Volume 3 PROVINCE OF NEWFOUNDLAND THIRTY-SIXTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEWFOUNDLAND 3rd. Session VERBATIM REPORT WEDNESDAY , DECEMBER 18, 1974 SPEAKER: THE HON OU RAB LE JAMES M. RUSSELL Number 93

December 18, 1974. The House met at 3:00 p.m. Mr. Speaker in the Chair. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please'. Tape 2205 The honourable Minister without Portfolio. RH - 1 HON. W. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege of the House. I had to rise at the earliest possible moment which is now. The nature of the privilege of the House that I am raising are statements made by the honourable the Leader of the Opposition to the media yesterday and today, which were played yesterday and today, relating to the partiality of the Speaker of this House and the Deputy Speaker.

Before going on with the nature of the privilege further, Mr. Speaker, I would like to appeal to the honourable the Leader of the Opposition with respect to this matter. Statements were made with respect to the partiality of yourself and the Deputy Speaker.

It is known and has been known in times past that people have disputed from time to time rulings of Speakers that have been made, not agreed with rulings, but it is another thing altogether and I think the honourable Leader of the Opposition with his experience in this House will really concur that it is another thing altogether when one assails the partiality of the Chair of this House because it has an obvious detrimental effect on the integrity of Your Honour, the Deputy Speaker and this House.

So I am prepared myself to yield the floor of this House to the honourable Leader of the Opr,osition. if he is prepared to stand in his place in this House and unequivocally, without reservation apologize to Your Honour and to the Deputy Speaker and to the House for his statements. If not, it will have to be with a matter of, I might say, reluctance on behalf of the government that they will have absolutely no alternative but to move the appropriate motion. The honourable Leader of the Opposition is not - I do not know whether the honourable Leader of the Opposition wishes to respond, he does not appear to.

Well then, Mr. Speaker, if that is the case, I move that this House direct Your Honour to procure recordings of materials broadcast on television station CJON and radio station CJON relating to proceedings in the House of Assembly between 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 17, 1974 and 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday, 8452

December 18, 1974. Tape 2205 RH - 2 December 18, 1974 and also recordings of programmes relating to proceedings of the House of Assembly broadcast over radio station VOCM between 3:00· p.m. on Tuesday, December 17, 1974 and 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December 18, 1974 and further that these recordings be made available to this honourable House for viewing or listening at the earliest possible time in order to determine that the contents thereof constituted breach or breaches of privilege of this honourable House by the honourable Leader of the Opposition.

If it is found that the content or contents thereof constitute a breach or breaches of privilege of this honourable House that the Leader of the Opposition be suspended for three sitting days. HON. E. ROBERTS (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, that is a debatable motion of course. MR . SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. ROBERTS: I am going to ask when the debate is in order. That is all I want to know, whether this constitutes notice and we debate it this day or what. I mean under 127(1) of Beauchesne, there is no doubt that it is a debatable motion and our own precedent last year - MR .

SPF,AKER: I think right now the motion is a matter of procedure for the House to get the tapes of what was . . ~ 8453

December 18, 1974 Tape no. 2206 Page l - MW alleged to have said and if it is substantiated that there is a prima facie case, a motion after it is substantiated, then it will be debatable. MR. ROBERTS: The motion is that we send for some tapes. That motion surely has to be passed before the House can send for the tapes. I mean that was the motion read by the honourable gentleman. Surely that is debated before any tapes are sent for. MR. SPEAKER:There was considerable thought given to this. MR. ROBERTS: I have no doubt. MR. SPEAKER: By myself only. MR. ROBERTS: I have no doubt. AN HON.

MEMBER: What is that supposed to mean? MR. ROBERTS: It means exactly what I said, I have no doubt. AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). MR. SPEAKER: Order please! The Chair does not consider that particular motion to be a debatable motion. There is no doubt that a motion - MR. ROBERTS: What! MR. SPEAKER: Order please! If a prima facie case is considered, then a subsequent motion obviously is a debatable motion. MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, that motion as the honourable gentleman read it was moving that tapes be sent for. Then if the tapes contained certain things that I be suspended for three days .

Your Honour is saying that that is not a debatable motion. I heard the honourable gentleman, the House Leader, read the motion . I do not have a copy of it. Is Your Honour saying that that motion is not a debatable motion? MR. SPEAKER: That is my opinion right now but I will concede to the Hon. Leader of the Opposition and take five minutes or so to look at the wording of the motion. 8454

December 18, 1974, Tape 2206 MR. SPEAKER: I refer honourable members to Beauchesne, nage (168), (200), subsection (4) - which says: "A motion which contains two or more distinct propositions mav be divided so that the sense of the House may be taken on each separately •. , After looking at the exact wording of the motion, I feel that it does make two propositions and so I have divided it into two parts. SOME HON . MEMBERS : Hear! Hear! MR. SPEAKER: It is debatable Rnd I will accept debate on what I 2 consider to be part one, if I might read that. "Mr.

Speaker, I move that this House direct Your Honour to procure recordings of materials broadcast on television station C.J.O.N. T.V and radio station C.J.O.N. relating to proceedings in the !louse of Assembly between 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday December 17, 1974 and 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday December 18,1974.

Also recordings of Programmes relating to proceedings of the House of Assembly broadcast on radio station V.O.C.X. between 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday December 17, 1974 and 3:00 p,m. on Wednesday December 18, 1974, and further that these recordings be made available to this honourable House for viewing or listening at the earliest possible time." The vote can be taken on that part but I shall refer to it as part one of this motion after whoever wishes to speak to it~ of course, has done so. The debate will be certainly limited to this nart of the motion. ' IR. ROTIERTS: :tR. SPF.AKf:R: f!R . ROBERTS : Nearv one - 'IR.

CROSBIE; (Inaudible) It is debating it now, eh? Oh sure! Things said in this House in the Crosbie versus (Parts inaudible) On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you made a ruling that this notion is debatable now? You have, Sir, is that not so? MR. SPF.AKER: Yes. -------- ~rR . CROSilIE: Hell then, if there is any objection there will have to be an appeal from your ruling otherwise we debate it now. ,8455

December 18, 1974 Tape no. 2206 Page 3 !nl. SPEAKEa: The Ron. lanister without Portfolio. MR. MARSHALL: Mr.

Speaker, as the 1110ver of the 1110tion, two parts of the lllOtion, little needs to be said about the first part becaus.e 'When statements are made in this bcourable Rouse :flllputing the integrity or the parUality of the Chair, (Beauchesne, paragraph 11)) it :Ls del!!lled to be: one of the lllOSt serious infringements of the House.Because of the fact that statements that are presently in the stage· of being alle.ged atatements were made by the press are not before this Rouse, it is necessary and it is cust01Ury in instances such as this in order to prove that the statements were made to have the tapes or the transcripts taken before the 'House in order to prove it.

We cannot say for s.u-,;e because it has not been before the Rouse. No matter what we hear outside, it is of no concern to the Rouse. As auch it does not become part of the record of the B.ouae.. We 1DUSt get these tapes before the Rouse in orde:r to determine if allegations with r.espect 8456 ,,

December 18, 1974 Tane 2207 PK - 1 to partially were in fact made by the Leader of the Opposition. I would hone that they were not. As I say, in this whole matter as far as the government are concerned it would have hoped that the Leader of the Opoosition would have deemed fit to have gotten up and taken the course of action that was initially suggested before any part of the motion came in.

The unfortunate part about it is that he did not see fit to do and it is unfortunate that the whole tenor and tone of this House suffers as a result of it as it has suffered for a long neriod of time. 3o consequently after two years we are forced really to take this motion. We do not like doing it because really it is a reflection, this tyr,e of thing, the conduct of the Leader of the Opnosition when this tyne of thing occurs really is a reflection on all members,· We cannot continue to operate a House of Assembly on the lines that the House of Assembly has been going in the past two years. It is one thing, Mr.

Speaker, to make allegations or to dispute rulings and heavens knows we have all disagreed with rulings from time to time, you would get up and vou nut one side and the other nuts another side and a ruling is made but it is another thing altogether, 1":r. Sneaker, to attack the integrity and the impartiality of the Chair. As I say it is with a great deal of re~ret that we have to bring this motion in, in the first place. The first leg of the motion then is to get before this House to determine if the Opnosition Leader really did attack the integrity of Your Honour and the nenutv Speaker. The Hon.

Leader of the Opnosition. MR. SPEAKER: 'fR. ROBERTS: Mr. Sneaker, the motion before the House now is a motion which would require Your Honour or direct Your Honour to send to radio station CJON, radio and television station CJON and to radio station VOCM to seek after some tape recordings, .1ust as recordin!!;s, tape and video, I guess, of statements of which I am alleged to have made. I submit that there is no need to send for those recordings. I do not say that because of anything I said or did not say, I am quite nreoared to reneat in this House anything which I said.

Sure, I am ouite prepared to repeat in this House anything that I said. My defence 8457

necember 18, 1974 Tape 2207 PK - 2 is truth. Yesterday the Deputy Soeaker in the Chair had put to him a motion, an amendment, it is all relevant to whether or not these tapes should be sent for because if there is no truth in the defence, unless we are to have Marshall Law in this House, if truth is the defence there is no need to send for these tapes. The Deuutv Speaker had put to him an amendment. The amendment was the so-called six month hoist. The Deputy Sneaker - objection was taken bv honourable gentlemen to this motion being in order or not.

The neoutv Sneaker did the appropriate thing, the same thing as Your Honour did ten minutes nast. took an adjournment of the Rouse to consult. He came hack and he made his ruling. He ruled that it was in order. He ruled further that once the amendment had been put,the main question was nut without further debate. Then he ruled further that no debate should he allowed on the amendment.

He did not ask for any argument on that point, he did say, I have not got the Hansards, they have not been nublished 1 I think my memory is sufficiently fresh on the point. he did say "Are there any further arguments before I give my ruling?" There was no indication there was any question of the debatability, if there is such a word, of the six month hoist amendment. He then made a ruling that it was not debatable. In so doing, Sir, he cited no authority exceot Standing Order (32) of the House of r.ommons at Ottawa which is found on nage 106 of Beauchesne. Your Honour I know is familiar with it.

That Standing Order is the one which sets forth the motions which are debatable. First of all, I must address myself to the ouestion of whether Beauchesne should have been quoted at all. It can be aoprooriate. Standing Order (1) of our House of Assembly says "That in all cases not T>rovided for hereafter or by sessional or other orders the usages and customs nf the House of Commons of Canada as in force at the time shall be followed so far as thev may be apolicahle to this House •. , A verv clear cut - Mr. Speaker, the honourahle gentleman - 8458

December 18, 1974 Tape 2207 PK - 3 ~- CP.OSBIF· Mr. Speaker, on anoint of order. I submit that this discussion of what happened or did not hapren in the House yesterdav or what the ruling of the Deputy Speaker was in the House yesterday is entirely irrelevant to the motion that is now before Your Honour. This motion is to ascertain the facts as to whether the impartiality of the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker have been nuestioned by the Leader of the Onnosition. Now whether the Sneaker or the Deouty Sneaker made a mistake in making a ruling yesterday or any time in the past is quite immaterial.

Anvone can make mistakes. Whether there was a mistake made or not is not relevant to this but whether a Speaker or a Deputy Speaker makes a mistake that does not justify any member of the House in saying that the Sneaker or Deputy ~neaker 1s not impartial or impugnirg his conduct , you then have a right of appeal to the House and if the House sustains the Speaker that settles the matter. There is no .1ustification there for somebody then going on to sav the Speaker or the nenuty Sneaker is imnartial. It is a breach o~ the privilege of the House for anyone to impugn the character or act i ons of the Speaker.

What we are now trving to ascertain or get the exact facts about is whether the Leader of the Opoosition to the media yesterday and todav tmnugned the character and integrity of the Speaker and Denut y Sneaker by saying that thev are making nartial rulinps. That is the question. It is not whether he is justified hy some fancied mistake that the Denuty Speaker made vesterdav. So I submit, Your Honour, that the remarks the honourable gentleman is making now are quite irrelevant to this motion. MR. ROBERTS, ?-!R. SPEAKER: "-'R, ROilERTS: Mav I sneak to the noint of order, Mr. Speaker? Yes , vou mav.

I suhm:l.t that my remarks are relevant. The motion - there js no reference in this motion to partiality or anything else. The Motion in its entirety says as Your Honour put it," 1-{r. Speaker, I move that this House direct Your Honour to procure recordings of materials broadcast on television station CJON T.V. and radio station CJON relating to nroceedings in the House of Assembly between 8459

necemher 18, 1974 Tape 2207 PK - 4 3:00 P.M. an Tuesday, December 17, 1974 and 3:00 P.M. on Wednesdav.

December 18, 1974 and also recordings of programmes relating to proceedings of the House of Assembly broadcast on radio station VOCM between 3:00 P.M. on Tuesday, necember 17, 1974 and 3:00 P.M. on Wednesday, December 18, 1074 and further that these recordings be made available to this honourahle House for view:1.nft or for listening at the earliest nossible time:' There is no reference in that motion, Sir, as Your Honour after consideration out it from thP Chair to any question of partiality or anything else, there is merely a motion before the Rouse.

The mover of the motion has given some reasons why he has moved it. He made isome reference to alleged chargeis of partiality. I am sueakinp; against the motion. I submit I should be allowed to give my reasons '•!hy this motion should not be accente>d. AN HON. MEMBER: It :Is irrelevant. MR. SPF.AKER: Order, fllease! The Chair finds and the Sneaker Hnds himself in perhaps an awkward nositfon, in an unusual oosition of having to make rulings on matters pertaining to his own nosition at this nresent time.

I think in reading the motion or what I referred to as part (1) of the motion that I said, the debate should be verv relevant to that particular uoint as to whether or not the House should authorize or request the Soeaker to send for certain tapes. Again, relevancies are rather difficult to rule on. I want to he as fair as any one nerson can be on the whole matter. I do feel that the Leader of the Ooposition was straying somewhat from the relevancy of nart (1) of this narticular motion. 'MR. ROBERTS: Mr.

Sneaker, I shall of course try to be relevant and what I am giving are my reasons whv these tapes should not be sent for. What I am say:fng 1s that the nenutv Speaker :In mak:fnp; hls ruling on that uoint yesterday, and after all it was his ruling that led to the comment that is in the tapes, that we choose to- I submit nothin!! to be more relevant than that. This is just not a urocedural motion, this ts a substantive mot:fon which we> are going to dehate. The ne!'utv Sneaker made a ruling. he referred to Beauchesne, 8460

December 18, 1974 Tape _No. 22(18 NM - 1 Now, Sir, my first point in giving my reasons why these tapes should not be sent for, is that the Deputy Minister did not apply Standing Order because the practice of the House of Commons of Canada as in force at this time - MR. CROSBIE: Point of order, Mr. Speaker - MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, am I allowed to continue without harassment? MR. CROSBIE: I wish to make exactly the same submission again, Mr.

Speaker, it is irrelevant what the Deputy Speaker did or did not do yesterday or whether he was mistaken or not mistaken or what exactly the position was with the Deputy Speaker yesterday. What is relevant to this motion is whether the character and conduct of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker have been impugned. Has the Leader of the Opposition in fact said what I heard him say yesterday on television, that the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker were partial in their rulings and had been over the debate for the last three veeks? That is what we want to ascertain, the exact statements that were made.

That is what the House wants to ascertain. Because if those statements were made, they are a breach of the privileges of this House, not whether there was a mistake yesterday made or not made by the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker. All we are addressing now is should the House get exact transcript of what the Leader of the Opposition said so that the House can get the transcript here and can decide whether it was a breach of the privilege of the House or not? That is the only thing, Mr . Speaker, that is relevant to this particular debate. MR . ROBERTS: To that point of order, Mr.

Speaker, there is nothing in the motion as Your Honour has put it from the Chair. n~thing at all that refers to anything except whether or not the House should send for some tapes. I am giving my reasons why they should not be sent for. I submit I should be allowed to give my reasons why they should be sent for or why they should not be sent for. I am not afraid of the truth. I am not afraid to point out that the Deputy Speaker deliberately overturned a precedent of this House. I want the opportunity to point that out. I 8461

December 18, 1974 Tape No. 2208 NM - 2 submit I should be allowed to do so, Sir, and the House can then judge. MR. CROSBIE: Might I reply to that, Mr. Speaker, by referring to Beauchesne. Page 56 first _, "Reflections upon the character or actions of the Speaker may be punished as breaches of privilege.

His action cannot be criticized incidentally, in debate or upon any form of proceeding except a substantive motion." The only way that the Speaker or Deputy Speaker, where their actions can be criticized, the only way in which you can criticize their actions is that if you bring into the House a substantive motion of criticism on the conduct of the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. Then that would have to be dealt with. Then that criticism of the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker would have to be dealt with. It is a motion that is not brought into any House very often.

I think the last time it was brought in in Canada was in 1956 or some time like that on the pipeline debate. So if the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, wants to criticize the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker, which is a most unusual step, but if he wants to, if he wants_to criticize some ruling, his procedure is to bring in a substantive motion so that that can be debated. Page 63 says the same thing, "In addition to appeals there is also in the Canadian House the English rule that censure upon the Speaker can be moved and debated.

This is the only proceeding which permits discussion of the Speake~'s rulings." 'You cannot discuss them otherwise, until it is resorted to, the Speaker must be trusted by the members and so on and so forth. "If a member wishes to challenge the action or conduct of the Speaker on any matter other than an appeal from his decision, he must proceed by giving two days' notice of a motion on the subject and by bringing the matter up as a separate question, except, of course, if it be a question of privilege, when it may be taken up as such." In 1956 Mr, Drew moved such a motion.

So that the discussion now that the Leader of the Opposition is purporting to make or trying to make is out of order in this debate. 8462

December 18, 1974 Tape No. 2208 NM - 3 There is only one way he can discuss the ruling of the Deputy Speaker yesterday and that is by a substantive motion. MR. SPEAKER: The sections of Beauchesne quoted by the honourable Minister of Fisheries are well taken. I again repeat that I said that the debate should be very relevant as to whether or not the House has the authority to request the Speaker to send for such tapes.

The only matter which I feel should be debated now is whether or not the Rouse has that right and really what took place yesterday with regards to the alleged remarks by the honourable Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Speaker perhaps should be kept for further debate under a proper motion. MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, at this point I am not questioning the right of the House. I am questioning the desirability of the House and I surely am to be allowed to give my reasons why. MR. CROSBIE: You heard Beauchesne. MR.

ROBERTS: I heard Beauchesne and I know that Beauchesne allows a debate on a six month hoist and this House did too until yesterday. MR. CROSBIE: That is irrelevant. MR. ROBERTS: It is not irrelevant. It is a directly relevant thing. They fear the truth. The truth is that that motion is debatable, that it has been debated in this House in 1967. That is the truth. MR. SPEAKER: Order please! MR. ROBERTS: Fred Stagg overturned it. MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The remarks just made by the honourable Leader of the Opposition were certainly irrelevant to this particular part of the motion and the Chair feels rather strongly that some of the previous remarks were irrelevant as well. It is prepared to hear the honourable Leader of the Opposition and let him continue but if the Chair feels that he continues to be irrelevant to this part of the motion then it shall have to impart the rule of irrelevancy. MR.

CROSBIE: Point of order, a member of this House is not permitted to refer to another member of this House by his name and certainly he cannot refer to the Deputy Speaker by his name and that should be withdrawn. 8463

December 18, 1974 Tape No. 2208 NM - 4 The Leader of the Opposition has enough experience to know you do not call someone Fred Stagg. MR. ROBERTS: I have no hesitation in withdrawing the words naming the honourable gentleman. It was the heat of the moment that led to it. I had no intention, in calm and rational way of referring to the honourable member for Port au Port by his name. My references to him are much less complimentary than that. Mr. Speaker, the motion - MR. CROSBIE: Mr.

Speaker, on a point of order, is this House going to continue to permit this kind of thing, that the Deputy Speaker he would refer to him in much less complimentary terms? I mean this is an insult to the House. This is contrary to all the rules of procedure of the House. I ask Your Honour to make sure that the rules are observed and that this kind of conunent be stopped. MR. ROBERTS: Inaudible. MR. NEARY: Give him the firing squad. MR. SPEAKER: Order please! Order please!

The Chair stated earlier that it, while it finds itself in a awkward situation p•rhaps, it considers the whole matter to be very serious and would again request honourable members to not get carried away in the heat of debate. The remark made by the honourable Leader of the Opposition in referring to the honourable member for Port au Port by name he certainly withdrew. Subsequent remarks, remarks referring to him I think being less complimentary, I think he was sort of inferring certain things about the char- acter of the member for Port au Port and I would ask him to withdraw the remarks. MR.

ROBERTS: I withdraw them. If I cannot say what I think about the honourable member I shall say nothing. I withdraw it. Now, Mr. Speaker, as I was saying in giving my reasons for opposing this motion and the only point of the motion, Mr. Speaker, as Your Honour put it, and as Your Honour put it, exercising Your Honour's undoubted authority to divide a motion that contains two separate matters, into two distinct motions, as Your Honour put it, it had no reference to any question of impartiality or anything else. That was in the 8464

December 18, 1974 Tape No. 2208 NM - 5 second part of the motion which presumably stands separately. The only ques~ion in this motion is whether or not this Rouse should direct and I submit the word should be request or authorize, but the word in the motion is direct Your Honour to send for certain recordin~s. That is the question. That is the only question. That is the only question on which we will vote. t say that the Rouse should not do that.

Because t say that the contents of those recordin~s. and they vere played on the medin, and so they should have been, they were intended to be , they were given fo r the purpose of the media making whatever use they wished in the normal course of their business and their affairs. They were not given in secrecy. They were not bugged. Those recordings were given to the media openly. They were given to the reporter knowing that he or she was a repo rter. So the ques tion becomes whether or not they should be sent for. Well I say they should not be. t say there is no need to. Why?

Simply beca use there is nothing in those that in any way is relevant to the motion before the Rouse. The honourabl e gentleman opposite has given no substantive reasons. He says "partiality ." Sure, in the courts there was partiality. But we will debate that later . 8465

December 18, 1974. Tape 2209 We will debate that later if we ever get the opportunity. AN HONOURA11LE MEMBER: Inaudible. RH - 1 MR. ROBERTS: Of course I mean there was partiality by the Speaker. That is what the argument is all about is it not? MR. MARSHALL: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. ROBERTS: No doubt about that. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! Up to this point, the debate as I understand it has been centred around alleged remarks made by the honourable Leader of the Opposition. A few seconds ago he did say that the Speaker was impartial. MR.

ROBERTS: No, no - partial. MR. SPEAKER: Was partial, rather. The Chair certainly objects to those remarks and as requested of the honourable Member from Hermitage, the Chair will now request the honourable Leader of the Opposition to make an unqualified apology to the Chair for such remarks. MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I apologize and withdraw, whatever the words, for having used them in this debate. There is no hesitation or qualification or equivocation or reservation there. I cannot withdraw having said them outside because I did say them outside. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. ROBERTS: Fling me out. Go ahead. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The Chair is not satisfied with the apology, so-called apology made by the Leader of the Opposition. It does not consider it to be unqualified and feels that perhaps he did get carried away in the heat of debate and will again ask him to make what the Chair considers to be an unqualified apology. MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, if Your Honour can tell me what your Chair considers to be an unqualified apology, I am prepared to make it.

But, I can say I withdraw it, I did say that I withdraw without reservation and equivocation or hesitation or mental reservation of any sort whatsoever, whatever I said in this Chamber a few minutes ago referring to the partiality 8466

December 18, 1974. Tape 2209 RH - 2 or impartiality of the Chair, I have no hesitation on that. What I can­ not withdraw is what I said outside the Chamber and I do not withdraw what I said outside the Chamber. MR . SPEAKER: Order, please! The Chair is not referring to the alleged remarks made by the honourable Leader of the Opposition outside the Chamber. The Chair asked the honourable Leader of the Opposition to make an unqualified apology for remarks made here about the partiality of the Speaker.

The Chair has not accepted the unqualified apology of the Leader of the Opposition and again would ask him to do so. MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, words fail me. I have twice withdrawn that and if Your Honour can give me any words that will make Your Honour feel a little happier on the point and then Your Honour's consideration meet the point, fine. I am not trying to evade or to play tautological games. What I said in the Chamber I am prepared to withdraw and I do withdraw and that is the third time I have said it. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is not satisfied with this and I am sure the honourable Leader of the Opposition does not really expect the Chair to quote what the Chair would like for him to say. MR. ROBERTS: Well, am I supposed to play with words all day to find some words to satisfy the Chair? MR. SPEAKER: And the Chair has no further intentions of becoming involved in a debate with the honourable Leader of the Opposition and will give him one other opportunity to make an unqualified apology and if he does not do so to the satisfaction of the Chair then the Chair will name him. MR.

ROBERTS: Your Honour, for the fourth time I am prepared to withdraw and I have said this three times and I now say it the fourth, to withdraw unequivocally, without mental reservation, without hesitation, without alteration, without amendment, without any distinct or indistinct shade of qualification that I withdraw and I will apologize. I said that four ti.mes before, three times before, that is the fourth, to the references I made here in this House this day about the partiality of the Chair. I have made 8467

December 18, 1974. Tape 2209 RH - 3 no references other than the one and that one I did make and I withdraw that, That i~ the fourth time now. If that satisfies Your Honour well and good, if not I am honestly at a loss as to how to satisfv Your Honour on that point. HON. L.BARRY: May I have Privilege of the House, Mr. Sneaker? The honourable the Leader of the Opoosition is playing word games. The honourable Leader of the Opposition has admitted in this House that in statements made outside the House he has questioned the impartiality of the Speaker.

Re must be asked to apologize for those remarks questioning the impartiality of the Spe~ker and he must be asked to unqualifiedlv withdraw the remarks, not what he said in the Rouse, Mr. Speaker, but he is playing the word game because how can he withdraw the statements that he made yesterday which he has now confirmed in the House? AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) ~J!.~Y: Re must apologize for the statements which he has admitted that he has made that question the imoartialitv of the Chair.

He must apologize for those statements and withdraw those statements, the statements that are the suhject of this motion which has now, Mr. Speaker, become irrelevant as far as protecting the privileges of the House are concerned. MR. ROBEllTS: Mr. Speaker, to that point of privilege if I might. I have not said what I said outside the House and I did sav that I could not withdraw what I said outside the House. The point of this motion if it were to pass is to send for certain recordings with a view, presumably, to ascertaining what I did say outside the House.

I am attempting to present my reasons why I do not think they should be sent for but that is fine. I mean, that matter will he decided when that motion is put to a vote. I have not said what I said outside the House. I have said I will not withdraw what I said outside the House nor will I. MR~~~SHALL: On the point of privilege. The honourahle the Leader of the Opposition has said; "I withdraw unequivocally the statement and apologize and withdraw the statement made within this House reflecting on the impartiality of the Deputy Speaker," but in the same breath he turns around and says: "I 8468

Dec ember 18 , 1974. Tape 2209 RH - 4 shall not withdraw what I said outside the House," which constitutes in itself, Mr. Speaker an innuendo and a direct reference to a lack, and he confirmed it, - AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. SPEAKER.: Order, please! MR. MARSHALL: To an unequivocal, that is not an unequivocal withdrawal and he subsequently then confirmed the fact that he did question the partiality outside the Cha111ber.

Now the only th~ that can satisfy this House is for the honourable Leader of the Opposition to withdr -aw 'l,lnequivocally and apologize for st.atements made in this F!ouse and statements which 'li!ere made Outside the House which he has now admitted that he has made. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! A number of persons have spokell to this tnatter of pr.ivilege rais.ed by the lionourable Minister of Mines and Energy and to the matter referred to earlier and the subsequent d~bate bet:weeJi the honourable Leader of the Opposition and myself.

I shall recess the House for a few minutes to listen to the tapes and then ma~ a further ruling. 8469

December 18, 1974 Tape no. 2210 Page 1 - MW MR. SPEAKER: Order please! Referring to the point raised by the Hon. Minister of Mines and Energy and certain remarks following that, I have listened to the tapes and I would like to read down through the transcript of what I have just listened to along with the Deputy Speaker and other membews of the Table. I first said, "Order please. Up to this point the debate, as I understand it, has been centred around alleged remarks made by the Hon. Leader of the Opposition. A few seconds ago he did say that the Speaker was impartial." The Hon.

Leader of the Opposition said, "No, no, partial." Then the Speaker said, "Was partial rather. The Chair certainly objects to those remarks and as requested of the Hon. Member for Hermitage, the Chair would now request the Hon. Leader of the Opposition to make an unqualified apology to the Chair for such remarks." The Hon. Leader of the Opposition said, "Mr. Speaker, I apologize for or withdraw whatever the words for having used them in this debate. There is no hesitation, qualification, equivocation nor reservation there.

I cannot withdraw having said them outside because I did say them outside." At that point the Chair continued to request the Hon. Leader of the Opposition to make what it considered to be an ~nqualified apology. The point was subsequently raised by the Hon. Minister of Mines and Energy that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition did make remarks outside the House pertaining to the partiality of the Chair. The tapes sort of bear that out. I would now call upon the H6n.

Leader of the Opposition to make an unqualified apology re .his remarks which he admitted having made outside the House with regard to the partiality of the Chair inside. If the Hon. Leader of the Opposition should wish to make an unqualified apology. MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to do so and I do so. I will not consent to the withdrawl of this motion and the motion will have to be debated and then · a subsequent motion will have to be debated. 8470

December 18, 1974 Tape no. 2210 Page 2 I withdraw I am not sure exactly. I did not have the benefit of reading the Hansard, only having heard Your Honour read the words. Yes, I have no hesitation in withdrawing what I said. What I said outside I did say. I cannot withdraw that fact, I can apologize for them and I do, I have no hesitation at all on that point. I will not consent to withdraw the motion be-fore the Chair. I wish to continue debating that, MR. SPEAKER: Order please! The Chair is not quite satisfied that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition has made an unqualified apology for bis remarks.

The Chair did ask for an apology and not a withdrawl. MR. ROBERTS: For the sixth time, I unqualifiedly apologize, _AN HON. MEMBER: Withdraw it. _MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I cannot withdraw what I have said. How can I withdraw whatever I - there has been no statement made in this House. There is no statement here as to what I said, There is nothing in any words I used. I will read them as Your Honour read them. Mr. Roberts: "Mr.

Speaker, I apologize for or withdraw whatever the words for having used them in this debate." It is not a very grammatical statement I confess, "There is no hesitation, qualification, equivocation nor reservation there, I cannot withdraw having said them (whatever that means) outside because I did say them outside." Whatever I said outside, I cannot withdraw. I can apologize and I do, MR. SPEAKER: Order please! The Hon, Leader of the Opposition has made what ~he Chair considers to be an unqualified apology in his last remarks. MR, ROBERTS: Thank you, Now may I continue with the debate on the motion Mr.

Speaker1 AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible), 8471

December 18, 1974 Tape no. 2210 Page 3 MR. ROBERTS: No: No: No: There is a motion before the Chair, The motion is whether or not this House should send for certain tapes and certain recordings. I propose to put what I have to say. If any other honourable member should wish to speak, he can speak. Then we will decide the issue and if Your Honour is directed to send for tapes, we will direct it. Then if the tapes are sent for and if they determine a breach of the privileges of this honourable House by the Hon.

Leader of the Opposition, ( I am reading flt'CIID. two of it) then we will have a lovely little debate on that. I mean I have no desire to do anything else other than to ventilate this question fully. I believe the public interest ' of the province requires it. Now may I proceed?, The motion has been made, seconded and it is under debate. MR. CROSBIE: MR. SPEAKER: To a point of order , Mr. Speaker • Order please: MR. CROSBIE: The honourable gentleman does not decide whether or not a motion should be withdrawn by - AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). MR. CROSBIE: If I can speak, Mr. Speaker.

The honourable gentleman opposite does not decide wkether a motion should be or should not be withdrawn by the House. This is a motion that has to do with certain remarks made outside the House which are a breach of the privileges of all members of this House. Therefore, debate in my submission should continue on this motion. We should obtain those transcripts. If there is a breach of the privileges of the members of this House, the membess of this House should decide what reparation there is to be.

T~e remarks made in the course of debate here,the honourable can withdraw and apologize as he has done to the Speaker~but these remarks he has made outside the House, if they were made, are a breach of the privileges of the whole House and only the whole House can decide then what action should be taken . 8472

December 18, 1974 Tape no. 2210 Page 4 MR. ROBERTS: Hear! Hear! Mr. Speaker, to that point of order, I quite agree. The honourable gentleman for once finds himself on common ground with tie, Standing Order 32 of our own rules says: "All motions shall be in writing and seconded before being debated or put from the Chair." This motion meets that test. "A member who has made a motion may withdraw the same by leave of the House, such leave being granted without any negative voice." All that I was saying was that if there were any request to withdraw the motion, my voice would be heard in the negative.

I believe we should proceed to debate this motion. If the House accepts the motion, let us send for the tapes. If in fact they are produced, they should be examined carefully. We will have them viewed or listened to at the earliest possible date by the House. That is what the motion says. There will be a little screen set up here. We will play them off and then we will have a little tape recording, That is what it says. The gentleman from Labrador South looks quizical.

The motion says: "And further that these recordings be made available to this honourable House for viewing or listening at the earliest possible time." It is not for any officials to view them or listen to them or even the Speaker could view them or listen to them. The motion is that we all have a gander at them. I say, Mr. Speaker, that if that were to happen honourable gentlemen would be well-instructed. I do not think we should send for them. It is not because I am ashamed of them, not because I withdraw them. No, I have no intention of withdrawing them. I cannot. I mean what I said, I said.

I say it again and I skall say it again. Let there be no doubt over that. _AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). MR. ROBERTS: Oh, I am sorry. I am still on a point of order. Your Honour, I am sorry. I had not realized it. I was carried away by my own eloquence. 8473

December 18, 1974 Tape no. 2210 Page 5 MR. SPEAKEl: The poiat of order raised by the Hon. Minister of Fisheries was well-taken and debate certainly will be permitted to continue. I will remind the Hon. Leader of the Opposition indeed all l!lelllbers speaking to this l!lotion that the Chair wishes them to be very relevant to part one of the amendment. MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I shall try to be entirely relevant and if I stray from the straight and narrow path, I wo.uld urge Your Honour and invite Your Honour and I feel confident that Your HonoUJ:' will redirect my wandering feet.

I very much hope so, Now the motion before the Bowie is whether or not certain tapes should be sent for. I say that they should not. I say they should not because there is nothing in them that is new or different. I say that there is nothing in them that hono1,1rable members 8474

December 1~, 1974 Tape 2211 PK - l have not alreadv seen,1f thev have eyes to see or have. not heard, if thev have eyes to hear. AN HON. MEMBER: Ears to hear. HR. ROBERTS: Ears to hear, I am sorry, it is like a member speaking in the cast in the House on a hill, one of the hospital bills, who said it 1s a strike against the sick and the dead. Mil. SPF.AKF.R: AN HON. MEMBER: HR . l-PF.AKRR: t'R. ROBF.P.TS : '<R. SPF.AKER: Order, please! Sit down! Sit down! Order, nlease! I am sorrv, Your Honour. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition was not relevant to the particular nart of the motion. MR .

ROBERTS: I thank Your Honour. I am grateful to Your Honour for so enforcing the strict rule of relevancy. I am extremelv and humblv ~rateful to Your Honour. I am very pleased that I am being made to he relevant. I shall trv very hard to be relevant because I think this House would go much better if we were relevant, if we followed all of our rules. That is one of the reasons whv I think these tapes should not he sent for because we have not followed the rules of this House. vThatever T said in those tapes is relevant to the fact that we have not followed the rules of the House.

The rules of this House are quite clear. Mr. Speaker. The rules of this House show in Stan~ing Order (1) if I mav he permitted. Your Fonour needs no refreshment on it, Your Honour is intimately familiar with it I am sure. M:_R. CROSBIE: Mr. Sneaker, on anoint of order. I have raised this point of ordP.r and I wish to subm:lt that there must be a ruling on 1.t. I have referred to Beauchesne which savs verv clearlv that there can be no discuss:l.on of the ruling of a Speaker or a Deputy Sneaker except in the manner nrovided for in the rules, that is, for a motion to be brought in on that particular thing.

Otherwise it cannot be criticized incidentally in debate, nage 5~ or upon any form of proceeding except the substantive motion to that purnose. The honourable gentleman now three or four times after that has attempted again. The onlv relevant question here to be debated 8475

December 18, 1974 Taue 2211 PK - ? is whether certain taues should be gotten that contain certain remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition, which if thev were made are nrima facie a breach of the privileges of the members of this House. It is not what Standing Order (1) is, it is not what the ruling of the Deputy Sneaker was yesterday.That is all we can discuss, I suhm:lt and the rule of relevancy should be enforced. MR. ROBERTS: To that Point of order, Mr. Sneaker. I was not criticizing anv ruling, I was merely going to refer to Standing Order (1), not to criticize anyone.

It was merelv to noint out what the rules of this House are. I submit, that is entirelv in order. I am not to this stage, I do not propose to criticize anv rul1ng given bv Your Honour or hy anybodv else who sat in that r.hair. There mav be another time, another place the nrocedures are set down. Indeed, if the government would agree to allow a debate on the question of censure of the Speaker or Denuty Sneaker I shall nut such a ouest:lon on the Order Paper or I invite them to do so but all I was nronosing to do now was refer to some of the Standing Orders of the House.

I mean if that is out of order then, vou know, so be it but I submit, Sir, I am relevant to the motion and that I should he allowed to continue. MR. SPEAKER: Order, nlease! Again for the nth tirre the r.ha:f.r feels that the rule of relevancy is difficult to rule on. There is a rule also of needless repetition which the Chair is hav:lng some thoughts on. Again, I reneat that the debate should be limited to whether or not the House has the r:lpht to request the Speaker to send for certain tapes and any reference to anything else is irrelevant. HR. ROBERTS: Mr.

Speaker, there is no question at this time, I may raise one a little later of the ripht of the House..I'he motion does not declare the right of the House to do anything, the motion declares the desirability of the House to do something. T suhm:1.t, I should he allowed to submit my arguments as humble as they might be, as ill-designed in the eyes of honourable and learned gentlemen oppos:lte to win their favour, I should be allowed at least to submit them. /Ill I am saying, I want to refer to some of the Standing Orders. lilow if Your 8476

December lR, 1Q74 Tape 2211 PK - 3 Honour tells me 1 am out of order in referring to the Standing Orders of this House, not to criticize, I am not criticizing anvbody 1 ~-•as merely goin11: to recite some facts relevant to Standin,i: Orders, nrecedents 1Beauchesne, the verv stuff and substance of narliament. 1 would nronose to do this in relationshin to giving my reasons why I am against the motion.

The motion is not anything about the right of the House of Assemhlv, that is assumed, although I may add a good case could he made against the right but I do not nronose to ouarrel with that right, I think we c.qn send for whatever we want. I pronose to direct my arguments to the ~oint of whether or not we should send for certain tanes and documents, and you know, mav I proceed to read some of the Standing Orders of this House and some of the precedents of this Housei' That is all I propose to do, Your Honour, and surely to heavens that cannot be out of order.

It is relevant to the debate, it is not needless renetition. I have not been allowed to read the rule vet, vou knot., rnav I proceed, Mr. Speaker? "IR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Leader of the Oppositi .on may proceed to make comments which the Chair feels are relevant to the debate. "fR. "R_nRFRTS: Thank vou, Mr. Speaker. I shall try to do my verv best to be relevant. As I said earlier, I kn9w that when I stray from th.qt , straight a narrow line, Your Honour, will quite properly call me to order. As I was saying.

Sir, before the most recent heedless and needless interruntion, Standin,i: Order (1) of our House of Assembly. although I have the old rules here, the new rules have not been nrinted. well they have heen mimeographed, I do not think they have heen changed - this is the latest version of the rules that I have, Sir. there mav have heen a more recent one hut, if so, nobody has bothered giving me a cony. This incornorates the amendments which were forced through last snring.

(1) In all cases not nrovided for hereafter (being in the rules) or hy sessional or other orders the usages and customs of the House of Commons of Canada as in force at the tinre shall be followed so far as they may be apnlicable to this 8477

December 18, 1974 Tape 2911 PK - 4 Rouse. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is Standing Order (1). Standing Order (1) is quite clear but for the benefit of honourable gentlemen who may not he clear on the noint, I wish to noint out that Standing Order (

l) lavs it down thllt where the Standing Orders are idlent, where thev are silent we turn first to our practices and our nrecedents. MR. MORGAN: Mr. Sneaker, on anoint of order. AN HON. MF.MBER: Inaudible. "MR. SPEAKER:_,__ Order, please: MR. MO~AN: On a point of order, ~r. Sneaker. We are now dehatjnp a motion, a part of a motion, the first part of that motion is that this House of Assemblv direct Your Honour to ohtain tanes from two local media to determine if the Leader of the Opposition made statements regarding the nartiality of the Chair.

Pe are not debating the rules of the House, we are debating whether or not we should direct Your Honour to obtain these tapes. Mr. Sneaker, I ask vou again, like other members of this Assembly todav, to keen the sneaker sneaking on this motion relevant and not to continue to read the St1tnding Orders of the House of Assembly. MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Sneaker, to that noint of order. I quite agree that Your Honour should keen me to be relevant. I would hope and exuect and believe that Your Honour will keen everybodv to be relevant.

It is the first time that I ever heard anyhodv say that the Standing Orders of the House are not relevant. MR. HARRY: On a point of order, Mr. Sneaker. It is enough to sicken anybody. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition - AN HON. MmBER: Inaudible. MR. SPF.AKER: Order, nlease: MR. BARRY: The Hon. the Leader of the Opposition is Rtternpting to make a mockery of the rules of this House. I can tell him. Mr.

Sneaker, that he is not going to succeed, he can take as much time as he wants but he is not going to he permitted to question the ruling either of the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker and this is what he is trying to do now, Mr. SPeaker, through the backdoor. In his usual sly and devious 8478

~rcemher 18 . 1°74 'PK - S mannr.r he is at tem~tin~ to r,et around what is clea r ly set out in the rules . mainly, th;it the conduct, a decision of the Chair , Sneaker or neout v Soeaker cannot be ouestioned .The inaccuracies, if anv there might he , cannot he nointed out. This, Mr. Sneaker, T submit, is the only wav in which the Hon. Leader of the Opoosition can say that his noint is relevant. That ~oinR throuRh the StandinR Orders is relevant. I would asY-, "{r , Sneaker, 8479

December 18, 1974 Tape No. 2212 NM - 1 that the honourable the Leader of the Opposition be directed to refrain from perusing the Standing Orders of the House unless he shows how they are relevant to the motion which is before the House at the present time. MR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, to that point of order, Sir, I would sub~it to Your Honour that my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, Sir, is standing on his constitutional, on his democratic rights; he is debating within the rules,the standing rules of the House, Sir, that my colleague is in order and that the members on the government benches Sir, are deliberately harassing my colleague. They are baiting him, Sir, they are interrupting him deliberately and they are trying to stop debate.

I would suggest that Your Honour enforce the rules of the House and allow my colleague to carry on in the manner in which he is debatin~ this matter. MR. SPEAKER: Again the rule of relevancy has been questioned. I would not want the honourable Leader of the Opposition to, as the word was used, peruse the Standing Orders of the House unless they are relevant to the particular motion and I shall not hesitate to call him to order if and when I feel that he is being irrelevant. MR. ROBERTS: Thenk you, Your Honour, and I for one would hope that you would not hesitate for just a second to call me to order.

But let me again say, because the gentleman from ~lacentia West seems to be under misapprehension, it is not relevant to this motion to debate my conduct. I wish that it were. But the incompetence of the House Leader in framing a motion has prevented that. The only motion before the Chair now is whether or net we should send for certain tapes with a view to view or listen to them here in the House at the earliest possible time. Presumably now about eleven o'clock tonight now we will all gather and instead of the late show we will have me. It might be more instructive and there will be fewer co!Dll!ercials.

There is no question of my statements at this stage, the substance of my statements. I wish that I could debate that because I am quite proud of what I said and I am quite prepared to debate what I said but 8480

December 18, 1974 Tape No. 2212 NM - 2 ~ cannot. There will be a time and a place for that if the honourable gentlemen opposite will give me the opportunity, if they will afford me that. They were not prepared to. They wanted to put this through without debate and have me suspended this day, but because I raised a point of order and Your Honour upon consideration felt that that point of order was valid, this motion (

a) has been split into two and (

b) it is debatable. Originally, Sir, honourable gentlemen opposite did not even want to debate it. They wanted to be judge, jury, executioner and have it all done in the dark of night. If they could have found a way to do it without me being here, then they would have done that too.

The motion before the Chair, Sir, is whether or not the House direct and I do not like the word "direct," I think the House should request Your Honour or authorize Your Honour and I find it interesting that those who are so tender of Your Honour's position, as they should be, after what they have done to the Chair, they direct Your Honour as opposed to request him or authorize him, which is the appropriate language.

The only motion is whether we should send for some tapes and I am saying we should not and r'wanted to refer to one or two of the Standing Orders, I have referred to Standing Order (1), and I was attempting before the juvenile and junior gentleman from Bonavista South at.tempted to get into the debate where greater men than he had failed, he thought he should launch forth into the deen. Re came on a reef, very quickly. I was attempting to explain Standing Order (1) and I a~ways thought Standing Orders were relevant to the debate.

What can be more relevant to the House of Assembly when the motion before the House is to send for eertain tapes relating to proceedings of the House of Assembly, what could be more relevant than the rules? I mean what could possibly be more relevant than the rules or do we live under martial law? Do we now come to the point where you know the rules are not relevant? Your Honour has not said that and Your Honour I know would not say that. 8481

December 18, 1974 Tape NO. 2212 NM - 3 Now, Mr. Speaker, Standing Order (l)is quite clear. It is a very good Standing Order. I suspect it has been in force right from the start. So it should have been. It provides that where our rules are silent we look to our precedents, the word is sessional or other orders. I submit that that means the precedents, the practices of this House, That has been so, That has always been so.

Your Honour has made any number of rulings in the three years in which Your Honour has graced the Chair, founded not on our rules specifically, because the rules are silent or not fully bespoke on the point, Your Honour has turned quite properly to our traditions and to our customs and to our precedents. Now I wanted to pick just one precedent to show Your Honour an example of a precedent, there can be many but I just wanted to pick one out of the thousands I could have picked. As luck would have it, my precedent occurred on January 26, 1967, which was a Thursday. On that day the House was debating a bill.

I do not propose to go into the substance of the bill, it is quite irrelevant to the motion before the House now. The bill was a bill, "An Act Respecting The Employment Of Persons in Hospitals," and the motion before the Chair as it happened was that the bill be now read a second time. AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. ROBERTS: I am going to mention the honourable gentleman because he figured in the d~bate. The gentleman for St.

John's East Extern was speaking to that motion just as I am speaking to this motion, the motion there was that the bill be now read a second time, the motion here is that the House direct Your Honour to send for certain recordings and materials, etc., etc., etc. But I am talking about precedents and I submit that the existence of these precedents is a reason why this motion should not be approved. The gentleman from St. John's East Extern, as I have said, was speaking to the bill. Ee made quite an effective speech, but he attempted to move an amendment.

There was some kerfluffle over the wording but the Chair was very helpful to him and helped him with the wording and helped him to put it in appropriate wording. The then Premier objected quite strenuously, the Hansard makes it quite clear, 8~82

December 18, 1974 Tape No. 2212 NM - 4 but the Chair allowed the amendment. Indeed, the Chair went so far as to use the discretion which the Chair has and can use if it wishes, to help an honourable member by saying in effect the motion the honourable member or the amendment the honourable member proposes to put is not in the correct fonn but we will straighten it up for you and the Chair, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Clarke it happened to be at that time, straightened up the amendment.

The amendment happened to be, as luck would have it, it had to be something, that the bill be read not now but thirty days hence, not six months as another motion that was moved recently, thirty days hence. MR. CROSBIE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this whole discussion of the Standing Orders of the House is irrelevant. It is clearly irrelevant and you yourself have ruled that what should be debated on this motion is whether - ~hat used to teach our children - is whether or not, Mr.

Speaker, whether or not these tapes should be sent for because they may or may not show statements that are a br_each of the privileges of the House. You yourself have ruled that is what is relevant to discuss on this motion. It is not relevant to discuss what the Standing Orders may or may not provide. It is even less relevant to discuss some precedent in 1967 when someone moved that something be given a thirty days hoist. That is obviously an attempt to get back to what was before the House here yesterday. But even if it was not that it is not relevant to this debate. Mr.

Speaker, it is quite clear, orders of this House, a Standing Order, that you can call to the attention of the House the conduct of a member who persists in irrelevance or needless repetition of which we have heard much in the last thirty minutes and direct him to discontinue his speech if he does not keep relevant. Now I ask Your Honour to make a ruling before this descends into an absolute shambles altogether. Are you, the Speaker, going to permit debate on the Standing Orders and on what happened in 1967 or is the 8483

December 18, 1974 Tape No. 2212 NM - 5 debate to be kept to whether or not this motion asking for certain tapes and transcripts of remarks outside the House that may be breaches of privilege,or are we going to restrict the debate to that? If it keeps on like this then we are in an impossible situation. MR. ROBERTS: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker, if this House descends to a shambles it will be because honourable gentlemen opposite have done it. MR. CROSBIE: Inaudible. MR. ROBERTS: Now, Mr. Speaker, the honourable gentleman from St. John's West should be the last ever to object to this sort of thing. MR.

SPEAKER: Order please! MR. ROBERTS : How his principles have disappeared. The - MR. CROSBIE: Mr. Speaker, I have raised a point of order. MR. ROBERTS: Well I am speaking to the point of order if I may be allowed to continue. MR. CROSBIE: I am now rising - MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order, I cannot be interrupted while I am speaking to a point of order. MR. CROSBIE: I rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order please! The Chair has recognized the honourable Leader of the Opposition who has risen to speak to a point of order. MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying before the honourable gentleman from St. John's West so rudely interrupted me, I submit that he has made out no point of order. I do not propose to open or re-open any debate on certain events that may have transpired in this Chamber yesterday. There will be another time and another place for that, I do not propose to go into a long disquisition on the rules. I certainly do not propose at this time to criticize any ruling given by Your Honour or by anybody else who sat in the Chair.

All I want to do is to refer to one or two precedents that I submit are reasons why this motion should not be adopted and I would ask Your Honour to rule in my favour and to allow me to proceed with - The honourable gentlemen say I am taking time, I have spent less than half the time on my feet. 8484

December 18, 1974. Tape 2213 RH - 1 The other half of the time I spent listening to needless points of order, MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Tourism. HON. T.P. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, if I might just add something to that point of order. I have listened to the Leader of the Opposition and I have tried to determine how his debate this afternoon had any connection with the motion before the Chair. Ycur Honour, the motion is quite clear that we send for certain tapes because of allegations of things that were said which are unparliamentary or which questions the partiality of the Chair.

I submit Your Honour how can this motion be debated as strange as it might seem, that it should be put to a vote without debate. I suggest Your Honour how can we debate this kind of a motion unless the party who is alleged to have made those statements in the person of the Leader of the Opposition is to stand here and repeat . from his memory as close as he can what he repeated outside this House. Now Your Honour, if he is not prepared to do that I suggest to you that every other thing he says pertaining to this motion is out of order. I would ask Your Honour to rule on the basis of that. MR.

SPEAKER: Order, please! The Chair has heard I think a considerable amount of debate on this point of order. The Chair does feel that the honourable Leader of the Opposition in referring to precedents which happened some years ago really was being most irrelevant to this particular motion. The Chair hates to constantly rise with the rules of relevancy but if irrelevance continues then the Chair will certainly follow the rule as it exists in our Standing Order by asking any honourable member to resume his seat. MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly would expect and welcome Your Honour following the Standing Ordersbut is Your Honour saying that I may not now ref.er to precedents of what is passed in this House to support my arguments in saying I will not vote in favour of this motion? MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The Speaker I think ruled that the particular precedent that the honourable Leader of the Opposition was referring to, that the Chair did not consider it to be relevant to this particular motion. 8485

December 18, 1974. Tape 2213 RH - 2 MR. ROBERTS: But Your Honour can consider it relevant that the House debated a thirty day hoist amendment, is that what Your Honour is saying? MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The Chair has no desire to become involved in a debate with the honourable Leader of the Opposition. The Chair has made a ruling and will not permit the honourable Leader of the Opposition to refer to that particular precedent. MR. ROBERTS: Well, very well. Your Honour has ruled that it is not relevant to refer to the fact that this House has debated an amendment on a thirty day hoist in 1967.

I shall make no further reference to it at this time. Mr. Speaker, as I was saying now, the rules of this House do not show any right for the House to send for these tapes and papers. I think it is a very good point as to whether or not radio station CJON and television station CJON and radio station VOCM, I do not know why they discriminated against CBC, - I made some statements on CBC which I am happy to say got wide coverage throughout the Province. They deserved to get wide coverage. Maybe they should be sent for too.

There were also some statements which I hope were reported in "The Evening Telegram" although I have not seen those. AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: No, t~ey were not - MR. ROBERTS: They were not. Oh! Shame on "The Evening Telegram". "The Daily News" had its usual capsulized report. We should send for everything. Then "The Western Star" doubtless carried them and CKIM and CFCN. AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: "The Town Crier". MR. ROBERTS: "The Town Crier" may have, I do not know. "The Newfoundland Herald'' may have, "The Fishermen's Advocate" may have, the - AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. ROBERTS : No, quite relevant.

The motion only names two places and I am offended. I might be prepared to vote for the motion if it included every part of the media, every agency of the media that carried those statements because I hope whatever there were in them, that remains to be seen if in fact we bring them before the House, whatever was in them in them and we will come back to that. I would hope that they got wide coverage because those statements should have got wide coverage. They merited it. They revealed the state of affairs that the people of Newfoundland should 8486

December 18, 1974. Tape 2213 RH - 3 know about. I think the House Leader in his anxiety and in his desire to try to try me in a kangaroo process and have me put out of the House goofed. He should have amended the motion and if it were not for the fact that any amendment I proposed stands next to no chance, for.whatever reason,of being rejected by the Chair, I would be tempted to try to amend this motion, that we send not only for CJON T.V. and VOCM but the CBC. I do not think we should discriminate against the publicly owned radio and television service. I think that is most unfair. Maybe we should amend that.

There is no point in my proposing it. Every amendment I put down is negating the main motion. I mean that is what happens and I certainly would not try to amend it, but the motion is not complete. Now let us get some other media. There is one is Goose Bay. What is the name of it "Mel", "The Labradory News" or something? MR. WOODWARD: "The Labradorian". MR. ROBERTS: "The Labradorian", we should send for that, "The Labradorian". Then there . is "The Aurora", Mr. Devine. AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: The offshore - MR.

ROBERTS: "The Offshore Monthly Bulletin" should come in because they may have some reference to proceedings in the House of Assembly between 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 17, 1974 and 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December 18, 1974. AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: "The Monitor". MR. ROBERTS: "The Monitor", of course, Sir, and"The War Cry" and "The Newfoundland Churchmen" and "The Glad Tidings", the publication of the Pentecostal Assemblies and "The Awake Magazine" - The honourable gentleman is well up on his theological literature. AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: "Watch Tower" MR. ROBERTS: "Watch Tower", sure.

AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: "The Young Soldier". HR. ROBERTS: "The Young Soldier", that is a Salvation Army publication. We should also have "The Newfoundland Gazette". The official record of publication should be brought before - I mean if we are going to do it, Mr. Speaker, let us do it. Let us not make chalk of one and cheese of another. Now how about the 8487

December 18, 1974. Tape 2213 RH - 4 most recent issue, "The Newfoundland Quarterly"? I think we should have that brought before the House, Sir. It has in it, - Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to the motion. If the honourable gentleman does not like it he can either raise a point of order or keep silent. We have in it the most gorgeous picture - AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. ROBERTS: And I think we should send for that anrl have it brought before the House and we should have antiphonal readings. One side should read one sentence and another side should read another sentence, perhaps in Gregorian chant.

I think the Minister of Industrial Development and myself could have a Gregorian chant. He would read the first line as follows: "Frank Duff Moores was born in Carbonear - MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Again the honourable Leader of the Opposition may have been carried away in the heat of debate but I do not think he is being relevant to the particular motion. MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I am merely saying that if we are going to send for certain papers we should send for them all and surely that is in order.

The point of this motion is to send for recordings of materials broadcast on two radio stations and one television station and I say that is discrimination. It is probably against the Bill of Rights. We should not discriminate like this. We have a free press in this - at least until we have martial law for the press and that will come. Now, as I was saying, let us send, Sir, for "The Newfoundland Quarterly". The current issue is sold out. I guess it is because of the portrait of a certain gentleman on the front. It may be because of the picture of the Minister of Transportation and Communications in it.

It certainly has nothing to do with the fact that the honourable gentleman from St. John's East did not have his picture in it. He has good reason to be modest. I agree with the gentleman from St. Mary's. Let us send for everything. I mean let us not make chalk of one and cheese of another. Whatever I said I hope was widely reported and I hope in Trepassey they heard 8488

December 18, 1974. Tape 2213 RH - 5 it and in Bay de Verde and in Baie Verte. I hope in my own about to be butchered constituency of White Bay North they heard it and over in Port au Port. If that last forgotten fisherman is still out on the bill of Cape St. George, the one that the late Bill Keough used to talk of, I hope he heard it too, Sir , and if not let us send to bring him in. Maybe the government aircraft when it is not ferrying Tory members around could go out to Stephenville and bring in that last forgotten fisherman and he could sit here.

We could put a chair here on the floor of the House and he could sit and when the House of Assembly views these video tapes and - MR. NEARY: Do not forget Dr. Bhattacharya. MR. ROBERTS: Who? MR. NEARY: Dr. Bhattacharya. MR. ROBERTS: Good suggestion , we need him - and listen to these recordings. I think we should have that last forgotten fisherman here. I think he should tell us what he heard. Now, Mr. Speaker, we should also of course send for the president of the Human Rights Association and have him here and while we are at it, Mr. Speaker, I think we should amend the motion even further.

If honourable gentlemen opposite will amend the motion I will support it, I will vote for it. I will go in the highways and the byways and ask the people of Newfoundland to vote for it. I will go to Northeast Crouse and ask the fourteen citizens there to vote in favour of it and to pass a strong motion demanding that the government send for these people but they have to amend it first, Sir. They have to amend it first. Not only must we send - MR. NEARY: Can we amend it? MR. ROBERTS: Well, I mean - My colleague from Bell Island asks if we can amend it. The answer is we should be able to but we cannot.

The precedents now are quite clear. No amendment from this side is accepted so we do not amend it but,Mr. Speaker, the motion is not complete. MR • SPE:AKER: Order, please! MR. CROSBIE: On a point of order. There has just been a statement made in the House that the opposition cannot propose 8489

necember lR, 1974 Tape 221l. PK ·· 1 any amendments ~ecause they w~ll he ruled out of order. ThRt is a niece with the charge that the Chai~ is not imnartial and that is all that it can he internreted to he. AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. "'R. SPEA.XER: Order, nlease! Hr. Speaker, are we goinp. - MR. CROSBIE· I draw to the Spea~er's attention this charge that the Onnosition can make no amendments because thev will be ruled out of order. That is a charge against the Chair, and is it going to be tolerated? Inaudible. !IN HON. MEMBER: '-m. SPEAKER: Order, please'. The noint raised hv the Hon.

Minister of Fisheries is well taken. The comments made hv the Hon. Leader of the Onnosition. when he said,that the Ooposition could ma~e no amendments because they would not be tolerated I thin~ does infer that the Chair is being nartial in its decisions, which the Chair does not intend to exnress its oersonal oninion on hut I ask the Hon. Leader of the Onnosition to .~thdraw that remar~. MR. ROBERTS: I will ~,~thdraw it, it is the heat of debate again. There is no offence meant and no sweat at all.

Now as I was saying, I th'nk, we should send, I mean I am not nrepared to vote for this motion because it onlv singles out two of the media, T think, Sir, that this House should send for all of the media. I think that we should broaden this motion, Sir, to strike a blow for freedom and democracv and reform, a hlow for priorities and nlanninii;. We should do it, Sir, hv sending not onlv for radio statior CJON's transcrints and CJON television transcrints and VOCM's transcripts or recordings, that is not enough, Hr.

Sneaker, that is not nearly enough. we should send for every organ of communication in this province. The NTA Journal mav well have some comments, Sir, on nroceedings in the House of Assembly and things that I said outside relating to nroceedings in the House. Let us get to the bottom of this Question because it goes right to the heart of the democratic nrocess, Sir, right to the heart of the democratic nrocess. Two, four, six, eight, nine. 8490

necember 18, 1q74 Tape 2214 PK - 2 A,"il HON. MIDIBER: l'{R, ROBERTS: Inaudible. Well if tli.ev kill the debate the motion ends. Let them kill tli.e dehate. l'IR. DOODY: -- -- - -- I just have to go out for a couple of minutes. MR. !lOBEF.TS : Well we will not count the honourable gentleman. I will stav in and I 'lorill sort of be pairei with him. hoth of us should be worr:led at that point, ),fr. Speaker. AN HON. Mf'l-lBER: Inaudible. MR. R0BER.TS: All right! All right! I hope they do count it out, I think thev are emharrassed that they ever brought this motion before the House.

They will he more embarrassed before they are finished. Now. nr. Speaker. as I was saving - two, four six, eight, ten, eleven - AN HON. 'fEMBF.R: Inaudible. MR. ROBERTS: Yes. ~r. Speaker, my colleague - we are not going to hother calling a <morum, no, I want this debate to continue. I do :Indeed. sure. Now, Mr. Speaker, We are all going to soeak on this. '!J1. . lWJ\ERTS: Yes, we are all p-oing to sPea\r on this. We are all go:!ng to sneak on this. The House ad .1ourns automatically at f\:00 P.M. w-tthout ouestion put, we come l-ac1' at 3: I')() P. 'I. tomorrow afternoon and we ,,,-tll carrv on with it then, Sir.

M.aybe they l3ill keell us here all tomorrow nif(ht and all 'F"r1dav night an<l Satur<lay night and Sundav and Hondav and Tuescla,, and l•'ednesrlav, we will knock off for dinner Christmas nay. AN HON. Mf.MRER: Rich! MR. ROJ\ER'l'S: Pi.ch! nh, he is bacl<·. Good! 1-'v pair is over, I had not broken mv pair. Now as I ~,as saving, Mr. Speaker, it may not be deathless hut it is certainlv deadlv. Mr. Sneaker, I cannot vote for this motion until it is amended. I am ouite nrenared to vote for it if it is amended and I 8491

necemher lR, 1074 Tape 2214 PT< - '.'I am describing the sort of reasons whv it should he amended. I made some statements outstde o• the House. What they were remains to r-e seen. I made them openly, not covertly. I made them in the nresence of reporters with the intention of having the reporters note them and reoort them as they saw fit in the d:! scharp:e of their Professional duties. It is not for me to call reporters ''Yellow dogs of _iournalism as one member of this Fouse did in what he later admitted was "A had day". That is not for me, Sir, I have my disagreements wtth the i,ress often.

I thinlr "The F:vening Tele pram's'' reno rt of today's nroceedings is really qu:lte bad, well helow the:!r standard but that is a nersonal oninion and I could be right or I could be wrong. But I made some statements. Now who knows where thev were carried,and if, as some honourable memhers alle~e these, in fact, const:l.tuted a breach of the nrivileges of the House, and that remains to be seen, ft remaimi to he seen what I said and then when we have seen what I said, we can have a chat, oh three or four days nrohahlv about whether it is a breach of nrivilege or not. That is a debatahle motion.

We will have a crack at that one too. But the nuestion is, not at this stage, whether what I said was a hreach or no, the cuestion rather is, what d:!d I say? I think we have a right, a duty, Sir, to find out evervthing that I said, ever'll.rhere that it was carried. Now nerhaPS we should send a ouestionnaire to each of the 540,000 neoole in this nrovince, and let us get their, not their oninions, Sir, let us get a factual statement from them.

It would be "What did you hear or se.e relating to proceedings of the House of Assembly between 3:00 P.µ. on Tuesday, December 17, 1974 and 3:00 P.M. on Wednesdav, December 18, 1<!74?" Maybe we should ask each and everv Newfoundlander hts oninion, not his opinion, thev will express their opinion when the election comes, expresis the fact because, Sir, we must find out how far these ~,orcls carry. Did they carrv as far as I hone they did or did the,, not? Did thev carry as far as the government honed thev did? Who J,nows? But should we not ask each of evervone of the 540,000 neonle in 8492

necember 18, 1°74 Tape 2214 PK - 4 Newfoundland what they know. The motion refers, Your Honour, to -proceedings of the Rouse of Assembly and it refers to what was broadcast about those -proceedings between Tuesdav, necember 17, and 3:00 P.M. on Wednesday, December 18. Maybe nohodv heard those words. How do we know that? So I think we obviously have to go on. Let us go to 'lwillingate and we will start up in Crow Head and we will ask each and every nerson in Crow Head. Then we will iro to Durrell' s.

Then we ~rill go down to Tizzard's Harbour and to ~orton's Harbour both of them over on New World Island and Salt Harhour Island and Toogood Arm and Virgin Arm and Ptkes Arm and let us find out what they heard ahout nroceedings. Because, Sir, if there was a breach of privilege,as honourable gentlemen onnos1te allege, then it is imnortant we knm,• how far they have gone. It really is important. So, Mr.

Sneaker, I think, the first thing we have to do is to amend this motion to require, no, wait we wlll have to nass a statute because we would not want anybody to refuse to say, it would he like the census everybodv will be asked, think of the ''Make Work Pro.1ect ' it would solve our unemployment for a day or ~o, the './.fi, 000 or 28,000 people ~,ho are unemnloved would go out and ask every Newfoundlander, 1;he Hon. Leader of the 0-pnosition made some statements and what cUd you hear, not at 2:59 P.'-1. on Tuesday.

December and not at 3:02 P.~. on Wednesdav, Decemher 18. both of them in the vear of Our Lord 1974, hut what did you hear between 3:n.O P.M. on December 17. and 3:00 on December lll?" That, Sir, is the question. What did vou hear? Then we will get them all compiled and we can have another ''Make Work Project'' better than anv LIP 11:rant. better than any other programme of the p..entlemen onnosite. I am putting to them now more man job days than they have created in two and a-half years in office , nearlv three years. Let us compile them. First of all we have to do it by the hour. MR.

CROSBIE: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, what we have heard for the last ten or fifteen minutes is contrary to the rules of this 8493

necember 18 , 1974 Taoe 2214 PK - 5 Hou.~e. I t is irrelevant to this dehate, it is needless reoetition . it i s not debatin~ thl' noint of the motion which is whether or not these docUJrents or tanes should he sent for, to see·,whetrPr or not there has been a breach ~f nrivile~e of the House. l submit once again that the only relevant rel!'~rks be made in this dehate are whether or not these doc·.nnents shou ld he sent for because thev would then show whethe r or not there has been a prima facie bre ach of the orivilege of the HousP. I submit, ~r . Speaker, t hat th&dehate should be restricted to that .

The Leader of the Oooosition has been cotnnletelv irrelevant and needle ssly renetitious for the last fifteen or cYentv minutes. Now. ~r. Sneaker, this is a auestion as to whether this House is ROing to be able to oner ate at all or whet her it is Roing to dissolve into a comolete shamhles without anv rules of order at all, or anv restriction on debate at all. "IR. RO'BEP.TS : On a noi~t of order. Mr. Sneaker . I am merelv RivinP. my reasons whv I am not rrepared to vote for this motion. All I am sayin,:! is t hat 8494 •·

December 18, 1974 Tape no. 2215 Page 1 - MW the motion in my view is incomplete. If the motion were made complete, I should be quite prepared to vote for it. Maybe one of my colleagues, in due course, when he speaks in the debate and 1 hope they will all have a word or two to say, will move an amendment. We will try our luck to see if the amendment is accepted under the rules of the House. Maybe the purpose of the amendment will be to require that everyone of the 540,000 Newfoundlanders speak. As for repetition I am not aware that I am repeating anything needlessly.

I may be making my points once or twice for the purpose of rhetorical effect and that, Sir, is so completely sanctioned by practice in this House as not even to require further speech from me. Mr. Speaker, I submit that I am in order and I ask that I be allowed to carry on with the tenor and gist of my remarks and make my few humble points. MR. SPEAKER (Mr. Stagg): The honourable gentleman has been drawn to the rule of relevancy on many occasions this afternoon.

When the original rules were framed such that an honourable member may be asked to refrain from speaking at all because he was persisting in irrelevance, it was one that could only be implemente~ after great deliberation and certainly the rule being abused on many times. The honourable member has abused the rule consistently· this afternoon. I have listened to the debate very avidly and I suggest that the honourable member is irrelevant practically all the time and accordingly the honourable member is directed to be relevant. If he persists in irrelevance, he will be directed to cease speaking. MR.

ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I accordingly would like to move that the following words be added (I do not have a written version here so perhaps the clerk could take it down unless one of my colleagues has some words.) to the motion that after the word, if it is a word, or the letters V.O.C.M., between there and the next word which is between, the following words be added: "and a record of everything that was broadcast or 8495

December 18, 1974 Tape no. 2215 Page Z - MW printed in Newfoundland and Labrador by any of the media between 3:00 P.M. on Tuesday, December 17." I move that amendment, Sir, and seconded by my colleague from Bell Island may I ask Your Honour if that is in order and if so, I propose to speak to it. MR. SPEAKER (Mr. Stagg): amendment. I would like to have a copy of the MR. ROBERTS: As I said, Your Honour, I do not have it written out. I have had no opportunity to write it out. I asked the clerk to take it down.

If Your Honour wishes to adjourn for a minute or two, I will ask one of the secretaries to type it or I will write it in my own hand, whatever Your Honour wishes. I have had no chance to prepare a written amendment. It was only recently that I realized I needed an amendment to be able to make my humble point. I do not if the clerk had an opportunity to get it down. He did not? I apologize, If Your Honour wishes to adjourn for a couple of minutes, I will get it written out and send it up to Your Honour. MR. SPEAKER (Mr. Stagg): I believe the honourable member could repeat it. MR. ROBERTS: Oh, all right.

After the word, v.o.c.M., which is in the seventh line of the motion, be added the following words: "and also recordings of programmes relating to proceedings of the House of Assembly ( I confess I cannot remember the exact words but I can reproduce the thought. ) or any other report of proceedings of the House of Assembly printed anywhere in Newfoundland and Labrador between 3:00 P.M. on Tuesday, December 17 and B~OO P.M. on Wednesday, December 18, 1974." Again the gentlemen at the Table I fear have many skills but they do not have proficiency in shorthand. It is not required.

I do not know if they have had an opportunity to get down my few words. The thought of what I am suggesting is quite clear but the wording may not have all the word of a word of art. If Your Honour would consider the matter, perhaps we could have a ruling as to whether or not that amendment is in order. 8496

December 18, 1974 Tape no. 2215 Page 3 MR. CROSBIE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a submission on this so-called amendment. (1): Mr. Speaker, there is no proper amendment before you. There is no amendment prepared in writing to be submitted to you or to us so that we can consider the matter. It is ovviously just a continuation of a desperate effort by the Leader of the Opposition to prevent this House from obtaining a record of what was said by him yesterday and last night and this morning outside the House that impugned the integrity of the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker.

That is my first point. (2): It is entirely irrelevant as to how many records we will get and what was said on how many stations. All this House needs is a record of what was said outside the House by one of the media. Now the motion before the House asks for a record of what was said on V.O.C.M. and C.J.O.N. Certainly that is all we need to know. What was said'on C.B.C. or what was published in the papers is not necessary for this House to have before it or proof, prima facie, of what statements were made by the Leader of the Opposition.

Every member of this House for the most part has already heard what the Leader of the Opposition said. We watch television and we listen to the radio. We know what was said. The Leader of the Opposition himself has confirmed today that he made these statements outside the House.

Therefiore, it is irrelevant. and the amendment should not be accepted because it is not necessary for the motion to do what it sets out to do and that is just to put before this House a record that cannot be disputed of what the Leader of the Opposition said outside the House which con•tituted a grave breach of the privileges of the House. If Your Honour accepts this amendment and if the honourable gentlemen is not kept relevant I think we are seeing the death of this House as a Chamber in which any business can be conducted on any proper level at all.

The ,Leader of the Opposition made these statements outside the House and if he will not retract them, then let him be man enough to have them brought into the House so we can debate them properly here and not 8491

December 18, 1974 Tape no. 2215 Page 4 to waste the time of the province on a filibuster to attempt rhe House even trying to have put before it in a proper form what he said outside, If he is afraid to defend - his conduct now is the action of a man who is afraid to defend in this House the cowardly and unparliamentary words he used outside the House. MR. ROBERTS: May I speak to the point of order? MR. SPEAKER (Mr, Stagg): Order please: I consider the proposed amendment frivolous and vexatious and it is accordingly ruled out of order. MR, ROBERTS: We are batting one hundred per cent. Now, Mr.

Speaker, as I was saying then and I have to accept Your Honour's ruling. Whatever my thoughts are or whatever I may say in another place at another time, I have to accept Your Honour's ruling and I do, Your Honour the amendment was not frivolous and it was not vexatious, The reason I am going to vote against this motion is not that I deny anything that I have said outside. I already said and I will say it again that whatever I said outside, I gladly stand behind, I hope that every person in this province heard it because it should be of importance to every person in this province, MR. MORGAN: Say it in the House.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, I will say it in the House, Sure, when the appropriate time co~es and when I get little Leo and the juvenile Member from Bonavista South speaking - KR. SPEAKER (Mr, Stagg): Order please: There are two points. The honourable member is persisting in the irrelevance which has been brought to his attention on numerous occasions this afternoon, His obvious reference to the Mi~ister of Mines and Energy is completely out of order, uncomplimentary, unparliamentary and many other derogatory adjectives . I call upon him to apologize, rephrase or make the appropriate withdrawl. 8498

December 18, 1974 Tape no. 2215 Page 5 MR. ROBERTS: I withdraw it but I would hope and ask for the protection of the Chair. Your Honour is quick to call me to order but Your Honour, I hope in the future will be equally quick to call gentlemen opposite to order. MR. SPEAKER (Mr. Stagg): Order please! The Chair is certainly not going to take direction from the Hon. Leader of the Opposition in any matters pertaining to its or his duty. MR. ROBERTS: I am not asking direction, I am asking protection. MR. SPEAKER (Mr.

Stagg): I also draw this remonstration to any other honourable members on my left or right who might want, at this point, to question the integrity or the impartiality of the Chair. Mumbled observations will be detected, if they are not detected by me, they will be detected by the tapes and they will be dealt with. _MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I am the first to say that I was not attempting to give Your Honour direction, The motion attempts to give Your Honour direction, That is another reason I am voting against it. MR.

SPEAKER (Mr, Stagg): The Hon, Leader of the Opposition is directed to deal with matters that are relevant. I have risen saying that he was irrelevant and I direct him to be relevant and not to make a speech on the ruling given by the Chair, MR. ROBERTS: He is not allowed to make a speech on a point of order? All right. MR, CROSBIE: Mr, Speaker, who is he? MR. ROBERTS: The gentleman from St. John's West, Sir~ He is the gentleman for St. John's West, the Hon. Minister of Fisheries, That who is I meant by he, It had no capital "h. 11 MR. SPEAKER (Mr, Stagg): Order please! The Hon.

Leader of the Opposition on many occasions this afternoon has persisted in abusive and insulting language towards members to my left, He has on a couple of occasions referred to people 849~

December 18, 1974 Tape no. 2215 Page 6 by their given names. He has referred to the Member for Port au Port by his given name• who happens to be myself. He has referred to the Minister of Mines , and Energy by one of his given names. He has referred to the Minister of Finance by the pronoun, he. On many other occasions the honourable 111e111ber has been irreverent, often irrelevant and most of the time totally out of order, 8500

December 18, 1974 Tape No. 2216 NM - 1 MR, SPEAKER (HR. STAGG):_ Now I am suggesting to the honourable member, and I am getting very close to the last time that it is going to be suggested to him, that he make debate on this motion that is relevant, precisely relevant or the rule, which was adopted last year, after considerable debate, will be invoked. He is given notice of that. MR. ROBERTS: I do not propose to debate under threat either. I am aware of what the rules are and I do not think it is Your Honour's olace to threaten any honourable member. I resent that. I resent Your Honour - AN HON.

MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. ROBERTS: Hold on, I am speaking to a point of order. Just sit down Witch Runt. The honourable the Chair, Sir, has no cause or reason or iustification for threatening any member of this Rouse. MR. SPEAKER (MR. STAGG): Order please! Order please! The honourable the Leader of the Opposition is being told that he has infringed the rule of relevancy on many occasions and he is drawn to rule 51 (

b) of the Standing Orders and he is being told that that rule is going to he invoked. Now that rule is only invoked after a great deal of needless repetition has been carried on by the gentleman who has the floor. He is being told that he has been needlessly repetitious and if his needless repetition continues then he will be told that he will have to cease speaking. Now the honourable member, in order to know that he has been needlessly repetitious has to he told so and he has been told so. MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the Chair is still not acceptable to me because it does not go far enough.

Tf Your Honour felt that the earlier amendment, which I proposed, was frivilous and vexacious then that is Your Honour's ruling and I accept it. I now wish to propose another amendment and I do not have them in writing. If honourable gentlemen opposite did me the courtesy of showing me a copy of this. of my execution warrant before it was to be served on me, I might have been able to prepare some but since it is not I shall have to ask the Clerk if he would be kind enough to pay attention 8501

December 18, 1974 Tape No. 2216 NM - 2 as best he can and I will do the best I can in turn. Now Sir, I think that we should add some words to the end of the amendment "And further that the reporters who reported these words should be sent for and summoned before the Bar of the House where they may be cross-..xamined under Oath by all honourable members. " Now may I ask Your Honour to rule on that please? MR. CROSBIE: I would like to make a submission to that also and it is to the same effect, really as the submission I made a few moments ago.

Every member of the House can see that that amendment is frivolous and vexatious. Every member of the House knows that we do not have to call any ceporters before the Bar of the House. Every member of the House knows that we can get a transcript or the tapes of what was said on radio or television in the news broadcast last night. Anything that is printed in a newspaper we will have the newspaper and the newspaper can be put before the House. We do not need to call any reporters. I, myself, Mr.

Speaker, as a member actually saw the honourable gentleman last night on television and heard him speak the words complained of. So I submit to Your Honour that this amendment is frivolous and vexatious. We are dealing now with a question of a breach of privilege of the House, whether there has been one or not. All this motion seeks for is some clear evidence to put before the House of what was said. Every member of the House knows that these matters were said, that they were on tape, that they have been repeated a dozen times and I therefore submit that Your Honour should rule out the amendment. MR.

ROBERTS: Your Honour, if I may to that point of order or the submission raised by the honourable gentleman. I submit that what he is doing is atteapting to prejudge the question. The House may er may not feel that it is unnecessary to send for the lady and the gentleman_ concerned.That is a matter which the House can decide on the amendment. That is one of the reasons !_want to put the amendment, to see whether the House wants to send for these people. 8502

December 18, 1974 Tape No. 2216 NM - 3 I submit, Sir, that the amendment is certainly not frivilous, and not vexacious. It may be vexing to gentlemen opposite, that is their problem. I submit, Sir, the amendment is in order and should be ruled in order and I ask Your Honour so to rule. MR. BARRY: To that point of order, Mr.

Speaker, every member of this House, including the honourable members opposite, all of whom except the Leader of the Opposition I am sure are just as ashamed as honourable members opposite are, to have the Leader of the Opposition continue to make a fool of himself and attempt to make a f~ol of the House in the course of debate that he is carrying out here this afternoon.

This amendment, proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, is frivolous and vexatious because Your Honour knows what the intent, just as every member of this House does, knows what the intent and purpose of the motion before the House is and this amendment is not necessary in order to achieve the intent of that motion. It is put purely, Mr. Speaker, for the Leader of the Opposition's political attempts to make a mockery of the rules of this House.

I do not know what he hopes to achieve because Jam sure any citizen of the province that gets a fair reporting of what is taking place here today, they will just throw up their hands in disgust. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, if I may to that point of order, Sir, The member for Placentia West, Sir, is absolutely wrong in assuming, and I can only speak for myself, Sir, that we are ashamed of my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition who is trying to defend himself here today, Sir. against the motion to send for the tapes and have the Leader of the Opposition expelled from the House, We are not ashamed of him, Sir.

I want to make that point. The minister in his remarks said that all members on this honourable side probably felt ashamed with what was happenin~ in the House today. The Leader of the Opposition is trying to defend himself, Sir, and we are trying to make a point. The Leader of the Opposition is quite 1ustified in defending himself in a democratic way under the rules of this House and I just want to point out that the minister is absolutely wrong when he makes 850~

December 18, 1974 Tape No. 2216 NM - 4 that assumption, Sir. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I withdrew statements that I had made and apologized to the Chatr but only, Mr. Speaker, because either the Leader of the Opposition or myself would have to remain inside the House. MR. SPEAKER (MR. STAGG): Order please! Order please! The honourable gentleman's apology yesterday I would take it was unqualified, I would not want him to introduce a qualification at this point. Is there any further argument. MR.

BARRY: Just very briefly, I take back what I said about the honourable members opposite being ashamed of the conduct of the Leader of the Opposition. Obviously there is nothing that can shame them. AN HON. MEMBER: That is it. He has taken back what he said. MR. ROBERTS: To that point of order - MR. THOMS: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are quite proud of what the honourable member for White Bay South has said. We agree with him one hundred per cent and we are not ashamed of the honourable member. We are quite proud of him.

We only wish we had members on that side of the House we could also be equally proud of. :ilN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. THOMS: At least I do not shut up like you guys do. MR. SPEAKER (MR. STAGG): Order please! Order please! Well honourable gentlemen I am going to take a short recess to consider this.

I do consider it at first blush to be superfluous, vexatioaa, frivolous as was the other one.However, in view of the possible repercussions of this that it might in some way reflect upon the rulings of the Chair whether they have a partial or an impartial nature, after all this is what we are talking about, I will adjourn fer a short time, consult the authorities and if this amendment is allowed,of course, the whole debate pretty well degenerates into an absurdity but nevertheless I will adjourn. 8504

Decemher 18, 1a74 Tane 2217 PK - 1 nrder, nlease: The ruling on this amendment ir< the same ruJ1nR that would have 'ieen o:iven had I ad .1ourned earl:f.er to consider the nrevious admendment moved by the Hon. Leader of the nnnosition. I find that the authorities are relativelv silent on the suhiect. F.videntallv these scholars in narliamentary nrocedure have never come across a situation similar to this so there is no case dfrectlv on ooint. However, I will refer to one authoritv that by inference has annlication.

It is in ~eauchesne,Fourth ~dition, naragranh 198 ~,,hich is found on oa!!e lf,F-, It savs "A motion should not be argumentative and in the style o~ a sneech nor should it contain unnecessarv provisions or o!,1ectionahle words.' In the on:1.nion of the Chair th:fs motion contains unnecessarv nrovisions and accordinglv falls within the earlier rulinr of th,:, r.ha:lr that :It is fri.vi.lous anrl vexatious and were 1t allowed PouJ.rl p:ive rise to innumherahle similar amendment"' such that th:l.s matter would never come to a deci!'l1on and the matter :f.s one of nrivileges of th,:, Hou!'le which is nrohahlv the most significant of all motion"' that ever come before the Hous,:,, AccordinP;ly I resolve thiF, nronosed the amendment in favour of common sense because to resolve otherwise ,.,mild J-,,:, to relep.ate our nroceedinp!'l to that of an ahsurditv and accord:lnP;l" the amendment Is rP1ected.

With respect mav I anneal 'lour ru]:lnp to the House, Sir? HR. SPF.AKF.P (~TAGG), If the honourahle member viishes to anneal my r.n]jnp, he mu!'t pet other !'lemhers to ri,;e with him. '~r. Sneaker, I feel confident that one or t= or mv colleaP:ues w:111 stand with me. Call in the memhPrs. DIVISION: l!R, SPF AKF.P. (ST1V:G) :_ Ts the House ready for the vote? The motion is that the Sneaker's rulinR he upheld. Those in favour of the ruling 1'1 ea!SP stand, The Fon. "inister of ~fines and Enerr.v, the Hon. "lin1 ster of Industrial neveloT'tTlent, the µon. Minister of Health, the Hon. ~•inister 850~

December 18, 1~74 Tane 2217 Pf< - 2 of Social Services. the Hon. Minister of '(an!)OWl.'r and Industrial T>.elat:f.oni,, the Hon. Minister of Transnortation and Comrounications. the flon. !'-!inister of Rehab;ll;l.tation and R_ecreation, the Ron. Minister of Education, the Hon. ~li.nister of Justice, Mr. !arii hall , the Ron. 11:inister of Fisheries, the Ron. ~~nister of Forestrv and Ain-iculture, the Hon. N:1 nister of Finance, ~(r . nunnhv. Mr . Avlvard, Mr . Wells, Mr. Brett , Mr. Carter. Mr . Wjlson, Xr. Youn!?, 'fr . F.vans; Those aS?ai nst thP. ruH nl? olease stand: i'he Ron.

Leader of the 0-poosition, ?-fr. Gillette, Mr. Woodward, }Ir. Nearv , ~•r. Thoms, I-tr. Fowe, Mr. Simmons. 1 declare the motion carried. that the Sneaker's rulinS? is upheld . AN HON. 'fEMBEll: Inaudible. MR, SP'P.AKR'R. (STA<'.G): Twentv- one to six. ~- 'ROBERTS: Twenty--one to six? l-fR . SPF.AKER (STAGG): Twentv-one to seven. MR. R.(Y8ER1'S_:_ 1-'ell, Mr. Sneaker, I thank Your 'Ronour for Your Honour's ruli nr, on the amendment that ends that . Nov to continue mv few remar~s to the motion I am not going to vote for the motion.

I am r,oing to as~ all honour ahle ientl emen to vote against it but not because T object to stand i n~ hv what I said, I do so and stand lw what ! said . I said it at the t ime and I "'111 sav $0 now. If the House should aourove this motion, if i.t should so decide in its wisdom to anorove this motion and the tanes and the, 8506

necemher 18. 1974 Tape 2218 PK - 1 whatever tf,ey are. the video tapes and the nroceedin11:s are hroup,ht in and we view them and we listen to them, I shall he ouite nroud to hear what I said. There is no reluctance there. This whole debate this afternoon is nuite unnecessary. Everv word that I said should not have had to he said. because honourable J!:entlemen onnosite should have hrou~ht in a motion that ~,ould have gotten to the substantive noint of the matter of whether or not I breached the nrivileges of the House. I think, Y.our Honour would a11:ree that :Is the issue.

The issue is not 'lo•hether we send for tanei, or no, I do not think we should send fr,r tapes. ~~ SPEAKF.R (STAGG): The Honourhle Leader of the Onnosition is now enpaging in an ar11:mnent that is irrelevant. >.fJI. . RflRF.RTS : ----- ~r. Sneaker, I am saving the motion is unnecessary, I do not see hO'{o• that can be irrelevant. Surely that 1 !' t-he most relevant sort of cOfflfflent that one could ma}e, the motion is needless and unnecessarv. It should be onposed for 1ust that reason. The motion should not - '~ • CROSllIF.: ------- -- J\fR. ROllF.RTS: That is not what vou said.

Sav what you said outside. ~r. ~oeaker. I have alreadv said that I said what I said that I cl:ld not withdra~i it and I do not ,,-ri.thdraw it and I shall not withdraw what I said outside. }~. CRMBU:: Well tell us what vou i;aid outside. ---· ~~. ROJlFl'T~: Fell the honourable gentleman told me earlier he heard what T sa1d. If his memorv iR that had. Sir, it is not me who needs to heln him, he needs medical advice, not advice from me. ~:.-_}i!FAR_Y· fie should he :In the old ~entlemen's home. '"R, __ l'OllF'R.TS: Now, Mr.

Sneaker, the reason this motion is here and the reason I onpose it is that it is unnecessarv. It represents a vindict:lve attemnt hv the p,overnment members to trv to have me susTl!mded from the House. That is whv thev d:ld not hring in a motion that dealt ,-,1th the sul:,stantive noint of whether or not there is a hreach of Privilege. If there is a hreach of nrivilep.e then we should rleal with :It. BeaucheRne, ''av, all the other p,reat authorities laid 8507

Uecemher 18, 1q74 Tape 2218 PK - 2 down the procedure which is quite clear cut, an honourahle gentleman stands and he says "Mr. Speaker, I suhmit the following facts and say there was a breach of privilege." The Speaker then hears argument RS he wishes, and he then g1ves his ruling as to whether or not in his opinion there does exist a nrima facie breach of privileP-e. Then once that is done the House, accordin~ to Beauchesne, may or mav not consider the matter further. The House most generally does consider the matter further.T~at requires a substantive remedy, a motion that would supoly that remedy.

I think , that is what the House Leader tried to do, of course, he .1ust d:l.d not know how to do it. Your Honour had to within the rules, ouite nrooetlv, I am not imolyinp. anvthing imProner, Your Honour had to come to his rescue to sever the motion so that it would become incomprehensible, if not acceptable. So, I think, we should re.1ect this motion.

I would be quite willing to ring VOCM or to ~,rite them a letter, maybe I can use the back of my letter of reprimand which I have not gotten yet, use that as convenient note paper, and radio station CJON and television station CJON-TV and ask them to send us over a conv of what I said. I lrould be delighted to do that. If ve choose to refer it to a select col!ffllittee I would he delighted to have a chat with the committee about it. If we choose to deal with it here in the House, I would be equally delighted. The mot:f.on is unnecessary that is why I oppose it.

Whether or not mv comments were a breach of privilege, Sir, that is another matter. We shall deal with those in due course. If I am found to be in breach of the privileges of the House then the nractices are ouite clear. What shall he shall be. That is another matter. The matter now is whether or not we should send for some tapes and some recordings. I say we should not. I say we should not because the government have just settled on two of the media. There are a number of others. I want to know why CBC television and radio which carried those comments quite extensively was not sent for. MR.

CROSBIF.: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This has been gone over two or three times this afternoon about CBC and the rest of them. It is needless repetition. It is irrelevant to the motion. It has been ruled as such. The Leader of the Opposition has been speaking now 8508

Tape 7.21 A PT< - 3 since ahout ten after three this afternoon, with some interruptions, he has certainly been sneaking for a good t~ hours, it is all needless renetition and irrelevancv. The noints he1niz made again bv him are needlP.sis renetition. The whole nurpose of it is, nresumably; so that no one else can have a chance to address the House on this very serious matter before ve adjourn at six o'clock. So I would ask Your Honour to rule that this iis needlesis renetition. AN HON. }IF,•IBER: Inaudible. ~--~<;PEAKE~ (STAr;r;): Order, nlease!

While the honourable member has just bep.un his remarks that mav or may not have been repetitious hut thev would havP. been renetitious but I cannot anticipate what they were, what they would have been, conse11uently I will let M.m continue. Fowever, if he doe.s continue with full knowledp.e that :!.t has been brought to his attention oursuant to the Standing Orders that needless rer,eti tion will he dealt ,dth according to the Standing Orders. •~. Rl11lF:RTS: Than1': vou, "fr. SneaJ,er. I was maldng an entirelv new noint.

As far as I know it is the first time in these few brief remarks that I made that T mentioned the fact that I thought this motion was unnecessarv. that it is not t1eerlP.d. '!'bat is something entirelv new. '\Jo,.• l milv have to touch unon one or two of the arguments I have used hefnre in another case, in another noint but I am ma1'ing an entirelv new ooint and T have one or two after that. I have not vet dealt ~Tith the com:ti tu tion,il point of whether thi JS lfouise has a ri p:ht to send for tao es.

That is an imnortant question anrl one which we should deal with that will roouire looking at the relPvant nortions of the British North America Act. Perhans - ".J:·. SPl'AKF.P:, _ _{STAGG), Order, nlease'.

I am goin~ to ~ive the honourahle memher a couple of more minutes to finish his remarks, this is to nrovide him '-'i.th his full ninety minutes wh:fch is well taken care of this afternoon. we havp heen in session for annroximately two houris and forty minutes even, T al<ing out thoise r>ortions when the House ad.1ourned for short neriodJS of t1me, it". iJS our calculation that he has a counle of minutes left, h10 minutes left. 8509

December 18, 1q74 Taoe ?218 PY. - 4 µR_.ROBF:RTS: ~r. Speaker, under the normal rule of debate I have ninetv minutes as Your Honour says hut there is - I do not have the exact reference here hecause the indexing has not been completed but there is a rule that savs, I am sure the Clerk - 4q (

h) as amended; ''The Premier and the Leader of the Opnositfon shall not be entitled to sneak for more than ninetv minutes,at anv time in anv dehate, except where the Prerr.ier moves a government order or is rer,lv-!ng to a motion of no confidence in. the government or whPre the Leader of the Onnosition sr,eaks in renlv immed1.ately after a minister has moved a government order or makes a motion of no confidence in the government Now I would ask Your Honour's ru]1ng on the point whether or not the motion moved hy the House Leader that has taken nrecedence over P-vervth:fng else this dav, we have not even gotten to rout:1.ne nroceecHngia of the dav, Sir) whether or not this is a government order or not.

I contend that it is but I must confess I have not had anv opportunitv to research any authoritv on the point at all. It is a motion moved hy the House Leader in h1s canacitv as House Leader, a motion relating, I suhmit, to government business. AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. SPF.AKER: (STAGG)_: T arr. prenared to rule on it at this time. Th:fs is a matter that has been given considerable consideration and accordinglv it is ruled that this being a matter of privilege it is not necessarily one that is a government motion.

Tt can be moved hy any member in his capacitv as a member of the legislature, conseauentlv, nohodv has unlimited time. The honourar.le memher, the Leader of the Opoos:f.tion will be given h:l.s two minutes. MR. ROBERTS: Thank vou, Yr. Sneaker. In that light, at no point did I think I had unlimited time excent in that narticular context. Mr. Sneaker, may I move a further amendment r,lease, to delete the words "CJON ;--- TV and radio Etation CJON' • I submit, Sir, th iii is not vexatious or frivilouia. It is a perfectly in order amendment to move that some words be deleted from a resolution.

T ~10uld ~ove that the words found in the secot'_d line, "Television iatation C.TON-'T'V and rndio station CJON" should he deleted from the motion, Sir. 8510

Tane 221fl PK - 5 AN HON. l!E"lBER: Inaucl1.b]e. MR. llAR'RY, ~r. Sneaker, I suhmit that amendment is out of order - --- hecause the same effect can be achieved ~v voting aRainst the motion. />re vou still leavinp. vorn there? 'ffi. ROBERTS: ~r. Sneaker, to that noint of order. '<ll .• 1\A'R.RY: Then , Mr. <;neaJ.-er, it is merely the same frivoJ i tv and vexatjousness that we have seen from the Leader of the nnnosition 8511

December 18, 1974 Tape no. 2219 Page l - MW MR. ROBERTS: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I resent this implication that it is frivolous or vexatious. Nobody has a right to say that. The arrendment would leave \TOCM in but leave CJON out. I submit that it is a perfectly appropriate amendment. It should be accepted by Your Honour arid put and debated and then voted upon and decided. MR. F. B. ROWE: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Fisheries himself earlier stated that only one piece of evidence is required. There is no need for other media to be brought into the matter.

Therefore I submit that the amendment is in order. J:lll· SPEAKER (Mr. Stagg L:....,_ Is there any further argument? This amendment is rejected on the same g rounds which I made earlier. MR. ROBERTS: We are batting one hundred per cent today. AN HON. MEMBE'l: ( Inaudible) • lf~~~~RT~ Well , Mr. Speaker, it would seem then th at - AN HON. MEMBER: ( Inaudible). MR. ROBERTS: It would seem, Mr. Speaker - MR. SPEAKER ( Mr. Stagy) : Order please'. AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). MR. ROBERTS: The gentleman from - ~-_ _§PEAKER (Mr. StalIB2_: Order please'. The honourable member's time has expired. MR. ROBERTS: Mr.

Speaker, due to the interruption, I could not make myself heard. ~- SPEAKER (Mr. Stagg): Order please'. The Hon. Minister of Fisheries. _!:1~. CROSBIE: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Leader of the Opposition has now concluded his remarks. SOME HON. MEMBERS: ( Inaudible) • .!'ffi.•_B-Q~.!::RTS :_ I certainly have not concluded. MR. CROSBIE: ',-lell he can conclude the n in some other for :~ .. --- - - ~~_RODi;RTJ_~ Is that a point of order? 8512

l'ecemh er 18. 1974 Tape no . 22l9 Page 2 \fr. , _CROSBlE: ~o, nC't a ooint of order. r,.;· }:ON. MEMBER: 1\011 come vou have the floor? The Leader of the Opposition - ~.;,11,. liO~ . • •~~fBi:RS: (inaudible) . >.fr._._SRoJg..!_I::: l'he Speaker ha!'! just ruled that the Lead er of the ()pnos1 tion hnia concluded his retr.arks. ·w.. SPl,,;\J,E~_ ('Ir._ Sta cr.,2.:. _ Order please! The lion . l,eade r of the Opposition h;,s concluded his remar ks . :·R. _ RO!li:R1'S: No , I h;!.ve not. l was fo reed to sit down . ~fl!.. SPEA.,ER. ('l r. c; t~r.2: Well, :,e has use d up h is ninety mi nu t es.

I have recorni7.ed the 'lin istcr ('( Fisheries • . 'm._. _C'P.OSrHt::. ·tr . Speaker, thi s i"' indeed a so rry state to which we have '<een this House of Assembly come .

We have listened to the Leader nf tilP )pr,('sition now 1<ince about 3 : li1 I' .·-1 . discuss this and he "hould be tile fi rst 11:ember of th is House who should he supporcint? the mo tion chat we actually r.e t before us the actual words tha t he us ed nn che media , in this cnsc, \IOG.'I and CJON, yesterday and t oday. lf he were able co def end chose words or wan ted t o defend chem, he would bP t he firs t one who would ask for this co be brough t before t he l:ou,;e . :row thiJ:; is not the fl.rs t s uch motion that has been made like this, '!r.

Speaker . ln 1971, I moved n motion 11i~ila r co this in connec tio n "' ith .mother i.nci.dent in this House . .'\s I recall the motion was p;,_•H1ed without <!ehate. [ ws11 noc on the r,overnment side . was 011 che opnosi ti.on side . Transcript'! were ob tained of -rema rks made by the then P remier on radio 11tations and ne1o•11 ll'edia outside the House . Titose tran.<icrints '-'Cte then broupht into the House .

Th ere was a moci on I th i nk ch.u 1 rue down Myself that it was a breach of the privileres of the llousP fo r the then Premie r to have said what he said outside t he House. l am not sure whetl1er or noc t hat motion was peJ:lllitted to be debated or not . l canno t rem.ember t hat now. 8513

December 18, 1974 Tape no. 2219 Page 3 What happened, Mr. Speaker, was that the then Soeaker ruled that the motion of privilege was ineffective and that there was no breach of privilege for these remarks made outside the House and the issue was never debated here and certain other events occurred. What th.is motion is, Mr. Speaker, is a motion that we get certain information because it appears that there has been a breach of the privileges of the members of the Rouse from what we understand to have been said.

If the Leader of the Opoosition is confirmed as having stated outside this House to the news media that the ruling of the Deputy Speaker yesterday on a certain question showed th at he was partial and that the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker had shown partiality all through the last three weeks debate_, once it is confirmed to this House, if it is, that those statements were actually made and we all know that they were made but we do not have the evidence now before us -it is certainly quite evident from lleauchesne and all other authorities that it is a very, very serious offence and a breach of the privileges of the members of this House.

Mr. Speaker, the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker cannot defend themselves. It is the members of this Rouse who have to defend them. Nor can they conduct the business of this House properly if there is goinp.: to be any member of this House permitted to say outside the House or inside that they are not impartial. Members of this House can say that they were mistaken. Members of this House can say that their rulings were not correct or that they were mistaken or that they have made a mistake in judgement or a mistake in fact or a mistake in law or that they do not agree with the rulings. They can say all of that.

Any member who did n