that the rules of this House are not understood by the general nuhlic and that the P'eneral nublic are not pavtnp, - '"R. S. NF.ARY: Xr. Speaker, on a point of order, Sir. Are the gentleman's remarks relevant to the motion under debate? I submit, thev are not Your Honour, and the minister should he ruled out of order. MR.

SPEAKE'?: Order, please! The Chair as the nrev:l.ous nerson who 1ust occunfed this Chair,feels that all members to mv left and to mv right should be verv relevant to this narticular motion and that the Hon. ~!:l.nister of Fisheries was stray:f.ng somewhat from the rule of relevancy. Straving from it? ~r. Speaker, I wi-11 of course observe vour ruling, therefore I cannot sav much more about the motives of the Leader of the Onnosition. Certainly outside of this House I will exnound unon them. I do not ouestion his mot:f.ves, I am onlv explaining them. I see his motives.

He hones that his nersonal unnopularitv will he overcome - AN HON. MEMBER: On a point of order, Mr. Sneaker. ~- SPEAKER: 0rder, nlease: MR. SIMMONS: On a noint of order. MR. SPEAKER: Order, nlease! 1'1R. CROSBIE: On a noint of order. ~"R. SP~ONS: On a no:fnt of order, Sir. MR. SPl<'.AKER: The Honourable Member for Hermitage. 8565

Tane ?2'3'l PK - '3 "r . Sneal-e r , the 'ltntster of F'fahe r ieR hows that if 'iP •-mnt,. to anneal vour rulin9 thPre f s a orooer wav to do so. Tn the me.anti.mp . T a"k vou to di r P.ct him to he rel.P vant t o the dPh11te. MP. Sl'E.6.lf.F.R '. nrde r , nleasP! The Chair has iust directed the Hon . "inister of "tsheriei: to h,. r"lev11nt to the debate, I -would reouei:t that he do sn. ''R . CPl'lSR_U:: 1 nntice, "r. Snea1'er . that the pentleman who 1ust i,o t un on II noint of or<IPr "!s th<' one whn said t.he ?oui=e ~•as a farce. No•-•, Mr .

Sneaker, T do not l'lind heiniz harassed and i nterrunt ed, 1 have fortv-five m1nutP!', and T think I can make mv r><>ints in fortv ­ (ive mi nut e!'\. •~• <;p,Nn_"l_5_•. "R. CR0S!lIE: 'fl'. St>f.AKf'P: '<R. r.~nsRT.'" _,_ 'Ill • SPF.AKf.11_:. ''!'· SU'l~• nn anoint of order a~ain is it? nrder, nlpase! Little JumnfnP Jack . nrder . nlP.,i.se '. Ur.

C:n<>11ker. for the second time 1 rii,e and ai:!c vou to 1ni:1"'t that thP l'-!-fn-!11ti>r hr relPv11nt , 11P. refe rred ouf.te incorre ctlv to somethiniz I am sunr>o!=:Pd to have i,a1d. '-'hich T denv i,avinp fir~t of 1111 hut tl>nt ton is nui.tP -!rrP.levant to the Auhiect . I asl< vou to -ln~ii,t that the n-lnti;ter be relev11nt or ~ive him the s-'lme treatment chat t he J.pader of tliP 0nnos1 ti on Pot 3 1'10ment ap.o i.n havfnp. h1m di,:c on•inue hi,: narticination :Ir tie de~-'lte.

The C'hai.r h-'ls ruled t hree timP!'l no•• in the la'l~annroximate , minutP. or a minute and a-half on the rule of re]Pvancv and r"coprd:i;e,: tl>e non. 'iinister of Fi.i;heries. Than!- vou! ~!ov , ~•r.

S.,ealrer, "'hat this clehate 1,,. ;ihout js .,),ethe r t here h.:ts heen a hreac h of t hP .-.r! vilepes of t l>is llo ui;e. '1'hc«e remnr"<i of the tP.;ider of t he Onnosition desnfte the souirminr he did and t he !=:litherinr that he did in tal~inP ahout t he tr;insc r iot th11t i,: now ~efore thP l'ouse, never once den:led that he ~aid the ••ord" wh:lcl\ this motion comnla:lns of. l•lhnt he s11id wu, on r.JON vesterdav ancl I heard :It wi th mv own ear s and evervone :In the 1>r ov:f nee who li11tenia to radio or televi !=:ion heard the 11ame . what 8566

December lQ, 1~74 Tape 2230 l'K - 4 he said was "That the Sr,eal<-er throuP,hout this debate, the Sneaker and flenutv SneaJ,er have not heen fa1r and imnartial. Thev are deliberately favourinp. one side and that is the government side.' Those statements the honourable gentleman has never den:!.ed making outside of the Jrouse hecause he knows :l.f he did, the neonle of the nrovince would realize that he was telling a falsehood. He cannot denv that he said these words and he has not denied hut today he is trying to sou:l.rm around the iRsue hy trv1.ng to Rav that there :Is no .,roner transcrint before the House.

In addition, Mr. Sneaker, I mvself heard him sav on r.J0N-T17 , on 'l'uesdav, December 7 and I (1Uote '"The Sneaker's joh is a very importart one. He :Is like the referee. his 1ob is to see that the rules are kent and that they are lived ur, to. It is very imnortant that he follow the ruleR. Well we have seen examnle after examole in the last two or three weeks now wJ,ere the Speakers have ignored the rules or interureted them in the wrong ,-.,ay. I th:lnl<- that 1s nart:!san, I said so today in the House.

I think that the debate has shown that the Sneaker and whoever has been in the Chair, the nenutv Snea~er from time to time have heen ouite nartisan." Now what could he a more brazen attacl<- unon the Sneaker and the Denutv Speaker of this Rouse than those words ~-•hich not on one occasion has the Leader of the Opnosition denied saying. Now what are the rules that annlv to this, Mr. Sneal<-er?

I refer 1,v the way~ incidentallv _iust to clear uo one noint 1 it was a fe,,, minutes ago bv the Leader of the Onnosition that the Sneaker and Deputv Sneaker should not even take the Chair because thev had heen attacked most foully and cannot defend themselves, 1,einP the Sneaker and Deuutv Sneaker,hecause thev have been attacked most foullv hv a sugge st 10n that they are not imnartial, the honourable eent1P.man P,Oes further and suggests that thev should not even he in the r.hair of this House becauRe he has breached the rules of the House, 111aking these charges; he now sugpests that thev should not even sit in the Chair in this House because he has made these unsubstantiated st~tements 8567

Tane 2230 l'K - 5 wh:lch are in breach of the rules in any event. That is a new twist '·1r. Sneaver, that if some memher of this House goes outside and alleqes that vou are not imnart1.al. that vou should not be allowed hacl< in the Cha:!r. That is the i>.entlel'lan who was talking about the rip,hts to trial and the hest evidence rule a few minutes ago, who has made that suggestion. But on nage 57 of lleauchesne I ooint out the naragranh where :! t savs '"The Sneal,er must even .,ut a question when it affects h:'-msel f nersonallv. "' What could he clearer?

If anv member of this House iust h" m<'IH ng a ch.arp:e aPainst the SneaJrer or Deputv Sneaker can have him heaved out of the Chair so that the House no longer has a Sneal<er or Denutv Sr,eaJ,er, how ~muld we function? No,., that Mr. Sneaker is the real cause of "'hat is Roing on here today. The Leader of the Onnosition does not want this House to function. T emoted ve,;terdav 11nd T w:f.11. c,uote ag;iin, Mr.

Sneaker, and nPrhans the .,resR might note thi!: - · l·That the rule is that is observed :!n the Pouse nf Common!" of Canada. that i.!S ob!'<erved in every nrovince.'· nar:e ,;:;, , Sec ti on (72). 'The ~TJeaker' s actions cannot he cr1-t:l.cized incidentallv in r!ehate or unon anv form of nrnceeding excent the suhstantive motion. You cannot even aTJpeal his rulings in the TJ.K. Fouse. :!n Canada and here vou can. ·· Tt goes on,on nage ,;3, 'In addition to anneals there is also in t~e C;inadian Pom,e- the Fn.g]:!sh rulP that censure unon the Sneaker can he moved and dehated.

Thi.sis the only nroceedin.!1' which uermits r!iRCURsion of the Sneal<-er'io rul:1.nf's. Until it :Is resorted to, the Sneat·er must he tru,,ted h•1 thP. memhP.rs. ' That :Is thf' nrocedure. There is a nroce .durf' laid down not thi" cowardlv and vic:l.ous kind of attack outside of the House .• this 1.nnunendo on a gentleman who cannot rlefE>nd him~elf. A mot1.on 1.s the nroner nrocedure. Tt is usE>d, Mr. ~nE>aker, ahout once a centurv. The last time such a motion wa~ hrought hefore thP. r.anadian House of rommnns was on June 14, 1Cl~6, when a <dmilar motion was hrought. /IN H0N.

MF~•BER: When was the la<1t one brought in? "'". C!lf'SllIF · 8568

PR - Ft Now that 1.s the ru.le. 'Ir. Sneaker. The flon. Leader of the Onr,osition oridPs himsPlf on heinP, one of the PrP~t exnerts in tMs Hou11e on the rule:s. Would the minister nemit a nue11tio1>? AN RON. ~'P.'! • ~'!.,__(:~OSB TE· No. T do not nermit II nuP.st:l.on. Ile nrtde:s himself , you know.that he is un on Mav nnd he iR un on Be11uchesne and he 1s UI' on all the narJ.1.amentarv 11uthorities and vet dP.sni te that he ir.nores the rules to make t hese staternentR inside and outs1dP. of the Rou11e.

The statementR he made inside hp withdrew here ve11terdav. l!JI , NF.ARY· What •JaR the motion thP. memher h1ml'lelf hro11Pht in - 1-fR. SPF.A!Cf.~: Order. nleaRP! MR. CROSBTF.· l will cnmP. to 8 5 6~

December 19, 1974, Tape 2231, Page 1 -- apb Morning any motion that I have ever brought into the House. That is the rule given on page (62) and page (63), Mr. Speaker. On Pap,e (56) when dealing with the Speaker: "The chief characteristics attachinl!; to the office of the Speaker of the House of Commons are authority and impartiality." Now both the authority of the Speaker and his impartialitv have been challenged repeatedly in this House over the last two days, repeatedly.

"When he rises to preserve order or to give a ruling he must always be heard in silence and no member may stand when the Speaker is on his feet. Reflections upon the character or actions of the Speaker may be punished as breaches of privilege. His action cannot be criticized incidentally in debate or upon any form of proceeding except a substantive motion. Confidence in the impartiality of the Speaker is an indispensable condition of the working of procedure, and so cm. He takes no

part in debate." This should be noted. An attack on the Speaker is an attack on a man who cannot defend himself. "He takes no

part in debate and must be careful not to indulge in any argument with Members on the soundness of his rulings. He votes only when the votes are equal, and then in accordance with rules which preclude an expression of opinion upon the merits of a question." The public should understand this, Mr. Speaker. These attacks on you and the Deputy Speaker are attacks upon officials of this House who cannot speak to defend themselves. Cowardly in the extreme attacking a man who cannot defend himself.

On 11age (57) it goes,. to say about the Speaker: "He is, in fact, the representative of the House itself, in its power, its proceeding and its dignity." When honourable gentlemen attack the Speaker they attack this House. The Speaker represents this House. '-Then he is attacked in this shameful manner this House is attacked. The very essence of what we are doing is attacked. That is why, Mr. Soeaker, the government have felt that despite the political perils of bringing in such a motion as this, it must be brought in or this House will descend into utter bedlam. If we do not support our 8570

December 19, 1974, Tape 2231, Page 2 -- apb Speaker and our Deputy Speaker who we ourselves are convinced beyond doubt are fair and impartial, and if anything, it is my observation they have bent over backwards in the last two or Morning three years to be fair and impartial particularly to the opposition, if we do not support them in their moment of trial, and I do not doubt that they will have many moments of trial with what we have seen here in the last few days, if we do not support them in their moments of trial then we may as well nack this House up.

Because we will not be able to have a proper debate, we will not be able to properly discuas legislation, there will be no proper consideration of the estimates if this kind of camnaign of calumny is permitted to continue on our officers. MR. __ ~ARY: Yes, well, go back to 1970 again or - MR._ SPEAKER: Order please! MR._ ~!_OSBIE: I am going to ignore the honourable gentleman's interruptions. We are dealing now with 1974, Mr. Speaker, Time after time this is what we are told by the honourable gentleman from Bell Island. "It is '74. Do not mind the past. Pav no attention to the past. Forgive us our sins.

Forgive us our trespasses. Forget what we did before '72." Well, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I can assure the honourable gentleman who sits in the Chair now it was a far different position in 1970 and '71. "He is, in fact, the representative of the House its elf, in its power, its proceeding and its dignity." This at tack on the Speaker is an attack on us all. It is a calculated attack and I will come to that later. On page (100), already quoted by the House Leader, quite clearly such statements about the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker are breaches of the privileges of this Rouse.

Such statements, even were they true, Mr. Speaker, even were they true would be a breach of the privileges of this House. The fact that they are not true is irrelevant. If they were true it would still be a breach of the privileges of this House. 8571

December 19, 1974, Tape 2231, Page 3 - apb Morning As I say, Mr. Speaker, we have no desire,as was illustrated two days ago, to suspend the Leader of the Opposition from this House or to move such a motion. We know that he wants this, we know the Leader of the Opposition desires this, that he wants to be suspended so that he can pretend to the people of this province that he is being unjustly treated. MR._NJ:A,RY: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Sir, the honourable minister directly or indirectly is questioning the motives of the Leader of the Opposition.

I submit, Sir, the honourable minister does not know and if he does know, I would suggest that he put the proof before the House that the Leader of the Opposition wants to be suspended from the House. That is not in order, Sir, and the minister should withdraw his statement. MR._ll_ARSHALL: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Fisheries is just reciting purely and simply,facts. The facts speak for themselves and the Minister of Fisheries is giving a demonstration of how they speak for themselves. MR. NEARY: ------ It is an unsubstantiated fact, Mr.

Speaker, and unless the minister has the proof he should withdraw his statement, Sir. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, one does not have to substantiate every statement one makes in the House. Definitely they are diff£rences of opinion. (Some words inaudible) MR._~.!'_E~ER: Order i>lease! The matter as mentioned by the honourable the Minister of Fisheries is what the Chair considers to be a difference of opinion between two honourable members. MR. CROSBIE: Mr. Speaker, tbis is obviously an attempt, in my view and in my opinion to sabotage the functioning of this House.

We saw a debate here yesterday on a procedural matter alone that could have been concluded in two minutes. If I were charged with a breach of privilege of this House and a motion was made that we get the record of what was actually said, I would agree to it in a second. There would not be a three hour debate of which two hours and forty-five minutes were occupied by the Leader of the Opposition in attempting to sabotage that motion. That could have been passed yesterday afternoon 8572

December 19, 1974, Tape 2231, Page 4 -- apb in thirty seconds,then this matter debated when we had those official tapes before us. Morning We did not have to put such a motion before the House. It was an attempt to give the Leader of the Opposition a chance to withdraw and apologize for his attacks upon the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker outside the Rouse. That was not acceptable and we witnessed what I think was the foulest scene that we have seen in this Rouse of Assembly in the last three years yesterday afternoon.

Now today, the Leader of the Opposition comes in here and protests and whines about the transcript that is attached to this motion. Not saying that he never said these words, in fact, he got up and said that he had said them. He said: "So I did it and shall do it again." He admits saying these. He is .1ust putting in a certain technical point that the actual transcript did not come from CJ ON. No, the words came from CJ ON. They were broadcast over CJ ON and were recorded and they are here and they are the gentleman's exact words. The words of his of the evening before were even worse.

MR. _!EARY: Point of Order, Sir. MR •. ~P!Af<ER: Order please: MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, the minister who is presently speaking just made the categorical statement that the wording of that transcript was broadcast over radio station CJ ON. Sir, that is untrue, incorrect and I would submit that Your Honour has no choice over the lunchtime but to call CJ ON to check out the minister's statement. Your honour will find out that the minister's statement is false, untrue,not correct. The minister should withdraw that statement, Sir, or the Rouse - MR. ~EAKER: Order please! Order please!

Honourable members may make statements which they feel to be correct and honourable members may disagree with these statements. Thus it boils down again to a difference of opinion between two honourable members. ~~ CROSBIE: Mr. Speaker, I have heard those words myself and every 8573

December 19, 1974, Tape 2231, PaRe 5 -- aob Momin~ one in this proVince has heard the Leader of the O0Position in the last two davs blacken and attack the Speaker and the Depoty Speaker so it is immaterial to this House, these little oicayune points, of 1.-hether the tape came stra.ight from C J O N or whether they typ ed the transcriot . That is nonsensical. !Je lQloll and we have heard them repeated 8574

December 19, 1974 Tape No. 2232 NM - 1 in this House and then we had a spectacle this morning where the Leader of the Opposition said he would apologize on condition that the government agree to debate some censure motion which he apparently proposes to bring. How can you apologize if you make a condition? Either you sincerely regret having blackguarded and attacked the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker or you do not?

If you sincerely regret it you apologize and withdraw your remarks and say you will not do it again, that you did not mean it, that it was in the heat of the moment or you were emotionally upset or whatever. You do not say, "I will apologize if the government agrees or the House agrees to do thus and so." What kind of an apology is that? It is a most insulting proposal - it is even an attempt at blackmailing the House, The Leader of the Opposition would apologize if the House accepted his proposal. MR. SPEAKER: Order please! MR.

NEARY: I would submit to Your Honour that the remarks just made by the honourable the minister are unparliamentary, Sir, and that the minister should be asked to withdr~w and apologize to the House. MR. CROSBIE: I withdraw and apologize to the House, Mr. Speaker, so we do not lose any time. MR. NEARY: Inaudible. MR. CROSBIE: Not conditionally, not conditionally, not on condition that the honourable member for Bell Island remain quiet for the next few minutes or that anything else happen. I apologize unreservedly. MR. NEARY: The remarks should be withdrawn unconditionally, Sir, no strings attached. AN HON.

MEMBER: That is what he said. Sit down. MR. NEARY: No, that is not what he said. MR. SPEAKER: Order please! The honourable Chair is satisfied that the honourable Minister of Fisheries has withdrawn the remarks unconditionally. MR. CROSBIE: Now, Mr. Speaker, that statement that, "I will apologize if the House agree to debate now, now immediately this motion that I, the Leader of the Opposition, am !!;Oing to bring in." What a petulant . childish statement to make. Only if you other forty-one members of the House agree to debate my little motion which I have not made yet and have 8575

December 19, 1974 Tape No. 2232 NM - 2 not given notice of, only if you agree to debate that this instant after I make my apology will I make my apology. What are we running here, a kindergarten for wayward children or is it a House of Assembly? It is the same as saying this, Mr. Speaker, I threaten you but I will stop threatening you if you will allow me to censure you and continue to attack you. Because that is what the honourable gentleman has been doing in this House for the last several days. He wants to undermine the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker.

He wants to put them in a position where they know that if they do not rule in his favour every ti~e he asks for a ruling on some point that he is going to charge them with partiality. He is attempting to terrorize and threaten the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker. That is obvious. He has made it known to the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker. MR. SIMMONS: Point of order. MR. CROSBIE: You object to that do you "little Rage"? MR. SPEAKER: Order please! MR. SIMMONS : Three points of order now, Mr. Speaker.

I have sat here during the morning and I have watched the Leader of the Opposition being drawn to the rule of relevance many times. I would hope, Mr. Speaker. that the same rules apply to the minister. He is being very irrelevant is point number one. Secondly he is questioning the motives of the Leader of the Opposition in that he suggests that the Leader wants to undermine Mr. Speaker's position and he addressed me by my first name and I ask you to draw his attention to all these three points and have him withdraw them. MR. CROSBIE: Well can I save time, Mr.

Speaker, by withdrawing, I am certainly not going to say "little Rage" again, the honourable gentleman from Hermitage. I certainly apologize for that transgression and any other that I have made. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is in essence what has been happening. The Leader of the Opposition I believe he said he did not like to attack the Chair. He does not like to attack the Chair. Well I have never seen a fellow look more delighted with himself than I have for the last couple of days. He is positively delighted that he is attacking the Chair, because he thinks it is going to put his stock up in the province.

I apologize. 8576

December 19, 1974 Tape No. 2232 NM - 3 I withdraw. I accept. MR. SPEAKER: Order please! MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, I asked you to make a ruling on the points of order which I raised with respect to the irrelevance of the comments being made by the Minister of Fisheries and also with respect to his questioning the motives of the Leader of the Opposition. I ask you to instruct him not to be irrelevant.and not to question the Leader's motives. MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Education. MR.

OTTENHEIMER: As I understood at least a vast ma_jority of the remarks made by the Minister of Fisheries, he was referring to, quoting, commenting upon and rebutting remarks made in the debate on the same motion by the Leader of the Opposition. MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The Chair on three or f.our occasions has called the honourable Minister of Fisheries to order for irrelevancy, whether or not he is questioning the motives of. the honourable Leader of the Opposition, perhaps that is a matter of a difference of opinion between two honourable members and the honourable Minister of Fisheries is permitted to continue. MR. CROSBIE: Mr. Speaker, I am attempting to be as relevant as can be. MR. SIMMONS: I am proving the point. MR. CROSBIE: The honourable gentleman from Hermitage is proving the point. The point he has proved to me is one that I cannot even mention in this House.

It would be unparliamentary what he has proved to me about himself in the last couple of days. Now, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition said that he was fighting for the true rights of the members of this House. That was his statement. What kind of twisted thinking and logic is that, the Leader of the Opposition who is attempting to destroy this institution by destroying its Speaker and Deputy Speaker, who says that because he makes a charge against them they should not even be in the Chair without trial, says that he is fighting for the true rights of the members of this House.

It is the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker who represent the members here and who have to fight for their true rights, not the Leader of the Opposition. It is the Leader of the Opposition who by this tactic, this dastardly tactic, is destroying the rights of the members of this House because he is attempting to 857/

December 19, 1974 Tape No. 2232 NM - 4 destroy this House and intimidate its officers. This must be George Orwell, we are 1984 already, Kr. Speaker. Remember George Orwell's book, "And The New Think And The New Speak". The Leader of the Opposition speaks in tongues and his tongues are the ton,zues of 19f'4 "And The New Speak" where the meaning of everything is opposite. When he says, "I am fighting for the true rights of the members of this House," he really means, "I am fighting to scupper that House of Assembly because I think I can get into power that way." That is what he is saying.

"This is my only course to power to destroy the House of Assembly and to attack the government in that manner." When the government attempts to fight for the true rights of the members o~ this House and in this case we are fighting for the rights of the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker, when we do that the honourable gentleman wants the point to say that this is a tyranny in this House and that he is being expelled by a government that is tyrannical when he knows that two days ago he was only given a reprimand because we did not want to fall into his obvious trap but that his repeated attacks and slanders on the Speaker and Deputy Speaker outside the House have forced us to bring this motion forward.

I would not say, Mr. Speaker, how despicable I consider his conduct. I would not say it. But it is the most despicablest I have ever observed. Then he said, Mr. Speaker, "So I did it and shall do it again." There was a threat to Mr. Speaker and the Deputy Speaker. When the honourable gentleman said that, ''Yes," he said, "So I did it and I will do it again." That is giving him fair warning. "You rule my way or you are going to get it again. You are going to be charged again. I am going to attempt to destroy you again." Threats on the officers of this House actually taking place in the House.

We are fighting for the true rights of the members of this Rouse against this insidious ~ttack upon those who represent us all. The issue, Mr. Speaker, the issue of this debate on this question here is the attack on the impartiality of the Chair, not the impartiality of the Chair, the attack made on the Chair's impartiality. That is the issue. If this House is going to permit the Ch~ir to be attacked in this way we can do away with the House. 'Because supposing, Mr. Speaker, we, the members 6578

December 19 , 1974 Tape No. 2232 NM - 5 of the House, removed you and removed the Deputy Speaker and put in your place two other melilbers, I say that in three months, Mr. Speaker, they would be on tbeir feet saying that the next Speaker and Deputy Speaker were not fair and impartial - Mll. ROBERTS: If they were not they should be. MR. CROSBIE: You are so - MR. ROBERTS: Inaudible. MR. SPEAKER: Order please! MR.

CROSBIE: The honourable gentleman will never get the power in this province because the people of the province can see him and if we had this televised, if we could only have this televised and they could see how low a man would stoop to get into power. fR. ROBERTS: Inaud i ble. MR. SPEAKER: Order please! MR. CROSBIE: Now, Mr. Speaker, oh I am sorry. MR. SPEAKER: On two or three occasions the Chair has called for order, honourable members to my right have insisted on interrupting when the Chair was calling for order.

I would remind them that when any member is speaking he does have the right to be heard in silence and that they should adhere to that rule. MR. CROSBIE: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to speak too long in this debate but I think, yes it is good, it were well that this debate were over .and that the House establish once again tha.t there is going to be some rules of procedure and that the House is not going to tolerate this kind of infamy directed against the Speaker and Deputy Speaker. The honourable Leader of the Opposition, Mr.

Speaker, I mean words fail you when you imagine it, had the gall when he spoke to talk about personal attacks on him, 8579

December 19, 1974, Tape 2233, Pagel -- apb personal attacks on him. The honourable gentleman who has launched these personal attacks on two members of the House who cannot defend themselves gets up and tries to pretend somebody is making personal attacks on him. Morning The honourable Leader opposite talks about of the long tradition of parliament. There has never been a parliament, Mr. Speaker, where this kind of attack was made on the Speaker anc the Deputy Speaker, never.

Never, never has there been - there have been parliaments where motions have been brought questioning their rulings but never this kind of an attack on them nor these kinds of threats made to them. The Leader of the Opposition cannot tolerate the thought that the Speak.er may be considered to be impartial. It is not the - MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) MR. SPEAKER: Order please! MR. CROSBIE: Mr. Speaker, how this House operates depends on every individual member's sense of responsibility, and it certainly depends on the heed of the government and the Leader of the Opposition among others.

When the Leader of the Opposition takes this kind of action it shows that that man is not fit, in my humble submission, to be Leader of the Opposition. He is not fit to be a member of this Rouse and he is certainly unfit ever to have a position of responsibility in this province. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear! Hear! -~~------- MR._R_QB_ERTS: (Inaudible) MR~ _ _cROSBIE: He says that he shall not apologize until there is some way of discussing the impartiality of the Chair. He is not going to apologize until that hapoens.

He said: "If the government wish to try me." The ,zovernment have no wish to try the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition is going to be tried hy the people of the province. He was in March of 1972 and he will be again in 1975 or 1976 or 1977. MR. ~PEA!_E~_(St~ Order please! Order please! Order please: 8560

December 19, 1974, Tape 2233, Page 2 -- apb Morning The honourable the Minister of Fisheries is on a tack which is interesting, entertaining and irrelevant. I suggest the honourable member redirect himself to the motion as I know he is capable of doing. MR. CROSBIE: Mr. Speaker, I do not want anything I say to be found by you to be frivolous or vexatious. So in ending I just want to refer now, Mr. Speaker, to what we are considerin!!: here today. I have been in this House on previous occasions when questions like this arose. They were unknown before 1970 these kinds of issues. There was a time, Mr.

Speaker, when one member assaulted another in this House and the Premier of the day made statements outside the House condoning it. MR. ROBERTS: MR. CROSBIE: MR. ROBERTS : order? MR. CROSBIE: MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, to a point of order: The Member for Bell Island asked me to speak on this. Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Mav I have a point of Yes, sure! Have a point of order. Thanks! That is very decent of vou. The member is about to refer to another debate. I was directed by Your Honour to take my seat and I did, of course, essentiallv because I, in Your Honour's view attempted to refer to another debate.

I would ask Your Honour to please draw the honourable !!:entleman to order. I would be quite willin~ to debate the circumstances which led Mr. Smallwood, Mr. Bill Smallwood to assault the gentleman from St, John's East. I would be quite happy to debate that but I submit it is not in order at this point. MR. SPEAKE___!_(_~~ Does the honourable member wish to address himself to the point of order? MR. CROSBIE: The honourable gentleman from Bell Island brought it up and wanted me to address myself to it. I do not care. I do not have to address myself to it so I will not.

I do not want to impose upon Your Honour having to make another very difficult rul-ing in this matter 8581

December 19, 1974, Tape 2233, Page 3 -- apb Morning so I shall leave it. MR. SPEAKER (Stagg): Order please! I shall have a few words on it nevertheless. I think if honourable members would research the precedents and I would hear argument on it if necessary, but precedents which deal with previous DIB.tters of privilege that have been before this House would in the casual opinion of the Chair and if necessary I will adjourn to give a detailed opinion on it, I would interpret them as being relevant.

However, not having been called upon to make the ruling or the honourable the Minister of Fisheries indicating that he is going to deal with matters that are directly pertinent I will not make that ruling. MR. CROSBIE: I certainly agree and if this was a major issue I would have argued that this was quite relevant because we would be discussing another motion exactly on point with this. It does not matter. I know the Leader of the Opposition does not want this considered in any serious manner so I shall leave that and I shall get back to my concluding points, Mr. Speaker.

We have evidence before us, we have had the Leader of the Opposition confinu that he said that the Speaker throughout this debate, the Speaker and Deputy Speaker have not been