G,z~ <-I i~ & z__-.; y ~~ -~~ ...:._ ((~ Volume 4 PROVINCE OF NEWFOUNDLAND THIRTY-SIXTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEWFOUNDLAND 4th. Session VERBATIM REPORT TUESDAY, MAY 6, 1975 SPEAKER: THE HONOURABLE M. JAMES RUSSELL Number 46

May 6, 1975 The House met at 3:00 P.M. Mr. Speaker in the Chair. Tape No. 2054 NM - 1 MR, S!IAKER: Order, please: The honourable Minister of Mines and Energy. HON. L. BARRY, Minister of Mines and Energy: Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring to your attention two serious breaches of the privilege of this honourable House. When this honourable House had adjourned yesterday, Monday, May 5, and the Speaker had left the Chair, the honourable Member for St. George's assaulted the honourable Leader of the Opposition within the precincts of this honourable House.

The ass-lt occurred after the Leader of the Opposition continued the line of remarks which he was making prior to the House closing and specifically referred to the honourable Member for St. George's as a drunken sot, thereby insulting and libellin~ the honourable Member for St, George's and his conduct as a member of this honourable House. This oacurred in my presence and that of other honourable members. Accordingly, Mr, Speaker, it is with regret that I move that the honourable Member for St.

George's and the honourable Leader of the Opposition be suspended from this honourable House, each for two sitting days. MR, SPEAKER: Order, please: The honourable Minister of Mines and Energy has raised what the Chair considers to he a very serious matte;r. one of which no honourable member of this Legislature can feel proud. First of all the Chair certainly feels that the honourable Minister of Mines and Energy has established a prima facie case.

However, since two honourable members are involved, for the convenience of the Chair, each motion,if one wants to call it that, for the Chair's convenience will be dealt with separately, And first of all the motion to suspend the honourable Member for St. George's is debatable. The honourable Member for St, George's. MR, A. DUNPHY: Mr. Speaker, if I may. I wish at this time to express to the House my deep regret over what happened yesterday afternoon. I have,

May 6, 1975 Tape No. 2054 NM - 2 as a member of this House, I have tried to conduct myself in a proper and dignified -.mer. And I understand as well u any member the standards which are required of those who are privileged to serve as elected representatives of the people. Mr. Speaker, I do not attempt to excuse my action. I apologize for it and stand ready to accept any punishment which the House may decide upon. I must however explain to the House what happened yesterday.

The records will show that over a period of some weeks, the honourable the Leader of the Opposition has consistently referred to me in insulting and derogatory terms. These actions culminated yesterday when he referred to me as a drunken sot and asked questions such as, is the honourable gentleman inebriated today. Though I realize that assault cannot be justified, I say to the House that the words of the honourable the Leader of the Opposition were false 1 malicious, demeaning to this Bouse and damaging to me as a member and as a citizen. Mr.

Speaker, I have never attended this House while under the influence of alcohol, nor would I do so. It is not necessary for me to deal here with these matters of my personal life which are long past. Any references such as were made about me yesterday are inexcusable. I therefore ask this House for protection against the·kind of libellous attack which brought about this sad and regrettable incident. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please: In view of the statement just made by the honourable Member for St.

George's,in essence admitting that he had breached a privilege of this honourable House, the Chair has no other choice than to name the honourable Member for St. George's, Mr. Dunphy, and leave it to the House to decide what form of punishment if any will be meted out. MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Mines and Energy. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, I move that the - MR. ROBERTS: No, Mr. Speaker, to a point of order, Sir. I would like to say a word on that motion. It is a motion, I would like to say a word on it, Sir. 6121

May 6, 1975 Tape No. 2054 NM - 3 M&. SPEAKER: Order~ please! The Chair has seen fit: to name the honourable Member for St. George's and ask hii,1 t .o withdraw. Any tDOtion as to how the House d~l,s with a meinber after being named by the Chair is nc,.t a debatable motion. !Ill. BOBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand. Your Honour said when Your Honour divided the motion into two that the motion was debatable. I do not wish to debate it but I do wish to s~y a few words on it and I would ask for .that privilege. Your Honour heard the gentleman from St. George's• the gentleman fr.om St.

George's sat down, Your Honour did not allow anybody else, I was trying to c.Ltch 1our Honour's eye. I would like to say a few words if it i,s in order. I just do not understand. This is a debatable motion, as- I understand the proeedure, Sir. 6 ! ? ~~ .,. __ ._ ..

May 6, 1975 Tape 2055 (Afternoon) PK - 1 MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The Chair has divided the one motion put really by the Hon. Minister of Mines and Energy into two parts for the Chair's convenience, because there were two honourable members involved. The Hon. Member for St. George's has in essence agreed that he breached the privilege of this honourable House. The Chair as a result of that has seen fit to name the honourable member. And in Beauchesne , page 118, Standing Order 134-1 explains the procedure and says quite clearly that a motion when a member is named is not debatable. And the Hon.

Leader of the Opposition on the second part of the motion will be given the opportun:1.ty to make his connents . MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, I accept Your Honour's ruling. That is no problem. What I do not understand is Your Honour - first of all we cannot have two motions before the House at any one time. That is a very basic rule. Secondly, Your Honour said when the gentleman for Placentia West first moved the matter that the motion was debatable. I - unless my ears misheard - l"R. B~ Inaudible. MR. ROBERTS: I mean all I - I wish to say a word.

I would like to say a word on that motion, and then if there is a second motion to come up, then the second motion will come up and be dealt with in the normal way. MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Mines and Energy. MR. BARRY: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition is correct. Both the motion that I put,or both motions if they are divided are debatable. And if the Speaker had not named the honourable member that would have been the case. But as I understand it also once the Hon. Speaker names a member of this honourable House then there is no debate.

The procedure is then that - it is necessary then for the House either to appeal the Speaker's ruling or to support the Speaker's decision by setting out a penalty without debate. Now the honourable Member for St. George's got up and admitted to the breach of privilege, and Mr. Speaker saw it fit to name him at

May 6, 1975 Tape 2055 (Afternoon) PK - 2 that point. So I would submit that there is no debate. And it is cleaEly .set out in Beauchesne that there is no debate on the - once an honourable member is named all that is left for this House to do is to set the remedy following the Speaker taking the form of discipline that he has decided is necessary. MR, ROBERTS: Mr.

Speaker, we are on co11DD.on ground when we agree that once a aember has been named and withdraws from the Chamber then the matter, you know, the matter is dealt with by a motion which is non-debatable But I would submit Your Honour was somewhat perhaps over hasty in naming the honourable gentleman. I attempted to catch Your Honour's eye - perhaps I should have made a noise or said, Mr.

Speaker,or some such thing, but I did not, because Your Honour was rising !assumed to make a ruling on a point of order, Your Honour, I would ask that I be allowed to say a word or two on the motion, otherwise I am being denied the chance to debate. Your Honour, I think, is a little over hasty. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The Chair is reasonably confident that once a member is named by the Chair then any subsequent motion is not debatable. MR, ROBERTS: We are on conunon ground, MR, SPEAKER: But the Chair is willing to he a little more sure of what the ruling is.

It is willing to recess for two or three minutes to consult with people. MR, ROBERTS: Your Honour there is no quarrel with the fact - if you want to recess, I mean, that is fair enough - there is no -quarrel with the fact that once the member has been named and all of that, you know, the subsequent motion is non-debatable. That is fine. All I am asking is for a chance to say a word with respect to the same problem, the same matter referred to by the honourable gentleman f~om St. George's. That is all I ask. And I submit that it would have been in order.

Your Honour was - I do not say this critically - Your Honour was a little over hasty in standing 1 Accordingly I sat down and made no effort to rise. ThenYour Honour - I, much to my surprise, felt that Your Honour was going to either make a procedural comment or make 6124

Mayr,, 1975 Tape 2055 (Afternoon) PK - 3 a ruling of some sort. Your Honour then proceeded to name the gentleman from St. George's. After all I am just as involved ,Sir, in that motion as in the next one. And I, you know, in justice I think I am entitled to at least a word of explanation. ~. SPF.AKF;R: The Hon. Minister of Mines and Energy. MR . BARRY: I confess I do not understand the - the honourable Member for St. - the motion that is before this House bas to do with a breach of the privileges of this House by the Member for St. George's,fre~ly admitted by the Hon. the Member for St. George's.

The Speaker has named that honourable member, and that there is no debate. If the Hon. Leader of the Opposition has points to make arising from the same incident, there is another motion that is proceeding, and the Hon. Leader of the Opposition presumably has every leeway to make those statements. AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. BARRY: But this,once Mr. Speaker has decided that a form of discipline is required and naaes au honourable member then there is no debate on that metion.

The procedure then is, and as I think we are in agreement, that the remedy for the breach of the privilege of the House be set out by this House, not by the Speaker. Mf RON. MEJ-C.BER: MR. BARRY: A."! OON. tfillBER : MR. RARRY: Inaudible. And I have so moved. Inaudible. And, Mr. Speaker, - no I think lwnourable members may -- that is right, there are two different procedures involved because of events that transpired in the House since the initial motions were moved. Both motions are debatable. But once the honourable Member for St.

George's got up and admitted to a breach of the privileges of the House , and the Speaker took the course that he did in naming him, that is not debatable. And the proper procedure is for the remedy to be put before the House and for this Rouse to decide what the penalty for the admitted breach of the House is. MR. NEARY: MR. BARRY: 'lR . SPEAKER: s120 You got the cart before the horse. Inaudible. The Hon. Member for Bogo.

May 6, 1975 Tape 2055 (Afternoon) PK - 4 MR. NEARY: You got the cart before the horse. CAPT. E. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, in speaking on this breach, and the adl!littance of the Hon. Member for St. George's that he had broken the breaches of the House, he also went into explain what brought it about. Now surely after that matter was settled, and Your Honour 1 maybe,as the Leader of the Opposition says, might have ;umped to the conclusions a little too fast.

Surely the Leader of the Opposition who brought about the events of yesterday afternoon, in part, surely should have a word - maybe , I am not anticipating what the Hon. Leader may say, hut surely he should have the opportunity to explain his side of the story as well. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The Chair is not trying to deprive the Hon. Leader of the Opposition from having an opportunity to make some explanation and some comments to the House for what happened yesterday. There was one motion made by the Hon. Minister of ~.ines and Energy to the Chair.

The Chair for convenience,because there were two honourable gentlemen involved,said it would deal with one 111&tter at a time. The Hon. Member for St. Qeorge's admitted having breached the privileges of this House. The Chair saw no further need for a debate because the honourable member had admitted doing something wrongly in this House, and proceeded to name him. And once the Speaker names somebody there is certainly no further room for debate. If honourable members disagree with the Chair's ruling then they can appeal the Chair's ruling. The Hon. Minister of Mines and Energy. MR. BARRY: Mr.

Speaker, I have already moved, there is a motion before this honourable House that the Hon. Member for St. George's be suspended from this honourable House for two sitting days . MR. SPEAKER: Those in favour of the motion "Aye". Those against "Nay". The motion is carried. The Chair will recognize the Hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I assume I am now referring to the motion to suspend me from the House for two days. Let me.. and what I am about to say, Mr.

Speaker, let me make ciear I had intended to say as a point of privilege, although the honourable gentleman quite properly raised the matter before I did or before I could, and

Ma 6, 1975 Tape 2055 (Afternoon) PK - 5 I bad intended to say if I had been allowed to speak with reference to the gentleman from St. George's and what he bad to say. I used some words in the House yesterday of which I am anything but proud, and I apologize without reSl!rvation. I called the gentleman for St. George's a drunken sot. It 'l,f&S after the House recessed, the Speaker had left the Chair, a number of honourable gentlemen were in the Chamber. I should not have us.ed the words. I can make no excuse, and I do apologize. I have no hesitation, in saying that.

Sir, those words were spoken in the heat of debate and they were spoken, and the Hansard will reveal this,after the honouratne gentleman from St, George's called me a pig, after- •he had called me a rotten scum, and after he had called me a bastard. And I have checked .the transcri.p .ts, Sir, they are not all, the pig reference was a.ftei;- the Speaker had left the Chair be called me a pig. And then I said thac he was a drunken sot,or some such thing, words which are most inelegant and inaccurate and 1110st inappropriate. The rotten

May 6, 1Q75 Tape 2n.5f', (afternoon) rn-1 scum remark, Your Honour, will he found in the llans11rd. The hastard remark :Is not found in the Hansard, hut I think my collear,ues ~'ho werP here made protest at the time. Now, Sir, the words I spoke, the drunken sot worrls, were spoken in heat. They were not the heat of dehate. The debatP had ended. I had gathered up the books and papers I had here. r harl turned my back to walk out of this chamber when the honourahle gentleman from St. Georp,e's called me a pig or he said, Rornerts, you are a pig or words to that effect.

I sa:ld he was a drunken sot, and he then took off his coat and came across the ~•ay ;mcl hit me. Well, that is fi.ne. I mean, what happened happened, nnci T apologize without any hesitation or any reservation. The worr1s were improper and inappropriate and should not have been saici. Mr. Speaker, 1 et me also apologize to the honourahle gent lem:-m for references querying whether or not he was drunk. These I did say in the Rouse and these are in the Hansarc1. I asked was he inebriated and so forth.

I learned subsequently from some of my colleagues that the honourahle gentleman opposite was not inehriated and that he has not consumed alcoholic beverages for some point of time. I have been labouring under a misapprehension for some- t:lme. The honourable gentleman,in my view,from time to time gave the appearance to me and to numbers of others to whom I spoke of havinp,, particularl:r in the Chair, heen under the influence of alcoholic hP.verages. Obviously I am wrong and T apologize. Sir, I have a vPry tP.nder regard for the need for the fairness of the Chair.

I have pa1.d a price for it on occasion, and T may have to pay further prices. I shall do so gladly. ,he honourahle gentleman from St. r.eor~e's T understand may have a problem which requires medication. I have talkerl to some medical advisors and they tell me that if the form of medication which is heinr, recetveci 1s what they expect it may be ,which would he normal in the circumstances then the sympthoms would be not unlike those caused by consumption of alcohol to excess, slurring of the speech, thickening of the srN•ch and so forth . 6 . ') . . '. .. ,. tJ

May 6, 1975 Tape 2056 (afternoon) Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not put that forward as a defence. I put it forward as an explanation. I apologize to the honourabl~ gentleman for the incorrect and inaccurate references. Now, Sir, all yesterday afternoon I was harassed by honourable gentlemen IB-2 oppo:':I te. The Hansa _rd will reveal them deliberately and concertedly and consistently having harassed me, interrupted me, heckled, whatever you want. The pr~cise words which I used in the chamber - objection was taken to them by honourable gentlemen opposite and the Speaker, S:lr, did not rule me out of order.

He did not ask me to withdraw anything. He did not tell me not to use certain words. Therefore I submit I have the right to expect that those words were in order. I do so. The words I used outside the chamber were drunken sot and for those I apologize, and as I say those were used only after I had been provoked and perhaps I should not have been provoked. Perhaps I s-hould not have lost M".f cool to the extent of calling the honourable gentleman a drunken sot,which I did and I cannot deny that, but it was only after I was called in turn a bastard, rotten scum and a pig.

Then the honourable gentleman launched himself across the House. To that I would add, Mr. Speaker, that on Tuesday past, April 29, the honourable gentleman from Twillingate and myself, the Honourable the Premier and the gentleman from St. George's were walking together or walking at the same time down the front steps of this building. The honourahle gentleman from St. George's there and then threatened - he sai<l he would hit me, he would hash me in. I said to the Premier, you know, suggested that he take him aside and sort of keep the two of us apart because words might have led to blows even then.

I mentioned i. t to my colleague, the Member for Twillingate, who happened to be with me and as far as I know heard everything that passed between us. The honourable gentleman later said the same thing, the gentleman from St. George's to the Daily News. Now, Mr. Speaker, let me say just one other thing. I think it is obviously determined I am to be put out of this House. The honourable gentlemen opposite I suspect have caucused and made up their mind. They will try to silence me this way. ~r. Speaker, we have had one 6129

l'fay 6, 1975 Tape 20S6 (afternoon) TP-1 other incident 1.n my time of one honourable gentleman beinr. struck hy another hnnourahle p;en tleman. T WRS in the House the eveni nr thP gentleman from St. John's East was spealdnp and he made snme refc-ren(:es which the then Jl"~•mher fnr r-reen nay, 'Ir. SmaJ l.wood, ~rr. Wi lU am Smal I ,,,nor, took as being an inferencP upon the character of ~Ir. Sma] !.•oocl 's mnther. The gentleman from r-reen Bay thereupon crossed the floor of the House and struck the gentlema.1 from ~t. John's East.

The then government moved the suspension of the r,entleman from Green llay, the tlwn l'ouse Leade,r, for five sitting days. ~lo actfon was taken against the r,entleman from St. John's Bast nor should any action have been ta1':en ar,ai ns t t.he gentleman from St. John's East. I submit, Sir, that no action should he taken against n•e. I have apologized for the wor<'s which I use<l. T have done so without any reservation. The words which I used in the l'ouse I ap,ain r0peat, Mr. Speaker, and objection was drawn. The points of order were raise<' with the Spealrer.

Your Honour was not occupying the Chair. i\nothcr hcmourable gentleman, the 1-fember for Port au Po:rt,was. But, the Hansard is quite clear and the r,ent]eman from Port au Port did not rule me out of order. Indeed, Sir, -.,hile he obviously clid not approve of the remarks J was making or did not particularly lite them, he at several points said, carry on. Indeed he saicl - this is Tape 2ns1 - "Mr.

Speaker - I request the honourable Leader of the Opposition to speak for approximately at which time the siY. o'clock curfew, the six o'clock time limit will tal<e over and maybe we can retire to a pleasant evening and come hack tomorrow in better humor. There were further points of order raised. Rut, at no point. Sir, did the honourable gentleman from Port au Port who was then in the Chair as the Speaker - AN HONOlIBABLE ME1'1RER: fie reserved decision. ~- ROBEJITS: That is it. Jle reserved his decision.

At: no pofot dicl he rule me out of order. lf he had ruled me out of order ohviously I would have either withdrawn the remarks or taken the penalty. J would have withdrawn the remarks. The honourable gentleman still has not made a ru]ing on that point. Coming up in the elevator ;ust hefore the Hou.~e niet, I happened to be on the same elevator as the

>.•ay 6, 1975 Tape 2056 (afternoon) honourable gentlPman and I asked if he was going to make a ruling ,nd he made no answer -of any substantive nature. As Your Honour tnows, I asked this morning. I rang Your Honour on the telephone to ask whether there would be a ruling given and if so when. So, Mr. Speaker, that is it. I apologize without any reservation, and I would have done so,without motions or otherwise~ IB--4 to the gentleman from St. r..eorge's. The words I used were spoken in heat. That does not justify them. It may explain them.

They were made only after the honourable gentleman used epithets to me which were infinitely worse than any that I used. I do not like being called a ~astard. I do not like being called rotten SCIDD, and I rlo not like being called a pig. The honourable gentleman form St. George's may not like being called a drunken sot. But, I did not cross the Pouse and strike him nor did I do so four of five or six days after I had said publicly both to witnesses and to newspapers that I would strike him. It was a deliberate attack.

If there was a.ny provocation, the provocation yesterday, Sir, was the least of the causes of that. If the honourable gentleman assures us,as he does,that he wa.s not under thP influence of alcohol in the House, I accept his explanation without any reservation. But, I do say, Sir, that over the past few months, and I have often said so to my colleagues, that the honourable gentleman when he was in the Chair appeared to be at less than his best fonn. ~o, Mr. Speaker, it is an unhappy incident. I intend to vote against this motion. I would ask my colleagues to do the same.

The government, Sir,will do as they feel best. I submit thPrP is no case for putting me out of the House. At the very most, the case is to ask me to withdraw the remarks,and I have done so,and I would be prepared to do so again. The precedent in this House was not a happy one, but the gentleman from St. John's East was not asked to withdraw or put out of the House. The gentleman who struck him paid the price and paid it, Sir, without any hesitation on the government's part who moved the suspension. 6.L31

May 6, 1Q75 Tape 2056 (afternoon) Mr. Speaker, again let me just say in closing that at no point yesterday during my remarks c1i.d the Speaker rule me out nf order, at least this part of the remarks. T suhmit I am justified i.n believing that if the Speaker does not rule one out of orc1er when the points of or<ter are raised , then, Sir, it is parliamentary to carry on. The whole incident was unhappy. I am not prouc1 of it, anything but proud of it, anything hut happy to have been involvec1 in it. It is a regretable incident.

Rut, the fact remains, ~ir, and a reference to J-lansarc1 yesterrlay wi 11 - that I was harasser'! by honourable gentlemen opposite from the moment I began until six of the clock, the moment at which the House ac1journed. The very ldnnest things I was called by the gentleman from St. George's who has a Tll-5 grudge against me - whether 1t is justified in his eyes or not is hesine the point - I was called " bastard, I was called rotten scum anc1 I was called a pig. None of. those is a pleasant word. Rut, Sir, those are the words that I was called, In retaliation, I eventually Jost my cool.

For that I can make no justification except to apologize, and then the incident occurred. But, Sir, I do say that I think it is quite wrong. The government can do as they wish. They have a majority in this House. But, I do not think for a moment that precedent or practice wil 1 justify suspending me from the Fouse for the same length of time as the honourable gentleman from St. George's. The motion made by the honourahle Minister of Mines and Energy is in my view thereforP not justified. I have explained the circumstances, and without any reservation I have apologized to the gentleman from St.

George's , He has not, Si.r,

May 6, 1975 Tape No. 2057 NM - 1 MR. ROBERTS : Sir, as yet,I might point out, apologized to me for calling me a bastard, rotten scum, and a pig and some of those words are in Harulard and some of those words were said outside the House. The drunken sot reference,on which the government hang their resolution,was said enly in reply to the call from the honourable gentlemen from St, George'sia pig," and I was in the House as was the gentleman from Placentia West mid a number of other gentlemen. In making his motion he neglected to point out the fact that my remark was in reply to extreme provocation.

Well,that is what I have to say, Mr, Speaker. I thank the honourable gentlemen for hearing me out, The words again were spoken in the heat of debate and perhaps, Sir, it is an indication of the fact that this House does not have enough business before it, Sir, and that we should be sent hence and sent back to the electorate so the electorate can resolve this issue. MR. SPEAKER: The honourable the Premier, HON. F. D. MOORES, PREMIER: Mr, Speaker, it is indeed a very regrettable day when such an occurrence as we are witnessing here now takes place.

As has been said on a few occasions 1but I am afraid not often enough, or certainly not listened to enough, what this Legislature, what this institution means to the Province and to its people, Itis supposed to be the one place where people from all over our Province can look with respect and look with some degree of confidence. That cannot be the case when we witness the type of incident of yesterday, and Uo a lesser degree in other times of debate during this session and others past.

The fact is, Sir, that we have,the Leader of the Opposition has said that certain remarks were made to him and he made certain remarks to the Member from St, George's. Sir, the fact is that both gentlemen were wrong and that is why the motion dealing with both gentlemen is before the House. No one is saying that the honourable Member for St. George's was right, but equally no one is saying that the honourable the Leader of the Opposition was any more right because he happened to be Leader of 613.:3

May 6, 1975 Tape No, 2057 NM - 2 the Opposition. The fact is that he did call the Member from St. George's a druken sot. The fact is that the Member from St. George's did refer in derogatory terms to the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Speaker, it is fairly obvious that the innuendo and snide remarks that we have heard for so long in this House are very easily corrected when someone gets up and says,I withdraw those remarks or I apologize, Howcovenient is it after you have made the remarks!

Now we have had a great deal of that in this House, Sir, by members on both sides,but particularly,.if I may say, by the Leader of the Opposition. Sir, the Leader of the Opposition said the remarks made yesterday was in the heat of debate. That I will say may have been the case yesterday but the reference to the Member for St. George's regarding drunkenes~, regarding acting inebriated and words to that effect have been said in this House for several weeks before yesterday. Mr.

Speaker, equally the Leader of the Opposition r,ot up today and said the reason he misunderstood this fact was because friends of his, doctors whom he has obviously been in touch with, said this was the problem with the medication that the Member for St. George's was receiving, if I got that right. MR. ROBER.TS: May have been receiving. MR. MOORES: May have been receiving. The fact is that one is makinp: a judgement on the man's conduct because he may be receiving medication. The fact is, Sir, the Member for St. George's is not receiving medication.

To make even that sort of innuendo, in my opinion, is cruel, particularly because it happens to be false. Mr. Speaker, what brought on this fracas yesterday? What is it really we are talking about? Constant abuse to an unbelievable degree by the Leader of the ·Opposition to a man who has had, I should say, a problem. The Member for St. George's, and I will be brutally honest now and I have talked to him about this or I will admit I would not have guts 6 ·3 .i. 4

May 6, 1975 TApe No, 2057 NM - 3 enough to stand in this House and say it, the Member for St. George's, as many people know, had for some years an alcoholic problem, with all that that entails. There a1Te not many Newfoundlanders who do not understand what that means, In fact there are very few families who have not had intimate knowledge of this problem at some time in thiir careers in this Province. All of them know how difficult the problem can be and even more, Mr. Speaker, how nmch more difficult it is to overcame that problem. The Member for St.

George's has made a ~ificent, courageous effort,in my opinion, to rehabilitate himself after a difficult time. He·,has, through yeoman effort, overcome this illness and has in fact not taken a drink 1 to my knowledge or to anyone else's 1 for some over thirteen months. He is, through this effort, a credit as far as I am concerned to himself, his family and his Province. The Leader of the Opposition claims that he was not aware of this problem. The fact was on the argument he referred to on the steps last week, where the Member for St.

George's was inde•d making very agressive remarks to the Leader of the Opposition_ in a very heated debate, he mentioned to the Leader of the Opposition in my presence, not to accuse him of being drunk again, not to accuse him of alcoholism again, and ill my opinion, Sir, made it very clear as to the reason why he was so upset and in the condition he was at that time. MR, ROBERTS: He used no worcs to indicate he had not been drinking, MR. MOORES: He used no words to indicate he had not been drinking, Mr. Speaker, for the simple reason he had not.

One does not go around after having a drink saying I am drunk and one does not go around without having one sating I have not had one. The fact was he was referring to a specific sensitivity that it was totally normal for a man to have after the battle that that man had gone through for some several years, and had conquered and did not want to be maligned and almost crucified by innuendo on a subject that to him was a very difficult, and understandably difficult situation, Mr.

Speaker, as far as I am concerned, the attack on that man on that subject had to be one of the most cruel, inhuman, nastiest and vicious attacks in the history of this House of Assembly. And yesterday the character 6135 ., '· ·.~. • ,• .. . \ > • • ' ' .1 .- ·'

May 6, 1975 Tape No. 2057 NM - 4 assassination went on. Most of the insults came after the House as we know, had adjourned or here on tbe floor of the House. AN HC'N. MEMBER: Not all of them, MR, MJORES: And it is most regrettable, but as the member says not all of them, and the transcripts are there for anyone to read, So as I have said before I feel very badly at this time, I feel very badly for the Leader of the Opposition, because I am sure if he had stopped to realize he would not have made remarks and have brought about this particular result.

I feel very badly for the Member for St, George's, who in effect got up today and apologized, which he must have found difficult, knowing he was wrong, but also a man who has gone through a trying time that, I suppose,most of us will never realize never having experienced the problem itself. I, Sir, feel very •trongly that this House, as soon as possible come back to the world of reality and start acting in the decency for which we were elected to do. MR, SPEAKER: The honourable Member for Hermitage, MR, SIMKlNS: Mr.

Speaker, before you call the questions, just two or three things I would like to say on the matter. I certainly agree with previous speakers that it is a sad day and it is a regrettable set of events that we have to reflect on this afternoon. It is my personal opinion, although the motion has already been passed and therefore cannot debate it directly, it is my personal opinion that the House has done the right thing in suspending the Member for St. George's.

The business of attacking somebody physically is certainly perhaps one of the 1110re serious, perhaps the most serious thing that can happen in this House,and certainly the House has got to protect itself against members who would do that kind of thing. I did not vote for the 1110tion. I jUllt abstained for other reasons which I hope to get into in a minute. Mr. Speaker, the Premier in his remarks has zeroed in on the role that the Leader of the Opposition played in this matter.

I think in fairness I ought to put the thing in some perspective in a way that perhaps the Leader of the Opposition could not because he would be talking about himself on the matter. From

Hay 6, 1975 Tape no. 2058 Page 1 - aw where I sit,and I sit almost the person farthest r11110ved from the meaber for St. George'• in the House, I feel that the member for St. George's has been on a collision course for a long time on this matter. It is only a question of whether the thing culminated yesterday or today or tmorrow or SOiie day soon. When I have been peaking, Mr. Speaker, I have been called a number of thing• by that particular member. I do not think I particularlyr.taunted h:IJII.. I know on one occaaion I rose and drew it to Mr.

Speaker'• atteil.tioa, · not the present occupant of the Chair but the Deputy Speaker,- MR. BARRY: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not see the relevance of any objectiona the Hon. Member for Hermitage has to remarks made by the member for St. Gebrge'• or any other hODOurable member. AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). MR. BARRY: Whan I finish my point of order. We are dealing with, Mr. Speaker, a specific motion here. If the honourable member had any breaches of privileges with respect to him or to the House he wished to raise,m the past that could have been done.

But it is not relevant for the honourable member to start cracking out the history of every taunt or insult that he has received in this House from. the member for St.George's or any other honourable member. MR. SIMMONS: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I quite agree, and I think the member for Placentia West was so-hat anticipating what I was about to say.

I believe what we are discussing, if I understand it correctly, is the motion to suapend the Leader of the Opposition, and I was getting into acae item.a, I think, that are pretty pertinent to that aubject, and I would aubmit that I should be allowed to continue. MR. SPEAIG:R: Order, please! The rule of relevancy is a rather difficult one

May 6, 1975 Tape no. 2058 Page 2 - mw for any Chair, l suppose, to rule on. However, the Chair certainly feels as well that any incidents of provocation or remark  exchanged back and forth between the Hon. Member for Hermitage and the Hon. Member for St. George's with regards to ae or any other person occupying this Chair are not relevant to the incident that took place here yesterday between the Hon. Leader of the Opposition and the member for St. George's. HR. SIMMONS: Well, Kr. Speaker, l think both Mr.

Speaker and the member for Placentia West were anticipating me, because what I have to say, I think, is very relevant. I think it brings home the significance of what happened here yesterday. And I would like to continue for a minute with the promise that I relate it to show the relevance of it to the point I .. am pursuing, the motion before the Chair. I say that the member was on a collision course. At one point in time he referred to me as an s.o.B., although he used the full words. And, Hr. Speaker, I submit - AH BON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). Ill.. SPEAKER: Order, please! AN BON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). HR.

SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! The Chair has made a ruling in easence that the Bon. Member for Hermitage was being irrelevant in referring to any other examples of things that ~y have happened to have taken place between he and the Bon. Member for St. George's. And the Chair will certainly not permit any ember to be that irrelevant from this particular motion. HR. SIMMONS: Thank you,Mr. Speaker. I uoderatand alo, and I am attempting, Hr. Speaker. I vill not assign motives but I 8111 getting a little auspicious as to why everybody is so anxious to get me o relevant all of a sudden . Hr.

Speak.er• I believe it is very relevant to what has happened yesterday and the motion before the Chair now that it be known, 6.:. 3u

Ray 6, 1975 Tape no. 2051 Page 3 that it be known, Mr. Speaker, in reference to the Leader of the Opposition and the motion to su11pend bi.a that only yeterday in the elevator a gentle.an quoted to ae privately last evening that the -ber for St. George's had threatened to get the •ember for White Bay Horth. MR.. BARRY: KR.. SPEAKER: MR. BARRY: is going on with. KR.. SIMMONS: MR.. SPEAICER: MR.. SIMMONS: MR.. SPEAKER: Point of order, Kr. Speaker. Order, please! Order, please! What is this hearsay that the honourable llellber- It is not hearay. Ah, so you are afraid. Order, please! (Inaudible). Order, please!

The 110tion presently befor~ the Bouse deals with a matter that occurred within the precincts of this Legislature yesterday, And some reference was made by both the Bon. Leader of the Opposition and the Bon. the Premier but it certainly was related to event  between the Bon, Leader of the Opposition ancl the member for St. George's which led up to sa.etbing yesterday evening. Naw any comments that may have been made 011 the elevator to the Bon. Meaber for Benrltage, the Chair again fails to see the relevancy of that particular thing to this motion. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker• let me go at it another way.

The member for Placentia West is obviously anxious that certain items not come out here so I will cater to him to s0111e degree. SOME HON, MEMBERS: (Inaudible), MR. SPEAKER: Order, please: MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, to a point of order, I SIil attempting, Mr, Speaker, as the acting to the acting assistant House Leader to keep some control on the proceedings of this Bouse, Mr, Speaker, and it is clearly one rule of this House that honourable members be relevant particularly on a serious matter like this. Another rule, Mr. Speaker, is that there are certain, if not rules of evidence, certain 613Y

May 6, 1975 Tape no, 2058 Page 4 - mw rules of decency that be applied,and it is not decent or fair for an honourable member to come in here and start quoting uncorroborated remarks made by a third party with respect to any honourable member of this House. And finally, Mr, Speaker, I would submit that it is not relevant nor will it aerve any purpoee for the Hon. Member for Hermitage or any other honourable member to get up here and start listing the abuse that has gone back and forth in this honourable House that is not relevant to this matter, and it is time that that was set behind us.

And I would ask the Hon, Member for Hermitage to come to the point of this motion, MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, to the point of order. It seems I am having some difficulty demonstrating to the member for Placentia T(est that I am relevant. I am not particularly anxious to dd it as long as I can demonstrate it to the Chair, I believe we are talking about the advisability or otherwise of suspending the Leader of the Opposition for two days. And I am,in very broken fashion because I get interrupted so often, trying to connect up . ...... f' a line of thought, and I submit, Hr.

Speaker, if I were allowed to continue for a moment, I would demonstrate that it is very relevant to the whole question whether the Leader of the Opposition should be suspended -or not,.,Hs. Speaker. MR. BARRY: Is that a point of order? MR. SPEAICER: The Hon. Minister of Mines and Energy. HR. BARRY: Hr. Speaker, if the honourable member would point out where this is leading, Mr. Speaker - HR. SIMMONS: HR. BARRY: MR. SIMMONS: HR. BARRY: .Juat let me. - where it might - .Just let me. Ho, Mr.

Speaker, it is not proper for an honourable member under the guise of eventually after som• time getting to a relevant point it is not proper in the interim for the honourable member to continue with either irrelevant or improper statements in 6.L4U

!lay 6. 1975 Tape no. 2058 Page 5 -- this Houae. Nov if the honourable •eaber baa a point that ia relevant that this is leading up to, I submit, that Your Honour should ask hi.a to make it. HR. SPEAXER.: Order. please! The Chair perhaps till be the person vho will decide what comaents are releTant or not relevant to any particular motion before the House. The Chair hu ruled on about three occasion  now that certain things being said by the Bon. Keaber for Hermitage were not relevant to this particular motion. Now the Chair is willing in essence to let the Hon.

Member for Hermitage be very precise as to what his relationship ia between the events that took place on the elevator, and the motion presently before the Houae. If not the Chair will have to recognize another member. MB.. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, I - not anxioua to read into the record events that took place outside this Chaaber. Hy overall purpose here is to dea,natrate that the Leader of the Opposition I believe showed undue, not undue, but surprising restraint in the face of what he had to put up with yesterday afternoon. And I say, Mr.

Speaker, that for that reason there is no rationale that say that he ought to be given the same kind of penalty for sayiag certain thi~gs in the heat of debate,for which he has apologized, Mr. Speaker, or else the word goea out that you get the s-e here, the same penalty for poking a guy as you do for saying some nasty things that you aresorry for saying after. Mr. Speaker. I do not thin~ that that is fair.

I do not think it is fair in anyway whatsoever, and I was attempting to lay out some evidence to show that the Leader of the Opposition was being provoked unduly, was being provoked with some premeditation, that the whole thing had been planned before hand. That is my point, Hr. Speaker. You do not have to agree with it. Nobody in this House has to agree with it. I happen to know, and I wa uing myself as the example rather than quote a third party, that I happen to know that the member for St. George's has a reputation in my mind for being fairly provocative on the matter. And I say that 6141

May 6 1 1975 Tape no. 2058 Page 6 - 111W' in the circumstances the Leader of the Opposition, while as he admits said scae thinga in the heat of debate that he would normally not say,even allowing that, Mr. Speaker, admitting to that, recognizing that, I say that he showed restraint yesterday in the face of the situation that confronted him. He showed particular constraint, And I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that the Bouse is being fair. I do not beiieve that the government Acting House Leader is being fair in bringing in the same kind of motion to deal with both situations. They are two very different situations.

And to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is the same offense is first of all to fly in the fac~ of the tradition of this Bouse where no matter bow euily the Premier diaaisses it the fact of the matter is ll!llat it is known, and I have been involved in it myself and other members have where if you say scaething that is improper or unparliamentary or ll8Bty or whatever in the heat of debate, then you are given the opportunity to withdraw and then afeer that if the Bouse or Mr. Speaker fee.la that a reprimand is in order,well,the rules of the House provide for it. But to suggest, 6.t42

Tape 2059 (afternoon) IB-1 Mr. Speaker, to suggest that the penalty for saying things in the heat of debate should be equally serious as for physically assaulting someone, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is time that the government acting Rouse Leader and the Premier do what the Member for Placentia West just appealed to me to do, to get above politics on this particular one and to recognize that is not a question now of who looks best:, publicly when it is all over,in political terms. It is a question nf whether we are going to preserve the dignity and the traditions of this Rouse or not.

Let us call a spade a spade, Mr. Speaker. Sure there were two unsavory incidents here yesterday. One was that the Leader of the Opposition - there were three,if you like one was that the Leader of the Opposition and the Member for St. George's called each other some names. I do not think that either gentleman should be particularly proud for same. That is one set: of incidents. They ought to be dealt with. I would suggest that they ought to be dealt with in the same manner that the incidents are noraally dealt with. Now, the Premier says that innuendo once unloaded on the Rouse is very easy to withdraw after.

I do not think any particular member deliberately indulges in nasty innuend~. I know it does not, it should not sit very well with him. He has still got to live with what he has said himself whether he withdraws it or what. 1-<r. Speaker, on that particular subject if we had all the words that we have muttered under our breath, not particularly for the l'ansard record, that I have said and the Leader of the 6pposition and the Premier and the Member for St. George's and the others, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that from where I sit - I have said some nasty things in my time,too,but I would suggest, Mr.

Speaker, that the Premier in many respects would either come in first or a close second with some of the things he has said and for which he is really anxious and he is willing to withdraw after. So, if we are going to start imposing penalties, Mr. Speaker, for every nasty word that is said in this House we will spend all our time discussing motions like this. But, I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the incident that we are now discussing, the words that were 61.4J

May 6, lll75 Tape 2115q (afternoon) rn-2 said in haste by my colleacr,ue from Wh1 te Jlc1y North is a far different set of circumstances Rltogf"ther than the one we hRve just c'!ealt with in the previous motion. I •'Ould say, "Ir. Speaker, to the acti.ng Rouse Leader for the government and to the Premier that 1t is an insult to this House to suggest that these two separate sets of incinents 1 far different in their degree of seriousness, it is an insult to this House, Mr, Speaker, to sugeest that they ought to be dealt with in the selfsame manner and with the selfsame penalty. I say, ?-fr.

Speaker, that in that context it is evident to me that the government has elected to shirk its responsibility to preserve the di~i ty of this House and has decided to play politics with this sad affair. T find that despicable, ¥r. SpeakP.r, completely despicable.

This matter would have been much more easily and in a more gentlemanly way taken care of by all concerned if the p,overnment !louse Leader, acting Rouse Leader,had done what was obviously normal under those circumstances, introduced a motion which would have provided a penalty for the member who had committed a very serious breach of the rules of the House in that he had physically attacked anothc-r member, at the same time if they felt a reprimand or some other means of bringing the mattP.r to the Leader of the Opposition's attention were in order, well,of course, do that as well.

But, to come in and suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the two sets of circumstances are equal in their seriousness and therefore equally punishable is not an effort to perserve the dignity of this House, Mr. Speaker. It is an effort to play the worst kind of politics with it. Now, Mr. Speaker. before I sit down just allow me to say a word about the matter that the Premier raised. I trust that it will be considered relevant. I have to. It is not playing party ~ames here or anything of that nature. I think my colleague from St. Barbe North will agree with me on this.

I learned yesterday - we have discussed this matter,as you can anticipate, Mr. Speaker, we discussed this matter after six. I 1.earnerl yesterday from my colleague from St. Barbe North who has had some association with the Member for St. c.::. ! 4 ,, IO .;_ 4

May f., 1Q75 Tape 2059 (afternoon) IB-3 George's,J believe,at a conference in the last few months, I learned from him for the first time, Mr. Speaker, about the matter that the Premier got into some discussion of, the alcoholism problem, I learned it for the first time about quarter after six. J cannot vouch that the Leader of the Oppostion learned it for the first time then, but he was part of the conversation. It was my impression that he learned it for the first time then. Whether he did that is for him to say. He is a man and he can speak for himself. But, l harl the impression he did.

I know I did for the first time. l Fi.l l also say, f-'r. Speaker, that I do not know what the cause was. Tt is not for me to stand here and diagnose what the cause was but l can tell yo1,1 the result, Mr. Speaker. I can tell you what I ob.served. I can tell you that I have made ~01D1Dents to my colleagues on many occasions that the Jl'ember for St. George's for some reason appeared to be somewhat less than rational to me. I wondered as to the reason, as you do on those occasions. Now, as I say, Jam not going to go to assign reasons as to what the reasons might have been, Mr.

Speaker. 'ffi • SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. MARSHALL: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. "Ill. SPEAKER: A point of order. The honourable Member for St. John's East. ,'ffi.. MARSHALL: This House may have tole .rated this with the honourable LParler of the Opposition when he was speaking to a point of privilege, hut l do not think that any member in this House can be allowed to cast reflections on another member. For the honourabl~ Member for Hermitage to ge.t up and say that he did not recognize the problem hut the man looked like he had a problem is comoletely - AN HONOURARLE MEMBER: Inaudible. ~!R.

SPEAKER: Order, please! MP. '-l°ARSRALL: If I may continue, Jl'r. Speaker - is completely out of order because it casts reflections upon a member. I think that this tack could be well dispensed with by the honourable Member for llermi tage. Mr. Speaker, to the point of order. In case the Member 6 -~ 4 F _, ;:,l

May 6, 1975 Tape 20.SQ (afternoon) rn-4 for St. John's F.ast did not hear me, T said I was not going to diagnose. I dirl say and 1 t is my observation, and I will say the same thing about the Membf'r for St. John's East if it is pertinent at the time, that I had occasion to observe that the member anpeared to be less than rational to me. So much so that I discusseil 1 t with my colleagues on occasion. Now, if that is in any way dispara8ing, Mr. Speaker, well by all means I withdraw it because that is not the purpose I am pursuing here. AN 'HONOURABLE ME~ER: Inaudible. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

The Chair realizes the seriousness and the importance of this particular motion. Even the content of the motion or the referring to the incident that took place yesterday sometimes perhaps from the Chair's viewpoint leaves a very thin line as to what you can rule is relevant and what is not relevant. 'However, the honourable !.fember for Hermitage was very close to cast1.ng some serious rf'flections in his opinion of the honourable Member for St. George's. MR. SIMMONS: Thank you, "Ir. Speaker. In any event, I was about to - I was close to cluing up when I was interrupted by the Member for St. John's East.

I was about to say in response to what the Premier had said that I am fully appreciative of the kind of problem that he alluded to and I have not only all kinds of sympathy, sympathy is not enour~, I would like to be in a position to facilitate the particular sensitivities of persons who find themselves in the kind of situation that the Premier described. I think, Mr. Speaker, all of us if we have any degree of compassion in us at all, that sf tu<1ti on appeals to us very much.

T certainly would not w<1nt to be in any way accused,or whether accused or not, I would not want to he in any way contributi·1g to a person's difficulties in a situation like that. "Ir. Speaker, having said that,I clo not believe, ~•r. <:peaker, I do not helieve that that kind of circumstance or a recognition of that 6 • A .. ·•·•!O

"lay 6, 1975 Tape 2059 (afternoon) kind of circumstance gfves that member or any other member any particular license to bully in this House or to physically attack. IB-5 Mr. Speaker, I submit and I recognize that the Member for St. George's has entered his apologies. Equally, ~r. Speaker, my colleague fr0111 White Bay North has entered his apologies. The difference in the two sets of apologies is not in the degree of their sincerity, t:hat 1a not for me to judge.

I submit the difference in the two sets of apologies is that one, the first apologizes for a far more serious set of circumstances than the apology entered by my colleague from White Bay Nort:h. For that reason I submit, ~r. Speaker, t:hat it is an insult to the Rouse, an insult to the dignity of the House if we continue on this course we are on now of attempting to suspend a member for having said some things in haste which he has since withdrawn and apologized for, and particularly, Mr.

Speaker, if we attempt,as this motion obviously does,to equate his remarks said in the heat of debate with the very serious offense cotmDitted yesterday afternoon by the ~mher for St. George's and for which this Rouse has already ta~en the appropriate steps. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that 614"/

May 6, 1975 Tape 2060 (Afternoon) the proper thing for the Acting House Leader to do right now is to withdraw this motion, and if he feels that another one ought to be put by way of repri.manding the Leader of the Opposition sobeit. I caution him on that, too, Mr. Speaker, because if he PK - 1 does that he must be prepared equally to submit a similar motion every time I am called a name, or he is called a name, or any other member of this House is called a name. And anybody who sat in these galleries, Mr.

Speaker, or in these seats here knows that if this is going to be the case, unless we S111arten up around here we aEe going to have ten or fifteen motions of reprimand every day to take care of the name calling that unfortunately goes on in this Chamber. I submit to you, Mr.

Speaker, th~t the Acting House Leader should withdraw this motion and at most should replace it with a motion of reprimand, but rather perhaps no motion at all because,as I say, if he is going to reprimand the Leader of the Opposition for the things he said yesterday, which I do not think he should be particularly proud of, and he said so himself, if he is going to reprimand him for that he better be prepared to introduce a whole string of motions every day this House sits, if what has gone on here this past few months is any indication of what will go on in the future. AN HON. MEMBER: Hear! Hear! MR.

SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Bonavista South. MR. J. IDRGAN: Mr. Speaker, just a few couonents on this motion, and to say it is regrettable that we have to deal with such a motion today in the House of Assembly. But, Mr. Speal<.er, in dealing w.1.th the motion to expell the Hon. Leader of the Opposition, for the past four or five sittings of this Assembly I sat here, not taking part too much in the debate, and I saw the worse kind of gutter politics take place in this Assembly, the worse kind of gutter-type politics. When the Hon.

Leader of the Opposition fully recognizing, fully realizing, fully knowing what he was doing, he knew what he was doing, Mr. Speaker, and I challenge him to prove otherwise, 6.1. 4 8

May 6, 1975 Tape 2060 (Afternoon) PK - 2 MR. ROBERTS: Inaudible. MR. MORGAN: based on the following evidence. Mr. Speaker, today we heard the Ron. the Leader of the Ooposition state in this Assembly he was not aware of the conditions,­ of the problems of the honourable gentleman from St. George's. The honourable Member for Hermitage stood in the same debate and said the same thing, he was not aware of the problem, and now he was aware, he had the greatest of sympathy for the honourable gentl~n and for his problem. Mr.

Speaker, yesterday in that debate in the Assembly, yesterday,this is the recording of Hansard, the Hon. Leader of the Opposition,and I quote from Hansard, to make it quite clear to all honourable members of this Assembly that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition must be dealt with. He must be dealt with by this Assembly, because he knew what he was doinf. He knew what the situation was. He knew what the problem was. And when I sat here and listened to him for the last two or three days baiting, baiting a man with the kind of problem that the honourable Member for St. George's had 1 Mr.

Speaker, that kind of politics is low gutter-type politics. I sat here and watched and listened as the man sat there and cringed in his chair, cringed. Cringed from what, Mr. Speaker? Cringed from the Leader of the Opposition baiting him. are you drunk honourable member? Are you drunk today? Are you drunk in your seat today? Are you inebriated? Are you? Are you drunk again today? And the Hon. Leader of the Opposition has the nerve to stand in this Assembly today and to say that he was not aware of the honourable gentleman's problems. When yesterday, yesterday, I quote, "Mr.

Roberts:_ I am reading from Hansard, "if I were to believe, Sir, everything that I read about the honourable gentleman he would have been incarcerated, incarcerated at the Waterford Hospital for a number of weeks in 1971( in 1971 not 1975) in 1971 II while he was dealing with Mr. Smallwood. Mr. Simmons perks in the d ,, ., debate,and he says,That is not the same fellow. Mr. Roberts, Yes, that is the same fellow. I am not saying I believe it. I am just saying if I were to believe everything I read about the honourable gentleman from St. George's he was carried,as I recall it, carried 6149 . . ' .

I•• '~- .. - I ,., ' .. : '· ., . -':'- ' , .. .• •. I . ' .. ~ ;

May 6, 1975 Tape 2060 (Afternoon) PK - 3 in to town. And there are some interesting recordings around, of tape recordings, of phone conversations iri which the honourable gentleman from St. George's figured. He was then making .-fpals wheeling and dealing when he was incarcerated at the Waterford ,, Hospital in 1971. That, Mr. Speaker, is the contents of a statement made yesterday in the House of Assembly by the Hon. Leader of the Opposition, and today he has the nerve to stand here and to make us believe and the people of this Province to believe he did not know what he was doing.

He knew what he was doing the kind of skameful gutter type politics is unbecoming of any honourable gentleman of this House of Assembly, any honourable gentleman. AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. MORGAN: it. But to have the Leader of the Opposition doing This House has row dealt with the honourable gentleman for St. George's. Much to my surprise, much to my surprise that the kind of action that we took today was not agreed with, not tolerated by the Opposition, because the House did vote on a motion to expell the honourable Member for St.

George's for yesterday!s actions for assaulting another honourable gentleman of the House of Assembly. AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. IDRGAN: The Hosse voted on it. But, Mr. Speaker, I want all honourable gentlemen to make note that the resolution was voted on, the motion was voted on but voted against by the Opposition. And Hansard will prove me correct. The motion today was put to expell the honourable gentleman for assaulting another honourable gentleman in this House of Assembly, but the motion was voted against by all Opposition members. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we can put two and two together.

We have expelled one gentleman for assaulting another. But what I saw happening and Che kind of action I saw taken during the last few days deserves a greater penalty, a greater penalty because it is not the kind of penalty that we can impose upon that kind of a gentleman who does these things. This House cannot deal tT.!.th it. None of us can deal with it. How can we? How can we draw conclusions and make decisions on that kind of actioP, when we saw a politician,knowing 6150

May 6, 1975 hpe 2.060 (Afternoon) ·what he was doing, destr~ug and attempting to destroy, not only the honourable ient1enan for St. George's as a politician, but as n-4 a man, as a ~tizen of this Provilice.,castigating h1lll. and his family, h1lll. and his fpdly in what you were doing, what the honourable gentleman knew he was doing. That, Mr. Speaker, deserves a greater penalty ·than 'llbat this Bouse is going to flllpose frma this pr~sent motion be.fore the Bouse of Assembly. It is the ld.nd of action, it_is the k:l,nd of attitude of a politician, of a poteutial leader, and in this case, Mr.

Speaker, in particular, a 118D aspiring to become leader of the Province, to do that kind of thing to IIDD~ hoDOUl'able gentleami, to do it is unbelievable, is 615i

'.f May 6, 1975 Tape No. 2061 NM - 1 MR, MOBGAN: really unbelievable and I have proven the fact that he knew what he was doing and that, Mr. Speaker, makes an even greater crime, a geater crime. The honourable gentleman from St. George's has admitted his crime, has admitted his breach of this House of Assembly, the privilege of the House of Assembly. He has admitted that, and he has taken the penalty. Now I call upon the honourable Leader of the Opposition to be a man accordingly and to admit, to admit his most serious breach of the privilege of this Assembly and to accept this penalty accordin~ly. Mr.

Speaker, in closing my few remarks I sincerely hope in the future that no leader in our Province, no politician, will ever again attempt or try to in any way or ·form use the human problems of any individual, the human problems of any individual in this Province for political benefit. Mr. Speaker, I sincerely beg of all politicians, of all members in this Assembly in the future, for God's sake to refrain from that kind of low guttersnipe politics. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (STAGG): Is the House read for the question? MR. ROWE: I would like to speak. MR. ROBERTS: Let the gentleman speak. MR.

ROWE: Look,this is what I was waiting for, you know (833). MR. ROBERTS: a government motion. MR. ROWE: I would yield the floor to Your Honour. MR. SPEAKER ~STAGG): The Member for St. Barbe North. MR. ROWE: Mr. Speaker, like other honourable members on both sides of the House, this is a sad day when we have to consume the time of the House, the people's time and money over this type of an issue and I would request, Sir, that somebody deliver me a copy of the motion so that I can have a look at it.

Sir, I think that one of the first things that we have to straigten out in , considering the second part of this motion that has been divided by Your Honour is that whatever was said by the Leader of the Opposition, 6 ;5~ -· -

May 6, 1975 Tape No. 2061 NM - 2 and it is for honourable members and the public at l~rge to judge whether or not my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, was hitting or hitting below or above the belt.

But, Sir, I think it is very important to point out that Your Honour, or any person who is sitting in the position of the Speaker, during any speeches that my colleague made, the Leader of the Opposition, no Speaker, whether it be the Speaker of the House or the Deputy Speaker or the Assistant Deputy Speaker, brought the Leader of the Opposition to order or asked for an apology because of the words that he uttered during the proceedings of this House.

Sir, today we have a motion here, without this being so, we have a motion asking for the suspension of the Leader of the Opposition, the same penalty imposed on the Leader of the Opposition, exactly the same penalty as has been imposed on the Member for St. George's, Sir, and it just does not jive.

The honourable the Member for St, George's left his seat and physically attacked the Leader·of the Opposition and the rules of Parliament are quite clear on that particular issue, However, the same penalty is being imposed upon the, being asked nf the House anyway, in the second part of this motion, the same penalty is being imposed upon the Leader of the Opposition for words that he uttered for which he was not asked to apoligize for by the Chair. AN HON. MEMBER: Irrelevant, Sir, MR.

RO~ Sir, I think that is very significent, It is only one of two thin~s that we can assume here, one that the words uttered by the honourable the Leader of the Opposition were not that serious or,Sir, with all due respect the Chair was at fault in not brinting the honourable the Leader of the Opposition to order during these so called innuendoes and snide remarks, Sir, because honourable members opposite have addressed themselves not to the wurds of this motion, Sir, which came after the Speaker had left his Chair, but Sir, honourable members opposite have addressed themselves to words uttered by the Leader of the Opposition over the past few days, weeks and months.

I think that is very important, Sir. 6153

May 6, 1975 Tape No. 2061 NM - 3 My colleague, the honourable the Leader of the Opposition has apologized, when he was finally able to, for uttering the words that he had uttered after the Speaker had left the Chair. But, Sir, he has been subjected to a vicious political attack so far by the honourable the Premier and so far by the honourable the Member for Bonavista South, has been subjected to a political attack for words that he used for which he was not brought to order. And Sir, there is a world of difference. There is a world of difference.

Sir, it is unprecedented that a member fo this House should be dealt the same penalty,for the want of a better expression, provocation on the part of my colleague in the heat of debate. He has been dealt the same penalty as was dealt to a member who physically assaulted my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition. Sir, it just does not jive. It does not make sense. One thing that we have got to realize, Sir, in this honourable House, is that politics is a pretty tough game.

Politicians are accused of everything under the sun by the general public and debate becomes pretty heavy and hot in this Assembly, Sir, and in the heat of debate certain things are said. And, Sir, about the only thing that I can say with respect to the Member for St. George's, Sir, is if he cannot stand the heat he should just get out of the kitchen. It is as simple as that. This is a very demandin~. Sir, a very demanding job. MR. BARRY: Is that the sort of debate ••• (Inaudible). MR. ROWE: Yes, Sir, the honourable rinister will have his opportunity to speak after I sit down if he wishes to do so.

But the fact of the aatter is that we are elected to office, we are subjected to some very strenuous pressures within this Assembly because of our constituents and because of the problems that we face in this Province today, whether you are in Opposition or in government. And, Sir, if you cannot stand the pressure, no matter what the reason, you have no - you should not be involved at all. It is as simple as that. If you cannot field, or you cannot handle the financial pressure, you do as the honourable Member for Labrador South did.

If you cannot stand the psychological pressures, Sir, you do the same thing as my honourable, my colleague from Labrador 6154

May 6, 1975 Tape No. 2061 NM - 4 South did althollgh he did it for financial re,1sons. But you are elected to a ·pqsition of responsibiiity and it involves pressure. And if you camaot stand it, as the quote I used, if you cannot stand the heat you simply have to get o.Ut of the kitchen. It is as simple­ as that, AN HON~ 'MEMBElt: I~udible •. 'MR. ROWE: Now tq colleague bas apologized, sincerely apologized for what he said after the Spe4,ker had left th& Chair. Now that ta one tbing, tha.t is one thing, Now· let us get back to what lllY colleague is alleged to have said du1:ing the last few days, few we_eb and as inclica,te _d by some honourable members, for the past few -tha, 6i5 o

May 6, 1975 Tape 2062 (afternoon) IB-1 Sir, I take issue with hoth the honourable the Premier and the Member for Bonavista South. They have both accused the Leader of the Opposition of innuendo and snide remarks. Now, Sir, that may or may not be so. Personally I do not believe that the Leader of the Opposition is any more guilty of innuendo or snide remarks than some other honourable members in this House under the heat of debate.

But, Sir, the cruelest thing of all was to hear the Member for Bonavista South stand in his place and use such expressions as the following: The Leader of the Opposition is using gutter politics and has used gutter politics knowing full well what he was doing. He was destroying the member for - AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. F. ROWE: I will come back to that. He is or was destroying the Member for St. George's knowing full well what he was doing, castigating him and his family, direct quotes. Cruel - the Leader of the Opposition was being cruel.

The Leader of the Opposition was using innuendo and snide remarks and the poor Member for St. George's was cringing in his seat over every remark from the Leader of the Opposition. AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. F. ROWE: These, Sir, these quotes the honourable Member for Bonavista South attributes to a potential leader of this Province, using huaan problems of individuals with these human problems. Now, Sir, the proof is in the pudding. Two things should be pointed out. To my knowledge the Leader of the Opposition had no knowledge whatsoever of the circumstance of the Member for St. George's.

Now, what do I mean by that? I have to explain this. I think the record speaks for itself. I hate to bring it up but the government has seen fit to play this strategy whereby we debate the issue with reference to my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition. But we did not debate the part of the motion with reference to the Member for St. George's. Sir, the Member of the Opposition has been accused of making these statements knowing full well what he was doing. Sir, that is completely and utterly false. AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Inaudible. Mil. SPEAKER: Order, please! 6 l S'' .i. ~,

Kay 6, 1975 Tape 2062 (afternoon) IB-2 KR. F. ROWE: It ia c011pletely and utterly false. Sir, the record speaks for itself. I sympathize with the Member for St. George'•· The honourable D!lllher,as do many member• and IIADY people 1n thia Province and in this country,ha  or had an alcoholic problea u indicated by the honourable the Preaiar. Sir, the events of 1971 -re written into the records of the •aily newspapers of this Province. KR. SIMMONS: By whom? KR. F. ROWE: Not by the Leader of the Opposition. lfot by any politician.

By staff writer• ad 1n one particular instance, Sir, by the honourable the --1>ar 111Juelf. KR. SIMMONS: What aeaber? What aamber? KR. F. ROWE: The honourable Keaber for St. George's in an interview with The Telegr-. I can reaember it very clearly. It waa a pathetic thing, Sir, and I felt sorry for the honourable meaber at that tiae. Bat, Sir, it 1a his problem. My colleague, the Leader of the Oppoaition, wu ca.plataly and totally unaware of the fact that ay dear friend, -, friend froa St. George's baa been agonizing over the paat thirteen -tha trying to kick the habit and I give him fall c~edit for that. MR.

K>RGAH: 'l'hat 1a fine too. Ba ha kicked it. MR. F. ROWE: Okay, he has kicked it. Now, be has kicked it. Congratulation • I can imagine the pain and the agony that the 'bonoarable iaem>er went through over that. Sir, I congratulate the honourable maaber if he ha• kicked it. I congratulate hin and all of my honourable coll•aguas congratulate him and give him great credit for what he ha done. But, let the record stand, Sir, It wu not any member on this side who brought this particular issue up to day. It waa the honourable the Premier wbo brought this out into the public, what the situation was.

Now, Sir, let us go one atep further. We have had situations in this House were honourable member• opposite in my opinion and probably some honourable members on this side in honourable -mber ' opinion on the other side of the House were acting SOllll!What peculiarly. Whether they were not thinking straight or whether they were overtired or they were on tranquilizers or whether they had too much to drink 61.5'/

May 6. 1975 Tape 2062 (afternoon) IB-3 1• irrelevant. The fact of the matter is there have been examples in this House where honourable members have acted as if they were not the111t1elves, their normal selves. Such was the case, Sir, that brought ab0ut the situation that we had yesterday. Such was the caae. In the opinion of my colleague the honourable Member for St. George's was behaving in a fashion not becoming of a member of this Houae of Assembly. In my opinion he was. Now, my colleague advanced the reason why he thought this waa ao.

And since all of a sudden honourable members opposite have explained the reason and my colleague has learned of the situation, my coll•ague has apologized. However, Sir, it should also be pointed out that the honourable Member for St. George's was given a position of heavy and high responsibility in this honourable Houae. He presides over the eOIIIDlittee and he is Assistant Deputy Speaker. HR. SIMMONS: Deputy Chairman. MR. F. ROWE: Chairman of Committees - HR. ROBER'rS: Yes, but Deputy Chairman. MR. F.

ROWE: Deputy Chainun of Collllllittees and assistant Deputy Speaker, a position, Sir, that is as unnerving a position as I can think of in this Bouse when you look at us going at each other from ti._ to time. Sir, if the honourable Member for St.

George's was wrestling with a peraonal problem one ask.a this question: Why did the honourable the Premier appoint him to that particular poaition that requires nerves of iron and,aecondly, why did not some honourable members who all of a sudden today and yesterday are concerned over the cruelty the so called or alleged cruelty of my colleague from 'White Bay North . if they were so concerned,over the innuendo and so called snide remarks uttered by my colleague from White Bay North over the past few weeks, why did not some honourable meaber opposite have the decency and the courage to come over and in the privacy of an office indicate to the honourable the Leader of the Opposition what d-age he was doing,if indeed he vaa doing any damage?

AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: He knew what he was doing.

May 6, 1975 Tape 2012 (afternoon) MR. F •. R:OWE: The honourable aai>er did not bow. And DOif I bow - MR. BARRY: Inaudible. MR.. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. F. ROWE: Okay. I know exactly what the bOllourable llillister is going to aay - MR. ~: Order, please, gentl~! MR. F. BOWE: · I - not finilihed,gentle.en. MR. SPEAKER (STAGG) : The precedent hQ been aet wbHe honoarabla 1lellben are left to tlieir o,m devbe•, they occaaional.ly will degenerate into other than vocal activiey. I will be interrupting aU honourable -1>ers at the fir•t opport,Jniey this afternOOli,.

I e-aggeat that the honourab .le meaber bu th• right to be hclard in ailenc:e. If honourable •mbera have a po:lnt of order, they may rise on that,but not to int~J;fer with the h~ou11ab .le member's right to speak. 615~

>.fay 6, 1975 Ta{>e 2063 (Afternoon) PK - 1 MR. F. ROWE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am in a most peculiar situation for two reasons. I had the honcur of spending ten days, I believe it was 1 in Toronto last Summer with Your Honour and the Member for St. George's and several other honourable members opposite at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference. And_ I can state quite categorically here and now that the Member for St. George's, and believe me there was enough of it around, did not take to my knowledge a single sip of alcoholic beverages.

What he did before then and what he has done since I have no knowledge. Now if honourable members opposite are going to stand up and use private conversations such aR informing me, coming over here in the middle of a debate and saying, you know, that Roberts there,boy, this is digging pretty, you know, pretty low. You know what the story is on Alex, you know, and this sort of a thing: AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. MR, ROWE: You know, and mumblings here - as if I am suppose to be the carrier pigeon between the government and the ~eader of the Opposition. Look,! say, Mr.

Speaker, if the problem was as serious as they suggest surely it is incumbent upon the honourable members opposite to inform formally and privately the honourable member, the Leader of the Opposition 1of what damage he is allegedly doing. But, Sir; I think, this is the c1:11elest day of all when we see honourable members opposite using the very personal physiological and psychological problems of one of their own members, one of their own colleagues, one of their own kind to try and discredit the Leader of the Opposition - MR. BARRY: On a point of order. MR. F.

ROWE: - because, Sir, this is exactly what is happening. MR. NEARY: Hear! Hear! MR. BARRY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The honourable member opposite is directly questioning the motives of honourable members on this aide of the House. AN HON. MEMBER: AN HON. MEMBER: You are damn right. Not quest ion - MR, BARRY: He is - somehow 1t is unbelievable to me, but he is turning around - the submission is that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition 6.~ tiO

May 6, 1975 Tape 2063 (Afternoon) PK - 2 has used this problem, this alcoholic problem of the Member for St. George's. And now he has t~rned around - MR. PECKFORD: MR. F. ROWE: MR. BARRY: MR. F. ROWE: MR. BARRY: Oh, Mr. Speaker - There you go. - but now he has turned around, Mr. Speaker, What is the point of order?

He is making accusations. to members of this side of the House attempting to protect the honourable member, a member of this House, and the privi.leges of this House, he is turning that around and alleging that honourable members opposite are doing this merely to launch a political attack on the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Speaker, that is out of order as impugning the motives of honourable members on this side of the House. MR. F. ROWE: ?fr. Speaker, to that point of order this is precisely vhat honourable members have been accusing the Leader of the Opposition of doing. AN HON. MF.NBER: Inaudible. MR. F.

ROWE: Now, Mr. Speaker, I am speaking on this motion. If I am not allowed, Mr. Speaker, to accuse in reverse - MR. S P.1MONS: Speak your opinion. MR. F. ROWE: - there are obviously two different rules for each side of the House. AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. F. ROWE: It is as simple as that. AN HON. MEMBER: Oh! HR. F. ROWE: And I am saying, Mr. Speaker, to that point of order - MR. SPEAKER (STAGG): Are you speaking to this point of order? MR. F. ROWE: Yes, I am speaking to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I am saying based on the quotations particularly of the Member for Bonavista South,when he uses these~such phrases, cruel, castigating him and his family, and then saying these are the actions of a potential political leader in this Province, linking that up with what we can expect of a political leader in this Province. What 6161

May 6, 1975 Tape 2063 (Afternoon) is one suppose to assume from that if it is not motivations,an. attack upon a potential leader of this Province? So I submit, Sir, that I am doing precisely the same, but they cannot stand it. As honourable members opposite have seen fit, I am now attacking, if you will, the. statements, not the members, t:he statements of PK - 3 two honourable members opposite, namely, the Premier and the Member for Bonavista South as they have seen fit to attack statements and the Leader of the Opposition. You cannot have it both ways. MR. BARRY: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER (STAGG): Order, please! MR. BARRY: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker, just briefly to - MR. SPEAKER (STAGG) Order, please! MR. BARRY: - that point of order, if I might~ MR. F. ROWE: MR. SIMMONS: You cannot have it one way. You cannot use quotes 'Leo'. MR. SPEAKER (STAGG): The Chair is not going to entertain continuous debate on the point of order, so that the point of order in fact: becomes the debate. I have heard sufficient on this point. And I believe it is a difference of opinion between two honourable members.

The question of motives or whatever is again a question of inteE'1)retation and one honourable member may interpret it a different way from another. The Member for St. Barbe North may be irrelevant,although I have listened very carefully to him and I see the thread of relevancy throughout his debate and I have not chosen to interrupt him. And I believe that he is counteracting arguments,or attempting to counteract arguments that were offered by honourable members to my left and I see nothing wrong with that. MR. BARRY: To a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

A matter of privilege arising from the honourable member's remarks, and maybe it was because it was brought up on the point of order, Mr. Speaker, that it is not clear. MR. SPEAKER (STAGG) : The point is, is that, - Order, please! MR. BARRY: To a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (STAGG): While we are - it is a moot point perhaps, but we are debating a matter of privilege at the present time, and

May 6, 1975 Tape 2063 (Afternoon) PK - 4 while the Chair does not teally want to anticipate the honourable gentleman's tactics, I suggest to the honourable gentleman to my left the Chair has just ruled on a point of order raised by the honourable gentlellllln. The method of challenging the Speaker's ruling is known. And if a point of privilege was the point at issue it should have been raised in the first instance, not as a point of order. And we do have a matter of privilege before the House at the present ti111e. I suppose one matter of privilege could supercede another. I am in a bit of a quandary.

But I will hear the honourable gentleman then I will decide whether he has got a point of privilege, order, or what. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, I do not mean to belabour it. Mr. Speaker, I only rise because I see a serious problem arising here. The point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, is that if the honourable member has any - and he said this is the method of approach he intends to tske. - if he has or had any challenges to any statements made by the Member for Bonavista North, the Premier or anybody else then was the time to make them.

He also said that because there is a motion here, there is a motion here dealing with the motives of the Leader of the Opposition, that is what it deals with indirectly, that therefore he is entitled in turn to challenge, question the motives of members of this side of the House. Mr, Speaker, just briefly I would submit that the proper procedure, is the procedure that is used here that the honourable member cannot question the motives of anyone in this honourable House unless he is prepared to put forth a motion and set out a remedy, and this I can refer you to, to paragraph 1, 13 I believe it is, Mr.

Speaker, in Beauchesne. MR. F. ROWE: To that point of privilege - it is the same thing as he brought up in his point of order. MR. SPEAKER: (STAGG): Order, please: If I may dispose of this before it blossoms into something else. I see nothing further - I see nothing in the honourable gentleman's remarks that would change my opinion of the previous ruling. And I thank him for the information derived from it. However, I think, we can now proceed to the original debate. 6163 '. ·.· .. . -: •·· · :

May 6, 1975 Tape 2063 (Afternoon) Pl< - 5 MR. F. ROWE: Thank you very nmch for yout: ruling, Mr. Spsaker.

Sir, the point that I was making 1 and I am deadly and I am as sincere as I can be about this, is that, in my opinion, because of the fact that we have now been forced into a long debate on the motion with respect to the Leader of the Opposition, and because two honourable members have already s11oken, and they have seen fit to attack -, politically attack the Leader of the Opposition, I am sayinr, , as honourable members have used the word opposite, if there is any cruelty in this whatsoever it is what w·e have witnessed from the Ron. the Premier . I am not assigning motives.

I am saying quite clearly that if there is any cruelty

May 6, 1975 Tape no. 2064 Page 1 - DW has been shown, it has been demonstrated by the Bon. Premier and the member for Bonavista South when they have taken this very sad circumstance, and they have unveiled the personal problems of one of their own colleagues to become involved in a debate in order to try and discredit the Leader of the Opposition in the eyes of this Chamber and in the eyes of this Province.

Si~, I think that that is the cruelest thing that I have witnessed in this Bouse to this date,not anything that my honourable colleague, the Leader of the Opposition has said, Because I state for the record once again, and I will repeat it 101 times if necessary until it gets across,that my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition did not know the circumstances surrounding the events of the last thirteen months of the Bon. Member for St. George's life. He simply did not know. And further,certain rulings were made and certain utterances were made by not only the Hon. Member for St.

George's that one would question the fitness, for the want of a better expression, of a person in this Bouse, and the question was asked, you know, you could ask, Mr. Speaker, if an honourable member opposite said something very strange one might logically ask the question, have you blown your top? Have you gone berserk? Have you got a newous breakdown? Are you drunk? Are you on pot? Are you on LSD or what? How come you are acting like that? It is as simple as that. But, Sir, the member for Bonaviata South gets up and quotes from Hansard: " Mr.

Roberts: If I were to believe, Sir, everything I read about the honourable gentleman, he would have been incarcerated to the Waterford Hospital for a number of weeks in 1971 while he was dealing with Mr. Smallwood. Sir, this is not something dreamed up by the Hon. Member for White Bay North. Thia is not something dreamed up. This is in the printed record of this Province. It 18 in the printed record. It is not a falsehood, it is not a lie, it is not imagination, it is not fantasy, because the Hon. Member for White Bay North stated that, 11 if I could believe 6 is·· J .. ;J

Ray 6, 1975 Tape no. 2064 Page 2 - mw It,, ' everything that I have read, everything that I have read. Sir, these Chambers, if you do not mind my saying so, they are a little public than the newspapers of this Ptovince. AN BON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). MR, F. ROWE: The member was not using it. My colleague from White Bay North was being provoked at that very time by the member for St. George's. This is soaething that honourable members opposite forget. It was not as if my colleague from White Bay North got up and launched into a vicious attack on the member for St. George's.

My colleague in fact was trying to point out some of the problems of bis district. And he was being provoked, and he was being interruted .very rudely by the member for St. George's. Let us not forget that minor little detail that members opposite see convenient to forget. So let us not have any more of this foolishness about innuendo, cruelty• castigating his family. Mr. Speaker, I have had the pleasure of meeting the wife of the Bon. Member for St. George's. We spent some time to~ether- during this confeeaace. A good wife. Sir• and a good husband aa far aa I can see. He has licked a problem.

It would have been much better, Sir, if honourable members opposite had to just come across to the Bon. Leader of the Opposition if they felt that the Bon. Leader of the Opposition waa injuring the health or damaging the health or jeopardizing the state of health of the member for St. George's. Surely God, Sir, with a medical doctor sitting in their own ranks, out of a cabinet, the leaders of this country,s0111.ebody would have had the good sense to simply come across the floor and explain the situation to the Hon. Leader of the Opposition,but no, Sir, that was not to be the case.

They let it continue, Sir, and let it continue, and let it continue and let it continue. And they now say that my colleague has driven the Hon. Member for St. George's to the actions that he took yesterday, and for that he was cruel indeed. Sir, I submit, that this was the cruelest blow of all when they sacrificed and jeopardized the condition and health 6!. 6ti

Kay 6, 1975 Tape no. 2064 Page 3 - - of one of their own aaabers to lash out at the Leader of the Opposition. That is the only thing I have seen to this point, Sir, the only thing that I have seen frm honourable 11.embers opposite, and I am here now to the best of my ability, not a lawyer, not an experienced politician, alllce my honourable colleague, the Leader of the Opposition has spoken to the motion, attempting to rebut the curious and preculiar and partisan and politically 11.0tivated~arguaents of the two honourable -bers who have apolten to this date.

Sir• it ia too bad that this part of the 11.0tion was not dealt with in the sme way that the first part of the aotion was with one notable exception, Sir• one notable exception. Tbe actions of one, the Hon. Meaber for St. George's is clear in the books. It ia a breach of the privilege of the Bouse to -n across, as my friend from St. John's East well knows• he waa the vict:la of a physical attack at one stage of the game and the appropriate action was taken against the then member for Green Bay. But, Sir, ay 001league stands accused of using words that have been unparliaaentary.

Be stands accused of allegedly jeopardizing the condition of the aeaber for St. George's and for that he is being given lllle sue sentence as the member for St. George's who physically assaulted and coula have done bodily harm. Honourable members opposite, Sir, one aight argue this, that bodily harm is no worse than psychological harm. Again the bodily harm aspect was a split action manoeuver 1 a IIIOllleilt of passion. The member jumped out of his seat. It is pretty hard to catch two members in flight, Sir.

But members opposite had weeks and they had a,nths, and these are the members, Sir• who we are talking about the dam.age that is being done to this man's family and this 1111111's personality and reputation and his whole psychological make-up. Members opposite are the ones who are accusing the Leader of the Oppoaition,of doing daaage in that respect. This supposedly, Sir, has been going on for weeks and months 1 ao ve hear. So, Sir, I return once again. I know I

May 6, 1975 Tape no. 2064 Page 4 - - am repeating myself. I ask the question~ Should not have one of these responsible members• who are leading this country, come across and advised the Leader of the Opposition and/or the caucus in private? 6.t 68

Hay 6, 1975. Tape 2065 RH - 1 And this whole thing would have been over and done with. Now, Sir, I intend to vote against this motion because I think it is quite unfair. It is quite unfair to the Leader of the Opposition for a nlmlber of reasons. It is the same sentence for a less serious so-called breach of the privileges of the House. Secondly, my colleague did not know the circumstances and - he did not know the clrcU111Stances and honourable members opposite can stand up and talk until they go blue in the face.

My colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, and I challenge any m-bers opposite to get up, to get up and say that they have brought this matter to the attention of the Leader of the Opposition. I - ,AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Did you read the papers - MR. ROWE: That is not the point. That is not the point. Listen, the honourable Member for St. Georges said that he has not been drunk in ,this House. I take h:lm for his word, nor should he be drunk in this House. Any guy who comes into this House drunk, any honourable member who comes in this House drunk should stand accused of being a druaken sot.

He does not have any business to be carrying out the duties of this country ·and making the law of this Province by being in a drunken state. It is as simple as that. AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. ROWE : Well, that is a matter of opinion between two different !members . AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. ROWE: Now, I will state once again that the honourable gentlemen opposite have made an accusation and it is incumbent upon them1D supply the proof.

They have accused my colleague of willingly and knowingly doing what he supposedly had done, whatever that is. If such is the case, I challenge honourable members opposite to supply the proof. Are we supposed to hear every rumor that is on the go? Is the honourable Leader of the Opposition supposed to be following the thirty-three 6169 f

May 6, 1975. Tape 2065 Rll - 2 honourable members opposite around in the dead of night to see what they are drinking, they are smoking and their sexual habits are so they will not be offended in the House? Is that what the job of the Leader of the Opposition is, to keep a personal prospectus, is it? MR. SIMMONS: Yes. MR. ROWE: - On members opposite so that they will not he offended, so that their fcllllilies will not be hurt. MR. BARRY: He should not be using that sort of thing - MR. SIMMONS: He was not using it. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. ROWE: He was not using it, Mr. Speaker.

The only time my collear,ue from White Bay North used any of the language that has been attrihuted to him has been as a result of provocation from the honourable !•ember for St. Georges. MR. SIMMONS: Right. MR. RO!IB: It is as simple as that. MR. SIMMOUS: That is right. MR.

ROWE: And I defy honourable members opposite to research Hansard and bring up one single example of where my colleague cast an aspersion or an innuendo or a snide remark on any member oppo_site without having being provoked 1 because, Sir, I am telling you one thing now - the member can point at that all he wants to - during this whole discussion the member ~as continually being provoked and I might also add, ~!r. Speaker, this is Hansard or a transcript of what is picked up on this machine here.

Now, I might also point out that these machines are on for a speaker who was speaking and there has been one beck of a lot of provocation and words thrown across this House by honourable members opposite and on this side that have not been picked up by that machine because it has not been on when the honourable members saw fit to throw a certain word across the House. So, let us not use this technique. Sir, it is a most unfair motion to bring into this House, the same sentence for a less serious alleged breach of privilege. ~y 6.L ·iu

May 6, 1975. Tape 2065 RH - 3 colleague has been accused falsely of knowingly and willingly destroying the Member for St. Georges, castigating him and his family, being cruel, having the member cringe in his seat, using the hU111811 problems of another human being f~r his own political advantage and then they add, they tie it all up by saying, is this what we can expect of a potential leader of this Province? What can be more politically motivated, Sir? MR. SIMMONS: Character assassination. MR. ROWE: Huh? MR. SIMMONS: It is character assassination, worse than they have accused - MR.

ROWE: Sir, the honourable Member for St. Georges has been made a martyr by his own colleagues in order to get at the Leader of the Opposition, another type of parliamentary gymnastic that we saw coming from the honourable Member for St. John's East on Private Members' Day, a parliamentary maneuver to try - honourable members opposite knew what had to happen to the honourable Member for St. Georges. He had to be suspended for what he had done. So they got together, they got together and saidtnow how can we best take care of this situation? MR. SIMMONS: How can we save face? MR.

ROWE: I know what we will do, some brilliant suggestion. We will nail the Leader of the Opposition with the same sentence. That in itself is bad enough for a lesser crime, no crime. No, not even a lesser crime, no crime. MR . SDIMONS: If it is, they are all criminals. MR, SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. ROWE: They nailed him with the same sentence for doing something that he did not know what he was doing 1and he has admitted that and he has apologized for it. Worse still, they have cruelly used one of their own colleagues to attack the Leader of the Opposition.

Sir, I am glad to see the Premier back in his seat because I can sincerely say that I was going along with the Premier up to that point •. But when the honourable the Premier accused the Leader of the rpposition of innuendo and snide remarks - 6171

May 6, 1975. ;rape 2065 Rll - 4 MR. SD1MONS: Himself, the master. MR. ROWE: You know, Sir, I was really disappointed, this coming from the Premier of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Sir, this may be the cruelest one of all. But the simple fact of the matter is that I am very sorry for and very sympathetic towards, I feel very sorry for the family of the Member for St, Georges. I do not know how many kids he has. I know his wife only. I feel extremely sorry for them as a result of all this. But, Sir, this is not a Sunday school picnic.

We have got to have men in here who can take the pressure, the financial pressure - MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I would just like to remin~ the honourable member he has some three minutes left ir which to speak. MR. ROWE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A member, a people who can take the financial, the psycological and every other, and physical pressure that is required of a politician. As the Member for Labrador South says, it is a demeaning job. It is a demeaning job. We are always accused of certain things. You have to be a politician to know what it is really like and it is not what it appears to be on the outside.

But I do feel sorry for "Alec". I know him very well. But, Sir, honourable members opposite have availed of this opportunity to carry out a political attack on the Leader of the Opposition which I think is completely unwarranted and I think the motion is unwarranted and I think it is unfair and I will be certainly voting against it, MR.SPEAKER: The honourable Member for St. John's East. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to get into this debate until I heard the way in which it was tending because the last few moments have indicated, the last, the Member for Hermitage and the Member for St.

Barbe North, as far as I em concerned, have certainly given a very forceful and dramatic instance that the members in the 6.t7~

May 6, 1975. Tape 2065 RH - 5 Oppoaition do not r~ze the enondty of their own actions. Mr. Speaker; I do not c.bt;,se to get into, as I was, as I might 'ba,re otherwise have gOtten into this debate with respect ta ~e cupab:llity of tile honourable the Leader of .the Opposition becaa,ae 'the honourable the Leader of the Oppositipn has submitted U.­ apology to this Bouse and I do uot chose to go into . it to any great deiree any further. _ But there are two matters that I would like to bring up in connection with the statements that have ~en made because ,

May 6, 1975. Tape 2066 RH - 1 one can get very emotional about issues such as this that have arisen. So, I shall try to attack it from another end of the event, in order to try to have reason overcome any emotional that one might feel. First of all, the main reason why they feel, the members of the Opposition feel that this part of the motion, the suspension of the honourable Leader of the Opposition is unfair is, I suppose, that on the one hand the penalty does not fit the cri.me,as far as they say, or that the action does not equal the action of the honourable Member for St. Georges.

Now, there were two items as far as I saw that were quoted in justification of this. One is related to an instance in which I was involved in some time ago in this House 1which was not pushed to any great length but I think it requires an answer. The honourable Leader of the Opposition when he got up pointed about an assault that had occurred in which I was involved when I was in Opposition, for which I was a victim, let us put it that way. He said that no action was taken against the Member for St. John's East at the time but the perpetrator Qf the incident was suspended for five days.

He quite clearly and logically said, nor should there have been. Now, I do not propose to regurgitate that incident and I do not think it is going to do any good to the editification of this House or to the people involved, some of which are out of politics and some of them are half out of politics, to regurgitate it.

But I would draw quite forclbly to the attention of this legislature that there is a very real difference between the two incidents,to myself and the Leader of the Opposition at that time, because the Leader of the Opposition has thought it necessary and certainly it was necessary to render his apology for the statements that he made in this Bouse. Now, how he made them is another - made his apology is another line we could take. But at the time I did not, I did not have to and there was absolutely no need or any necessity for anything that I did at the time to render any apology. There, Mr.

Speaker, is a direct difference when one is talking about the difference in the penalties involved, to say that because somebody is truck that they get a penalty

May 6, 1975. Tape 2066 RH - 2 and that the victim must get a penalty to match it because of words said. I said nothing at the time. As I said, I do not propose to regurgitate it. I do not think it does the House or history any good. That incident speaks for itself and there is not point in going into it further. With respect to the other item,and this was referred to again and again by the Member for Hermitage and the Member for St.

Barbe North in their statements, for they said that the penalties were unequal, that all the Leader of the Opposition said, all that the Leader of the Opposition said was to say a few words and the other incident involved a physical assault, so the penalties were really unequal. I would say, Mr.

Speaker, if the honourable Leader of the Opposition had not tendered his apologies to this House that certainly the penalti~s may have been unequal because if the honourable Leader of the Opposition had not seen fit,as he did,to tender his apologies to this House in his way1which is not the way of all people but in his own way, I did not read them as unqualified but I hope he intended them to be unqualified, then the penalties should have been much different. Because the penalty, as far as I am concerned, if he had not done it should have been much greater against the Leader of the Opposition.

We can talk about physical attacks on the one hand,and we can talk about other types of attack, but I do not feel when one views the circum­ stances of the situation of the honourable Member for St. Georges,and here again you do not want to get into that to any great degree, but when one judges his circumstances and all of the facts attendant upon it, the words uttered by the honourable the Leader of the Opposition, and particularly the words after proceedings closed which are in the main body of the motion there,were as great, as grevious and as cruel an assault as one could make on any person.

I think that point really has to be made. That is, I say 1 the penalties they might say are unequal and I think they would have been unequal but for, certainly, the apology. The arguments that are used are churlish arguments from the Opposition that no one had brought the Leader to order, said the Member for St. Barbe North. He also said that the members had addressed themselves, the members on this side to statements that had been made over the past weeks and months. 61. lo

May 6, 1975. Tape 2066 RH - 3 Well, Mr. Speaker, from what I have heard and from what has been said to me in conversation with the Member for St. Georges over the past ten days, I think it fair to say that the honourable Member for St, Georges has felt that he has been tormented by the honourable Leader of the Opposition over a particular personal problem which he has. Now, I repeat this to the honourable Rouse, I was not talking to the Leader of the Opposition about it but I am talking about the attitude that the honourable Member for St. Georges had with respect to it.

AndI had my day although there is no excuse at any time and the honourable Member for .St. Georges tenders no excuse to this House for his particular actions. There is no excuse for physical violence or assault or what have you. But I today have a large measure of respect, admiration and feel a great deal of compassion to the Member for St.

George~ who got up and made the statements that he made today,and one does not have to be too long lived in this world to realize that a man :f.n public life like him,with the problem he has admitted he had had but has had the courage to lick, with a family or what have you, that it took a great deal of courage and gl.lDlption for a man to get up and do what he did today and I think he deserves the congratulations and certainly the understanding of everybody in this House and certainly I know as he will get in his own constituency. It is rather unfortunate, Mr.

Speaker, that he was constrained to have to do this particular situation. I have no desire to stand here in the House and to try to enter into a forty-five minute debate 1as members on the opposite side, indicating that I feel that the honourable Manber for St. Georges was justified because of with provocation and what have you. I will just say there was provocation. But I think as he has indicated himself that he has made his own position clear. Would that the members of the opposite side had done exactly the same thing.

As I have said the other defense put up by the Leader of the Opposition and members of the Opposition,that he did not know, that is the Leader of the Opposition did not know about the problem, but I would suggest, 617b

May 6, 1975. Tape 2066 RH - 4 Your Honour, that certainly the words that were uttered at the last part of the session yesterday in the House, certainly indicates that the honourable Leader of tlie Opposition, if he did not know about it, certainly knew facts which would result in a reasonable man, if he is a reasonable man,in concluding that a problem did exist. I draw to Your Honour's attention also the fact that yesterday in the Houae before these, what I consider the most base words that I have ever heard in my life that were spoken to the l.fember for St.

Georges, when you consider the circumstances, before these were emitted after the session ended, at that particular time the Assistant House Leader, the Minister of Justice had gotten up on a point of order and drew what I thought to be very delicately but very forcibly to the attention of the Leader of the Opposition that he was certainly trespassing in an area very personal and in a very cruel manner. I have no desire, as I say, to get up and castigate the Leader of the Opposition with respect to it.

I think his actions speak for themselves and he will bear the fruit of that which he has sown and neither do I have any intention of really going on that much further. As I say, the defenses, the so-called defenses that have been raised, to make the penalty fit the crime, I think that the crime is not the word although I think it was the most vicious attack that I have ever heard in my life and these words used in context against the Member for St.

Georges, as I say, if the Leader of the Opposition did not know it, did not know the problem, he certainly,as a reasonable man) as he must be,ought to have known it and there is no excuse whatsoever. So, an apology has been made. Well, that is fine. So, an apology has been made.

But I would submit, Your Honour, that the enormity of that spoken word which constituted just as brutal assault although no more excusable or less excusable or more or less culpable than the physical assault but just equated and just as effective as the physical assault, has to punished as far as I am concerned regardless of the apology itself because we cannot allow this type of thing to go 6171

May 6. 1975. Tape 2066 Ril - 5 on in the Rouse. It has been going on, cert ainly it has been going on probably from time in memorial, in the stormy Uouses of Assembly of this Province throughout history but I think it has been going on with a good degree of particular frequency and intensity in this session of the thirty-sixth General Assembly. It has ~ot to scop somewhere and I would hope and pray that this would be the place it would stop. The only unfortunate part , it is a sorry lesso :: for all of us to see.

May 6, 1975 Tape No. 2067 NM - 1 MR. SPEAKER: The honourable the Member for Twillillgate. MR. GILLETT: Mr. Speaker, I shall address myself to the resolution, and very briefly, but I have been listening with interest. I think practically everything has been covered, perhaps too widely cover';d, but we have a situation here where one member of the House of Assembly assaulted another. Actually he could take legal action against him in the courts of the land. but he chose not to do that. AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) MR. GILLETT: ----·--- He could not? Why not? MR.

BARRY: (Inaudible) ~-=- ROBERTS; Yes, the lawyers - MR. GILLETT: I would think so. l _am not going to argue against a lawyer but I would think so. But the way I look at it, Mr. Speaker, is this and I think we can go back to •tart at the beginning with the Member for St. George's and he is not the only one. But regardless of who is speaking on this side of the House, if the Member for St. George's does not approve of what he is saying, he will from time to time say, "sit down," or, "shut up" or some such an expression, you see. This naturally causes provocation. And he did it yesterday on several occasions.

I feel that I should get up now and defend the Leader of the Opposition in his remarks concerning the incident of a few nights ago. The honourable the Premier was there, he heard the remarks. Following that, the next day, and I must confess that up until that time I had no knowledge of the fact that the Member for St. George's had not taken a drink of alcohol for thirteen months. ~~0.!!_ERTS: That is what I had no knowledge of, not his alcoholic pvoblem. MR.

GILLETT: The following day I was told by one of the honourable members on the other side, I had fully intended to mention this to my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, asking him to refrain, to be abeve that, to get up on the higher - in other words, go Uf'l another thousand feet because he was on a collision course, as my colleague from Hermitage has said.

But somehow or other I did not, so I stand guilty, and just as guilty as anybody on the other side, and everyone of you, if you knew, as I was aware the following day, that he had knocked the habit, because I for one would never, knowing his past condition, I for one would never even 6J.. 79

May 6, 1975 Tape No. 206 7 NM - 2 hint, a jot or a tittle against him. I have no ·problem myself, but I can imagine, I have been in the world long enough to know what the problem ia with others and I can imagine how hard that fight must be. He has fought a battle. He has fought a war. And he has won. As the Leader of the Opposition says, you know,he is grateful for that and so did 1 I think,my colleague from St. Barbe North. But Mr.

Speaker, it seems to me that all of this was, shall I use an expression? cooked up in caucus, exactly what was going to happen today and here we have the Leader of the Opposition on trial, so to speak, he is actually on trial, But he is on trial not before an unbiased jury but before a caucus, a political caucus, a political body. He has no chance in the world of winning. We have wasted now, as I see it, we have wasted an awful lot of time this afternoon because we all know the results of the vote.

The Member for Bonavista South was quite perturbed, quite disturbed and shocked because we on this side voted against the motion to have the Member for St. George's flicked out for two days. Of course we voted against it. I voted against it because I knew, following the evening of the incident on the steps, I knew he had licked that proble~ - MR. M>RGAN: Inaudible. MR. GILLETT: - therefore I thought surely goodness we have compassion enough to forgive him. He acknowledged his faults. He did not ask for forgivenesa.

He said he would accept whatever the House meted out to him, but the quality of mercy is not strained. So, I certainly for one, and I voted the way my conscience told me, and I for one was opposed to the motion of suspending him from the House for an hour, much less for two days. For the same reason, I am voting against this part of the motion too. Because yesterday afternoon I was the one I believe, Mr. Speaker, I was the one who told the Leader of the Opposition immediately after my colleague and friend from St. Barbe North did, but I believe I 111111 the one who told him.

When he said, well he has been drunk within the last two or three months, and I say no "Ed"• I am told he has not had a drink for over a year. And the Leader of the Opposition 6.~. uO

May 6, 1975 Tape No, 2067 NM - 3 said, well I did not know that and you can usually see in a man's face if he is telling the truth or not.

And I saw in his face that he was telling the truth, Of that I am convinced, Of that I am convinced, I told one of the ministers this morning when I was visiting his office on business, of that I am convinced, For that reason and because the Leader of the Opposition did the manly thing, had he not did what he did,mind you, I would not have voted against this motion, Had he not apolpgized,knowing what he was told yesterday afternoon, had he not apologized, Mr, Speaker, I could have said only that he was a coward. Having apologized I can say that ~e is a man, I can also say the Member for St.

George's is all of a man, because it takes all of a man to make the confession that he made today, It takes all of a man to apologice in the manner and in the sincerity - the honourable Member for St. John's East doubts the sincerity, I do not, I read it in his face yesterday afternoon and just before we came into the House this afternoon. So I want to explain, Mr. Speaker, why I for one voted against the first part of this motion and why I shall vote against the second part of the motion.

It is most unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition has to receive the same penalty as the person who actually assaulted him, most unfortunate, And I think we are stepping on dangerous ground here when we do this because, as it has already been pointed out this afternoon, if we are going to have resolutions brought before the House everytime somebody says something that is not liked by a number of members on the other side of the House or on this side of the House, that we bring in resolutions, it would not be much good for us to bring them in nOT.7 mind you, but with the great majority on the other side, why then we shall certainly be dealing with them almost daily.

I do not condone, I never have,neither do I now nor shall I ever condone much of the accusations that have gone on across this House. It goes across, I presume, in Houses of Parliament, Houses of Assemblies and House of Commons and all other democratic Houses of Legislature, I do not relish it. Sometimes it makes for entertainment. I think yesterday 6181

May 6, 1975 Tape No. 2067 NJ- - 4 aftemoon,we will all agree, but yesterd _a:, afternoon for a lcmg while there was sort of a jovial atmosl)here and I believe the Speaker, when ie called it six o'clock,mentioned it. It is in the Hansard. But 1 can understand and 1 can appreciate why the Member for St. t:eorp:e's welled up withln and why he took the action. I do not hold it apainst him, Mr. Speaker, the actions he took, Because I thinlc th.at perhaps if I were in his place, if I were in his shoes, r would have done the s.ame thtng,

May 6, 1975 Tape 2068 (afternoon) IB-1 But I will ask the Member for St. George's and any other members on both sidea of the Bouae to refrain while sen.body is speaking. He will have a tum if be wants to. ill he bu to do is make a note of the remarks he wan ta to make. I know it does not sound the same, but I would ask them to refrain. If be-bad not the Meliber for St. George's provoked yesterday, we would not have been here discussing this this afternoon. I can assure you that. I think every member on both sides of the House will agree with me there. We all stand here, Mr.

Speaker, today - I think we are all guilty. I feel as guilty almost as anybody could be because I did not tell the Leader of the Opposition the very next day after that incident on the steps. This is why I - asking this Hoose to reconsider that motion, that penalty, and delete the second half of that motion in its entirety, Hr. Speaker. Thank you. MR. SPEAK.ER: The honourable Member for Fogo. CAPT. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, this is another sad day in the life of this Assembly. I feel that this Assembly has deteriorated. It bu been deteriorating nov for the last three years or a>re.

The clhlax was reached yesterday and again today. Now, Sir, we all feel sorry and sympathetic towards the honourable Member for St. George's. Sir, if any harm has been done to that honourable gentleman, it was certainly done and brought to the surface by the Premier of this Province this afternoon. Why, Mr. Speaker, should a person's private life, his family life, be brought on the floors of this Assembly and debated? We have debated for nearly two hours the private life of an honourable gentleman of this House of Assembly. Mr. Speaker, if that is not deterioration, then I do not know. It ia beyond decay almost.

So, Sir, I am not proposing to speak +ery long. But, this whole thing should have been cut abort yesterday by the Chair when the honourable Leader of the Opposition made certain statements.