7PM




























































































































































/P













13&-*.*/"3:
6/&%*5&%
53"/4$3*15













)064&
0'
"44&.#-:
'03
5)&
1&3*0%

1.


1.
.POEBZ

.BZ



May 26, 1980 The House met at 3:00 P.M. Mr. Speaker in the Chair. HR. SPEAKER (Simms) : Tape No. 1786 ow - 1 Order, please! STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Lands. MR. C. POWER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a very short announcement just to inform the House that since we met on Friday when I made an announcement that we had sent one of our Canso water­ bomb ·ers to Manitoba, on l"riday afternoon we received an urqent request from the Province of Ontario because of the traqic fire situations they had.

On Friday afternoon we immediately released one of our Canso waterbombers to the Province of Ontario. Based primarily on the fact that the local forest fire hazard was low in this Province and that we were adequately covered by the five remaining aircraft, we took the necessary steps to dispatch a Canso water­ bomber to Ontario. And it should be pointed out, Mr.

Speaker, that Ontario came to our call in 1967 when we bad a very tragic situation developing in Labrador ralating to a forest fire situation when they sent two waterbombers to us.And we are just qlad that the fire situation in Newfoundland is sufficient that we were able to send a waterbamber to ontario. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the member for the Strait of Belle Isle. 4677

May 26, 1980 Tape No. 1786 ow - 2 MR . !. ROBERTS: Well, Mr. Speaker, we for our part would welcome the government's action as enunciated by the minister in his statement. I think he really said it all in the last two or three sentences of his statement when he said first of all that we are in a position fortu- nately where at this stage we do not need the waterbombers in Newfoundland on anything like the same degree of urgency as the Government of Ontario do.

And if we do need them obviously they can be recalled at short ~otice and I assume that is part of the deal.He also said, and it is wall it is so, that number of years past, when we in this Province were facing the kind of problem that they are now facing in the Provinces of Ontario and Saskatchewan,and I gather Alberta and British Columbia as well,that they responded by letting us have usa of their facilities.

So, you know, that is just one of the strengths of Confederation and I am g~ad the govern- ment have responded as they have .• And as far as we are concerned as long as the needs of this Province are adequately protected let us do avery we can to help our sister provinces in this problem. MR. S. NEARY: And we hope this weather is goinq to last at least two weeks. MR. E. ROBERTS: Yea, the weather is federal anyway. MR . SPEAXER (Simms): '!'he hon. Minister of Transport&- tion and Communications. MR. C. BRETT: Mr.

Speaker ·, Transport Canada will this Suaaer"ba installing a new Instrument~Landing system facility on runway 17 at the St. John's Airport. To permit this ILS . installation,'l'ransport Canada intends to shut-down the ezist~ng Precision Approach Radar System effective early June 1980. 4678

__ --'~.'). _______ _ 14ay 26 , 1980 Tape No. 1786 ow - 3 MR .. C. BRE'l'T' As a. result of the PAR shut- down, st. Joha' s Airport will hav .e only one landi:a.q aid available for the next five aonths, this being the rnstru!ReDt La'ndi.nq Syst- 011 rllnway 29. This aeans that st. John • s A.i,rport will b.e se ·verely handic•pped for several m.onths for all bad 4679

May 26, 1980 Tape No. 1787 NM- l MR. BRETT: w·eather operations other than when runway 29 is a required landing surface. My department staff will be discussing this matter with Transport Canada officials with the hope of ensuring that the existing Precision Approach Radar system remains functioning while the new Instrumental Landing System is being installed on runway 17. It is brief, Mr. Speaker, but that pretty well - it is a brief statement but these are the ~acts.

The old system is coming out, the new system is going in. \·le are going to ask them to keep the old system functioning all the while if they can~ if not,as long as possible. MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : MR. NEARY: MR. ROBERTS: The hen. member for the Strait of Belle Isle. (I~audible) a PC district. Mr. Speaker, in the absence of my colleague, the member for St. Barbe (Mr. Bennett),! will say a word or two and I want to begin by saying how crushed we were when th~minis~er got up to make his statement and it was not the road statement that we have been expecting hourly for days now. MR •. NEARY: MR.

ROBERTS: He just contradicted Crosbie by the way. Yes. I think it is worthy of note that the minister's statement, as my friend from LaPoile (lo!r. Neary) points out, of course, is in complete contradiction of the statements made on the weekend by the member for St. John's West, the hen. Mr, Crosbie. But then again,I would say to my friend from LaPoile,that this government and the hen. Mr. Crosbie frequently and flagrantly contradict each other. r simply ·- - . - +-- want to say that obviously everybody welCOIIIE!s the news that the government are taking some steps to protect the public interes.t.

The. thousands of people who will use the facilities at Torbay Airport this Summer would obviously be concerned to ensure that adequate safety measures are in ~lace and obviously anything that the government can do to ensure that the Government of Canada do tr.eir job should be done. I think it is a very commendable thing that this government are helping the Ministry of Transport and the Government of 4680

ay 26, 1980 Tape No. 178i NM - 2 J«R. ROB~: Canoilda in this way. I have no doubt the Ministry of Transport ·will be equally grateful for the qpportunity to help the lllinis _ter carry_ out his functions fr0111 time to time and I have no dbuht he can ~ tc hea ~ 111Dre of that in the weeks ahead now that the pattern and the precedent have been set. Ma. SPEAJ!:ER ( Silams: Any further statements? ODL _Q_OES'fiONS: Ma. sPEAKER: 'l'tle hon. l!lelllhe:r: for J:.aiioile. l<!R. NEARY: Mr.

Spe:lker, really the minister I wanted ~o ask the question of is not in the House, so I will have to change my question to another minis~er who has been baiting 1.1s outside the Rouse 1 and that is tile Minister of Finance (Dr. Col~ins) . In connection with the Come By t::hance oil refinery 1 would the minister care to make his statement now tha't: he gave us a previ _ew of what he was going to make in the Daily News. What did !?etrocan find out about the oil refine..ry? Is it in good condition? Is it operative? can it be whipped into operation in a short time? What did th .ey find out?

Would the minister care to give 'J.S a report? 46a1

'\ May 26,1980 MR. SPEAKER (Simms): DR.COLLINS: Tape No. 1788 AH-1 The hon. the Minister of Finance. Mr. Speaker, I am awaiting a report from the co-ordinating committee which was set up between the provincial government and Petro-canada. I have had some preliminary words from the committee that they have met with officials of Petro-canada and at that meeting there was also,I understand,some of the inspection team and the preliminary report is that the inspection team is encouraged by what they have found.

I do not wish to go any further than that because as I say I am awaiting the report and I do not want to anticipate what the wording of ~e report will be. But I think the meaning of the interim word was that the refinery is in as least as good a shape as we had been lead to believe all along. MR. NEARY: MR. SPEAKER: LaPoile. MR. NEARY: A supplementary. A supplementary. The hon.member for Mr. Speaker, well I will not.press the hon. gentleman ·on that matter. We will get a report I presume in due course, within a day or two • . How long will it take to get the report?

And would the bon. gentleman indicate if he is now encouraged by - we1l,not only encouraged by the report , but is he encouraged that Petrocan now is interested in the oil refinery and may take it over and operate it as a going concern? Does the gentleman have any indication that that might happen? MR. SPEAKER: ER. COLLINS: The hon. the Minister of Finance. Mr. Speaker, when the co-ordinating committee receives its report it will be reporting to government.

In the first instance it will be reporting to me and to the President of the council, who are a small committee of Cabinet appointed by the Premier ~te a number of months ago now, almost a year a~ as a matter of fact, to keep a watching brief on this situation. So the co-ordinating committee will be reporting to us in the first instance and of course we will pass that on to the Cabinet generally and it will be up to Cabinet then to decide what happens to the report after that:. At the same time, of course, Petro-canada 41it'2 ·~ , .

May 26,1980 Tape No. 1788 AH-2 DR.COLL!Ns: itself will receive ., per~ps even before we receive it,will have received i:odications from the experts inVQlved and it will be up to Pet;rQ-caJ:Iada then to decide 'Whether t,hey will go to the n~ ~se,which will be to enter inw a contract of sale. But pres)llllably if tbe prel~ word we got is as favourable as we expect it will be, then Petrb-Canada ,I assume,will go ahead because this is what they are waiting fQr.

They are w<Utiqg for a favou,rable initial assessme:Rt report before going to the next stage 1so I see no reason if that initial assessment is £avourable ·why they will not go to the next step_ .MR.NEARY: A supplementary. MR. SPEAKER (Simms): A final supplementary. The hon. the Member for LaPoile. 4683

May 26, l980 Tape 1"789 EC - l MR. S • NEAm' : Mr. Speaker, that is not what the Chairman of Petrocan has been saying all alonq; he says there was a 30 per cent chance that even if it was in tiptop condition that they may go ahead. But .the indication ~t I have now is that they are not going to go ahead with t:he purchase and to operate the oil refinery as a going concern. And I have read variou. and 11\Uldry reports in maqa.Unes recently. SOME HOM. MEMBERS : Oh, Oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR.. s .

NEARr: My question to the hon. qentleman is this, that if Petrocan, after t:hey receive the report, if they are not prepared to take over the oil refinery and operate it as a going concern, will tha government than go back to the only raalistic proposu that t:hay had before thua, which is the Shaheen proposaJ.? Why will they not deaJ. with Hr. Shaheen, who apparently is the only one - I -an, wh&t. does the C)OW!rn.eut have to lose? 'Dley -re . tal.ldnq ~ut scrapping before this ' report came in.

What do they have to lose? :If Petz'ol:aD,, if the dau petera out, will they then go bac:k to the only proposaJ. that ia on the table nov and that ia the Shaheen. propoa&l? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance. DR. J. COLLINS 1 Hr. Speaker, I aa sure the hon. lll8lllber does not u:pec:t- to respond to a hypothetical quution, and that is a vexy hypothetical question.

We hava no infoz:mation at this point in C... what Petrocan' s intentiona are, but we kDow that they entered into this thiD.q in a vexy sincere manner. 'l'hey have set ~ut a certain ..cbani n to decide what they are going to do. '!bat .-ch•ni a sa- to be in place and I have no doubt that Pet%0-C&Dada will proceed in a vexy logical and sensible way. With regard to Hr. Shaheen, this qoverDIIUUlt has aJ.waya taken the positio~ that if any feasible propoeaJ. is put U9 ·­ will look at it, but that the proposaJ. would have to go throuqh the receiftr. 4684

May 26, 1980 Tape. 1789 EC - 2 DR . J. COLLINS s 'l'hi.s was an arrangement made with ECGO wbo are the first IIIDrtqaqees __ and they woul.d have the major say in the matter - that any proposal. that came in w01Ud have to be useased by the receiver and then the receiver woul.d pus that proposal. on to ECGD and al.so to us aa the second IIIDrt;:qaqee. We have never received from the receiver a feasible propoaa.l from Mr. Shaheen, but if one presumably had been received by the receiver, we would have been infor.td about that and we were not so informed. MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : MR. L.

THOMS: The beD. the member for Grand Bank. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question I woul.d lilta to direct to tbe Minister of Justice (Mr. G. Ottenlleimar). I wu ~rlnq if the Minister of Justice woul.d confirm one way or the other whether or not the requlations to the Constabulary Act were chllll9'ed prior to the appointmsnt of Mr. Coady to the police force or after Mr. Coady's appoint:llleDt to the police force7 4685

May 26, 1980 Tape No. 1790 SD - 1 MR. SPEAKER (SIMMS): The han. Minister of Justice. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly reply to that. And let me say in general, because obviously the crux of the matter, no doubt, the hon. member is referring to allegations made that the appointment was not legal, and I can give him total assurance that the appointment is legal. MR. THOMS: Was it? MR. OTTENHEIMER: The han. gentleman wishes to hear the answer, presumably?

To give more specific info~ation, the amendments on the regulations were passed by Cabinet on May 15th; approved by the Lieutenant­ Governor in Council, May 22nd; are being gazetted today; the appointment becomes effective on June lst, as the hon. member will recall from my statement, because the appointment is to fill a vacancy which will occur after the last day of May when Assistant Chief LeDrew retires. Perhaps I will point out to the han. gentleman as well, and to hon. members, that the draft, new Constabulary regulations, including this, were given to the Brotherhood for their comments on March 26th.

This, of course, was done as a matter of courtesy, there is no legal requirement to do so, and that draft contains the same provisions with respect to senior management as is contained in the amendment. It was a draft of that regulation and apart from, you know, the verbal or statements to the press of some days ago, we have not received comments from the Brotherhood and heard nothing from them from March 26th until shortly after my announcement when there were verbal reports, you know, to the press.

But, specifically, as I said at the very beginning in terms of the Constabulary Act, in terms of the regulations, in terms of the collective agreement, the matter is totally legal. MR. THOMS: MR. SPEAKER: MR. THOMS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Supplementary, the hon. member for Grand sank. Mr. Speaker, the Police Brotherhood has asked that the regulations be now amended so that senior appointments within the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary would be made from the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary.

Would the minister indicate whether or not his department is giving sympathetic consideration to this request by the Police Brotherhood? 4686 - ~--~- -·· -----

)olay 26, 1980 M.a. SP.EAXl!:R (Si.mal$) : .MR. G-. OTTENBED!ER: Tape No • 1790 so - 2 The hem. the Minister of Justice. Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in t;he lrouse last week, the genexal practice is that appointments are made fzom within thts rallks of the Consti!Pulary. That is the general ;t'%actice. I .Pointed out that ill this specific instaace' it wu felt that a certain .U.x of experience and qwUifieati~ -re 'f8ll ~lified iD the pe .rson af the appc~ ~d tmat go'VUnlilent was exerc,i,si,n:q its pm1'Q9&tive ta appoillt that. gentleman. 4687 --·· -·- --~---- ----------- - ~.---- ------ -·- -- -- -- ·--- ·---

May 26, 1980 Tape No. 1791 EL - 1 MR. OTTENHEIMER: I repeat that the general practice is appointments within the ranks, but as I said last week and I will say again today, I will not surrender government's right and indeed govern­ ment's obligation to exercise its own judgement in those matters and I would not give an assurance to the han. member that never again in history will a person be appointed as an assistant chief who has served in the RCMP. I am not about to build up an iron wall between the RCMP and the Royal Newfoundland Constabulaxy.

I should point out, hon. members may know, that it is not unusual for there to be movement in the other direction. TWo of the RCMP, for example, two men serving in senior capacities in the RCMP in Newfoundland today are former members of the Provincial Force. In the person of Superintendent Richards, he was a member of the Rangers, and Sergeant-Major Lundrigan, RCMP in St. John's, is a former member of the Newfoundland Constabulary. There are also three applications now pending by members of the Constabulary to the RCMP.

So surely it would be the height of provin­ cialism and parochialism, and I think it would be very petty if I were to say that never again will a person be in the Newfoundland Constabulary because he has served formerly in the RCMP. That would be, I think, a disgraceful kind of disqualification and would be most improper and I certainly do not intend to give any assurance that never will a person who has served in the RCMP be automatically disqualified by that. SOME HON. MEMBERS: MR. L. THOMS: MR. SPEAKER: (Simms) for Grand Bank. MR. THOMS: SOME RON. MEMBERS: SOME IroN. MEMBERS : MR. SPEAKER: MR.

THOMS: Hear, hear! A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. A final supplementary, the hen. member How sanctilllonious, Mr. Speaker, can one get? Hear, hear! Oh, oh! Order, please! Mr. Speaker, I simply asked if the minister was prepared to let us know whether or not he was going to change the regulations to comply with a request which the Brotherhood at least deems 4688 - ·- -· -- ·· . ·----- --:- -

May 26, 1980 Tape No. 179 1 EL - 2 MR. THOMS: to be re-asonable • I did not ask for a speech like that at this time. Mr. Speaker, th _e mi:nister speaks as if this ~ going to be a once in a -lifetime. si.tuation. I hope. the minister realizes that at the present time as head of the EMO wa have a former retired RCMP person, in connection with the en£orcement of the gun r~lation in this Province we have a former RCMP personne -l, and now we find the BCM1> being appointed to the Royal _Newfoundland Constabula:ry. So the exceptions arQ becoming the rule, Mr. Speaker, rather than the other way around.

My s:UPPl!!l!lentary questi:on, however, is to the lllinister in connection with police CO!IIIIIissions. I have done some checking since the minister spoke to this on Thursday or P,riday, and I find that a~oss Canada the lack of a po1~ce cOIIIQiiss:i:on is an exception 4689 -~ ----- ...... ·"' '·"•'{,~ ,~'';.t··.· .. ,:,·, ; :: ~ ... ~· ; ~

.... May 26,1980 Tape No. 1792 AH-1 MR. THOMS: rather than a rule- it is an exception rather ~:han a rule 0 And my question to the minister is if he would undertake to really do an indeptb study of this particular problem - and I am thinking again of mainly getting these appointments out of the political ground-and look to setting up either a police commission or some sort of a ~d that would make these appointments. MR. SPEAKE...~ (Simms): The hen. the Minister of Justice. MR. OTTENHEJ:MER : Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment briefly on the hon. member's

preamble and then of course give him a specific and precise answer to his question. The hon. gentleman took some exception to the way that I answered the question 1 but all I have to say is that I certainly leave to the hon. gentleman the way he asks the questions and he is going to have to leave to me the warding of the answering of them. I do not ask to draft his questions and obviously I would not accept that he would draft my replies. I would trust I am sufficiently literate to do so myself. SOME HON .MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR.OTTENHEIMER: And the second part of the

preamble was ·the fact that the Director of EMO -that is the same person actuallY­ former RCMP, and the gentleman in charge of fire arms registration, former RCMP - I mean, is that not a shocking thing? There are 550 Newfoundlanders serving in the RCMP,JOO of them in Newfoundland, 550 across Canada,so we have two or three framer RCMP people serving in the Province. Is that not shocking? You would not know if they came from the ss or the Gestapo and they come from a fine police force. SOME HON .MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR.

OTTENHEIMER: But the specific question that the hon.gantleman asked was with respect to the Police Commission,which I answered a little while ago. A few days ago the hen. gentleman from TWillingate (Mr.W.Rowe) asked the_ same question. And we have - now the hen. gentleman says my answer is not specific but if he is speaking when I am answering he does not hear them - we have made a study of Police Commission practice 1 if you wish 1across Canada and what is evident 4690 .---·-

May 26,1980 Tape No. 1792 AH-2 MR. OTTENHEIMER: from that is that where there are Police Commissions there is a multiplicity of police MR. THOMS: (Inaudible) MR. SPEAKER (Simms): Order, please! MR. OTTENHEIMER: Well now,the hon. gentleman cannot complain about the lack of accuracy of the answers if he is talking when I am trying to give him the answer. The hon. member from Twillingate (Mr.W.Rowe) can tell him because he asked the same question and he heard my an51t:er ,because he was not speaking when I was giving it.

Anyway, he asked me and I will be glad to give it to him; The practice across canada shows that where there are police commissions there is a multiplicity of police forces, a number of municipalities having police forces, sometimes counties having police forces, there also being a provincial police force and in some cases also the RCMP doing some provincial policing, but you have a =.;itip:l_i_c-i~Y. __ ~f ---· .. :· police forces, municipal, provincial and county. In Newfoundland,w~ do not have that system. All of Newfoundland i·s policed by either the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary or the RCMP.

There is no 4691 ---------· ·~ ----- -------- '--~--- - ·· ----------- ·. ,,; ~

May 26, 1980 Tape No. 1793 NM- 1 MR. OTTENHEIMER: multiplicity. The reason for having the commission is to solve the problems in getting some uniformity where you have multiplicity. And where you do not need a commission, merely to have one to keep the hon. gentleman happy would bring in an unnecessary level of bureaucracy resulting in unnecessary expenditures of money. MR. WOODROW: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER {Simms): The hon. member for Bay of Islands. MR. WOODROW: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. Minister of Justice. I would like to ask the hon. minister, Mr.

Speaker, if he is aware of the fact that on Saturday, May 17th., a young twenty-three year old was bitten by the police dog in the Curling a:cea, and by way of this supplementary, because of other incidents of this nature will it be necessary that the dog be destroyed? MR. THOMS: He probably thinks that is funny too. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Justice. MR. OTTENHEIMER: If the hon. member will allow,because the hon. gen~leman is commenting on answerS: before they are even given.

Yes,r am aware that around mid-May there was an incident where a person in the Corner Brook area while in the process of being apprehended was taken or grasped by a police dog. To my knowlege - MR. THOMS: Bit. ' / MR. O'l"l'ENBEIMER: Okay, if the hon. member wantsr · when the hon. member is Minister of Justice- and do not hold the hon. member' s breath- then .-he can give the answers. Now he either asks the questions or he listens. The hon. gentleman will please be quiet. My understanding is that no stitches were necessary.

But I will tell the House what the situation was there: There was a report to the Corner Brook detachment tha.t two people. were being chased by a pe.rson with an axe, . and that a car had already been damaged by this person with an axa,. And the hon. gentleman knows that this would be a somewhat frightening experience SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear! 4692 ------------

May 261 1980 MR. OTTENHEIMER: MR. SPEAKER (Simms .): MR. OTTENHEIMER: Tape No. 179.3 - for those being chased. Order, please! ml ., 2 So the. Ron> hava a pol.i,ca dog there and the person,when the RCMP came after to apprehend this person,ran into the woods, ran into a forest area, and the police dog was used with the constables to apprehend the person. Criminal charges. ha;ve now !ieen l.aid against that person, not against the dog. SOME liON. MEMBERS : MR. SPEAKER: unless he wishes to yield. MR. NEARY: of Justi.ce. MR. SPEAKER: MR. NEARY: Hear, hear! The hon. member for St.

Mary's-Tha Capes, I have a supplementary for the non. Minister A supplementary 1 the. hon. member for LaPolla. Talking about dogs biting people, has i.t been reported to tile Minister of Justice that sOJIIellody in st. John 1 s is going around with. two vicious huskies 1 putt~g them in peoJ?le • s cars and people. who have come out to get in their cars have been attached by these dogs, has that been reported to the hon. gentleman? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Juatice. MR. O'l"l'ENHEIMER: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that. That has not been reported to me. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. member for St.

Mary's-The Capes, followad by the hon. member for Bonavista North.. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. They must be soma brave dogs. to go chasing a guy wi.th. an ~e. My q,uestion, :Mr. SJ?ealter, is to the Minister of Transportation and C011111unications. CMr. Brettl. In vie"!: of the fact of the high uneDIJ?loyment in the construction :U\dns;try 1 r am wondering when is the minister going to make some announcements- r~arcUng road projects this year?

We have been hearing :i:t for the las-t week or so that he is. 2:oing to make it 0 Is it worthwhile to make the announcements you have to make or are you going to make them at all? 4693

May 26, 1980 MR. SPEAKER (Simms): and eo-unications. MR. C. BBETT: Tape 1794 BC- l The hon. the Minister of Transportation No, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry, but there was soma delay with soma chanqes tlat had to be Jllllde in the proqraDIIIB, but it will definite.ly be ready tomorrow. Definitely. MR. I.. STIRLING: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPDXER: MR. L. STI:RI.ING: 'l'he bon. the llll!llllber for Bona.vista North. Mr. Speaker, I. have a question for the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. J. Morqanl who is not here. In his absence I. would like to ask the Premier. I. will go back to an involveme1t that the Premier had with fisheries.

Ths fisherman who were on the Fisheries .Loan Board prior to the Premier's announcement here last October of the appointment of an interim board 1 the Minister of Fisheries has indicated that they have now coaa to the realization that these fisherman were treated in a shabby .anner. Would the Premier advise us whether or not those fiah8%1MD who were on the Fisheries .Loan Board have now been written and completely exonerated of any possible bU.. that waa beinq hel.d over their heads? MR. SPEAKER: 'l'he bon. the Premier. PREMIER PECICI!'ORD: I: wi.l.l take the question u notice, Mr.

Speaker 1 consult with the Minister of Fisheries 1 and qat back to the bon. IIIIUiber in due course. MR. I.. STl:RLI.HG: MR. SPEAKER: Bonaviata North. MR. L. STI:RLI.HG: A suppl-ntaryl Hr. Speakar. A suppl.emeDtary, the- bon. ~ !UIIIIber for Would the PrUiier indicata - beeause the Minister of ~illheries indicated, and reported back - would the Pr&laier indieata vbat the status 1• of the ~ty-foG:r applications that were appzoTed and loana· qrantad durinq this period in which the Minister of Fisheriea ngw says that there waa · no Fisheriea .Loan Board in force?

My first question was on the basis of thasa fishcmen being fired. The Minister of Fisheries said- that their term expired in July and thare._. no Fisheries .Loan Board in force until the Premier appointed theae people in Oc:tcber. Would the Pr&laier tal.l us what the status is of the appzoval. 4694 -- ---- -- ·--·-

May 26, 1980 MR. L. STt'RLING: durinq th&t period? MR. SPEADR (Simms): PREMIER PECXFORD: Tapa 1794 EC - 2 of the ninety-four applications 'the ho~~o the Premier. I cannot answer the question, Mr. Speaker. l: knew that laqal advice was souqht by the Minister of Fisheries (.Mr,J .Morqan) a number of weeks aqo, and I imaqine by this point in t~ it baa bean received by the Minister of Fisheries, but I am not sure whether, in fact, the final. decision on the matter has been made as to the leqality of the situation but I will undertake to get the Anformation for the hon. llllllllber. MR, L.

S'riRI.DiG 1 A final supplementary 1 .Mr, Spealter. MR. SP.EAXER: A final supplementary, the hon. the lll&lllber for Bonavisu North, foll.awed by the hon. the member for Tornqat Molmt&ina. MR.. L. STIRLING 1 Would the Premier assure us that if, as a result of what is essentially the fault of the Cabinet for not appointinq or ra-appointi.nq that board,~ . wil.l the Pramier usura us that none of the fiahe%11BD. wbo were granted those loans will be hurt by this? Will the P~er acp:ee that whatever u nec:easuy to do to approve those loans wil.l now ba done? 4695

.,._ May 26, 1980 Tape No. 1795 EL- 1 MR. SPBUElta (Silllul The non. tha Premier. PREKIZlt PECla'OltD I Mr. Speaker, - will do what is proper and right to do. MR. SPBADlt: 'l'be bon. the member for Torngat Mountai1111. MR. G. WAltREN 1 Yea 1 Mr. Speaker 1 I bad a queatioo for the Minister of Fiaheries (J. Morq~ l b~ i:n his absence I would ask the Pr.mier. On Friday the Minister of Fisheries distributed a pamphlet, the Fishing ............... Vessels Aaaiatance Plan. I am just wondering if this government would consider printing this pamphlet - a smal.l portion., probably 2, 000 , in Inuit and the Indian language

whereas they - SOME !Ita. MEMBERSa Hear, hear! MR. G. WARREN : - could understand what it is about? MR. 5. NZARr: Good idea. MR. SPEAKER: The hon: the Premier. JIREMIElt PECD'ORD: I nave no objection at all, it sounds like a. great idea,as long as the cost is reasonable. You know, it sounds like a very good. idea. I will take the matter under consideration for the hon. member. It sounds like an excellent idea, in my view. And - will get back to him on it. Mil. S • JIIDRlr I CaDa.t (iDaudible) PREMJER PECICFOltD: boy. MR. E. HISCOC!t.: MR.

SPEJUCBR: Eagle River. {Inaudible) oaon- '• (iDaudible) The sooner you can the better,'steve', A supplementuy, Mr. Speaker. A supplementary, t.~e hon.member for 4696 - -t ..

~_ay 261 1980 Tape No. 1795 EL - 2 MR. E. HISCOCK: A supplementary question to ~~e Premier, Wi~ regard to a translation of pamphlets like this, the Premier said basically if it does not cost too much. This administration has basically said a lot about bringing democracy to the Province and any test of democracy is how the government at that time really treats its minorities. I 1oieuld like to ask the Premier the question.not only pamphlets like this but other pamphlets and other govemment documentation would be officially translated in Inuit as well as Indian languaqe?

Not necessarily because of the cost but because they are one of our minorities in this Province that have given so much to us. MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : The hen. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD : Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for acknowledging the fact that this administration is trying to bring .\''· ..- - deDDcracy to the people and aasure him thai; that vill not only continua for this first eleven months but for as long as we are on this side of the House. SOME RON. MEMBERS: PREMIER PEClCFORD : MR. S. NURr; of hov ' l:tn&udible) Hear, hear.

Secondly, the whole question of how­ 'ftle rJ. flaq is a good e%a11JPle PREMIER PEClCFORD: Yea, it is- MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! PREMIER PECJ:FORD: - yes, it is an extremely good example of it, Mr. Speaker. I would thank the hon. member for LaPoile (S. Neary .) for giving me an additional reason for saying that - MR. NEARY: (Inaudible) .REMIER PECKFORD: - this administration is bringing dem- ocracy to the Province. 4697 --~--- - ~ ·

May 26, 1980 Tape No. 1795 EL - 3 PREMIER PECKFORD: And I will ask the bon. the member for LaPoile (S.Neary) to continue to provide us with additional UIIIIWlition and sllbatance to the claillla that we have been makinq over here. And I thank the hon. member for LaPoile very much and he is very welcome over here any time he wants to come, if he wants to articulate democracy in that kind of fonL. He is very welcome indeed, and I thank him. SOMB HON. MBMBI!RS : Oh, oh. PR!MIE:R PECXFORD: Now, Mr.

Speaker, if I can qat on to answer the question, there are a number of ways in 'Wbich a society, there are a..-.number of ways in which a society can either judqe itself of be judqed as it relates to bow much democracy it brinqs to a qiven society or a qiven people. One is, as the ··hon. member just said, as it relates to how it treats the minorities in that society.

And I think it is fair to say that in the last number of months on that score in a whole bunch of areas I can think of, tor axaJ11Ple, the Bill that is now bainq circulated as it relates _to the Status of Women, as it relates to the .arts caaunity, as it relates to - AN BON. MEMBER: Municipalities. PREMIER PECKFORD: - a number of other - mun.tcipali tiea - in a whole bunch of areas, we have attempted to do just that. Now, as 4698 ----- .---· -·---· --- ------ ------------- --- --

May 26, 1980 Tape No. 1796 SD - l PREMIER PECKFORD : it relates to the translation of all government documents. MR. E. HISCOCK: Not all government documents ones that are pertaining to those towns and those minorities. PREMIER l?ECKFORD: Okay, fine, I think it is an excellent idea. Now, one has to consider how far you would take that kind of thing, Inuit, yes I can see. The Naskaupi and MontaCjllais language is the same - is it? - for both. MR. HISCOCK: Yes. PREMIER PECKFO:PD: Both have the sane langu.,qe? Both the Naskaupi and the Montagnais speak and write the same language? MR.

HISCOCK: The Premier asking a question like that . liiREMIER PECKFORD: 'fhen one has to consider - I am just trying to assess some of the factcrs inherent in the question that the hon. meJaber &Sits l.f _I ~y be permitted to de so. lind I do not know if one would haw· to qo so far as - to look at also the Micmac language because there is a substantial number of them on the Island both in Oonna Riv.r and on the West coast who could be affected by different programmes in which it might be a good idea to also do that.

But I think the idea is an excellent one and we will pazsue it to see whether in fact it is a viable and feasible way of IIIJvi.nq towards finding another way in which we can deliver democracy to the people . SOME RON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear. MR. SPEAXER: 'ftl.e hon. the member for the Strait of Belle Isle. M11.. E • RJBERrS : Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Health (Mr. w. House) could tel.l us precisely when he is going to announce the oft heralded five year plan. It was first announced four and one half yean ago. When are we going to get the five year plan for hospitals? MR.

SPE.I\J:ER: The hon. the Minister of Health. MR. L. THOMS : He is occupied with pl.ans for hospitals in Port aux Basques (in). SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear. 4fi99 --- ·-- --- --- --------

May 26, 1980 MR. W. HOUSE: satisfactory answer or not. SOME HON. MEMBERS: MR. E. roBERTS: MR. W. HOUSE : Tape No. 1796 SD - 2 Mr. Speaker, I do not know if that is a Oh, oh! If the minister will give me his now. Mr. Speaker, the whole five year plan, of course, is not just pertaining to the Department of Health, there are a number of other departments involved. As I understand it, it is in process and it will be announced in due course, perhaps within a month or so. MR. E. roBERTS: MR. SPEAKER (Simms) Strait of Belle Isle. MR. E. ROBERTS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Supplementary, the hon. the member for the Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister. His answer, although he is not aware of it, is most revealing because up until now, I think, people have been under the impression_ there was to be a five year plan for hospitals and it is not part of the overall -- ---- stankanovi te plan that this c;ove:mant are ado~ng. We are going to have five year plans with little red stars on our shirts. Can the minister confin~ there will be no hospital construction undertalcen until the five year plan is is place? MR. SPEAKER: MR. THOMS: SOME HON. MEMBERS : MR. W.

HOOSE: The hon. the Minister of Health. (Inaudible) sign down some how. Oh, oh! Mr. Spealcer, as has been announced there obviously part of the five year · plan for hospital construction has been announced and that is beqinninq this year with the planninq and hopefully SOIIIIt site woxlt with the hospitU at Channel, Port aux Basques - SOMB ··BC!r. MEMBBRS; MR. W. HOUSE: Bear, he~~ - and the clinic a Forteau, I believe. These were the two - and another clinic on some part of the South Coast. so, obviously that has been announced before the total five year plan.

The five year plan of hospital:.construction is going hand in hand, I guess, with the five year plan for the Department of Health but I understand that it will be announced at a separate time. 4700

May 26, 1980 Tape No. 1796 SD - 3 MR. E. ROBERrS: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAXER (Simms) : Final supplementary, the hon. member for the Strait of Belle Isle. MR. E. FOBERrS: Mr. Speaker, dealing with the minister is like putting your hand into a bowl of jelly, you know there is something there but you can not grab hold of it, you know. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh. MR. E. ROBERrS: Let me then try a supplementary under a different item.

Are we going to wait for the five year plan to emerge before we go ahead and implement the decision announced in the budget two months ago to provide assistance with air ambulance services for people from the Labrador part of the Province who must come to the Island here to get access to hospitals or medical treatment? And if we are not going to have to wait, when are we going to see that in force? MR. SPEAXER: 'the hon. Minister of Health. MR. W. HOUSE: Mr. Speaker, in a response to that question from the member for '1'\Jmgat Mountains (Mr. G.

Warren), three separate times, I haw announced that everything is in process. There are a lot of details to wo:Dt out on that kind of thing, it is in the system and as it get. through that system and as soon as we haw eweythinq put in place it will be announced and hopefully that will be shortly. MR. SPEAXER: Order, please! Time for Oral Questions has expired. I would like to, on behalf of all hon. members, welccme a deleqation fr0111 the town of Chanqw Islands i.Ji the district of Le'lllisporte headed by Mayor Ralph Brown and Mr. Charles watton. SOim HON. MEMBERS: Rear, hear. 4701 ---- ·- -----.· ----- -·---

\ I May 26, 1980 Tape No. 1796 so· - 4 NOTICES OF MOTION MR. SPEAlG:R: {Sii!IIM) The hon. ~ Premier. PREMIER PEC!tFO~: In th• absenge of th~ Minister of Mines ana Ene%gy ('lr. r.. Barxy), Mr. Speaker, I wish to qive notice Of a ver:y important piece of legislation. I-qiw notice that I w-ill o_n tomorrow ask leave to ~tz:oduce a biU e~~titl.ed, ~An Act RespeC:tinq The SUpply of Electrical Power 'l'o Industri~ tJsen: Of Electricity In Enabling Tl$ Board Of Oollllissionen Of Public Utilities 'l'o Set 'l'he Bates 'lhat Iil.dustJ:ial tl'seu ~ Pay For Electrical Po-r". MR •. ~: The ~0 (inaudibl.e) • MR. SPEAI<ER: Aze there any fur:tber notices. 4702 ,- ----- -- -

May 26, 1980 Tape No, 1797 ow - 1 ORDERS OF THE DAY Motion, the hon. Minister of He~lth to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Generic Dispensing Of Prescription Druqs Act", carried. No. 61) (Bill On motion, Bill No. 61 read a first time ordered read a second time on tomorrow. Motion, the hon. Minister of Consumer Affairs and Environment to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Attachment Of Wages Act", carried. (Bill No. 60) On motion, Bill No. 60 read a first time ordered read a second time on tomorrow. Motion, the hon.

Minister of Consumer Affairs and Environment to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend Th~ Landlord And Tenant (Residential Tenancies) Act, 1973", carried. (Bill No. 59) On motion, Bill No. 59 read a first time ordered read a seaond time on tomorrow. Motion, the hon. Minister of Fisheries to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fishing Ships (Bounties) Act•, carried. (Bill No. 58) On motion, Bill No. 58 reed a first time ordered~zead a second time on tomorrow. Motion, ~he hon.

Minister of Fisheries to. introduce a bill, nAn Act To A•end The Fishing And Coastal Vessels (Rebuilding And RepairsX (Bounties) Act", carried. (Bill No. 57) On motion, Bill No. 57 read a first time ordered read a second time on tomorrow. 4703 ,v

May 26, 1980 Tape No. 1797 DW - 2 Motion, the bon. Minister of Fisheries to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend ~he Fisheries Loan Act", carried. (Bill No. 56) On motion, Bill No. 56 read a fizst time ordered read a second time on tomorrow. MR. SPEAKER (Simms): Motion, third reading of a bill, "An Act To Adopt A Flag For The Province". (Bill No. 44) Is it . the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? The hon. the member for LaPoile. MR . S. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have a few words before we vote on whether or not this bill should be read a third time. I was hoping, Mr.

Speaker, that the qovernment would not call third readinq of this bill. I was hopinq at the last minute that they miqht have come to their senses, that they miqht have realized that the majority of Newfoundlanders are opposed to this flaq deaiqn and that they would have let it just ride alonq until the Fall or next Sprinq when we came back into a new session of the House. But as one of my colleaquea indicated I was expecting too much. This is the · crowd, Mr. Speaker, who boast brinqinq democracy to Newfoundland. Brinqinq democracy to Newfoundland, they hold that up as one of their major accomplishments.

And here you have a situation where 97 or 98 or 99 per cent of the people are aqainst somethinq 4704

May 26, 1980, Tape 1798, Page 1 -- apb MR. NEARY: and the government says you are going to take it whether you like it or not. Now, that is the crowd that brought democracy to Newfoundland. Can anything be more undemocratic? Can anything be more Hitler like? Mr.

Speaker, the Premier the other day, when he broke his silence, when he came from his retreat and spoke in the Committee of the Whole on the flag, he really did not say anything except something that perturbed me and stirred up an awful lot of resentment throughout this Province and that is that the hon. gentleman said ten years ago you could not have brought in a flag bill in this House and got it passed without various and sundry organizations around the Province raising quite a ruckus about it. The hon. gentleman was, I presume, referring to some of the religious groups.

He said, 'Thank God that is not happening today therefore we can push the flag through the House. 'They are silent' he said, 'they are silent, you do not hear any reaction from these groups'. Well, the hon. gentleman is assuming quite a bit, Mr.

Speaker, because ever since the hon. gentleman made that statement I have had telephone calls and discussions with the heads of some of these organizations that he says are remaining silent and keeping quiet who do not want to enter into a controversy with the hon. gentleman or his government, who do not want to cume straight out in a knock-them­ down, drag-them-out fight with the administration, but they are opposed, Mr. Speaker. It is THrong to assume that through their silence they are not objecting to this flag.

They are objecting to this design and they are against this design and the hon. gentleman knows that. 4705 -·- ----- ·-- -.-._.,_,._. ...

..__ -- -.. --- -·· May 26, 1980, Tape 1798, Page 2 -- apb MR. NEARY: And it is unfair for the hen. the Premier to say that because the Canadian Legion is the only organization that is out in the forefront - you do not see the others, he indicated the other day, out taking the lead in this. Well, they are taking the lead and the hen. gentleman will find out in aue course. This bill can be repealed, it can be changed and it will be changed in due course. It is certainly a poor way, Mr. Speaker, it is a very poor way to bring a flag into this Province, a flag that is supposed to unite the Newfoundland people.

Not divide them, to unite them. It is a very, very poor beginning, a poor start. And the hen. gentleman can go down in front of Confederation Building or wherever he wants, and he can have a big ceremony now . . and he will invite various and sundry people and he will hoist the flag, a flag that is not acceptable to the majority of the people of this Province. We have an example of that today. Every member today, Mr. Speaker, found on his desk a letter that the Premier had in his possession weeks ago, and a bumper sticker showing the design of a flag. And an open letter •. · rt .,says, 'To Premier Peckford'.

This is an open letter written by· the Flag Society, a group of people who banned together many years ago to design a distinctive Newfoundland flag - and ·there is the design they came up with, a Newfoundland native flag. MR. MARSHALL: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER(Simms): A point of order. The hen. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: I think it is wise as much for anything as a matter for setti.Dq an incorrect precedent. 4706 -- ---- --· ----- ·o& A4' ·· - ·-- - · - , •. '1

..... May 26, 1980, Tape 1798, Page 3 -- apb MR. MARSHALL: The hon. gent leman is now introducing another flag design, another item not within the four corners of the bill itself and this is, Mr. Speaker, the - what may be done and what may not be done on third reading is well established . Obviously the calling of third reading is a debatable motion but it does not admit the same wide -ranging debate as in second reading when one discusses the principle of the bill itself. And I refer Your Honour as an authority to this to May, the 19th . Edition of May, Page 543 and I quote as follows: 4707 --..,... .... -..-. __ .....__ - ~ - ... ·· ~ _...__ -- ---- __ .. .,.._ ..

Hay 26, 1980 'l'ape 1799 EC - l MR. W. MlU!SHALL: 'Debate' - this is the last line in the third paragraph: 'Debate on third readinq, however, is more restricted than at the earlier stagaa,beinq limited to the contents of the bill and reasoned amendments which raise matters not included in the provisions of the bill are not peDDissible.' I would draw your particular attention to the words that "debate on third readinq is more restricted than at the earlier staqes, beinq limited to the contents of the bill itself~ I believe, Mr.

Speaker - I wu about to think I. was in another place - but you will find a similar quotation in Beauchesne with respect to third readinq but not completely. But I think the rationale and the reasoninq behind it, Mr. SpeAker, is the fact that we have already debated the principle of the bill i tllalf and in debate on third readinq, care has to be taken not to requrqitate exactly the same thinq that has been decided by the House in a previous si ttinq.

There is no doubt-; I am not disputinlf the fact that debate may take place on third readinq, but I do very much wish to draw to Your Honour's attention the fact that you cannot bring in matters extraneoUs to the bill itself, and this is what the hon. gentleman is doinq, I would submit, wheo he is introciucinq now aDOther flag dasiqn, that is , the desiqn of the , N-foUDdl.and Fl;sg Society, or whatever they are called. MR. E. ROBERl'S & MR. SPEADR (Simms) & To the point of order, ~. Spaakar. To the point of order, the bon. the member for the Strait of Bella Isle. MR. E.

ROBERTS & - - , -· - - My - Lord, thill is a IIIDst interastinq point, and .. 'IllY learned friend says, -it is probably an­ ona. I do not have May in front of -· but,Mr. Speaker, you naiqht wish to have a look at Beauchesne, which of course, outranks May in our little hierarchy here in the ChUiber.

Section 802 and

Section 804 a ... to be relevant, and they are found on paqe 239 and paqa 240. I will read them if Your Honour vanta , but if Your Honour has thea there , there is probably no need for - to read them. Suffice it to say that they indicate - they talk of amendments and they say that;the •!MI!d•nts are - MR. W. MUSBALL 1 MR. E. l¥JBERrS: and 804. What paqes? Paqa 239 and paqe 240, citations 802 (l) 4708

~ May Z6, 1980 Tape 1799 EC - Z MR. E. ROBERTS: There is a

part in eoz ( ll that says, 1 the same type of amendments which are permissible at the second reading ue pez:missible at the third reading with the restriction that they cannot deal with any utter wllic:h is not contained in the bill. 1 Now, what is contained in the bill:'1 Well ., the desiqn of a flag is contained in this bill. So 'Ill!/ hon. friend from LaPoile (Mr. s. Neary) is quite in order to ta.lX of a desiqn. If he is prepared to put forward an alternate, Sir, that is surely in order. Because r81118111ber, third reading, Mr.

Speaker, a a formal stage but it is still a fully debatable staqe and it is surely in order for Jll!f hon. friend fro• LaPoile to try to persuade the Bouse to reject this bill by voting against it at third reading. And one of the ways he could try to persuade the House to reject this bill is to put forward an alternate deaiqn.

Now, I think my hon. friend is quite in order and I would say further, he is equally in order to 1110ve a six 1110nth hoist - and he knows how to do that - which gives him an extra half hour to qo on top of his bour should he decide he needed a little 1110re ~ on tliia and that the six 1110nth hoist, which ia an effort to try to persuade the Ho11Ba to poatpone the consideration. on. the uttar for six 1110n.ths, it would surely be appropriate for him to say, one of the reuons to postpone it is to reject desiqn A and - aai9Jl & Now, I do not need to suqqest to Jll!f bon.. frieDd froa La.Poil.e how he should carry on. the debate in this Houae, Mr. speaJt.r, when he knows full well. and has given co~mtless instances of his abil.ity to debate viqorousl.y and within the scope of the rules.

But if it is in order to talk - MR. S. ~~ I .. going to vote for you after that. MR . E. BOBERI'S: Well, now I am worried! Now I am really worried! AH 110&. MEMBER: (Inaudible). MR. E. ROBERTS : Not puzzled, but worried. SOME: HOM. MEMBERS : Oh.. oh! MR. E. ROBERTS: Mr. Speakal::, the point is that it ia surely in order at third reading to use allllost any ~ts that are in order. ~. t.709 ~---.~-

May 26, 1990 'l'a~ 1799 EC- 3 MR, E, ROBERTS: at second readi.Dq6 And if it is DOt iD. order at third raadinq - and :r suqgest it u - that all my bon. friend bas to do is to -.,ve a six month boiat, and I woald venture he is "DOt re1ucta.nt to move that, and he micjlt even find a seconder o'ftr ~. So I vould say that DOt. only is it iD. order, but I woal.d think in the .iutereats of facili.tat:!JI9 deb&ta. He is DOt chal..lenqinq the principle of the blll. . The principle of the bill is slttel.y to esUbllah a natio~ fl&cJ for HerioWidl.and. .M1te I.. '1'IIQMS I Another slip. · A 'naticmal 1 Bac;? MR. E.

ROBD'l'S: WeU, a pmviDc:i41 flac;. I mean, - are - D&tioB U - v-.r¢ to ~ en fraDC&is - nation. \'bat is p-e-u-p-1- for the benefit of - ' ' . HR. L. 'l'HOMS I Well that is (iD&udiblel 4710 ~--·--- ----· ------~-···-- . --------- ·---- --

May 26, 1980 Tape No. 1800 NM- 1 MR. ROBERTS: lofell, I think it is a national flag, I am a Newfoundland nationalist. I am also a Canadian nationalist, unlike those who think that Ottawa ought to be some sort of agent, agent general for the - But that is not to the point of order, is it? MR. SPEAKER: (Simms) No. MR. ROBERTS: The point of order surely is that it is in order for my hon. friend to debate the way he is, at second reading the debate is certainly broader. The May citation , I would think,is good parliamentary law because at second reading you could talk about not having a flag at all.

Well,my hon. friend from LaPoile (Mr. Neary) has accepted the ruling of the House. I am sure that there is going to be a flag. All he is trying to do now is to persuade the House to come to the wisdom of his way, to see the wisdom of his views to have design A as opposed to design B. And I would say to my learned friend from St. John's East (Mr. Marshall) if he does not want a six month hoist on this he ought really to let my hon. friend from LaPoile (Mr. Neary) say what he has to say because he is entitled to say it and he is going to say it. MR. MARSHALL: May I, -Mr. Speaker? MR.

SPEAKER (Simms) : Yes, you certainly may. The hon. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: The fact of whether or not there is a motion for a six month hoist is you know- it has to be academic as far as- we are concerned. I think this is a matter of - you know it is going to set a precedent apart from anything else. I would just add in response to what the hon. member has said, I want to add just one further quotation from May if I may to the one I put. It is on page 496 and it relates to ------- -·------ third reading.

Actually there is a very interesting: - the content there is very · interesting on the various procedures, the stages of the bill and ·.-nat they are·· supposed to be there for. Now on third reading it says, "The purpose of third reading is to review a bill in its final foDmat after the shaping it has · received in earlier stages." It goes on to say, "When debate takes place 4 711

May 26, 1980 Tape No. 1800 NM- 2 MR. MARSHALL: it is confined strictly to the contents of the bill and cannot wander afield as on second reading. " Now, the hon. member opposite I know agrees with this because he has indicated and he has adopted that this is the rule in a precedent. I would simply say that I draw issue with him when he says that this really - the principle of the bill is to ,· adopt a provincial flag. I would submit to Your Honour that the principle of the bill quite clearly is to adopt a provincial flag of the design set forth in the

schedule to that act, and when the han. gentleman is bringing in another design now at this stage, a matter that has been passed on, he is wandering farther afield within the definition ~ of May. As I sa~ I rise on this point of order because I think it is a fairly important precedent that will be set and one that should be drawn to Your Honour's attention. MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER {Silmns): The han. m~mber for the Strait of Belle Isle. MR.

ROBERTS: Very briefly, Your Honour, I simply want to say that I agree that May is an authority and I could seek no greater authority in support of the proposition than the words read by my han. friend from st. John's East (lo!r. Marshall), the ultimate townie as he is, the words read by the han. gentleman are surely conclusive evidence of what my han. friend for LaPoile {Mr. Neary) is saying is quite in order.

And as for the principle of the bill, if we wanted to discuss that we could have a long time but I would simply say to Your Honour that the title of this bill is1a bill, "An Act To Adopt A Flag For The Province." And all my han. friend is attempting to do, and my han. friend from St. John•s East is trying to frustrate him and to buffalo him and he will not succeed - I say now he will not succeed. If he is trying to prevent my han. friend from LaPoile (Mr.

Neary) from putting forth for the edification of the House, and for the decision of the House, not the question of whether or not there ought to be a flag but whether it ought to be a particular design that my han. friend wishes to advocate, or one that at this stage the House has adopted. 4712 ---- --- ·- --· ___ , ______ _.-_ ---------- ~---- - -- .:.

May 26, 1980 Tape No. 1800 NM- 3 .MR. ROBERTS: I think it is quite in order at third reading, Sir. HR. SPEAKER (Simms) : With respect to the point of order, first of all I might point out and 1 aJD sure hon. members are aware, that traditionally in this House at least there is generally not too much debate on third reading in any eve .nt. But I tbi."lk it is obvious and agreed by everybody that it is a debatable motion. In view of the fact that it is a matt .er that might be precedent setting, I would like to recess the House for a few moments just to prepare. 4 71 3 ..-

May 26, 1980 Tape No . 1801 ow - l MR. SPEAKER (Simms): Order, please! With respect to the point of order raised by the hon. the President of the council (Mr. Marshall) I believe first of all that the question really under consideration is how wide-ranging shoulcdebate be on third reading? Beauchesne and I quote,fifth edition,page 221 paragraphs 712 sab-paragraph(S)which relates to the stages of a bill. And also Beauchesne, page 220, paragraph 712, sub-paragraph ~2) which points out clearly that the opportuaity for wide-ranginq debate exists in second readinq.

But to quote what it says about third readinq, 9The purpose of the third readinq is to review the bill in its final form after the shapinq it has received in its earlier staqes.• So comments, therefore, should be restricted to the bill itself that has reached this staqe. May, paqe 496 also states the same thinq, "When debate takes place it is confined strictly to the contents of a bill and cannot wander afield as on second readinq•. And May, paqe 543 says, "The debate on third readinq,however, is more restricted than at the earlier staqe ~einq limited to the contents of the bill".

So the operative words, I believ~, are 'confined, restricted and limited to the contents of the bill'. So I would rule that the debate on third raadinq must be confined to the contents of the bill as outlined in these earlier comments. The hon. member for LaPoile. MR. s. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, in order to give myself a little wider la~itude, Sir, I would like to move that the bill b.e not now read a· third time but that it be read this day six months hence. MR. SPEAltER ·; -- Do you have a seconder for the motion? MR. S. NEARY: And it is seconded by the hon. member for Grand Ba~ {Mr, Thoms). 4714 -----··----

May 26, 1980 Tape No. 1801 DW - 2 ~R. SPEAKER (Simms): I believe that is a dilatory motion. MR. E. ROBERTS: Yes, and it is not debatable. Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for the Strait of Belle Isle. MR. E. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, in fact, Sir, there are rulings of this House by your predecessor, Mr. Speaker Russell on this one. I think Mr. Speaker Ottenheimer also made a ruling on it, Sir, if memory serves me. Before, Your Honour, makes a ruling may I simply ask - my memory may be wrong but I have a vivid recollection that we had I a case·where Mr.

Speaker Russell ruled that third reading was not debatable and he later was in the position where he had to change his ruling, Sir, from the Chair. MR. W. MARSHALL: Is this with respect to this motion now? MR. E. ROBERTS: .1. siz month hoist at third reading, it is debatable. MR. W. MARSHALL: Yes. MR. E. ROBER1"S: The Speaker - MR. SPEAXER: First of all, if I could have the motion in vriting,that might· assist me. Coald some- body from the laale get the motion? Either the Clerk or the page. MR. R. BAIRD: They are always r-eady for it in writing.

MR • SPEAKER: The only question here now is, of course, that the motion is not moved as an amendment, is moved as a motion- MR. E. ROBERTS': Your Hanour 1 it has to be moved as an amendment there is only one motion before the Chair that the bill be now read a third time. I do notkknov if 4715 ---- -·-· ---- --- ---

May.26, 1980 Tape No. 1801 ow - 3 MR. E. ROBERTS : my hon. friend used the word, 'amendment' r thought he did but surely that it is all it can be. I mean it is not a dilatory motion in the sense that the'Orders of the Oay'be now read or the'House do now adjourn,' that is not debatable, it is a six month hoist amendment, Your Honour. MR. W. MARSHALL : MR. SPEAKER (Simms): A point of order, Mr . Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to that because here again we are talking about precedents more than you know, it goes much farther than this particular debate.

There are two types of ways, I would submit 1 to move ·.the motion. If you move it as a dilatory motion I quote Beauchesnes, p~ge 151, Types of motio~ •oilatory motions are designed toadispose of the original question either for the time being or permanently. They are ·-_uaually of the following type: • and it goes on - - to say, "That the consideration of the question be post- poned to such and such (date)". Now if a person moves,as I understand the tenor and dilatory motion~ there is authority here as well that dilatory motions are the t¥pes of motions which are not deba•able.

And as I heard the way in which the motion was moved and, of .~ course, there is no reason why a motion of that nature cannot be moved but th• question is as to whether or not it becomes debatable. If the hon. gentleman had moved that I move that all words after'that'be deleted and there be substit~ted therefore as was done when the second reading motion waa come in 1 that is an amendment then and that is debatable.

But as I heard the hon. gantleman, the way he gave the motion was•~ move' exactly the same words as ~ have quoted in Beauchesne, page -· 151, paraqraph 417~ and t_hl!!r _ef _ore 1 beinq in that char•cter a dilatory motion 1 the ~atter is votable nov I mean 1it is not debatable. MR. E. ROBERTS: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker. 4716

May 26, 1980 Tape No. 1802 EL - 1 MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : for the Straits of Belle Isle. MR. E. ROBERTS: To the point of order, the hon. me!IOer First of all, let there be no doubt. as Your Honor has said and rightly, that a dilatory motion is not debatable. Now, if you look -dilatory motions are a very limited type and the question is whether this is dilatory or not. And I- !:he matter is really of iJI!portance only in the very technical sense because if this is a dilatory motion, as I will argue it is not on its very wordinq, then some­ body else will move the six month hoist.

I mean, if hon. gentlemen opposite wish to prolong this debate they apparently are doing it by this kind of tactic. But, let me say that the dilatory motion, Your Honor, is that consideration of the question be postponed and if Your Honor looks at the citation read by my hon. and learned friend from St. John's East (W. Marshall) on Page l51 1 he will find that that is the wording. There are a number of others, that the Orders of the Day_ be read, the House proceed to another order. They are standa%0 and they are not debatable, they are put to a 'VDte instantly and dispoaed of :Oy the House in that way.

The motion before the Chair - Now. I. did not really mark the words used by my hon. friend from LaPOile (S.Nearyl but the 1110tion before the Chair is obviously a six 1110nth hoist on its very wording. I.t says that the Bill be not now read and that it be read this day six month hoist. MR. S. NEARY: Right on. MR. E. ROBERrS : And that is - in siXV'liiOnths hence. I: am .orry. That is the wording of the six month hoist. It is the same, Your lienor, . as the wording used at Second Reading • I would suggest, and equally in order here. It is not a dilatory motion.

I do not really recall whether 4717 ~ ------ -- --·---...~-

May 26, 1980 Tape No. 1802 EL - 2 MR. E. ROBERTS: my hon. friend- I did not remark it'- whether he used the words, 'I move the following amendment ' or not. But it is not a dilatory motion 1it is a six month hoist. I suggest as such it is in order and it is a debatable motion. AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear! MR.

SPEAKER(Simms) : For the purpose of clarity, as far as the Chair is concerned, the way the motion was put, I consider it to be a dilatory motion .because the words -the proper way in moving the amend- ment such as deleting so and so was not done in this partiuclar case so whatever transpires following this particular matter is not a matter for the Chair to be concerned with at this time. I think for the sake of carrying on the traditions,as they have been in the past and I have one in front of me from Hansard, June 28th and may be the one that the hon. member is referring to.

I believe the hon. member for Trinity - Bay de Verde (F. Rowe) w~ involved on that particular one. But clearly a dilatory motion then was one that was just roved and seconded without the proper words being used as when proposing an amendment. so, I propose to deal with this particular matter as a dilatory motion whi:Ch is not debatable and then whatever happens after that would be up to the hon • llll!lllbers • MR.~: .) Well ·, if it is not debatable, Your Honor put it to the vote. MR. SPEAKER: Right. MR. :ROBERl'S : No, if it is not debatable put it to the vote then you carry on. MR. NEAR:!: That is right. MR.

SPEAICER: Well, I wish to put the question - MR. E. ROBERTS: Put the dilatory motion to the vote . MR. SPEAKER: Yes. The motion is that this Bill he 4718

~ -- --·-- ... May 26, 1980 Tape No. 1802 EL - J MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : not now read a third time but that it be read this day six months hence. Those in favor of the motion, please say aye . SOME HON. MEMBEliS : Aye. MR. SPEAKER: Contrary, nay. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Nay. MR. SPEAKER: The motion is defeated. '!he hon. the member for LaPoile. MR. S. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move the following amendment. And I hope I get all the words in right this time, Sir. That all the words after'that'be deleted and substituted with the following. That is to satisfy the hen. gentleman. MR. W.

MARSHJtLL: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hen. the President of Council. MR. MARSHALL! I-nave t.o, · again, as I say, this is a matter of precedence to the House, refer Your Honor to May, Page 377, 1 A member who has already spoken on the main question is not p.nni tted to move either form ofdilatory motion; nor having moved a dilatory motion can he later speak to the main question if his mi:Jtion 1.s · nticratived. Similarly, a member who has Jl¥)ved a dilatory motion is not then entitled to move another in the course of the same d9ata: SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR.

MARSHALL: So, :I would S«'f to Your aonor, :I mean, this is a precedent that the hon. gentleman, you know, ~e hon. gentleman is no longer able to speak. M!:l • i;«;AXER: That certainly is quite correct. So the hon. member for LaPoile(S. Neary), of course, did not finish what he was about to say so :I will have to wait and see what ne \s go.ing to say first. 4719

Ll May 26, 1980 Tape No. 1802 EL - 4 MR. S. NEARY ; Mr. Speaker, I am moving an amendment, Mr. Speaker, that all the words after 'that' be deleted and su:bst.itat;ed with the following; 'That this Bill be not now read a thi%d ti111e but that it be read this day five lllQnths hence! AN HON. MEMBER: oh, oh. MR. SPEAKER (Simms .): I guess the question here is whether or not the· hon. member for LaPoile (S. Neary) is able to lllQVe the motion, in view of the fact that her h_as already moved a dilatoEY DID"toion. You cannot - is that the subject matter of t!ie President of the Council's (Jf. Marshall) interruption? MR. NEARY: Your Hono~ 4720

May 26, 1980, Tape 1803, Page 1 -- apb MR. SPEAKER(Simms): Nell, I am sorry, I do not have May in front of me so I will have to - MR. ROBERTS: (inaudible), Your Honour. I am sure where we are. MR. SPEAKER: The han. the member for the Strait of Belle Isle. MR. ROBERTS: The question appears to be whether my friend from LaPoile having moved, as Your Honour ruled, a dilatory motion, and Your Honour accepted that, or put it whether that exhausts his right to speak in this debate or, even if it does not exhaust his right to speak, whether it exhausts his right to move motions. My han. and Learned friend from St.

John's East (Mr. Marshall) referred to a citation on 151, I believe, of Beauchesne which I do have in front of me, or I will have in a second and he also referred to May and I do not have May here with me. I know I have one in my office. But the question really is, and Your Honour can solve it, it is surely not a point that requires any argument. If Your Honour has a ruling let us have it. Because I will say now that if my han. friend - you know, if the rules do not permit him then I will move the six month hoist. But we are going to have a six month hoist.

I do not believe debate ought to be restxicted but I do believe debate ought to go by the rules. And I will say that if my friend from LaPoile (Mr. Neary) wants to s1::. 'y something in this debate I will certainly do what I can to make it possible for him to say it and let us let it go at that. But Your Honour will have to interpret the rules of the House. MR. SPEAKER: The han. the President of the Council. -------- ·- .. 4721

May 26, 1980, Tape 1803, Page 2 -- apb Mr. Speaker, if I could MR. MARSIJALL: just indicate I mean, what the hon. the member wishes to do after is, of course, certainly within the rules, it is his prerogative but we are talking about,now, parliamentary procedure and precedents being established and I refer again, which it crystal clear, to May, Page 377, 'A member who has already spoken to the main question is not _permitted to move either form of dilatory motion (b); nor, having moved a dilatory motion can he later speak to the main question if his motion is negatived.' So having, Mr.

Speaker, obviously had his - the hon. member, having his dilatory motion negatived, he cannot now speak to propose an amendment. It is quite obvious. And it goes on, because it flows from that. it says, 'Similarly a member who has moved a dilatory motion is not then entitled to move another in the course of the same debate'·. So that is it. MR. SPEAKER(Simms): With respect to the point of order. I think it is clear and I do not think it is necessary for me to repeat what the hon. the President of the Council (Mr.

Marshall) has just repeated, but May, Page 377, clearly states that a member who has already spoken to the main·question and has moved a dilatory motion, he cannot speak later to the main - - question if bia •otion was negatived. Is the House ready for the question. MR. ROBERTS: No, Your Honour. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for the Strait of Belle Isle. MR. ROBERrS : Mr. Speaker, I shall say a word or two in this debate and I will not take the time the rules allow. I could get an hour I believe under the rules, half an hour or twenty-nine minutes 4722

May 26, 1980, Tape 1803, Page 3 -- apb MR. ROBERTS: and then move the amendment which I shall shortly move but I will not. I simply want to say that I believe my friend from LaPoile certainly has a right to say what he wishes to say and I think he ought to be heard according to the rules of the House, and I have no quarrel with the rulings at all, the rulings are the rulings. So I will simply say that I move the following amendment to the question now before the Chair.

And just so we are clear the question before the Chair I would submit, Your Honour, is that this bill be now read a third time and I would move that that motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word 'that' - and I have it in writing here - and replacing them with the following words, 'the bill be not now read a third time but that it be read a third time this day five months hence'. And the amended motion, if it were to carry, Your Honour, so that we are all clear, the motion be that this bill be not now read a third time but that it be read a third time this day five months hence.

And that, of course, is not a dilatory motion, it is a motion of substance that is quite in order and I am seconded by my friend from Trinity - Bay de Verde (Mr. F.B.Rowe) who has not as yet spoken in this third reading debate. He may or may not be tempted to speak as a result of what has gone on in the debate so far. Now, I do not intend to say anything more. M~t f:. 1io:::ud from LaPoile, certainly in my view, has something he wants to say and in my view he has a right to say it subject to the rules of House and so I move the six month. hoist in the hope that - MR. HISCOCK: Five month. MR.

ROBERTS: Five month hoist, I am sorry. I also want to say that I would hope he will 4723

r-tay 26, 1980, Tape 1805, Page 4 - apb MR .. ROBERTS: talk about - he can give all his reasons now for trying to per~uade the House not to go along with this bill. Certainly, suggesting an alternate desig.n is a gOOd reason for not going ahead with it, in my opinion. MR. NEARY: The member for Eagle River. MR· RO:SERTS: Oh, and the member for E'agle River, I am f!orry. What is - MR. F.B.ROWE: I have already spoken on the main question. MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry my friend 4724

May 26,1980 Tape No. 1804 AH-1 MR. ROBERTS: from Trinity-Bay De Verde (Mr.F.Rowe) . But I will tell you what, after we dispose of the five month hoist then we could have a four month, three month or two month and we can go on like that if we so wish. MR. NEARY: Right on. MR.ROBERTS: But I do not think we have any desire to filibuster the bill. We have used up half an hour on points of order that are important but I suggest, Sir, are not as important as allowing members to say what they wish and getting ahead with the business of the House, Sir. But anyway I wi~l move it and see what happens. MR.

SPEAKER (Simms): MR. MARSHALL: The hon. President of the Council. I am not quite sure myself as to whether- well,I do not believe really technical speaking that that particular amendment is admissable because of the fact that the matter has already been determined in third reading.

Now I know the hon. gentleman has changed from six to five but,you ~~ow 1 the operative part really of the amendment is that the bill not be read now but sometime really in the future and the detail of the motion if five months rather than six months so you could have the thing really reduced to an absurdity.Ifthis one were defeated there could be,you know,four months, three months, two months, thirty days,twenty-nine days and so on, forever and a day. I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that that would not be admissable.

I quote you Beauchesne, Mr. ·speaker, on this, page 154, the Fifth Edition, paragraph 432, "An amendment which is substantially the same as one moved''-in that case it says pn the Address in Reply to the · Speech from the Throne - "is not in order because an amendnlent must not raise a question substantially identical " Substantially now you note, identical with one on which the House has given a decision in the same session.

Now, if you are not allowed to i:aise an amendment substantially identical with one raised in the same session in another debate, it is surely not permissable to raise an amendment within this very debate now which is substantial~y the same. Howeve~ having said that, Mr. Speaker, having said all that 1 because I would wish this recorded from the point of view that we would not want in two 4725

May 26,1980 Tape No. 1804 AH-2 Mr .MARSHALL: years, five years, ten years, twenty years or forty years or however long we may be in government 1 this raised against us in the future~ I would like to say that if we go ahead with this I would be prepared to say that we will not proceed with this point of order at the present time and allow the debate to go ahead as long as it is not creating a precedent which will bind us in the administration of the affairs of this Province over the next half century? MR. ROBERTS: MR. SPEAKER {Simms): for the Strait of Belle Isle. MR. ROBERTS: To the point of order, Sir.

To the point of ~rder. The hon.member We do not intend to debate things by right of grace and favour from any of our friends opposite. we will debate the things allowed us by the rules of the House. I would submit that the motion is in order. My hen. friend referred to Beauchesne, page 154 and he read it. That obviously deals with a question of substance. Now the procedural one-I'would refer Your Honour to a citation overlooked by my hon. friend in his wish to show us his magnanimity and that is page 239 of Beauchesne, 802 (

l) which deals specifically with third reading stage. I shall read number one.

I read it earlier, "When an Order of the Day for the third reading of a bill is called," and Your Honour will agree we are now in that situation, "the same type of amendments ·which are permissible at the second reading stage are permissible at the third reading stage with the restriction that they cannot deal with any matter which is not contained in the bill." There is no doubt that the six month hoist is permissible at third reading and I would say to Your Honour there is no principle of parliamentary law and there is no precedent of this or any other House which says you cannot move a six month hoist at second reading and a six month hoist again at third reading.

So I would suggest it is in order to do so and that is why I have done so. MR. MARSHALL: Further to the point of order. 4726 - - ~ -- - - ·--- ·· ------

·•.:"' ~lay 26,1980 Tape No. 19 04 . Ali -3 MR.SPEAK;ER (Sixmll,s): Further to the point of o:t:\ier. Yes, I would gladly accept any contributions to the debate. ~he hon. President of the council. MR. MARSIJALL: Because it is an important point, Mr. Speaker- rou know the way the hon. gentleman phrased it they do not want to speak on the basis of the so-cal.led magnanimity on this Bouse no matter how large the magnanimity is day after day. If the hon. gentlemen wiSh to go strictl.y by the · rules that is one t:hii!,g out we say we leave it open on that basis.

However, I do not for one moment dispute what the hen. ge!ltleman read on the correct reading, obviously, of Beauchesne on third reading, that when thii:d .reading of a bill is called the sa.me t~e of amendment-certainly we are not saying, Mr. Speaker, that it is not permiss .ible to have a hoist, a six mo.nth hoist is what it is called on tlti.rd rea.ding the same way as in second reading but what the hon. me:lllberwas not ;aking into his calculations, his compu.tation:s and his arguments when he made his presentation j~t immediately ago is the 4727 ~;:..

May 26, 1980 Tape 1805 EC - 1 MR. W. MARSHALL: fact that there has preceded here a dilatory motion. A dilatory motion has been voted on, it has been reqative6 1 it is in the same debate as we are in now, and what the hon. gentleman is now proposing is an amendment which is substantially the same - and I underline the word 'substantially' the same, as I read from the other quotation in Beaucheane on paqe 151 - there is no naed for - to go through that again - and that bei~1g so, is out of order.

However, as far as the government is conc:erned, it is perfectly prepared, if the hon. gentleman wishes to speak to it, to allow it. MR. E. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, HR. SPEAD:R (Si-): Further to the point of order, the hon. the member for the Strait of Belle Isle. MR. E. ROBERTS: I shall deal, Your Honour, only with the points raised moat recently by my friend from st. John's East (Mr. w. Marshall) that require any response, which are very few, only one or tvo in my .view.

First of all, there is nothing in the rules that says that a dilatory 11110tion, having been moved in a debate, there can not th.n be a substanti v. motion, an a~~~ndlllent IIIIOVed by some other aember, and that is the situation which we have here. There cannot be another dilatory 11110tion until. some substantive proceeding has intarposed its~. You cannot have a series of dilatory 11110tions. But that is not so hare - we have had one, 11110re by: qood luck than qciOd manag-ent, I would SUCJ98St, and now we have a substantive u.ndmlnt.

And there is ~mthing in the. rul_, nothing in precedent, nothing in practice that says if you have a siz month hoist at ae.cond reading you canDCt equally have a six 11110nth hoist at third reading. We have chcsen not to have a six month hoist because - reali..ze the government are not prepared to go for siz 11110nths. We hope tlwy will. go. for u- months, Sir, and that is why we have phrased the u.ndmant the way we have. MR. SPEAKER.: I would thank hon. members for their contribution to the !iebate on the point of order. I am not quite sure if 4728

May 26, 1980 'l'ape 1805 EC - 2 MR. SPEAKER (Simms): the hon. the President of the Council (Mr. w. Marshall) withdrew the point of order or pursued it or not, but in any event, I guess it is the Chair's responsibility to make a ruling on whether or not the amandmen t is in order. Having heard all the debate , may I just point out for the be.ilefit of hon.

IIHIIIIbers prior to the ruling I am about to give that in the same context that I discussed earlier in ruling on the dilatory 1110tion, I referred to Hanaard, June 28, 1978, and I make the same reference now to Hansard, June 28, 1978 where the dilatory 1110tion vas put, albeit on second readinq - no, and it was defeated. 'l'he same situation here, and later on the amendment and the hoist was also put, so there was a substantive matter - so there is a precedent on. second readinq. So havinq considered all the debate and discussion, I would have to rule that the amendment is in order.

The hon. the member for LaPoile. SOME RON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear! MR. S. NEARY : Mr. Speaker. MR~ SPEAKER: 'l'he hen. the member for LaPoile. MR. s. NEAR! : Mr. Speaker, this is typical of the attitude of the government ever since this flag debate started. It just qoes to prove how arroqant this administration has be=-a in a very short time and the contempt that they have for the people, and the contempt they have for this House. 1ih&t the han. qentleman was tryinq to do was to muzzle any further debate. He was tryinq to 11111zzle mambers of the House who are opposed to this flaq design.

That is what the hon. gentleman was up to. · Now, Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend, the Opposition House Leader (Mr. E. Roberts) has made an amendment and I thank the hon. qentleman for it. It is an indication - it is almoat, cominq events cast their shadows before them. Ron. members should now see what a qreat team my hon. friend, the Opposition House Leader and myself will make between now and the end of October when certain events are qoing to talte place in this Province. we are qoinq to make a wonderful taaJII, the hon. the Opposition House Leader and myself, and I thank him. 4729 - ---;-

May 26, 1980 Tape 1805 EC - 3 MR. s. NEAla': I will tell you the significance, Mr. Spe&lter, of this amendment. The significance of it was that you had a number of members on this side of the House clamgurinq to second the amendment, including, Mr. Speaker - just listen to this. If I could qet Your Honour's attention for a moment. MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : I can hear the hon. member. MR. S. ~~ If the hon. malllber wants to protest Your Honour's rul.inq there is a procedure and I would suqqest he not interrupt the business of the House. MR. SPElllCER: I would ask the hon. member to carry on.

I can assure you I am listeninq with qreat {inaudible) • MR. S • NEARY: I am pointing out to Your Honour that among those who wanted to second that motion was none other than my han. friend from Eagle River {Mr. E. Hiscock) a member of the Flaq caa.ittee. MR. G. WARREN: On the Comlllittee too, yes. MR. S. NEARlC : That is the second 1118111ber of the Fla9 Coaai.ttee. 'lbe first lllelllber to support such an amndlllent was the member for Grand Bmk {Mr. I.. 'lboms).

And now the 1118111ber for EaC]le Riwr wanted to 'MGOIIAl the motion, wb.ich is an i.Ddication to m.e at leaat that the han. gentleman feels that the C]Overnment are hcldlinq thia whole situation of the flaq very poorly 1 in an unconstitutional. IIIIU1JI8r, in a non~cratic 4730 ·-- ------- --

May 26, 1980 Tape No. 1806 NM- 1 MR. NEARY: manner, and are being arrogant about it and have nothing but contempt for the people, and I would think my hon. friend is concerned and worried about the way that the government has handled this particular bill in the House. MR. HISCOCK: Yes. MR. NEARY: Right on. My hon. friend says yes. That is two members of the Committee.

Now,where is the hon. the Premier he is not in his seat to hear this because the hon. gentleman the other day got up and twisted and distorted the fact that, "All members of the House," he said, "all members of the House went along with this, and all members of the House agreed to set up a Select Committee. And all members of the House were agreeable to accept the report of the Select Committee, when in actual fact, Mr. Speaker, that was deceit of the lowest order. What the Committee said, Mr. MR. MARSHALL: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Butt) : A point of order, the hon. President of the Council.

MR. MARSHALL: The words used by the hon. member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) were 'That was deceit of the lowest order'. I would submit to Your Honour that to say that somebody has deceived the House is an unparliamentary expression. 'Deceit of the lowest order'would be even a more restricted and a worse type of expression. "Deceive", page 106 of Beauchesne, to say "deceive", or "deliberately deceived", or I say "deliberately deceived," but certainly 'deceit of the lowest order' is not the. type of - is certainly unparliamentary and should be retracted rithout any further debate. MR. THOMS: To that point of order, Mr.

Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the hon. member for Grand Bank. MR. THOMS: · Yes, Mr. Speaker, to that point of o.rder, I think probably, although what my hon. friend from LaPoile (Mr. Nearyl said was absolutely true,it , is unparliamentary and should be withdrawn 4731

May 26, 1980. Tape No. 1806 NM- 2 MR. SPEAKER (Butt): I would ask the hon. member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary), to withdraw the word "deceived". MR. MARSHALL: MR. SPEAKER: MR. MARSHALL: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yes. The hon. member for Grand Bank when he got to his feet and was talking on the point of order said, and I quote, "what the hon. member for LaPoile said,w:hile it was probably true, it should have been withdrawn. " His using the words., "while it was probably true," he was adopting these words to himself, he is therefore deemed to have said that the hon.

Premier has deceived the House in the lowest possible way and he should retract. SOME HON. MEMBERS: MR. THOMS: MR. SPEAKER: Grand Bank. MR. THOMS: Hear, hear! To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. To the point of order, the hon. member for Mr. Speaker, I withdraw if -well, I would withdraw it anyway, parliamentary or unparliamentary. And in doing so 1 of course, state that I certainly cannot be blamed for what I am thinking. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I would ask the hon. member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) to withdraw the word deceive. MR. NEARY: up first r withdrew and AN HON. MEMBER: MR.

NEARY: Yes, I withdraw Your Honour. I did when I got (Inaudible). Your Honour did not hear me because of the interruptions from the Government House Leader, who obviously does not want to hear any further debate on this flag. They have taken su·ch a scalding on this, Mr. Speaker, they have gotten their fingers burned so badly, and they have got such a crucifixion from the ordinary people of this Province they do not want to hear anything else about it. It is - . now becoming a bit of a nuisance to them.., Well, I do not care, Mr. Speaker, 4732 ··--·- ~ .. ------

May 26, 1980 Tape No. 1806 GR-3 MR. NEARY: how much of a bother it is to the hen. gentlemen, they are going to have to listen to further debate. We are making one last-ditched attempt. Mr. Speaker, we said in the beginning we had no intention of filibustering. We said in the beginning that the government had every right, and they call the order of business in this House, they have every right to debate and discuss whatever they want to discuss.

The fact of the matter is that they have forced the House to debate the flag, and the reason they forced the House to debate this flag is to distract from all the major problems facing the ordinary people of t~~s Province. It is the government that calls the order of business. The Opposition has no control over what is debated in this House except on Private Members' Day which is Wednesday. MR. THOMS: MR. NEARY: They cannot even bring in a roads program.

The government, if they wanted to, could have been discussing roads; they could have been discussing social assistance, unemployment, industrial development, cost of electricity, cost of living, offshore resources, any of these items. They could have been debating them in this House for the last two and a half or three weeks, but the government put the flag as the number one priority. It is the government that did that, Mr. Speaker, the government calls the order of business in this House, . and that is their number one priority.

In the process of wanting that debated, instead of bringing democracy to Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, they have behaved just as if you were living behind the Iron Curtain, as if you were living in Russia. In Russia you would not see this happen. It is the same tactic, it is the same strategy, it is the same type of thing you see going 4733

May 26, 1980 Tape No. 1807 so - 1 MR. S • NEARY: en in the Kremlin in Moscow, exactly the same thing, ... -hen here you have 95 or 99 per cent of the people saying, 'We do not like that design,' ud you have got the Hitlerites and you ha'VI! got the 'EIIIperor Brian' over there and his kliights saying to the people, 'You will take this design as we like it, I like it~ 'EIIIperor Brian' likes it so the people have to accept it. l\nd that, Mr. Speaker, is the same sort of thing that goes on behind the iron curtain. l\nd it will not be t:oo long now, Mr.

Speaker, when they wil.l be out in front of Confederation Buil.ding have a l.ittl.e bit of a ceremony and the emperor and his knights wil.l be standing around the flaCJPOle - MR. SPEAKER (Butt) : Order, pl.ease! Order, please! I would ask the hon. ll'll!lllher to refer to other hon. members of the House either by their district or the office that they represent. MR. S. NEARY: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not know who I alii referring to but the emperor and his knights wil.l be standing around the flagpole and in this case, Your Honour can use his own imagination of who the emperor is. AN RON. MEMBER: That is right.

MR. S. NEARY: Standing around the flac;pol.e with the spazltlers, the flashl.ights and they will. be hauling up this flag that has the roc:Jcet on it, the dart on it or the arrow or whatever you want to call. it and they will. say, 'There it is now, that is goinq to fly over Newfoundland." Well., Mr. Speaker, that is sad, very, very sad indeed because nobody but nobody in this Province apart from a handful. of people want that desiqn. aDd yet the go-znment is going -----, to force it on the people , ud r would submit to Your Honour that in due course, I do not know how long it wil.l take, but in due course, Mr.

Speaker, that Bil.l will be repealed in this House. l\nd ff the govemment has the gall, if they are brazen enough and they have proven over the last three or four weeks that they have the face of a robber's horse, if they are brazen enough to haul it up, it will be hauled down at the earliest opportunity I can guarantee members that. ~734

May 26, 1980 Tape No. 1807 SD - 2 MR. S • NEARY: One of the iss•.1es that I will qo to my constituents on in the next election will be to qet somethinq in the provincial flaq that you can relate to Newfoundland. You know, Mr. Speaker, I believe if that rocket, that arrow and these trianqles had been taken off of that and substituted with something else you might have been able to sell it. If we had, for instance, somethinq like members found on their desks today in this hon. House which was a beautiful design and it is not the first time that the Premier of this Province saw that MR. W.

Ml<RSHALL: I want ·to rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: (Butt) A point of order, the hon. the President of the CounciL MR. W. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the hon. geatleman is now raising again a matter on an amendment that he is speakinq to which in the main motion the Speaker indicated he was out of osder in raisinq. Now, the fact of the matter is and I do not need to refer to May again, the fact of the matter is the debate on third :reading is restricted from that in second reading, you have to confine yourself to the contents of the bill itself.

The hon. qenUeman, when he is gettillq up and wavinq, you know, other designs and talking about other designs is not talking about the contents of the bill itself and consequenUy is out of order as was determined by the Speaker when the Speaker was in the <hair. MR. S. NEARY: Mr. Speaker 7 to tha.t point of Ol:du:. MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, the hon. member· for LaPoile. MR. S. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, that is not correct what the Govemment House Leader (Mr. W. Marshall) just said in raisinq -- -, his point of order. It is not a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Tha ·lwhole idea of moving the five month hoist is to allow people to think about other designs. That was the whole purpose of it. And my hon. friend can not muzzle debate in this House under the disquise of a point of order or, a so-cal.led po:lnt of! ordu. '· 4735 ---- ·-- - -···- --- ---- --;--:-~-

May 26, 1980 Tape No. 1807 SD - 3 MR. E • roBERTS : To the point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Butt): To the point of order, the hon. the member for I.aPoile. I am sorry, the Strait of Belle Isle. MR. E. roBERTS : My heavens, we may be cheek to cheek, etc. but it has not gone that far, Mr. Speaker, yet. I think carter and Moudale boy got nothing on this.If only we could figure out who is Carter and who is Mondale,yes. MR. S • NEARY : Who is who. We will sort that out - -- ·-- MR. E. liOBERTS: Mr. Speaker, it is out of order - we will sort it out a number of timas,sometimes one way, sometimes another. Mr.

Speaker, it is obviously out of order at third :r:eading to debate the design.

It is equalJ,y obviously in order in giving your reasons u favour Of votizl9 for a five 110nth hoi;,t whicl! is the amendaent~ · We are not dabat{Dq the third reading now, Your Honour, we are debating a five month hoist, ' the amendment, which Your Honour accepted and has put ar..d we are debating it.ADcl su:r:ely i~ is in ozder, in giving one's reasons to advance any reason that one can think of subje~ to the laws o·f · decency and so forth, that a member of the House lila¥ say r 'All right, that is a good one, you know, I will buy that one, I will vote for this.' And all my hon. friend is saying as I heard him is he is not trying to emend the principle of the bill, he is trying to say, here is a reason why a group of level- minded, open-minded, honest, imparti~ , dedicated citizens of this P=vince, 4736 --- -~------...--- -----~--- · ---- . __ __,.._ ---:--~---

May 26, 1980 Tape No. 1808 EL - 1 MR. E. ROBERTS: being the members of this House,might want to consider. And I think it is quite in order for him to put forth not an alternate design but to put forth other designs and say, 'Now, maybe you want to think about it some more and have a look at this one as a for example. So I think it is in order for him to carrY on as he is, Sir. MR.

SPEAKER (Butt) : To the point of order, I would rule that there is a legitimate point of order here and I would ask the hon. member to not make comparisons with another design which found its way into the House this evening in the way of a letter to all hon. members. It was previouslv ruled b• the Speaker that other - MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, we are on a different motion. MR. SPEAKER (Butt) : Order, please! Order, please! I would rule that there is a legitimate point of order and I would ask the hon. J1!!8111eber to confine his remarks to the amendment of the five month hoist. '1'he bon. member for LaPoile. MR.

NEAU: Mr. Speaker, the reason we are asking for the five 1110nth hoist 1 md I do not like that terlll'as:I said the other day, six month hoist, five IIIDilth hoist, it is just a name but it is a name that I do not like. There should be a better term that we could use.

Actually, what we are asking for is the governD8nt to give the people five months, to give the people five months to say whether or not as the government have inciicated, the Premier inciicated, this flag will grow on you like a wart or like an ingrown toenail or like a p~le on the back of your neck that develops into a boil, will. grow on you. 'l'he government are telling ua that this flag will qrow on you. Well, that is what we want to find out - will it grow on you! We have had about two and a half to three weeks of debate in this House on the flag and it has not grown on anybody yet.

As a matter of fact, the nag Collllllittee have now lost two 4737

• Hay 26, 1980 Tape No. 1808 EL - 2 MR. S. NEARY: members 1the member for Grand Bank (L. Thoms) and the member for Eagle River (E. Hiscock), who say- and thare is orobablv more coming. MR •. STIRLING: they have been abusing. MR NEARY: They have been abusing ~~e committee, They have been, that is right~Because of the abuse of the Committee by the government who have tried to manipulate the Committee, abuse theCommi ttee, two members now say/_Yes, let us have a little more time to study it.' And that is what we are asking ·the govern• ment for. MR. STIRLING: And a free vote(inaudible). MR.

NEl'..RY: And over the weekend and today the Premier's argument that all the organizations in Newfoundland Chat would have kicked up a fuss before are now silent. That argument has been exploded because all the same organizations are violent towards this disign and if the hon. gentleman thinks otherwise he is deluding himself/ he is living in a fool's paradise. Mr. Speaker, I do not know what else I can say. I have used up my vocabulary to try to persuade the government to come to their senses 1.to . try to persuade the government not to use the Russian tactics, the strategy they use behind the Iron Curtain.

I have tried every way that I know. I have used every parliamentary maneuver, every parliamentary means at my disposal to try to slow down the proqress of th8 Bill in the House. The government wanted to cut off the debate ten days ago. Th_. times, I believe it was, the Minister of Tourism (R. Dave) who introduced this Bill stood in his place three times to try to s}tut off the debate. MR. WARREN: (Inaudible) they can do. MR. NEARY: And then the Premier told us that on · one occasion that he was away to a funeral and that is why he could not speak. Well, he was here.

The bon. gentleman was here in this House for 4738 • ---

May 26, 1980 Tape No. 1808 EL - 3 MR.~: lllOSt of the debate, and did nc)t elect to speak before the Mini'!!~r of Tourism(a. Dawe) got up to cl.ose the debate. The fact of the matter is that all those who are veey close to the hen. gentleman, veey close , as close as you can get have told the hen .. gentleman 1 they sa,ici'!.ook, we do not eare abPut a fl~ but we · are very concerned about the way you are hatldliniJ this in the Bouse. 1 That was told to 1118 :by people who haVe ll!ade the hen. qentleman, made him what he is today.

They have told hi111 to h:i.s face and they reported to me that we were right 1 the p~_ple are right and they should be concerned about the way they have handled this flag iss~e in tha .House 1 lind 4739 -.«.~

May 26, 1980 Tape 1809 EC- l MR. S. NEARY: the arroqance and the contempt for the people.. And they have been told, Hr. Speaker, and they should be men enough to admit that they are wronq. They should have the couraqe to admit their mistakes. They should be biq enouqh and men enouqh to get up and say, 'Yes, we are wrong in foisting t.~s B)nstrosity on the people of this Province in such a short time. we are wronq. We want to recoqnize Labrador. !We want some recognition of the native people in that flag that - do not have.

We want LaDrador represented in that flag which we de not have. 1 And the triangles do not represent the IslalOd and LaDrador, the triangles show, if anything, that they are separating - they are going off this way. And you have that rocket in between. I had a letter today fro• an outstandinq Newfoundlander. I cannot read it. I wish I could. MR. STIRLING: Why can you not read it? MR. S • NEARY: Well, because it is a little bit obscene the. way they des=ille this, Hr. Speaker.

It is like somebody takinq a bath, stooped over washinq his feet - like ~ man taking a bath, that is what I was told 1, use your i.laacJination - beD.t over washing his fett. SOME Rc:fi. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. S. NEARY: Loolt. I think. it is a. very poor way, Hr. Speaker, to start off a flag. 'lha Colaittee laid dQwn - quidelines for th_.elws. They said the flaq h&d to be. distinctive, it had to represent N-foundland and it had to be this and it had to be that, but the IIDSt important ~e that they. laid clown for theaaelvu was the fact that it had to be acceptable to the JM.joritv of people of this Province.

And now, two members of the eo-ittee have parted CCIIIIp&Jly bec:a.uae of the way the go'Nrn.ant have abused - especially the Premier - have abUIIed that rule, that: ~daline that they laid down for th_.lvu. It ia not acceptable to the people. MR. STIRLING: 'ftley have abused the eo-ittee. !fit· s. NEARY: And they have abused the CCIIIIIIIittee in the process. If they went to qat good faith in this House, they are certainly qoing about it, Hr. speaker, in the wrong way. will they ever get a 4740 -- -- ·--- - ---- ·---,.-------~

May 26, 1980 Tape 1809 EC - 2 MR. S , NEARY: Select Committee again the way they abuse collllllittees in this House, the way they have abused this Flag Committee? Will they ever get co-operation again? Or do they want it? Or do they just want to set themaelves up as dictators, u they have in this case? ~· STIRLING: (Inaudible) • MR. S, NEAH: They are out to abuse everybody. They operate on confrontation - attack. Ottawa, attack this one, attack that one.

And the other day the Premier attacked All the orqa.nizations thatordinarily would kick llP their heals ten years aqo, he said, are now silent, and that should be significant. And yet today in front of us we have a letter. And the hon. gentleman had that in his possession, plus a number of other documents, Mr. Speaker. 'lhe hon. the Premier should table all the petitions, telezes and letters that he has. received and then his little arqumen.t would explode and blow right up in his face. Because I happen to know where so- of these caJM frCIIl. MR. W. MARSHALL: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER (Butt) : A point of order, the hon. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: _ A_ga;in, MJ::, _S_peak.,er, it is obvious the hon. gentleman is wandering, very, very far··off - -=-.::: ,-: ... ·· • --·- ---- this bill even if one were able to debate it with the latitude as in second re.dinq • But he is now obviously into areas that have no :r:el.ellrancy vhataoe~ and certa.inl.y they are not competent to be brought up in third reading. MR. L. S'l'l:RLING: Mr. Speaker, to the point of order. MR. SPBADR: To the point of order, the boD. the 18111ber for Bonavista. North. MR. L. STDU.INGa The amendaent, Mr.

Spealc.er, is to delay for fillr& months. One of the things that my colleaque was asking the Premier to do - because the Premier in the debate eulier indicated on a ~ specific iZaa that there was no protest. We have now seen evidence of the protest, and my colleaque was simply saying to the Premier, 'Will you table All the docwMnta that you have received, all the teleses, so 4741

"" Ma y 26, 1980 Tape 180 9 EC - 3 MR . L. STilU.ING: tbat this Rouse on a free vote - because this is a free vote - this Souse will be in a position to knov wheth er or not it is worthwhil e to extend t.hi.s for five months? It should be completely in orde .r. 4742 --- - ·---·--- -.. --·-- ----- ... --·--..-- -- -- ---

_, M~y 26, 1980 Tape No. 1810 ow - 1 MR. SPEAKER (Butt): Order, please! Once again there is a legitimate point of order. The hon. member is straying well over the bounds of this amendment and I would ask him to confine his remarks to the amendment. The hon. member for LaPoile. MR. S. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons we are asking for this five month delay in reading this bill a third time is to give the hon. the Premier an opportunity table all the documentation in this Rouse that he has re- ceived since this debate started. Now that is a fair and reasonable request, Mr. Speaker.

And if the hon. gentleman had any cour~ge, if he was the man he says he is he would have no hesitation to bring it in because, Mr. Speaker, he can it in in bag fulls, fill up the table of this House! And yet the hon. qentleman gets up and tries to - I would not say deliberately - but tries to mislead the House including his colleaguas .. because his colleagues are not aware of the representation that has been made to the hon. gentleman. And he made this statement, Mr. Speaker, that those organi- zations who ordin~rily would be kicking up a fuss are nov silent when the hon. gentleman knows the difference.

And we have evidence of that before us today in the letter that was lai~ on each member•s desk that I am not allowed refer to. I wish I could. MR. G. WARREN: You can read the first para- qraph. MR, S. NEARY ,.: No, r am not evenrgo~ng to bother to read.._ the first paragraph.. Because, Mr. Speaker, we nav• been at this debate now a lonq time. It has been a hard, hard fought debate. It has been a good debate. That is what the House is for. We are a debating forum and once you 4743 ~--- -- -~ -- - - --- . ---- ----- --- ------- ----. ·---- --

May 26, 1980 Tape No. 1810 DW - 2 MR. S. NEARY: stop debating in this House and protecting the Public Treasury then you may as well shut . the House down. But in the process of debate, Mr. Speaker, points are made, valid points are made, sometimes foolish points are made. Valid points are made, that is what debate is all about, back and forth across the House, and when valid points are made, Mr . Speaker, pe~ple in high places, people in authority should take note, should recognize these valid points.

And I think we have made a prima facie case in this House for the Premier of this Province to sit up and take notice. Two members of his own side have refused "to vote for this design, two mem­ bers of the committee are now refusing to go along with the way the government handled this whole affair. It never happened in the House before, Mr. Speaker. And the message does not seem to have filtered through to the bon. gentleman that the greatest majority, 95 to 99 per cent of the people of this Province, are opposed to that design.

And the hon. gentleman sits there day in and day out listening to these protests and these objections, he sits back and in his cocky way, cocky attitude that he has developed - MR. L. THOMS: Arrogant. MR. S. NEARY: - arrogant, contempt for the people, has cockiness and his cockiness is catching up with him I can tell the hon. gentleman.that, in his cocky way he is saying to the people, 'Look, I like this design and because I like it you take it.

And if you do not like it you can lump it.' That is what the hon. gentleman is saying in his mind. 'I like it, the Emperor and his knights like it so,therefore,Newfoundlanders and Labradorians you have to like it', And his reasons again, if r may repeat, are that all these organizations are now silent. And one of thea surfaced over the weekend, surfaced today. 4744

... May 26 , 1980 T_ape No . 1810 ow - 3 MR. S. NEARY : And if we had another five lllonths the hon. qentle!llan would find out how silent they are. He would qet that rocket that is on that flag, he would get that dart ~±qht in the~place where he least ezpects it. And I aa not allowed to say where he would CJ&t it in this House, Mr. Speaker, because that would be UDparliamentary. But that dart, that rocket or t.he spear, whatever h·e wants to call it on that flaq, will come ltack to haunt him.

That dart is qoinCJ to be tu .rned around and the hon. qentl .eman will qet the dart in due course for not listening to the p.eople of this Province. The people are.1 always riqht, Mr. Speaker, the people aee never wronq . and they elect 4745 ---··---- .. ------- -----~----~-

May 26, 1980 Tape No. 1811 GH-1 MR. NEARY: governments to be their servants and not for the government to make servants out of the people, and that is what happened in this case. The people are always right and the people will win out in the end and democracy will win in the end, and I will end up by saying what I said the other day, Sir, God guard thee Newfoundland and God save the people of this Province. MR. SPEAKER: (Butt) Is the House ready for the question on the amendment? The hon. member for Eagle River. MR. HISCOCK: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak on this amendment.

I would also like to point out to particularly, probably, the media and also to this House that when the time came for the second vote I was not present in the House. A report recorded me as saying that I would support it. I would just like to say that I was in Montreal or Quebec at the time of the referendum, and I had given notice to the Chairman of the Committee that I would be away as well as members on this side so I was not away from the point of view that I wanted to abstain myself from voting. I would like to clarify that.

Well, on this motion and when I spoke on the second read·ing or spoke on the flag first, I pointed out certain things that I was rather concerned with, and that,basically,is that the flag would became a partisan flag. Also, that the flag would be used to tap, I would say, nationalism in Newfoundland, and I expressed that concern that, basically if we saw the flag going in a direction of a partisan flag and also using it from the 'point of view of nationalism, I saw a danger in that.

That danger is only being expounded and, in my own conscience, I feel that even more so, because I think it would be a terrible shame to this Province and to the people to turn around and try to divide our people on such a, basically, emotional issue. The final part of the Committee was widely accepted. There has been much criticism in this House and in the public by the way it has gone through. Same people have referred to it as arrogance, some people have referred to it as just ramming it down people's throats.

I, for one, on the Committee like the des-ign and I have no questions or no nesitation in saying that 4746 - ·-- - --- ---- ---~ -

May 26, 1980 Tape No. 1811 GH- 2 MR. HSICOCK: now and saying that in future, and I will accept the design whatever it may be. But I am concerned about now from the point of view of the widely accepted. If this is a suggestion of the five;nonth hoist and having the point of view of letting our people see if it grows on them and also letting various groups throughout the Province express their opinion and getting some sounding b.oard from it, because, basically, we have been around now for over 400 years and we are bringing into this Province now a flag that, hopefully, will fly for 400 or 500 or 600 years after.

Once it is done, I do not want to see that another term or another government or another government down the road eight, nine, ten, fifteen, four years from now or whatever, will, basically, feel that this flag is not representative of the people and we will have to change it. I do not want for us to turn around and divide our people on such a basic issue.

So, in that regard, I support the motion that we delay the final vote, the third reading, until five months from now from the point of view of getting various pressure groups throughout the Province to make their decision known to the government . and to the members. By that way, we will be able to vote from the point of view of knowing how the people of this Province feel. I, for one, would also like to say that I do not support the idea of a referendum. I do not support the idea of a referendum on this flag.

One of the things that our people criticized in this flag is nothing there to remind us of our British heritage, nothing to remind us about our heritage of Newfoundland and what has gone on in the past. I, for one, feel very, very strongly not so mud1 that we have the Union Jack incorporated but that we guard, and I' say guard, tlie principles of our democratic society and our British institution, and that is the question with regard to a referendum.

We are duly elected by the people of tlds Province and, therefore, as a result I do not think we have to go back to the Province,eaCh time we have an issue,on a referendum and say to the people that, okay, now it is your chance to decide in this and vote in the referendum. 4747

May 26, 1980 Tape No. 1811 GH-3 MR. HISCOCK: We are not an American institution, we are not American, we are British, and have Briti~ institutions, and, as a =esu1t, if anybody wants to make the decision known to members of this House we accept 4748

Hay 26, 1980 Tapa No. 1812 MB - l MR. E. HISCOCK: collect phone calls. We also buically end up -the way of mailing in this Province, we can get hold to eacll of the members. We also have our publl..c 0pe.n Line proqru.ea. We have Letters to the Editors. We basically have untold ways of having people express their opinions and r think any IIII!Diber in this House that does not listen to the people 's feelings and how they speak is remiss in his duty and that, basically, the idea of having a five month hoist is basically, I think, a vary sound one.

The idaa of <~. raferendUIII, no, I do not support it because,as I said, I do not think that in our British democratic society we cater to re­ ferendums. We ma.y cater to referendums in the sense of joining Canada or wanting to leave Canada.But Ottawa or the Government of Canada,did not have a referendUIII on capital punishment, did not have a referendUIII on the flag, and I also believe very, very stranql.y with regard to referendUIIIS of having people decide t-.he flag. People have suggested that we should have four or five flags go to the people and then vote on it.

That way I see the danger of a slllllll qroup of people approving one flag out of the five and this is approved then. for the whole Province. At least by having one flag sent into the BoWie and presented the people at least can get a clear indication whether they l.ike it or not. And for this reason I support the motion that is put before us that we have a hoist, if you want to call it, or a delay. I IIII1Cil prefer 1 aa the maber for LaPoile (Mr.

Neary) r do not like the word either. r do not like the idea. o~ saying a hoist or delaying tactic, :t IIIUCh prefer to say we have various issues before this Province and many issues that are presentinq themselves on roads, on educaticm 1 on health 1• on jobs 1 high 1DIUI(Iloylllent, These are the issues that I think we should be getting at in this Province nov. The flaq itself, people have said is a CUIOuflaqe issue that is distracting our · people fica the point of view of the realities of hiqh UDIIIIIployment 1 the lov construction seucm in this Province.

I. said that at the baqinninq when I accepted the position on that Committee as being treasurer that I was not fooling myself or eluding myself 1 or naive to think that this was a diversionary tactic 4749 -· -· --r--·----r----- •,..- ••-~- ,-•

;a._ May 26, 1980 Tape No. 1812 MB - 2 MR. E. HISCOCK: from these issues. But I also said that basically we do need a Provincial flaq and we have to make a decision now, or SCIDetime later, so it is just as well to make it now. But I also feel very,very stronqly that there is nothinq wronq with us puttinq this aside and lettinq it cool down and lettinq our people decide whether they like it or not.

And these qroups that basically have been silent because they do not want a head on conf~ontation issue, because they see too much of this cominq from the qoverNDSnt on various other areas , they do not want to see our people divided or faailies divided on this issue. Basically, they want a Provincial flaq, we all want a Provincial flaq but we want it done with courtesy, diqnity and inteqrity and respec:tinq the wishes of our psople. So for that reason, Mr. Speaker, I support the 1110tion, and I will reserve my vote on the third readinq. SOME liON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear. Ma.

SPEAICP:lh (S~) 'l'he han. member for Grand Bank. MR. ·x.. THOMS: Mr. Speaker, :r would ju.t like to have one 1110re ki.ek •at the cat ' on this particular bill that we are puttinq throuqb. the Boaae at the mo-nt aJld it is the last opportunity, it is the lut opportunity for members of this House to have anythinq to say about a Uaq that this Province is qoinq to have live with, that my eb.il.dran are qoinq to have to live with and, u I said, a fl&q that my children dialike, dislike intenaely. They disliked it from the 11101118Dt they say it.

ADd :t had an interutinq experiezu::e two weeltends aqo. :t . hK four billets from the Province of Quebec who were hare for the Annual Qu.bec-Atlantic Provinces SWim Meet. When we got in the car 4750 ~

May 26, 1980 Tape No. 1813 GR-1 MR.

THOMS: to drive to the Aquarena on Saturday morning those billets, two of whom could speak the English language and two of whom could not speak, they had no idea of my involvement with thi~ House or politics in this Province or the flag or anything else, J&'f boy picked up a print of this flag off the seat of the car and he passed it over to the young fellow from Quebec, who was eleven years old, and said to him, he said, "Jamie, what do you think of our new flag?" The young fellow from Quebec took the print from Mark and looked at it and looked at it, and then look2d at my son and said, "My God, it is ugly".

Now, that was his initial reaction, and I t.'l.ink it is certainly apparent, it is certainly apparent that public opinion in this Province thinks exactly the same thing about the flag. I must say my first reaction to the flag, and members of the Committee can vouch for this, was, and I said it, I said to the members of the Committee, I said, "I do not think we are going to be able to sell this flag". But since I have heard the debate in this House, since I talked to so many people in this Province, you know AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) •. chanqed your lllind. MR.

THOMS: - I guess , - yes, they have changed my mind. They have pointed out things about this flag that I really did not see into the flag. ·With all due respect to the arti~, with all due respect to the artist, Mr. Speaker, the flag does lend itself to obscenities. It really does lend itself to obscenities, and the thing that lends itself to the obscenities is - MR. NEARY: This arrow. MR. THOMS: -this yellow or golden arrow which is supposed to depict Newfoundland's future, and it does lend itself to obscenities. I have had people stop me on the street and say, "Do you realize what they are saying about the flag?

Do you realize what they are doinq to it?• And then they proceeded to tell me what people have been doing, and I: think one of the best comments about the arrow was made by· my friend from Torngat Mountains (Mr. Warrenl when he said our athletes 4751 ----- --- -- -· ----- -- ---~ - -----~------.,.----- ,- .

May 26, 1980 Tape No. 1813 GH-2 MR. THOMS: would be marching to the games with the arrow going backwards , you know, and over and over, over and over. I think that the people who talked to me -they have changed my mind, even those who say, even the people of this Province who say, "Well, we need a distinctive flag, .you ·know, I do not like · it, I do not like it, but if we do not get this we will not get any flag", and, "It will grow on you" , comments like this, but that is really this House abdicating its responsibilities. It is our responsibility, as members of this House, to give to the people of NewfoUndland a flag that they are going to