VOL. 3 PRELIMINARY UNEDITED TRANSCRIPT HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR THE PERIOD: 2:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. TUESDAY, MAY 2, 1978 N0.46 ~ I .f t'

;.ray 2, 1978 Tape 1686 The House met at 2:00 P.M. Mr. Speaker in the Chair. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I am pleased to welcome to the galleries to the House of Assembly two student groups: thirtv exchange students from grade eight from the Hugh McRoberts Junior Secondary in Richmond, British Colu~hia,accompanied by their teachers, Mr. nale Tilman and Mr. Art Almis ;and also twenty-six grade nine students from St. Francis of Assisi School in Outer Cove accompanied by their teacher,~~r. Tom Gosine.

I know all hon. members join me in welcoming these students and their teachers to the House of Assembly. smm :1.r·~. }JnlBERS : !lear, hear! ~ffi.. _ SPEA..~R: I will now inform hon. me-:nbers of my decision on the matter of privilege brought up in the House of Assembly yesterday by the hon. member for LaPoile (!!r. Neary). It is a complex issue and I have endeavoured to discard every- t~ing which I did not regard as absolutely necessary,but it is a matter of some complexity.

With reference to the point of privilege brought up yesterday.! have for the purpose of my ruling distin~ished between two aspects of the matter: (1) whether execution of a search warrant in the precincts of the House with the permission of the Speaker after he has assured himself to the best of his ability that such was a valid warrant, validly issued,is a breach of privilege.In other words,because I thinl~ this is a different way of saying the same thing, i~ there an immunity from service and execution of a search warrant?

And the second area~whether the allegations made by the hon. gentleman of certain•actions of officials of the Department of Justice and/or others reporting to them have and/or do hinder him in the perfonnance of his duties as a member of the House of Assembly. I will take the first area and dispose of that I·

!·!ay 1' 1978 Ta-pe 168fi DW .:. 2 }ffi.. SPEAKER: as-pect of it. before getting on to the second I draw the attention of hon. members to Beauchesne,

Section 106, subsections (1) and (2). And because of the complexity and importance of the matter,! am going to cover what I consider to be the relevant authorities, hopefully not in exhaustive detail but in sufficient detail. To do less on a question of such importance would,! think, be discourteous to hon. members. That

section reads: "Althoup;h either Rouse may ex-pound the law of Parliament, and indicate its own privileges, it is agreed that no ne~r -privilege can be created. In 1704, the Lords communicated a resolution to the Commons at a conference, "That neither House of Parliament have power, JY any vote or decla~ation, to create to themselves new privileges, not warranted by the known laws and custo~~ of Parliament", which was concurred in by the Commons :• And the next section: "The dignity and· independence of the two Houses are in great measure preserved by keeping their privileges indefinite.

If all the privileges of Parliament were set down and ascertained, and no privilege allowed but what was so defined and determined, it were easy for the executive power to devise some new case, not within the line of privilege, and under pretence thereof, to harass any refractory member and violate the freedom of Parliament." The essential elements there of course ~re that no new privilege can he created and that the inde-pendence of the F-ouse depends in large measure upon keeping the privileges indefinite -·

aay 2, 1978 Tape ~o, 1687 NN - 1 MR. SPEAKER: or not endeavouring to make an exhaustive enumeration of them. I have referred for my first guidance to the precedents of this House. The records show that since 1949 nine matters have been referred to the Committee on Privileges, · and these matters go from 1950 to 1977, a number dealing with articles in newspapers, one an allegation that ?ressure had been exerted during an election campaign for certain people to vote a certain Hay, one that an hon. member had tabled a petitio:J. in the House Hhich ~•as forged,and one alleging assault.

None of these matters are certainly germane and in no case did the Committee_ on Privileges make any report. I go n~t :to the Clouse of Assembly Act which states,

section 19: '~he House of Assembly and the members thereof sh~ll hold, enjoy, and exercise :such =d the like privileges, i=unities,and powers as are now . ~eld, enjoyed,and exercised by the House of Commons of the Parliament of Canada and. by the members thereof.''

Section 4 of the Senate and the House of Commons Act, which is what our act refers to,

section 4 reads­ it is under the heading, "Privileges and Immunities of ¥..embers and Officers - "The Senate and the llouse of Commons, respectively, and t:1e members thereof ,respectively, hold, enjoy,ai_ld exercise such and t;1e like powers, i=unities,and powers as at the time of the passing of the 3ritish North America Act 1867, were held, enjoyed,and exercised by ~1e Co=ons House of Parliament of the Unitec.l Kingdom end Jy t~1e members thereof insof~r as tl12 ::; ... ;_i .2 c.r~ consistent •nth and r..ot repugnant to this Act." "Such privileges, immunities,and powers as are from time to time defined by act of the Parliament of Canada, not exceeding those at the time of passing of such act, held, enjoyed and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United f~ngdom i

May 2, 1978 Tape No, 1687 NM- 2 MR. SPEAKER: and by the members thereof respectively." There is in Canada no statutory definition of privilege apart from that. I refer han. members to Bourinot, second edition,

chapter 4, Privileges and Powers of Parliament. This reference repeats, does not add to, does not subtract from, what in general is stated in May and Beauchesne, but it is organized tn a very concise manner. One particular part of it I would like to rend, page 236, "Whatever Parliament has constantly declared to be a privilege is a sole evidence of its being part of the ancie:J.t law of Parliament. At t;1e same time it has been clearly laid down by highest authorities that although either House may expound the law of Parliament, and vindicate its own privileges, it is agreed that no new privilege can be created." The

chapter does identify some well established privileges with which, to the best of my knowledge, all ;nembers are in agreement and I will just enumerate a few to show the nature of them. For example members are protected in their attendance on Parliament, guaranteed again restraint and intimidation in disciwrge of their duties. They are exe~pt from se~ng as jurors and scandalous and libellous reflections on the proceedings of the House are a breach of privilege, freedom of speech of han. members, a breach of privilege to assualt, ~enace or insult ax;.y ~ember when he is comng to or going from the House.

There is no need to indicate it all but to indicate the general nature of the privileges. Beari~g in nind the general r~ture of privilege, t.'le fact thnt c>e do not have a statutory definition thereof, I refer to those cases in the House of Co=ons.which, in my opinion, are the closest, they are not identical, but which are the closest. One, and the reference to this is Hansard debates, Rouse of Cotmnons, Septetr.ber 4, 1973, han. members migh recall that I

l\ay 2, 1978 Tap(! ~lo . 1687 MR. SPEA..I{ER: .!tl& l~~Smb.liti'S of ·the ·lro!!R' :enbt;ri ~. ~:ril.~~~ ~U.P~ o{' folog, ~4. ~~ tt~t ~~~J: !~# ru;'li&~:tD:U ll.d ~. ta~~ . ~ .Wt!.t'a se_~ bfotmat:4.>01:i ·:&~ dle ., d1rtSati~af!anee• Gf; ~ertt• f'~e~ ~ ~"'• · ~~AA~ til ~'M ~~·iii 'O!f'i~i * p;qU"ee .o#,!UJ!~$ ~id lKl:t. ~~- 3 ., 'l I

May 2, 1978 Tape 1688 EC - 1 MR. SPEAKER: ende~vour to obtain the permission of Mr. Speake~ On the first occasion the member's secretary was questioned concerning the member's activities during the preceding twenty-four hours. The member later arranged to meet with the policemen. A question of privilege was raised by the ~ember concerned in the House of Commons. The matter was referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.

That Committee found the question of privilege to be well-founded and the Report of the Committee and Privileges of the Eouse of Commons states: "It is well established that outside police forces on ?arliament bus~ness shall not enter the precincts of Parliament without first obtaining the permission of Mr. Speaker, who is custodian of the powers and privileges of Parliament." The case is not totally analogous; the principle is that in order for police officers to enter the precincts of Parliament the permission of the Speaker was required.

Another case I draw to han. members' attention, again not directly analogous, but somewhat instructive, and the reference to this is the Hansard of the ITouse of Commons, ilovember 29, 1977, when the Speaker informed the House that he had authorized an investigation by the rtc;;p into the allegations against another member of Parliament. The analogy there is that this is a situation where the Speaker inaugurated an investigation on his own initiative and then informed the party leaderships and informed the House.

I have gone through in detail the neuse of Commons records for :-!arch 6, 1978 and the ensuing days, and this is with reference to an allegation li •I I

Hay 2, 1978 Tape 1688 EC - 2 HR. SPEAKER: of breach of the Official Secrets Act involving Mr. Cossitt, the member for Leeds, the allegation by him that he was under surveillance and the allegation by him that it had been mentioned to him that if he did not return certain docu~entation, a search warrant might be issued against him. I have gon~ through it for the purpose of being complete, but the matter remained entirely hypothetical; it never came to a specific issue. The final case is one involving the Senate of Canada and the reference is Hansard of November 19, 1975 and November 12th of that same year.

This was with relation to the Skyshops incident. The RCMP came to the Office of the Speaker of the Senate with a search warrant and asked her permission to execute that warrant. The testimony in Hansard is somewhat confused. When the matter came up on a point of privilege in the Senate, uumber one, the Speaker was not there - there was a Speaker protem.; number two, Senator Gigu~re himself was not there; and number three, Black Rod, who was involved, so~ewhat analogous to our Sergeant-at-Arms - maybe he was there, but,obviously, he could not speak. And there is some confusion as to what specifically transpired.

Apparently, Black Rod telephoned Senator Giguere. wt.ether it was on the instructions of the Speaker or not, the record does not ~ake clear; whether it was to inform him of a fai~ accompli or to advise him, "to ask his per:nission, none of that is - clear. My impression from reading the Hansards- and I have endeavoured to verify this with some officials in Ottawa who were closer to it, and they share my view - was that what can be abstracted from it is that the police did go to the Speaker of the Senate's Office,

!·lay 2, 1978 Tape 1688 EC - 3 MR. SPEAKER: asked for permission and received it. The attenuating circumstances I ~ ' t ~ ,,. ~ · r· F !.

May 2, 1978 Tape 1689 PK - 1 Mr. Speaker: are very vague. This could have been a most helpful precedent if the Committee on Privileges, to which there was a motion in the Senate of referral, had in fact ever met. The Committee on Privileges was set up to look into the matter, to make Senate, that the Committee was not established and it died on the . l a report, and I am informed, actually by some of the offices of the Order Paper. So the value that it could have obviously is not the obviously must be aware of.

So those are the basic cases and the -I I same as if we had that Committee, but it is something which I closest ones. I will make a few references to what some hon. members referred to yesterday and that is the supremacy of Parliament. My understanding of that is that the supremacy of Parliament does not give an immunity to criminal juridiction, and certainly the cases, bearing in mind especially the Flora MacDonald one, would bear that out.

Also, and I think most hon. members would share this view, that it is a legislative supremacy - obviously the British North America Act gives a division of powers - and also I think most hon. members would agree and, indeed, affirmed this yesterday, that it is a supremacy within the Rule of Law. A couple of examples would be che division of powers, which this Rouse could not change; the requirement of Royal Assent, which this House cannot change; the requirement of an election, say, within a period of every five years, whatever date or month that might come to, these are such things.

So obviously it is a legislative supremacy within the Rule of Law. Finally I would draw to han. members that in coming to my decision on this matter I had to bear in mind the very specific and particular situation. Ron. members will recall that in the documentation tabled by the hon. gentleman to my right there was, among other things, what I understand to have been and to be an allegation of misconduct or bribery on the part of another hon. member. So there is a very close relationship, in .my opinion, between at least part of the allegation in the documentation tabled and our own Standing

May 2, 1978 Tape 1689 PK - 2 Mr. Speaker: Order (77):"The offer of any money or other advantage to any member of the House,for the promoting of any matter whatsoever,depending or to be transacted in Parliament, is a high crime or a misdemeanour." There is, in my opinion, a very real relationship in at least one of the allegations in the documentation tabled and our own Standing Orders. And just to re-enforce that I will quote briefly from a commentary on the Standing Orders before their revision in 1973, wbich I understand to be a valid commentary on the present Standing Order (77).

And the commentary reads quite briefly, "Both the offer and the acceptance of a bribe is a breach of privilege against the House." So bearing these matters in mind,it is my decision that it is not a breach of privilege of the House for a search warrant to-be executed in the precincts with the permission of the Speaker after and if he has assured himself to the best of his ability that it is a valid warrant validly issued. ruling, and the longest part. That is the first part of the The second area.As I mentioned before I have distinguished in this the allegation by the hon. member for LaPoile (Mr.

Neary) that there had been coercion toward him, a form of supervision or surveillance o~ the performance of his duties,that he was impeded from carrying out his duties as an MHA1 that this resulted from, in his opinion, the actions of officials of the Justice Department and/or those reporting to them. This is the essence of the allegation and the' submission made by the hen. member and found in yesterday's Hansard.

With respect to a point of privilege,as hen. members know there are two requirements of the Chair; one, that it be brought up at the earliest possible opportunity-that obviously has been fulfilled; the other is frequently put,in my opinion, in a foi'I!l of shorthand, which says that there be a prima facie case. Some hon. members might recall last year, in March of last yea~ my giving a ruling on a matter of privilege. I pointed out that the real meaning of that

May 2, 1978 Tape 1689 PK - 3 Mr. Speaker: require~ent is,and May affirms it, and the quotation is direct from May, 11 that the Speaker requires to be satisfied that privilege appears to be sufficiently involved to justify him in giving the matter precedence:' .I I

''T Hay 2,1978 Tape No. 1690 AH-1 MR. SPEAKER: In a serious matter I do not use the suorthand 'prima fac~e.' It has a connotation of a court process,of the examination of evidence, cross examination,calling of witnesses, all of that which is obviously not the fun~tion of the Chair. So what I make my decision on is whether I am satisfied that privilege appear to be sufficiently involved to justify me in giving the matter precede.~ce and I do so judge. Therefore the House will have to determine whether it is a breach of p'rivilege; ~in the shorthand terminology I have decided that there is a nr:lm., f!!ci~ case.

The substantive matter has to be judged by tile House 0 What I would recommend- I can only recommend, I cannot require it - is tnat tht_ matter be referred to the Committee of Priv11'"~'"' knowledge,is the normal procedure. which ,to the best of my In

summary,therefore,I have distinguish~d this matter under two aspects,and I think I should perhaps refer to what I regard to be two of the responsibilities of the Chair~ ili•e, to do what can be done to enhance the dignity and the reputation of the House,or,put another way, put negatively,to avoid doing anything which could bring scorn or ridicule on the House; and that I think is the responsibility the Chair has toward the House,if one wishes,collectively, as a collectivity. Another responsibility of the Chair is to maintain the freedom of members. The emphasis hete is on the individual aspect of privile2e.

Sometimes these might appear to be in canflict,They should not ever be in conflict, but they may appear to be a conflict at times. With respect to the first responsibility,! have given my decision.

I will add under this category that among the reasons I mentioned for deciding that there was no breach of privilege in the execution of the warrants per se, among those was ruy judgement, which is all I can exercise, my opinion that in the circumstances, bearing in mind not only the cases cited but bearing in mind what I consider to be the relationship between at least one of the allegations in the documentation tabled and our own ! r li 1: ! ' J l

i1ay 2,1978 Tape No. 1690 AH-2 HR. SPEAKER: Standing Orders, bearing in mind that relationsliip to have refused permission for execution would have run a serious risk of holding the House open to scorn; that also is among my reasons. In the second oart of my decision, I iud2ed that in the alle~ations made by the bon. gentleman, the matter of privilege _ is sufficiently involved that it requires the precedence that such a finding makes, that such a finding requires. I do find that there is a prima facie case which means that priority should be given to the matter.

My recommendation there is - but it is up to the House ~ is referral to a Committee of Privileges. I thank hon. gentlemen for their patience. I was more lengthy than I usually like to be but,. as I said earlier, I think it would be improper not to quote all of the authorities of· <.;hich I am <:.ware. HR. SPEAKER: H<l..ROWE: MR. SPEAKER: HR.W.IDWE: Statements bv Ministers. Mr. Sr-eaker. Hon. Leader of the Opposition.

I expected the Government House Leader to rise and make the formal motion required that this matter be referred to the Committee on Privileges,which is not yet set up,so the motion would have to read, "A Committee on Privileges if as and when it is set up:• I will gladly yield to him, Sir, if he wants to make such a motion and,as I say,I would gladly second the motion. Without such a motion I would assume that the matter will not be referred to any committee of this Rouse and the thing will die on the vine,which of course we do not want to happen. HR .HICKMAN: Mr.

Speaker, the reason why I had not moved was because it is on the Orders of the Day and I intended to call that particular motion later an,but I will nov move that the matter be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections, MR. SPEAKER: It bas been moved that the matter be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. The hon. member. ... I r I r I· ' ,· I: ·~

May 2,1978 Tape No. 1690 Ali-3 MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, a point of personal privilege, Sir, among very serious matter that has arisen in the light of wild and irresp~nsible statements that have been made outside of this !louse by the hen •. the Premier, Sir, in radio and television r I

May 2, 1978 Tape 1691 DH - 1 MR. S. NEARY: interviews. The one I watched last nigDt, was where the han. the Yremier said· : that the member for LaPoile was ungentlemanly,was anything but a gentleman,was less than a gentleman in the way that he handled the tabling of these documents. Hell, ~!r. Speaker, I want to point out to the House ,and I should not have to do this because the House alrendy knows,that under the rules of the Fouse I was forced, I had no choice but to table the second document.Dut there are some things ~~r. Speaker, that hon. gentlemen do not '<now.

The non. the Pre>'llier said in his statement that I should ~ave gone to the ~inister of Justice or to the hon. the Premier himself to niscuss this matter \:efore it ,.,as raised in the l'!ouse. Mr.

Speaker, I am going to table documentation,but before I Co, Sir, I want to say to hon. gentleman the hon. the Premier has i:Jeen less than truthful even with his o~m members;that on oore than one occasion,on at least six or seven occasions inside and outside of this House·I raised it inside the House-l met with rhe Premier behind the curtain;! met with the Premier in his private dining room.I pleaded with the Premier to set up a co~ission of inquiry into this whole matter and I aave the documentation,! have the letters here to prove it.

I wrote the Premier as far back as 1976 to have something done about this.r have an acknowledgement of one reply from the Premier where he thanked me for my letter of ~~y 10, 1976 with respect to the Health Sciences Complex "I ''ill take into consideration", he said," your suggestion that a staff member from the Auditor General's Department be added to any investigation committee· .In addition government will take into consideration your two further suggestions with respect to Scrivener Projects Limited before any final te~s of reference are indicated to the committee. Signed Frank D. Moores " .

I have other letters, Sir, that I wrote the Premier. I even '· f

Yay 2, 1978 Tape 1691 HR. S. Cii'EARY: went as far, ~~r. Speaker, as to recommend to the Premier three people to do an inquiry if the bon. gentleman would set up an inquiry. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Perhaps I did not catch it when the bon. gentleman got up at first if he is speaking on a point of order or a point of privilege. MR. S. NEARY: No,personal privilege, Sir. MR. SPEAKER: Personal privilege. MR. S. NEARY: And I have evidence, Sir, that I want to put on the table that I am sure hon. gentleman are not aware of ,-will probably see for the first time. I have here a letter that I wrote to the hon. Mr.

Basford because I could not get any satisfaction in this P.ouse or outside of this House from the hon. the Premier in my dealings with the Premierpbeing so shifty and cagey and not keeping his promises and telling me things that he was · going to do that he did not do~ that I wrote 'Mr. Ron Basford,the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada 1 and I sent ?{r. Basford a copy of the affidavit. I !!ad a reply back from ~1r. Bas ford on May 10, 1976 after bringing it to the attention of the bon. the Premier,and the Minister of Justice in possession of a copy of the document for over a year.

And the hon. gentleman says .r was anything but a gentleman in this matter, Sirl MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! DW - 2 The hon. member is aware I cant'ot allow him to debate matters now. If he "'ishes to state succently the matter of privilege,but I could not allm• him to get into debate. ~ffi • S • 1\TEARY : No, Sir. In order to substant:iate my point of privilege, Sir, that the hon. gentleman said I am anything but a gentleman ,ungentlemanl:'. The hen. Premier says tvhat I did was ungentle~~nly.

And I begged and pleaded the hon. gentleman, and the bon. gentleman kno"'s that,.,ithout even tabling the affidavit

May 2, 1978 Tape 1691 }fR. S. NEARY: It is the first time,the first time · that this affidaVit will be laid on the table of the House is now. 1 refrained,I was too much of a gentleman and that is what has delayed this thing so long. Mr. Basford told me in his letter, he said, "This is tci acknowledge with thanks your letter April 15, 1976 with· enclosure respecting the construction of the Medical Sciences Complex at ~t. John's•l'he matter that you !Jl-7 - 3 have brought to my attention is indeed serious," says ~r.

Basford. ''I have referred the enclosed to my officials in the Department of Justice for their further consideration-once again, thank you for bringing your interest in this matter to my attention." And the last letter I wrote the Premier,I did no~ get a reply to it, and that had to do, Hr.

Speal,er - I even went as far as to suggest three names to the hon. gentle~~n, three names.I did some research because the hon. the Premier had tol~. me behind the curtain"my problem is that I cannot get a man in Canada qualified to do this kind of an inquiry.lie has to have training in legal matters,he has to has to know about construction:' lmd I even 1~ent as far as to research the names of three peo?l~,and I wrote the Pre~ier on April 14, 1977 and I made recommened three naL"es to the hon. gentleman of people mlom I thought were qualified to do inquiry and

:ray z, 1973 Tape ~o. 1692 N:! - 1 the Premier did not give me the courtesy of giving me a reply to that letter. Now, Mr. Speaker, is that being · ~gentlemanly? Is that being less than a gentleman? And according to Beauchesne, Sir, you cannot refer to members in this han. House as being urtgentlemanly, less than a gentleman, and I am going to lay this documentation on the table of the House, Sir, the affidavit, the Watergate in Newfoundland that the han.

Premier had in his possession, and the affidavit that the Hinister of Justice and the Premier both had in their possession, and Watergate that my hon. friend from KilbriC.e (Ur. liells) read back as far as 1972 or 1 73 and advised !·fr. Davidson to take it to the press. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! :m. ~lEAl'.Y: So I am going to lay this on the table, Sir, to justify my point of privilege. I can tell you, Sir, that I do so only after almost three years of :,egging and J?leading the I ~rn.. SPEAKER: T',le :1on. : ti~tister .:>f Justice.

I I i1on. gentleman to appoint a co=ission of enquiry under the Public Enquiries Act into this matter. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! :rR. HIC.'<11AN: On th-".t point of privilege, the roint of privilege that is before the Chair is very simple and very restricted, that the Premier allegedly said that the hen. the I ' member for LaPoile Gir.

Neary) o?en;.ted in an ungentlemenly or less than a gentlemanly ==er, That is the o:tly issue t~c:.t is before the Chair on a point of privile;e and I do submit t~at on a question of privilege t~e Chair has to deal with tte strict point that is raised with it and cannot expand beyond it. There are two other points,though,to which I must refer. I have heard this last couple of days alle6ations, particularly frc!'l the hen. men:ber for LaPoile (~.fr. Neary), that the provincial Minister of Justice, myself and/or my department, have been :L"l possession of tCiis all-aged affidavit. I knew I •.vas not.

I knew I tlad never seen it. But I ca:mot accoun~ obviously for

lf...ay 2' 1973 Tr.pc No. 1692 '~ - 2 :1R. HI CIQrA.'l : everyone in the department so I had a thorough check made today and it is not true. It is not true. MR. NEARY: The Premier has it because I saw it. MR. HICKMAN : Well,I am dealing first with the Departcent of Justice. The allegation was that the Minister of Justice, m1d/or his department, had in their possession this affidavit.

I say to this House now, categorically and without fear of contradiction,this is totally and absolutely untrue, Now with respect to the second matter, ancl that is the tabling of the affidavit, I am obliged, as Attorney General, to advise this House that as a result of a statement carried in the press this morning, attributed to the ~on. the member for LaPoile ('fr. :'leary) that he intended tabling in t:iis :::ouse today a docu<:1ent or documents that obviously rel.:1ted to the matter that is presently u-.tder investigation by the Royal Canadian Haunted Police, on my direction, at my instructions, which I announced here last Thursday, that the police have asked and said that in their opinion the :~u!Jlication of my evidence relating to this r.atter nay seriousl:r inpede their investigation.

And I ~•auld ass\lllle that there is no han. meml:er of this House would want in any way to impede the investigation of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police into a charge. HR. SUlMONS: (Inaudible) slimey, HR. HICXMA.'l: I overl;eard whet the han. gentlemen from Burgee - Bay d'Espoir (!1r. Simmons) f:aid, Mr. Speaker, I ask that you direct him to withdrm; i:: before I proceed further. MR. m:ARY: What did he say? ¥!hat did he say? ~. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! I •.1ould require the h~n. gentleman to withdraw his statement. MR. SIMMONS : Mr. Speaker, what is it I am alle~ed to have said? :m..

SPEA..'<ER: Order, please! I l1eard the han. gentler.;an say some allegation of being sliney. C.o wonder he is slil'ley or some such

~·.o.y ~. 1~78 Tape No . 1692 ~. SllmONS: Is it any wonder he is knowa as sl::.mey? MR . SPE.d.~R : be wit!ldra~;n . :m.. STIII'IDNS: !offi. HIOO!AN: Order, please! That would have to I ·.n.thC:rat~ it . l·!r. Speaker, I am not satisfied •nth t!lat . I move, sec.on.ded by the hon . member for Green Bay (Nr . Pec..ld or d) 1 that the on. member for Burg eo - Bay d' ~ spoir O!r. Simmons) 'be expelled fer ten sitting days fer conduct anbeco ming?. ~bcr. SOME HON . MEMBERS: Oh, ~h! aear, hear ! ;· .. ( - J SO~ HON. :1ElmERS : ~ . SUJ::!ONS: Thank you, ~! r.

Speaker , 'r ;,;ould assume t. at that is a debatable motion. There are a few •,;ords I would like to so;y on t be: sub jec t . ~!!'.. . SPEAKE,: Orde r, please ! ileiot'e I reco{;nize .mybody on the motion r ·think to keep track of where ~~e are I should dispense with the mattet' of privilege previo usl y raised . HR. :'f"t.ARY: Befo re Your a ooour dispenses ~ith the point of "Privilege, the~e is one point the ho'iJ.. gentleman t!a.de that is very, very illlportant and the

May 2, 1978 Tape 1693 EC - 1 MR. NEARY: han.· gentleman knows full well, Sir, because the han. gentleman had a meeting with Inspector Murphy this morning, that I informed the RCMP yesterday when they came to my office at my invitation, when I turned over certain documentation to the RCMP, I advised them that in no way was I giving up my rights as a member of this House and that anything that I gave them I would table it in the House. I informed Inspector Murphy I was going to table this document - MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, this is very important. MR. SPEAKER: Order, pleas;!

I cannot allow any further statement on this now. My understanding,before getting to the motion, to take. one thing at a time, because the matter of privilege is up and I cannot just it in suspense, my recollection is the hon. member raised the matter of privilege with respect to what he believed were statements made by the hon. the Premier with respect to himself being ungentlemanly and not having done this or not having done that, or that type of thing.

I regard this matter of privilege as the one defined by May, page 343: "In regard to the explanation of personal matters, the House is usually indulgent, and will permit a statement of that character - to be made without any question being before the House~ And further on "no debate should ensue thereon, but if another Member is involved in the personal statement, he is generally allowed to give his own view of the matter and to say whether he accepts it or not."

May 2, 1978 Tape 1693 EC - 2 MR. SPEAKER: I regard that it is a personal explanation with respect to what was alleged to have been said about him, and being of that nature, it is not a matter on which the Chair makes any decision, the matter in that form being disposed of. The motion before the House now is that<the hon. member for Burgeo- Bay d'Espoir be suspended for ten sitting days. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, ou a point of privilege. MR. SPEAKER: Another point of privilege. MR. NEARY: The hon. the Minister of Justice, Sir, a few moments ago made another one of his false and misleading statements to this bon.

Hous~ inasmuch as the hon. gentleman through playing with words somehow or other tried to leave the impression with this House that my laying on the table of the House of documentation to substantiate my point of privilege was there was something wrong with it or something bad about it. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the bon.

House that yesterday when Inspector Murphy came to my office with hi.s colleague at my invitation so I could turn over certain files that I had in my office that they had not gotten during the raid or the invasion of the legislative office•, I told them that in no way was I giving up my parliamentary rights as a member of this House and that any documentation that I gave to them I would t~ble it in the House in due course.

Inspector Murphy completely agreed with me, Sir - had no hesitation at all - and I told him the information that they had taken from my office the day before, I would lay that on the table today and the other documentation, I would call him on the 'phone and let him know in advance so that they could tell me whether I ~ r f !' ;: :~ ·~ L

May 2, 1978 Tape 1693 EC - 3 MR. NEARY: or not they were finished their investigation with these other documents. I have other documents, Sir, that I will be laying on the table of the House, and before I do so, I will make sure that the RCMP are finished with these documents, have carried out all the investigation necessary in connection with these documents. That agreement I have made with Inspector Murphy even though I did not have to, but I did it anyway, Sir. MR. HICKMAN: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice. MR. HICKMAN: Mr. Speaker, that is not a point of privilege.

What I said -and I did not get a chance to finish before the statement was made by the bon. the member for Burgee -Bay d'Espoir -I simply said that it is my responsibility as Attorney General, and I am discharging that, to advise the House that I had been advised by the police that the making public of any document in connection with this investigation may impede I that investigation. I am not suggesting, nor is any J member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, that an han. gentleman can be prevented or prohibited - MR. NEARY: All right, I understand that. That is a different matter. HR.

HICKHAN: - and until I was interrupted by that very unparliamentary comment across th·e way, that is · about what I was leading up to. And, Mr. Speaker, I point out to this House that this investigation was ordered by me as a result of matters tabled in this House. I would assume that there is no bon. member in this House who would like to be a party in any way to impeding the investigation of the

May 2' 1978 Tape 1693 EC - 4 MR. lliC'KMAN: Royal Can ad ian Mounted Police. MR. NEARY: Only co-operate. MR. HICKMAN: Only co-operate. And I implore all bon. members to give that total co-operation. M.R. NEARY: Do not worry. Providing they g et it from the other side too. HR . HICK...'IAN: Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I

May 2, 1978, Tape 1694, Page l -- apb MR. HICKMAN: when a document is tabled in this House it can, unless Mr. Speaker rules otherwise, become a public document. And what I would ask Your Honour to consider - MR. NEARY: No covering up. MR. HICKMAN: - what I would ask Your Honour to consider - MR. NEARY: No covering up. MR. HICKMAN: - what I would ask Your Honour to consider in the interest of the administration of justice and the enforcement of the rule of law, and in the interest of an unimpeded investigation by the R.C.M.P. - MR. NEARY: Newfoundland's answer to Hitler. MR. HICKMAN: - I would ask Mr.

Speaker to consider whether in his opinion this too should be referred to the matter of privileges and elections to advise the Premier --to advise Mr. Speaker. MR. NEARY: Sit down boy, and do not be so foolish. MR. HICKMAN: But I have discharged my responsibility, Mr. Speaker. As the Attorney General I advise this House that it is not in the public interest that that document be made public at this time and may impede the - MR. NEARY: It is public already. (Inaudible) had it a couple of years ago. MR. HICKMAN: - investigation by the R.C.M._P.

You can do what you like with it, but I have discharged my responsibility toward it. MR. W.N.ROWE: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The motion before the House now, as I understand, because on that previous matter I do I J ,t ' L .

. ,. May 2, 1978, Tape 1694, Page 2 -- apb MR. SPEAKER: not really consider that t~ere is a matter of privilege on which the Chair can make a decision. There is some difference of opinion with respect to whether investigations by the Department of Justice would or would not be impeded, or would or would not be hindered, or would or would not be assisted. These are questions of difference of opinion and I do not consider it a point of privilege on which the Chair can make any decision. If we are not careful our procedures could get somewhat confused.

Having stated that with respect to the point of privilege I do not regard it as a point on which the Chair can make any decision, that it is a difference of opinion, if anything, between two hon. members, I would assume we are back to the immediately preceding motion which refe:t:'s to the hon. member for Burgee - Bay d'Espoir (Mr. Simmons). MR. W.N.ROWE: Sir, I rise on a point of personal privilege or personal explanation, as the case may be, but it bears on the same point raised.

I say that to Your Honour because I happened to have been in a room yesterday when the persons who are conducting this investigation on the part of the Department of Justice and the police department, the R.C.M.P., Inspector Murphy and his cohort, Constable Taylor, I guess, two fine, admirable gentlemen, sat down around the table and we discussed what evidence it was that they wanted and what we would turn over to them. We said right at the beginning that we would turn over the evidence and documents and so on with alacrity, as quickly as possible,all they had to do was indicate what they wanted.

In doing so we mentioned to Inspector Murphy that there is no wa~ part of the condition of turning it over would be the reservation to ourselves as ' I I ·.

May 2, 1978, Tape 1694, Page 3 -- apb MR. W.N.ROWE: members of this House,our right to lay on the Table of this House all documents which we thought were in the public interest. Inspector Murphy and his sidekick agreed wholeheartedly with that. As a matter of fact, he said to us, would we mind delaying two or three days in the case of some evidence which we are going to lay before the House so that he would make sure that they had all the loose ends tied up and all the people contacted that they wanted to contact.

Sir, I had to state as a member of this House and as Leader of the Opposition that in no way can I or members of this House give up our solemn duty to the people of this Province to make public what we believe should be made public. We will not, Sir, we wiLl not be the party to any kind of a cover-up of evidence of information which should be public, particularly when the information referred to and tabled today has already been public, or available to the public for a number of months. MR. NEARY: A year. MR. W.N.ROWE: The Premier has had a copy of it·. It used to be the hottest selling item in St.

John's as far as reading material is concerned there about a year ago. I myself saw a copy which I came across from a member of.the Press. So, Sir, we are not serving any purpose by trying to cover up this particular evidence except perhaps to save the government some embarrassment. Our duty to the public, Sir, supercedes any wish to save this government any embarrassment. MR. PECKFORD: To that point of explanation, Mr. Speaker. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Mines and Energy. i I i I ~

May 2, 1978, Tape L694, Pa~e 4 -- apb MR. PECKFORD : To that point of expla,nati: .on. Once again we see, ~- Speaker, that the hon. Leader o£ the Opposition and members opposite are abusin~ the rules like I have never seen· them abused before, trying to make a point of privilege and at the same time the Leader of the Opposition qualifies it with a point of explanation. Now, in response to wnat the Leader of the Opposition said, r. . )

May 2, 1978 Tape 1695 PK - 1 Mr. Peckford: whatever it is a point of 1 privilege or a point of information,let us say from this side of the House that there is no intention on behalf of anybody on this side to try,to use his term, to cover up anything. All the Attorney General was trying to do was to point out advice that was given to him. And there is no point to cover up. AN RON. MEMBER: There is a cover up. MR.

PECKFORD: The point of the documentation,which now is being awfully sensitive to members opposite because I cannot speak ~ I in silence,is that the Attorney General and House Leader was saying that perhaps should be referred either to the Committee that will be established today or to the police in whose investigation now this information is relevant. AN RON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). MR. PECKFORD: And that is the point. There is no point, Mr. Speaker, of so-called cover up.

The han. the Leader of the Opposition is trying to pretend that he suddenlv is the White Knight on the Great Steed who is going to rescue the Island of Newfoundland in some kind of so-called corruption. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! MR. HICKMAN: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The han. Minister of Justice. MR.

HICKMAN: On a point of explanation, may I repeat once again,because I do not want any han. member to think that I am in any way trying to impede the right of this Parliament to make public any matter that is tabled, in no way, but I do have an obligation as Attorney General to pass on the clear and unequivocal request that came from the RCMP to me today as a result of an

article which appeare~ in this morning's paper. That is all I am doing. I am not suggesting that this House is bound by that request in any way. But please do not interpert that as anything more than the discharge of my responsibility as Attorney General. And I would be very derelict in my duty if I did not bring this to the responsibility of this House, and that I have done.

May 2, 1978 Tape 1695 PK - 2 MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, to that matter. Sir, I would just like to point out - MR. SPEAKER: The han. member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: ' to the House one of the letters that I tabled today addressed to the han. Mr. Basford a year ago. This affidavit has been in the hands of the RCMP for almost one year, in case the han. gentleman is not aware of it. MR. HICKMAN: I am not concerned with that. MR. NEARY: Oh it has. The document tabled today, Sir, - MR. HICKMAN: This has no relevancy. MR.

NEARY: It is relevant to this, because the han. gentleman somehow or other is trying to leave the impression because of the story in the morning ~ that I was going to table this documentation today that it was going to impede the investigation of the RCMP. They have been investigating this for a year. They have had this affidavit for one year. MR. W. ROWE: It is time it was made public. MR. NEARY: And the only thing that is new in this, Sir, is the letters between the Premier and myself. HR. W. RO\>/E: Maka it C'u:Olic. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again we are in a situation where there is no bona fide matter of privilege. Han. members have made explanations, and have entered into debate where the rules really do not permit it. I would now require that this procedure, this process cease. With respect to the request of the han. ~nister of Justice: As I understand it, it was AN HON. MEMBER: A motion. MR. SPEAKER: This is on a different matter. As I understand it there were perhaps two, or it could be understood as two, one with respect to the tabling of the documents. He stated, in his opinion, this would impede certain investigations.

And I think he asked han. members if they would agree that it not be tabled; I think he did. And I think he asked me what action, if anything, I could take on it or I could refer to the Committee on Privileges. _j "'-I I ; I I ol _1

Hay 2, 1978 Tape No. 1695 !iR. SPEAKER: Looking at it from a p:-actical point of view, purely from a practical poi.nt of view , not even considering what rules or precedence I would have to look at, I cannot see any practical difference if it were not public, if it were not tabled. Tbe bon . member, as long as he does not breach anybody's p rivileges i.n the House , can read it, yes, can say what he wants. So th.e point of pro cedure I would have to check on. I am not immedia ~ely avare of it, to what extent I, you know, hnve that power of revie1~ of documents tabled, to what extent, ( i if at all r have it .

But to the best of my knowledge the practical results •Joul.d be_ni.l - . I' f t ; -{ l I

l1ay 2,1978 Tape No. 1696 AH-1 MR. SPEAKER: to the best of my knowledge the practical results would be nil. So I leave it at that and give a formal decision, certainly this afternoon. If that is unsatisfactory then I will have to make a quick check of authorities. Pending that I will instruct the table to hold the documents and I will have to review and to see, I would certainly assume this afternoon. PREMIER MOORES: MR. SPF..AKER: PREMIER MOORES: We will come back to the motion. A point of privilege. A point of privilege. Mr.

Speaker, on a point of privilege, regarding the privileges of this House.I believe the record will show clearly and irrefutably that this administration has without failure acted with dispatch in the setting up of judicial enquiries,or police investigations for that matter.

Whenever and wherever there have been the slightest suspicion indication or allegation of wrongdoing on the part of the government, on the part of any department or minister or member of the government~ or on the part of any agency directly or indirectly involved with government in any way, we have always acted in every instance of alleged wrongdoing. !n the most expeditious manner and we will continue to do so if and when it is required. I believe it is fair to say that the performance of this administration in seeking the truth in this regard, with regard to wrongdoing when it has been alleged,is unprecedented.

I can give many examples, Sir, such as the Public Works enquiry, the Gras Marne enquiry, the Hillister of Industrial Development involvement now and many otllers. Mr. Speaker, in each and every instance where there has been even the slightest hint of wrongdoing,let alone criminality this administration,which I have the honour and privilege of leading,acted in this most responsible manner. We have always done this as a matter of policy and we will continue to do it because we believe it is our duty as an elected government. The various judicial ..

May 2,1978 Tape No. 1696 .AH-2 PREJ.'iiER MOORES: bodies were appointed because the public in our opinion have a right to the information obtained as a result of any and all investigations initiated by government. ~~. Speaker, there have been instances were commissions of one kind or another were set up to ~v.estigate allegations that were made without a shred of proof or evidence and which,itl my opinion,we'i!e made for reasons which could only be termed political. Nevertheless,government initiated enquiries in an attempt to set the record straight and to eliminate any thought or suggestion of impropri~ty Mr.

Speaker, as the elected government we have initiated many legislative reforms,and I want to enter them here,such as conflict of interests, the Public rendering Act and so on. Mr. Speaker, since the commencement of this session of the House of Assembly we have all witnessed a continuous deterioration of behaviour to the point where bitterness and vindictiveness .- ~.ave replaced decency and dignity. We have in recent days seen an attack on individuals which may well mean that they and their families will be stigmatized even thought there has been no concrete proof of guilt.

A police investigation has been established and still the vicious publicity campaign goes on. A point of privilege, Sir. It is only last evening that we witnessed what was described as objective reporting. In the Newfoundland Broadcasting Corporation's.six o'clock news it was mentioned that there would be an interview with Mr. Andrew Davidson by Randy Simms who had travelled on, we were told, his own time and paid his own expenses. This interview was subsequently aired and it did cast a derogatory image on this House and its members. Mr. Speaker, it nas been suggested that Mr.

Simm's ticket was paid for once again by Mr. Charles Silver, Certainly Mr. Simms,as I understand it,went to the counter and picked up the ticket in the same building as - AN RON, !1fu'1BER: (Inaudible) - j

May 2,1978 Tape No. 1696 AH-3 PBEMIER MOORES: - and that is fa~;t -:: in the same building as the member for LaPoile (Mr. Neacy) said paUl for his tickets the same man who has been an associate of Jo.hn c. ·Doyle for years, Are w'e. supposed, to ac~;e- pt this as . objective reporting1 M:r, S-pe,aker, we bave reason to believe that individuals outside of this Province, individuals whtl are enemies of the Province and fugitives fr~ Justice.,are making a blatant attempt to smear and underm.l,ne the honesty and integrity of this administraUon and certain individuala 1!i the eyes of the general public.

We believe these individuals ate aligned with the member for LaPoile (Mr, Neary) dis~ict ia this particular endeavour. Mr. Speaker, I liOW ca.ll. upoii: the Lead .er of the Opposition to ask that a police enquiry be established to "' investigate wba·t we on this s.ide of the House regard as a number of grave allegationa which have come to light in reference to the hon, the member fo-r LaPoile(Mr. Neaxy) district ~ is known to be an associate of one Charl .ie Silver by hia own admission, Mr. Silver, wbo is an aasociate of one

M.ay 2, 1978 Tape No. 1697 PREMIER MOORES: member who was an associate of one John C. Doyle, a fugitive from Justice, and a convicted criminal. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of NM- 1 vital questions which have to be asked and answered with regard to the actions of the member for LaPoile (Mr. ~eary) district, and the only course of action, if we are to clear the air in this matter, is to have a police investigation. Mr. Speaker, we know the han. member's airplane tickets were purchased by Mr. Silver, who is an associate of Mr. Doyle. A police investigation is required to ascertain (

a) did the member for LaPoile (~lr. lTeary) call Mr. Silver and ask for the tickets, or did Mr. Silver just happen to call after the police investigation was announcedl (

b) Has Mr. Silver ever worked officially for or on behalf of Mr. Doyle? (

c) Did the member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) meet with Mr. Doyle, or any relatives of Mr. Doyle,during this weekend? Did Mr. Doyle ot any ~f his agents c?ntribute financially or otherwise to the LaPoile member's c-~aign for the leadership of the Liberal Party? (

d) Who paid for the member for LaPoile's trip taken prior to this weekend , - was it Mr. Silver or was it Mr. Doyle? MR. NEARY: What about my sex life? Do you 'vant to know about that? PRfu'il.ER MOORES : (

e) Does any member of the Opposition have any knowledge or have they been party to attempts of extortion by Mr. Doyle, Mr. Davidson or any of their associates? Mr. Speaker, we have not hesitateu to have sinilar matters investigated by the police and we believe the people of Newfoundland deserve an explanation of this matter. MR. NEARY: How many times - PREMIER MOORES : Mr. Speaker, apart altogether from these matters which I feel should be the part of a police investigation, there are other questions which the dignity and very survival of this parliamentary institution dictate must be answered at

May 2, 1978 Tape No, 1697 NM- 2 PREMIER MOORES : this time. Number one, did the Liberal caucus concur with the trip taken by the member for LaPoile? And does the Liberal caucus concur with the tactics and the methods used by the member for LaPoile during the past weekend? Two, when the LaPoile member went to see Mr. Doyle sometime earlier this year, the Liberal leader disassociated himself from that particular trip, Does the han. leader now defend the actions of Mr. Doyle or the bon. member for LaPoile and what Mr. Doyle stands for? MR.

NEARY: In what - PREMIER MOORES : Three, does the Leader of the Opposition condone any or all of these actions of his colleague? These are questions that must be answered, MR. NEARY: Name the - PREUIER MOORES : Mr. Speaker, all parties mu~t clean up their acts and prove to the people of this Province that all political parties, certainly the major ones, are above suspicion of any dishonesty, Sm!E HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear! MR. NEARY: The mugs game will not work, 'Frank'. MR. SPEAKER: The han. Leader of the Opposition. MR. NEARY: Where is the fat man to these days? He speaks for che Premier.

Fatso MacLean, where is he to these days? PREHI.ER :·IOORES : Ask John Doyle. MR. NEARY: No, ask John Shaheen and ask the han. gentleman, trying to make a deal for Doyle. MR. SPEAKER: The han. Leader of the Opposition. MR. W. ROWE: Mr. Speaker, I will not cast any reflections on Your Honour but I was very surprised at that document just read by the han. the Premier. MR. NEARY: Written by Mr. Callahan. j I . ~ • I ; I

May 2, 1978 Tape No. 1697 NM- 3 MR. W. ROWE : Written by God knows who. MR. NEARY: His hatchet man, his propaganda machine. MR. W.' ROWE: But, Sir, that document, read by the hon. the Premier,and the Premier now associates himself with it- and, Sir, I ask for the same leeway as Your Honour gave the Premier in making these few remarks- is Sir, the most disgraceful document I have ever heard in this han. House in the eight or ten years that I have been here and in twenty years of reading the Hansard of this House. AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). Come on! MR. W. ROWE: A disgusting, disgraceful - AN RON.

MEMBER: (Inaudible). MR. W. ROWE: Now, Sir, we listened in silence to the han. the Premier - MR. MORGAN: You do not want to come clean. MR. W. ROWE: - listened to the han. the Premier, I would assume I would be accorded the same courtesy, if Your Honour would not mind enforcing the rules in that regard. A disgusting display, Sir, by a man who calls himself Premier of this Province. Obviously the last,desperate gasp of a government, which feels the net tightening. It is obvious that that is what is going on, Sir.

There is already a police enquiry underway which the Minister of Justice stood up and said is going to cover all members of this House, Sir. MR. NEARY: That is right. MR. W. ROWE: Any member who is guilty of any wrong doing with regard to this matter is going to be covered by 'that investigation and, Sir, we welcomed that investigation. We demanded the investigtion. We welcomed it when it was announced. It is not up to me, Sir, to be saying when investigations are going to be held by police or not 0 That is a duty of the Miaister of Justice, who has ' ' i l ~ t f

May 2, 1978 Tape No. 1697 MR. W. ROWE: allowed himself to be usurped by the Premier in a scandalous political manner. SOME RON. MEMBERS : Bear, hear! MR. W. ROWE: If I were the Minister of Justice, Sir, I would resign from this Rouse :l.n b,umiliated disgrace after hearing his colleagy.e, the Premier, ~ that utterance here today. Sir, if he wants to set up an investigation concerning my colleague, the member tor L.aPoile (Mr. Neary), NM- 4 or myself, or my colleague the member for Burgeo - Bay d 1Espoir (Mr. SimmOns) , o .r the member fo1: Lewisporte {M1:.

White) , or any member of this side of the House, Sir, if t:he Pl:l!mier or the Minister of Justice, I say to him now, set up the police investigation if he wants a pub2ic enquiTY concerning any member of this Rouse, ~-

May 2, 1978 Tape 1698 and 1699 EC - 1 MR. W. N. ROWE: including myself, my colleague fro~ LaPoile, my colleague from Eagle River or any member of this Rouse, I say to the Minister of Justice, I demand that if the Minister of Justice has any evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing on the part of myself or any member of this House, report it to the police and set up an investigation. I ask him to do that. SOME RON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. W. N. ROWE: And I would like to see what he says, Sir, in reply to that. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. W. N. ROWE: Any evidence of wrongdoing, Sir, set it up. AN RON.

MEMBER: Set it up, come on. MR. W. N. ROWE: Set up a police investigation. There is already one in existence which we called for and which the hon. the Minister of Justice delayed calling for twenty hours or forty hours as the case may be. AN HON. MEMBER: sat on it. MR. W. N. ROWE: It should have been called immediately. The result of that, I do not say deliberately or negligently or anything else, but the result of that has been that one of the prime witnesses concerned in the case is not now in this Province,! understand from secondary sources. That was the result of that delay.

Now, Sir, if there is any evidence of criminality on the part of any member of this House the member for Bonavista North (Mr. Cross), the member for Green Bay (Mr. Peckford), the member for Kilbride (Mr.Wells), the member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary), the member for Twillingate district (Mr. W. N. Rowe) - if there is any evidence of criminality then I say set up a police investigation and have that investigated.

May 2, 1978 Tape 1698 and 1699 EC - 2 MR. NEARY: Hear, hear! MR. W. N. ROWE: Do not, Sir, allow the Premier of this Province in a last,desperate attempt to cling on to the shreds of power he has left, under the guise of a point of privilege, get up here and slander, Sir, members in this House, slander people outside this House in a blatant political attempt to cover up, Sir, the wrongdoing which is now starting to be exposed with document after document. And, Sir, it will be exposed.

I am committed, my colleague is committed, every member on this side of the House is committed, Sir, to exposing corruption and rottenness in government wherever it may occur. SOME RON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. W. N . ROWE : And we will continue that. We will not be intimidated by blatant smear campaigns by the Premier or anyone el~e. We will not be, Sir, intimidated as a result of a timorous Minister of Justice who will allow his colleagues to do anything in a public political way rather than carry out his duties as Minister of Justice.

We have now seen the desperation of that minister when he gets up in a fit of pique because of some innocuous remark made over on this side of the House andmake a motion to suspend the member for ten days -perhaps, Sir, the largest penalty ever asked for anything in this House in my memory. That is the Minister of Justice, Sir, we have defending our integrity and our justic~ and our rights in this House, in this Province, Sir? What can we expect from it?

I will tell you what we expect from it - we expect the slanderous, political, blatant attempts by a desperate PremiP.r, Sir, m smear everyone in this House and outside the House. SOME RON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! l ~ •

May 2, 1978 Tape 1698 and 1699 EC - 3 MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! In my opinion there have been quite grave abuses of rules on both sides this afternoon and the question comes up of how long it can continue. Obviously, when it happens on one side, another side reciprocates and it keeps going, and one endeavours to balance out, I suppose, the breaches as well as the observances, But I consider the points of privilege raised - most of them, not all of them necessarily - most of them. Some were for ~egitimate explanation, some to get into debate, but I cannot allow the procedure to continue.

As far as I know there has always been a quid pro quo, there has always been at least one response. And I cannot continue to allow this to occur. Now there is a matter which I do have to decide. I would not inevitably adjourn to do that, but I think it might be a good idea to do so. I am going to adjourn for fifteen minutes and I will give my decision on that other rather technical matter.

I say in the interim that I will not allow continuation of this process on either side and I will ask hen. members to realize,whatever differences of opinion there are between them,that there has to be some continuity and order in the Legislature and that they share that responsibility in maintaining it. It is certainly not all on the one out of fifty-one - fifty-one of us share that together. And I ask for and require the co-operation of the other fifty, The House stands adjourned for fifteen minutes. I • I t .

Hay 2, 1978 Tape 1700 DW - 1 HR. SPEAKER: Order, please! On the technical point on which I to· make a decision the only reference,ard this reference does not solve the problem,is Beauchesne 159 - 3 "It has been admitted that a document which has been cited ought to be laid upon the table of the House, if it can be done without injury to the public interest". Our practice to date has always been that that is with respect to a claim made by a minister with respect to a state document that it is not in the public interest.

In this situation, han. gentlemen on one side stating that it is not in the public interest and llon. gentlemen on the other side denying that, or saving that it is in the public interest I nQ authority that I am aware of or cited to me which would give me authority, discretion to examine documents and to come to that decision. I would have to call witnesses 1I would ha~e to listen to their evidence and come to a substantive decision.

In the absence of any such authority cited to me or of which I am myself aware,because even if it is not cited to me what I am aware of I obviously have an obligation to apply,in the absence then the documents tabled would be treated as any other documents tabled. STATF.~l'T'S BY :'INISTF.PS Oh, before ue get there, there '~as a motion uith respect to the Committee. ~·r. Speaker. :<:R. Sl'EAKER: The hen. 'Unister of Justice. ~. HICim~.N: The motion that I ~ade today '~ith respect to the hon. member for llurgeo - Bay d 1 Espoir (!~r.

Simmons), is made on the assumpt~on that there was not an unequivocal withdra,~al of the unparliamentary remark t:tade by the member, and I seek Your Honour's guidance on t!oat:. I· ( ..

l~ay 2, 1978 Tape No, 1700 NM - 2 ~. SPEAKER: ~!y understanding, and the House - SO'IE HO~T~ MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! The House can be noisy at time, but my understanding was that when required to withdraw the hon. member for Burgee - Bay d'Espoir (Hr. Simnxms), and I ask him to assent whether my understanding is correct, or to inform me by nodding his head, but that is my recollection that he did unequivocally withdraw. ~-!R • S IM!-'ONS : Mr.

Speaker, the situation which has now been set up, created by the !linister of Justice, puts me in a very awkward position, because he has conditioned his motion. I would have hoped, Mr. Speaker, that th~ motion would stand. I hoped it ~•auld not pass 1 but I hoped it would stand, It is uo to the House to decide whether it passes. I want an opportunity, }1r, Speaker, to defend myself, to demonstrate to the Rouse why it is the ~ti~ister of Justice wants me expelled from the House. · MR. SPEAKER: Order , please! Order, please! All han. members are aware when certain leniency is given things which can develop.

So the situation is a very straightforward one and all I will do is affirm my belief and my knowledge that in fact the hon. member did withdra~•. Mr. Speaker, may I have one more sentence. :·2.. SPEAY.r:P. ; Yes, I ~-1ill hear tt.e ~ on. mer.ber very briefly. ~re.. SI!C''mrs : I ~ ,,as saying that I was placed in a fair ly a'-1korard pos i tion. I made a ~d thdrawal. The minister ~de his motion after that. so what he alleges today, now, is a little hard to understand. But for the purpose of getting the motion, Nr.

S.peaker, for the purpose of getting the motion on- because he has put it do~~ and I am not going to let him withdraw it on any condition - I will now say that my withdrawal is no more unequivocal than he understood it to be when he made the motion. ' " ·' ·1 [ • r f

Hay 2, 1978 SOME RON. Mm!BERS: MR. 1'". HHITE: ~lR. W. ROWE : MR. SPEAKER: ~· ~. LUNDRIGAN: HR. l". ROWE: !-1R. LUNDRIGA.l.'l: Tape No. 1700 mr- 3 Hear, hear! Let us have it out. }~. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. A point of order . A point of order, Mr. · Speaker. A point of order, Sir. }fr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, just for clarification, Your Honour. HR. W. ROm:: Well now what is this? 'MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Actually I think the hon. gentleman did sort of show his hand there by getting inside a point of order by saying a point of privilege for clarification, and that required that I cut him off there. No~1 the hon. gentleman to my right does have Al'1 RON • ~1EHBER: (Inaudible) • MR.. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order! I think there are times when I have to restrict hon. members. Now the hon. gentleman to my right did stand on a point of order and nobody else was standing at the time, I will hear briefly that point. The han. Leader of the Opposition. ~Ut. W.

ROWE: The point of order is this, Sir, A motion ~1as been made by t:1e r.overnment House Leader whic:h now is \>(!fore this House. lle all remember the steps w"lich led up to it, a remark made by my hon. colleague, a request that it be withdrawn, a demand by Your Honour that it be withdralm, a withdrawal, and after the withdral.ral, Sir, a withdrawal whic..~ has been accepted, the type of withdralval ~1hich has !Jeen accepted 100 times in this hon. House, after that the hon. House Leader in a fit of piq~, obviously, says, "That is not good enough.

I hereby move that the han. member be, seconded by " he was so upset he could not even -!

May 2, 1978 Tape 1701 PK - 1 Mr. W. Rowe: identify his colleagues there, seconded by somebody that the member be expelled for ten days. Now, Sir, there is a motion before this House which the Minister of Justice is now embarrassed .about, ashamed of, and wishes to withdraw. And, Sir, in order for that to be withdrawn it needs unanimous consent of this han. House. MR. NEARY: And he is not going to get it. ·I MR. W. ROWE: And he is not going to get it, Sir. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. W. ROWE: He has to stand, Sir, on the consequences of his own actions as foolish and as silly as they may be. SOME RON.

MEMBERS : Hear, hear! SOME RON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh! MR. LUNDRIGAN: Mr. Speaker, on that point of order. First of 1: r l MR. SPEAKER: The bon. member for Grand Falls. all there was comment made across the House. Secondly, there was a response from the bon. Government House Leader. Thirdly, a few minutes ago, to my knowledge, Y~ur Honour, a few minutes ago ~ MR. SPEAKER: I assure the han. gentleman that only my ears are necessary. MR. LUNDRIGAN: Mr. Speaker, I am just interested in that Your Honour does hear what I have got to say on the point of order.

A few minutes ago Your Honour indicated that he, Your Honour, Mr. Speaker, accepted that there was an unequivocal withdrawal. Now, Mr. Speaker, on the second point the House Leader indicated that he would take guidance from Your Honour as to whether there have been an unequivocal withdrawal. Now these things have all been settled. lo.lhether the han. member wishes to come forward again and indicate that he wants to precipitate the matter further by almost suggesting to Your Honour and to the House that in fact he did not have an unequivocal withdrawal, Mr.

Speaker, I suggest to you, is precipitating debate unnecessarily, SOME RON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh! MR. LUNDRIGAN: And I will go further and ask Your Honour's guidance SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh!

May 2, 1978 Tape 1701 PK- 2 MR. LUNDRIGAN: - Your Honour's guidance even further. wnen the han. House Leader made his motion, at the time he made his motion, I am just wondering the legitimacy or the order in which the motion was made, I just raise that point for Your Honour's response, because the motion was made when the Leader of the Opposition•or the han. House Leader rather was on his feet on a point of order, if I recall or on a question of privilege. He did not rise and seek Your Honour's consent to rise to make a motion.

Now I just raise the question b~cause what we are seeing here is an effort to precipitate debate unnecessarily because the House Leader has already indicated that he is satisfied with Your Honour's guidance, and Your Honour said that he was satisfied that the·matter had been withdrawn. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Kilbride, and the han . member for Burgeo-Bay d'Espoir. MR. NEARY: Two on one side, and one on the other side. MR. WELLS: Mr. Speaker, MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. HELLS: Mr. Speaker, the MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I will have to ask the han. gentleman to withdraw that.

There are always an equal number of neople, in most cases an equal number, usually an afternation. I cannot allow the inference of favourtism. MR. NEARY: I apologize to the Chair. I thought it was back and forth, Your Honour, but maybe I misunderstood. MR. WELLS: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be directed entirely on the point of order, of course, to the question of whether or not there is a motion before the Chair. The point is that the motion was made by the han. the Government House Leader at a time when a point of privilege was under discussion.

It is my understanding, and my submission, Your Honour, that when a point of privilege is under discussion nothing else can be entertained, no motion can be entertained, because the point of privilege takes complete precedence, and the point of privilege must be disposed of before anything else can be dealt with. .! ~~ [ I -l ,, , ~ t

May 1, 1978 Tape 1701 PK- 3 Mr. Wells: So therefore it is my submission, Mr. Speaker, that the motion itself was out of order at the very time it was made. And, of course, if that is correct, if I am correct in that sabarls~ion, there is no motion before the Chair, and Your Honour is placed in the position of ruling that that is so. !f anothe r motion is made, and ~e want a big row this afternoon, well that is fine. That is something that can be dealt with then. But as far as this motion is concerned , I do believe and suggest to Your Honour that it is completely out of order. . I l t

May 2, 1978, Tape 1702, Page 1 -- apb MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Burgee - Bay d'Espoir. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak to the point of order. I think I have seen it all now, Mr. Speaker. In the last few minutes I have seen it all. Mr. Speaker will recall that on several times during which there were interposing points of order he reminded the House on a number of 1· occasions that there was a motion before the Chair. At that point, Mr. Speaker, there was never any question in anybody's mind about the legitimacy of the motion. Mr.

Speaker had accepted the motion as being in order and on several occasions directed the House's attention to it as the next order of business. MR. NEARY: That is ri~ht. MR. MORGAN: He was speaking on the point of privilege, do you not know that? MR. SIMMONS: So there is no question that the motion was before the Chair. If members on either side want to debate whether Mr. Speaker made a proper decision, there is a method for doing that. I suggest that it is not the way that the member for Kilbride (Mr. Wells) just did it. But there is a motion before the Chair, as I understand it.

I repeat, on several occasions Mr. Speaker drew the House's attention to the fact of the motion as being the next order of business. MR. NEARY: That is right. MR. SIMMONS: I rose on one occasion to begin the debate on that motion and took my seat only because there was another point of privilege which took precedence over the debate on the motion before the Chair. r ~ J

May 2, 1978, Tape l702, Page 2 -- apb MR. NEARY: So let us get on and prove our case. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, I want the motion to stand. I cannot understand for the life of me - and I am only half tongue-in-cheek - I cannot understand for the life of me why the government members are so anxious now to find a technical reason to remove it from the order of business of the House. The withdrawal I made is no more equivocal now, or no less equivocal now than at the time I made the withdrawal. MR. W.N.ROWE: Which was not satisfactory to any of them. MR. SIMMONS: After making the withdrawal - Mr.

Speaker, the sequence of events is important here. It was not as though the Government House Leader was out of the House at the time I made the withdrawal, or was preoccupied by some other exchange~ He was listening intently to me and retorted after I had made my withdrawal that that was not good enough. Now, Mr. Speaker, I say to you that my withdrawal now is no more equivocal or no less equivocal than it was at that moment in time. And following that moment in time is when the Government House Leader rose and made his motion which was duly seconded. Mr. Speaker, another point which I believe is a new one.

There is no such thing in this House or any House of Parliament as a conditional motion. You do not get up and move something on condition that the sun still shines till its passed, or on condition this ·,or on condition that. Do we understand, Mr. Speaker, that when the Government House Leader brings in a motion for Supply that there is a hidden condition that he is going to tell us about it some point down the road? That he really ,. - ~ t~ • ~ ' i ,.

May 2, 1978, Tape 1702, Pa9e 3 -- apb MR. SIMMONS: made the mot±on only on condition that certain other conditions apply? How­ ridiculous, Mr~ Speaker! We either have. a motion whi.cb. is a motion or it is not a motion. As I understood it - I have know the Minister of Justice for a long t±me and as I understand it, when he stands to make a motion he knows what he is doing, he makes a motion, and he had his homework done this time.

I suggest that the incident which I gave him involuntarily was one that he grabbed ~nto at the moment but I th.ink he knew- full-weli beforehand that he was going to make a motion and who was going to second the motion, and he just needed an occasion. So with forethought - and forget the argument about forethought because that is an opinion of mine .~ But. regardless of forethought,in the fashion which he is accustomed to in this House, and which we know him for, he rose properly and he put a motion, he moved a motion which was properly seconded. Now, Mr.

Speaker, Beauchesne, paragraph 49 on page 162, of the fourth . ~ 1 I - t I I i,.

May 2, 1978 Tape 1703 DW - 1 MR. R. SIMMONS: edition Beauchesne "A member who has made a motion," No reference there to a· conditional motion or a probable motion or a motion that you later regret or a motion that you think on retrospect is inadvisable or not very politically smart but a motion, Mr. Speaker, It says "A member who has made a motion may withd~aw the same only by the unanimous consent of the House".

Mr, Speaker, I submit to you and through you to the Government House Leader that if he wants to withdraw the motion he now notify the Chair that he wishes to withdraw it and then test the House to see whether he has unanimous consent. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! l1R. SPEA1iliR: Order, please! Pardon? MR. R. SIMMONS: Could I have just another word? I covered earlier in my comments the matter of the motion being in order,! submit,and did at that ~ime,that the motion was in order by virtue of the fact that Mr. Speaker had attempted to call that order of business on several occasions.

In the unlikely event that the motion is technically out of order,which I do not subscribe to,but in that unlikely event I believe the House Leader owes it to me as the member ~~ ~ m he _ has maligned in his motion,owes it to me to put the motion down properly,if he does not think it is not down properly now,to put the motion down properly and to have it debated. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not anxious to have that motion passed.! was sent here to represent some people and I would like to stay here for those ten days but equally, Mr.

Speaker, I want the opportunity to defend myself on this one and I believe it should be given to me.3o if there is any technical reason why the motion cannot stand let the Minister of Justice have the courage, !1r. Speaker, to put down a motion about which there is no doubt in terms of its acceptibility. AN HON, MEMBER: Do not wiggle out it. It

l~ay 2, 1978 Tape 1703 nv - 2 1!R. SPE.ti.KER: Order, please! This is a te~~nical matter. It is not particularly difficult, it is just a matter of checking if there are few technical matters here. It is not a question of great judgement. There are a fe'v technical matters but one wants to be ri!Zht. The House stands adjourned for ten minutes. l I I t ~ l ' ·' , . • ~

May 2, 1978, Tape 1704, Page 1 -- apb MR.SPEAKER: Order, please! On giving the decision it might be helpful just to review chronologically the sequence of events. When the House opened I gave a ruling on a matter of privilege - twenty or twenty-five minutes. After that the hon. Minister of Justice moved that the matters referred to therein be referred to the Committee on privileges. Immediately there was a point of privilege_ to my right and han. members spoke on it.

Then there was another point of privilege, and somewhere during submission on points of privilege the han. gentleman to my left said, I move that the han. member be expelled or suspended for t~n days. In argument on this matter there were submissions: Number one, that it should be debated whether it was technically in orde~ or not. Of course, that is not a matter which I can get involved in. And it was submitted that since there was debate on a point of privilege, or a point of privilege is before the House, another motion could not be put. And in counter argument to that it was stated that the Chair had put it.

Actually, with respect to that motion being in order or not, the Chair had no time or opportunity to turn its mind to it at all. But actually there is a very basic and technical reason the motion is out of order, and that is Standing Order 29: "Twenty-four hours notice shall be given of a motion for leave to present a Bill, resolution or address, or for placing a question on the Order Paper." There is only one situation with respect to a motion of-suspension where notice is not required and that procedure was not in process. There is no notice of that motion so therefore it would - MR.

SIMMONS: Which Standing Order? MR. SPEAKER: Twenty-nine. ,, J . I

May 2, 1978, Tape 1704, Page 2 -- apb MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, a point of privilege. MR. SPEAKER: A point of privilege. MR. WHITE: You wanted to throw him out a minute ago and now you will not let him talk. MR. SIMMONS: If I may just take a moment, because this all happened very quickly. I just want to make sure that I understood the implications of Standing Order 29 to which Mr. Speaker referred. It says that twenty-fours notice shall be given of a motion for leave to present a Bill or for placing a question on the Order Paper. Mr.

Speaker, my point of personal privilege is that the member for Grand Bank (Mr. Hickman) ,the Government House Leader earlier this afternoon in attempting to move a motion which was later ruled to be technically out of order, in attempting to move that motion to have me expelled from the Chamber for ten days has,in so doing,cast aspersions on my performance in the House and I should have a full opportunity to debate that issue, as I am sure other members of the House would want to debate the issue. MR. WHITE: Hear, hear! MR. SIMMONS: There are two possible ways of doing this, Mr. Speaker.

We can assume, and the Government House Leader can affirm that this is the case if he wishes, we can assume that under Standing Order 29 that he has today given . I ! l l. i i ~ - r ; ...

MAY 2,1978 Tape No. 1705 AH-1 HR. SIMMONS: notice,and again,if that is a technical problem let him have the courage now to give notice. I make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that I am not asking the majority of the members of the House to flick me out of the House,I want to be here, I was sent here to do a job, Thatis not the issue right now, Mr. Speaker, Theissue is whether the Government House Leader is now going to follow through on his intention to give the House, and this is all really he did, he did not decide to flick me out because it is not his to do,but what he did, Mr.

Speaker, whatever the technicality is, what he did was give notice that he wished to debate the issue of whether I should be in the House or out during the next ten days; that is the issue. He gave notice that he wished to haue debated the question of whether or not I should be in ths House for the next ten days, Whether or not that question is carried is up to a majority of the members of the House.

His having given notice, and perhaps it was improper in the parliamentary sense and perhaps he would have to do it formally now, but his having given verbal notice that he wished to have that matter debated,I think it is less than courageous on the part of the Government House Leader to now attempt to get out of it on a technicality.

I would appeal to him, I would appeal to him to give notice that he intends to put that motion down tomorrow, that I and maybe other members of the House can have a full opportunity to debate the question which he has raised verbal:y, namely,whether I should be in the House for the next ten days or not. I have said it is a matter of personal privilege, I do not have any motion, I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion that the minister be instructed to give the appropriate notice, SOME HON. ME..'UlERS : Oh, oh! HR. SUIMONS: Mr. Speaker, the House can instruct anybody to do anything.

It can instruct that I leave here for the next .I ! ! f. i \ I I I

May 2,1978 Tape No. 1705 AH-2 ~!R. SIMMONS: ten days. I am sure,therefore, Mr. Speaker, it can instruct that a member of the Rouse do something, If he does not wish to do it ~hat is another issue, that is not the motion. Perhaps the member for Kilbride (Mr.Wells),who looks so all-wiSe in these matters, can - MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. SIMMONS: - tell us the issue. The issue I want to make, MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. SIMMONS: - the point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, because I am prepared to move - MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I must require the hon. gentleman w~en the Chair interrupts to take his seat.

I realize it is human nature that members do not wish to be interrupted,but there are times when the Chair has to do it and l1as to insist. I must raquire the hon. gantleman to avoid debate ~nd to keep his remarks relevant. I would think he has explained in quite some detail. I would ask him to conclude his remarks on this point. MR. SIMMONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I persisted because I was about to come to my closing sentence which was mainly that I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

I was wondering out loud and I now realize that in that respect it was a silly thing to think that the House or anybody else could legislate courage when it comes to the bon. minister. But I would move the appropriate motion as is required under a matter pf privilege, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: I do not consider that this is a matter on which the Chair is involved or make any decision. 000 MR. SINMONS: ~~. Speaker, a point of order. MR. SPEAKER: A point of order. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, the point of order is that the minister this afternoon for some time, using fairly intimidating I k I I ,l

May 2,1978 Tape No. 1705 AH-3 MR. SIMMONS: tactics,cluttered up the procedure of the House by giving notice that he was going to put a motion. Now I ask him as the Government House Leader does he intend to put down that motion or does he not intend to put it down or does he have the guts to put it down? What is wrong with him all of a sudden1 MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! This is a matter which does not involve the Chair and is not a point of order.

If there is going to be notice of motion or not notice of motion of this matter, it does not form part of a matter of order and does not involve the Chair and no decision of the Chair can be made on it. ORAL QUESTIONS MR. SPEAKER: Hon, Leader of the Opposition. MR. W.ROWE: We are getting there, Mr. Speaker. Sir, I will se now if I can ask a question of the Premier and get a sensible answer from him. In view, Sir, of the very serious matter, Sir, I hope that the Premier will deal with it ~ery seriously •.

In view, Sir, of the recent application by a private company, Newfoundland Light and Power Company for a 10.3 per cent increase on the average in rates on top of a 8.3 per cent increase recently granted apparently by.the Public Utilities Commission,I would ask the Pr~ier what steps will the goverlllllent take on behalf of the poor, harried, harassed consumers of this Province

~~ay 2, 1978 Tape 1706 Dl-1 - 1 MR. W.N. ROWE: to prevent this further increase in the cost of their electricity, Sir, from taking place. MR. SPE..",.T{ER: The hon. Premier. PREMIER HOORES: Mr. Speaker, first of all the Public Utilities Board,as the hon. member well knows,is set up to give an un~~~ d . judgement of what rate increases are appropriate and which ones are not. T~ether they will rule in favour of this or not is something that remains to be seen. 1./e are concerned about the rate increases for electricity the same as any other governMent today.

Even when we look at ~ova Scotia,I think it is something like 50 per cent that their rates are going up to their highest in Canada today.It is not something, Sir, that we as a government want to seeYe will do everything we can about but until the Public Utilities Board have analyzed the situation of the application~until they have made a finding,it certainly would be inappropriate to take any other position. MR. W.~T. ROWE: A supple~entary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEA.l{ER: A supplementary, the hon. Leader of the O~position. }JR. W.N.

ROT./E: The answer, Sir, to the question which I addressed to the P•emier by the Premier is the government will be doing nothing. If I am wrong in that, Sir, let the Premier correct me. Sir, let me ask the Premier this. Is it the intention of the government to at least take the elementary step,the basic step of intervening before the Public !Ttilities Board 'nth legal and technical advice in order to try at least to put a stop to this attempted and unwarranted increase by Newfoundland Light and Power Company Limited1 m!.. SPHJZEr, : The hon. Premier. I t,

~lay 2, 1978 Tape 1706 Dl! - 2 PRD~IER ~~OORES: Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of detail I would ask the Y.inister of Hines and Energy,who has more backup than I do at his fingertips, Sir, to answer the question. HR. S. NEARY: Who is rtmning the Province? MR. E • ~!AYNARD : Mr. Speaker - MR. SPEAKER: The han. ~ti.nister of Hines and Energy. AN HOC'<. HEl·!BER: Not John Doyle. ~m. E. XAYNARD: }'r. Speaker, as the han.

Premier has already indicated this is an application by Newfoundland Light to the Public Utilities Board and we will ~ot know what rate increase that the Public Utilities Board will bring down, number one. Number two, part of the supplementary that the Leader of the Opposition asked, 'Hill the Government entertain the notion or the idea to intervene?' In response specifically to that question, Mr.

Speaker, we do now intervene in an indirect way because ~he Govemr .ent does ' l finance the Federation of Mayors and ~unicipalities who have taken up the cudgel, if you will, to represent the majority of consumers in this Province, and it is through this agency, because we fund it to a large degree,that we think the consumers are getting a fair and decent intervention into any applications by t!ewfoundland Light.

It might also interest the Leader of the Opposition to know that sample monthly electricity bills across this country show that Vancouver, for example, comes out at around Twenty-four Dollars and ilinety-eight r.ents; Edmonton is a little over Twenty Dollars; !'egina is Tweaty-one Dollars; St. John's, Newfoundland is 1'1·7enty-t'N'O Dollars; Charlottetown is Forty-six Dollars; Yellowknife is Tairtv Dollars: Halifax is Twenty-seven Dollars.

So, when one puts it in proper national perspective, albeit that our electrical bills are higher than they were years ago and months ago even,it is still a good pointer to indicate that in relation to other parts of Canada we still have very reasonable electrical rates,given all the circumstances. \ .

:!ay 2, 1978 Tape 1706 RT - 3 ~11l.. W.N. P..OWE: Supplel'lentary. !ffi. Sl'F.AKEP.: Supplementary, original questioner. MR. 1·!.~. ROHE: I am glad to see the ~inister of ?lines and Energy is in favour of this increase or at least wants to bring us up to some national average, if I can draw that - ~ 'F. PE~KFORD: Do not miscontrue - ~!R. Sll'!-!ONS: That is what you said. S0"1E ~mT • "'E!-1J3ERS : Oh, oh!

Sir, let me by way of prea~nle n:ention to the hon. ~nister of Energy that ,,,e also have one of the lowest income levels in Canada, Sir, and we in this Province can least afford to pay any increase in electricity rates. Let me by way of - ~!R. ?fURPHY : Firqt time I have heard of it, ~!R. si:~ons: You ''"ere in Florida, ho~' Houlil you 1:no•>? ~~- 1·J .~T. ?OITE: Let me by way of further

preamble - MR. s. NF.ARY: Down in Sarasota the rates are lower. MR. MURPHY: Definitely higher down t~ere ~!R . S. NEAPY: Are they? SOl i.E HO~T . ~'E":3F.RS: Oh , oh! ! :R . SPEAKI.R: Order, :>lease! Ten ••eeks at the Government's expense, you know, takes care of some of the cost. MR. SIMMO~!S: He was not on salary down there, ,..-as he? MR. H .!1. ROllE: I hope not. Let me, also, by way of

preamble, Sir, to my supplementary question mention to the hon. Hinister that thousands of people in this Province were encouraged by \~vernment and companies and by the Hydro Corporation to invest and get involved in electrical heating in the Province on the promise, Sir, the electrical rates " ould renain low in this Province which, of course, was a promise which again was not kept. But, Sir, my question is this, l t r " h il. ,. 1 '·

Mar 2, 1978 Tape 1707 EC - 1 MR. W. N. ROWE: and I address this to the Premier and I hope the Premier will answer it instead of -you know, Who is on control over there, Mr. Speaker? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nobody. MR. W. N. ROWE: Let the Premier answer it on his own. The feasibility, Sir, of the government taking over Newfoundland Light and Power Company - a study to determine the feasibility of that step by the government - Will the government tak~ that step in orde~ to see whether, in fact, this is the most efficient and cheapest way to distribute electricity to the consumers of this Province?

Or whether, perhaps, by the removal of the middleman, the distributor - because all generation now takes place directly or indirectly by Newfoundland and Labrador Power Corporation, Sir - whether by the remo 'val of this middleman there would be a decrease in the electrical costs to the consumers of this Province? Will the government get involved in a feasibility study to determine that essential question on i' behalf of the electrical consumers of this Province? ~ MRS. MciSAAC: You are a real Presier - ,. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER MOORES: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for St. George's (Mrs.

Mcisaac) for that comment. It is ,, unlike her. Mr. Speaker, I might say that Nova Scotia Light and Power was taken over by the government and the rates have gone up faster than anywhere else in Canada. MR. W. N. ROWE: Not for that reason. ·' i'

May 2, 1978 Tape 1707 EC - 2 PREMIER MOORES: But also, yes, there was a feasibility study done on the taking over of Newfoundland Light and Power, a very substantial one, at the same time as the Churchill Falls : Brinco negotiation was going on. AN HON. MEMBER: When was that? (inaudible) PREMIER MOORES: No, it was about five years ago . All aspects of which was the best method of . creating and distributing electricity in the Province was looked at and it was decided at that time, Sir, and I do not think the position has changed, that this was as reasonable a way to do it as any.

We found that private enterprise operated in the distribution system . certainly as efficiently, if not more efficiently,than government could, and, Sir, the difference is philosophical. The party on this side of the House believes in private enterprise as opposed to nationalization which the hon. member suggested. MR. W. ROWE: A supplementary. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary. MR . W.N.ROWE: Is that why the government took over Brinco at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars -of publicm~s MR. NEARY: The member says the best comrade citizen we had, the member for Kilbride (Mr. Wells) on the tapes. MR. W.

ROWE: Oh, yes. The member for Kilbride (Mr . Wells) will have some words to say about that, Sir, when the documents are tabled, on that takeover and what he thought of it. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! The han. gentlemen to my right and to my left are not permitted now to enter into debate but to ask questions and to answer them. The hon. Leader of the Opposition .

May 2, 1978 Tape 1707 IB-3 MR. W. ROWE: Sir, let me ask the Premier's comment or response to this particular question.

The general manager of the Newfoundland Light and Power Company has said that one of the reasons, one of the prime reasons for an increase being necessary in the rate of electricity now is that the cost of electricity has gone up so much that it has had the effect of decreasing the amount of electricity used which by way of a vicious circle has increased the overall costsand therefore they must go to the people once more to look for an additional increase in the cost of electricity which will in turn have the effect of decreasing, depressing usage once more and we will see the company back in another four or five months or even sooner for another increase to take into account the fact that electricity use, Sir, is being depressed again.

In other words,we have got ourselves into a vicious circle situation and it is the consumer, Sir, who is being mashed to death in this vicious circle.

Now I ask the Premier if his administration is prepared to do anything either by way of takeover of the company or by way of enquiring into this problem, this vicious circle that we are now afflicted with and which the consumers are suffering from, if the government is going to try to do anything to get the consumers of electricity in this Province, Sir, who have to pay higher and higher rates for a basic commodity, to get the consumers of this Province out from under in this vicious circle or whether he intends,as he has indicated earlier,to allow the circle to continue and continue until we do find our- selves in the position where people in this Province,even now and certainly in the future,will be forced to go cold .I in our climate.

MR. SPEAKER: The bon. Premier.

May 2 , 1978 Tap e 1707 IB-4 PREMIER MOORES: Mr. Speaker, first of all the federal government and ourselves have both bee-n talking abou .t conservation of power. This vicious circle that he talks about, _that the President of the Newfoundland Light and Power has talked about,is one of people using less power.' That is understandable with the prices like th~y are; qf ~ourse, people are conserving power. And also of course the less that is used in dema .nd by a company . that is de~ending on a certain volume,onee again that in time,I would suggest,will adjust itself.

But in the meantime, Sir, whilst it will adjust itself in time as any of these things do,also any additional po~er we have created in the Island part of the Province has been very, very costly. It bas either been thermal or very ex~ensive hydro development. i . I I I !: I

May 2, 1978 Tape 1708 PK - 1 Premier Moores: Hinds Lake, for instance, will be very expensive power. The new thermal units going on at Holyrood once again are very expensive power. And, Sir, I might suggest when the discussion took place about BRINCO that was taken over for two reasons; one, to get the water rights; secondly, to get the generation of power as a natural resource as opposed to a distribution - MR. PECKFORD: Right.

PREMIER MOORES : - thirdly, to get thousands, tens of thousands of acres or square miles of land that were tied up, and also for government to finance the Lower Churchill 1 or whate~er river in Labrador,so that we could insist that the power be brought to the Island part of the Province to lower the cost rather than give it away as had been done before. SOME RON. MEMBERS: MR. NOLAN: MR. SPEAKER: supplementary. MR. NOLAN: Hear, hear! A supplementary. The hon. member for Conception Bay South, a Mr.

Speaker, I wonder would the hon. the Premier consider, because this is a very serious matter which is not going to die here in this House by merely chitchat back and forth, would the Premier consider the feasibility or otherwise of appointing a committee of this House to look into any information or studies that may have already been collected four or five years ago, any additional information that we can now lay our hands on with the power to call the necessary expertise, and so on, a committee of this House to look into the possibility and feasibility of nationalizing the Newfoundland Light and Power?

I realize the Premier says that he is for free enterprise. lY"e all are. But the thing is that the people of this Province, and I am sure the Premier will agree, are most suspicious of, one, the Power Corporation, and Newfoundland Light and Power. Newfoundland Light and Power has a monopolistic position. Why will not the Premier agree then to set up a committee of this House? I am sure he can see the benefits of it. .-

May 2., 1978 Tape 1708 PK - 2 MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PRIDITER MOORES : Mr. Speaker, exactly those terms of reference , are the terms of reference as set up for the Public Utilities Board, and t.hat is hopefully what they are doing as an independent body. And with all due respect, Sir, with the happenings of the past few weeks I would suggest exposing ourselves to each other is enough without exposing any poor innocent company to the same thing. MR. FLIGHT: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. member for lolindsor-Buchans. MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary to the minister, with a short

preamble, is that one of the reasons, and probably the greatest reason that we are seeing increases by Newfoundland Light is because Newfoundland Hydro iscontinually increasing the charge to Newfoundland Light for the power that Newfoundland Hydro is generating, Now roughly a year ago in this House the Minister of Industrial Development indicated that there were negotiations ongoing with ERCO, Price (Nfld.), Bowaters, with a view to increasing the revenue from those companies to Newfoundland Hydro, which if in effect came about could possibly have the affect of reducing the cost of electricity to Newfoundland Light.

Would the Premier or the Minister of Energy indicate what the status of those negotiations are? And how long we will expect to be subsidizing ERCO, Bowaters, and Price to the limit we are? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Mines and Energy. MR. PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, it is a simplistic suggestion to indicate that some increase necessarily, some increase in industrial power necessarily means a reduction in domestic power. That is a very simple way of doing it. I know it demonstrates it in a dramatic fashion, but it is very simplistic now.

On the idea of the Long Harbour, ERCO situation, there is a committee that is now meeting with ERCO with the idea of increasing their price for power. As everybody knows, Mr, Speaker, there is an agreement that was signed by the former administration f I

May 2, 1978 Tape 1708 PK - 3 Mr. Peckford: for the supply of power to that operation. That is a firm contract. MR. MURPHY: What price? MR. PECKFORD: It is at around two or two and a half mils. The company has indicated that they are willing to sit down and negotiate with the government and show the government all the information and data concerned with that operation that as soon as it turns around and makes a dollar they are willing to negotiate higher power prices: I _, That is the Long Harbour situation.

Those meetings are continuing right now, and we are getting additional information, and hopefully we will have something to report very soon on it. On the Price (Nfld.)-Bowaters situation,it is a tiny bit different. They are paying a lot more for their power than is Long Harbour, let us be clear on that, that Price (Nfld.) and Bowaters are not getting cheap power in the same way as Long Harbour is or in the same way as Hydro Quebec are on the Upper Ch~chill power contract. So we are talking a different situation altogether. Here we have to be extremely careful about the viability of those industries.

They are also exposed right now to new federal regulations which incur additional expense on their behalf. And we have been in the last number of months, and the hon. the Premier especially has been close to the scene as it relates to making sure that the federal government realizes that the additional expenses that the companies, Bowaters and Price,will have to incur because of new

May 2, 1978 Tape No. 1709 environment regulations might impair the ongoing viability of those two major employers in the Province. So we have as a government held off any severe negotiations on those two companies until the other Federal regulations which would impair them are cleared up and then when they are we will then negotiate higher rates for those two companies. MR. FLIGHT: A supplementary ~ MR.. SPEAKER: A supplementary. JH - 1 MR.

FLIGHT: I would like to hear the Minister of Energy reconcile his attitude, his position with Buchans American Smelting and Refining Company a year ago when he allowed $150,000 per year in increase for electrical rates to that company that was facing collapse. Row did he reconcile his attitude to Price and Bowaters with his attitude to American Smelting and Refining Company less than a year ago? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister. MR. PECKFORD: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to do so for the hon. member for Windsor-Buchans.

We had indicated a year ago here in this hon, House and outside this House that we were prepared as a government to consider additional financial assistance to the American Smelting and Refining Company if ,in fact it meant that that increased power rates would impair the natural close~down that they had previously predicted would be the case. And that offer still stands for the mining company in Buchans.

We had indicated last year,and we indicate and reiterate again today,that if the company in Buchans says that the natural close-down, everything being steady, all prices being steady is August 1979 and that because of power increases they will be closing down in May 1979 we would ensure that those power increases did not occur so that they would stay open the natural predication that was given hitherto for the increases going into effect. MR. SPEAKER: The han. member for LaPoile followed by the han. ·~

May 2, 1978 Tape No. 1709 JM- 2 MR. SPEAKER: members for Trinity- Bay de Verde and Burgeo-Bayd'Espoir. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of }!anpower and Industrial Relations. Sir, last night on television a Mr. Andrew Davidson whose name is becoming well-known to gentlemen in this Province because of his associations with the Premier and other members on the government side of the House, the han. gentleman stated that the lUnister of Manpower forced him to go down and sign . a letter. Did the han. gentleman tell Mr. Davidson, as Mr.

Davidson stated last night, that in order to get any work from this government he would have to sign a letter for the Premier saying that he the Premier was not involved in any of this wrongdoing? Is that true? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister. MR. ROUSSEAU: I have not seen what Mr. Davidson said last night. Okay? That is number one,because he said it between nine and ten o'clock or whenever it was AN HON. MEMBER: Get a transcript. MR. ROUSSEAU: Yes,I am getting a transcript. The han.

Leader of the Opposition paid me the courtesy of mentioning that he had said it and I think I have said unofficially what the feeling is. I will have a statement on that when I see what he said. I have no idea what he said. MR. NEARY: A supplementary, Sir. Immaterial as to whether the han. gentleman saw the tape or noc,would the han. gentleman tell the House if at any time he indicated to Mr. Davidson,when Ur.

Davidson was doing work for the govemment,that in order to get any future work from the government when the minister was Minister of_Public Works that he would have to sign a letter for the Premier exonerating the Premier of any wrongdoing in connection with this Scrivener affair? MR. SPEAKER: The hen. minister. MR. ROUSSEAU: No, I did not. If that is the substance of what was said last night-I do not know what else was said,so I withhold- on that question that was asked by the han. member, the answer is no. I'

May 2, 1978 Tape No. 1709 JH - 3 ~IR. NEARY: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary. MR. NEARY: Is the hon. minister aware of a letter that the Premier has signed by Mr. Davidson saying that the Premier himself is not involved in this wrongdoing? Is the hon. minister aware of that letter? ·; MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister. MR. ROUSSEAU: I have heard allegations of it in this House. I do not know who it was from.But I have not seen the letter nor am I aware of it outside the allegations made to it. MR. W .N. ROT.JE: A supplementary on that subject, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: A supplementary, the Leader of the Opposition. MR. W.N. ROWE: I would like to,on this general subject raised by my hon. colleague 1 I would like to ask the !1inister of Justice in view of the fact that the former T:::-easury Board presicj.ent, the l-linister of Transportation and Communications presently 1 yesterday admitted that the amount of $5,000 was apparently paid properly to one Davidson - MR. DOODY: That was not an admission. It was a statement. MR. W.N. ROWE: Stated, came out with it in a forthright,manly fashion 1 that $5,000 of public money had been given over to a Mr.

Davidson for services done for the government, apparently quite properly,and in view of the fact that the police~acting,I would assume.on instructions from the Department of Justice which the minister heads,went down and got search warrants based on an allegation sworn to that this $5,000 was extorted from the government, "I 1: il [ r

Hay 2,1978 Tape No. 1710 AH-1 MR.W.ROWE: will the minister now inform the House whether there is in fact a second $5,000 which Davidson extorted from the government or whether the warrants, search warrants,were obtained from a 'magistrate in this Province under false pretenses? MR. SPEAKER: The han. minister. NR. lUCKMAN: }!r. Speaker, the search warrants :MR. W. ROWE : It is either one or the other. MR. HICKMAN: Listen to the hon. gentleman who gave us such a dissertation on bad law yesterday that most law students have not recovered from it. The simple fact is, Mr.

Speaker, that there was no misinformation filed by any officer of the Crown or any police officer with the magistrate in question who issued the search warrants, who ordered the issuance of t~e search warrants. MR. SPEAKER: Han. Leader of the Opposition. MR.W.ROWE: lolould the minister care to elucidate? In his usual fashion, Sir, he apparently does not want to divulge all the the information to us for reasons of i1is own. MR. HICKMAN: That is right. HR. W.ROWE: I will not accuse him of another cover-up or trying to muzzle an hon. member earlier today.

Sir, is the minister aware that a search warrant was obtained by agents of his department based on reasonable and probable cause having been shown to a magistrate that this fellow Davidson extorted, was involved in the crime of extorting, did induce the government by extortion to pay him $5,000? Is he ~ware of that? And if he is aware of that, then how does that jibe with the statement made yesterday by his colleague that Mr. Davidson did not extort this $5,000 from the government but that this amount was paid through normal channels in a proper manner? iiow how do the two j i.be? MR. SPEAKER: The han.

Hinister of Justice. MR. HIC~: Hr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the I. ' •

Hay 2,1978 Tape No. 1710 AH-2 MR. HICl<l1AN: Opposition knows better, he knows the answers to all those questions. MR. W.ROWE: What is the answer? MR. HICI<l-1AN: The answers to these questions are very simple. Number one, the bon. the Minister of Public Works and Services said yesterday in response to a question that the sum of $5,000 was paid at some time to this gentleman Davidson for work done for the Government of Newfoundland in connection with the project that has been referred to in this House as the Grimsby Project.

This,by the way,was not the first time that the hon. the Minister of Public Works and Services had brought this advice and information to the attention of the House during this session. He had already made the same statement in·the House in response to a question,as I recall,about a month ago. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the affidavits filed by the police with the magistrate in question,and I cannot advise the House because I do not know as to what transpired in their presentation before the court, were . certainly in order and l1r. Speaker, - MR. NEARY: HR. HICKMA..'I: ;.IR. :mARY: MR. HICKMAN: HR. NEARY: MR.

HICKMA..'I: They were not in order. They were in order. They were not. Well if they were not - They were malicious, It was malicious and false. Mr. Speaker, every time you try to bring to the attention of this House rules and regulations etc. you get accuseci of trying to cover up something. I want to once again remind this House that I was the one who ordered very promptly this particular investigation, more promptly,! would suggest~than any investigation of its kind has ever been ordered by any Attorney General anywhere in Canada.

That is when I ordered it, within a matter of a day and a bit from the time of the filing of these alleged affidavits.

Nay 2,1978 Tape No. 1710 AH-3 MR. NEARY: TWo and one half .years later , MR.. HICKMAN.: And, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to be derelict in my respousib~lity as Attorney General to make public any infoimatiOn wbi.ch will in any way - MR. SDMJNS: Is that a new resolution? MR. HICKMAN: It has always been my resolution, I have never made public in any way any info~tion,either When I was a prac .tic:l.ng la.wyer .or as Attorney General.tbat has come to me in my professional or 1lliidsterial capacity and there is no one know~ that better than the hon. the Leacj.er of the Opposition.

He knows what I am saying is 100 per cent true, con:ect, and be know it. Secondly, Mr. Sp.eaker, when one gets into the question of the applicability and the authenticity of the affidavit that was filed by the Crown Officers in the ·person Qf the Royal Canadian Mounted Police al1d the decls~on of the couJ:t I I l ! ' l ~ l

May 2, 1978 Tape 1711 IB-1 MR. HICKMAN: based thereon. I will repeat that it was perfectly and abs~lutely in order. Raving said that and having repeated · it I am obliged, Mr. Speaker, to draw to Your Honour's attention that all of these questions and all of my answers have been totally and absolutely out of order because we are questioning a decision of the courts . We most assuredly are. AN RON. MEMBER: No . MR. HICKMAN: Oh yes,Mr. Speaker. AN HON. MEMBER: No. MR. HICKMAN: Oh yes, Mr. Speaker. And in that respect, Mr.

Speaker, may I draw Your Honour's attention to page 333 of May which says, "Questions which reflect on the decisions of a court of law are not in order. The Speaker has ruled privately that questions relating to a sentence passed by a judge and to the circumstances under which rules of court were made and issued by the Lord Chancellor were inadmissible." Now, Mr.

Speaker, I draw that to your attention because we are, there is no question about it, we are bringing into question a judicial decision, the ' !l judicial decision being the issuance of the search warrants. ! t And there are all kinds of remedies available if that judicial decision was improperly made. ~1R. NEARY: Violating the Criminal Code. MR. HICKMAN: If there was a violation of the Criminal Code of Canada, Mr. Speaker, there is a simple process. Any lawyer will advise any aggrieved person as to what to do. There have been appeals on it.

Indeed a gentleman named John Christopher Doyle took that appeal right to the Supreme Court of Canada on grounds very analogous to what has been raised here and the Supreme Court of Canada threw it out not too long ago. So it is an issue with remedies. It is a judicial decision. And whilst I have been reluctant , ..

May 2, 1978 Tape 1711 IB-2 MR. HICKMAN: to bring this to the attention of the House because every time one does it one is accused of trying to cover up something. I do have a responsibility as Attorney General to see to it that matters that come before the court are protected, that the court is defended, that judicial decisions are defended and that investigations that are being carried out by the police are not in any way impeded. And more than that, that information that comes to me in my ministerial · capacity as Attorney General of Newfoundland cannot under any circumstances be made public. MR.

SPEAKER: I will just point out because I think there is a point of order more or ~ess before the Chair, with respect to the issuing of warrants and what transpires with and by a judge, then I think obvio~sly that is sub I judice. I distinguish from that what happens in a l government department. ~ut I would say the sub judice ~ f I applies to what actually transpires with a judge or a judge's actions. That matter would be sub judice and would be contrary to general rules and to our precedents ! . not to observe that. The bon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. W. ROWE: Mr.

Speaker, let me make two points, Sir, since they were raised by the bon. Minister of Justice. One is, Sir, that I do not doubt his integrity or his honesty or even his knowledge as a lawyer,personally. I do criticize, Sir, hopefully quite forefully, his actions as a minister where I think he falls down on the job quite badly. Sir, again let me say this that I am not questioning the decision of the magistrate. I am prepared to believe that the magistrate himself was duped, that in the circumstances he made the proper decision himself. What v •I

May 2, 1978 Tape 1711 IB-3 MR. W. ROWE: I am asking the minister is, Sir, whether he will look into the possibility within his own department that in the drafting of the various documentation and so on for presentation to this magistrate, Sir, who is an excellent gentleman - we all ~now him in the practice of law and we are all aware of his great abilities -Sir, will the minister look into the_possibility that there may have been some drafting based on false pretenses? and that, Sir, if it was not false pretenses, in view of the information given by the bon.

Minister of Public Works, then there is somebody in his department, Sir, who is incredibly stupid and negligent and should not be in charge of drafting documentation for presentation to court, magistrate or otherwise. I ask the minister if he will look into that state of affairs: MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Justice. MR .. HT CKMAN : Mr. Speak~r. there is no one in my department, no law officer of the Crown who is incredibly stupid. I do have in my department as strong a staff on the prosecutorial side as could be found in any Attorney-General's department in this Nation.

And I not only deny but I suggest that the statement by the bon. the Leader of the Opposition is unprecedented. That kind of an accusation against a law officer of the Crown when the hon. Leader of the Opposition as a lawyer knows ' f I -' 1 ·' ~ I

May 2 , 1978 Tape 1712 PK - 1 Mr. Hickman: the responsibility is to show reasonable and probable cause. It has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, nothing at all, Mr. Mr. Speaker. The guilt of any person, the guilt of any person, Mr. Speaker, will be decided if and when a charge is laid and not before. And until that decision is made that person is innocent, totally and absolutely innocent. And let me assure this House there has been no act , of i.mprop-eiety on behalf of any law officer of the Crown or any police officer in connection with this particular incident which we are discussing. And the bon.

Leader of the Opposition is again skirting very ,cleverly but I do not think he is succeeding in skirting around that ruling. zn the order that I just referred to, to say that a magistrate is able or a court is able, or has been duped 3 is still bringing into question the decision of the court. There is no question at all that after that decision is handed down the admin~strative procedures that flow thereafter are perfectly and properly the subject matter of questions in this House.TbeY have been raised and they have already been debated, but not the decision of this court. And, Mr.

Speaker, I repeat that the law officers of the Crown are competent, exceptionally competent. We have never had such a strong prosecutorial division in the history of Newfoundalnd. And the allegation and comment made by an officer of the court in the person of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not only totally untrue, but is very unbecoming of any officer of the court. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. HICKMAN: Committee of Supply. MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that I do leave the Chair. MR. STRACHAN: Mr.

Speaker, under Standing Order 23 I ask leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the House for the I purpose of discussing what to us in Labrador is a matter of urgent • j public importance. Mr. Speaker, the Government of Quebec realizing i I t

· May 2, 1978 Tape 1713 Pk- 1 Mr.

Strachan: the political consequences of having both physical and economic ties with Labrador to further their territorial aspirations that they awarded a contract for construction of sixty miles of highway, and have further encouraged and allowed striking iron ore workers working freely to construct~ forty miles of dirt road using mine equipment also given freely, in order to physically link Labrador West with that Province, causing as a result of their actions the people of Labrador West to become extremely upset over their future ties physically, and now economically, and possibly, subseqently political ties with the Province of Quebec. ~x.

Speaker, I wish to move this motion. We believe in Labrador that the freedom ~oad for Labrador has now gone West instead of East, and we believe it is of major and public importance. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: Under this Standing Order, our precedents, of course, are quite clear. One of