December 15, 1997         HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS          Vol. XLIII  No. 51

 


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding and I think we have the unanimous consent of the House that we would move that the House recess until 4:00 p.m. in order that members and Cabinet ministers might attend the funeral of and out of respect for the late Chief Justice Noel Goodridge. It is also my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that we would at 4:00 p.m. take up our routine matters of the day and carry on in the same fashion as if the Parliamentary clock read at 2:00 p.m. and I would so move.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in consultation with my colleague on the other side of the House, we on this side agree with the procedures and also agree that at 4:00 p.m. we will have the procedures as if it were 2:00 p.m. in the regular session in the afternoon.

On motion, the House at its rising recessed until Monday at 4:00 p.m.

**********

 

The House met at 4:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

 

Statements by Ministers

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I rise today, on behalf of Premier Tobin and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, to pay tribute to one of the Province's most eminent and respected jurists, the hon. Noel Goodridge, who served as Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland from November 17, 1986 until January 1, 1996, when his illness compelled him to resign his position as Chief Justice.

Mr. Speaker, the former Chief Justice was born in St. John's. He studied law at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, and in early 1954 he entered the practice of law with the firm Hunt, Emerson, Stirling and Higgins. As a private practitioner, Chief Justice Goodridge enjoyed a substantial reputation as a corporate and commercial lawyer, although his endeavours were in no way limited to that area of practice. During his years in practice, the former Chief Justice Goodridge served as Secretary of the Law Society of Newfoundland; President of the Newfoundland Branch of the Canadian Bar Association and an Executive Member of the Canadian Bar Association. These positions are a testament to the respect he enjoyed from his colleagues at the Bar.

On November 13, 1975, Noel Goodridge was appointed a Judge of the Trial Division of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland, where he presided until his appointment as Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal on November 17, 1986.

Mr. Speaker, peers of the former Chief Justice agree that his judgements were among the most imaginative and analytical, sensitive and fluent of any delivered by Canada's judiciary. His decisions always disclosed an understanding and appreciation of the history and facts of each case that he heard, and made the reasons for his decision clear to all involved. While he did not hesitate to apply the law as he found it, neither did he hesitate to comment where he felt the Legislature needed to act in order to bring about improvement. Observations made by Chief Justice Goodridge concerning matrimonial property were pivotal in the enactment of the Province's Matrimonial Property Act in 1980.

Throughout his life, former Chief Justice Goodridge was as active in his community as he was in his profession. He was Chair of the St. John's Transportation Commission; Vice-Chair of the General Hospital Corporation; and Executive Member of the Board of Trade and the St. John's Junior Chamber of Commerce; and President, District Governor and Life Member of the Kinsmen Clubs of Canada.

This kind, compassionate, humorous but quiet spoken man has left his mark on everyone who came in touch with him and I wish to join with many others today in offering sincere condolences to his wife, Isabel, and his children, Alan, William, Douglas and Maria. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On behalf of the members of this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, we too join in expressing our condolences to the family of the late Chief Justice Noel Goodridge. In fact, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and I have just returned from the funeral service which was attended by many people - many community-minded people, obviously many close friends of the Goodridge family and many of those individuals associated with the legal community here in this Province.

On a personal note, I would simply like to state that when I was admitted to the Bar, which was in December of 1982, the very first judge that I appeared before was the late Mr. Justice Noel Goodridge. I found him to be exemplary. He was a gentleman in all respects and certainly a role model for any young lawyer.

So on behalf of the members on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, we join in wishing well, the family members of the late Mr. Justice Noel Goodridge. It was indeed a privilege to have known this gentleman throughout my legal career.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a brief statement today to clear up some misunderstandings and misconceptions associated with property assessments. I am doing this because of a barrage of comments and calls that I had personally over the weekend.

There have been complaints and criticisms that a number of properties have increased substantially. While this is true in some cases, it is also true, Mr. Speaker, that in many other cases, property values have substantially decreased in value and others have remained the same.

I have directed the Municipal Assessment Agency to do a complete analysis of the property assessments with a view to determining the extent by which properties have either increased or decreased or remained the same. This analysis will be completed over the next two or three days, at which time I will make the information available to all members of the House of Assembly.

There are reasons for changes. This recent reassessment is the first in twelve years, Mr. Speaker, for some municipalities - the first in twelve years. As well, changes in the physical make-up of certain properties have impacted on their values.

The new assessment reflects the market value as of January of 1996 in each community. In some municipalities, circumstances have changed since January of 1996 - such as out-migration - which may have impacted and most likely have impacted on property values to the extent that today's market value may be completely different from what it was in January of 1996. If a person feels that his property value does not accurately reflect the January 1, 1996 market value, then he or she has the right to, and should, in fact, appeal.

Mr. Speaker, at the time initial assessments are conducted, all properties are physically visited. All properties are subsequently reviewed in accordance with legislative requirements. If the assessor feels after the initial review that there is no need for a revisit, then he may dispense with it. While it may not be generally understood, municipalities would have to incur increased or additional cost if all properties had to be re-inspected for each reassessment.

The assessment is only one component of the municipal tax infrastructure. Property assessments are designed to distribute the tax burden on the basis of the value of the property. The municipality completes another component when the council establishes the tax rates.

The assessor's role is to determine the fair market value of the properties in each municipality. The assessment is used to determine an individual's share of taxes. The council's role is to determine the amount of taxes required to operate, set the tax rate, calculate, and send out the tax bills and then collect the taxes.

The new assessment agency has prepared information in question and answer format that I want to distribute here today. I believe this should help MHAs in dealing with their constituents on the matter of assessments. I also have copies available for the media.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister knows that the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities has been putting pressure on his department for many years to complete the assessment process and to do so on a regular basis. When the minister stands today and says that it has been twelve years in some cases - not in all cases - that should be a statement that should embarrass the minister and his department, particularly since these same municipalities have been repeatedly asking: Would you please upgrade our assessments, do it regularly, and do it in a prompt manner.

I am pleased the minister is now going to look at some of those municipalities where there has been an increase in the assessed values. While the minister here says that there have been some changes in the assessed values since January 1996, he says that occurs for factors such as out-migration. I would say to the minister, out-migration started a long time before January 1996. Therefore the minister should have known, and these factors should have been factored in at that time, and not now factored in after the assessments have been completed.

The other factor we should note here is, when the assessments are done, that when they are re-done, or when they are appealed, then that appeal is a cost to the municipality; but the assessments are done by the department or its agencies. Then, what happens is, when you have to bring in someone to appeal, or to listen to the appeal and make the adjustment, that expense is then borne by the municipality. Therefore, municipalities are paying for their right to have a fair (inaudible) in their assessment procedure.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, that is where we have an unjust kind of situation, because -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: - if the department is responsible for the assessments, they should also be -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

MR. H. HODDER: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I understood leave had been granted by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No leave?

MR. H. HODDER: No leave?

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health.

MS J. M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to inform members of the successful First Ministers meetings which took place in Ottawa last week. I am pleased to say that the meetings should provide future, tangible results for Canadians in a number of sectors including health.

All of the First Ministers, with the exception of the Premier of Quebec, have agreed to mandate designated Ministers, under the auspices of the Ministerial Council for Social Policy and Renewal, to begin negotiations on a framework agreement for Canada's social union that would apply to Federal/Provincial/Territorial governments while respecting each others' constitutional jurisdiction and powers.

The objectives of the agreement will include: a set of principles for social policy, such as mobility and monitoring social policy outcomes; collaborative approaches to the use of federal spending power; appropriate dispute resolution mechanisms between governments; clarifying ground rules for intergovernmental co-operation; and identifying processes for clarifying roles and responsibilities within various social policy sectors.

First Ministers agreed that this work should proceed in conjunction with ongoing activities in sectoral areas and should be completed by July, 1998.

Some of the sectoral issues discussed included the National Child Benefit, the National Children's Agenda, Employability Assistance for People with Disabilities, and the health system. First Ministers reconfirmed their commitment to the start of the National Child Benefit system by July 1, 1998. They also committed to work together on measures that ensure the overall level of child benefits for families is protected during the implementation.

The commitment of First Ministers to a new co-operative approach to ensure child well-being was reaffirmed and they noted the progress to date in developing a National Children's Agenda. An agreement was also reached to fast track the work on the agenda through the ministerial council.

First ministers reviewed the progress made by social services ministers over the past year and endorsed their work on the harmonization and a revamped Employability Assistance for People with Disabilities program (EAPD), this will replace the BRDP program. Bilateral agreements for EAPD are expected by this April and social services ministers have been asked to conclude the development of a vision statement and a national framework to guide future collaborative work in this area.

Every first minister present expressed a strong desire to protect the future of the health system. First ministers agreed to work together to make sure the fundamentals of the health system remain firmly in place. Health care must be standardized to ensure that a two tier health system does not develop in our provinces. It was agreed that it is important to achieve broad agreement around present and future health priorities before we embark on any new programs. This will ensure that available funding is invested most effectively by both levels of government. Mr. Speaker, I have been asked to arrange a meeting of Ministers of Health for early in the new year to discuss the immediate health concerns of all Canadians.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for a copy of her statement. I would like to say to the minister that certainly nobody on this side of the House would be against the National Child Benefit or Employability Assistance for People with Disabilities and certainly nobody would be against our health care system. We would agree that there should never become a two tier health system in our country.

We would also like to say, Mr. Speaker, that it is very sad, that we have seen the cuts in health care in our own Province, that we have seen brought on by this federal government and when this Premier sat around the Cabinet table and agreed to these cuts.

So, the only thing we could do or we could say from this side of the House is to urge this federal government to stop what they have been doing all along. To take some of the very much needed money to put back into health care and it is too bad that the federal Minister of Health could not come to this Province and go around this island to see some of the misery that he has caused and that his government in Ottawa has caused and certainly this government here as well, Mr. Speaker.

So, a lot of the things here we certainly have no problem with. We just wonder why they had to go through this process in the beginning to make people in our Province suffer the way that they did.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, does he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I listened very carefully to the ministers' statement and I did not hear any mention of putting some of the $7 billion that the federal government is taking out of transfer payments for education, post-secondary education, social assistance and health care. Mr. Speaker, I hear an awful lot about process, process, process, but I don't hear any commitment to meet the goals of reducing or eliminating child poverty by the year 2000 that was agreed upon federally in 1989. Since then, child poverty has increased in this country, and in this Province, by 50 per cent. I would like to hear more about results, Mr. Speaker, and a lot less about process.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the First Ministers' Meeting in Ottawa unanimously endorsed a vision for Canadian youth wherein "all Canadian youth participate fully in the economic opportunities for the twenty-first century."

As a Province, the Departments of Education and Human Resources and Employment were pleased to contribute to the vision statement and to a youth employment action plan which set clear objectives including the following:

Maintaining and improving access to education and skills; providing more work opportunities both for those making the school/work transition, and for those who may be "at risk"; helping youth adapt to an increasingly complex and changing labour market; and helping youth address the social and cultural barriers that prevent full labour market participation.

In this Province, Mr. Speaker, our departments have been working cooperatively with the federal government thorough Human Resources Development Canada, the education sector, labour and employer representatives and the youth services agencies to develop a Provincial Youth Employment Strategy in conjunction with this national initiative.

Mr. Speaker, an issue of considerable importance to the students of this Province, both current and prospective, is the level of student debt and the adequacy or inadequacy of loans programs in assisting students to be prepared for their future employment opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier addressed this matter with his counterparts on behalf of the students of Newfoundland and Labrador in 1996 and again at this year's meetings. As well, as a member of the Council of Ministers of Education, we have addressed this matter with the federal government and stressed the need for immediate action. It has been agreed that the federal Ministers of Finance and Human Resource Development will accelerate work in concert with Provincial and Territorial Education Ministers so that the Minister of Finance can take account of this work in the upcoming federal budget.

Mr. Speaker, we are optimistic positive results will flow from this First Ministers' Meeting and will be identified as real initiatives in the next federal budget.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have read through the statement and I note that my colleague, the education critic, just arrived in the House. I have had this for a little longer than he has. I could probably just say to the minister, that I find it ironic that the Premier should have to go to Ottawa to find a vision for youth for Newfoundland and Labrador. I mean, I thought the Premier came back here with a vision, and he didn't have to go back to Ottawa and get some more tutoring as to what kind of a vision we should have for Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister this all sounds great, except where is the meat? Where are the answers for the students of Newfoundland and Labrador? Where are the real concrete things we can tell the young people of Newfoundland and Labrador that will affect their student loans and their debts? When are we going to tell the young people that they will have better opportunities, that we will reduce their debt load, and we will make sure that they have a fair chance in order to get a first-grade post-secondary education in this Province and have jobs to stay here -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: - and -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: - (inaudible) this Province in their adult lives?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Once again we have lots of evidence of talk, but only a hope that there might be some action in the federal budget next spring. The student debt load in this Province for students graduating from a University program after four years is some three times, at least, what it was five years ago, approaching $25,000. In fact, approaching the wall of students being able to study and prepare for the work force. There does indeed need to be some concrete action. I don't see evidence of it in here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Hopefully we will in the future.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In recent weeks people from all parts of Newfoundland and Labrador have become aware of the economic crisis facing the community of Black Tickle on Labrador's South Coast. The problems in our economy over the past decade, compounded by the cod moratorium, have affected every community in this Province, but none to the extent of Black Tickle.

The exceptional issues facing Black Tickle require an exceptional response. Once apprised of the situation the Premier established a special committee of Cabinet to fast track government's response to the crisis. Today, the Premier and the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture are in Black Tickle, along with the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair, to report directly to the people of the community on the progress of this committee.

I am pleased this afternoon to report to this hon. House that the provincial government has approved additional initiatives under the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs Job Creation Program for the community of Black Tickle. First, $65,000 in funding will be provided to employ twenty-three people to upgrade the fish plant. Tomorrow, the Premier will be meeting with officials from HB Dawe, owners of the plant. The company will be paying for three positions and have pledged to match any materials provided by government. Next week, $20,000 worth of supplies for the project will be shipped to the community by the Coast Guard.

Thirty-two thousand dollars in funding will be provided for a Literacy Outreach Program which will employ thirteen people to train workers to do needs assessment, compile curriculum for tutoring, and provide the basis for an ongoing community learning project. The project is one identified by the community and is similar to the other projects along the Coast.

Fifty-two thousand dollars will also be provided and twenty-three people employed to upgrade the community centre. This work will include repairs to the roof and foundation and provide for an extension to the building. This work will provide facilities to assist with the provision of the school lunch and breakfast program which was previously announced.

The response around Newfoundland and Labrador to the crisis in Black Tickle is a tribute to the people of this Province. The general public through Operation Angel have responded with a food drive supported by corporate citizens such as Air Labrador and Day and Ross. Just today the Premier, while in Black Tickle, received a commitment from Vince Withers of NewTel to approve the community's application for Internet access, regardless of cost.

The cooperation between the provincial government, the community, and the private sector, along with the initiative of others around the Province, have shown how working together the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have the drive, concern, and ability to meet the challenges facing our people. It is this same drive and ability that will ensure the long-term viability of all our rural communities.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We want to say first of all that we are pleased the government appears to be listening to the people of Black Tickle. However, when I add up the figures here I quickly calculate $169,000.

I say to the government, if we could cure the problems of communities in Newfoundland and Labrador with that kind of money then we should have done it a long time ago. I am afraid that it is too little and it is coming very late.

I say to the government that we want to compliment the initiatives of an undertaking by the private industry to try to bring attention to and solve some of the problems that are found in Black Tickle. We want to say as well that in Newfoundland and Labrador - in rural Newfoundland and Labrador - there are many other communities, while not to the same extent and feeling the same frustration and pain as the people in Black Tickle, there are many other communities where if we could arrange for the Premier to go and visit and spend some time there, then I think this government would increase its sensitivity to rural Newfoundland.

We do not see that kind of sensitivity resulting in concrete proposals for action. Therefore, we say to the government, learn from the experience of Black Tickle, because if we do not learn from it then there are going to be a lot more examples like that in this Province, and it is going to be a consequence of the lack of action by this government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

Does the hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Make up your mind.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say, first of all, that I think that the government's response to the needs of the people in Black Tickle was certainly fairly immediate and seems to be a bit comprehensive in dealing with a number of issues: employment, the local school, the fish plant, and the School Lunch and Breakfast Program. I think it is remarkable that the government has responded so quickly, but I will comment on one thing.

All of the people in Black Tickle, we are told, are in receipt of social assistance and help from the government already, all of the families there. It does comment on the level of social assistance that is available in communities in Newfoundland when it is pointed out that a community like Black Tickle, which is all on social services, needs this kind of help to live adequately. I think that does reflect on the government's overall approach to social assistance in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in May, 1996, the Newfoundland and Labrador Paralegal Training Institute applied to the Department of Education for registration as a private training institution to deliver a Paralegal program. As part of the analysis, the department reviewed the curriculum and sought amendments as a result of advice from the Department of Justice. A similar course is offered in two other private institutions in the Province as well.

Mr. Speaker, where external standards, occupational or licensing requirements exist, institutions are required to demonstrate that these are met as part of the approval process. The Newfoundland and Labrador Paralegal Training Institute satisfied all requirements.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: In addition to approving the curriculum for programs offered in private training institutions, the department also approves the institution, its facilities and instructors. It is not the role of the department to assess daily delivery of programs. This is the responsibility of the institution. The department does, however, investigate rigorously any complaints resulting from delivery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: It is in this capacity that officials from the department met with a group of first-year students from the Newfoundland and Labrador Paralegal Training Institute on two occasions to hear and address their concerns. Following separate meetings with the students and the administration of the school, the department today received in writing a letter from the school agreeing to substantive conditions put forward by these students as a basis to resolve this matter. We have communicated through a student representative the information regarding the offer made by the school.

It should be noted, Mr. Speaker, that the majority of the students at the school have stated they are satisfied with the instruction they are currently receiving - approximately eighty five out of 100 or so students.

Until such a time as these matters have been addressed to the satisfaction of the disgruntled students, and the department is satisfied that the school is in compliance with all requirements of the Private Training Institutions Act and Regulations, the moratorium on new enrolments will continue. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, the school will continue to operate to train the currently enrolled students in the program. Full operational status will only be reinstated when the students concerns have been met and the department is satisfied that any outstanding licensing issues have been fully resolved.

Mr. Speaker, the department will continue to work with the students involved with the complaint, to assist their continued education either in paralegal studies or another program of their choosing.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for a copy of the statement before the House opened today.

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to respond to this particular statement by the minister and I say to him, I feel sorry for the students who are in the gallery today and not in school - it is those students I feel sorry for.

Mr. Speaker, it sounds to me like the government is representing the school very well. They talked about meeting on two occasions with the students.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, there was a different group a couple of weeks ago and today, and on Friday -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SHELLEY: - on Friday, Mr. Speaker, at the last minute notice, after I had left the House of Assembly, the last minute call for the students to come to the Department of Education, not to talk about their concerns, Mr. Speaker, but to see how we could cover it up, how we could solve the whole issue.

Well, the issue is not solved, I say to the minister, and I want to state from the minister's own Act, Mr. Speaker - I want to state the minister's own Act: Where the representative of a Private Training Institute has made false or misleading statements regarding the course of instruction or regarding the nature of the contract for the purpose of inducing a person to enter into the contract and all monies so received shall immediately - immediately be paid to the person who has paid it and the contract is void.

There does not need to be an agreement, the agreement should not even be talked about. This is a violation of the Act by this institution. The minister should take the lead role and meet with the students one on one, so they can tell you - because, when we talk about -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: - a rigorous investigation, there has been none, because the students have not even had a chance to (inaudible). Take the leadership and make sure that (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi. Does he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not think it is satisfactory to say that we are going to try to address the concerns of those thirteen students and we are satisfied that because eighty-five others are satisfied with the instruction they are receiving, that is not the issue, Mr. Speaker. The issue is, the ability of this government to properly monitor, inspect and approve private post-secondary education and, Mr. Speaker, this matter could be referred to the review board under the Act if, in fact, there was a review board, if the minister had appointed a review board to review and consider these matters.

We do not have one, Mr. Speaker, so we are left with this kind of procedure in this House of Assembly. Students have to complain publicly in order to deal with problems in these institutions. I would like to see the minister appoint a review board under this Act and have them review this matter and others.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

 

Oral Questions

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask a question today of the Minister of Environment and Labour.

I and members of my caucus have, in the last few days, received petitions, e-mail messages, faxes, telephone calls, numerous specific calls, I say to the minister, dealing with the Shops' Closing Act.

I ask him, would he do the honourable thing and withdraw Bill 48?

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I think Your Honour has already ruled in this Legislature that when a piece of legislation - when a subject matter is to be debated and is on the Order Paper that the question on that subject matter is out of order. Therefore, I would submit to Your Honour that the hon. gentleman is out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, we submit to yourself that questions under Section 408 state: `... such questions should be asked only in respect of matters with sufficient urgency and importance to require an immediate answer. Mr. Speaker, we realize that this bill is on the Order Paper; however, the things that we were told were on the Order Paper for Friday did not appear in the debates on Friday. So, Mr. Speaker, we, on this side, argue that this matter is of great importance. It is of urgency and therefore it should be dealt with today in Question Period.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To that point of order, I believe the bill dealing with the Shops' Closing Act has already been called and has been called for second reading. That item is now on the Order Paper for today. The hon. member's question is out of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will ask a question of the Minister of Finance. Now, I asked questions in the House last week, I say to the minister, but the Minister of Justice, who was acting, did not have any answers. So I want to ask the Minister of Finance again today - he was not aware, as a member of Cabinet, whether this government had presented any proposal to the federal government with revision of changes under the Income Tax Act. Basically some of the areas would be flexibility in setting rates and tax brackets and tax credits to the provinces. I understand our Province is one of five, this minister knew nothing about it. I ask the minister, has the proposal been presented? Has Cabinet discussed it? Does anybody in government know anything about it?

MR. DECKER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, all the hon. gentleman has to do is refer to the front page of the Globe and Mail on the morning - the questions which he put in this House he got them from the front page of the Globe and Mail that morning before he asked them. All he has to do is go and read that paper. He does not have to waste the time of this House with such nonsense.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank my colleague, as well, for his intervention. As members well know, several of the provinces, at an administrative level, have proposed to the federal government that we change the manner -not the amount, but the manner, in which tax is calculated. As members well know, the federal government right now decides what constitutes taxable income, so they take an individual's gross income, and from that you have various deductions for RRSP, for personal tax deductions, for dependants and so on, and they arrive at the net taxable income. We do not have a problem with that.

The way the provincial tax is calculated and the proposal is, instead of having our tax calculated as a per cent of the federal tax, which is now the method on which we calculate tax, that we instead would calculate our taxes by applying it directly to the net taxable income as determined by the federal government. That would give us greater leniency, greater ability and greater flexibility to determine different tax rates to provide credits for low-income people, for example, to increase the threshold at which people pay taxes and also to simplify the rates.

That has been proposed by several provinces, from my recollection, I think it is Manitoba, in fact all of the Western provinces. At the meetings, New Brunswick expressed an interest, which they had not previously. My recollection is that Prince Edward Island may have come on board as well.

So, administratively it has been discussed - or discussions leading up to probably the year 1999 before it can be implemented if that change is considered desirable.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is pretty unfortunate when a minister has to read in the Globe and Mail what his financial minister is up in Ottawa trying to find out, I think that is a sad commentary on the shape we are in.

I ask the minister: since there are three tax brackets now, back from over ten years ago down to three to simplify the tax system, and since the federal government has made no indication it is going to change its three tax brackets, and in order for our Province to vary the rate it must move from three brackets - because it can accomplish that now within the three tax brackets - has this Province looked at a change in the number of tax brackets from the current three, I ask the minister?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, the Province has not considered it because the federal government has not made a decision as to whether or not it will permit this. Right now we are fixed with the situation where the provincial tax must be calculated as a percentage of the federal tax.

So, for example, if a person's taxable income is small and he or she has to pay income tax of $100, we are forced whether we like it or not, to apply income tax at sixty-nine per cent or sixty-nine dollars of the federal tax. Right now we do not have any choice in that matter. What it would give to the Province, should it choose to do so, is flexibility in how it determines tax rates, which it does not now have.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

He answered the question and said we are going to change the tax brackets because you can give a break to people right now by lowering the sixty-nine per cent they currently pay. You can do that under the current system, so if you are going to give a break to anyone under that system we must have different tax brackets.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister has already said that in a roundabout way, so he is intending to change the tax bracket.

I ask him -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: Is his reason for doing that because the federal government is going to continue with the three tax brackets, which means that there is a promise federally, by the federal finance minister, to reduce personal income tax, which means the Province, as a percentage of federal, is going to lose taxes. So, is the reason why this Province now wants to increase it and increase the brackets, to make up for what we are going to lose because we are a percentage of federal tax? Is that your motive?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, quite the opposite. The provincial government has indicated that it would like to see the federal taxes reduced, but we also indicated to the hon. member, and the point that he is missing in this exercise, is that if the tax rate continues to be applied in the same manner that it now is, so that our tax is calculated as a per cent of federal tax, that favours people with larger incomes because, as the tax rate declines, they enjoy more because a per cent is appreciably less than it was. Sixty-nine percent of a higher number, as the hon. member may know, in absolute terms is more than sixty-nine percent of a lesser number. So, for that reason, we think, in terms of fairness, the Province should have flexibility to set variant rates, to set variant thresholds. Whether or not that may or may not affect different income groups is something we would have to consider. We have not yet done so. We would have to see what rates are available and what particular tax policies you deem appropriate.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With reference to changing and having a separate system by the Province where we can set our own rates and our own brackets, there is an estimated cost with that in the tens of millions, one estimated, I think federally, said $50 million.

Has the minister looked at the cost that our Province would incur in moving to a separate system? I am sure the minister must have figures worked out by his department as to what the cost would be. Could he tell us what that is?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member is getting his figures from. The cost is fairly incremental, if any. All you do is you have a new form that applies it. I don't know what the federal government's cost in the matter would be. The issue wasn't raised. We had the Minister of National Revenue, Mr. Dhaliwal, and the Minister of Finance there, and neither of those individuals raised costs at their end as being a factor.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I ask him, is the Province considering looking at separate areas for deduction? For example, right now RRSP and other deductions are subject to deductions from your taxable income. I ask him: is he looking at applying the deductions that are now accepted federally like child care expenses, RRSPs, other areas of deductions? Will the Province with a separate system now eliminate the ability to claim these, or will there be a proportionate amount that the Province can claim? I'm sure you looked at those factors because they impact on the bottom line of the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I indicated in my answer to his first question, we would still - the proposal is that the federal government would still determine how you get to net taxable income. So whatever deductions the federal government chooses to allow to remain in place - whether it be for RRSPs, child tax credits and so on like that - would still remain in place. What we are talking about is a simple change in our system where instead of our tax being calculated as a per cent of the federal tax, which in itself is a variable percentage of net taxable income, we would have our own varying tax rates, or have the option to do that, applying directly to net taxable income. All the existing deductions, or as those may be varied from time to time by the federal government, would remain the same.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have some more questions today for the Minister of Education. There was a policy in this Province not long ago, in 1996, that changed that basically provided for that you would have to be established as an educational institution in this Province for one year before students could avail of the student loan program.

Could the minister tell us when that was changed, what was the purpose for the policy in the first place, and then more importantly, I guess, why the policy was changed just days before the Newfoundland and Labrador Paralegal Training Institute opened its doors?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again I have to remark that I'm saddened by the approach taken by the hon. member. Because -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I've had some private discussions with the hon. member, and despite the facts that he is repeatedly given he is trying to suggest that there is something improper about this particular institute and how it came into being in the Province. I would prefer at some point that he come right out and say that instead of beating around the bush.

The fact of the matter is this. There was a policy in Newfoundland and Labrador for a number of years with respect to institutions becoming eligible for the students becoming eligible for student loans.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: I will answer the question that was asked, Mr. Speaker. When we had -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, when one of the first ones that came to me to be signed in respect to a private institution that had gone through all the processes to be set up, had met all the criteria. We were ready. We had issued - this was in Central Newfoundland; I believe the name of the institution was DieTrac out around Grand Falls-Windsor, Badger, or somewhere in that area - there was a group of students ready to go.

The students came to the department and petitioned and asked, along with the owners, as to why it was that there was a policy, and simply a policy that any of us can make or change any day of the week, that would have the institution be in existence for a full year before the students who wanted to go there could access student loans. The students were ready to go and they wanted to go. They had taken some personal loans, lines of credit and other things. They wanted to access the student loan system.

When we examined it as a government and said; Why is it that any one institute that has met all of the eligibility criteria under the law, every single stipulation that was there to be met had been met, the licence had been issued, but students who wanted to go there were going to be told you couldn't get student loans until the organization had operated for at least a year. When we examined it we saw no reason for leaving it there for a year. We changed the policy so that as soon as -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: The current policy, Mr. Speaker, -

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer quickly.

MR. GRIMES: - of the Province is that as soon as any private training institution meets all the requirements under the private training act and is granted -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: - a licence -

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. GRIMES: - the students who choose that facility can access student loans.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: A very quick question then, Mr. Speaker, for the minister. Did your officials visit this institute, I ask the minister, since it opened its doors in 1996? When they left were they satisfied that all regulations were in compliance after that visit?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I don't know which institute the hon. member was speaking with. I was speaking with (inaudible). Maybe he might ask the question in a little more detail.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte, a supplementary.

MR. SHELLEY: In accordance with the act again, I will ask the minister to table some documents. Maybe I can get some answers this way, if he is not going to do a full, independent, formal inquiry like I suggested.

Before an institution can start instruction, can the minister tell me if all students must have their contracts signed before any instruction can take place? And was that in compliance with this particular institute? Can the minister tell me that? Or will he table it if he does not know it.

MR. J. BYRNE: Name the institute.

MR. SHELLEY: The Newfoundland Paralegal Institute.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I indicated in a statement in the House a couple of days ago with respect to this matter, there are now upwards of 100 or so private training institutes operating in the Province. The staff at the department do some spot visiting to these particular institutes. The rest of the time it is much like many other pieces of legislation; we do some spot checking with available staff. The rest of the time we respond to complaints.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know, personally, the status of the contracts that were signed in any one of these institutions, but if there is ever a difficulty, as has been reported here in this instance, it is taken under advisement and an investigation is done. It has been done in this instance, and it is still my understanding, as I stand here today, that the students themselves who have a disagreement with this particular institute are going to meet individually with the owner and decide upon whether or not they are satisfied with the settlement, the issues that they have raised, refund of their money, refund for textbooks, and those kinds of issues. They will determine whether they are satisfied or not.

In the final analysis, what we have done is exercise our responsibility by putting in place a moratorium on any new registrants by also asking the institute to come into full compliance with all stipulations of the Private Training Act. If that happens, we will make a statement saying they are in full compliance and we will lift the moratorium. If not, the moratorium on new entrants will stay in place.

In the final analysis, if the things are not resolved satisfactorily, as has been stated repeatedly in the past -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: - the institution is in danger of losing its licence.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte, a supplementary.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

When we talk about compliance, the minister already admitted publicly in this House that they are not under full compliance. They already violated it in regard to advertising.

I remind the minister again, from the act - of course, I cannot read it all - to enter into a contract and all money so received shall be -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary. I ask him to get to his question.

MR. SHELLEY: - shall be immediately repaid.

That is the main thing here. I want to tell the minister, not for the school to tell the minister -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question.

MR. SHELLEY: Will the minister tell the school - not let the school tell the minister - to reimburse immediately, as at before 5:00 p.m. today, or by tomorrow, to the students who are out a lot of money because of this institution.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A process is in place that has been followed repeatedly ever since we have had private institutions in this Province, for over twenty years now - an important point.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: We have had private institutions operating in this Province for over twenty years.

I might point out to my friends and colleagues opposite that the procedures that are being followed now by the staff in the Department of Education are the same procedures that were followed ten years ago, twelve years ago, three years ago, five years ago. Ten years ago people opposite in the government, and someone like one of those was the Minister of Education, and the staff were doing the job in the same way it is now-

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: - and I am quite satisfied that the interests of the students are first and foremost in this matter.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte, a final supplementary.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister today to take the lead role and not let the school tell him what to do. What I suggest to the minister again and I did it before any of this broke, and I say in this House again to the minister: You talk about a rigorous investigation; the rigorous should start with the victims. The victims have not been heard from.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, the hon. member is on a supplementary.

MR. SHELLEY: I say to the minister again today: If he really wants to find out the truth and get to the bottom of this, that he call for an independent inquiry into this particular institution.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: Why won't he? Why won't you?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

Mr. Speaker, in 1999 the Province will celebrate the 50th Anniversary of Confederation with Canada, followed the next year by the Millennium Celebrations marking the year 2000 and the 1000th Anniversary of the Viking Visit.

Mr. Speaker, I know firsthand of the work that has to go into organizing such events, both nationally and internationally, as I am sure the minister does.

My question to the minister is this: Can she provide an update today of the Province's preparations with respect to the 50th Anniversary Celebrations, considering they are now just over thirteen months away?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can give somewhat of an update today, but because the whole concept plan has not gone to Cabinet yet, I cannot give you all of the details. I can tell you that in Corner Brook on, I think it was, November 16 we launched the logo and the theme at the end of the Cabot Celebrations Conference. We have put together a concept plan which now I have to bring to Cabinet. After that, when the budget is finalized, I will certainly make sure that the hon. member and this House, and everyone throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, are aware of everything that is happening with the celebrations for 1999.

As to the Viking 2000 Celebration, I think it was announced several months ago that the advertising company, M5, here in Newfoundland and Labrador, have been contracted to put together the concept plan, and I am expecting that any day now.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South, a supplementary.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, in 1996 we had the new Premier appealing to Ottawa for assistance to fund The Year of the Arts Program, year long festivities for the 1997 year. I ask the minister: Are there now any plans in place to again have a year of the arts for these upcoming celebrations and, if so, at what stage are they today?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Of course, we are extremely pleased with The Year of the Arts and all of the activity that has gone on, as well as the corporate sponsorship around that particular project; as a matter of fact, with the corporate sponsorship around the whole of the Cabot Celebrations.

Most of the companies that have been involved, in particular NewTel who were involved with The Year of the Arts, and the companies involved with the others, have already laid on the record that they will be very interested in partnering with us.

Because the budget is not yet done for this year, I can certainly not make any announcement as to a further year of the arts, or whether it would, in fact, be called the year of the arts. Of course, this year we have the cultural innovation fund, and many of the projects that have been undertaken this year will have spin offs that are going to happen well into the next few years.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, given that some regions were not as successful in attracting additional visitors during the Cabot Celebrations as others, what approach will your department take now to ensure that during these anniversary celebrations that all the Province might benefit from these overall celebrations, and not, as we had in the Cabot, as you know and I know, where we had certain areas of the Province which did not benefit as well? I would like to know what plans are in place now to make sure, or to ensure, that the whole Province benefits.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I am not asking the question of the Government House Leader. If he would only keep his mouth shut, I might –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I think that it would be extremely difficult, being that we live in a Province with approximately 700 communities, to ever be able to assure or guarantee communities that they would all receive an equal benefit. Because this celebration this year, many aspects of it concerned bringing home ex-patriot Newfoundlanders for reunions and other festivities. Many of the benefits were to Bonavista, of course, because that happens to be where John Cabot landed, and many of the events had to be specific to the communities that were celebrating the specific events of our 500 years of history. But we will, of course, endeavour to spread whatever tourism wealth we can possibly generate for this Province all over the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. As the minister is aware, we have been consulting with local manufacturers and producers to try to put together some ideas as to how they can secure more government contracts and deal with government on various issues relating to the public tendering process.

We have seen, on many occasions, tenders go out from government - such as the Cabot 500 flags and pins tender call - where at least part of the tender call was for something that could not be supplied by local manufacturers, therefore shutting them out of the entire tendering process.

Government has the power, I say to the minister, to call for whatever specifications they choose in a contract. So I ask the minister: Will she give assurances that government will determine more accurately what is produced here locally and try to make the tendering packages as friendly to local manufacturers and producers as possible, so that we have as few contracts leaving the Province as possible?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Ask him if he has the chain-link fence up that he tore down yesterday? Do you have the fence back up?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I guess it is fair to say that the question could really have been put to either the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation or to myself. Clearly, we have a concern when it comes to local industry, just as the hon. member does, and I am interested in what he has going now in terms of meeting with local suppliers. What we have to do is try to find a way that our local suppliers can in fact access those national contracts. There is a recognition, by this government, that we really need to be conscious of what is happening to our local companies out there, and we have been doing that on an ongoing basis. We have been meeting with the industry associations as a department year-in and year-out, and at this point in time, we have issues that are being brought to our attention just as the hon. member is hearing them as well. So we want to work together to try to resolve this in the best interest of our local suppliers, and we will do just that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister, can she give assurances, will she give assurances, that when tendering goes out on large assortments of items - again, such as the Cabot 500 flags, banners and pins tender call - that she will have the tender call more individualized, perhaps even into a number of tenders, therefore allowing local manufacturers who produce pins but not banners that at least they may pick up part of the tender?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, again, I go back to the whole issue of procurement. Of course, it depends on which department is looking for what in terms of supplies. Whether or not the specifications are written in the best interest of a local supplier, again depends on the department and what they are looking to get, and whether or not it is available in this Province. But yes, we will certainly look at that, Mr. Speaker. It is an ongoing issue for us and one that we are concerned about as well. We want to make sure that we get as much supplies from this Province as possible so that, of course, when you do that, it increases the employment opportunities for our people, and that is certainly where we are coming from as a government.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If we are going to start getting more supplies from our Province, we should start doing it.

Mr. Speaker, will the minister look into introducing an independent Ombudsman so that the local manufacturers have somebody to turn to when dealing with government tenders, so that local manufacturers and producers have an independent body to which they can address questions and concerns?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, every local manufacturer in this Province knows, if they have an issue they can pick up the phone and call me. My door is open all the time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: If there anything, any issue they want to deal with, I will do that with them on a personal basis. We do not need an independent body to do that. I challenge anyone to say that they have yet to call me and not gotten a response to an issue.

Mr. Speaker, the issue here, I think, is whether or not we look at a price, whether or not the price is the bottom line here for a supply or whether or not it is local manufacturer, and we have to bear that in mind as well, Mr. Speaker, so we are overhauling all of that. We are looking at what is happening in the Province and we are trying to be as sensitive as we can, bearing in mind a number of issues here with respect to local suppliers.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South, a final supplementary.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, price and tenders are a part of the problem but, Mr. Speaker, I had a meeting on Friday with local manufacturers and producers and if they did not need an Ombudsman, they would not have asked for an Ombudsman. If they were getting questions answered from the department, they would not have asked for an Ombudsman.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is now on a supplementary - I ask him to get to his question.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I ask the minister again: Will you put in place an independent Ombudsman to help the concerns of local manufacturers and producers?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MS FOOTE: No, Mr. Speaker.

When the day comes that I am not there to address the concerns of these local manufacturers when they come up, then I should not be there. So I would tell you that my door is open, they can call me at any time to try to deal with those issues.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis, one quick question.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will make a quick question to the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

Mr. Speaker, two years ago, the Member for Harbour Main - Whitbourne presented a report to government with respect to the ATV Regulations and the changes to them. When will the minister introduce those changes and, can he tell us some of the changes that have been proposed?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, we are dealing with the report that was done by the hon. members and we will, in due course, bring forward legislation that will enact the ATV regulations along with snowmobile regulations and off-highway vehicle regulations, all in one act.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

 

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to inform the House that I have for tabling the audited financial statements of the Province of Newfoundland Pool Pension Fund, rather, for the year ending December 31, 1996.

Some points worthy of note include that the pension fund grew by 15.9 per cent during the year, and had investments with a total market value of $1,293,300,000 at December 31, 1996. There were 12,078 pensioners on payroll, having a total cost of $178.7 million annually.

These are the two funds together. The Public Service Pension Plan Fund has a balance of $928.4 million, and there is at this time $364.9 million in the Teachers' Pension Plan.

The other two plans, the Uniformed Services Pension Plan and the MHA Pension Plan, are not separately funded and have no accumulated investment assets.

I would also like to table for this hon. House, the Teachers' Actuarial Report, which is interesting. This one was completed as of August 31, 1996. Devaluation reveals that its total liability for the Teachers' Pension Plan is $1,982,000,000 and, as I said earlier, the total assets are $346 million, leaving an unfunded liability of $1,637,000,000. The ratio of assets to liabilities is therefore 17.5 per cent. It will get worse, Mr. Speaker.

On a combined basis, the 30-and-out plan, which is known as the Teachers' Ancillary Pension Plan, or TAPP, is, in effect, being tapped out very quickly and being replete with funds from the Teachers' Pension Plan, the TPP. These will both be exhausted before the year 2003.

A recurring theme in Actuarial Reports is that as time progresses the period shortens. Several years ago the actuary space on current evidence assumed it would be depleted by the year 2006. The last time I stood in this House it was toward the end of 2004 or early 2005. It has now moved to 2003, less than six years from now - five years almost - a little bit more than five years.

The deficiency payment required in the year 2003 will be $26.5 million. The next year it will be $121.1 million, and in the year 2005 it will be $139.6 million.

The actuaries have changed their assumption. They had assumed that the TAPP, Teachers' Ancillary Pension Plan, would have a take-up rate of 50 per cent. They increased that to 70 per cent. They have now increased it to 90 per cent.

Last year, based on their assumptions, under that plan they expected 208 teachers would go out under that plan. In fact, 416 went out, more than 100 per cent more than the original number expected. It had been assumed that the expected age of retirement would be 52.3 years. It was actually 50.6 years of age.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, I say for the benefit of my hon. friends, during 1996 and 1997 we have been negotiating with the Newfoundland Teachers' Association in efforts to develop a solution, without result. A recent poll of their membership indicated that the NLTA, as a whole, had no mandate to negotiate pensions. Teachers indicated to us strongly that any resolution would have to be undertaken solely by us. That we are considering and assessing.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

Petitions

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to present a petition to the House of Assembly. The petition reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland:

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador have introduced legislation to remove the current restriction on Sunday shopping; and

WHEREAS this legislation, if passed, would have serious consequences for retail and wholesale workers who now count Sundays as guaranteed holidays that they can spend with their families; and whereas we do not need and we do not want the changes that this legislation would cause; wherefore your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to withdraw Bill 48, An Act To Amend The Shops' Closing Act.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday morning this particular piece of legislation was tabled. The response from the public generally speaking has been quick, it has been swift, and the message is clear. When you see Peter O'Brien, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business Owners surveying its members saying that about 77 per cent of its membership does not want to see shops open on Sunday for a number of reasons... Because it will not increase revenue. This is what the business owners and representative of business owners are saying. It will not increase their revenue but will do one thing and one thing only. It will drive up their costs.

When you see individuals representing the Federation of Labour and people involved in the retail sector say clearly that they do not wish to see shops open; when you see people from the Federation of Labour, the impact that will have upon their membership; small store owners in this Province, both in rural and urban Newfoundland, will be dramatically impacted.

Since Friday I've received sixty-one calls on this issue. Beginning Friday afternoon is when I started to catalogue them. One person called and said they were in favour of shops opening on Sunday. On Saturday in The Evening Telegram's editorial they talked about opening up shops on Sunday. Today in the editorial it says it shouldn't be opened all day, only four or five hours of the day. Which is it? I had a call from the Corner Brook Downtown Association that told me it spoke to its individual members who referred it to me.

AN HON. MEMBER: Go on!

MR. E. BYRNE: Fact.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Honest to God. Members in Corner Brook said they do disagree with the shops' closing act, and that the best bet would be to refer their -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: MHAs in Corner Brook. The best person to contact is the critic, they said, for the PC Party. He will get the message out. They disagree with it. Now, for a member from Corner Brook to say that he got one call when I received five today from Corner Brook alone is simply ludicrous. I do not believe it. I say to the member, I do not believe it. There isn't one member over there who can say honestly that they support this piece of legislation. Why the haste? Why the rush? There's no need of it.

Two years ago, one week before the House of Assembly closed in 1995, we were debating this piece of legislation when a former Minister of Employment and Labour brought it forward. What happened to it? It died on the Order Paper. Last spring we were debating this particular piece of legislation again, and what happened to it? Never called it. There were many petitions presented in the House of Assembly, Hansard will clearly show, and the minister of the time, the Minister of Environment and Labour at the time -

AN HON. MEMBER: Chickened out!

MR. E. BYRNE: Chickened out. That is a good way to put it. Offered an olive branch and said: What we will do is we will introduce a pilot project during the tourist season. What happened? The tourist season came and went. No pilot project. Mr. Speaker, the implications -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)?

MR. E. BYRNE: That is the question.

AH HON. MEMBER: Who's pushing this?

MR. E. BYRNE: That is the question I'm going to get to. Who is pushing it? Other provinces, Mr. Speaker, in Atlantic Canada which enjoys close proximity to us, which enjoy similar standards of living, which enjoy similar ways of life, had said no. Nova Scotia and P.E.I. do not have Sunday shopping. New Brunswick is reviewing its policy of allowing Sunday shopping from Labour Day until Christmas, a pilot project.

It will not increase revenue. It will drive up costs, clearly. You have owners of businesses and retail shops - I spoke to one furniture owner this week and he said: I'm at my business fourteen hours a day, six days a week, it will not do anything for me. The thing it will do for me is it will force me to open on Sundays if my competitors open on Sundays. That will drive up my costs, drive up my expenses, and there is only so much money to be passed around. It will not increase revenue. These are business owners saying this.

I talked to the people from Bonavista today, who indicated to me store owners in Bonavista are fearful, are very fearful, and they are just one example -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. E. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. E. BYRNE: I have 100 other petitions I say to the Government House Leader.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to support the petition put forward by my colleague from Kilbride, and to say to the government members that since I have been here in '93, we have not seen an issue that has resulted in the kind of response that this issue has resulted in today. Over the weekend, I can say to hon. members that I received more calls on this issue than I did on Educational Reform for the same period of time.

Mr. Speaker, that will tell you the kind of response. The last call I had last night was at 11.15 from a lady who said: Would you please today, stand in the House and tell the people in the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador that we, the customers, do not want this legislation. Last evening when I was attending a church service, as I walked out through, I was approached by the clergy; I was approached by several people coming out of the church who said: Would you please do what you can to make sure that this piece of legislation does not get approved by the government.

Today, I received calls from people who are working at Canadian Tire, and I have here other petitions and they represent not just the employees at Canadian Tire here in St. John's, but represent the shoppers and the customers who do not want this piece of legislation to be passed by this Legislature. Today I had calls from Gander, calls from Marystown. One businessman said: If I have to open up my business to keep up with those big chains, then, he says, I will have to close up my small business because he said: I just cannot afford to open my store on Sundays but, he said: I may be required in order to keep up with the other stores that are in the area because they are bigger and they can absorb the cost.

Mr. Speaker, we ask the government: Why the haste? Why did we come in here just a few days ago and have this thrust upon us without consultation and here is the government in its red book, in its bible, in its red book talking about consultation, and when we talk about consultation, it is very selective. At certain times they have selective amnesia when it comes to their red book. They preach a gospel and then they go and act as hypocritical as one could when it comes to implementation. If you believe in consultation, then you believe in consultation on this issue. Why aren't you listening to the customers, to the people in the retail business, why are you not out there today conducting public hearings?

I listened to the Member for Humber East shouting across the House as if everybody in his district was in approval of this, you know, the yapper snapper from Humber East, and I say to the member that if he is so sure that he is representing the people in his district therefore he should be honest because I have people in his district who have told me that this is not good for his district either, so I say to the member, he should be standing up today representing the people in his district who are not in favour of this particular piece of legislation, and I say to all hon. members: if you believe in consultation, you went out, and were elected on the red book, that was a policy document, that was the bible, that was what you were supposed to follow and then you said: We are a government who consult with the people on a regular basis.

We had the Minister of Finance go out with his dog and pony show all across the Province and, Mr. Speaker, that was in order to have his Budget done and now we are saying to this government: Here is an issue, if you believe in consultation then do it; if you talk the talk, then walk the walk. In other words, don't preach something and then we will do it when we just want you, which is to our advantage, we will consult, when not to our advantage, we will ram it down the throats of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, we won't give them a chance to respond through the Legislative Review Committee, we won't give them a response to petitions, we will just ram it through but I can tell you right now, on this side of this House, if you want to ram this through, then you better get the Legislative and the Parliamentary Procedures in place because I will tell you what: this is going to be a rough ride.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with some interest that I read in the weekend comments made to one, Mr. Peter O'Brien. I have heard many arguments put forth to advance things, and pros and cons but one of the arguments that he put forth was basically this, that if you open a store on Sunday you destroy rural Newfoundland. Now, Mr. Speaker, you don't have to be a genius to realize - that is made from his office in Halifax. Let me also say this to you, it is the same Mr. Peter O'Brien -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR LANGDON: It was also the same Mr. Peter O'Brien who only a few weeks ago talked about not to implement the report of the WCC, not to give the injured workers their rights due to them. The same guy!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR LANGDON: A lot of validity to that. Mr. Speaker, I am going -

AN HON. MEMBER: Selective memory!

MR LANGDON: Yes, he has very selective memory.

I want to tell the hon. members opposite that I was at home all weekend on purpose. I got one call from a guy in St. John's who complained about it and basically, Mr. Speaker, if you talk to the people that are out there in industry - for example, this morning coming in on a flight with the hon. Member for Baie Verte, how many people objected on the flight to opening on Sunday? Two. Out of how many?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, what we are doing here is we are saying that the consumer in this Province does not have the integrity or the right to decide for himself if he wants to shop or not. Mr. Speaker, we are not telling the stores to open but basically what we are saying is that the consumer has the right to do it. If they don't patronize then the stores will not be opened.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the Orders of the Day be now read.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

 

Orders of the Day

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: I believe that I was standing, sir, before the Government House Leader stood and I was standing to present another petition. I was standing up, sir, waiting. I stood up before the Government House Leader.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair had seen the hon. minister rise first but if hon. members want to revert to petitions, that is up to themselves but the Chair did see the hon. Government House Leader rise and the Chair recognized him and saw him first.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move first reading on Motion No. 1.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act No. 2," carried. (Bill No. 52)

On motion, Bill No. 52 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, before calling any further Orders of the Day, I would move that the House not adjourn at -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House not adjourn - can adjourn at 5:00 p.m. of the calendar time but I would move that it not adjourn at 7:00 p.m. of the calendar or at 5:00 p.m. of the parliamentary time.

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour, `Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Against, `Nay'.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I would call Bill No. 48, "An Act To Amend The Shops' Closing Act No. 2."

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess I will pick up where I left off on Friday. I am with my colleague, the Member for Kilbride. Since this bill was introduced, on Friday more so than ever and again today in my office, I have received numerous phone calls opposed to this particular piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, dead opposed to this particular piece of legislation.

On Saturday I had a call from a store owner who works six days a week and works anywhere from ten to fifteen hours a day. He felt that that was enough time that he had worked, him and his family, and that no way should this particular piece of legislation be passed. That is one man who called me.

I had the opportunity this morning to speak to another individual who is manager of a store, a fairly large store, Mr. Speaker. During the conversation, I said to this individual: How many people who work in your business want this particular bill to be passed? The lady said to me: Absolutely nobody. She said: We will employ no more people. The sales that we make in six days we will now do in seven. If anything, at the end of the day it will cost us money to operate our particular business. That was another individual.

Yesterday afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege to attend a Santa Claus Parade in my district and a young man who was there came up to me during a break and said to me: Bob, saving me the trouble of calling you, I will tell you now that I am opposed to this particular bill. He is a young man with a family, Mr. Speaker, who works shift work and who certainly resents the fact that his day may be very well taken away from him, that day, of course, Mr. Speaker, being his Sunday which is the only day in his work schedule that he has the right and the opportunity to spend with his family.

Again, Mr. Speaker, why the rush for this particular piece of business, I have no idea. I say, Mr. Speaker, that today was certainly not the last of petitions in this House concerning this matter. I received a visit today from union people in this Province who told me, as well, that they were against this particular piece of legislation. So, why the rush, Mr. Speaker? Where did this bill come from again all of the sudden? Just bang-o and the bill drops out of thin air and appears here in the House of Assembly. Where did it come from again? This now makes the third time that this bill has been introduced in this House; the third time in two years. Why, Mr. Speaker? Who is driving it? Because the business community in this Province is not driving it, the small store owners in this Province are not driving it, certainly the workers in this Province, Mr. Speaker, are not driving this legislation, and the public are not driving this legislation. So, where is it coming from? Where is it coming from, Mr. Speaker? I would really like to know. I would really like to know why, at the eleventh hour, this thing gets introduced again.

One of the people I spoke to this morning was a manager of a store, manager of a fairly large store, who is manager for a business which is outside of this Province, who said to me: Bob, I have talked to my supervisor on the Mainland, they do not want this store open on Sunday. They do not want this store open on Sunday.

MR. MERCER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Member for Humber East: When he is ready, he can get out of his chair and he can praise up this bill all he wants. He can get up and he can talk in favour of this bill, if he is in favour, or he can sit there as he usually does and say nothing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: We will see how the back bencher gets on. We will see if he gets up. We will see if he has the gumption, Mr. Speaker, to get out of his chair. For the public record, we will see if he can come out of his chair. We will see if he comes out in support of it or against it. That is certainly his right to get up either for or against the bill and I would certainly trust that he would be up against it, but that is his decision and certainly that is his right and I would never deny him that right.

Again, where does this bill come from? Why the rush all of a sudden to get this bill through now at this particular time? There were lots of times earlier on in this session when a lot of the bills that came up were more housecleaning than anything else. Why didn't this bill come forward - does the Government House Leader think that at the eleventh hour we will cave in because he has some of his members over there who have already been on this side asking us to get out of here so they can all go home. If that is what he thinks, Mr. Speaker, he is more than wrong, I can assure him of that, because we are certainly not caving in to this particular issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader on a point of order.

MR. TULK: On a point of order, I want to assure the hon. gentleman that I do not believe that he is eager to get out of here at all. It is just we have some things that we have to get done.

MR. J. BYRNE: No point of order, sit down, as usual.

MR. SPEAKER: No point of order.

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So, again I say to the Government House Leader, we have certainly had visits from some of his colleagues telling us that they would like to get out of here and they would like to get out of here in a hurry, but anyway that is his problem, not mine.

So, again I say, Mr. Speaker, this bill of course will also hurt small businesses in this Province and there are other provinces, Mr. Speaker, Nova Scotia, PEI, who don't have Sunday shopping. It is a way of life in this Province, I say. It is the only day that people in Newfoundland and Labrador are sure they are going to be off and all of a sudden, regardless - somebody must be driving his bus, Mr. Speaker, and it must be somebody with a good cheque book or with a good something who is driving this. It must be something because all of a sudden we have to get this particular bill passed, we have to ram it through the House of Assembly and we have to enact it into law. As I said, Mr. Speaker, my phone keeps ringing and ringing and ringing both in my office and at home and it continued all weekend and it still continues. The next call that I get which says to me: stand up in the House and support this particular piece of legislation will be the first one. It will be the first call that I got to support this legislation.

I have no idea, again why it comes here today. As my colleague said there certainly would be churches and religious groups that were against it. I have also had calls from people in that area who have said to me: oppose this bill, so that we can still enjoy the right to be off on Sundays'.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, what it is going to do to wages? Will it increase wages? Will it drive wages back down? Again, one of the stores that I spoke to, and a fairly large chain store I might add today, told me that it will not create one single new job in their industry. Not one single new job will it create. If anything it will make sure that some of these jobs will probably result in lay-offs especially people that are the higher paid ones and a lot of it will be farmed out to part-time workers in this Province. So, it will be farmed out - we will probably see full-time workers losing their jobs.

There are families in this Province, Mr. Speaker, because both parents are working, who rely on Sunday as the only day of the week that they can spend with their families. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, we in here, if somebody told us we had to be here every single Sunday, I wonder how we would feel? I do not think we would want to be here, Mr. Speaker. I am sure we would not want to be here every Sunday - if Sunday-in, Sunday-out, this is where we had to spend our time.

I think you would soon find members on both sides of the House who would be jumping up and down saying that is enough of this. We would not want to spend very much time in this place on Sundays. Not one of us on either side of this House, I say, would want to spend one minute in here on Sundays. I know I certainly wouldn't, I know my colleagues wouldn't, and I am sure members opposite wouldn't. Because again, Sunday is not only a time we take for our families, but in our business, Sunday is a time we take as well to do a fair amount of our work.

Again, what will the hours of the day be for some of these employees? Will we open from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., as some of them do? Will we open at 8:00 a.m. and will we work twenty-four hours a day, as some of them do now? One large chain closes at midnight. Does that mean if we change this legislation that it will be open twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, right throughout the whole year? I wonder.

I wonder what the employees in those businesses will say, or would say, if we told them tomorrow morning that all of a sudden their lifestyles will change. We are going to change all their working hours and we are going to say to these people: You can have a day off on Monday, and maybe you can be off again on Thursday. To a man and his wife who both work, with children, Sunday, which is when their children are out of school, or Saturdays, sometimes, when their children are out of school, I do not believe that it would sit very well, and certainly would not augur very well for family life in this Province.

At least it is one day; Sunday is the one day of the week when a lot of people - and in families where today we have to have two people working, a lot of them just to survive. I wonder if we did this - or if in another case where we had a man and a wife both working, and one was off Monday and Wednesday and the other was off Thursday and Sunday, what impact would that have on family life? Again, I say, it would have a great impact on Sunday. It would certainly have a great impact on the way of living for the family.

Again I say this is wrong. It certainly is wrong and should never be passed through this House. I think it will hurt many workers in the retail -

MR. SPEAKER (Penney): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. FRENCH: By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member does not have leave.

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on Bill 48, a bill once again before this House to permit, perhaps enforce, Sunday shopping on the shopkeepers and workers of this Province - to force it on them. It is written in terms of `allow Sunday shopping', but the consequence of it would be to force workers and, through competitive means, force shopkeepers and retailers to open their businesses on Sunday.

The people of Newfoundland are not in favour of this. The retail workers are not in favour of it. I just met a woman outside the House who is now sitting in the gallery. She tells me she works at Canadian Tire. When asked what the people at Canadian Tire felt about this, she said: All of them are opposed to it. We have been sending faxes to the Premier's Office. Other stores are doing the same thing. Faxes upon faxes, and faxes with signatures on them, sent to the Premier's office - they have not been tabled here in the House yet - complaining about the introduction of this bill, complaining about the concept of Sunday shopping, recognizing that the consequence of this legislation would be that these workers would be forced to work on Sunday.

Because we live in a rather competitive society where, if one store or one competitor offers their service on Sunday, the others are forced to do the same thing. The only proper way to curb this problem is to maintain the status quo with respect to Sunday shopping.

There seems to be an awful lot of people trying to figure out where this is coming from. No one seems to know. The minister, himself, does not seem to know. He was on the radio the other morning and he was asked by the interviewer, Jim Brown on CBC, who did he consult with when he was deciding to bring this bill forth? The answer was, `nobody'. He consulted with nobody. And he offered some rather weak ideological argument that says: Well, you know, the way we see it, this is just another aspect of government controlling and imposing its will on business, and business should be free to do what it wants. The Minister of Labour is saying, we do not want to tell businesses how they should operate.

Mr. Speaker, I object to that. We tell businesses how to operate all the time. He also happens to be the minister responsible for the environment. They are not going to tell businesses how to operate? Not going to control the excesses of business? Not going to maintain strong labour standards and labour laws? Not going to have environmental controls that are satisfactory to the environment and to the future generations of this Province? Not going to have occupational health and safety regulations enforced to the hilt? Not going to control business? - some ideological motive. With whom did he consult? - he was asked. Nobody! And that is pretty clear from the reaction since then.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Get to the point, the hon. member says. The point - who did he consult? Nobody!

AN HON. MEMBER: Nobody.

MR. HARRIS: And what has he found out after he said that? The people that he should have consulted do not want it. That is what he found out since he made that statement, that the people he should have consulted do not want it to be implemented.

Does the Federation of Labour, representing some 40,000 workers in the Province, want it? No. Does the Federation of Independent Business, Peter O'Brien is the Executive (inaudible), want it, representing 2,000 businessmen? No, 10 per cent of them but not the other 90 per cent.

So the business people do not want it, the small business people do not want it, the employees do not want it. The employees are sending faxes to the Premier's Office and the Leader of the Opposition and to members here. They do not want it. The people who are telephoning hon. members on both sides of the House ever since this came out do not want it. The storekeepers and the shopkeepers in Corner Brook have spoken out strongly. Mr. Fred Alteen spoke on the weekend. He thinks it is a `townie' plot.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. HARRIS: They think, out on the West Coast, that it is a `townie' plot. They said, "If the `townies' want it, let them have it."

MR. J. BYRNE: A `townie' or a Tommy?

MR. HARRIS: A `townie' plot - `townie'. That is what they think out on the West Coast. They said: Well, if St. John's wants to make fools of themselves and force them all to work on Sunday, let them do it.

AN HON. MEMBER: `Jack', John Murphy was wrong about you. You are a very entertaining speaker. You are not a boring speaker.

MR. HARRIS: I thank the hon. member for his compliment.

I say, Mr. Speaker, this is not a `townie' plot. I can assure the people of Corner Brook of that. This is not a `townie' plot. There may be some storekeepers in St. John's who want it to happen. There may be, in fact, two or three, but we do not know who they are; and the minister doesn't know who they are because he has not consulted, so he says. So no one knows who is in favour of this, except some general, ideological approach: Well, we do not want to exercise any control over business. It is all part of deregulation.

What goes next, labour standards? What goes next, environmental regulations? What goes next, let them all pay no taxes? Let them go do what they want?

This seems to be the direction in which this minister and this government is heading with this regulation, and we will do this in such as way that it is brought in at Christmas time while all of the storekeepers, while all of the employees, are working overtime. All of the shopkeepers are concerned about the expenses. Their electricity is going up; their electrical costs are going up; their taxes are going up; their assessments are going up; thanks to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, their municipal taxes are going to be going up; their costs are going up; their employee costs are going up, we hope - or at least I hope and the employees hope - and what is happening? Now they are going to be forced to open another day and have additional costs. Spread out their overhead over another day. Turn on the lights full blast. Turn on the heat full blast to be open another day and maintain extra staff. For what, Mr. Speaker? Are there more dollars to be spent? No, Mr. Speaker, there are less dollars to be spent. We see it every day. The governments, federal and provincial, are taking money out of the economy. They are not putting it in, taking money out.

Just yesterday on the weekend, `privatization in Labrador to cost 200 jobs. $22 million being saved by the Government of Canada.' Well what does that mean, Mr. Speaker? That means there are $22 million per year less going into the economy of Happy Valley - Goose Bay; $22 million per year less being spent in the stores and now the stores are going to be open seven days instead of six.

What do we have, Mr. Speaker? Just in the last twenty-four hours the shut down of Marine Atlantic responsibility for ferry service in Labrador. Another 200 jobs gone out of the CN Marine. Some of them will be picked up no doubt but gone out of CN Marine, Mr. Speaker, and money gone out of the economy. So what is happening -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The federal government took $7 billion out of transfer payments. Several hundred million coming into this Province every year, Mr. Speaker, gone. Lay-offs in the public sector, lay-offs in hospital health care, lay-offs in the teaching profession, lay-offs in the public service. Less money being spent and now, Mr. Speaker, the storekeepers and the shopkeepers who -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) close all the schools too.

MR. HARRIS: Close the schools too, yes. They want to close the schools now and lay-offs in the school system - $25 million - speaking of schools, the Member for Twillingate wants to talk about closing the schools. His government, in the last five years, has taken $25 million a year out of public post-secondary education, $25 million. Almost one-third of the provincial dollars that went into post-secondary education, for non-university post-secondary education, removed, Mr. Speaker, ripped out of the system. Twenty-five million per year taken out of provincial government support for post-secondary private education. So there is less money available to be spent, less disposal income people have, less opportunity to go to the stores and buy goods.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is why the storekeepers, the business people are opposed to this because it does not do them any good. We are not on the border of the United States where all these people are going to pour over the border on Sunday to spend their dollars. That is not going to happen here. There is no advantage to that, Mr. Speaker, no advantage to that at all. What are we going to have? The shopping malls will be open on Sunday. Well do you know what that will mean, Mr. Speaker? And I don't know if the minister knows this, perhaps the minister doesn't, but the leases - maybe the minister should be told about what's in the leases at shopping malls. In leases in shopping malls, Mr. Speaker, there is a requirement for every store to be open when the mall is open. So this is not permissive. If I have, or the minister or the Government House Leader has a store or shop in the mall, a gift store in the mall and it is not economical for them to be open on Sunday, if the mall is open, if they change as a result of this legislation then every single store in that mall has to be open or else they are in breach of their lease. So the hours at the mall are open –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Never mind now. We got the member's goat over there now. He wants to attack law firms. Well just name them, we'll help you. You name the ones you want to attack.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yours, Jack.

MR. HARRIS: I don't have one. I resigned.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about your wife?

MR. HARRIS: She doesn't have one either.

Mr. Speaker, what about the shopkeepers? What about the independent businessmen who - 90 per cent of whom - oppose this type of legislation? What about those who have leases in shopping malls? We have shopping malls all over the Province, Mr. Speaker. Now there is a clause in the lease which says that when a shopping mall is open they have to be open.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that right?

MR. HARRIS: Absolutely. Now why would that be, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, I didn't know that.

MR. HARRIS: Well that is good for business. You can't have a shopping mall open, some shops open and some shops closed. They want to advertise them all. So it is in their lease, they have to open. Now the minister goes on to say we are not forcing people to open. We are only saying it is up to them. If they want to open then we are giving them the right to open. Well that just does not happen to be the case, Mr. Speaker. The minister may have found that out if he had in fact consulted but he says - and I admire him for his honesty - he said on public radio, live the other morning when he was asked by Jim Brown, the Premier's friend, the Premier's favourite interviewer, on the Premier's favourite show, the Morning Show on CBC, asked the Minister of Environment and Labour, asked him who he had consulted with, on this issue? And he said: Nobody -nobody.

MR. J. BYRNE: He went to the mountain.

MR. HARRIS: He might have gone to the same mountain that the Premier went to when he decided to run for public office in Newfoundland and come back from Ottawa to grace us with his presence. He might have consulted the same mountain; he did not consult any people though, because if he had consulted the people he would have been told point blank, square, not by some public opinion poll which may have been done. We do not know the questions that were asked, we do not know anything about that poll. What we do know about that poll is that it was 58 per cent in favour and so many per cent against, 42 per cent against. But I think there was a 6.8 per cent or a 7 per cent error rate so it was never a big sample. I know it was never a big sample and I do not know if it were just townies now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Ten people.

MR. HARRIS: Two hundred people. They might have only asked townies and that might be the skew, that might be the problem; that might be why the people out on the West Coast think this is a townie plot, so this may have only been a survey of St. John's residents and was published in The Evening Telegram, but it was one of the highest error rates I have ever seen on a survey that has been published on public opinion in this Province. Now I wonder why - well, I wonder why it was ever published, Mr. Speaker? Who would publish such a question unless they were trying to influence public opinion, not find out what it was but influence it? A 6.8 per cent error rate, they are right within 6.8 or seven percentage points nineteen times out of twenty. So, Mr. Speaker, even on the 58 per cent, that could be 51 per cent, according to them it could be sixty-four or it could be sixty-six and they are only right nineteen times out of twenty.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I think we have heard more than twenty or thirty surveys in the last while and maybe, this is the one that is way out. I know of one myself back in September that seemed to be way out; the end result certainly was way out from what I was told that was the result a month before, so polls can be wrong. They can be wrong, Mr. Speaker, so I do not think we should take that to the bank at all. I would not take that to the bank at all. I would not stand up here in this House and say: Well, I did not consult anybody but I saw a survey that I liked.

MR. FITZGERALD: It was piggy-backed on another poll.

MR. HARRIS: It was piggy-backed on another poll that is only right nineteen times out of twenty and even then, only within six or seven percentage points. I have never seen a survey published like that before.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) over 300 Newfoundlanders.

MR. HARRIS: Two hundred, and 21 per cent of them did not know what it was all about, they did not understand the issue. I do not know whom they talked to, to find that out. So, Mr. Speaker, whom did they consult? Nobody! If they had consulted, what would they have found out? They would have found out that the employees do not want it, that the retail trade does not want it. There are some stores who want it; there are some boutiques that want it; Jim Baird wants it -

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. HARRIS: Jim Baird, that well-known Liberal, the well-known Liberal commentator, former candidate for the Liberal Party in St. John's East, a commentator for the Liberal Party -

MR. J. BYRNE: What did he say?

MR. HARRIS: He said, he is in favour of it. He said he thought it was a wonderful idea and he said the existing law was unenforceable anyway because he has been breaking it all the time and they tried to get him twice and never got him.

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, should they not change the law and make it harder on him?

MR. HARRIS: So is that why we should change it, because they cannot even get their Liberal commentators, when they are openly breaking the law? When they claim to be openly breaking the law, defying the law and the Minister of Justice cannot get him before the court, cannot get him on breaking the law.

MR. J. BYRNE: How come the Minister of Justice does not know that?

MR. HARRIS: Is the answer to that: let us change the law, because we cannot enforce it against our own Liberals?

MR. J. BYRNE: Too much dust on it. Too much dust, you do not know who is there.

MR. HARRIS: Now, Mr. Speaker, maybe that was part of the consultation, listening to Jim Baird complain about how the minister cannot get him. They were getting so embarrassed because they could not even successfully prosecute Jim Baird.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, they cannot seem to successfully prosecute him so maybe that is why they are doing it. I say to the Government House Leader, can you take a joke?

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, this legislation, I think, is letting the cat out of the bag on one other thing.

MR. J. BYRNE: What is that?

MR. HARRIS: Well, Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a game plan here that does not involve consulting the people of the Province.

MR. J. BYRNE: That is not unusual.

MR. HARRIS: Well, I do not know, I mean there were several attempts in the past. Last spring he was going to call it, he was on the verge of calling it, and he was ready to call it, the last day: Let us put this through now boys, for the Cabot celebration; let us have the shops open for the summertime. I know the bill says more then that, the bill says, let her go.

MR. J. BYRNE: Let her slide.

MR. HARRIS: The bill says, let her go, but listen; I know there is going to be controversy, let us just do it on a trial basis for the tourist season. Now, the only problem with the tourist season, according to the minister, was the tourist season went from June to December. I was scratching myself, I said, boy, this must be some tourist season we are going to have, a June to December tourist season. We will open it and then we will see how it works out.

MR. J. BYRNE: All in favour, I suppose.

MR. HARRIS: Well, that was the way that they hoped they could put it in, get the Opposition to agree for the summer.

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I did not, they did.

MR. TULK: They agreed last spring, did they not? `Jack', tell the truth now.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, we did not.

MR. HARRIS: I tell you one thing, I will let them speak for themselves, but I tell you, this hon. member -

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, there is no point of order, sit him down before he opens his mouth.

MR. SPEAKER (M. Penney): The hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. TULK: I have to inform the hon. gentleman that he was right, last Spring the Official Opposition agreed to put this bill - whip her through and the only gentleman who was against it was the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, to the point of order.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is trying to hear what the hon. the Opposition House Leader is trying to say.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, to quote Winston Churchill, the Government House Leader is a `consistent and persistent purveyor of terminological inexactitudes'.

MR. SHELLEY: Whatever that is is wrong.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I refrain from using unparliamentary language, but as Churchill said, it is quite okay to say to another hon. member that he is a purveyor of terminological inexactitudes, and that is exactly my response to the Government House Leader, in other words you are wrong.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, to the point of order.

MR. TULK: I was so happy to the see the hon. gentleman do his gymnastics to get down to his seat, Mr. Speaker, and I am so happy to now know that the hon. gentleman has learned something, he read Churchill, how good. You could have said it a lot simpler.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did not join in on the point of order, but I just want to say - the Official Opposition can speak for themselves - but I want to say one thing, that this member opposed and would oppose and did oppose any version of Sunday shopping. And I recognize the ploy last June as being a back door to getting the bill that they are putting before the House now. I opposed it absolutely, and I am glad that the Official Opposition and I agree on Bill 48 now before the House, because they oppose it, too.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I think, Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader is taking advantage of my hardness of hearing and trying to get me on the go, trying to get my goat.

The issue before the House really is one that we have had to deal with before, and we have had to deal with it on occasions like this: the day before the House closes, a couple of days before the House is supposed to close, like now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: We may not. No, we may have to hoist it for six months or a year or two. We might just not bother. When the faxes keep coming in and the petitions keep coming in and the public keeps saying: Listen, I thought government was supposed to respond to the people, not order them around. Maybe when the government says: Look, I think we maybe should listen to the people, maybe we should not be ordering them around. Maybe we should consult, maybe we should have a committee, maybe we should see whether people really want this or not.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I think we should just withdraw the bill. I think the minister should give it up. There is a very simple procedure, and the minister has it available to him, under Standing Order 54 of the rules of the House. Put it out to a committee. Let a legislative committee consider this. Let them hold hearings, see what people think. Do not pack the committee with Tories or Liberals. You cannot very well pack it with New Democrats; unless you were going to wait until the next election. Then, Mr. Speaker, you would have no trouble packing the committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Let us just wait until that Party has a new leader. There will be lots of people over here when that Party has a new leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who do you think it is going to be, `Jack'?

MR. HARRIS: I am not going to comment on that. I am very concerned; I am focused on Bill 48. I am not going to be distracted, Mr. Speaker. In fact, you know something else? I think Bill 48 is a distraction. It is an attempt by government to try to save the bacon of the Ministers of Education, Human Resources and Employment, and Health, all of whom in their departments have trouble. They have trouble. That is the whole purpose of this.

They bring it up every year; last year, last spring, this Christmas. Get everybody all excited. All the businesspeople out there saying: What are they doing? We are here busy trying to run our shops, and now they want us to try to lobby the government? We cannot do it. Everybody is up in arms, and they love it. Now, next week, when we are here next Wednesday or Thursday, they will say: Maybe we had better pull in our horns.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Next Wednesday or Thursday, Mr. Speaker: Maybe we had better pull in our horns; maybe we have gone too far. Maybe the will of the people is bouncing back at us and we have to have some little demonstration of democracy just to keep them from beating down the doors - a little demonstration of democracy. We have listened. I raise my hands like this. The Premier will be in next week, waving his hands: We have listened, the people have spoken, I have gotten all these faxes, and I think the Minister of Environment and Labour has gone too far. I am going to ask him to withdraw the bill.

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Well, look at what happened to the Minister of Justice only last week. Only last week the Minister of Justice said, `Oh, no, I don't think we need public hearings on this issue of guns'. At the same time, of course, the Premier was doing an interview and he was saying, `I don't have any problem with public hearings'. The next day the minister says, `I think we will have public hearings'. And I think that might happen here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The Minister of Justice last week, `I don't think we need any hearings on guns for police'. The Member for St. John's East said, `There will be no guns without hearings!' He was adamant, `There will be no guns without hearings!'

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: No, I don't think so.

It just happened that at the same time the Minister of Justice was saying, `I don't think we are going to have any hearings,' the Premier was saying, `I think it is a good idea'. The next day the Minister of Justice, all of a sudden, saw the light. He was saved. All of a sudden he saw the light. The Minister of Justice saw the light. `I think public consultation will be a good idea; let's have a Select Committee'.

Now I guess that is what the Minister of Environment and Labour will discover. He will discover, after a few more days of being battered in the media... Even The Evening Telegram editorialist, Mr. Fenwick, has changed his tune on it in the last two or three days.

Mr. Speaker, we are opening the door. We are opening it to The Evening Telegram editorialists. They have changed their tune; and by next Tuesday or Wednesday the public will be so outraged that government will be ready to offer a peace offering and we will have an announcement that it is going to go to committee under Order 54, a Select Committee of the House. We are going to consider; we are going to consult.

I have to congratulate the Minister of Environment and Labour. He was honest.

MR. J. BYRNE: Who?

MR. HARRIS: The Minister of Environment and Labour was honest. When he was asked who he had consulted with, he said, `nobody', not one soul.

MR. J. BYRNE: Did he say who told him to do it?

MR. HARRIS: He didn't say who told him to do it. He didn't say Wally Mart wanted it. He didn't say Wonderland (inaudible) Night wanted it, or Jim Baird or anybody.

MR. J. BYRNE: Did he say the Premier wanted it?

MR. HARRIS: He didn't say the Premier wanted it.

MR. J. BYRNE: No?

MR. HARRIS: He didn't say Jim Baird wanted it. He didn't say that the gift stores wanted it. He said that the government wanted to deregulate business.

Mr. Speaker, I think that is a dangerous notion, to deregulate business. For a Minister of Environment and Labour to have that attitude toward business, business that he is trying to regulate, that he is empowered, that he is required, to regulate in areas of labour standards, in the areas of occupational health and safety, in the areas of environmental compliance. All of these responsibilities fall upon the minister.

I know he is a new minister, and he may be in a position where someone tells him that he has to do this and he goes ahead and does it, and is not yet to the point of saying: No, I don't think I should do that, Premier, until I consult.

Mr. Speaker, if this -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to this particular motion, or particular bill, that is before the Legislature, Bill 48.

Mr. Speaker, I was interested in reading from the red book for a little bit because I just happen to have it here. I opened it up to the first page and it is a letter from the Premier, Brian Tobin, Leader of the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador. I want to read from the fourth paragraph - page 1, paragraph number 4. It reads: A key element of our platform is partnership. We are committed to an open, ongoing process of dialogue and discussion in decision-making."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. H. HODDER: Shall I read that again? Page (i) of the Ready for a Better Tomorrow: Platform of the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador, signed by the Premier, Brian Tobin, Leader of the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador, paragraph number four. I will just read part of the paragraph: "We are committed to an open, ongoing-process of dialogue and discussion in decision-making."

Then I looked over to the empty pages, and of course Ready for a Better Tomorrow starts off with two blank pages, which in itself is symbolic. Then we went to the third page. That is blank too. Then we have the Table of Contents. I started flicking through here. I wanted to find out where are we going to have initiatives that would include Sunday shopping?

I went from the section called New Wealth from the Land and from the Sea; I went over here to Building the New Economy on page 39. I flicked to page 39. On page 39 it tells you about building a new economy, and I read through that. It starts off with a blank page again. Then, Mr. Speaker, I read through here about Advanced Technologies, read through all of that, and I found nothing here that would come close to giving this government a mandate to introduce Sunday shopping.

Then I flicked through and said: No, I must be gone to the wrong section. It must be under the section called Revitalizing our Rural Communities. I flicked to page 53 where it talks about revitalizing our rural communities. Remember what the executive director of the Federation of Independent Businessmen said. He said it would destroy rural Newfoundland if Sunday shopping was brought in. Under the section - again it starts off with a blank page - called Revitalizing our Rural Communities, I said: This must be the page. Again I read through here: A New Department of Rural Renewal and Economic Development. Nothing in there on it. I read through stuff on the EDGE legislation. Nothing there on it. I read through the section here again about consultation. Nothing here on that.

In the section that is called: Revitalizing our Rural Communities there is nothing here. Mr. O'Brien says in his statement, speaking on behalf of the rural independent businesses of Newfoundland and Labrador, that this proposal for Sunday shopping would be detrimental, would destroy, would have a tremendous negative impact on small businesses in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Here you have a government that if this was going to be such a great thing, and a party that got elected on the basis of Ready for a Better Tomorrow, if this is going to be such a wonderful thing, why didn't somebody writing policy for the Liberal Party in the hope it would become the government go and include something on that?

Then I said no, I still must be in the wrong section. Then I went to the section called Integration of Economic and Social Policy. That is on page 61, for the benefit of my friend the Member for Humber East, who of course I know reads this book as if it were the Bible on a regular basis. Of course, he is very disappointed in it, because there are many admissions here of sins of omission. In this particular case, if we look at the section on page 61 called Integration of Economic and Social Policy... Again it starts off with a blank page, as do most of the Liberal policy departments. They begin with nothing and just the phrase "Ready for a Better Tomorrow." Write your own notes here, I guess. This must be the page where the members would write the policy in after they had gotten elected, because there is a whole blank page here. Just in case you needed something, this must be where the policy on shop closing got written in in invisible ink. Economic and Social Policy and I never found anything here, the Strategic Social Plan, is it true that the social plan for this Province includes Sunday shopping?

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is all the length of time I could ever hold that book because this book is not what it pretends to be, it does not make anybody ready for a better tomorrow, particularly those in rural Newfoundland. So I am hoping of course, that later on in the year, when we have this famous update which is printed at taxpayers' expense that that might include an update saying: we are going to get you to pay for Liberal propaganda which we did last year. The Liberal Government put up this famous update which was sent out to certain places in Newfoundland and Labrador, paid for by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and sent out to these people as a propaganda booklet. This year of course, we know that it will go out and will include probably - remember how we talked to you about consultation and dialogue, ongoing processes, and then we ended up not telling you about Sunday shopping but that is now going to be a fact of life in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, in the last forty-eight hours - the last seventy-two hours since Friday, we have received many, many calls. On my desk here is just a list of the petitions which have come in just this afternoon, page after page after page, and my colleague from Conception Bay South has over there, a file which is now into dozens and dozens of pages of petitions and some of them, I say to the Member for Topsail, are signed by people in Topsail who are very upset. Some of them are signed by people all over the Province; they have been faxed in from Gander.

Let me tell you where some of these are coming from today, just to let you know. This one is from Canadian Tire shoppers in the St. John's area, they have been faxed in from Corner Brook, and I will tell you what: It is the people in Corner Brook who are most upset - Torngat Mountains - people in Corner Brook are so upset, they are saying: where did the Minister of Finance get the idea that Sunday shopping was such a great idea? In fact, what they are saying is that the Minister of Finance is out to lunch, because what they are saying to us is that the people in Corner Brook do not want Sunday shopping, that is what the petitioners are saying. They signed their names to it, and with these few comments, Mr. Speaker, I think we have agreed to recess until seven?

MR. J. BYRNE: Adjourn the debate because he is going to come back and pull a fast one.

MR. H. HODDER: We are recessing at seven by agreement, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER (D. Oldford): We will recess and be back at seven.


 

 

December 15, 1997         HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS       Vol. XLIII  No. 51A


[Continuation of Sitting]

MR. SPEAKER (D. Oldford): Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Would the record show that I am suspicious when I am being applauded by the Minister of Justice - I know automatically I am on the wrong track. When the Minister of Justice is thumping his desk I have great cause for concern, I say to the hon. minister.

However, we are back here tonight to talk about this bill - Bill 48. Mr. Speaker, before we recessed for the supper break I was reminding members of the statements made in the Red Book. I want to tell them that I have now discarded the Red Book. I have now joined all the Liberals of Newfoundland and Labrador and I have now officially discarded the Red Book because I find that the Liberals did not have any use for it. They used it to get elected. It was full of empty promises. It talked about consultation and perhaps I am the last one in this House to discard my Red Book because all the Liberals have discarded it a long time ago. They have forgotten about what it contains because in the very first preamble, the Premier gave commitment for consultation and obviously, of course, he has discarded it a long time ago as well.

One of the things that was said to me today was of some interest. Someone called my office and said, `I want to tell you that we are against this proposal for Sunday shopping.' Then they said, `I wonder, if the government is pushing this now, so late in the legislative autumn session, than what is the Premier up to? What is the agenda here? What really is happening? What really are they trying to cover up now?' I did not want to engage in that conversation but it kind of stayed in my mind. I had to ask myself: What is really happening? What is happening in the inner circle over there, that we would be forced, at this late stage in the legislative agenda, in the autumn session of 1997, when we have had Mickey Mouse legislation in some cases - not in all cases, but in some cases - minor amendments for weeks and weeks, and now here we are in the final weeks, some people think, of this session, it is drawing down to be near the final week anyway, because 1997 is going to run out in another two weeks. We know there is a good chance we will not be here on Christmas Day.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why not?

MR. H. HODDER: I prefer to have Christmas Day off, however, if there is turkey on the table, it will be a Liberal turkey. It will have a red label on it.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Therefore, I say to the Government House Leader, when we come back here on Christmas Day there will be a red Liberal turkey, and knowing the wealth of the government, it will have all the trimmings. I just want to let you know that with the wide selection we have over here, a great number of turkeys to choose from, that we can certainly pick and choose but then again, we prefer not to do our shopping on Sunday because we do not like picking out our turkeys on Sunday.

So we just say to hon. members opposite that people are asking: `What is the Premier up to now?' They are asking: `What really is happening in here?' Is this what we are doing here today to deflect from the paralegal institute? Is that what we are doing here? Are we here engaging in this debate because we do not want the Minister of Education to be accountable in the House of Assembly? Is that what we are doing? Is that what this is all about?

Are we doing this because we do not want to have questions about rural Newfoundland and the failure of this government to re-invigorate, as it says in that book that I will not read anymore; it goes on about the re-invigorating of rural Newfoundland. Is it because they do not want to say to the people of Newfoundland on their second anniversary, almost two years since we got the mandate, we have been dismal, absolute, complete failures and we do not want to put that in our Red Book update when we get the taxpayers to pay for it in the new year. We want to put in something that will deflect from that. This whole debate is about deflection, it is all about a different agenda, and all the people want to know is: What is the agenda? Because this debate is not about the Shops' Closing Act.

In fact, last year, the Premier went down to the hospital and talked to two seniors down there - both of whom were related to Cabinet ministers, I am told - and he said with some frustration somebody was going to close down the gift shop; and he came back and said: I want you to know - now, this has been told on the CBC Morning Show - I want you to know that before this day is out, I am going to change that. Of course, I made note of that. I waited a couple of days and then I called up to the legislative people and asked: Has the Premier put hospital gift shops on the list of exclusions under the Shops' Closing Act? `No'. I waited for a month and then I called up again and asked: Has the Premier, by regulation, now put hospital gift shops under the list of shops permitted to be open in hospitals? I was told: `no, no.'

The Premier said on CBC Radio: I am going to do this, by regulation, before this day is out. Now, what really happened is this: The Premier, wanting to make a good-news announcement, knew all about this, he knew all about the situation and it was a set-up to create a good-news announcement. That is all it was. In fact, the truth of it is, that six months later, the regulation about the exclusion of hospital gift shops under the Act, still has not been put in there.

So we are saying now that the Premier announcing that it will be done in one day - `In one day,' he said, `I am going to change that,' and of course, all that big announcement last year was all about: we have to do something to create a good-news announcement as, of course, we had just recently, when the Minister of Mines and Energy announced that he had discovered a forty-two-year old press statement from Labrador which said that they had found more iron ore down there.

So we are asking the government over there: What is the agenda here? The agenda is not likely to be shops closing, that is not the agenda. There is something happening, we do not know for sure yet, we have our suspicions, we know that the Minister of Education does not want to deal with the paralegals, therefore, we want to know: What is the real agenda?

Now, Mr. Speaker, we question the haste here. Last year, we had some comments on this and I have about seventy-five or eighty pages that we have done and researched here on this topic, but I doubt if in my allocation I am going to get beyond page one, because I do get interrupted from time to time by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask you and this House: Why the haste? In other words, why have we not availed of the consultation process? Where is the commitment to a legislation review process?

When Clyde Wells was Premier - he came here in 1989 - he said: We are going to have a process sending all major legislation to a legislation review, and people said: You know, that is not a bad idea. Many people in the Province applauded that and said it was a good idea. However, very soon after they got into office, even in the Wells days, there was an element of amnesia, forgetfulness, omission, error. There were various ways of circumventing the consultation process, and therefore, that happened.

The government said: We are going to have consultation when it suits us. When we go out and know what the answer is going to be, if it suits us we are going to have consultation. When we know in advance that the answers might not be what we want, or what we expect, then we are not going to participate at all in the consultation process.

We say to the Member for Humber East, who is not in his seat but is yapping away over there on cue - of course, you know, he flaps like a little seal flipper. Every once in a while here he waves his flippers when he is told to, in support of the Premier. We expect him to wave his flippers from time to time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to all hon. members that we want to know from the government: Why are you pushing this right now? Then we want answers. When you have the Canadian Federation of Independent Business saying that 77 per cent of the members contacted by them oppose the changes to Sunday shopping... Now, 73 per cent was enough support to change the Constitution of Canada, and I agreed with changing the Constitution of Canada on the education reform process. I thought it was a wonderful thing. Here we have 77 per cent of the independent businesses in this Province saying: We oppose this particular change.

The government, it is no good to have ears if you cannot hear. The government is simply here. It is deaf and it has no interest in listening to what people are saying.

Many rural firms, I should point out to hon. members, are concerned about the potential dangers to their own operations. Today when I contacted a couple of small business people in rural Newfoundland, they made a strong case. They said: Our yearly gross revenue coming in through our sales will stay the same. They said: What is going to happen is we would have to stay open for seven days to collect the same amount of money that we would have coming into our business in six days. Therefore, they said: In fact, our operating expenses will go up, and our expenses will go up, and our net take from sales will stay the same; therefore, we are going to be worse off than we are now.

In fact, we know that many of the small business operations, called the mom-and-pop stores, are the backbone of rural Newfoundland and the backbone of small business. These are the people who are calling our office and saying: Whatever you do, do all you can to make sure this Sunday shopping proposal does not get approved.

We looked, as well, at Nova Scotia. Ask yourself the question: Does Nova Scotia have Sunday shopping? The answer is no. There is no Sunday shopping in Nova Scotia. Does Prince Edward Island have Sunday shopping? No, Prince Edward Island does not have Sunday shopping. Does New Brunswick have Sunday shopping? A little bit. In fact, it has a policy which lets them stay open in the holiday season, but before the Legislature right now are proposals to reconsider Sunday shopping in New Brunswick.

Here we are in Newfoundland. New Brunswick brought in a selective time, in the summer season, and they said for certain times in the year they would let Sunday shopping go ahead. Prince Edward Island says no to Sunday shopping. Nova Scotia says no to Sunday shopping, but in Newfoundland we are going to open her up, boys. Open her up and do whatever you want to do. In fact, the minister responsible said the other day we are not going to put any guidelines in place. If you want to have Sunday shopping from midnight on Saturday to midnight on Sunday, twenty-four hours, we are not going to stand in your way, open her wide up. We have trouble with that, obviously, but the minister said: `Let the business regulate itself.' We are saying to the minister that is not good enough. That is abrogating your responsibility.

So, Mr. Speaker, we want as well to say to the minister, the evidence that we have coming to us today is that - I note the Clerk has just passed me a note here saying that, all too soon, my time is coming to a close. I only have three minutes left and I still have about seventy-five pages of notes here. I have gotten as far as page one in thirty minutes but there will be more opportunities, I am sure, Mr. Speaker, before this night is out or before tomorrow or before the Liberal turkey gets laid on the Clerk's table for Christmas. Mr. Speaker, we just want to say that people are calling our office and saying that small businesses - well, I know the Government House Leader does not like me to talk about turkey because with all the gobbledegook he gets on with we would be walking on familiar ground in his particular case.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to hon. members, callers to our offices say that Sunday shopping is going to hurt stores in rural Newfoundland. In fact, people calling in from Bay Bulls, calling in from Conception Bay North, said, `Look, you know we have a problem, because the only time we can make a bit of money for sure is on a Sunday and now they are all going to come in to the big malls.'

Mr. Speaker, ask yourself the question: Where do the small stores spend their money? They spend it right in Newfoundland. What do the big conglomerates do with their revenues? They send it off by electronic deposit to Toronto, to Stellarton, to other parts, and what we are going to do now is, we are going to make it possible for more money to leave Newfoundland and Labrador. Because the big conglomerates are going to send their money off, we are going to facilitate the big conglomerates to stay open and thereby destroy the small businesses, particularly those in rural Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, we, on this side, want to say to the government, as I said earlier, there is nothing in this legislation that really benefits ordinary people. My colleagues spoke about the impact on women. In fact, women are going to be told, the day you always had home with your family, you are not going to have that anymore, because now you are going to have to keep on working. In fact, I was told today, there will not be one single hour of new employment created, not one. All they are going to do is keep spreading it out and there will not be one hour of new employment created. As a matter of fact, this will have the impact of driving wages down because expenses will go up, therefore, the net revenues will go down.

MR. SPEAKER (Penney): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will have many more opportunities to share.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to speak for a few hours on Bill 48. I understand I am allowed an hour at first crack and I hope the minister will stay around and enjoy the entertainment.

MR. GRIMES: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education, on a point of order.

MR. GRIMES: If we are going to listen for the first hour, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the current leader might let us know what Mr. Moores thinks about this.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, have we reverted to Question Period? If we are, we would like the opportunity to ask some more questions.

I say to the hon. member, you will have to ask him. You want what I think, you ask me. You want what someone else thinks, you ask them, I say to the member. Before I get to the issue at hand, let me tell you about that minister who stood and was going to be the next Premier of this Province, and the Minister of Mines and Energy said, "No, `Roger', there is a train coming down the track at enormous speed. `Roger', don't stay on that track. You might get run over, `Roger'. Stay back; don't dare even put your fingers on the track.'

MR. FITZGERALD: The only ultimate position he has is he is aboard the little red caboose at the back.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, he said - like the current Minister of Fisheries, I think he was like the person who - he said he wept; his lifetime dream to be Minister of Fisheries was realized, and now he had a lifetime dream to be Premier and he called up and asked the news conference to say: I am not running. He had aspirations, and this minister, knowing that his chance had passed, as I said before, he made his decision and he crossed the Rubicon and he said to the Premier: `Premier, whatever you want me to do - I will do the dirty work, I am not running again, I will take all the hits on education, I will do it all. When you want a list of inexactitudes', he said, `I will get up in the House, because I am one of the few who can stay up and stay serious in the House when I am telling a big pack of inexactitudes,' he said, `and stay serious in the House. I am one of the few who can do it.' The Minister of Justice is a good bluff, too, I can tell you. He can do it on times - and then to sit down and turn and smile about it. I have seen him put on shows here in the House, I can tell you. He went to theatre school, I am sure, he has been in theatre. He has his training, and not from the Minister of Education.

I would like for the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board to take him aside and let him know what he is talking about up with the other finance ministers. He does not even know that we are going to be going with a different tax system. Different tax brackets, different tax rates, different allowances. The Minister of Finance and Treasury Board today did not know Alberta is looking for a flat tax rate. Federally there are three. We are talking about different tax rates.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I do not want to tell you where I got my questions, I can tell you. There is a lot more to that, too. There are a lot more questions, too. I know when a few days later the Minister of Justice finds out about a proposal this Province put forward to revise the tax system, and he is the minister who knows nothing about it. He could not even answer a question on it.

There is a lack of communication going on within the ranks of government, I can tell you. There are not many people being consulted on government policy today. A key front-bench minister, the Minister of Justice, Attorney General of the Province, does not even get consulted on finance matters. I am sure he has an interest in finance matters here in the Province - does not even get consulted. It is a shame. They would not even tell the member. The Minister of Education today - to get up and tell a bold-faced inexactitude here in the House today as if he knew –

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Speaker, if that is not close to a lie, I don't know what is.

MR. SULLIVAN: I would never say that, I say to the Government House Leader. No, I mean, I am only repeating - `inexactitude', I understood, is an acceptable word in Parliament. My colleague said Winston Churchill used it. John Crosbie used one that was not acceptable - I told you that one before - when he called the Liberal across the House a liar and he had to withdraw it. Crosbie said: I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. I did not mean to say liar. I meant to say Liberal and I could not tell the difference. That is what -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: That was a good one! That is what he said in the House of Commons. That is exactly what he said. I thought that was pretty right on. What do you call two words when they have the same meaning but they are spelt differently? What do you call that? Is it homonyms? Is that what they are called, homonyms?

AN HON. MEMBER: Synonyms.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, synonyms - that is right, homonyms sound the same, like two, too and to are homonyms, that is right. English was not my greatest area, I might say, it was not my area of expertise.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No it is not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: I know `oxymoron'. An oxymoron is what, an enlightened Liberal? The last House Leader we had here, we used to call him `moxiemoron' - Edward `Moxie' Roberts.

MR. MERCER: Where is the relevance?

MR. SULLIVAN: The relevance - it is very relevant, I could say. Relevance! I say to the member for Humber East. I heard a person from Corner Brook on radio this morning, a businessperson, Alteen, I think the person's name was, talking about the Shops' Closing Act. He disagreed.

MR. SHELLEY: He blamed it on the Minister of Justice.

MR. SULLIVAN: He blamed it on the Minister of Justice, did he? What did the Member for Humber East say about this Marine Atlantic? He was sandbagged! The Member for Humber East was sandbagged again, he said. He was sandbagged by the Premier, and now he is sandbagged by the Minister of Justice. He is getting sandbagged all over the place! He is sandbagged wherever you turn. Anybody who gets sandbagged that often - I would say he will get sandbagged in the next election. That is what will happen. He is going to be called the `yapper-snapper'.

We had one before. His riding was Eagle River, and you know where he is now. He is out attending $1,000 dinners with badges saying: Former Member of the House of Assembly. That is what he is saying. Come out and say hello to the Premier for $1,000. Who do you see? Danny Dumaresque, former Member of the House of Assembly, Bill Hogan, former Member of the House of Assembly. No Premier showed up! For $1,000. No shame at all, I can say. I would pay $1,000 to hide on Danny Dumaresque! I would pay $1,000 to go in the other direction! You must not have promoted it. If you had you would not get anyone showing up, I say to members.

MR. SHELLEY: I think you start with a bowling ball, remember? (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, that is right. Yes, the former Member for Eagle River, now Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair district, he was as sharp as a bowling ball, my colleague said. He said in the next election you will find that you have all the edges taken off you if there are any left, and that is what happened. He hopped on an airplane and went south before the election was called. `I do not need to worry up in Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair. I will head south on my vacation,' and down he went south.

Then a friend of mine went down the next day, sat in a seat with his wife and somebody decided, `You had better get back, Danny, there is an election going ahead in this Province. You had better get back and try to save that seat.' That is true, people are nodding their heads. Danny said, `Oh, I will stay for another week, I am down here now. I can win that.' But he found out, you cannot campaign in earnest from Florida. The poor constituents do not understand campaigns run from Florida. They answered in unequivocal terms. They sent a resounding message out to the people that if you want your campaign you have to go down to Cartwright, Black Tickle, Mary's Harbour, St. Lewis, L'Anse-a-Loup, L'Anse au Clair, Forteau, Capstan Island and the whole works of the communities. You have to visit all of these if you want to get elected. You do not campaign from the beaches of St. Pete's, I am telling you.

Then he came back and he had sunstroke. That's what was wrong - he had sunstroke. Then he went back to the Labrador winter and could not adjust. Can you imagine going from sunstroke to frostbite all in the one day? That is what happened to the former member. Can you imagine knocking on a door in Capstan Island or L'Anse-a-Loup in February with a suntan? Only the Member for St. John's North, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation can get away with that! Can you imagine the gall to knock on a door up in L'Anse au Clair with a suntan in February and ask for their support? Even the Minister of Justice would never do that. He got a windburn on February 22, that is what he got. In fact, he has not recovered yet. He is trying to get his foot in the door but there is no room. Then he had aspirations to be the federal one but they said, `Oh, Danny boy, it is not in the cards for you, Danny boy,' and he could not get in there. `Lawrence got that set up,' he said, `don't worry.' He tried to run the establishment against Lawrence but he showed them. He said:`No, I am the people's member here.' He was smart enough. Danny was the Premier's boy. Danny boy was the Premier's boy, but Lawrence was the member.

MR. J. BYRNE: What about his toes?

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, his toes, he has been amputated. He would go through a series of amputations if he thought it would work. He would go through a whole series of amputations, but it did not work. At least, I tell you, if he had to do it he would not get his toes frostbitten, that's for sure.

Now, this bill is a cowardly act on behalf of this government when the Government House Leader - he told about all the bills that are going to come to the House but he did not talk about this one. The third time they are trying to elbow it in before Christmas, elbow in a Shops' Closing Act bill before Christmas and expect us to go along with it, telling us, the people in this Province, to support it. Well, I have been here five-and-a-half years and I think I had one call. I am not sure if I have had one on the education issue since I came into this House, I do not think I have, from my district, and I have had more in the last day, in my office up there today, on shops' closing messages -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Tom Murphy?

MR. SULLIVAN: Lots of calls? The Minister of Finance wants to know about Tom Murphy's calls. Now, if he wants to know, he should ask him. I cannot talk about loyal constituents of mine, a good constituent of mine who is going to be out campaigning with me the next time up there.

MR. J. BYRNE: Who?

MR. SULLIVAN: The former Member for St. John's South. Yes, and he wants me to talk about his calls. I tell you, the Member for Windsor - Springdale never got a call. That is more than I can say about the rest. He never got a call. No, Sir, he was waiting for it, too. He was waiting for the call but he never got it and that is a shame. The Member for Windsor - Springdale, when everybody else got a call he never got one. He was waiting and waiting. I never got a call, Premier. `He never phoned me,' he said, `I never got a call.'

AN HON. MEMBER: I got a call.

MR. SULLIVAN: He got a call. By the way, while you are at it, send back that bill I sent over to you, will you? I was telling the member here in this House, back last May, who was going to win the federal ridings. Some debts are not paid yet.

AN HON. MEMBER: What!

MR. SULLIVAN: I would like to get that on the record of this House of Assembly. Honour and integrity should be foremost in the minds of the members of this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name him! Name him!

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I cannot do that. Mr. Speaker is a position of authority. I would never suggest, and I am not talking about - I am talking about the person who never got a call. He never got a call. I am going to have to give him a call, I would say, and remind him again. And I had several witnesses. There were members here who will vouch - I will not name them but they are here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The Minister of Mines and Energy, that is right. He was one who witnessed it. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation witnessed it. The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs -.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Did I? Are you asking me or telling me? I did a lot of things that probably I should not have, and there was a lot more that I could have.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, I did.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) `Harvey'.

MR. H. HODDER: What?

MR. TULK: You never voted.

MR. H. HODDER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I tell the member, I did. And if I had someone running against me who put us in such straits here in this Province, who did such a terrible job as Mines and Energy minister, you know, I would vote again against him.

MR. TULK: Do you know what? Everybody (inaudible), but I tell you now, Sir, that my oldest son is going to be taken care of (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I would ask my colleague to go around with the hat there while the Government House Leader is in such a good mood. Can you pass the hat?

MR. TULK: We will show Dougie Moores what the real world is all about.

MR. SULLIVAN: I tell you, the Government House Leader is a sensible man, is he not?

The Government House Leader has not been right very often. You ask Mr. Speaker. He said: you are wrong.

MR. TULK: I am telling you, if Dougie Moores has to get out in the trenches the whole (inaudible) summer, he is going to feel the (inaudible).

Do you want to speak on this bill?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) can have one. What do I get?

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, like I said to you last day, where were you when I needed you the last time? I only wanted a couple more and he was not there. There are some people you cannot count on when you need them.

MR. TULK: I should think (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Don't think, because when you think, a lot of damage gets done. When you start thinking we do a lot of damage, I can tell you. You are better off not thinking.

MR. H. HODDER: When he is thinking, his brain is in overdrive.

MR. TULK: I can assure you when I say that.

MR. SULLIVAN: If you are, you are changing, I must say. That is a new one on me. I think they all should get serious for a change.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) says his family is all reared up now. (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That's it. Good. Sure, it is fantastic to see people going. But I can tell you, there are as many in the race right now, today, as there were in the entire Liberal race the last time. We at least have as many as they had there. And we do not even have the engine in the train started up yet. We do not even have the train going yet. In fact, the tracks are down. They have not even started the engine. The train left Ottawa the last time and the Minister of Fisheries could not get his boat (inaudible) the Gulf fast enough.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) security for people who always (inaudible) to talk about Dougie Moores. They never got one call, not one call.

MR. SULLIVAN: Because there was so much good (inaudible) they did not want to share it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: I knew I would get these people involved in the debate here today. There is a way to do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Let me tell you, if you had gone with the Minister of Education you would not be in the dilemma you are in today. I can tell you, you would not be as badly off as you are today. He has damaged himself, the Minister of Finance still hides, so he has nothing damaged yet; we cannot find him. So he will be around the next time. I know the Minister of Finance will be around. The Minister of Justice is history now, he is on the way to retirement - where? - to Little Bay Islands, out in his boat.

The Minister of Mines and Energy - I mean he has the characteristics, he likes to travel, he likes to get around the world like the Premier does, get out of the Province and -

MR. TULK: Who likes to travel?

MR. SULLIVAN: The Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. TULK: The Minister of Mines and Energy?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

MR. TULK: Oh, go 'way, boy!

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, that is one of the requirements of the job.

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible) the Minister of Finance?

MR. SULLIVAN: The Minister of Finance?

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, he is practising already I can tell you. I have only seen the Premier once in two weeks, I have seen him twice, and he is getting there.

AN HON. MEMBER: `Loyola' (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I cannot hear.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you know why he was not back here?

MR. SULLIVAN: Why who?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Why?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Now someone said he is just back for the month or so because Medicare you see, if you are out of the Province too long your Medicare - you have to come back in for a while.

MR. SHELLEY: He is the man who did it?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. After six months now. You were able to go out, make your appearance, come back over the border and say `hello' and go again, but now you cannot do it anymore, so he will have to be tied down here for six months of the year; that is tough. Is there any warm climate in Canada for six months? That is a major problem.

I have not even gotten to page one. How many pages of this, did we say? Seventy-some pages. I have to start - Why, would the Government House Leader give us the list of all the important bills that are coming through the House, in advance, before the opening when they did finally open on November 17, and not include the Shops' Closing Act? It had to be - it may have been or may not, but, was it, I ask him, an act of deceit to deceive the people?

MR. TULK: No.

MR. SULLIVAN: I am asking the question. Was it? He said no. Okay, I will accept his word. Is it an act that is trying to lead people astray and to hoodwink them?

MR. TULK: No.

MR. SULLIVAN: He said no. I believe him; I will take his word for it. Is it because you want to have it late before the Christmas season to see if you can do it as a service to all these people in January to get out and do their Sunday shopping?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is (inaudible) required.

Do you think we need seven days a week to go shopping?

MR. TULK: I do not think it matters to me.

MR. SULLIVAN: It does not matter? So if it does not matter to you, why have it? You should only do something that matters. Why do you do something that does not matter? There should be a motive, a purpose for doing something but if it does not matter, you should not do it.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: The option matters.

MR. SULLIVAN: Option? Give him the option, yes. Why do you regulate ATVs if you want to give option, why do you regulate motors, why do you regulate speed on the highways? You give people the option to go fast.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: What?

MR. TULK: Are you going shopping on Sundays?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I have commitments on Sundays.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Church; I am not a bit interested. I hardly go shopping on Monday or Tuesday. I do not go shopping. I think it will have an effect on the way we operate as a society. We are accelerating and moving fast enough to society where the basic values and principles are breaking down and we do not need anything to accelerate that process. I really think it has an impact on family and values overall and it affects people; that is why I do not agree with it. In fact, I think if people want to shop, they can do it in six days instead of seven; I do not think we need it. I think it is detrimental to the small businesses in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: You ask me and I will answer. Small businesses in this Province that are struggling today, what is going to happen is, the major chains, even the major chains that do not want to open will feel that out of competition they need to open.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Why open up an extra day? Why give choices? No, there should be limitations on freedom. Why do you have to be seventeen years of age to get a driver's license in the Province? Should we let them have it at sixteen because they do it in Alberta? Should we let them have it at sixteen because they do it in Alberta?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No? Well, we are talking about people who are given the right to operate a motor vehicle in this Province, who are subject to the laws of the Province, and you could apply that to any particular scenario in the Province. There are certain basic restrictions on certain freedoms that we have for the overall benefit of society at large, and I feel that Shops' Closing is unnecessary from a business perspective. I feel it is unnecessary to give people a freedom of choice. They have a fair freedom already in this.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It is what?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Six days of shopping.

MR. TULK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. TULK: Is the hon. gentleman telling me that he believes that people should not have the freedom of choice as to whether they want to shop on Sunday?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. TULK: That is exactly what he is saying. I am surprised to hear it. Should they have a choice to shop on Saturday? The whole thing is ludicrous.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: He still does not make sense. Even the Speaker said you do not make sense; it is not a point of order. Even the Speaker said you are wrong. Just because you have choice, does that mean we should able to hunt seven days a week because you can hunt six days? Are you saying we should?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Are you saying we should hunt seven days, shop seven days?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) hospital?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. Well, you did a good job of that. You can only get into Emergency at the Grace now if you show up at the right time. I know people who were turned away. I know of ambulances that were directed away.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is correct.

Is this Question Period? Can we revert to Question Period?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: If you want to speak, you should get on your feet.

MR. SULLIVAN: If that bully wants to speak, let him get up and speak when his time comes. If the bully wants to speak, let him speak. We will give you time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). He does not make sense.

MR. SULLIVAN: He makes sense. Just because there is freedom to shop six days we should give freedom to shop seven days. Because we can hunt six days we should hunt seven days? Because we can do everything six days –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Should you give people the right to drive on the left side of the highway because they do it in England?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: What?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Should we have all one-way streets?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, yes, at least it is a change. Most things in this government are phasing out. At least that is a change.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, trucks one year. We should use maybe no trucks. It keeps down emissions. Light trucks (inaudible) high in emission, are we going to eliminate them? Are we going to eliminate trucks because they emit more gases into the atmosphere?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I am saying, because you want to have choice, there is a limit or a degree in the choices that people would want. Just because you like to go to a store, does it mean you should be able to go 168 hours a week? If you are going to measure nth degree, where do you stop? You can compare it to any particular thing. The point is, this government sneaked in without prior notice when the minister gave the - in the important bills you gave here, you have indicated before the House -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: When did you call it, boy?

MR. SULLIVAN: When did he call it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It was not the first day. Indeed it was not the first day. When was it entered in? I am sure the Clerk at the Table can tell us when the bill was first introduced. When did you give us the bill? When did you circulate the bill so we could see what was in it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Sure, let us know.

MR. GRIMES: You know what is in it, boy, Sunday shopping.

MR. SULLIVAN: Sunday shopping? But there was a Sunday shopping bill, too. Bill No. 1 was a Sunday shopping bill that had a period in it in which you could have a pilot project. We did not know what was in the bill until we saw the bill. So the bill now is not what you were going with before. You moved in Bill No. 2 and took out the other one where there was a window in which you could test it and see how people responded to it. That is basically what they have done.

AN HON. MEMBER: A litmus test.

MR. SULLIVAN: Call it a litmus test or whatever you want to call it, there was a pilot project. When the Minister of Education hears `windows', all he thinks of is the recommendation to deal with the bad air. Open windows. That is all he thinks of, open the windows. That is the solution now to keeping CO2 levels down in the schools: open the windows. Take the side out of the school, I say to him. Windows drives him crazy. Can you imagine, the recommendations now to improve air quality is open the windows? When he hears the word `window' he almost flips.

MR. J. BYRNE: He shudders. When you open the window, he `shutters'.

MR. FITZGERALD: He `shutters' when he hears windows, yes - not shudders, he `shutters' and puts them on blink.

MR. GRIMES: I did not make the recommendation (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: You didn't.

MR. GRIMES: That was a bunch of engineers two years ago.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

MR. GRIMES: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: So, isn't it right? Yes, he said, I did not make them. You didn't. Do you agree with the recommendations?

MR. GRIMES: Yes, I do, in twenty years of teaching.

MR. SULLIVAN: You agreed with them for twenty years, did you?

MR. GRIMES: I opened the windows every day. Yes, I expect you probably did, too.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I did not.

MR. GRIMES: Unless it was blowing a gale, other than that you opened the windows.

MR. SULLIVAN: What about if there was a gale trying to get out?

MR. GRIMES: You know you are going to open the windows, with forty-five youngsters in the room like they have all the time.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, that's what happened to you.

MR. GRIMES: What are you going to do, bar it in?

MR. SULLIVAN: It is a wonder he lasted that long, I say.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: You are even afraid of `Windows', Windows `95 or `96.

MR. SULLIVAN: We had pretty sensible students up our way. I cannot speak - very obedient, disciplined students. You really affected him, yes I must say, the Minister of Education.

MR. FITZGERALD: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Is that the same minister who, when he was President of the NTA, wept on the steps of this building for teachers? The same minister now, who is out, trashes them, kicks them out and ignores them, the same minister. He is good; he puts on a good act. I said in this House, he is the second best actor here next to the Minister of Justice.

MR. J. BYRNE: Who?

MR. SULLIVAN: Except the Minister of Justice has not performed as often lately in this last session of the House.

MR. FRENCH: He is performing now.

MR. SULLIVAN: He has not performed.

MR. J. BYRNE: He is a performer.

MR. SULLIVAN: I must say he is more of a dreamer lately, trying to make you sleep. I am trying to put you all to sleep, I have succeeded with one. I hope by the time I am finished I will have succeeded with a few others.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I have only gotten to one particular point on the bill.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, he has time. He has another twenty-seven minutes left.

MR. SULLIVAN: Have I? Time goes in a hurry when you are having fun, I must say, really goes in a hurry - I cannot even get into the specifics of this Act.

MR. TULK: When you are having fun.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, when you are having fun, time flies. I am missing a hockey game tonight, by the way, 8:30 p.m. I am missing a game of hockey by dealing with an important issue - playing a game of hockey, you know.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) game of hockey?

MR. SULLIVAN: I play on Monday nights.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. No, no, there are other people who play, too. It is no sense up there playing a game -

MR. TULK: It is no fun to play it by yourself. (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, yes.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, no, I like to have company around. You ask the guys up there.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The Minister of Education plays with me. I am better than that and when he gave up the teachers' league, I gave him my sweater and I do not have it back yet.

MR. TULK: `Loyola', is this where he (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I did not see her there. No, this is not the PC team. Listen, whoever is on the team, I am a team player, I will be there, I can tell you - that is more than I can say about some of you, about people over there. When you are passed the puck, you go with it, even the Minister of Education used to do that a scattered time. When you are passed the puck, you go with it, right. That is it, you play the game.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, boy, I always wanted to be a House leader. I do not know why I ever got missed in the process. I am still only at point number one.

It says here in my notes, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, in fact I got a fax - here is the Minister of Environment and Labour his great poll he talks about, 77 per cent of members contacted are opposed to extending Sunday store hours, 12.2 per cent are in favour, less than one in eight people, less than one in eight businesses, and 10.8 per cent are undecided. This poll was done in a two-hour time span and it is in a release released by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. What is said here is a very important point. He said: It is one thing -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SULLIVAN: You haven't got much of a chance to win it. If he is your campaign manager, you have a lot of problems. He was the only person ever to lose a Liberal stronghold in Fogo. He blew it for the Liberal Party in Fogo; the only person to lose.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please! Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I don't know, when you lose -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

I want to remind the hon. member that we are now dealing with the second reading of the bill, and his comments should be relevant to the principles of the bill.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was in the middle of saying something when I was rudely interrupted by the Government House Leader. What I was saying is: It is one thing to have a significant change in legislation - I will tell you who said it - but to do it without adequate consultation suggests that government is responding to big business pressures. A similar attempt was made in Nova Scotia during the past six weeks, but Nova Scotia Premier MacLellan, who is going to be facing an election soon, announced that the Province had no intention of expanding store hours; no intention whatsoever.

This is from the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses, 1888 Brunswick Street, S-819 Halifax, Nova Scotia. Anybody who wants to call there to confirm the contents, the number is 420-1997, fax number. It makes a lot of sense, I might add. What they are saying makes a lot of sense. I've been in small business, all kinds of business, pretty well, retail business - what is going to happen to large chains, some don't want to participate and have Sunday shopping but they are going to be forced to. Where are the extra dollars going to come from? You are going to spread revenues over seven days instead of six in stores, extra costs of operating overheads. You have to bring people in to work there.

If there are increased costs there are increased prices, and the consumer pays for it in the long term. Not only that, the money gets siphoned off from the small stores to the big chains where the dollars go to shareholders outside this Province. The small stores, the husband or wife or child or next-door neighbour who are depending on that for income, are the ones who are going to pay the price as a result.

That is what is going to happen. It happened, I can tell you, to businesses in my area. I will give you an example. When TAGS and NCARP came in, here is what happened to businesses in my area. All the stores had an extra person working there beyond the family. What happened was, when a lot of people got their NCARP and TAGS cheques and they didn't have any work to go to, they couldn't go fishing, they bought their groceries then, in St. John's and other areas, in larger stores. They had more free time on their hands. They weren't working all day, fishing all summer, they had free time and they went outside the local areas and spent their money, and a lot of these stores couldn't survive. Some shut down.

Some people are working sixteen hours a day now, almost, twelve and fourteen hours a day, in those little stores to make ends meet there. It has caused a lot of problems in rural parts of the Province. This is going to be another nail in the coffin of the little rural businesses, because people are going to go into larger centres and leave their dollars outside their communities, in the pockets of big corporate owners, the big businesses, the shareholders of the major chains that are owned by people outside this Province.

It is going to have an impact on the dollars that can be recycled within our Province, and it is going to affect it. Not only that, I really think it is going to have an affect on the price of goods to a degree. I think it will have an inflationary affect on the price of goods because there are larger overheads. Businesses factor in a profit margin, and if their expenses go up their price of goods have to go up to reflect a return to the owners of that business, and it is going to have an affect.

They are just some of the things, I might add. It is going to have an affect - why would government be bringing it in with so much haste? Why are they trying to sneak it through? Did you ever find out when you circulated the bill, I ask the Government House Leader?

MR. TULK: December 3 (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: December 3. The House was open sixteen days before they put the bill in.

MR. TULK: The bill was on the Order Paper since last spring.

MR. SULLIVAN: No. The bill on the Order Paper since last spring was a bill that said a test period. It was there before, too, and you withdrew it. The minister stood and withdrew the bill here in this House.

MR. J. BYRNE: When did you call it for debate?

MR. TULK: I didn't call it for debate.

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister - minister could be more than one.

MR. TULK: But the minister never spoke about it or talked about (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I said, in this session of the House, they stood and they asked to remove it, the first Shops' Closing Act.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, that is what I mean, this past week.

MR. TULK: There was a motion on the Order Paper from last spring.

MR. SULLIVAN: Sure. It was a test period. It was one that was going to be put in for a test period, a pilot project, to see how it responded, and then listen to what the people in the Province had to say and come to your final decision. It was not a bill that was going to be here entrenched in that. It was a test project, a pilot project. I have a copy of the bill here. That is what it was. That is what happened.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Bring it in and then you will hear from me. I won't whine and complain and be a yapper on it. I will stand up and put my money where my mouth is and tell you were I stand if you call it. That is what I will say. You call the bill and you will find out. I have stated where I was on every bill yet. That is more then I can say for the Member for Humber East who will whine and complain and sit in his seat. The more I look at him, the more he reminds me of that yapper that we had from Eagle River before, and anybody around here knows what that person was like. He yapped and yapped himself out of a job; that is what he did.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: But the member from Eagle River got up and spoke most of the time.

MR. SULLIVAN: At least he got up and spoke, even if he told the same story about going down the Burin Peninsula. Even if he told us that twenty times, at least he told us a story. Are they guns they are pointing at us, Premier? At least he told us that story. The Member for Humber Valley can remember it well. At least he entertained us a little bit.

MR. J. BYRNE: Did he talk about Clyde's dog?

AN HON. MEMBER: And he told about Clyde's dog?

MR. SULLIVAN: Even if he didn't know what he was talking about, he entertained us a bit. He stood up and spoke up on bills. I haven't heard the Member for Humber East speak on the Shops' Closing Act.

MR. FITZGERALD: I haven't heard him speak at all.

MR. H. HODDER: Does the Member for Humber East want the Premier's job?

MR. SULLIVAN: I think this is a piece of legislation that I feel members should be able to stand in this House and vote on, a free standing vote without having to cross any party lines. They should be allowed to speak on this bill. That is what I feel it should be.

It is not one that depends on this government's ability to be able to function. It is not one that is a vote of confidence by members in the government. It is one that allows the people to represent their constituents instead of being muzzled in here. Our caucus, the same way - we opposed it. We all opposed it individually. We don't think it is best for the people in our districts, for ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, to be forced under corporate companies, to have to spend their dollars in major companies that siphon more dollars out of this Province. The last thing we need is a pipe line siphoning money out of this Province.

We have the Member for St. John's South who is trying to look at ways to help local businesses. I mean, it's an insult that the Premier of this Province does not know and care enough about Newfoundland businesses, that the Member for St. John's South has to get up and try to do a job that this government was elected to do. That's right; to try to find avenues to access contracts and tenders.

I know a company in my district where the specs for a particular window could not be delivered in this Province - a company that was outside. Why didn't they change the specs? Other windows on a par with those should have been used. We are doing everything we can to put the screws to Newfoundland businesses, to make it tougher to operate when we are preaching, manufacture here in this Province, and we do not give them an opportunity to do it. Design the specs of a comparable window and give them a choice to put in a bid on similar windows. That is what we are doing here in this Province.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Loyola, tell them we are putting the claim into the Premier's office for the meeting room.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. Maybe the Premier's office should pay for the meeting rooms where he is holding meetings with businesses to look at avenues to assist local people and to access government contracts. I can't see any member in this Legislature not wanting to facilitate the tenders and at least the designs that will make it on a level playing field with businesses in this Province.

I know of numerous instances. I have raised issues in the House on this window issue before and I have discussed that it, I know, one particular minister. Why are we doing our utmost really to ignore - I am not saying working deliberately against, I can't see anybody doing that - but to ignore the concerns and the suggestions, intelligent ones, of Newfoundland businesses to assist that?

This bill here, the same bill, is once again hurting ordinary Newfoundland and Labrador small businesses, the corner stores, the people in rural communities that are being kicked already and being decimated by a down turn in our economy here; negative growth. The only thing we hear from government: They jump up and do a financial statement on how good we are; our growth is only minus 2.9 per cent. We thought it was going to be minus 5. Well that is a pile of bunk. They knew what it was going to be. It is easy to look good when your projections are way off. When you intentionally have your projections way off, you look good, a few extra dollars. It is an excuse for cutting social programs. That is what they are using, painting a gloomier picture than there really is. Then when it is suitable, he talks about a better tomorrow, how great it is going to be.

On one hand he talked about a great growth in the economy and on the other hand the Social Advisory Committee tells us that over the next while we are going to have more seniors, less working people, less paying taxes, more people in need of health care, more seniors in need of basic services, more social services and less working people. On the one hand, Human Resources and Employment, are telling us one thing and the Department of Finance is telling us something different on the other hand. I mean they don't even consult with each other.

Can you imagine the Finance Minister of this Province going up to talk to Alberta, that wants a straight tax system, wants to separate from the federal three bracket system and have just the 1 per cent, and four other provinces - guess who is in the category with us? BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba want to separate the system in our Province from the federal system. Why? Maybe it has merit, but there is an ulterior motive. I say beware of a wolf in sheep's clothing because when the federal government, when Paul Martin said, we are going to give a break on personal income tax to people, what that means is if we drop that percent - the federal rate now, in case anyone is not aware, is 17 per cent if you have less than $30,000 in taxable income, 26 per cent if you are in the $30,000 - $60,000 range approximately, give or take a few dollars rounded off, and above $60,000 you are in the 29 per cent federal rate. Our tax is 69 per cent of each of those rates in each category.

So what happens when they give us a cut on our taxes federally? Our Province gets 69 per cent of a lesser number. So we have less revenues coming into our Province. So what are we going to do? We are going to move from three tax brackets then probably to five or six tax brackets. If we are losing revenues on income tax, what are we going to do? I say, the first thing you should do - and I was asking today in Question Period -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: If you give me leave and not take it out of Question Period, I will tell them what we should do. We should give a break on payroll tax and phase that as a number one priority, and then we should get the personal income tax that is high - it has increased by 15 per cent since the Liberals came to power. Personal income tax has gone up by 15 per cent since the Liberals came to power in 1989, 15 per cent higher.

MR. GRIMES: You can still give the companies a tax break before the individuals.

MR. SULLIVAN: Who?

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) the companies a tax break before the individuals.

MR. SULLIVAN: I didn't say that. The minister does not listen - a higher priority.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, that means you do it first.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, that doesn't mean you do it first. The first step might be a two-tier. You might have a bigger chunk off a payroll and a smaller chunk off personal income tax because payroll tax is a tax on jobs. The lower the payroll tax, the more people are working in the Province.

I dealt with it in business. When you hit new taxes, what you look at - if you are paying an extra $80,000 in new taxes, what are you going to do? You are going to hire one less person in your office. You are going to hire one less person. That is revenue lost to the Province in spin off revenues.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, it is not. I was never an owner or ever involved in that company. In fact, I have not been in business since I got elected to the House, and the businesses I was involved with, I sold them when I got elected as a member of this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Loyola, somebody said that but I didn't believe them.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, it's not. I was never involved in the company at all. In fact, I believe it was a guy from out Gerry's way and from up our way basically. I have no involvement; never did. In fact, it was a company that went into receivership back in '89; it was brought by two individuals. I am sure the minister is well aware of who owns the company. It has nothing to do with me whatsoever, I say to the minister, and any implications otherwise are incorrect. It is only spreading utter falsehoods, I say to the member. Anything that I was involved with, I will stand on my record, in anything I have been in. I say it and I challenge anybody, anywhere.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, and I have heard it too. I have heard lots of rumours from people across this House in the past, but nobody was willing to stand up and put their money where their mouth is because they know darn well it is all utter nonsense. I take pride in what I have been involved in.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Sure, getting on with that nonsense. I don't get on with that foolishness, to be honest with you. You don't hear me accusing anybody of nonsense like that either. I like to deal with facts, and I deal with them.

Why are other Atlantic Provinces - most businesses today are from Ontario and Quebec. A lot of major companies control different facets of industries. The supermarket chains and other large retailers are being controlled outside this Province. Why is Nova Scotia not interested in touching it? Why is Prince Edward Island not interested? Why is New Brunswick drawing back and even reversing the opening that they have there now? Because they see the effect it is having on the economy of their Province, by major chains taking dollars out of small businesses. That is the backbone of the Canadian economy that employs the largest number of people in our economy today. It is the big businesses that have downsized, that have cut their numbers. It is the small business that has enabled our economy to grow and prosper not only in this Province but in the entire country. It is the small numbers, the two and three and fifteen and twenty and thirty people who are working that is important.

There are many small businesses around, some in my district and some in other members' districts, that are working hard to employ people, that are trying to do their utmost to do it, and all they need now is a kick in the teeth from a government that did not have the courtesy to even refer it to a committee to hear input from people affected by this.

I heard the President of the Board of Trade this morning on the radio indicating that he does not agree with this. The least you could have done is have a pilot project or a test as you were going to do before. That is the impression you gave them before, and now you pulled the rug out from under them.

The retailers - CFIB, representing thousands of people, basically, out there, in their statement are indicating that they were not consulted. Government got elected on consultation. In 1996 we almost got bowled over with consultation. The consultation word was almost as powerful as that train we saw coming at us. We were going to be consulted on everything, and we have not been consulted.

What is wrong with a piece of legislation like this? I think it is an important piece of legislation. I think it deserves an opportunity to be discussed. I think the people of the Province deserve an opportunity to have their say, even if it is a committee here, even if you just make representation to a committee. We have had committees go around this Province on just about everything - on a name change for the Province. We had the Premier stand up in 1996, in his first Throne Speech, and say, in the first paragraph, the name of this Province would be Newfoundland and Labrador. Where did he go since? He hid. He didn't mention it in the last Throne Speech. He has not talked about it since. He doesn't want to hear the word anymore, and here we talked about Newfoundland and Labrador. He is paying lip service to it. We have not heard consultation on this issue.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I think it is important. To be honest with you, I think it is important to be able to try to maintain some semblance of a family unit. Young people working today, mothers and so on working today, going to work in those big chain stores on Sundays behind the cash registers and so on, when they have young kids and families - it is a day when people normally gather, on a Sunday, at least with their families and their friends. It is a day I think, we should do our utmost to preserve, instead of trying to undermine it to make it like any other day of the week. I think that is important.

I do not want to see Newfoundland and Labrador become a Las Vegas of the north; seven days a week, around the clock, morning and night, it is all alike. I think we need to get a bit of order back in society. We need to start looking at basic values and principles, and I think we have to build on this.

We survived all of our life in this Province without it. I don't hear anybody out complaining about it. I don't see public revolts to have Sunday shopping. We don't hear it out there, so why do you have it? We don't need it, I don't need it, and people calling my office don't need it. I never got a call from anyone since I got elected to support Sunday shopping.

MR. J. BYRNE: Me neither.

MR. SULLIVAN: None. If you are going to support Sunday shopping, should you support Sunday hunting? Should you support everything on Sundays? The same thing. What is the difference then? Open schools on Sundays? All on Sundays. Don't limit your right to a better education; open them on Sundays.

MR. J. BYRNE: Open the House of Assembly on Sundays.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right. Yes, sure, open it seven days a week.

Talking about freedoms, everybody deserves an equal access to opportunities out there, an equal access to what is there, but it is going to the limit and we should not have it; it is wrong. There is a price to pay for it; you might not realize it. It is improper.

I can't see how our ten caucus members are getting so many calls from people, when government members are not. The calls are coming spontaneously. I have had more calls on this - I might have had one call on education since 1992, after the Williams Royal Commission. I was elected here a few months after that was released, and I think I might have gotten one call from my district on that. With all this fuss on the education issue over there, referendums and you name it - we went through two of them - only one call, from my district probably. Today alone I must have at least ten up there.

AN HON. MEMBER: They must know you are (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: They must. They know where I am, how to find me. I called them back and spoke with them. Some left messages; they didn't need to be called back. There were just notes saying: I am opposed to Sunday shopping, speak out against it, and keep up the fight against it; different words, comments, from outside my district too, I might add. There were e-mails, faxes, petitions and so on that came in.

So, different members here must be hearing some of that, too, from their constituents. They are ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians just like mine. They are no better or no worse, they are just ordinary people. You should be listening to them. You should not be here getting on with this nonsense and debate here to have to drive a point home; the government. They have to wake up, come to their senses and start to realize that people don't want it. Get it off the Order Paper, move on to something else.

MR. WISEMAN: How many calls did you get today?

MR. SULLIVAN: I had about ten today.

MR. WISEMAN: Ten! Sure, I got them before 9:00 a.m.

MR. SULLIVAN: I had ten on this topic.

MR. H. HODDER: You have to start listening, Ralph.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will stack up my number of calls with yours any particular day, I say to members opposite, any day of the week. I can tell you -

MR. H. HODDER: And you would lose 365 days a year.

MR. SULLIVAN: - every one is returned. It is a rare occasion if it is not returned by mid-night. I went out there at supper time and returned a few others, and before I go out of here tonight I will have the rest of them returned.

MR. WISEMAN: (Inaudible) ten today, that's nothing.

MR. SULLIVAN: I got ten on this topic, I say.

MR. WISEMAN: That's nothing. What is ten calls in a day?

MR. SULLIVAN: Ten calls is ten times what I got on education in five and a half years.

MR. J. BYRNE: You didn't get ten calls in you life. Who would want to talk to you?

MR. WISEMAN: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I would say he did get ten calls; the same person called him ten times and is still waiting for an answer, I would say.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Not even his relatives want to call him.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, we heard that complaint, but we will let the member deal with that.

MR. J. BYRNE: You are doing a good job, keep it up.

MR. SULLIVAN: What affect is it going to have - just think for a minute - with seven days shopping? Are people going to spend more money? That is the first question. Are they going to spend more money because it is open seven days? I would say, no, there will not be more money spent because of seven days as opposed to six. I could be wrong. If anybody has a suggestion saying that there - if not, what happens?

MR. DECKER: Will the hon. member take a question?

MR. SULLIVAN: What?

MR. J. BYRNE: If it's a sensible one; that is not likely from you.

MR. SULLIVAN: Take a question? When you stand up and get your turn -

MR. DECKER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: He only has another five minutes. Hold on! Hold on!

MR. SULLIVAN: Sure, ask me a question.

MR. DECKER: Have you ever shopped on Sunday when you were vacationing in Florida or (inaudible)?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: What does that have to do with anything?

MR. H. HODDER: His mike is not on.

MR. SULLIVAN: In Florida? I am not sure if I have to be honest with you. I can't recall and I'm being honest. I can't recall shopping on Sunday.

MR. J. BYRNE: Ask me that question when I am up.

MR. SULLIVAN: I might have, but I can't recall. I bet if I did, it was on vacation. I can't recall and it is a good chance that I did, and if I did it was probably with my family on a vacation. I can't recall personally going out shopping, because I hardly go out and shop any day of the week, to be honest with you.

MR. DECKER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, it's not. I am answering honest, to be honest with you. If I thought back about it, I might reflect back over a while and I might be able to recall an instance, but off hand I can't.

MR. DECKER: (Inaudible) with your name on it (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is possible. I have gone into small stores on Sundays up in my area - fairly commonly - in to pick up a newspaper or in to pick up something from a store shelf; I do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Were you shopping on Sunday?

MR. SULLIVAN: I answered his question.

MR. J. BYRNE: Ignore that question, because that was a stupid question.

MR. SULLIVAN: Maybe the Minister of Justice can answer my question: Do you think - I will ask this seriously - do you think, if we opened seven days as opposed to six that there would be more money spent in the run of a week or the run of a month, seven days as opposed to six?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, and I don't know either. Personally, I don't think - and if it is, it will be only marginally -

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not the reason.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I know, but I am just getting to a point. I am just going to prove a point with it. If it is, it might be marginal or none. We don't know that, we can only conjecture. If that happens, you will have extended hours, businesses will be opened extended hours. In many instances overheads are fixed, but by operating on an extra day you increase your overheads marginally, too, the same as people spend -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, but I am saying you extend them marginally, at least, when you are open. You have to have employees in there. If you only sold the same amount over seven as six you may have extra labour costs in the process because you don't get your economies with lower sales than you would with big volumes and extra employees. Therefore, one of two things may happen; if an employer wants to have a rate of return, he will have to do one of two things: he will have to keep the wage down to keep the costs down or drive up the price of goods to compensate for it; one of two things. If they increase the price of goods the consumer pays for it. So you have to spend more money, you get less for the same dollar, you have less purchasing power, one thing in the process, or you have a lower wage because of it. It has to be one of two things, or the company takes less profit.

The other option is that the company takes less profit. How many companies out there today want to take less profit than they are taking now? I have not seen them. I spent over twenty years in business, and I went into business to make money, for profit. If you don't go into business for a profit, you should stay out of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ask Lorraine Lush.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, that is one for you. When you get up again you can put that on the record. You go into business for profit.

AN HON. MEMBER: The hour is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: I thought I would get two hours.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay.

MR. H. HODDER: He has one minute left.

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, it is better than none.

MR. DECKER: (Inaudible) bored to death (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. Actually, I say to the Minister of Justice, I often stood here for half an hour and I was every bit as bored, more bored, than the people who were there. I have not gotten beyond page one of my forty or fifty pages of background information today. I could have gone on for two days on this topic.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: With leave, I will tell a few stories.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, someone else tell a story.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

AN HON. MEMBER: Be the man, Roger, be the man. (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the member, you should hang your head about the IFAW not me. You should hang your head about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: No, not you, I wouldn't say that to you. The Member for Burgeo there, the member who will never get re-elected again, the member who is sitting in this House for the last time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: I will make that prediction here tonight. I don't say it to be proud or to be happy, because I don't want to take anything away from any member. I think most members try to do their part. But this member here will never sit in this House again.

MR. TULK: I unveiled the big mural of Steve Neary on Bell Island this summer. I will be down in Bonavista (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: You may, I say to the hon. member, but I will not hang around long enough for the people in Bonavista to be tired of me. I will leave before that. I will know when my time is up. I won't have to go back begging.

AN HON. MEMBER: He lost his poll. When they kick him out of Bonavista North, where is he going to land next?

MR. FITZGERALD: Well, no, the member won. The member learned his lesson, the Government House Leader. He learned his lesson and I think he's a much better member now than he was in the last sitting of this House, a much better member there now. I can recall him, Mr. Speaker, sitting over there, in the last seat, back as far as he could get, where the Member for Humber East is sitting now. He sat there with his hand under his head; that is, when he would show up. He wouldn't be here often. He would always look up there towards the pictures up in the back. He wouldn't look at anybody. He was mad at everybody in the House. He was mad at the leader. He was contrary, he was sulky, and he was sooky. He was a sook.

His other leader did the job on him. I don't think he served him right. He paid his dues. The Member for Bonavista North paid his dues with the Liberal Party - I think he was the former Opposition House Leader - paid his dues, was there for the good times and the bad time, and I believe he should have been treated a little bit different.

I would like to warn the Minister of Environment and Labour that he is going to be hung out to dry on this. This minister is going to take the hit for government. He will never get elected again if he allows this bill to go through.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: He will never get elected again as long as he lets this bill go through. He got elected on false pretences from day one, I say to the member, and now they are hanging him out to dry. The hospital will never see him; the Minister of Health won't have anything to do with him. He will be beyond approach, I say to members opposite.

The Minister of Environment and Labour will go the same route as the two other ministers went by introducing this bill. The first one was the former Member for St. John's South, Tom Murphy, who introduced this bill back in 1995. Again, it was introduced just days before Christmas. It was allowed to die on the Order Paper. In the spring of this year another member, whose time is limited around here, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods - he is operating on very limited time, will never run again. I will make that prediction as well.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, he is going to run.

MR. FITZGERALD: No, I don't think he will run. No, I don't think so. I think he has himself looked after now. I think he knows what the people are saying, he knows what people think about his performance, and I don't think he will run again.

AN HON. MEMBER: I think he will run.

MR. FITZGERALD: I don't think so. In fact, you are going to see massive changes in the front benches over there before we come back here to sit again. You are going to see a lot of the back benches moved up front. I firmly believe that. I think that is where the strength of this party is, in the back benches. The people like the Minister of Education will not be interested in running any more. The Minister of Justice there is only going through the motions. Everybody knows what he was like in the last sitting. He was up taking part in everything, telling us how wonderful the government was and how wrong the Opposition was. He is over there now in a daze, biding his time.

I say to the Minister of Education, if you were the premier - God forgive us! - would you have people like that in your Cabinet? Be honest now. If you were interested in going out and going to the electorate of this Province and asking them for a further mandate to take you into years twelve, thirteen, and fourteen, would you go with people like that on your team? No, you wouldn't. I know you wouldn't. You would be moving some people up front.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I say this, the best that is over there in that Cabinet came in this circle here, came in this direction. They came there. I will tell you who the next minister is going to be. He isn't here. If there is one man to go in Cabinet, that man is going to be the Member for Humber Valley. Just watch. The Member for Humber Valley will be the next man to go in Cabinet.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. FITZGERALD: Because you have to be a Tory first in order to become a Cabinet minister. The Minister of Environment and Labour, where did he come from? One of the former ministers of social services, where did she come from? The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, where did he come from? So, where did the Member for Humber Valley come from?

In fact, it was only a few months ago, and the Member for Twillingate & Fogo can verify this, when we were out on a committee meeting and we went over to hold hearings at the Glenmill Inn, we lost the Member for Humber Valley. We didn't know which room he was staying in. Do you know where we found him?

MR. SULLIVAN: Up in the Premier's suite.

MR. FITZGERALD: Up in the Premier's suite; exactly. That was the room he asked for.

MR. SULLIVAN: I heard he was supposed to go to Cabinet, but he was not allowed.

MR. FITZGERALD: All the government members from the West Coast have aspirations. They want to be the premier, they want to be leaders. The sad part about it is, there are a couple of members over there from the West Coast who deserve to be in Cabinet, and by the very virtue of the geography of this land and where they are from, they will probably be denied that.

Be careful where you are sitting there, I say to the Member for Grand Falls – Buchans; be careful who you are sitting by.

MR. SULLIVAN: The Member for Humber Valley was supposed to go in the last shuffle but they stopped it, some of the back benchers.

MR. FITZGERALD: That is right.

MR. SULLIVAN: Tell them, tell them now.

MR. FITZGERALD: From where? Humber Valley.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, he was supposed to go in (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: He probably was supposed to go in and it was topped.

Mr. Speaker, back to Bill 48, the Shops' Closing Act; I don't know what happened to the process here where the former leader of this government brought in committees of the House of Assembly, standing committees of the House of Assembly, duly recognized, whereby they would take proposed legislation and go out to the people and consult and ask for their advice and ask for their guidance; so they could come back to this House and advise the sitting members here of what the general public thought of a particular issue.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know why this hasn't been allowed to happen in this process. Members opposite say they don't get any phone calls; there is nobody calling them. Obviously we are getting phone calls. We don't stand here and get up just for the sake of opposing a piece of legislation. We get up because we are representing the people who elected us to come here and speak on their behalf.

We are saying that because the stores and shops are open on Saturday, and there are people who keep Saturday for their Sabbath day, that we should allow it to open on Sunday as well. Mr. Speaker, that doesn't hold water with me. That is certainly a poor excuse. The people who I've talked to, and I've talked with four or five of them today, are asking: Why fix something that isn't broken?

This is a hit on rural communities in Newfoundland and Labrador, that is what this piece of legislation is; the small mom-and-pop operation, the small corner store, the little cottage store, the little family store, that is trying very desperately today to stay in business.

The people down in my district all complain because people drift up to Clarenville to shop. They have so much time on their hands, and they have their shopping centres up there. They are saying, because people have so much time on their hands that they are going out and making it an outing. It is a day to go and see somebody different, do something different, and while they are there they buy their groceries and they do whatever shopping they want. A lot of the smaller stores are dying on the vine in Catalina and Port Union. The Member for Trinity North will verify what I'm saying, Mr. Speaker.

This past three years, in those two small communities, there have been fifty-two businesses that have closed. Fifty-two businesses have closed in Port Union and Catalina alone. The other businesses in Bonavista are hurting, Mr. Speaker, because there are very few people working, and the people who can afford to go to other places and shop, that is where they are going. You take Sunday shopping away from the small store owner and local corner store and they don't have a lot left in order to be able to compete with the Wal-Marts, the Zellers and all those other multi-national companies.

What a time to introduce a piece of legislation such as this, Mr. Speaker! What a time to introduce Bill 48, while everybody is here trying to get home for Christmas! I heard the Member for Torngat Mountains talk about it today. He is not happy to be here; I can guarantee you. He has lots of functions that he would like to be able to attend in his district, but because he is an honest, sincere, hard-working member, he would like to be here because the House is open. This is why he is sitting in his chair there and will continue to sit there, but his mind is down in his district, attending graduations, attending festivities with his people.

MR. TULK: You want a bit more smoked char, now. That is what you want.

MR. FITZGERALD: I have lots of that, I say to the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: He wants more char now, Wally.

MR. ANDERSEN: If he wants (inaudible), he will get it.

MR. FITZGERALD: I have gotten lots of that from the member. He looks after me; one of the best members in the House. I don't get much from your colleague from - where is he from? - Happy Valley - Goose Bay.

AN HON. MEMBER: Lab West.

MR. FITZGERALD: Lab West. Not Lab West, no, Naskapi.

AN HON. MEMBER: Lake Melville.

MR. FITZGERALD: Lake Melville, Mr. Speaker. He doesn't bring up many gifts; I can guarantee you. He keeps it all for himself. I understand that he has lots of caribou and lots of salmon but does not share it with anybody.

Mr. Speaker, what a time to introduce a piece of legislation that should be fully debated. We should be able to stand here and put forward the opinions and the suggestions of our constituents. What does the Government House Leader do? Leave the House open, sit late a few days before Christmas, and try to wear everybody down, try to wear down the Opposition. Keep a muzzle on his own back benchers in case they speak, keep a muzzle on them so he can get this piece of legislation through.

I will tell you what is going to happen. All you have to do is look around you here. How many empty seats are over here? Just look at them. Count them. I can tell you that we are here for the long haul. We are here for the long haul on this legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: We don't mind dealing with legislation. A lot of legislation, in fact, has been introduced and has gone through this House within a couple of hours, Mr. Speaker. If it concerns certain individuals, we have gotten up in our turn, said our few words on it and allowed it to go through. There has been nothing hung up. But the Government House Leader now, in his own bullying fashion, decides he is going to spring some of this on us. The fat cat who is over there sitting down decides now - I don't know; I believe he enjoys the late suppers with the boys. I think he must enjoy the chicken and the Chinese food and the Mary Browns. Order out! Bring it in! Dora is gone shopping; I will eat at work. That is the only thing I can see that the Government House Leader is trying to do here, because he knows -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) eat salad now, boy.

MR. FITZGERALD: I tell you - I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: He had a salad.

MR. FITZGERALD: He had a salad? Yes, and I would say it was a big salad, too. I would say it was a big salad. You are right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: I hope you didn't leave any chicken out there because he has gone back and forth a half-a-dozen times since.

AN HON. MEMBER: He will sneak out, eh?

MR. FITZGERALD: He will eat it, Mr. Speaker; I can guarantee you that.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) Christmas.

MR. FITZGERALD: I will be down. I say to the Government House Leader, I would be as welcome for a drink there as he will ever be.

MR. TULK: Oh, no you won't.

MR. FITZGERALD: Oh, yes, I will.

MR. SULLIVAN: Roger, is there any truth to the rumour that it was Beaton who was the guy who was raiding the vegetable gardens in Musgrave Town?

MR. FITZGERALD: No, no. It was the moose. It wasn't Beaton; it was the moose that was out there taking the cabbage. It wasn't the member, not at all.

Mr. Speaker, what a time to bring forward a piece of legislation. When the Opposition Leader got up and started talking about Moxie Roberts, the former -

AN HON. MEMBER: Moxie moron,

MR. FITZGERALD: Moxie moron, Moxie Roberts, Eddy Escobar, who is still up there shining down on us somewhere. He is the fellow who nobody had any great time for when this type of thing would happen, that the back benches would look and they would give him the long face, and then behind his back they would bring up the fists, and all of that. I say to the Government House Leader, you are going to be in trouble too, boy. You are going to be in trouble with your back benches as well because they are not happy.

The sad part about it -

MR. SULLIVAN: Moxie is the guy who went to Ottawa to straighten out the Education Minister on (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I would say Moxie is probably going into the Senate.

MR. DECKER: Now, don't get down in the mud.

MR. FITZGERALD: That is not being down in the mud, I say to the Minister of Justice.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I would say he is probably going to take Senator Petten's place.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. FITZGERALD: Eddy Escobar.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: No? Who will it be? Who is it? Because a lot of people are guessing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mrs. Gilbert.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mrs. Gilbert?

AN HON. MEMBER: Bonnie Hickey said she is (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: No, it is a man.

MR. FITZGERALD: Is it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Tom Lush. Roger, the Member for Terra Nova.

AN HON. MEMBER: Here he is now.

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, there he is now, the Member for Humber Valley, the next man to be in the front benches; and he will do a good job. He will do a good job there because he has had some good training.

MR. SULLIVAN: The Member for Twillingate and Fogo won't let him go.

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I know that.

MR. SULLIVAN: He is not allowed to go; the backbenchers will not let him.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) go for more chicken.

MR. FITZGERALD: Is there any more chicken, Julie, I mean, hon. minister? He is on his way out again. There will be nothing left only the bones.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) figure out the municipal operating grants.

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, if anybody wants to know or wants a lesson on how the municipal operating grants work, if they want to know how the formula for MOGs work, the member can do a good job on it, I say to people opposite. He could give the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs a lesson, there is no doubt about that.

Mr. Speaker, we have to ask ourselves who is in favour of Bill 48. How did it come about? Did the Minister of Education have representation from his district asking that the shops be open on Sunday? Did the Minister of Environment and Labour have representation from his district to say why we should be opening the stores on Sunday? The people I am talking to are the people with the little pharmacy who are saying: I have enough competition now from the Wal-Marts and the Dominion stores six days a week, let alone having them picking at me on a Sunday, too. Those are the people I have been hearing from. The members opposite might say: Open it up and let them compete. Those small stores and a small businessman in Newfoundland or in the rural areas cannot compete with the Wal-Marts of the world. That is what is happening here.

I do not think it is because we over here on this side get up every Sunday morning and go to church. I do not think that is why we are opposed to it. I do not think it is because we are super religious or we think we should not be doing anything on Sundays. There are lots of opportunities to do other things on Sundays without having to go out and take part in a shopping spree.

The workers at the Wal-Mart stores, the workers at Zellers and at Dominion stores, they do not see any benefits in it for them. First when I heard about this piece of legislation I said: Well, I am not so sure I oppose that. It is an opportunity for people to be able to find another day's work a week. It is an opportunity for those who are getting sixteen hours a week probably to work twenty-four hours a week - I am sure they will be happy with it. When we talk about getting people employed in this Province, if we can add another day to the labour week then there is no reason why those people will not be happy, and there is no reason why those same people will not want to work on Sundays.

Some people will put up the argument: There are already a lot of people working on Sundays. What is so wrong? Is it bad because it is a Sunday and the doctors have to go to work? Or is it necessarily a negative thing that because you do not want to work that somebody else may want to work? What about the nurses? What about the small store owners, the gas stations? Those are all things that could be turned into a positive, I suppose.

However, after talking to some of the people who work at the department stores, I find that there are not a lot of advantages there. In fact, the representatives for those - the Canadian Federation of Independent Business did a poll. It is probably a little different from the poll that was done by the government opposite, by the great communicator himself - probably a little different from the poll that was done by him, where he piggy-backed on the Omni facts poll and asked the question to - I do not know if it was 200 Newfoundlanders, or 200 people from the East Coast, about Sunday shopping. They got - if my memory serves me correctly, somebody said 61 per cent, 62 per cent were in favour of it. The minister knows.

AN HON. MEMBER: Two hundred and nine people, 58 per cent in favour of it.

MR. FITZGERALD: Two hundred and nine people were polled, 58 per cent in favour of it. No big numbers, Mr. Speaker. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business went out and did a poll. They found that nearly 77 per cent of the members contacted oppose easing the restrictions on Sunday shopping.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: That might be, too, I say to the member. Mr. Speaker, this is not happening. Government members get up and say, and they give examples, that if this was so bad then why is it being done here and why is it being done somewhere else? I understand it is not being done in Prince Edward Island. Those are the provinces we kind of associate ourselves with. Nova Scotia, our sister province, it is not happening there.

My problem with the whole piece of legislation is why are we not using the committees of this House that were put in place, that were structured, to do the very thing we are asking to be done here and it should not be an issue. We should not have to stand here tonight and beg members opposite, beg the government -

MR. E. BYRNE: `Roger', it was raised in caucus, was it not?

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. You are right, when this was brought up in caucus. My colleague here, the Member for Kilbride, took the lead role in it as soon as it was announced, and said how bad it was and said that it was going to be an issue. We said from the beginning that we were opposed and it was not long before everybody else saw that there was some truth in what was being said. Mr. Speaker, I do not have a great nose for politics but I can sense something that is wrong.

When this was brought up in the caucus of our party, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Kilbride and I immediately said: We do not like this piece of legislation. There is something wrong here and we should take it to the limit. That is what we are going to do and I am certainly happy to see everybody here stick with this because -

MR. SULLIVAN: I was in favour, too.

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, you were. The Leader of the Opposition was certainly in favour; in fact, everybody was, and it was only a matter of who spoke first. That was the only way that somebody had the jump on somebody else by saying they were opposed to it.

MR. SULLIVAN: The Member for Bonavista South spoke so quickly we did not get a chance to speak.

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I was probably a little too quick at the starting gate on it, I say to members opposite. But there are no benefits -

MR. SULLIVAN: No, let him talk - do not rush him.

There are no benefits here. We have our Standing Committees of the House in place, Mr. Speaker, representatives from both sides of the House, and we are not saying that people should go out across the Province and have public hearings on every piece of legislation that is brought in, but why not use the committees of this particular House to deal with a piece of contentious legislation? Why not use them? That is why they are there. Why introduce it three or four days before the House closes, beat people into submission and talk them out, bring in closure and push it through to change to the Shops' Closing Act to allow the stores to be opened on the first of January? Why the rush?

Why the rush, Mr. Speaker? Because I can assure you that the small stores in Bonavista and in Port Union and out around Carbonear going down around the loop there, are certainly not in favour of this piece of legislation. They have enough competition now in trying to keep the few dollars in their own place so they can survive.

Human nature being what it is, nobody goes out anymore and caters to somebody because they happen to be next door to them or they happen to be from the same area. People tie it in to a day outing and they go to the bigger stores and shop and the smaller stores are the stores that take the hit; and I can assure you, there will be more layoffs caused over this piece of legislation than there will be benefits gained by individuals working with the bigger corporations and getting a few hours work because, it has shown, Mr. Speaker, that there will not be any new jobs created with this piece of legislation, the Shops' Closing Act.

All we are asking is - if a committee goes out and holds hearings across this Province and finds that the majority of the people want to have Sunday shopping, than there will be no argument over here on this side, Mr. Speaker - the people over here will vote in favour of it.

Nobody knows how many extra dollars this piece of legislation is going to create and generate in the economy. In fact, Mr. Speaker, there is a great possibility, from what I understand, that wages will be driven down. The people will be driven back to having fewer hours or else they will get the minimum wage, because instead of creating extra dollars - you still have the same dollars to spend - all you are doing is creating an extra expense by having the people work longer, higher electricity costs, higher costs, Mr. Speaker, by the very virtue of having that particular store open.

If you think for one moment that the shopping centres around this Province and the stores around this Province are going to be taxed to the limit by people shopping, then I say go back to your favourite store and see what happens on January 1st or 2nd. I will not say December 26, because that will probably be one of the best or the biggest shopping days in the year, the day that everybody takes back the gifts and exchanges them and, I suppose, probably collects a few bargains. Go back the first couple weeks in January and you will see, Mr. Speaker, if we need an extra day to keep our department stores open for the seven-day-a-week period. I think you will find out very quickly.

MR. GRIMES: Who said they were going to be open? They might not even be open.

MR. FITZGERALD: Who said they were going to be open? I think they will be open, I say to the minister, and that is what one of your colleagues came over earlier and whispered and said.

MR. E. BYRNE: I mean, under the Environment, this was brought in in the fall of 1995?

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, this was brought in in 1995, again in the spring of 1997 and again now.

We can use Clarenville, probably, as a prime example. It is a small town. Clarenville's population is about what, 3,500 people? A small town, big town atmosphere and a fair number of department stores there. It is a town that I would suggest - and the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs can correct me - but I would say that Clarenville is probably one of the better-off towns in the Province today. It has a really good tax base with a small population and most of the infrastructure there is relatively new, I would think. Now, you have a Sobeys store there, you have a Dominion store and a Co-Op store, three major supermarkets, right in this little town of 3,500 people; all the business is generated there from Bonavista on one side to Charlottetown on the other side, from Southern Harbour on the other side taking in Southwest Arm. Now, where do you think those people will be going on Sundays if the stores are open? Where will you find the people?

First you said, maybe they will not be open. Well it only takes one store to open; one store will open and it does not matter which store it is, then the other people will open by the mere fact of trying to continue to keep their customers and their clientele; they will have to, Mr. Speaker. So one will open and by the very virtue of that happening, you will find that the other two will open.

MR. SHELLEY: Uncle Sam's Butcher Shop, the (inaudible) and gone.

MR. FITZGERALD: Uncle Sam's Butcher Shop.

Mr. Speaker, there is another store that may be open. There is another business that was proposed in this Province. Yes, Sir, there was another business proposal that I would like to read. I understand that I am getting close to my time but with leave, Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell you about a business that was proposed in this Province that was supposed to employ hundreds of people.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: Just a minute to clue up?

MR. TULK: Let him have leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: Here is a proposal that was brought forward only a little over a year ago by the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture at the time, now sitting as the Government House Leader. Here is a proposal to generate hundreds of new jobs in rural Newfoundland. This particular proposal was supposed to take the part of the fishery; this was a new industry, this was a catchy business that a lot of people were going to get involved in, and the headline reads: `Here is the beef - buffalo beef that is.' Listen to this, because this is a solid proposal that was brought forward by the Government House Leader.

Now listen, Mr. Speaker, I want you to listen to this because there are some really good points made here: `Here is the beef - buffalo beef that is. Local buffalo beef and bison burgers may soon be a regular commodity on supermarket shelves and restaurant menus in Newfoundland. The Provincial Government is currently studying a proposal to offer eight buffalo ranches on the Avalon Peninsula and other areas of this Province.'

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is the buffalo? Bring out the buffalo.

MR. FITZGERALD: Listen now, because this is a good proposal. `The proponents are awaiting word from Agriculture Minister, Beaton Tulk, for permission to import buffalo to start their farms.'

`Newfoundland is the only' - these are the minister's words now - `Newfoundland is the only Province which does not have buffalo ranches.' He said: `The times call for the establishment of three or four buffalo farms on the Avalon Peninsula, one in the central region and another on the West Coast. Right now, bison meat tops the Canadian market both in terms of demand and price.'

Now listen to this one; he said: `The size of the buffalo ranches' -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FITZGERALD: Would you listen? This is a good business proposal. He said: `The size of the buffalo ranches would depend on whether they are breeding stock or beef stock ranches.'

MR. TULK: Who said that?

MR. FITZGERALD: You said it.

MR. TULK: No, I did not.

MR. FITZGERALD: `And the beef stock ranches would be much larger. The largest buffalo ranch in the Atlantic region is at 200 head operation now in New Brunswick, they have been working out great everywhere else according to our study. It is a very viable investment.'

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: He said the buffalo would be obtained -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. TULK: I have to tell the hon. gentleman that if he does not soon get that story finished we are going to withdraw leave. The other thing is, he is reading from a piece of paper and I have to have that story. `Roger', you have to table it. Mr. Speaker, make him table it when he is finished.

MR. FITZGERALD: There is not much left of it. He said the ranch buffalo would be obtained from breeders across the country. The only remaining area in Canada where buffalo still roam freely is in Alberta. He said the Newfoundland ranchers -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I have to read one sentence.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I say to the hon. member that leave has been withdrawn.

MR. FITZGERALD: Okay, the last sentence reads, `You would have to keep a close eye on them and you would not be able to let them roam in pastures like we do right here, as we do with cattle,' the minister said. `The buffalo are very expensive, anywhere from $3,000 to $5,000, but it is in demand, because it is low in fat and low in cholesterol.' Mr. Speaker, this could be in competition with the oil from the seal - John Efford's seal oil.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

MR. SULLIVAN: `Beaton', where are the ranches? I have not seen any.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Did you say there was one up in my district? I have not seen it. I would know if there were buffalo up there.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I imagine, Mr. Speaker, after that last speech, all these people of the out-migration, who are leaving Newfoundland and Labrador are singing, `Oh, give me a home where the buffalo roam,' I say to the minister.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on Bill 48 - it might be more than a few words in due course, I say to the Minister of Government Services and Lands. I have so much to say, I do not really know where to begin, so I will begin at the beginning, I suppose.

In 1951, I was born in Gander, Newfoundland.

AN HON. MEMBER: Prove it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where?

MR. J. BYRNE: Gander.

AN HON. MEMBER: 1851.

MR. J. BYRNE: In 1951, and since that time, whenever we had a Tory government in power in this Province, the traditions of Newfoundland were being honoured and kept, but particularly in the last eight or nine years what we see in this Province is our traditions being swept aside by the Liberal Administration.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, 1951.

Anyway, we see our traditions being swept aside. This is not a big argument in opposition to Bill 48, "An Act To Amend The Shops' Closing Act No. 2", but it is a factor in this Province and we have seen over the years in the history of this Province, Sunday shopping was not permitted, it was not wanted, not needed by any stretch of the imagination and the people of the Province opposed it. What do we see now? We see this Administration again, bringing in amendments to the Shops' Closing Act for the third time in two years.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay, everything in due course.

Now, Bill 48 - I made so many notes when I was listening to other speakers, and there is so much to say. The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi made a statement that some people across the Island think this is a `townie' plot to bring in shops closing in Newfoundland as an attack on rural Newfoundland. Now, some people may question the logic or the reasoning for the consideration that this could be an attack on rural Newfoundland, but in rural Newfoundland we have many small businesses that are usually spread out from this larger central area, such as St. John's, Gander, Clarenville, Grand Falls, and what have you. We have a lot of the smaller communities out from these major centres and a lot of the people come into these major centres from rural Newfoundland on Saturday to do some shopping. Now, if in fact this is passed, which I sincerely hope it is not passed, Mr. Speaker - and I was a very strong voice -

MR. E. BYRNE: Not one thing have they learned in a year.

MR. J. BYRNE: Not one, I know.

I was a very strong voice, Mr. Speaker, with respect to opposing this proposed legislation. Now, Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, December 17, 1996, we were looking at the reading of this same type of legislation and it was withdrawn. In the spring they talked about introducing a six-month trial Sunday shopping and that was withdrawn, it never came to pass. Now, we have this before us again.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have many, many petitions on this side of the House that are being presented to us to present in this House of Assembly, and we are going to do that. And I am sure that there were petitions presented to government members on that side of the House but they have not been forthcoming with those petitions. I do not know for a fact, but I would assume that there are people on that side of the House who received petitions. Now, it only makes common sense. Why would they just give them to us? They are the government members, they are the people who are going to control whether this bill goes through the House of Assembly or not. So obviously, the idea would be to get some people on that side of the House to speak against this Bill 48.

There are members on that side of the House who I know are opposed to this, but they are pulling in their horns, Mr. Speaker, and are basically saying that, you know, it is the government's bill and we cannot really oppose it, and what have you. So they are leaving the work to this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, to get it out there, the reasons why this bill should not be passed.

There are many, many reasons why this bill should not be passed. Why is it necessary? Why is this bill necessary at this point in time? We have to ask that question - it is being asked of us. So we are trying to get some response from the government side of the House and we have yet to get a response that makes this bill logical and sensible to be passed in this House of Assembly at this point in time. We have not been told why it is necessary. I do not know why it is necessary, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, one individual said to me that if a person - well, it is not necessary, I heard that from a lot of people. But if people wanted to shop, really, in this modern day technology we have e-mail. They can shop all around the world if they wanted to. That is carrying it to the extreme, I know.

Now, I fear - and I am hearing this from other people, too, of course - that the people who are going to be hurt the most with this is the small retail stores, the confectionery stores, the `mom and pop' dealerships in this Province. I have heard this over the years. Whenever I go to Torbay, Mr. Speaker, and my father is still alive in Torbay, we discuss politics and we discuss what is going on in Newfoundland and Labrador today. I have to say that he has a real problem with the large chains.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No. He was not, no I agree. You do not know that but I tell you, he was not. But since the previous Premier and this present Premier, he smartened up pretty quickly, I can guarantee you that, especially with the hydro situation, and I will not even get into that. But he knows now where it is at, Mr. Speaker.

We talked about what is going on in Newfoundland and Labrador today. Down on Water Street in St. John's, we used to see a lot of small privately-run stores that are mostly all closed now. When the malls came here, the large chain stores - he has a problem even dealing with these people, going there. Not that it is right or wrong but that is him, as an individual, Mr. Speaker. So he says that the small business Newfoundlanders, the people who create the jobs in Newfoundland over the years, are going to be wiped clean and that the chain stores are the ones in the malls that are pushing this. We have not been told, by the government, why this is necessary and who is pushing for it. We have seen the retailers come out opposing it. There are all kinds of reasons that they oppose it. It could quite possibly lose jobs. There can be jobs lost over this, Mr. Speaker. There may be a few created but overall across Newfoundland and Labrador, we can see jobs gone. What is that going to do in rural Newfoundland to people who are now pressured to God knows what point to try to survive?

We see this Administration today, Mr. Speaker, talking about Black Tickle up there and putting money in there and I give credit where credit is due, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs and other people putting money into Black Tickle, but how many -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, I thought there was other - to total it all up, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HARRIS: `Julie' gave some money to (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Julie gave some, the Minister of HRD over there gave some, Human Resources and Employment. NewTel is talking about putting something in, some private monies going in there, I say to the minister. But how many other small communities out there, Mr. Speaker, are in the same boat as Black Tickle? I do not know, I do not have a handle on it, but I am sure the government must have some figures. They must know what is going on.

I have to question. I mean, it is a good move that we help out the people in Black Tickle, there is no doubt about that, but what are some of the motives behind this? We could go on about that, the people's motives. Now, this situation in Black Tickle was in The Globe and Mail, of course, but what about the other small communities that are in desperate need out there that were not in The Globe and Mail? Did that have anything to do with them getting funding up there?

Back to Bill 48; what impact is that going to have on rural Newfoundland? We know now, as I said earlier, that in many of these rural communities in Newfoundland and Labrador, people are leaving right, left and centre. I think one of this Administration's platforms in the last election was to help rural Newfoundland. Now, we have this Bill 48, that could cause job loss in rural Newfoundland, make no doubt about it.

We have the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board talking about bringing in taxes on the resale of used vehicles, on the book value, which I have been opposing since I found out about it. Hopefully, the minister and the government will have enough sense to back off on that proposed legislation and realize that the people in Newfoundland and Labrador, by far the majority, cannot afford to buy new cars, so they go out and buy used cars. What impact is that going to have now on rural Newfoundland with respect to transportation around this Province, and the roads in Newfoundland and Labrador, the salt, the sand, and condition of the roads? How many unpaved roads are out there? I know in the District of Baie Verte - the member here brings up often the number of miles in his district that are not paved.

Bill 48 has far-reaching implications. There are so many points to be made. I am trying to keep her going in some kind of logical fashion. With respect to people - now there is an argument there that there are certain groups of people who work weekends, Saturdays, Sundays, and shifts and what have you, and that has always been the way in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have the R.N.C. of course and the R.C.M.P. who have to work shifts for the protection of the public. That only makes common sense, you know. We have nurses out there, we have doctors, who work shift time and Saturdays and Sundays. When we have people in hospitals, we cannot expect the doctors and nurses to all leave the hospitals when it comes Saturday night at midnight and come back Sunday night at midnight. So that argument does not hold water when they try to justify or rationalize bringing in the Sunday shopping.

I had a call on Saturday at home from an individual who owns a small shop in the Avalon Mall. As a matter of fact, he only bought it this time last year, just before last Christmas. He put all his life's savings into buying the store, the small business. He told me to oppose this in the strongest terms possible because it can ruin him, and all his life's savings can be gone because it will drive his costs up. He will not get more revenue from being open on Sundays.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: It is a sports store, Mr. Speaker. He says his revenues will not go up, but his costs will go up, and he will be forced to open on Sunday. The Minister of Environment and Labour today stood in his place and I think he said that the stores are not forced to be open; they do not have to open. That is a very naive attitude or idea to have with respect to this, because people are going to be forced. Once your competition opens its store, you are forced to do so also. So that is not being realistic.

This legislation is going to have far-reaching implications in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. As I said earlier, the retailers are opposed to it - that is what I am hearing. The Board of Trade has come out opposed to it. Who does the Board of Trade represent in this Province, I wonder? Businesses, it is opposed to it. The Labour Relations Board has spoken against it. So, the retailers are against it, the Board of Trade is against it, labour is against it. Who is in favour, I have to ask? I ask the Government House Leader: Who wants this legislation, that it is so important to bring it in at this point in time, just a few days before Christmas?

Mr. Speaker, we have seen this approach so often. I stood in this House in the past weeks and talked about the legislation that has been forthcoming since we opened a month ago. This is the start, I believe, of the fifth week now in this House of Assembly, and I have brought it up in this House about the legislation that was forthcoming, and you have to question some of the bills. We know there is housekeeping stuff that has to be done.

What we see happening here now is, in the last few days, when they feel everybody wants to go home, to be out of here for Christmas, they are bringing in this legislation.

Now, the Government House Leader has stated that this has been on the Order Paper, and who can argue? It has been on the Order Paper, there is no doubt about that, but the question is: Why do they bring it in for debate at the last moment?

Some people out there - and I just happen to be one of those people - believe, firmly believe that this is a deflection from something on which we really do not know what is happening.

We have other legislation coming through this House. We have the Public Utilities Act coming through here. We have the Labour Relations Act just passed out today, coming through this House, Bill 52, "An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act", which can be very far-reaching, delivered today, and I am sure there are people in this House on that side who figure we are going to be out of here by Wednesday or Thursday. That is what they figure, but when you have legislation coming into this House days before - we have to have time to look at it, to assess it, to review it, to ask questions on the legislation.

Now we have the Shops' Closing Act and we know that the people of the Province are against it. We know the Board of Trade is against it, we know labour is against it, we know retailers are against it. We do not know who is in favour. So, again they are using up the time of this House to try, maybe in the last few minutes, to force something through this House of Assembly.

I would say, more than likely, there will be closure brought in on this bill, and there will be closure brought in on Bill 52, and there will be closure brought in on the bill with respect to public utilities, because there will be no choice. Because there will not be enough hours in the day, there will not be enough hours between now and Christmas, to get this through with the time that is going to be required by the Opposition to question it, to review it, and to analyze it. Again, it is a diversion tactic.

MR. H. HODDER: Ask the Speaker to control the members over there.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, how many other points do I have to make? Who will benefit from this bill? That is a question I have to ask. Who is going to benefit?

AN HON. MEMBER: A point of order, `Jack'.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, could we have people in this House show a bit more respect than what I am seeing on that side over there? Really! They are singing away. Where is his guitar, I would like to know. Where is your guitar?

Mr. Speaker, who will benefit from this legislation? We know it is not -

MR. H. HODDER: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if you could ask hon. members if they could be a little quieter. Also, sitting on the Table is not acceptable in Parliament.

AN HON. MEMBER: With his back to the Speaker.

MR. H. HODDER: With his back to the Speaker.

MR. A. REID: - point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you speaking to the point of order?

MR. A. REID: Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: I apologize to the House for my dishonourable behaviour, Sir. I hope you will accept my sincere apology for sitting on the desk.

MR. SPEAKER: Apology accepted.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have to say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, I have detected a distinct difference in that man in this sitting of the House of Assembly. He is more pleasant. I can even talk to the man reasonably and sensibly, and I do not know why.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: What?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I know. That is beside the point. I have to say, I give credit where credit is due.

MR. FITZGERALD: His brother got elected to the (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, I think I figured it out, actually.

MR. H. HODDER: He is trying to be the big brother.

MR. J. BYRNE: No, I know what it is. I do not know if it was a clash of personalities or what, but I am no longer the minister's critic, and I think it has something to do with it. He is more relaxed. He has not had a scrum since I gave up being his critic, he told me that himself. So, it is a distinct difference, no doubt about that, and a positive one, by the way.

Mr. Speaker, back to the bill, back to this very important piece of legislation: Who is benefiting? Where are the benefits? As I said, the Board of Trade does not want it, labour does not want it, retailers do not want it, and most of the public, from what I can gather, do not want it, from the people I have been talking to. Because it is going to affect their way of life on Sundays; they feel there are going to be people losing jobs over this and they do not see the necessity for it.

Another very important point: in Newfoundland and Labrador today, since this Administration came in, we have seen taxes increase to the hilt, licence fees and permits increase, and people have less money to spend. Come Sunday, if this Shops' Closing Act goes through, will the people have more money to spend? No, they will not have more money to spend, but what we will see is the cost to the small businessmen going up, and they will not have more revenues come in. In fact, what we could very well see is people losing their jobs. What we could see is that maybe the people who are there now in certain businesses, by bringing in a seventh day to work they may lose an hour a day during the regular week day, working days, and make them work on Sunday. So they will be working longer for the same money, and the businesses will gain the benefit, but not the individual.

The hours of the day that the people work on Sundays if this goes through - what hours will they be required to work, or not required to work? Will they be working from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., from 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.? Or will they work from noon to 5:00 a.m., noon to 6:00 p.m., and noon to 7:00 p.m.? We do not know what is going to happen here. Again, it can get back to the situation, as I said earlier, where people working during the weekdays will lose an hour a day and be required to work on Sundays. That could actually happen. So who is going to benefit? It is not going to be the employee, not by any stretch of the imagination. That is the point that needs to be considered.

As I said, this legislation coming before this House at this point in time is not reasonable. It is not reasonable for this government to be bringing it in. It is not being fair to Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition which needs to debate this legislation. I see the Member for Harbour Main - Whitbourne over there shaking his head.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Listen, I never even got into public consultation yet, I say to the Member for Harbour Main - Whitbourne - nothing yet.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I am going to get into consultation in due course. I have pages of notes to get into, Mr. Speaker. I thought, by the way, that fellow, the Member for Harbour Main - Whitbourne, would be in Cabinet by now, but the way things are going it looks like the only way he is going to get a Cabinet post is if he takes an axe on his back and treks into the woods and chops down a post for himself. Because we know who is going in next. We have heard it before, and I am not going to get into that at all. I do not want to get into it, because this is a very serious piece of legislation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, consultation on this piece of legislation: It has been brought in here or talked about three times in the past two years. What is the problem with this going to a legislation committee so the people in the Province can have their say on this?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: You will find out now in due course how long we are going to want on this, at least six months, maybe, so that people can get out there, to have a committee go around this Province and have representation made from the Boards of Trade around this Province, from the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the Boards of Trade in the whole Province.

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay, what about the Chambers of Commerce? What about those? What about the labour people out there, Mr. Speaker? What about the retailers? What about the public? What about the town councils in this Province, the municipalities and community councils? What about all these people? I think they can give -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, I give her a hard time, too. Well, not really, not as much as I give some of the other ministers over there.

MR. A. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Now, Mr. Speaker, did you hear what that man just said? Did you hear what the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs just said? He just said, `Jack, did you know that the municipalities in this Province have the authority to have Sunday shopping?' I ask the minister: How many of them have Sunday shopping? So they have ignored that. Obviously, the municipalities do not want it. So that is another in opposition to it, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: That is right. There you go, thank you. Now there you go, Mr. Speaker. So the municipalities are opposed to it, according to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. The municipalities are opposed to Sunday shopping, the Board of Trade is opposed to Sunday shopping, labour is opposed to it, retailers are opposed to it, and the people in the Province are opposed. So who is in favour? Now, if that is the case, you have to assume that 90 per cent of the people in the Province are opposed to it. Now, that gets back to who is in favour?

The only people, I can figure, who are in favour, have to be from outside the Province. It has to be people from outside the Province who are pushing this. If so, Mr. Speaker, why are people from outside this Province pushing it, and why is this Administration willing to listen to them? I would only assume it is the large chain stores. That is all I can assume, because we know who are opposed to it. So is it the chain stores or not, I ask the Government House Leader? Why are you doing it? It comes back to my original argument, that is, what other people said here, Mr. Speaker, it is deflection again, that the Minister of Education is so good at - deflection. We saw that today, yesterday and last week with respect to the questions.

MR. E. BYRNE: This is the environment of what was going on and each time it was brought in (inaudible) cuts to unemployment insurance, that was the first time. So it was deflection.

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh yes, I will save that for the next half-hour.

Mr. Speaker, because I am so opposed to this legislation, because we know all the groups I have mentioned are so opposed to this legislation and because I know the members on that side of the House, a good many of them, are opposed to this legislation, I want to move an amendment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Seconded by the Member for Baie Verte, I move the following amendment, that all the words following the word, `that' be deleted and the following substituted therefore: `Bill 48, an Act To Amend The Shops' Closing Act No. 2, be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day, six months hence.' Mr. Speaker, I move that and the Member for Baie Verte seconds it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: It is called a six-month hoist.

MR. J. BYRNE: A six-month hoist, that is what it is referred to, Mr. Speaker. I would assume, Mr. Speaker, that that is in order.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why did you not say a year?

MR. J. BYRNE: Is it in order?

MR. SPEAKER: The amendment is in order.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: When `Jack' brings it to the floor you have no worries about it being in order.

MR. J. BYRNE: You had better believe it! I am not right, Mr. Speaker? The Government House Leader is up on points of order ten times a day and he has not got a right point - the Speaker has not ruled in his favour yet; a six-month hoist.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is he speaking on the motion or is he speaking on the amendment?

MR. J. BYRNE: I am speaking on the amendment, boy! Don't you know anything? How long have you been here?

AN HON. MEMBER: You are speaking on the amendment now, are you? How much time do you have left?

MR. J. BYRNE: Half an hour.

MR. SHELLEY: They gave up, close the shops.

MR. J. BYRNE: I had better take another drink of water, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SHELLEY: Take your time, `Jack'.

MR. J. BYRNE: Now, if the Minister of Environment and Labour wants to withdraw the bill at this point in time, I have no problem with it. He can do that any time in the next half-hour. I only have half an hour on this?

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, half an hour.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, just look - where is this here? Where did he show me that?

Mr. Speaker, when this came up in caucus and we knew it was going to be an issue, a very contentious issue, one that could defeat that Administration in due course -

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. J. BYRNE: - one that could defeat that Administration, as I said last week and the week before, with respect to the tax on used vehicles, what impact that was going to have on those people over there - and they know, Mr. Speaker. And this Shops' Closing is going to come back to haunt them. It will come back to haunt them, just like Newfoundland Hydro would have came back to haunt them if they had gone through with that. This will come back to haunt people on that side.

We can look at urban and rural areas in Newfoundland and Labrador. Shops' Closing maybe accepted in certain areas of the Province, maybe a little more in the urban areas, maybe St. John's, but that would be about it. Rural Newfoundland is apposed to this and the members on that side of the House know - I can look at their faces and tell. The Member for Topsail is after getting all kinds of calls. He said so himself today. He said today - do you know what the Member for Topsail said?

MR. WISEMAN: (Inaudible) anytime today did I ever say that I am getting lots of calls. What I did say was, I got six calls today, four of which were in favour.

MR. J. BYRNE: There is no point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. T. OSBORNE: How much did you pay your family to call?

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, Mr. Speaker, what I heard -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

MR. J. BYRNE: Of course, there is no point of order.

What I heard was that he had six calls and there were two in favour, which means that sixty-six per cent were opposed to it in his district.

MR. WISEMAN: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I am only speaking of what I heard. He just spoke to them.

MR. WISEMAN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Topsail, on a point of order.

MR. WISEMAN: What I did say was that I got six calls today, four of which were in favour, so that means two were against. Now, I will say it again, I got six calls today, two were against, four were in favour.

MR. J. BYRNE: In favour of what?

MR. WISEMAN: Of Sunday shopping.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The hon. the Member for Topsail was taking advantage of the opportunity for further clarification of the issue.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, again we have a situation where members on the opposite side are abusing the time of the House on points of order and what have you, and from what I can gather, 90 per cent of what I see over there getting up on a point of order is not a point of order - especially the Government House Leader; he is the worst over there for that type of thing.

Now, let me see here. Back in 1995 - we will talk about deflection tactics, which is what I mentioned earlier. Back in 1995, this same type of legislation was brought in, when they were talking about unemployment insurance - the changes that were being made to the unemployment insurance by the then Premier, and it was brought forward to deflect our attention away - the people's attention in Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, I know that the Minister of Environment and Labour is getting fidgety over there because he is hearing the truth. He is even denying that he is being fidgety.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I have eyes, I can see. He is even denying he is being fidgety over there on this issue.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, you are then.

Now, I have not even gotten in my notes yet. I have something like fourteen different notes here that I have to refer to, no, fifteen now.

With respect to this, again I think there is too much haste in bringing this forward; there is no doubt about that. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business just found out that the proposed change - was told that it was not in favour of it at all. Small businesses: I have talked about small businesses before and how it will impact upon them; and 77 per cent of the small businesses oppose Sunday shopping. Now these are figures, Mr. Speaker, that are being put out. As I said, small mom and pop operations will keep money in the small towns in rural Newfoundland. The money is kept in those small towns. Now, if we see those people who shop, especially on Sundays, in these areas, Mr. Speaker, leaving -

MR. A. REID: Jack, it is no trouble to know (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, I heard, but I am not going to repeat it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. A. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, boy.

MR. A. REID: Next time you are at the mall, (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Exactly. So, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs is agreeing with the statements I have made with respect to the money in small communities that will be leaving the Province, Mr. Speaker; transactions being done by electronic means. In actual fact, he is confirming what I have been saying, that we will now see people from rural Newfoundland communities, that are anywhere near theses largest centres, driving into these centres on Sunday, Mr. Speaker, and spending their money. This money then will be leaving the Province; gone. What we will see then, Mr. Speaker, in rural Newfoundland again will be more people leaving Newfoundland and Labrador; out-migration.

So with the policies of this administration, in particular with this legislation, Mr. Speaker, we will see more people leave Newfoundland and Labrador. Absolutely pathetic, Mr. Speaker; no doubt about that!

Now, in Atlantic Canada, Mr. Speaker - the Member for Humber East is over there now -

MR. MERCER: (Inaudible) every word you are saying.

MR. J. BYRNE: You might hang one of these days, I say to you, buddy. Did somebody say that he is a one-member speaker?

MR. SULLIVAN: He is passing through.

MR. J. BYRNE: Passing on through. Right on! You are passing on through.

Mr. Speaker, other provinces, Nova Scotia and PEI, do not have Sunday shopping. Atlantic Canada, again, more rural than most of the other provinces, like Ontario maybe, BC and what have you - although there are rural areas in these provinces, we have Atlantic Canada a bit different. We have no Sunday shopping there. New Brunswick is reviewing the policy. Now, the Premier of that province, who was there for some ten years - McKenna, was it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. J. BYRNE: New Brunswick - just resigned. Ten years? He was a good Premier for the Province of New Brunswick; there is no doubt about that, Mr. Speaker. He is gone and now they are reviewing the policy. They must have a similar premier over there now to the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, it will not increase revenue. The people of this Province only have so much money to spend, and it is getting less and less all the time because of the taxation regime that this administration has put in. We have seen people in this Province, Mr. Speaker, particularly the civil servants, who have not had a raise in eight or nine years, and they should get one.

MR. MERCER: (Inaudible) they get one?

MR. J. BYRNE: The Member for Humber East, Mr. Speaker, says the civil servants in this Province should get an increase. I introduced a Private Member's resolution saying that very thing and I expect the Member for Humber East to get on his feet and support that resolution when it comes before this House. So, there! I hope he does that.

MR. MERCER: I think it should be retroactive (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: He even wants to make it retroactive, Mr. Speaker. I wonder, will he get up and be on record when that resolution comes to the House, and make that statement?

MR. MERCER: Yes.

MR. J. BYRNE: I wonder will he? It will be the first time, Mr. Speaker. It will be the first time.

As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, it will drive up costs. How will it drive up costs, if you introduce Sunday shopping? Well, simply put, Mr. Speaker, it will drive up costs to the employer because he will not be getting the revenue that you would think, because people only have so much money to spend. He will have his employees working on Sunday.

It could very well drive up the cost to me or to the Member for Humber East or to the Member for Topsail or to the Member for Conception Bay East and Bell Island, or whoever. It could drive up the cost to the general public out there, and I will tell you why. What you will see is that the employers' costs will go up but the revenues will not go up, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, the prices of the articles that you will be purchasing could actually go up; another indirect tax by this administration. That is what could happen in the very near future if this goes through the House of Assembly, unless this administration decides to back off and support this six-month hoist.

MR. A. REID: Buddy up in the gallery is making a lot of faces at you, Jack.

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, I don't say it would be the first time that this member made faces at me, that man in the gallery, and I am sure -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes. He is the member for where?

AN HON. MEMBER: Port au Port.

MR. J. BYRNE: The Member for Port au Port, who is in the gallery, is so repulsed by this Bill 48 that he will not even sit in his Chair in the House. He opposes it. He is repulsed by it. He is sickened by it, Mr. Speaker, and rightly so, because the people of this Province are sickened by it; I can guarantee you that.

It will drive up the costs - I have covered that - there is no doubt about that, Mr. Speaker. Just going through my notes here, people will leave rural communities to shop on Sundays. Now I think it is a pity, really, sincerely, it is a pity, to try - I don't know if the government is deliberately doing this. I cannot imagine that they would be. I cannot believe they would be deliberately trying to force people out of the rural communities in Newfoundland and get them to go to the malls and the larger centres on Sundays, because we have small mom and pop operations in these rural communities. People may go there on Sundays and they might have to spend a little bit more for an item, but for the convenience of it - this is where these small mom and pop operations make their money often times, on Sundays. That is what they depend upon for their livelihood, and to take that away from them, even if it is innocently being taken away - and I would have to say that I hope it is innocently being taken away from them. Who could support that that not be the case? I hope it is not a - I am going to get back to this.

Mr. Speaker, I have said in this House of Assembly on many, many occasions that the policies of this Administration have been very, very hard on rural Newfoundland. I remember the first year I was elected, back in 1993, sitting in caucus in there - I am not supposed to talk about it, but I will tell you.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is starting to weaken, Jack.

MR. J. BYRNE: Is he? That is good; he is starting to weaken. The Minister of Environment and Labour is starting to weaken; that is good.

Talking about rural Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, and the impact that the policies of this administration are having on rural Newfoundland, there were so many at that point in time that I thought anybody would be blind if they could not see what was happening, and it seems to be coming to pass. It is sad to say, Mr. Speaker.

It could drive down wages, actually, Mr. Speaker. Sunday shopping can actually drive down wages in Newfoundland and Labrador. As I said earlier, if the businesses in the Province have to balance out their costs over a seven-day work week rather than a six-day work week, the salaries of the employees may actually go down because there will be less revenues come in. To keep the stores and businesses open in Newfoundland and Labrador the employees may have to pay the price and accept a lower wage. Mr. Speaker, that may seem far-fetched, but I am sure there are other things that were more far-fetched in the past in Newfoundland and Labrador.

One of the things that was probably farfetched: Back in 1949, when they were fighting for Confederation, I remember that Peter Cashin said there would come a time in Newfoundland and Labrador when you will not be able to go out and jig a fish. That sounded pretty far-fetched at that time, didn't it? It sounded pretty far-fetched, but it came to pass, didn't it, Mr. Speaker? It came to pass.

MR. MERCER: These are different times.

MR. J. BYRNE: The Member for Humber East says these are different times.

MR. MERCER: A slightly different concept.

MR. J. BYRNE: A slightly different concept, is it?

Get up and speak to this bill. Get up and speak in favour of the six-month hoist, I would say to the minister, the proposed amendment.

Mr. Speaker, last spring when this was talked about again, after the year before, the government talked about a trial basis. A six-month trial basis, I believe, was being talked about, from maybe June to Christmas, for the tourist season. It was not introduced. The stores were not open on a trial basis. Mr. Speaker, why weren't they open on a trial basis? What it is trying to do now is go right from the pot into the fire on this issue. A trial basis may not have been too bad, Mr. Speaker, to see how the people felt about it, to see what impact it would have on the businesses of Newfoundland and Labrador, see what impact it would have on the retailers, see what impact it would have on the public, and to see what impact it would have on the employees.

No, we can't do that! No, Mr. Speaker! We will have to jump right into it. Why? I've asked the question now a dozen times since I've been up. Why? No answer yet. It can't be explained, why this has to be approved now. The Government House Leader can't give us an answer and the Minister of Environment and Labour can't give us an answer; no answer.

Mr. Speaker, this may sound a minor factor, but it can actually hurt people's holiday planning.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, can you protect me from the people in the galleries? They have been up there trying to distract me. Anyway, I would say the person in the galleries should be on the other side looking this way. They must be sick of looking at the crowd over there. The only reason I can see, why the Member for Port au Port is in the galleries, is he has to be repulsed by this legislation; there is no doubt about that.

Mr. Speaker, why change a way of life? If it isn't broken, why fix it, I ask the Government House Leader? Because, Mr. Speaker, there is some ulterior motive behind this legislation coming to this House at this point in time. I have hit on two or three reasons why it could be. It could be -

MR. H. HODDER: When Clyde Wells brought it in, it was the day before he laid off 350 people.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes. Oh, my! Oh, my! I don't want to even talk about that.

MR. H. HODDER: Do you remember that? He brought it in as a diversionary tactic.

MR. J. BYRNE: I can't talk about that, that is too negative, Mr. Speaker. I can't talk about why -

MR. H. HODDER: The day before he sacked 350 people.

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay. The Member for Waterford Valley says that the previous premier brought the same type of legislation in to deflect from a major negative action the government was going to take the next day. That action was that negative, Mr. Speaker, I can't even talk about it, because it was so hard on the people of this Province, and it was so hard on the civil service and the unions and what have you. I won't get into what it was, but it was not a very nice move.

MR. H. HODDER: It was the December slaughter, is what it was.

MR. J. BYRNE: December slaughter, it is referred to as.

As I said, it hurts holiday planning, especially, Mr. Speaker, with people with low incomes. I mean, they don't have a lot they can do in Newfoundland and Labrador, and their incomes are being cut back all the time because they haven't had increases, costs have gone up, and taxes have gone up. People in this Province, especially the lower-income people, the weekends are their holiday. They go out to their cabins in the summertime to do a bit of trouting and fishing and what have you.

MR. TULK: Jack, you look like a ballet dancer.

MR. J. BYRNE: I don't have the shape of one though.

Mr. Speaker, in the wintertime -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the Government House Leader, you should see me dancing. Too bad you can't dance as well, I would say, Mr. Speaker. I'm a lot lighter on my feet than you are, I say to the Government House Leader; I can guarantee you that.

MR. FRENCH: He can tell you what a plié is.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader is trying to deflect me from the -

AN HON. MEMBER: Deflect?

MR. J. BYRNE: Deflect. Deflect is good enough for me. I'm a Newfoundlander. I've got no problem. I am like the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture; I have no problem whatsoever, Mr. Speaker.

To low-income people in this Province, who go out to their cabins in the summertime, who go out to their cabins in the wintertime with their Ski-Doos and what have you, who can't afford to take the big paying trips down to Florida and Bermuda and down to wherever, the low-income people in this Province: This is going to have an impact on that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I've never been to Florida, I would say to the minister.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, if they have to work on Saturdays now and they have to have to work on Sundays, their holidays are going to be ruined. That may sound like a minor point, but it is an important point to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: It is too bad, Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader doesn't take this legislation more seriously. I don't know about that crowd over there. They are so concerned - it is too bad they weren't so concerned about their own leadership a year and a half ago when everyone over there, the Minister of Education, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, were thinking about it. The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs was thinking about it; yes, he was. The Minister of Finance and Treasury Board backed out. The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture called a big -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I have to say, Mr. Speaker, they are so concerned about Dougie Moores. This party has a leader, he is sitting here today!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: We have a leader, Mr. Speaker!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, we saw an example of what he could do tonight. He was on his feet for an hour giving it to the government, pointing out the wrongs in this legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Order? It is impossible to get order with that crowd over there. (Inaudible) a bunch of mad people, madmen. There are ladies over there too.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: Forget about it, boys! Don't worry about it! You aren't going to be voting in the leadership. You won't be voting. None of you guys over there will be voting!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. A. REID: (Inaudible) Liberal Party.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs said that Mr. Moores, a man who I met two or three times in my life, is a member of the Liberal Party. How many are sitting there who were members of the PC Party? How many ministers over there, Mr. Speaker, were members of the PC Party?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, my! That is nothing. That doesn't mean anything, my son.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: No, and you will never be able to say that I was Liberal; I can guarantee you that.

MR. SULLIVAN: He said he missed two years of his life, the first two years when he was a Liberal.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: Look at this, another note delivered to me: Compliments on your speech; been listening to you for the past forty-five minutes. Premier of the Province. Good job!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Now that is not bad, is it, coming from the opposite side? No, not at all.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, why the change of life? I mean this is going to be an impact on the people of Newfoundland -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Not the change - you might be on the change of life, I say to the Government House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: That's those hot flashes he's getting.

MR. J. BYRNE: I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, because in the last few days and last week that man was pretty - what is the right word?

AN HON. MEMBER: Pretty red.

MR. J. BYRNE: No, but fidgety, irritable, and that is a prime indicator of being on the change of life. Mr. Speaker, he is in here today happy and relaxed. Mr. Speaker, another example of going from one extreme to the other extreme: hot, cold, up, down; the Government House Leader. You had better get him checked out, Mr. Speaker.

Anyway, back to my very serious debate on this legislation, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this is not a major argument against Sunday shopping, but there are many people out there, I can guarantee you now, who do not want Sunday shopping because they believe it will impact upon them attending church. Now the argument is going to be: Sure, that's their decision. They can go to church on Sunday if they want or they can go shopping. That is up to themselves. But, Mr. Speaker, the tradition in Newfoundland and Labrador, since 1497, from the history that I read - and I have only been here for forty-six years myself - the tradition in history is that there is no Sunday shopping in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education, the former Premier, the Premiership of the day, attacks the churches with respect to education reform. They had one against the other and now they are attacking the churches again with this legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: The church don't (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: You better do a bit of reading on your history.

AN HON. MEMBER: Some do, boy.

MR. J. BYRNE: No, boy, I don't suppose they do.

Gee, my time is almost up.

MR. SHELLEY: Two more minutes.

MR. J. BYRNE: One other thing, Mr. Speaker, it will hurt the flea markets in this Province, the craft industries and charities. They could all be affected by this legislation.

MR LANGDON: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Now, I hope the Minister of Environment and Labour has been taking notes on everything that we have said over here. How many have spoken? Four or five speakers so far, Mr. Speaker, all taking notes. I am sure when he gets up he will be able to tell us that the board of trade is in favour of it, that the retailers are in favour of it, that the labour relations people are in favour of it, that the Chambers of Commerce are in favour of it, that the municipalities are in favour of it, that the Opposition is in favour of it, and give us reasons why they are all in favour of it. I say he can do that, can't he? Will he be able to do that? I doubt it if he will be able to do that, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: They don't even believe it themselves.

MR. J. BYRNE: I have to say, Mr. Speaker, from my words here for the past hour or so, you would assume that I am opposed to this legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. J. BYRNE: You might gather that, Mr. Speaker.

Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I have to reiterate and say, that I expect, from the comments of the Member for Humber East who has stated that he will stand to his feet and support this amendment that I am proposing, the six-month hoist - we will see if he will be on record on that issue; there is no problem there.

The Minister of Government Services and Lands is over there and I expect that he will not support this legislation. I am sure, if the members on that side of the House are true to their convictions, that they will vote against this legislation and support this proposed amendment on the six-month hoist, Mr. Speaker.

I think my time must be nearly up, unless you want me to go on, by leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: Go ahead until your time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave?

MR. FITZGERALD: Keep on going.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

MR. TULK: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do not adjourn at twelve o'clock by the calendar time and at ten o'clock by the parliamentary time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House do not adjourn at twelve o'clock.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: `Aye'.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against, 'nay'.

AN HON. MEMBER: `Nay'.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: I am glad to here that. I am glad to hear the House Leader make that motion. We just ordered pizza for twelve o'clock, so we are all set for the rest of the evening. Many of our colleagues here -

MR. H. HODDER: Bacon and eggs tomorrow morning.

MR. SHELLEY: Bacon and eggs ready for breakfast. We are ready for the long haul on this particular issue.

MR. H. HODDER: If you want to take a stand, now is the time to do it.

MR. SHELLEY: I have seen this happen before, Mr. Speaker, not very long ago either. The funny part about this particular piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, is if you talk to members opposite on the q.t. you can find out very quickly that there is not a lot of support for this. As a matter of fact, a lot of them are going around scratching their heads saying: Where is this coming from?

Even, as I was driving in this morning, Mr. Speaker, to Deer Lake, low and behold, we hear in the CBC report the Member for Humber East. The first thing he said to some of his constituents out there when they asked him is: I don't know where it came from; I think it came from the Justice Department. We can't figure out where it came from. They can't figure out who is driving this, Mr. Speaker, who is supporting it. They can't find out where all the great -

MR. MERCER: I don't know what he is talking about.

MR. SHELLEY: I will repeat it again, Mr. Speaker.

MR. J. BYRNE: It is no trouble to know that you don't know what he is talking about, boy.

MR. SHELLEY: This morning, Mr. Speaker, people in his area - I don't know if they were his constituents or not, but two people were talking on CBC radio this morning. When they asked the Member for Humber East where this was coming from, he didn't support it, he didn't talk about how great it was or how important it was. He didn't say any of that. All he did was try to explain where it came from, and he said, somewhere from the Justice Department.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I am just telling the member what he said. That is what was said this morning when I was driving to Deer Lake.

Mr. Speaker, there are other members who came over today that talked to (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Well, actually the bureaucrats must have roused this up again, because we certainly did not rouse it up, Mr. Speaker. So, how many people, really, are in this House tonight wondering how important this piece of legislation is, and so excited that they brought it forward now at Christmas so we can get it through the House? It must be so important, Mr. Speaker, that they all had to come in here tonight and talk to the House Leader and say: We support you.

I don't believe it was anything like our Caucus meeting, Mr. Speaker. We had a Caucus meeting on this. Support for this was not like our Caucus meeting, when we started the ball rolling with the Member for Bonavista and then the Member for Kilbride. They took up the torch and within minutes the entire Caucus was behind them four-square, like the House Leader usually says. There was no problem because everybody felt the same way, Mr. Speaker.

We tried to weigh the pros and cons, and the more we looked at it the more we realized that what is happening here, Mr. Speaker, is for some reason the bureaucrats stirred this up again. A new minister comes into play, and they said: We have to throw the red herring out again. All kinds of things are happening with Black Tickle and Voisey's Bay; let's throw out another red herring, Mr. Speaker, just like we did with the RNC. They throw that out every now and then. When the issues start to heat up that's exactly what happens.

When you talk about Black Tickle, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Cape St. Francis -

MR. TULK: Have you got your dress brought for Christmas?

MR. SHELLEY: As a matter of fact, I do. You should see that dress.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: He must have connections all over the malls and everything, Mr. Speaker, he must be worried now. He has people all over the malls everywhere looking, watching what we are buying and everything.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: No, I didn't, I brought it on Saturday.

Mr. Speaker, we talked about the pros and cons, and everybody wondered why this came up again. So we started to do a list of pros and cons and it all came down to: the only reasons for, was either, one, supporting the bigger companies like Sobeys and Wal-Mart or whatever, or it was for the convenience of shoppers. That was the reason I heard that was supposed to be the strong supporting case for this, that if everybody wants to shop on Sunday they should be allowed. That was the big argument.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what they should do is look at all different parts of the Province. In my community of Baie Verte, now I could see this -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Shop 'til you drop on Sunday.

Mr. Speaker, this is something for all members of this House - I know they all can relate to this - the family day of Sunday. I cherish that day on Sunday more than anything at all, Mr. Speaker. That is the day, on Sunday, when you walk down the street, either in St. John's, Baie Verte or Deer Lake - on Sunday in Baie Verte, Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of corner stores open, church bells are ringing, the town is quiet, traffic is quiet at any time but it is especially quiet on Sundays. Sunday is a special time when you go to the cabins or when you just walk around town and take it easy. Mr. Speaker, it is a real shame that that is going to be missing.

For example, in my town of Baie Verte, and I am sure it relates to a lot of the members' communities, Mr. Speaker, right now the little corner stores there, if you need a pound of butter, a can of milk or something, that is where - and the Member for Conception Bay South spoke about this, as a person who had a convenience store, worked a convenience store, that Sunday is the day when somebody comes up for a pound of butter, a loaf of bread, and they use the corner store. Well, Mr. Speaker, what is going to happen if, just a five minute walk up the road, Sobeys is there; or in my town, the Co-op store and the Foodland are there. So the fellow who has the corner store that thrives on Sunday, Mr. Speaker -people drop in from their cabins to get a bit of salt beef or a can of milk or something; these people use that.

Mr. Speaker, another thing that the Member for Conception Bay South talked about was the children who come in on Sunday evenings, or the parents who come in to pick up things to make lunches for the kids for Monday, because they did not have the groceries there. What will they do now, Mr. Speaker? They will go to the bigger stores. That is what happens, and that is why you have to sit back and look at this from that angle. Come on the other side of it and look at it from that angle.

As far as convenience for shopping, I mean in this day - I could see it even ten years ago but today, what do we have today? If you want to shop tonight you can shop until 12:00 midnight. As a matter of fact, I think there are stores where you can shop twenty-four hours tonight.

So, as far as the couple who were on the plane today, Mr. Speaker -two people said it to me on the plane. The Member for Humber Valley was there too. There were two people on the plane, two consumers, supposedly consumers, who said that they support it because they work all week long and they look forward to being able to shop on Sunday. The truth is, Mr. Speaker, I spent the whole weekend in my district and it was only the third or fourth time that the consumer - I won't exaggerate. Basically what I was getting was that they did not care one way or the other: If there is Sunday shopping I will go, if there is not, I don't care. One way or the other, they did not really care. There were not adamantly saying: Boy, I hope we get Sunday shopping or I'm not going to make it. I am really upset because we don't have any. They are saying: Yes, I will shop if Sunday the shops are open, but I won't if they are not.

Mr. Speaker, you have to look at who you are really affecting here. Number one is the small corner store way of life, the one that is in every community. That is one you are affecting. Number two is the family. I take Sundays to take the Ski-Doo or take a walk around or go on the trails or whatever. The town is quiet, the little corner store is open. Don't ruin that part of the Newfoundland culture. That is what I say this will do. Mr. Speaker, is it going to bankrupt Sobeys or Wal-Mart or anybody? No, I don't think so.

This is another good point that was made: People are not going to spend more money because shops are open on Sunday. The same amount of money will be spread over more time. Or, worse again, the people who would have spent money on Sunday in the small local store and that money going back into the Newfoundland economy, instead of that dollar going into that small local store, like the Member for Conception Bay South, where is that dollar going to on Sunday? It is going into Sobeys or Wal-Mart or some of the bigger stores. That is what is happening.

All we are doing really, in essence, is we are taking a few dollars that mean a lot to the smaller convenience and corner stores of this Province and we are putting them into the - it is going out of the Province. Might as well get down to it; that is exactly what is happening. That $10, $15 and $20 that one of us might go in to spend on a couple of groceries we forgot to get during the week to take with us to the cabin or whatever -

MR. WISEMAN: You don't know that.

MR. SHELLEY: I certainly do know that, I say to the Member for Topsail; obviously he doesn't.

If you look at that few dollars that I would spend at the local corner store, Mr. Speaker, or most people would, now if the Co-op store or Sobeys is open up the street, that is where that is going to go.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about 1997. You talk about the convenience of shopping: We can leave here tonight if we finish at 2:00 a.m. and go shopping. I don't buy this thing about both the husband and wife working in the family and not having the chance to shop. That is the situation with my family, but we still have Saturdays, we still have Friday nights, and we still have Thursday nights. Like the Member for Cape St. Francis just said, in this day and age, for anybody who is on the Internet, and most of us are, you can shop by e-mail. You can shop by catalogue. There are all kinds of ways to shop.

Mr. Speaker, if you start weighing out the pros and cons, the truth is it only comes down to one argument for what the government is proposing, and that is the convenience. Imagine! We're going to take the argument of just the convenience, so that you can go shop on Sunday, and we are going to take away the benefits to small stores in the Province and we are going to take away a family way of living in this Province.

If you want to see the real affect - even in this city I talked to a couple of people about it in the last few days. St. John's is different on Sunday, Mr. Speaker. Everybody talks about small towns and how it affects them. I'm not from here, but knowing St. John's a fair bit, on Sundays there is a whole different atmosphere, especially in the city, and Corner Brook and the bigger towns. The town slows down, it is a slower pace. People like that. They like to go down, walk around old St. John's, the stores down around there. They just walk around the city.

The other one: Go to the mall. A lot of people like the tradition of going into the mall for the flea markets and seeing those types of things. They want to continue to do that, Mr. Speaker. I wonder how much impact that will have on places like the flea markets and so on.

What really happened? Where did this come from? I bet you there are a lot of people in this House tonight who, when they sit here at 10:00 or 11:00 or 12:00 tonight, wonder: What are we doing sitting here two weeks before Christmas debating Sunday shopping when nobody really is hyped up about it or knows where it came from? That is the whole idea behind this, Mr. Speaker. Where did it precipitate from? That is the question a lot of members are asking here, and I'm willing to bet there are members in this House on both sides who are asking themselves that same question.

I've been in Corner Brook on Sundays. You talk about the skiing out there now this winter - on Sunday it really comes alive with skiing. Those are the people who are in there. Most of the main drags are closed, traffic isn't that busy. It is the Sunday pace again, and that is what is going to change. Imagine going out on Sunday now to Corner Brook and the K-Mart is open out there and Sobeys is open out there, and all those stores like that are open. Give those people a chance to leave it like it was, Mr. Speaker.

Unless we can come forward with a strong argument, and if there was a strong argument - and we have talked about this in our own caucus - if there were some strong arguments, we couldn't find them. We couldn't find a real strong argument for Sunday shopping. Like I said earlier, when we were on the flight this morning talking to those two people, they said: We both work and we wouldn't mind if we could shop on Sunday. I don't know how adamant people are about that.

Do you think if we walked out of this House, if this bill were dropped - let's take probably a silly scenario from the way it looks, because the government is intent on pushing it through. Let's take it, Mr. Speaker, that tonight the government came to their senses and said: No, let's take it off and take a year to consult and really talk to the business community and talk to the people out there to see if they would like Sunday shopping. If you took that off today, do you know what? There would be no upheaval tomorrow. There would be no big lot of unrest around this Province because the government decided to give up on Sunday shopping. You won't see protesters or petitions sent in here tomorrow because the government dropped Sunday shopping.

Mr. Speaker, the truth is, if we dropped this here this very minute and the head line tomorrow morning was, the government decided to back off on Sunday shopping, there would almost be a sigh of relief by a lot of people who really oppose this; and for the people who somewhat want it they would say: So what, we never had it before, it is no big deal. So, Mr. Speaker, that is what the reality of all this is.

Then the Member for Cape St. Francis talked earlier about Black Tickle and how we responded to Black Tickle. I remember a while ago, Mr. Speaker, when we responded to Davis Inlet and the situation that was up there and how much money was spent on Davis Inlet. I wonder if we solved the problem or did we really just cover it up for the time being and move the problem? Eighty-five million dollars, Mr. Speaker, to move Davis Inlet a little ways down the road. Did we take care of the problem? We are not sure.

The funny part that I want to connect, that the Member for Cape St. Francis brought up, is the Globe and Mail. It's a funny thing, Mr. Speaker, but especially with this Premier, if anything hits the Globe and Mail that in anyway looks like trouble, he is going to dampen it right away. Don't you worry, the Premier of this Province is not going to have anything said in the Globe and Mail that is going to make him look bad on the national scene.

There are times, Mr. Speaker - and a member of the media said this to me today. I will not say who it was, but a member of the media said this to me today: I will bet you that the Premier watches the Globe and Mail closer then he watches The Evening Telegram. He's worried about the national scene, Mr. Speaker, and as soon as Black Tickle hit the Globe and Mail -

MR. SULLIVAN: There would be nothing done about Black Tickle, only for the Globe and Mail.

MR. SHELLEY: I am telling you, the media guy said that himself. He said: As soon as that story hit the Globe and Mail the Premier, within minutes - we all talked about it earlier, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SULLIVAN: I would say he paid a camera crew to go down there.

MR. SHELLEY: I tell you, the CTV National News was down there.

MR. SULLIVAN: Were they?

MR. SHELLEY: Oh, yes. The Premier responded just like that.

MR. H. HODDER: Just imagine taking advantage of the people in Black Tickle like that.

MR. SHELLEY: So, Mr. Speaker, the member from the media suggested to me - so, if you really want to look at it, we have a solution for all those problems around rural Newfoundland, communities around this Province. Now, I do admit that Black Tickle has a very unique situation, probably harder then most, but it is not the only community like that. Mr. Speaker, it is not the only community in hard times, very touch times.

Mr. Speaker, what the media suggested to me: Maybe, what might be the solution to get a quick reaction, to get something done in some parts of rural Newfoundland; all they need is a Globe and Mail reporter to show up in their community and have a look around. You know what, Mr. Speaker, we could have the Premier getting up responding very quickly, I think, if the Globe and Mail or CTV or Peter Mansbridge or somebody who is going to report on small town Newfoundland. You won't be long, Mr. Speaker, getting the Premier of this Province -

MR. SULLIVAN: They would starve in Black Tickle only for the Globe and Mail article.

MR. SHELLEY: Imagine though, Mr. Speaker! With all that is going on around, in Black Tickle it is almost like that all of a sudden just happened over night. That didn't happen over night, it has been going on for years and years. The only difference is the Globe and Mail reported it; that's the difference. It wasn't the Opposition, it wasn't The Evening Telegram, it wasn't VOCM, it was the Globe and Mail, Mr. Speaker. Guaranteed, when the Globe and Mail reacted, this Premier, in a snap, in the blink of an eye, reacted and came to their defence, Mr. Speaker, because he doesn't want, on the national stage, any blemishes up there. Not while he is minding the shop is he going to let anything like that happen in Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. H. HODDER: He's not minding the shop.

MR. SHELLEY: He's not minding the shop because, Mr. Speaker, he is on cruise control, especially when it comes to rural Newfoundland. He is on cruise control, and when it was reported on the national news that is the way to go. So, one of the media people told me today: If you want to get something settled out in one of those communities that are having a hard time, get the Globe and Mail or CTV or Peter Mansbridge or somebody to make a comment about it and you will get reaction, fast enough. That is what they said, Mr. Speaker.

Of course, I admit it is a very unique situation in Black Tickle, some very desperate situations with wood supply and so on. I hear the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair talked about it. We all understand that, but I am just talking about how the Premier reacted. I just wonder if the swiftness of the reaction had anything to do with that which was reported in the Globe and Mail, because the national stage seemed to be so, so important to our Premier in this Province, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, he spends a lot of time up there.

MR. TULK: Up where?

MR. SHELLEY: The Premier spends a lot of time, more then any Premier I have ever known, in the Mainland part of Canada. He spends a lot of time in Ottawa, a lot of time. I didn't see the former premier, Mr. Wells, spend so much time in Ottawa. I have never seen any premier - now, I don't have a long history, Mr. Speaker; maybe the House Leader or someone. I have never seen a premier spend so much time in such a short time in Ottawa.

The point is, he doesn't want on the national news or in the national media or across Vancouver or Toronto any blemish while he is minding the shop in Newfoundland. Because he wants to come out of Newfoundland -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I can't hear you.

He doesn't want anything happening, Mr. Speaker, while he is minding the shop, that is going to reflect on him up in Ottawa, because he might have to trip back to Ottawa pretty soon. As a matter of fact, every time I've seen him up there he seems to be more comfortable and he is in his glee. To come out here, in a small scrum out here, The Evening Telegram, VOCM -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I have lots of respect, Mr. Speaker. I might give him his ticket up there. I don't know about supporting him. If he went up there, you never know, they might give him ticket up there.

The point is, Mr. Speaker, whether he is running for - I'm not going to be like Doug Letto now on the CBC up reporting about the polls and everything they are doing on the Prime Minister. They did that about Clyde for the longest time. What happened? Mr. Wells had an exit, exited right away, said (inaudible) to build him up to - just like they did before the election; the big build-up; on his way down with the freight train running all over the place. What happened?

As a matter of fact, I'm wondering how much the Premier knows about this particular issue, or if he really paid any attention to it, or did he really say to the new minister: This is a good red herring for you. Throw this one out, get everybody upset while I'm away for a little while attending business. You take care of this; get everybody stirred up a little bit. If there is too much opposition to it, you can drop it; don't worry about. Don't worry about the caucus.

Boy, I would have loved to be a fly on the wall at their caucus meeting when they were discussing this. I don't think too many of them were pounding the desk when the minister

MR. FRENCH: It probably was not discussed.

MR. SHELLEY: If it was discussed. I would have liked to have been a fly on the wall when the caucus started talking about Sunday shopping. Do you think they were all giving a standing ovation, saying: Come on, minister, get this through, this is important, there are a lot of people calling me about how they want to shop on Sunday. No, Mr. Speaker, I doubt it very much. It was a red herring that was thrown in at the last minute.

When they started to weigh out the pros and cons - but then again, they probably didn't weigh out the pros and cons. All they said was that it would stir up a lot of hysteria for awhile and people would talk about it again. They would forget that Voisey's Bay is in trouble. They would forget that there is talk about the Argentia smelter again now. They would forget that Hibernia is not going to bring in the billions of dollars that everybody thought it was going to bring in. They would forget all about these big mega-projects that are going to save us. They would forget about the big Trans-Labrador Highway that is never going to be completed. They would forget about all of that.

Mr. Speaker, Canadian unity, talks about Canadian unity and the great Calgary Declaration: I had zero calls on the Calgary Declaration, and I can go around this room, not only on our side but on the other side, and people can tell you how many calls they had about that. That was the Premier's issue; that is what he wanted to talk about. How many people were all jumping up and down about that? Not many more than what were jumping up and down about this particular issue.

What they have to remember are the implications for small towns, or for that matter, Mr. Speaker, the cities, with respect to when Sunday shopping is going ahead and when it isn't. Keep that little bit of culture there. It isn't a lot, but what it is, is a quite day in small town Newfoundland when the church bells are ringing, the traffic has died down, and the malls or the bigger stores are not open. It is just a little guy on the corner who is selling a pound of butter or a can of milk. That is what it is all about. If you don't believe it, do it again. I like that part of Sunday. I know a lot of members here do, especially in the small communities. Go out into those. I enjoy Sunday, Mr. Speaker.

For all the members who are here and have children and enjoy that Sunday time home, especially if you are in the House like I am as a rural member and we get home on Friday evening - you have Friday night, you get home late. Of course, you haven't much time then. You have Saturday where you can get out to the stores or whatever, with your kids or whatever. Then on Sunday you want to go to church, you want to go for a skidoo ride, you want to just walk around town and go for a hike in the woods, you want to do that type of thing.

I don't want to see - I can really see this now -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: On Sunday afternoon? On Sunday afternoon we usually go in the woods or walk to the cabin or something like that, boil up or whatever. What I don't want to see, Mr. Speaker, is the traffic picking up, and instead of people dropping in to Joe's store on the corner there, they all pass him by and the parking lot is full down by the Foodland store, because that is open, or the other bigger stores are open.

In Stephenville, Corner Brook - did you ever walk around Corner Brook on a Sunday? Will Corner Brook be the same again? The point is, how badly do people want it? I mean, I could see if the government was coming with this now because people -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: No, no! I tell you, the people I have talked to - I did not do a scientific poll, I say to the Government House Leader, that I did not do a scientific poll; but, Mr. Speaker, it is a gut feeling. That is all it is, I say to the Government House Leader. It is my opinion, Mr. Speaker, that nobody in this Province - ask the Government House Leader or any member in here: How many members in the last two months leading up to this, before the government announced that they were bringing legislation, how many members here have had a phone call or someone stopping them and saying: Boy, I hope you are going to bring in Sunday shopping soon, I am really desperate for Sunday shopping? Let us do our own little poll of the members. What member, in this House of Assembly, can come to me and say: In the last month or two months leading up to this legislation, I was really getting a lot of pressure, boy.

The Member for Torngat Mountains: How many people came up to you in the last few days and started pressuring you for Sunday shopping? I wonder how many. How many people were up beating on his door with petitions saying: We better have Sunday shopping soon or I will be so upset with the member that he will never be elected again, Mr. Speaker? I do not think so, I say to the Member for Torngat Mountains. I do not think he had any petitions at his door lately, people getting mad with him and saying they are not going to vote for him anymore unless he gets Sunday shopping.

Mr. Speaker, the minister, who should be taking a lead role in this, you would think - forget about all the other members. You would think that the minister who is bringing this in must have been bombarded with calls and meetings and everything this last month or two saying: Minister, now it is on you, you are the minister in charge of this. You had better get that Sunday shopping through. I bet you he did not even get it.

Will somebody go and ask the minister on the q.t., quietly on the side: How much pressure were you getting for Sunday shopping and from whom? Where is it coming from? That is the big mystery here, Mr. Speaker. Out of the blue, a week before - we were all being co-operative, I say to the Government House Leader. We had a few good days here, we had some good legislation in, and we co-operated: You should get that. We have to get this one out. We have to get the Warrants out. We were being very co-operative up to this point, Mr. Speaker. Then, bang, out of the blue, because of the pressure on the minister - it had to be, it is the only thing we can figure out. We cannot figure it out. We are stunned on this one. We cannot figure out, honestly, all of us talking amongst ourselves, who is getting the pressure?

It is either one or the other, Mr. Speaker, either the new minister who came in was lobbied to death, he was pressured from all angles, phone calls, threats, petitions and everything, that he better do something about this Sunday shopping; or maybe it was the almighty himself, the man who has gone away, the Premier. Maybe it was the Premier who was getting all kinds of people from Sobeys or Wal-Mart or Canadian Tire or something; somebody called and said that, Mr. Speaker. That is what we cannot figure out. That is where we begin to be baffled on it, Mr. Speaker, and I bet you there are a lot of caucus members who say the same thing. Where were you getting all the pressure? Who put the pressure on the minister and all the government members to bring in Sunday shopping?

Mr. Speaker, never mind the poll of 209 people; all you have to do is a little poll of forty-eight members and ask them one question: How much pressure and how much lobbying has been done to you personally, in the last month or so, to make sure you get Sunday shopping in? How many calls did the Member for Twillingate have about Sunday shopping in Twillingate? How many calls did the Speaker have: Make sure you get Sunday shopping in, boy, or we will be some upset with you, you will never be elected again.

MR. G. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, I say to the Member for Twillingate, he is absolutely right. He had about the same number of calls as he had about National Unity, Mr. Speaker. Now, here is the joke about all of this. We are getting down to the crux. I just have a couple minutes left, Mr. Speaker. The joke about all this is, all the members are sitting here tonight, it is 10:20 in the night, it is almost Christmas - we are going to stay. I mean, we have made up our minds, the Opposition and the NDP member here, Mr. Speaker, that we have to find out why they are really pushing this, besides the fact that we oppose Sunday shopping. We are really curious as to who planted this and where did they plant it?

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Kilbride hit the nail on the head today. I heard him on the news again today. He said: Now hold on a second, is this really about Sunday shopping, Mr. Speaker, or is (inaudible) Open Line tonight and last night and so on, let us start talking about Sunday shopping again, guys, meanwhile we will try to settle this Voisey's Bay mess that is ongoing. We will try to see if we can get something on Hibernia, we will try to see if we can get Labrador settled down.

You talk about Canadian unity; here is some unity for you, Mr. Speaker. Try to unite Labrador and Newfoundland, try to unite rural Newfoundland with urban Newfoundland, try to unite religion with non-religion in Education; try to unite Aboriginals with the rest of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is where we have to unite, Mr. Speaker. You talk about the Calgary Declaration; we need to have a Newfoundland declaration, Mr. Speaker, and get some unity back in this Province, never mind spending twenty-four or forty-eight hours in here on something as ridiculous as this. `The Grinch Who Stole Christmas' is what this should be entitled, Mr. Speaker, because that is exactly what it is. It came out of nowhere.

We will make the same offer to the House Leader again tonight. We are ready to help you out on the rest of your legislation, the stuff that is important -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) bearing false gifts.

MR. SHELLEY: That is probably what it is, too, a false gift.

We are willing to help the House Leader again, be cooperative in getting good parts of the legislation through that are going to help the people of this Province and bring people back together. We are willing to do that. We sat here a couple of nights, and he got up and commended us. But, Mr. Speaker, when you bring in something as bogus as this, how can we jump up and down about it?

We are going to order pizzas, we are going to order breakfasts, we are going to order whatever we have to, Mr. Speaker, to stay here tonight and stay on top of this, because, if there is one thing, we are not going to be caught - as I say, there are two good reasons. Number one, we vehemently oppose the legislation; but, number two, we are so curious as to who planted the seed for this, and why it was planted.

MR. J. BYRNE: Are we going to order in buffalo meat?

MR. SHELLEY: We are going to order some buffalo sandwiches, a few bison burgers, and we are here for the duration. We will order whatever we have to order.

As I said, for two reasons: One, is to oppose the bill, but the other one is that we are dying with curiosity to find out who sat up in what office, where, and told the minister to get this thing on the table because it is so important; and he had so much pressure.

When the minister gets up to speak on this sooner or later, I just want him to answer one question: Who gave the minister all of the pressure to do this? Were there line-ups? Was there a list of petitions? Were there groups of people banging on his door? Were there people threatening him, that he was going to be kicked out of office? Were there people threatening him and saying: You will never get voted in again, if you do not bring in this legislation? I don't think so, Mr. Speaker, because the member does a good job in his own district. It won't be anything to do with that. I know it wasn't the people in his district forcing him to do this, because the member has a pretty good name in his own district. He works hard.

MR. SULLIVAN: Who's that?

MR. SHELLEY: The new minister who is bringing in this bill.

 

I am saying, it was not his own constituents who were forcing him to do this, because they respect the member. It wasn't them. It wasn't the other Cabinet ministers, because they don't give a hoot about it. It wasn't his Cabinet colleagues. It wasn't his caucus colleagues, because they have not had a call. Like the Member for Twillingate said, he had more calls on this than he had on the Calgary declaration. It wasn't them. We have it down, now. It wasn't his Cabinet colleagues, it wasn't his caucus colleagues, it wasn't his constituents, it wasn't the labour board, it wasn't the Board of Trade, it wasn't the Chambers of Commerce, and it wasn't the Small Business Association.

Mr. Speaker, unless somebody can tell us where this came from, where all the pressure came on the minister a week before Christmas, to throw all of his own colleagues for a loop, including all of us, to bring on this piece of legislation - I cannot find out where it came from.

The only one I can figure out, Mr. Speaker, is the Member for Torngat Mountains is pushing it. That is all I can figure out, that it is probably the Member for Torngat Mountains pushing this, to get the new mall open up there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I don't know what it was. The more times we ask a question about it, the more confusing it gets.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the hon. Member for Gander, don't get excited and want to go home in a hurry tonight because several days ago we decided, on this side of the House, that this was the biggest, most nonsensical piece of garbage that crowd over there have brought in during this session.

After the phone calls that I got, along with my colleague from Bonavista South, and the Member for Kilbride, we decided that we would stay all night tonight and tomorrow night and the next night. We will be here Christmas Day. If that is what the Government House Leader wants, we have absolutely no problem with that. His appetite is no bigger than mine. If he can get his brought in, I can get mine brought in.

The only thing, I say, is at least the Government House Leader gets out of his seat, which is more than I can say for the Member for Humber East who stays there and squawks like someone has him by the neck. He won't get out of that seat, Mr. Speaker; he won't stand up.

MR. J. BYRNE: Who?

MR. FRENCH: The Member for Humber East. He won't get out of his seat. He won't say if he is in favour of this bill or if he's against this bill. He just won't say. He sits there, he stays there and every once and a while he fires in a few words to let us know that he has not fallen asleep. That is fine, because on this side, Mr. Speaker, we have no intentions of falling asleep on this particular piece of legislation.

So, there is going to be more after me and then more after them and then me again. Our Opposition House Leader and my friend here from Cape St. Francis will all be back again. It might not be tonight, it might be some time tomorrow afternoon, I say to the Government House Leader, but we will be back and we will keep coming back.

Why we are here tonight - there is legislation coming concerning hydro and other things which I would consider to be a little bit more important then this, but after the phone calls that I have received and the petitions that I have received, there is no way, Mr. Speaker, we can cave in on this particular piece of legislation.

So I say to the Government House Leader, I hope the donuts don't run out, because at least you will have something over there for your colleagues to eat. My colleague, the Member for Baie Verte, is looking after pizza for this side; so we are okay. Somebody said, I think it was the Member for Topsail, that he had his breakfast ordered. Again I believe the Member for Bonavista South is looking after breakfast for this side. So, it is certainly not a worry for us on this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, interesting to note that this is the third time this piece of legislation has come before this House. In the spring of 1997, on May 16th, the day before the House closed for the summer, the Tobin government gave notice of another shops closing bill. I believe it was Bill 18, Mr. Speaker, and that bill would have permitted shops to open on Sundays from 12:00 noon between May 31st and December 31, 1997.

The bill was brought in during the public outrage over the health cuts, of course, and the bungled education reform and the lack of an energy plan and the absence of a mineral royalty regime, but again the government did nothing with that, and they certainly did nothing with this bill, and it stayed, as the Government House Leader says, I guess, on the Order Paper. So, why he is so insistent on this being passed, it is absolutely beyond me.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: No, I certainly don't blame the new minister for this. I have respect for the new minister and I don't think, for one minute, that he is the man who is driving the bus on this issue. I wouldn't believe it. I don't believe that the new Minister of Environment and Labour - the Minister of Education could be driving anything, but the Minister of Environment and Labour, I don't think for one minute, is driving the bus that got this bill out. I don't believe that for one minute, Mr. Speaker.

Interesting again to note that on December 4, 1995, the former Premier, Premier Wells, decided that we should have a Shops Closing Act and the bill was brought in. Again, whatever happened, Mr. Speaker, nothing was done; absolutely nothing was done with the bill. Of course, it was brought in by the former member then, the former minister, I guess, Mr. Murphy. Of course, we all know where he is now. I would like to think that maybe one of the reasons he is not here anymore is because he decided that we would have this particular piece of legislation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there have been all kinds of questions asked on this, questions to former Ministers of Environment and Labour, and this have been going on and on and on. The minister stated that he made a decision in response to representatives from many businesses in an attempt to bring this legislation in. He said that he had consulted with many businesses. I followed on through the investigation that I had done and nowhere, Mr. Speaker, could I find an answer to the question that a former minister, of the same department, was asked. Nowhere in research, that I had done, was this present. Now, he goes on - again, this being a former minister - about answering questions and so on, but again, no legitimate reason given as to why he introduced this particular piece of legislation.

Now, as has been pointed out, just recently, by my colleague from Baie Verte -

MR. H. HODDER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I do believe that the Government House Leader and his Whip have failed to maintain a quorum in the House.

 

Quorum

 

MR. TULK: I don't want to cut into the hon. gentleman's time like the Opposition House Leader, but this is the most foolish piece of stuff that ever I saw in my life; his own colleague up speaking and he gets up and cuts into his time by calling a quorum. Did you ever see anything as foolish and stupid in your life?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, just to say that, it is the responsibility of the government to maintain a quorum in the House. We just ask you that you abide by the rules.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you very much.

MR. A. REID: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Could you ask the table if they can rule on this? While the bells are ringing, is the Speaker allowed to accept any conversation from anybody on the floor? If they are not, then why was there debate going on, on the floor of this House, while the bells were ringing? How long do the bells have to ring before they stop to call a quorum? Can you ask that question please?

AN HON. MEMBER: At least an hour.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If I recall, I believe I stopped the bells when the conversation started between the Government House Leader and the Opposition House Leader.

Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will carry on now that we have a quorum, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, again I will go back to where I was when Mr. Murphy was the minister who introduced this bill. Of course, he went on to talk about Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Peter O'Brien.

MR. A. REID: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Are you going to give me an answer to my question, Mr. Speaker, later on?

MR. SPEAKER: I thought I did.

MR. A. REID: I am sorry?

MR. SPEAKER: I thought I did. You asked, why was a conversation allowed when the bells were ringing? I said, if I recall, that I had stopped the bells when a conversation ensured between the Government House Leader and the Opposition Leader.

MR. A. REID: Okay, Mr. Speaker.

On another point of order: When you stopped the bells there was not a quorum in the House. You started the bells to call a quorum. There was no quorum in the House when you stopped the bells to entertain the discussion. I am asking a simple question: When the bells are ringing, can the Speaker - and how long have they got to ring - can the Speaker stop the bells automatically, with no quorum in the House, to allow members of the House to carry on a conversation? I am asking a simple question.

MR. SPEAKER: When I stopped the bells, I noticed two members come in from the left-hand side of the House. I stopped the bells, and then the conversation started between -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just to the point of order raised by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. I understand there is a rule that says how long the bells have to ring, and then there has to be an actual quorum count. The minister is asking a question which I don't think has yet been answered. The bells must ring for a certain period of time, do they not? Then, when the bells stop ringing, the count is made to see whether there is a quorum in the House. I'm just wondering, was there a quorum count?

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, if I could to that point of order.

The truth of the matter is that there were fourteen members in. When the members came back in the House I said to the Speaker: There is a quorum present. If the hon. members opposite are ready, we are ready for the count on this side.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is right, it happens all the time.

MR. TULK: Happens all the time, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I will just repeat what I said before. There were thirteen members in the House. I rang the bells. I observed that two people came in on the left side, which made a quorum. I assumed there was an agreement between the Government House Leader and the Opposition House Leader that we now had a quorum, and it wasn't necessary to ring the bells for three minutes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will probably have to go back and start all over again now, because I think I'm after forgetting where I was. I'm sure somebody hasn't forgotten where I was. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I will certainly carry on. Give me a chance to find my notes here again.

MR. GRIMES: They ran out of the House on you a couple of minutes ago. There is nobody listening to you. Sit down out of it.

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Education wants to have a conversation with me -

AN HON. MEMBER: Go back to your seat. (Inaudible) is not even in his seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I certainly won't insist that the Minister of Education go back to his seat. I always liked the Minister of Education since his sporting days. I always thought he was a fine fellow. As a matter of fact, I thought he was going to run for leader. Another good friend of his and mine, Bill Hogan, who sat in this hon. House one time, had his money raised and tucked away for him, ready to go for leader; all set.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bob, nobody's listening to you.

MR. FRENCH: You must be listening, you just answered me.

Had his money raised, tucked away in the bank, and whatever happened, Mr. Speaker, he decided that, no, he wasn't going. I don't know if he got scared off by the train coming down the track or not. If he did, it is kind of surprising, because I always thought he didn't get scared of anything.

MS S. OSBORNE: That train is derailed now anyway, Bob.

MR. FRENCH: Well, that is a fact.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: I don't know what happened to that. I wouldn't get into that.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, again the other day I mentioned the impact this will have on small business in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. If anybody over there or anybody on this side doesn't think that it is going to have a disastrous affect on small business in this Province, then you are living in a dream world, because it will have an affect on small business in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Anybody who has worked in small business in this Province can tell you what I'm saying is the truth.

I have talked to people who are in the small business sector of this Province, Mr. Speaker, and they certainly do not want Sunday shopping, do not want any part of Sunday shopping, are dead opposed to Sunday shopping. So, I don't know why we in this House - I have to question, maybe, what bad news is coming that we are using this to sidetrack where we are, where we are going. Certainly to goodness there must be more, as I just said to the Member for Torngat Mountains, legislation in this House that is certainly more important than the Shops' Closing Act in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. There certainly must be more important legislation. But if this is what we have to deal with, then deal with it we will. We are not going to be bullied into submission this time, and we are going to stick to our guns on this particular piece of legislation, if that means sitting all night, then so be it, we will sit all night. We on this side can certainly stay up just as long as those on the other side.

MR. FITZGERALD: In fact we are a lot younger than a lot of them.

MR. FRENCH: That is true. Some of them have probably been here too long.

Mr. Speaker, again I talked to a lady today who is manager of a store - I might say a large chain store - who is manager of that establishment. I believe I mentioned it earlier today. After quite a conversation with this particular lady, she informed me that in their business it certainly will not mean any more employment, will not mean a thing. She talked to the supervisor of the stores in Newfoundland and Labrador, only to be told that it will not, from figures they have done and, I guess, polling, or whatever you want to call it, that these people do - and I guess they know their industry a heck of a lot better than we do in this House, Mr. Speaker. This lady tells me that this will not increase their business by one red cent. If it were going to drive their business up, Mr. Speaker, that would be one thing, but it is not going to do anything for their business. It is probably going to see some of their people laid off. Some of their full-time people will probably lose their jobs, so now they can bring in part-timers who they will certainly pay less money to; and these people will come in and work those hours to cover them. The dollars will be the same, Mr. Speaker. What people would spend in six days they are now going to spend in seven. So there is going to be no increase whatsoever to business in stores in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The only stores on which it will have an effect will not be the major chains, as my colleague said. I think another colleague said that we have had faxes from Canadian Tire, just to name one store. Representatives have come to see us, representatives from union. A man came in today and gave me petitions to present in this House and had quite a few names on his petition from different businesses in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador that are dead opposed to Sunday shopping.

Again, who is driving the bus? I don't think it is the Minister of Environment and Labour. If it was, I would be very surprised. I wonder if we called the vote now, which would be amongst the members that were here in this House, as to calls they have had, and how many calls they have received in favour, I wonder how many they could honestly and truthfully say they have received. In my case, Mr. Speaker, I have not had one, single call of support from anybody on this particular piece of legislation; not one call. I don't believe the (inaudible).

Mr. Speaker, another point to look at here, again as one of my colleagues talked about: What will the hours be? Are we going to open as they do now in a lot of the malls from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.? Is that what we are going to do? From 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.: Is that what we are going to do? Or are we going to open at 11:00 a.m. and close at 11:00 p.m., or are we going to open at noon and close at 5:00 p.m., or open at 1:00 p.m. and close at 6:00 p.m.? What are we going to do with the hours? How are we going to divvy up the hours amongst employees who work in these major stores in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador?

The one thing we could always count on in our Province was the actual fact that we all had Sunday off. That, if this bill passes, Mr. Speaker, we won't have any more. There will be nobody who will be guaranteed, and a lot of the people, especially family people - and I talked this afternoon about people with families in homes where, because of various things today, the cost of living and so on, it takes two people from a family to work and to survive. I said this afternoon: What happens if the man is off Monday, the wife is off Tuesday, the husband is off Wednesday, and the wife is off again Thursday? What happens to the children?

All we are going to do, Mr. Speaker, is actually cost the family more, because on weekends when they were home with their family, especially Sundays, now there is extra money that has to go for day care, for baby sitting or for whatever. Again, why are we going to do this? Why are we going to disrupt family life? I can't believe, for the life of me, that in this Province we are going to keep going -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Don't let the Minister of Education worry about how long I have left. I'm waiting for him to get up. I'm waiting for the Minister of Education to get up and tell us how he really feels on this bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: No, I'm not talking about the House Leader; I'm talking about the Minister of Education. When he gets back in his chair, when he has the guts and the gumption, he can stand in his place. He isn't tongue-tied. He isn't much of a campaigner, I say that for him.

MR. A. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Yes, I agree with the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. We caught him in the driving rain with his sombrero halfway down around his ears so nobody would know who he was; tiptoeing through Manuels campaigning for his brother-in-law, I think it was, who was running for council. He isn't having much luck campaigning for his brothers-in-law. I believe that was the second one he lost.

MR. FITZGERALD: His brother is not going to have very much luck campaigning for him, either.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Was too; Sunday afternoon. He was doing a pretty good job too until someone caught him. As a matter of fact, I say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, when somebody told me he was out there, I said: No, he wasn't. He wouldn't be at that. He has more to do in the driving rain on Sunday afternoons than that. But he was there, and more power to him. I'm not sure what his brother-in-law had on him now to get him out there; but anyway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Yes, it is too. It is five minutes, according to the note.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Maybe he will get up and give us a little demonstration as the night wears on. We are certainly going to need, as we get into the wee hours, a scattered bit of entertainment. Maybe we can call on the Minister of Justice to get up and do that for us.

MR. FITZGERALD: He will be asleep.

MR. FRENCH: Will he be asleep? No, he won't be asleep. No, I don't believe it.

As well, Mr. Speaker, of course, it is going to affect families, especially in holiday planning. Many people, especially those on lower incomes and with less vacation time in their jobs have fewer opportunities for vacations. So, I think again it will impact on families. It will certainly impact on families knowing that. Now they have Sundays off and, of course, all of a sudden that is not going to happen any more. So I think, in holidays for many people around this Province, it will have an effect and I don't believe, Mr. Speaker, it will have a very good effect.

Also on Sundays, it gives a lot of people an opportunity to run flea markets. I think it will also have some impact on craft industries and certainly charities that take the time on Sundays to set up flea markets where they can raise some much needed funds for their various charities. These are areas, Mr. Speaker, that I feel will certainly be drastically affected.

Mr. Speaker, when the Independent Business Association looks at this and says that they don't want it, I guess it should certainly ring some bells for somebody to find out or to tell this House why. Why would other legislation on the books, legislation such as the education act, the act for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, energy - why this particular legislation is here, Mr. Speaker, is just beyond me.

In Nova Scotia, which is a sister province to ours, they don't have Sunday shopping, they don't plan on having Sunday shopping and I certainly hope that Newfoundland and Labrador don't have Sunday shopping either. Prince Edward Island doesn't have Sunday shopping and, to my knowledge, does not plan on having Sunday shopping. So again, why are we driving this, so that we, in this Province, can have Sunday shopping? It just makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, Mr. Speaker.

I have to go back because I mentioned, I believe the first day I was up, the impact that it is going to have on small businesses throughout the Province of Newfoundland, especially in rural Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, and in parts of my own riding; if we allow some of these larger stores to stay open. In the major chains, especially the supermarket chains, they close at midnight on Saturday nights and, of course, it is a benefit to a lot of other stores. If we do this, then they will be open from midnight Saturday night, of course, right on through, seven days a week, 300-and-whatever days a year. I think it is going to have a drastic effect on Newfoundland and Labrador.

I guess, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Mr. Speaker, says that Sunday shopping will be one tough sell to the little guy. Mr. Speaker, it certainly will be one tough sell to the little guy in Newfoundland and Labrador because the little guy in this Province does not want it, and I am sure the people in this House would not want to be sitting on Sunday.

MR. SPEAKER (Penney): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm disappointed the House didn't give leave to the hon. member; he was making such a riveting speech. He has leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has already recognized the hon. Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I say, I was disappointed that the Member for Conception Bay South wasn't given leave because he was making such a compassionate plea on behalf of the little guy, the little person. One of the things -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, not only -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: The member is up to talk about blunders. This is the biggest political blunder I've seen this session, save and except the Minister of Education. The biggest blunder I've seen, except the ones made by the Minister of Education in the last number of days, has been the introduction of Bill 48 in the House.

Mr. Speaker, these government members here purport to be always fighting on behalf of rural Newfoundland. It is a wonder that the Premier isn't here talking about rural Newfoundland, and how he has to fight constantly for the place of rural Newfoundland in society! What have we got, Mr. Speaker? We have a bill which the Canadian Federation of Independent Business says is going to destroy rural Newfoundland. The 2,000 members of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business in Newfoundland, 90 per cent of them are opposed to this bill. The constituents of all the rural members in this Province, all the store keepers, they are opposed to it because they know this is going to cause damage to rural Newfoundland. It is going to cause damage to the lifestyle of rural and urban Newfoundlanders.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I don't know why hon. members opposite get so angry when I get up to speak. Maybe I'm pointing out some of their flaws to them, and they don't want to hear them. They don't want to hear about their flaws. They don't want to hear what they are doing, what people are saying about them.

The open lines are on now, Mr. Speaker, it is 11:00 p.m. They will be on for another hour. They will be talking about what this government is doing to rural Newfoundland. They will be talking about the exodus from rural Newfoundland. They will be talking about moving out to Alberta where the buffalo roam. That is what they will be talking about.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: There is buffalo and there is `bluffalo,' but the `bluffalo' is over there, Mr. Speaker. The Government House Leader is the largest `bluffalo' in the House.

Mr. Speaker, let us enumerate the number of people who are going to be hurt by this bill: number one, the small business person; number two, the employer; number three, the employees; number four, especially women. Most of the retail workers are women in this Province. Those are the people who are being hurt by this bill.

Who benefits from the bill, Mr. Speaker? That is what I would like to know. Who wants the bill? Hands up! Look, not even a hand up in the government. Who wants the bill? Hands up! I don't see a single hand. Nobody wants the bill, Mr. Speaker.

They are trying to foist it on the people of Newfoundland for one of two or three reasons; I do not know what they are. It may be just part of their campaign which ignores the realities of life in Newfoundland, and is trying to impose some mainland vision on it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is one of the reasons. They just want to make us somehow, some mainland idea - let us have Sunday shopping here in Newfoundland folks, let us just do that now because they do it on the mainland, they do it in the States and that is a good enough reason for them. Let us make us like the rest of North America, let us have Sunday shopping because they do it in the States. After all, that is who we really want to be like. Is that the reason? That is one plausible reason. There is nobody clamouring for it. Nobody has been consulted. Nobody has been clamouring for it. In fact, all the reaction that I have seen so far, except the two calls that the Member for Topsail had, except for those two calls, Mr. Speaker, everybody else seems to be opposed to it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the Member for Topsail has to keep repeating this story. Everybody knows, Mr. Speaker -

MR. WISEMAN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Topsail, on a point of order.

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I do not know, but they tell me the hon. Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi is a lawyer. Now, on several occasions here tonight, I got up and corrected the Member for Cape St. Francis, saying that I had six calls today, four of which were in favour of the Sunday shopping, two were against. Then I said, Mr. Speaker, that I had six calls today, two people were against Sunday shopping and four people were for it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi gets up and again says that I got two calls.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: Now, Mr. Speaker, I said I had four calls.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: I had four calls in favour of Sunday shopping, Mr. Speaker, and I had two calls against Sunday shopping. Mr. Speaker, in my view, that is six calls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I have to say, after watching the Member for Topsail in action, I understand what his problem is: He is counting on one hand with his other hand and he only has five fingers -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

Is the hon. Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi speaking to that point of order?

MR. HARRIS: No, Mr. Speaker, I was speaking to the debate. Perhaps you ought to make a ruling first.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is waiting for order in the House before he makes his ruling.

There is no point of order. The hon. Member for Topsail was taking advantage of the opportunity for further clarification, again.

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now that the Minister of Finance is here perhaps the Member for Topsail could consult with him on whether two and four make six or four and six make two or one and one - I know the Minister of Finance does not count in the same way, he uses both his hands and sometimes his feet, whereas the Member for Topsail only seems to be able to use one hand and has to use the other one to count those fingers.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, there is a bit of noise over on the other side from the `bluffalo'.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a piece of legislation that there seems to be no interest in except in certain quarters in the government. Now, as I said, I do not know why they are putting it forth. There seems to be a lot of backbenchers on the other side and even some ministers, who privately expressed their agreement with the efforts by the Opposition to hold this up, to give them an excuse over there to put this bill to one side.

I see the Leader -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: I see the Leader of the Opposition is collecting his gambling debts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: I see the Leader of the Opposition is collecting his gambling debts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: It is considered a gamble when there is a risk involved. I can guarantee you it was a 100 per cent sure bet!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: When I got up to speak there seemed to be a lot of interest in my speech but I seem to have lost my audience, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to stay focused on Bill 48 because it is an important matter. I realize, at 11:00 at night people get a little bit frivolous and looking for entertainment, trying to keep them awake. I know the Minister of Education is there patiently waiting for his chance to speak on the bill. We are talking about the amendment here being a six-month hoist. I am not sure I like the amendment. I do not think it is long enough. I think six months is not sufficient time to hoist this bill. I am just wondering whether an amendment of the six months to twelve months would be in order. Perhaps the Chair could consider that while I am speaking.

It seems to be that this is a bill that is recycled every six months or so anyway, and we might as well give it another six-month hoist because it was here six months ago. It was here for a while and it was going to go through, and was brought in at the last minute. Six months before that it was here. Another six months would be just in keeping with the trend, and I would recommend that trend to the current Minister of Environment and Labour, because the former Minister of Environment and Labour had some difficulty trying to get this bill through the House. In fact, the last time the Government House Leader did not even call it. Maybe this bill is like the former proposal that -

MR. J. BYRNE: It is like the rubber ball, it keeps bouncing back.

MR. HARRIS: Well, the rubber ball keeps bouncing back. It is like amalgamation used to be. Every Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs used to have amalgamation passed on them. They had this little book on the shelf over in Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Over in Municipal and Provincial Affairs they had this book on the shelf, it was called `Amalgamation.' Every time they would get a new minister they would dust it off, pass it to the minister, and say: Okay, minister, this is what we want you to do. We want you to take on this amalgamation beast. Every time there was a new minister they would pass him the bill and say: Listen, minister, have we got a deal for you. Amalgamation needs to be done, you go and do it, go take it here, run with the ball. Every minister, for some reason or other, would just pass it back to the bureaucrats and say: No, I do not think I can touch that, I do not think I want that, I do not think I want to get involved in all that.

Then along comes Eric Gullage, `Eric the Amalgamator', appointed to the ministry fresh out of City Hall, I think he was. He comes into the House and the bureaucrats have this bill on the shelf and they take it off and they blow the dust off and say: Here, Mr. Gullage, have we got a deal for you. Amalgamation! Go for amalgamation. What does he do? He goes for amalgamation. Where is he now, Mr. Speaker? He is not here anymore - that is what happened to him.

At least the current minister - they tried it again on him. They said: We have not done enough, Mr. Minister. We have this bill but there are still some parts of it left that we want to do. I passed it over to him and he had enough sense to say, `No, I am not going to do it.' So, Mr. Speaker, what we did then, the bureaucracy and the government said: Well, there is this Sunday shopping issue, we have been passing it on to the Minister of Labour, it has been dismissed one way or another, ministers have been frightened off it, other people have thought to bring it in before Christmas but gave up on it when they realized there would be a debate but now, Mr. Speaker, all of a sudden, Sunday shopping is the most important thing on the government's agenda.

We are all here now - we will be here all night tonight, all night tomorrow night and all night the next night talking about Sunday shopping because it is the most important thing that the government can think of to do.

MR. SHELLEY: Crucial.

MR. HARRIS: Crucial, absolutely crucial that the people of Newfoundland be forced, be forced to shop on Sunday, or be forced to open their shops on Sunday, either by competition or by clauses in their leases.

MR. SHELLEY: I think it is the Member for Torngat Mountains who is pushing this; that is where it started.

MR. HARRIS: I know there has been a big wave coming down from Northern Labrador `Shop on Sunday', `Shop on Sunday'.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you condemning the stores in my riding?

MR. HARRIS: I do not condemn any stores in your riding, there should be more, but none of them needs to be opened on Sunday except those that are already allowed to be opened; not unless they were craft stores. I make exception for craft stores, for gift stores and for drug stores, but the general stores, Mr. Speaker, do not need to be open on Sunday because that is why they call some stores convenience stores; they are open at convenient times. They are open at times when the big stores are not open.

MR. J. BYRNE: Do you know what `convenient' means, `convenient times'?

MR. HARRIS: Convenient for shoppers to go outside of normal shopping hours.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we still have not figured out over here why this bill is again brought forward and nobody on the other side has been able to enlighten us, nobody; not the Minister Environment and Labour, not the Minister of Justice, not the Government House Leader, nobody. Nobody opposite has been able to enlighten us other than the two calls from Topsail.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sixty-six percent said no.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, it is the only thing we have to go by over here, and if the Member for Topsail had not had those two calls, I say that this bill would not be before the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sixty-six percent said no in Topsail.

MR. HARRIS: Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not know what these two callers said to affect the government caucus the way it did, because the member did not tell us, he just said he had two calls, and nobody else over there has said why because nobody else seems to have been consulted.

The minister told us on the radio the other day that he did not consult with anybody; nobody else over there has said they consulted with anybody. We know that the West Coast is up in arms; they think that it is a `townie' plot against rural Newfoundland. The Federation of Independent Business have come out strongly condemning the legislation saying it is an attack on rural Newfoundland, it is going to hurt rural Newfoundland. There is no widespread support for it anywhere, Mr. Speaker - the workers; we have already gotten petitions in the House from employees.

We have people in the House here, a young gentleman who was quite active last June; I think the then Minister of Labour, kind of embraced him publicly, I do not know if other members remember that. They put him on TV and the Minister of Labour was saying: Well, we had representations and we accepted them and then they put the young man - Mr. Baker, is that his name? Mr. Baker was on TV explaining why he was opposed to it and the brief that he presented to all the members of the government and to all the members of the House and I think that the then Minister of Labour, I remember him on TV saying: We listened, I was persuaded by the arguments of this young man, an employee at Sears; I was persuaded that he was right and we were wrong.

Now, that is the kind of expression we had last June when the Government House Leader chickened out and would not bring in the legislation. He was aware of the ground swell of public opinion, and the Minister of Labour at the time basked in it. He said: Ah, we listened; we responded to these reasonable arguments.

Of course, they did not give any credit to anybody else except this young man and the public opinion that had persuaded him that they were wrong.

Now, Mr. Speaker, who has been doing the persuading since then? Who has been in knocking on the doors of the ministers? Who has been taking the members out to lunch? Who has been taking the members out for Kentucky Fried Chicken?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Lobbying them at the nearest Kentucky Fried Chicken outlet. Who has been doing it? Who has been knocking on their doors? Who has been taking them out for Kentucky Fried Chicken for lunch, and lobbying them strongly on the Shops' Closing Act? No one has told us.

The former Minister of Labour, who is now the Minister of - what is he now the minister of, the former Minister of Labour who had this bill?

MR. J. BYRNE: Who?

MR. HARRIS: The former Minister of Labour, who... Aylward, what is his - Environment and Labour. No, that is the last Cabinet. The last one, the last minister who has changed his portfolio recently, what is he now?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The current Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods, I remember seeing him on television saying how he had been persuaded by this earnest young man from Sears who had prepared an excellent brief, presented it to all of the members, and he had been persuaded. He had listened.

MR. J. BYRNE: What changed?

MR. HARRIS: What has changed? That is what I want to know. The former minister, the current Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods was very eloquent in how his government had responded to persuasion and had agreed with this young man that they were doing the wrong thing, and if the government was doing the wrong thing then they were going to change it. Well, what has happened since then?

Coming out of the blue once again, shortly before Christmas, we have another bill to amend the Shops' Closing Act, and not one person opposite, except the Member for Topsail and his two constituents, have come forward with any explanation or rationale as to why this is being done. I have not heard the Government House Leader. I have not heard any member opposite speak on the issue, not one, not publicly anyway. Privately they tell you that they oppose it but cannot vote against it, cannot do anything. Publicly they will say nothing. They will say nothing, except blame it on the Minister of Justice. That is the only public comment made on the opposite side. Well, there have been two public comments. Number one, by the minister saying he consulted no one; and, number two, by the Member for Humber East who blamed it on the Minister of Justice. And the Minister of Justice has not even denied it.

The Minister of Justice has not denied it, but nobody has given us a proper explanation as to why this bill is now before the House a week before Christmas, while the people who are most affected by it are too busy to lobby the government.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) they will get no pizza.

MR. HARRIS: I will have to borrow some from `Loyola'.

Mr. Speaker, the people who are most affected by this bill, the shop keepers, the storekeepers and owners of businesses, and the employees, are most busy now. This is the busiest time of year for them, and they do not have the time and the leisure to lobby the government or to lobby government members the way that obviously somebody has been doing since last summer. Somebody must have spent an awful lot of time since last summer when the former minister was persuaded by the arguments against Sunday shopping, and I do not know if I need to repeat them.

I have a copy of the brief that the young man prepared last summer and one of the things that was said, was, Sunday shopping will not benefit the Newfoundland economy. No extra tax revenue will be realized, no additional employment will be created; it will discourage entrepreneurship because it provides increased competition to convenience stores, craft and gift shops, and flea markets, many of which are the result of hard-working Newfoundland entrepreneurs.

Here is a point that this young man made, Mr. Speaker - which may be one of the ones which persuaded the former minister - many flea markets use mall facilities on Sundays. If malls were allowed to open on Sunday, the people who offer their goods at the flea markets will lose, what is to many the only source of promotion for their endeavours. The flea market is indeed a springboard for small self-starter businesses.

I know not very many opposite are listening, Mr. Speaker, and they talk an awful lot about entrepreneurship and things like that but this is an important point, that the flea market is often a springboard for small self-starter businesses. They will be all put out of business, Mr. Speaker, because the malls are the best source of traffic for flea markets, most of which are on Sunday. Lots of parking space, Mr. Speaker, lots of heat inside, lots of places to walk around to display their wares, lots of light, not a dark cubby hole, though sometimes alternatives are very bad and not well-heated, for example, some stadiums, places for flea markets on the open road. In the wintertime it is very difficult to find adequate places for flea markets. A lot of small entrepreneurs, Mr. Speaker, a lot of self-starter businesses get their start in flea markets.

Now, what about the retail employers? No increased sales of revenue but it will increase the operating overhead. It will increase employee turnover and it will work to decrease the morale of employees. I see the minister has a page over there, I hope he is making note of all of these and I hope that he responds to each and every one of them, Mr. Speaker. What will he say to the argument that there will be no increase in sales, yet an increase in operating revenues? What will he say to the problem that it will increase employee turnover? What will he say that it will act to decrease the morale of employees? What will he say, Mr. Speaker? We do not know because he has not really engaged in this debate. He just says, `we are going to do this because it is going to decrease government control over enterprise.'

Now, Mr. Speaker, we know that businesses will demand that workers work both Saturday and Sunday. We know that the families of retail employees will suffer. We know that the quality of working shifts will decline.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what is going to happen is that the retail employees will be most negatively affected by a decision in favour of Sunday shopping. What are they doing? Are they putting this out to a committee? No. Are they inviting public discussions? No. Are they asking people what they think? No, Mr. Speaker, they are trying to rush this through the House before Christmas in the midst of a public who is busy worrying about their own Christmas shopping, many of whom are desperately trying to find - because they have no money, Mr. Speaker - some bargains, some way of making a Christmas for their children because they are so badly served by this economy and by this government. They have to struggle by, just barely alive, on the meagre social assistance offered by this government. They have to do without the unemployment insurance that they would have gotten if the rules had not been changed, Mr. Speaker. They have to do without the employment that they had before privatization put them out of work in many cases or before the down-sizing of government put them out of work. These are the people who are going to be affected by the actions of this government in the Sunday shopping issue. The summary of this young man who was able to persuade the former minister - in summary he says -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. HARRIS: Just the summary sentence here, that Sunday shopping will not benefit the economy. Its effect on the lives of people employed in the retail sector will be permanent.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to having an opportunity to speak on the next amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, when I saw this bill come forward I said: Somebody in this House of Assembly has something against families. Now, I know it could not be the hon. the Member for Kilbride or the hon. the Member for Bonavista South, because they were the ones who really got behind us and spearheaded us - really put all the pee and vinegar in us.

I looked back. In the fall of 1995 this act was brought in. There is some dispute as to why it was brought in. At this time there were cuts to UI that the current Premier and his colleagues were making in Ottawa. Then it was to distract attention from other things that were happening within the party. At that time, that bill, if it had gone through, would have ensured that at least Memorial Day, if it fell on a Sunday, would have been closed. This present bill does not even do that. Then, in the spring of 1997 the bill came up again. Was that to take away from the outrage over the health cuts, the bungled education reform, the lack of an energy plan, and the absence of a mineral royalty regime? I suppose it could have been to deflect from them, being as how there was a by-election coming in July. Then they had to seek leave of the House to take that bill off the Order Paper. Now, in the fall of 1997 we have it back again.

I would be willing to sit down now and let this debate close if I could find out who brought it in, because all of us over here are curious as to who is looking for the Newfoundland families to be eroded. Sunday was always family day, and in some cases you have two members of a family working in retail. In many cases they are working for minimum wage. All they -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: Read today's paper.

MS S. OSBORNE: Who (inaudible)?

AN HON. MEMBER: You are (inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Am I? That is grand. I have to talk about one of your constituents now in a minute. He is one of the six, yes.

In any case, there is enough pressure on families in Newfoundland today without taking their Sunday away from them. Here you have a mother who probably goes out to work for four or five hours, five or six days a week, in one of the retail outlets, in Sobeys or in Dominion. She looks forward to one day a week with her family, and I suppose her children are looking forward to seeing her.

It is probably a good idea if you would have a look at this amendment, you know, and put it off for six months.

MR. SULLIVAN: At least.

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, at least six months, and that would give the Minister of Education time to amend the schools act. I would suggest that he put forward in that act that schools be open seven days a week - Saturdays and Sundays, too - and write in there that when their mothers got their work schedule for the mall, then the children could come in to the teacher and -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) support that.

MS S. OSBORNE: No, I think you should. The children could come in to the teacher with the mother's working hours and ask: Teacher, could I be off the same time as my mom? Because -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: I beg your pardon?

MR. J. BYRNE: Ignore them.

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, ignore them. In any case, the only thing that a lot of families have to look forward to is their Sunday together. There is lots of time to shop. Supermarkets are open until midnight, and in the Christmas season the retail outlets are open until 11:00 p.m. and midnight, and sometimes right around the clock for `midnight madness'. Supermarkets are open twenty-four hours except on Sunday. We are getting close to midnight madness now.

A lot of people who are proponents of this bill think that the more hours they are open, there will be more employment or more pay.

I was in the Village on Saturday and I dropped into one of the smaller stores. I was checking on a computer and the owner of the store came over and said, `While you are here I would like to discuss Sunday closing.'

MR. J. BYRNE: What district did he live in?

MS S. OSBORNE: He lives in the district of Topsail.

MR. J. BYRNE: Topsail? Oh, another one, that is seven.

MS S. OSBORNE: He does. He owns a computer store in the village, check it out.

MR. WISEMAN: Name him.

MS S. OSBORNE: I cannot name him in the House. He is a neighbour of yours.

MR. J. BYRNE: Is he for it or against it?

MS S. OSBORNE: Anyway, he came over and said to me, `While you are here I would like to discuss Sunday shopping.' I asked, `Well, how do you feel about it?' He said, `I am against it.' I asked, `Why are you against it?'

MR. WISEMAN: No neighbour of mine gets on like that.

MS S. OSBORNE: No. Well anyway, he said, `I am against it because I own this business and if I have to keep this store open on Sunday I will have to come in here and work on Sunday. I do not have enough money to hire somebody because if somebody wants to buy a computer, they are going to buy that computer between Monday and Saturday.'

MR. J. BYRNE: Did he vote Liberal the last time?

MS S. OSBORNE: I do not know how he voted, but anyway, I said to him -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, it might be. I said, `I do not know how the Liberals are going to go, but I can guarantee you, the PCs are opposed to Sunday shopping for the very reasons that you are telling me and for many reasons besides.' He said, `I must phone my member and tell him that. As a matter of fact, he is a neighbour of mine.' I said, `Well you go tell him but I do not think now he is going to break caucus ranks for you.'

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: I figured I was, but then again, I suppose he will probably go out to vote in the next election.

MR. WISEMAN: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Are you sure about that?

MR. WISEMAN: He is going to vote for me in the next election.

MS S. OSBORNE: Are you sure? Is he one of the four, now, or one of the two?

MR. WISEMAN: He was one of the four. He was against, he said.

MS S. OSBORNE: Aha! You just said he was one of the four, he was against. So now it is four against and two for, is it?

MR. HARRIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: The Member for Topsail has risen on a number of points of order here tonight and Your Honour has ruled them as points of clarification. Now, the last time you ruled it as point of clarification. He actually admitted that he was confused himself and it is pretty clear that he is confused. So if his points of order are to continue to be ruled as points of clarification, I think that is an error on behalf of the House, Mr. Speaker, and the member should clarify it.

MR. J. BYRNE: Now, we are going to try to clarify it again - muddy the waters more (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Topsail, are you speaking to the point of order?

MR. WISEMAN: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Again, I recognize the hon. the Member for Topsail.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Now, Mr. Speaker, what I had said earlier was that I had gotten six calls on Sunday shopping. I said, Mr. Speaker, that four of these calls were in favour and two were against. Now, I do not know what the hon. members over there are talking about, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WOODFORD: All I know is that I was doing the crossword puzzle here and there were four letters needed, and I said that I needed one out of four. I do not know what the hon. member is talking about.

I will repeat again, Mr. Speaker: What I said today was that I had gotten six calls, two of which were against Sunday shopping, four were in favour. So, as far as I am concerned, I do not know what the hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi is talking about. I have no idea.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

MR. J. BYRNE: To the point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Is this a new point of order?

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, yes, a new point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: A new point of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: He asked: `Is it a new point of order?' and I said `yes'.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: That is no point of order. I have another point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis, on a new point of order.

MR. J. BYRNE: A new point of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: There you go.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Topsail today said, and I heard him say, that he got six calls, four against; two in favour - four and two are six. Do you know how to add? Go talk to the Minister of Education and he will give you a course.

Mr. Speaker, he stood in his place on a point of clarification and said that I was wrong and there were four in favour and two against. A few minutes ago when the Member for St. John's West was up, he clearly stated that one of the people she was talking about was one of the four that was against.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is what he said.

MR. J. BYRNE: The Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi got up and made a point on it again and he got up and confused it more. The man does not have a clue what he is talking about, none whatsoever, so I would suggest that before he opens his mouth in the House of Assembly, he should at least know what he is talking about.

AN HON. MEMBER: Go back to his crossword.

MR. J. BYRNE: He should go back to his crossword because that is even confusing him more.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for St. John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: Are you allowed to do crosswords in the House?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) point of order?

MS S. OSBORNE: Is that a point -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Oh, alright, okay. I did not know about that.

Anyway, like I said, there are a lot of people of the impression that if the stores are open for a longer period of time that there will be more people employed, but like the constituent of the Member for Topsail told me, that will not be the case. He said: I am going to have to stagger the staff and spread out the hours; I do not have any more money. If somebody wants to buy a computer they will buy it between Monday and Saturday. The same thing: just because it is open on Sunday, they will not buy the second computer. They just have x number of dollars to go around, and the store owners - unfortunately, as the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi said, if the mall is open, this person will be forced to open, forced to bring in a family person on a Sunday to work, because this foolish bill is going through, or they are trying to put it through.

Anyway, since this bill was introduced, I have gotten faxes and telephone calls. I got more than six.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, seven or eight or nine or ten. I got a petition.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: What?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, I got a petition. I have an e-mail here that says it is quite possible that husbands and wives who both work in the retail sector will never have a day off together, and in the end, the family unit will suffer. This particular person said that he hopes the government is planning on more social workers to deal with the problems that will arise when families are eroded.

I have another that says, the social problems that will be caused by this are the most destructive, the removal of a family day. Sunday provides a breathing spell for people by removing commercial and employment pressure. I do not think there is anybody around here who would want to come in here on a Sunday. Without doubt, it will introduce much stress to families by removing the ability of children to spend time with both parents and for parents to act together for one day of the week as mother and father to their children.

I do not know how people on the other side feel about that, but if you think about it, the children are in school all week, they are off on Saturday, and if their parents are working in the retail sector, ten chances to one they pull a Saturday shift, so that day is lost to them. They always knew, they were absolutely sure that Sunday was a constant; that was a day off. If the stores are to be open on Sunday, the parents - they are not going to give the same person every Sunday off for the month. Sometime during the month, probably for three Sundays of the month, that mother will be out in the supermarket ringing in groceries for probably minimum wage. Then she will have gone two weeks in a row without spending time with her children.

Nobody, in the introduction of this bill, said who would benefit. I do not know who will benefit from it. It certainly is not going to be the small businesses. I did not see a crowd of them out lobbying the government to put this bill through. As I said before, it certainly will not be families, the Board of Trade, and the labour unions. None of them are in favour of this bill going through. Who is to gain? Who is pushing for it? Will Sobeys gain? I do not even know if they gain, because some of the convenience stores that are open on Sundays are controlled by the Sobeys crowd. If you run out of your tin of cranberry sauce or whatever you are having for Sunday dinner, you will go to the convenience store and pick it up. Sobeys have either provided that convenience store - or maybe we are trying to benefit the big people like the Price Club and the Wal-Marts and the Zellers and the Sears - I do not know.

It is certainly not going to benefit the small businesses. It is going to hurt the small businesses.

MR. J. BYRNE: Job loss.

MS S. OSBORNE: Oh, job loss. Some of these small businesses are `mom-and-dad' businesses. They are historic businesses. They have been probably in their communities for - this is probably the third or fourth generation of them now. They will suffer. The people will get in their cars and come in from around the bay to shop in the big places on Sunday because the Sunday stores will be open, and then more of the Newfoundland dollars - along with our people going to the mainland, we are sending our dollars to the mainland behind them.

I do not know if there are other provinces - Prince Edward Island has a major tourist trade - and there is a major Japanese influence, a lot of people come over from Japan to visit Prince Edward Island; that is all year round. That province has not seen the necessity to open their stores on Sundays, so I do not think we can use the tourist argument that we should keep stores open, because tourism is one of Prince Edward Island's biggest trades. Nova Scotia does not have Sunday shopping. I think they had it for a while and then decided against it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible), boy, a bad idea.

MS S. OSBORNE: A bad idea. It was not a good idea to have stores open - P.E.I. said no. New Brunswick had it, and they are looking now at cutting it back. So I do not know what we are doing. Newfoundland is supposed to be going ahead of the times, and we are going farther behind the times. Here they are... We are going into regression. Anyway –

Consultation; I will adjourn debate now if you will tell me who brought it in, and if whoever brought it in consulted with the people before they brought it in, and who they consulted with and what these people said. Did they say: Oh, yes, we want the stores open on Sunday because we want these small corner stores to close up and we are poisoned looking at them on the corner of the street? Maybe the corner stores said: We want a good reason to be shut down, now. We want an excuse, a reason, to have to close up. So bring in Sunday shopping now and put us out of business.

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, we enjoy seeing the money go into Sobeys and Dominion and going out of the Province through Zellers and Sears and Wal-Mart and the big places, so maybe we should leave the big stores open now and put the small ones out of business.

AN HON. MEMBER: And why introduce it just days before Christmas.

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes. Looking back on this, when it was introduced before, notice was given on December 4, 1995 to amend the Shops' Closing Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: Keep going.

MS S. OSBORNE: They brought it in on December 4, 1995 and, as I said, it was in the midst of a flurry of activity when the now Premier was up in Ottawa cutting UI just before Christmas. This bill was given notice just before Christmas when the members were getting pretty `antsy', they wanted to get out, they wanted to do a bit of shopping; they wanted to get their houses decorated for Christmas and things like that, and it was brought in then. However, Mr. Murphy was the minister then, and we know where he is, and we know where the former Premier is as well.

As I said, it was brought in again in the Spring of 1997, the day before the House closed for the summer, they were going into a by-election and there were a couple of nasty things on the go. Newfoundlanders were getting pretty upset over health cuts and Education Reform was big; that was bungled and, of course, we had to bring that to fruition; there was no energy plan and no royalty regime, and they brought it in then. So, historically, when this bill is brought into the House, when notice is given, it is normally either when the House is getting ready to close and the government figures that: Oh, yes, they are in a hurry to get out of there, they will let this go through.

Well, we did let other bills go through, we let bills go through that were pretty innocuous; I cannot say there was a lot of meat in them but they were not damaging to the people; but no, we are not going to let this one go through without fighting for the people of Newfoundland. It was brought in in too much haste. Businesses were caught off-guard. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business just found out that the proposed change was introduced by government and it was too late for them to make any representation. Small businesses, labour unions, churches, they have traditionally opposed Sunday shopping and all for their own good reasons.

When Sunday shopping was last proposed this past spring, they expressed their objections then, so what are we trying to do? Railroad it through when these people are busy rushing? Once again, I want to know who is driving this bill. Are there some big businesses, some people from the mainland? You know, there is something very insidious going on here when this is brought in at a time like this, trying to railroad it through. But thank goodness, like I said, a couple of members of our caucus had the foresight to say `no', guys, we will have to get behind this now, we are not going to let them go through with that this quickly.

As I said before, people will leave the rural communities to shop on Sundays. If the malls in the urban cities are open on Sundays, people will get in their cars and drive in to the bigger centres to do their shopping, whereas now on Sundays, people can have a leisurely day, craft stores are open, and they can visit the craft stores. They can go to the Avalon Mall or to the other malls and visit the flea markets and, while I am on that subject, I think that -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Pardon?

MR. TULK: I thought women were allowed to (inaudible) Saturday for Sunday.

MS S. OSBORNE: No, on Sundays they go out for a little outing with their families.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Well, sure, on Saturdays the flea markets cannot be open - the stores are open.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Oh, the people in outport Newfoundland -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) they go in shopping on Saturday then they go again on Sunday.

MS S. OSBORNE: They will go in on Sundays, yes. On Sundays they will take the family in the car, drive in to St. John's and have a trek around the mall and shop.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are against it, anyway.

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, I'm against it. Do I support rural Newfoundland? Yes, I do.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) for Port aux Basques.

MS S. OSBORNE: Well you didn't expect me to vote for jobs to be taken out of St. John's, but I wanted the jobs from Moncton to go to Port aux Basques.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Oh, I wouldn't take the jobs from Moncton and bring them to St. John's; no, but bring the jobs from Moncton and put them in Port aux Basques.

AN HON. MEMBER: So, it is alright to take them from Moncton, but don't take them from St. John's.

MS S. OSBORNE: No, take them from Moncton and put them in Port aux Basques. Leave what's in St. John's in St. John's, take what's in Moncton out of Moncton and put it in Port aux Basques.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: No, bring them from Moncton and put them in Port aux Basques. Render to Peter what's Peter's, and whatever.

MR. TULK: Render unto Caesar what's Caesar's.

MS S. OSBORNE: Caesar's, that's right, that's exactly right. Render unto the city what's the city's and unto rural what's the rural's. Don't open the stores in St. John's so the people in rural Newfoundland will stay in rural Newfoundland and support the businesses in rural Newfoundland.

MR. TULK: What's yours is mine and what's mine is mine.

MS S. OSBORNE: No, let them stay in rural Newfoundland and support the businesses that they have in rural Newfoundland. I have no problem with that. You didn't know I was a bayman, did you?

AN HON. MEMBER: What? What part?

MS S. OSBORNE: North Harbour, St. Mary's Bay.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, you forgot where you came from.

MS S. OSBORNE: That's what I didn't. Will you move the jobs from St. John's to North Harbour?

AN HON. MEMBER: What does North Harbour have to do with Port aux Basques?

MS S. OSBORNE: You could sail the boats in there, boy.

MR. TULK: Move adjournment.

MS S. OSBORNE: No, I'm not ready to move adjournment. That's what I will not move adjournment, because I have to speak against this bill. This bill is going to drive down wages because the store owners are going to have to spread the hours out or they are going to have to cut wages or something. They don't have any more money. It will drive up the cost to consumers because the businesses will be forced to stay open for another day of the week and that extra cost will be passed on to the consumers.

The Evening Telegram on December 13 said: Move ahead with Sunday shopping. Then two days later the December 15 mini editorial backed away. I would suggest that that is indicative of how a lot of the members over there are feeling. First when this came out they supported it and now that they have heard all the arguments against it a lot of them are thinking: That crowd over there are right, this will erode families.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: No, this crowd over here. The Conservative Opposition now, just so I won't be misunderstood. The Conservative Opposition are right, this bill will erode families. This bill will put small businesses out of business.

AN HON. MEMBER: Go on!

MS S. OSBORNE: I won't go on.

I am in favour of the flea markets. I tell you one thing, you should leave the stores closed on Sunday but you should tighten up that legislation so that there aren't people out there in the flea markets selling things that the department stores do sell. It is okay for the flea market -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: No, I'm not. I am in favour of the flea markets and I am in favour of the craft stores.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) shut down the stores.

MS S. OSBORNE: On Sunday.

AN HON. MEMBER: How is that going to impact on families?

MS S. OSBORNE: Because if you ever took a tour of the Avalon Mall on Sunday you would see that a lot of -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Exactly. Because families are out there -

MR. G. REID: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Gerry, you're the church are you?

AN HON. MEMBER: Shut down the flea markets and break up the family.

MS S. OSBORNE: No, boy. That is an outing for the families on Sundays, to protect their children and bring them into the flea -

AN HON. MEMBER: I thought you wanted them in church on Sundays? Going to a flea market is like going to a store.

MS S. OSBORNE: I didn't say I wanted them in church on Sundays. You are trying to put words in my mouth now; no, four in church, two in the flea markets. No, wait now, four in the flea markets, two in the church. Wait now, one, two, three, four; four in the flea markets, two in the church. Four and two, or was it - wait now, I don't know. It was six, anyway. I don't know what the four is and what the two is. I'm really not sure.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, four and two.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS S. OSBORNE: Four and two. No, I don't want stores open on Sunday. I'm in favour of flea markets.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm going to speak to this bill, Mr. Speaker, for one reason and one reason only, because the government as usual is wrong.

Many small stores are against Sunday shopping because they fear they will lose business, Mr. Speaker, to the larger stores. In fact, one of the points of logic made by government, in their mind, is the fact that it will create more employment. I concur, Mr. Speaker, that it may create more employment in the short term. However, in the long term -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, call order to shut up that bunch of buffoons over there.

AN HON. MEMBER: The what? The baboons? I think that is unparliamentary.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Buffoons, I said, but you can call yourself what you like.

Mr. Speaker, it may create more employment in the short term, but in the long run it will be detrimental to employment. Because as the smaller stores, shops, craft stores and so on close up, because of the fact that the larger stores are taking away the business, there will be even fewer employees. The unfortunate thing about this, Mr. Speaker, is that there will be less full-time employees, more part-time employees, which mean fewer long-term benefits and less security for these employees. There would be less security for the part-time employees. As we all know, a lot of the larger multi-national stores are hiring more and more part-time employees and fewer full-time employees so that they get away from paying the dental benefits, the medical benefits, getting away from paying pension plans and that type of thing.

If in fact we allow Sunday shopping, it may create more employment in the short term, while in fact the larger multi-national stores that are opening on Sundays hire more people to fill those slots. But as it has a detrimental affect on the smaller stores, the craft stores, the flea markets and so on, and those operations close and shut down, Mr. Speaker, the unfortunate thing about it is it will actually have a detrimental affect on employment. So that argument that is put forth by government does not hold any water.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard from the employees of Canadian Tire stores who say they have not been consulted by government, the very government that promised to consult with the people of this Province before making any major decisions. Mr. Speaker, we have heard from the St. John's Board of Trade which says they have not been consulted. The very government that promised to consult during the 1996 election campaign have not consulted.

We have heard from the Canadian Independent Business Bureau, who say that they have not been consulted. Mr. Speaker, we have heard from various Chambers of Commerce throughout the Province, and again they say that they have not been consulted. Mr. Speaker, we have heard from convenience store owners, the convenience store owners in this Province who fear for their very livelihoods. Their operations have not been consulted.

We have heard from Elaine Price, the Federation of Labour, who say that their members have not been consulted on this very important piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, we have heard from craft store owners who fear for their livelihood, because if the multinational stores are allowed to open on Sundays it may very well put the small mom and pop stores out of business, the craft stores, the corner stores, the convenience stores. They have not been consulted.

We have heard from owners of speciality stores, and they say they have not been consulted. They fear for their livelihood, for the operation of their businesses. We have heard from flea-market owners and operators, Mr. Speaker, who have not been consulted. Incidentally, many of these flea-markets donate to charity. The flea-market at the Avalon Mall; 50 per cent of the rentals from those flea-markets go to UNICEF. If, in fact, we allow Sunday shopping, that flea-market will be put out of business by mere point of their location, for one. Those people have not been consulted.

Mr. Speaker, the drugstore owners have not been consulted. If you allow the multinational corporations such as Wal-Mart, such as Sobeys and Dominion, who have drugstore outlets within their stores, to open, you are going to find the locally owned and operated drugstores put at a detriment. Why? Because now they have to compete with the drugstore at Dominion; now they have to compete with the drugstore at Wal-Mart.

While there is nothing wrong with having a drugstore at Dominion or at Wal-Mart, there is something wrong with having them open on Sunday and having them compete with the locally owned and operated drugstores and driving them out of business. That is what is wrong with this.

We have heard from, as I said, the owners and the employees of Canadian Tire, Mr. Speaker. If Wal-Mart is allowed to be open on Sunday, obviously Canadian Tire would have to be open on Sunday just to compete, and they do not want that. The locally owned service stations on the corners here would have to open up on Sunday as well to compete, and they do not want that.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard from hairstylists. As many of us know a lot of the multinational, large corporations, Sears and Wal-Mart for example, many of these stores have hairstylists within them. If, in fact, we allow Sunday shopping, you are going to see that the locally owned beauty salons and hairstylists in this City and in this Province are going to be put at a detriment, Mr. Speaker. It will not be good for these people.

We have heard from eyewear opticals, Mr. Speaker, from opticians, and they themselves say that this is not good for them. If they have to compete with Zellers, who have an optical within Zellers, and Wal-Mart and Sears, then they as well will have to open up on Sunday just to compete.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard from dry-cleaners. Most of the large supermarkets now have dry-cleaners within their stores, and some of the smaller operations that are locally owned and operated will have to stay open on Sunday just to compete. If Sobeys and Dominion stay open, they will have to stay open, just to compete.

We have heard from the owners of hardware stores, Mr. Speaker, and they say the same thing. If Wal-Mart and Sears are open, and Canadian Tire stays open, then your little locally owned and operated hardware stores, Mr. Speaker, will have to stay open as well.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard from travel agencies. As we know, a lot of the multi-national stores have travel agencies within them.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. T. OSBORNE: You have never been into Sears, Gerry? Sears has everything in there.

Mr. Speaker, if these travel stores within the large multi-national corporations are allowed to stay open, then you are going to find that Gateway Travel and Travel Management and all of the other travel agencies throughout the Province will have to stay open to ensure they do not lose their clientele.

Mr. Speaker, while up front this may seem like it is going to create more employment by having stores open on Sunday, what you are going to find is that the little mom-and-pop operation, the corner store, the convenience store, will close up. Mr. Speaker, you know yourself, when you are getting ready for Sunday dinner, if you run out of a bucket of beef, right now you run up to the convenience store to pick it up. If the supermarkets are open and you run out of a bucket of beef on Sunday, you aren't going to pay the extra price that the convenience store operator has to charge.

AN HON. MEMBER: So it is cheaper for the consumer?

MR. T. OSBORNE: You will go to the supermarket, Mr. Speaker. Yes, the convenience stores charge more because they haven't the same buying power. It is precisely what it says, it is a convenience store. You pay for the convenience of having it there. It won't be a convenience, Mr. Speaker, if Sobeys and Dominion and so on are open.

As we know, small business is the backbone of our economy. If we force the small businesses out of business, Mr. Speaker - it is not too hard to figure it out - our economy is going to suffer, employment is going to suffer and out-migration will be even worse than it is right now; it will be even a more serious problem than it is right now.

Unfortunately, I think this government is looking at the short term of this and not looking at the overall picture, the long-term detriment this is going to cause, Mr. Speaker. Because if the convenience stores close, some of the smaller travel agencies close, some of the small mom-and-pop operations close, the craft stores close, this is going to be a sad state of affairs in this Province, I can assure you of that. Unemployment will be far more rampant than it already is. Out-migration will be far more serious than it already is. Mr. Speaker, this will be a very serious problem.

Mr. Speaker, I may add that stores are already open. The major stores, the chain stores, the multi-national stores, are already open upwards to seventy hours a week, in addition to a variety of telephone, computer and mail-order services that are extended to the shopping public for their convenience, and opportunities to shop are not seriously hampered by limiting it only one day a week.

Mr. Speaker, while many people would argue for unrestricted shopping on economic grounds, others argue for it on the basis of freedom of choice, but we know, we who value public worship also appreciate the freedoms we enjoy as Canadians. More freedom in one area may mean less freedom in another. More freedom, Mr. Speaker, to buy and sell means less freedom to develop relationships with family, friends, less freedom of conscience, and less freedom to engage in public worship.

Now, I understand, Mr. Speaker, that not everybody in our Province is of a Christian worship who worships on Sunday, but it has been a traditional day of worship throughout the history of our Province. As the trend inevitably spreads into retail trades to open up on Sunday, if that is the case, Mr. Speaker, we will see that family will suffer. Especially at a time of high unemployment, it is unfair to make employees choose between their faith, their family, and their job.

Mr. Speaker, seven-day shopping weeks may be advantageous to some merchants, but studies have shown it does not increase the total value of retail sales in the long-term. If you have so much in your cheque at the end of the week, whether the store is open six days a week or seven days a week you will still only have so much in your cheque at the end of the week. You do not spend more because it is open one extra day.

Mr. Speaker, the additional cost of operating that store, estimated by some to be as high as 15 per cent, will be borne by everyone in higher prices and reduced services on other days. Unrestricted shopping hours work to the advantage of large malls and chain stores, largely at the expense of the family-run business. Workers in the retail trades who comprise about 30 per cent of the workforce are often forced by their circumstances to go towards their employer's demands, Mr. Speaker, and work on Sunday. That has been shown in other areas of the country which have Sunday shopping. Mr. Speaker, of these employees, 70 per cent are mothers with dependent children. These employees need the weekend for family life and recreation. Costly day care greatly reduces the net income, and many retail workers are not organized into unions.

Mr. Speaker, many of these have low wages and enjoy few other job opportunities. They enjoy few long-term benefits. I would say, as I've already said, the more hours a store is open, if they are open on Sunday, it means fewer full-time jobs, more part-time jobs, less benefits and less security for the workers, workers who cannot afford to have less benefits and less security because they are the lowest income earners, they have the lowest wages. Retail sales jobs have the lowest wages, Mr. Speaker. Many of those people are mothers, sometimes single parents, who cannot afford to choose between family and employment. If they are forced to, they would take the employment as opposed to losing their job, and it would be at the detriment of the family. When you factor in the cost of day care or baby sitters and so on, it is of no benefit at all to these people.

Mr. Speaker, closing stores on Sunday will not automatically lead to better family and community life, nor does it guarantee people will worship, but it is certainly a start. We as legislators do have some degree of responsibility, Mr. Speaker, in ensuring that not only do we create employment opportunities, but we also create an environment in our Province for family life, and for the choice of worship.

Mr. Speaker, this has been rushed in; far too much haste in bringing this to the Table. The government's action has caught business off guard, because there was no consultation whatsoever. Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses just found out about the proposed changes and was told by government it was too late to make appropriate representation to the Legislature. So not only was there no consultation, but it refused, Mr. Speaker, to allow representation to the members of the Legislature; the very government that campaigned on the basis of consultation, the very government that told the people of our Province: We will consult with you on any major changes.

Small businesses, labour, unions and churches, among others, have traditionally opposed Sunday shopping for various good reasons, Mr. Speaker. One has to ask: Why were they not given the chance to have input before the bill was brought to the House? Why was there no consultation? Mr. Speaker, when Sunday shopping was last proposed, this past spring, they expressed their objections then. The government knew they would want to have input, and yet they still has not allowed these people to have input. They have refused the process of consultation.

Mr. Speaker, other provinces have said no to Sunday shopping. Nova Scotia and P.E.I. have said no to Sunday shopping, and New Brunswick, which had brought Sunday shopping in on a trial basis, is now reviewing that, and it looks as though they may actually cut it out. So why are we moving against the trend? That is something that small business owners, that the general public, are asking, but because there is no consultation and no opportunity for representation to the Legislature, Mr. Speaker, it is something that the government will not have to answer to the public.

Mr. Speaker, this government has not even allowed for a trial period on this. They have not even allowed for a trial period. They have not even entertained the idea of two or three Sundays before Christmas. They are just going to bring it in, in one fell swoop, Mr. Speaker, even defying the opposition of the general public, small businesses, unions, labour, and business owners. Mr. Speaker, there has been absolutely no consultation, it has been refused, and that is one of the major points here. That is one of the major points that the St. John's Board of Trade wished to make, that the Chambers of Commerce throughout the Province wished to make, that they have not been consulted, that they feel that this will have a detrimental effect on their communities, on their cities, and on labour within the regions in which they live.

Mr. Speaker, it will not increase revenue. As I have said, this will not increase revenue. People only have so much disposable income, so much to spend, and by opening the doors of business for an extra day not only are you increasing the cost of operating that business, in utilities and wages and so on, but, Mr. Speaker, you are bringing in the same amount of revenue over a seven-day period as opposed to a six-day period. When you do that, those businesses will have to make up for their losses somewhere, and I would suggest that will be through increased prices in the short term; and when they drive the small operations, the mom and pop operations and the convenience stores and so on, out of business, Mr. Speaker, they may have a better monopoly or a tighter rein on what they are able to charge because there is less competition out there to begin with.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this will not only create fewer employment opportunities, not only will it create a detriment to the small operations, to the small store owners and business owners, but it will also affect prices; so the consumers, in the long run, will have to pay more. The consumers, in the long run, will pay more for goods and services because there is only so much money. They have only a certain amount of income at the end of the week, and that will now be spread over seven days at a higher cost of operation to the retailer. Mr. Speaker, it will most certainly drive costs up - most certainly - and drive up the cost of products and services that we purchase.

Government may feel that by opening on Sundays it will create more employment, but there have been studies in other areas that show that in fact it has the reverse; it will actually create more unemployment.

Mr. Speaker, people will leave rural communities to shop on Sundays. Instead of shopping at their small hardware store in Placentia, where the prices are a little higher, or instead of shopping at a craft store, they will go the malls. If the malls are open, they will go to the malls.

Mr. Speaker, it may actually drive wages down. If businesses must balance their high cost of a seven-day opening against the flat revenue returns, they will reap fewer profits. As a result, this means they will be able to afford less in wages for employees. It may mean hiring fewer people per unit time of work which means a lower level of service to the consumer or it may mean paying the workers less. Workers will be faced with the choice of wage cuts versus employment closure, often opting for wage cuts.

Remember that the payroll tax resulted in job losses and wage cuts according to employers. So, if the employers have less revenue or higher costs and the same revenue, Mr. Speaker, it will result in either job losses or lower wages. So this is not a benefit to the people of the Province. Opening on Sundays is not a benefit to the average consumer. Most major businesses do not want it, Mr. Speaker. Most of the smaller businesses do not want it.

So one has to ask: Why is this government bringing this legislation now before the House of Assembly? Why are we debating this legislation? What motive is behind putting this legislation to the floor of the House of Assembly? Mr. Speaker, it certainly raises the level of curiosity, not only amongst members of the Opposition but amongst the general public.

Mr. Speaker, why has government not even allowed a pilot project on this, as New Brunswick has done? Mr. Speaker, there has been no consultation, not even a chance for a pilot project. They are just looking to ram it through. This is not the first time this legislation has been brought to the floor, Mr. Speaker, and the last time it was brought to the floor was last spring. Previous to that, it was the previous Member for St. John's South and we all know what happened to the previous Member of St. John's South.

AN HON. MEMBER: The present member beat him.

MR. T. OSBORNE: The present member beat him. He is gone, Mr. Speaker, and I would suggest to the new Minister of Environment and Labour, and the former Minister of Environment and Labour who is also sitting in this House, that if they push this too hard it may also be gone. They are treading on thin ice here, Mr. Speaker.

This is going to hurt the workers. Many workers in retail and wholesale jobs count on Sunday as their guaranteed day off, Mr. Speaker. It is a day to spend with family and to relax and unwind. People who have stressful, low-paying jobs need these special times to relax. Single parents and two-worker homes often count on Sundays as a family day to spend with children, who otherwise may be in school or at home doing their homework, and need their parents help.

Parents can take their children to hockey on Sunday or to the park. Many people in low-paying, retail jobs have fewer options for recreation and vacation. A regular rest is sometimes as good as a vacation, especially for workers whose jobs disrupt their weekly schedules, Mr. Speaker; for example, retail workers who work evenings or during meal time when others are relaxing. A regular day, free of work, is good for mental health. It is a preventative form of medicine really, because the less stress there is in the general public, perhaps the less our hospitals may need to be utilized. If you put more stress on the general public, especially those in the lower-paying, retail jobs, it may actually result in more visits to the hospital by those families who are in receipt of lower incomes through retail jobs.

Mr. Speaker, it hurts holiday planning. Many people, especially those with lower incomes and less vacation-time with their jobs, have fewer opportunities for vacation. Knowing they have Sundays off means many workers can take either Saturday or a Monday off to guarantee themselves at least a two-day weekend and allowing them to travel and see family.

Why change our way of life? Why fix a way of life, Mr. Speaker, that is not broken? A common day of rest has long been a part of our Newfoundland culture. Some go to church, Mr. Speaker, others may take walks or go hiking or camping or what have you. Sunday has traditionally been a day of rest in Newfoundland and Labrador. Why change that now?

With such high out-migration, Mr. Speaker, some stores and some small businesses are just hanging on, and this may actually be what pushes them over the edge, drives them out of business. We do not need to see that here, Mr. Speaker, not in our Province, not with unemployment as high as it is. We need these small businesses to contribute to our economy, to contribute to employment, to keep our small, rural communities alive.

Mr. Speaker, why prevent people from attending church? Attending church on Sunday has long been a Newfoundland tradition and for many attending church is an important activity in their lives, one they spend with their families. It is sometimes a way of bringing family together on Sundays, Mr. Speaker. Sometimes it is the only time the family gets the opportunity or are afforded the opportunity to spend together as a family.

Mr. Speaker, the law will prevent some people from attending church on Sunday. We tell people that school is not the appropriate place to train their children in religious doctrine, yet at the same time, Mr. Speaker, we are going to open up shops on Sunday, where some families who work in the retail trade will have to work and will not be able to take their children to church on Sunday. Therefore, we are not allowing them to learn it in school and we are not allowing the families to take them to church in certain cases. Mr. Speaker, we should revisit exactly what it is we are doing here.

There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, it is going to hurt the craft industry and charities and so on. There is absolutely no doubt. Many flea markets count on most stores being closed on Sundays; many craft producers count on the flea markets to sell their wares, Mr. Speaker, and we know how the provincial government boasts of the thriving craft industry in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. T. OSBORNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. T. OSBORNE: I am obviously making sense, Mr. Speaker, and they do not want to put up with anybody who makes sense.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to join in this very important debate as it relates to the people of our Province, people whose lifestyles will ultimately be affected once this legislation, if passed, is passed.

Mr. Speaker, I guess the question that has to be asked, when we join in debate on this bill - and it has been asked by almost all my colleagues this evening - is: Where is it coming from? Who are the people, who are the special interest groups, who are the individuals, who are the businesses that are strongly behind the passing of Bill No. 48? When I ask myself that question, Mr. Speaker, I cannot find an answer. I do not know who the people are. Who are the store owners, who are the employees, who are the unions, what individuals, groups or associations in our Province are out there advocating the passage of Bill No. 48, "An Act To Amend The Shops' Closing Act?" Where are they? We certainly have not heard from them, Mr. Speaker. All we have heard, on the contrary, are those special interest groups, those unions, those organizations representing both employers and employees, in the strongest of language, saying that we oppose it.

The only individuals that I can think of in the Province who are strong advocates of the passage of Bill No. 48 are the thirty-seven or thirty-eight or so members opposite. To this point, Mr. Speaker, we have not heard any of them even indicate why. We have not heard one reason, Mr. Speaker. We have not heard any rationale whatsoever from any hon. member opposite as to why it is in the best interest of the people of our Province to proceed with the passage of, "An Act To Amend The Shops' Closing Act"; nothing. There has been ample opportunity. We have had preliminary debate on the legislation. We now have debate on the amendment. But there has been nobody, there has been nothing but complete silence, Mr. Speaker, absolute silence, from members opposite as to what is the rationale, what is the explanation, what are the perfectly, good, sound, logical reasons why the people in this Province want to see Sunday shopping.

In fact, as I have just mentioned, what is the explanation or what is the rationale for the individual members opposite? We have heard nothing. Their silence, Mr. Speaker, has been deafening on this point, despite all kinds of opportunity which began last Friday in this Legislature and is continuing this afternoon, again this evening and from all indications, will continue for the next number of hours into today. Mr. Speaker, I'm at awe. I don't know what the answer is. What is the explanation?

I have had calls. I have had faxes. I had calls over the weekend, one in particular from a constituent of mine, like my colleague from St. John's West, who has a small business in one of our larger malls in the city, who says to me, in quite clear terms, that Sunday shopping will mean the end of his business as he now knows it. That is a simple plea and a simple explanation from one store owner, a person who has worked hard to develop a small business in one of our local malls. That person makes it quite clear that Sunday shopping would be only detrimental if, in fact, this amendment is passed.

That is not to mention the calls that we have received from other parts of the Province; e-mails, letters and petitions. We can get petitions anywhere. We have in our possession right now literally dozens of petitions from ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are saying to this Legislature that this is not good law. This is not what the people of the Province want.

Just today, I received a petition from individuals on the West Coast, from the communities of Meadows, Corner Brook, McIver's, Port Saunders, Massey Drive and Frenchman's Cove; just to name a few communities where people, on their own, quite voluntarily - they were not asked for, they were not requested, but petitions that were signed arbitrarily, voluntarily by hundreds of Newfoundlanders and were sent to Opposition members so that their concerns could be expressed in the Legislature.

Again I have to go back to my earlier point, Mr. Speaker. If questions are being asked, and if representations are being made, and if petitions are being voluntarily put together by the ordinary Newfoundlander and Labradorian, what is it, why is it, that Bill No. 48 is before us right now? There is no explanation, and I still wait to hear an explanation from at least one hon. member opposite who can give me some rationale and explanation as to why it is necessary that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have it as an option to them to shop on Sunday. What the explanation is, to this moment, I do not know.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note what other provinces are doing, and have done in the past, with respect to Sunday closing, or the opening of retail establishments. Honourable members may be interested, just for a few minutes, if I review what the status quo is in a number of other Canadian Provinces.

I will begin with the Province of Alberta where apparently the law with respect to Sunday closing is determined by each municipality. Generally there is no restriction, and municipalities have the power to pass bylaws regulating store hours. So the power is given, in the Province of Alberta, to each municipality to govern whether or not a store in that particular municipality is to be open on Sunday.

In the Province of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, the provisions of the holiday shopping regulation act dealing with the opening and closing of retail establishments on Sunday were struck down by the Court of Appeal of the Province of British Columbia. Those provisions were struck down by the highest court in that particular province. In practice, however, Sunday shopping is widespread despite the appeal before the Court of Appeal and despite the court's pronouncement that the Sunday shopping provision was contrary to the statute.

In the Province of Manitoba, retail business holiday closing establishments which operate with no more than four persons - notice the qualification, Mr. Speaker, no more than four persons - can be open on Sunday without having to close on the preceding Saturday. Establishments where five or more persons are employed may open on Sundays between noon and 6:00 p.m. Employees of larger establishments can refuse to work on Sundays pursuant to section 41.1 of the Employment Standards Act.

You will notice, even in the Province of Manitoba, the fairly rigid restrictions that are put in place, Mr. Speaker, whereby there is a limit as to the number of employees who work in a particular retail establishment, and that number will determine whether or not a store can be open pursuant to the legislation in that province. Under four, yes; greater than four, no, with a very important qualification in the Province of Manitoba indicating that employees of larger establishments may refuse to work.

That is an interesting section of the act under the Manitoban Employment Standards Act, because it clearly gives the option to an individual as to whether or not he or she wishes to work. That is perhaps, Mr. Speaker, one of the most significant objections that I have heard with respect to the possible amendment to the Shops' Closing Act, because without even a qualification such as that employers may very well put demands on employees, regardless of the size of the establishment, forcing employees to work, regardless of whether or not they wish to work on that particular day. At least in the Province of Manitoba this type of qualification and restriction offers some protection and security to particular employees who feel they want to opt out of the Sunday opening bylaws and, in fact, state their objection, and there is protection for such an employee under the Manitoban Employment Standards Act.

In the Province of New Brunswick, Mr. Speaker, the Day of Rest Act, as it is called, and its exemption regulation requirements to close, establishments may open from the Sunday preceding New Brunswick Day to Christmas Day. There was some discussion earlier that, in fact, the present government in the Province of New Brunswick is having another look at its legislation.

That, in and of itself, is very interesting, Mr. Speaker. Because what the Province of New Brunswick did under the previous government was introduce legislation very similar to what is being proposed here in this Province, only to find out that perhaps it had gone too far. Now, the present Liberal government in that province is having a second look at an amendment that was passed a number of years ago, and in fact will be further restricting the provisions of the Sunday closing law. So we have, I think, if nothing else, an excellent precedent from a neighbouring Maritime Province, another Atlantic Province, a government similar to the government opposite, which is now having a second look at the very changes it made a number of years ago.

In the Northwest Territories: at the discretion of the establishment within the provisions of the federal Lord's Day Act - and it says no specific legislation. Interesting. No act in that particular part of the country, in the Northwest Territories, with complete discretion being given to the particular establishment.

In the Province of Nova Scotia, the Retail Business Uniform Closing Act is the name of the legislation. It is at the discretion of the establishment. Easter Sunday and other holidays which fall on a Sunday remain retail business holidays. Again, we have what I feel is a very important provision in terms of protecting the ordinary worker: Employees may refuse to work on Sunday pursuant to Section 53 of the Employment Standards Act. So we have in that province an employee who, for whatever the reason, whether it be to do other things or to engage in family activities, or simply to have a day of rest, can say to an employer without penalty: I do not want to work.

Mr. Speaker, that is a very, I think, relevant and pertinent part of the Nova Scotia act. It protects the rights of the employee; it protects the rights of the employer. Again, this is one of the primary concerns that have been expressed primarily by employers' councils and employees' groups who have said there will be no protection under this omnibus bill which is before the House of Assembly that we are presently debating. Even the Province of Nova Scotia has seen it as important to protect the rights of employees, and that is done pursuant to Section 53 of the Employment Standards Act.

In Ontario, the Retail Business Establishment Holidays Act: Again, at the discretion of the establishment, Easter Sunday and other holidays which fall on a Sunday remain retail business holidays. Again, we have similar legislation as in Manitoba, and in Nova Scotia. I say to the hon. the Minister of Justice - who ultimately may have to deal with these very types of issues, if proper thought and foresight is not being considered at the time we debate this legislation - we have in Nova Scotia, we had in Manitoba, and now in Ontario, again, similar protection for employees, where it states in Ontario, under Section 53, again, of the Employment Standards Act, that: An employee may refuse to work.

I mean, that is sound, solid, employer-employee legislation. But it is completely absent in what we are debating here in this House this morning - completely absent. This is a wide open bill, a simple little amendment, which says Sunday is now open season for shopping. That is all this Act says. There is no qualification, there is no protection, and there is no security. I can say with certainty that it is just a matter of time before there will be labour relations boards in our Province, there will be courts in our Province, and ultimately it will be the Ministry of Justice and the Attorney General of this Province who will have to deal with the consequences of such poor wording and drafting with respect to this proposed legislation. There is no thought being given to it.

I find that very disturbing, because when you consider what we are talking about here, there has been no thought given to anything. There has been no thought given to the legislation from the outset, simply because the public was never considered. The public was never consulted, despite the very basis of this government's mandate that the people of the Province would be consulted. Totally absent, totally void, even in disregarding the people of the Province one hundred per cent, legislation is being proposed which completely disregards the rights of the workers of our Province.

Mr. Speaker, this is a double-whammy for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Because what this legislation does is it ignores what the public of this Province is advocating, and it ignores in fact the rights and the protection of our ordinary Newfoundlanders who simply may want to say on any given Sunday: I do not want to work. However, if that same employee makes that statement on a Sunday morning and refuses to appear at the workplace, that person's job is on the line. That is regressive legislation, I say. Any well-intentioned administration would not even dream of giving consideration to a piece of legislation which flies in the face of the very rights and principles and safeguards that have been put in place in virtually every other province in the country.

In Prince Edward Island, the Retail Businesses Holidays Act: Requirements to close with exceptions - the Lord's Day Act - establishments may be open on Sundays from the last Sunday in November to the Sunday preceding Christmas. Even in the little Province of Prince Edward Island there is some sense to what the Prince Edward Island legislation is saying. I say to members opposite that if the legislation being proposed were similar to the wording of the P.E.I. legislation, it would perhaps have received consent and approval from members on this side of the House. Because what the P.E.I. legislation is saying is that establishments may be open from the last Sunday in November to the Sunday preceding Christmas.

Essentially, what this is doing is to encourage and entice business development and business growth and opportunity for consumers and for employers and employees alike, at what is essentially the busiest time of the year. That seems to be progressive legislation, I would say. That is progressive legislation. But again, the members opposite chose to absolutely and completely ignore and, of course, that does not surprise me, because they have been ignoring the wishes of the people from day one.

Mr. Speaker, it is sad, and it is most unfortunate, that this legislation is so sweeping and so all-inclusive that it fails to recognize what may otherwise have been sound, reasonable, intelligent amendments to the Shops' Closing Act. All the government had to do, and all the Minister of Environment and Labour had to do, rather than perhaps take pride in the fact that he would now be the third minister to push this legislation down the throats of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, rather than just do that, maybe if he had given this legislation a little bit of thought. Maybe if he had given this legislation a little bit of thought, there at least would have been a possibility that it would have received the consent of both sides of the House.

What is wrong, I ask the hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour, with a little bit of creativity and a little bit of thought being given to such an amendment, which could include the best parts and the best provisions of legislation which we can find in other jurisdictions in Canada? What is wrong with that? If legislation was being drafted and being proposed which sought to protect the rights of workers, and sought perhaps to just look at, maybe on a trial basis, a very particular and well-defined time of year, maybe if those kinds of ideas were being considered in draft legislation, then that could be meaningful legislation, that could be legislation which could have been well supported by members opposite, and members on this side of the House. Unfortunately, that did not happen.

In the Province of Quebec, Hours And Days Of Admission To Commercial Establishments Act is the name of the legislation, and at the discretion of the establishment, Easter Sunday and other holidays which fall on a Sunday remain retail business holidays.

Finally, in Saskatchewan, the Lord's Day Act And The Urban Municipality Act is the legislation. It is determined by each municipality, and the municipalities have the power to pass by-laws on store hours and exemptions. Again, even in the Province of Saskatchewan, we see some direction being given to municipalities to deal with an issue depending on the time of year, depending on perhaps a peak tourist season, depending on perhaps the time of day. But again, no, this legislation refuses to do that. This legislation refuses to look at what could have been, and a great potential existed, there is no doubt in my mind, to amend the Act with meaningful provisions that could benefit the employer, the employee, and the public at large in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, it should not come as a surprise that members on this side of the House object to Bill 48. It is an amendment which shows nothing but haste in government's will - against the will of the people of this Province - to drive through and to drive home legislation which really is not in the best interest of our people. Again, as I indicated earlier, all we have to do is listen to what people are saying on the Open Line shows and read the letters that are coming into our offices on a regular basis. All we have to do is discuss these issues with constituents when they call us, and I am sure members opposite - and I am sure the Minister of Environment and Labour, perhaps, is the greatest example of this - I am sure your office, Minister, has been flooded with concerns by people who oppose the legislation. Why not listen, I say, to what the ordinary Newfoundlander and Labradorian is saying? Why not take this opportunity right now?

We have before this Legislature, an amendment for a six-month hoist. Here is an opportunity, I would say, that government could take advantage of to shelve this legislation immediately, to shelve it, and to give consideration to other provisions in other Canadian jurisdictions to put in place meaningful provisions that protect all of those concerned. Here is an opportunity, and it is an opportunity that this government has. It can do it and it can save face in doing so, because all the members opposite have to say is: Yes, there are going to be amendments to the Shops' Closing Act; yes, we are going to listen to what are now, I am sure, thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, but, at the same time, give members on this side of the House credit and say: Yes, there are quite possibly other provisions, other amendments, that can be put in place which would satisfy the concerns of the majority of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

That is all members opposite have to do, and here is a prime opportunity to do it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Is it any wonder that people are suspect of legislation coming in? I do not know if any member knows what we were doing here exactly one year ago tonight. Does the Government House Leader know? Does anybody know?

AN HON. MEMBER: I do.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me tell you what we were doing here one year ago tonight. The Order of the Day is closure debate on HST. That is the first thing. One year ago to the day, second reading on Bills 46, 51 and 52 - and get a load of this: One year ago today we were in Committee of the Whole - and this is what the Government House Leader wanted on December 17, one year ago. He wanted the Committee of the Whole to report on Bills 44, 46, 35, 49, 50, 39, 38, 33, 22, 21, 27 and 48 - not a small order for the House of Assembly on December 17. But the problem is that at this time every year, the position we find ourselves in is simply this: that significant or controversial legislation, when the House opens for the fall sitting, never comes before the House until there are four or five days left. Four or five days left, Mr. Speaker - now, why? The question that must be asked is why? I have been here - this is my fifth year in politics. I have been here each and every year and the same debate occurs.

Tomorrow night we will probably be here at this time and you will see people get, on both sides, irritable, short-fused and ill-tempered. We will see it, guaranteed, and the reason why is because the process is being hijacked. Now, I know, Mr. Speaker, that this is coming from the Cabinet level; that the majority of backbenchers are just as surprised at what we are debating here. They have no other choice but to support government. I understand that, that is the role and that is the job. It is part of the parliamentary system that we are in.

MR. FITZGERALD: Do you know what we were doing last Monday night -a little closer to home?

MR. E. BYRNE: What were we doing this time last Monday night?

MR. SULLIVAN: They had a party, a big party.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, a good point, Mr. Speaker. I will get there in a second.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The hon. member did not show up to ours this year.

MR. E. BYRNE: But, Mr. Speaker, the point is this, that our House Leader and other members in this Legislature have recommended on numerous occasions, Mr. Speaker, that legislation coming before this House should be dropped before the House at least thirty days before we are going to debate it. Bill 48 is but one example.

I asked a question of the Premier the other day on Bill 44, the Public Utilities Act, and do you know what his response was? `Let me look at,' he said. This is only one amendment. It is not a complex piece of legislation. The reality is that he does not understand the fallout of it; that is the bottom line.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: It is not the only issue.

Before the House, this evening when we opened, another significant piece of legislation was dropped, Bill 52, which completely defines the relationship and what the relationship is going to be between labour and management in our emerging off-shore production industry. This is December 15, the Minister of Environment and Labour and the Minister of Mines and Energy held a press conference this morning saying this would be tabled in the House today and approval from the House of Assembly would follow thereafter.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 48 - mark it down - before this week is over, this piece of legislation will not pass this House of Assembly. Because what we are doing here - I said last Friday when it was dropped on this Order Paper, that what we are doing here is simply smoke and mirrors. It is politics at its best. There are other issues that we need to debate in this House, a lot more issues.

MR. G. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Until you win on what, I ask the Member for Twillingate. This Member from Twillingate has been sitting in his seat the whole night yapping, barking, and bitching. I say to the member, stand up if you want a chance to speak on this particular piece of legislation. Stand up and talk about it! I will give you leave.

Mr. Speaker, what really should be done - mark it down - this is the third time, for the record. I know it has been said already, in the Fall sitting of 1995, one week before the House of Assembly was set to close in 1995, the then Minister of Employment and Labour introduced this particular piece of legislation - one week before the House was to close two years ago. Then, in the Spring, last Spring, the Minister of Environment and Labour at the time, Mr. Kevin Aylward, introduced it, but the amendments that he introduced were that we were going to have a pilot project, that stores, from May 31 to December, would be allowed to open. Now, Mr. Speaker, government may be on to something there. If they were serious about amending the Shops' Closing Act, they should look at, as my hon. colleague, the Member for St. John's East referred to, the legislation in P.E.I.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: It was what he called progressive legislation, and I agree with him, but as this bill exists today, this is what government should do with it tonight: We do not have to be here right now debating this piece of legislation. There is no support outside this Assembly for this particular piece of legislation; if there is, I have not found it. Those in the minority, who have expressed the viewpoint that, yes, it would be convenient if stores were opened on Sunday, within that viewpoint, the minority whom I have heard are completely indifferent to it: Well, it does not matter if it is opened, it does not matter if it is closed, but those who are against it is what we should size up here.

Business owners themselves have clearly said that opening stores on the seventh day will increase their costs by one-seventh but will do nothing for the increase of their revenues, zero; nothing will happen as a result except that costs will go up and with business owners in this Province, if costs go up as a result of opening shops on Sundays, what do you think will happen to us as consumers? Will those costs be absorbed? I doubt it. I sincerely doubt it. Those costs -

MR. J. BYRNE: Will government pay for it?

MR. E. BYRNE: No, government will not pay for it. Will national chains absorb the costs? No. It will be reflected as it trickles down in every consumer item that we buy in those stores. It will happen. Experience has shown that it will happen.

The second reason, Mr. Speaker, that must be looked at clearly: Every member in this House has convenience stores, corner stores in his district. They are the hub of a district's personality. If I want to find out what is going on in the district, I can drop into the corner store on Petty Harbour Road; I can drop down to Forest Pond Convenience; I can drop into Valley View Convenience on Valley View Road, on the main road in Bay Bulls. I can drop into all of these corner stores; these are the small shops that service residential communities. And, Mr. Speaker, what will happen as a result of this? Clearly, the people in that industry have said to us, not only today, not only since Friday, but the last time we debated this piece of legislation and the time we debated it before, that it would have a severe and negative impact upon their local business. That is exactly what has been said. That is a second good reason not to proceed with this piece of legislation, and while there are many others, those are two that are paramount.

The third reason, as I see it: Those who are involved in the retail sector themselves, employees of the retail sector themselves, people have said that Sunday shopping will create more jobs - that is a fallacy. It is a complete and utter misrepresentation of what actually will take place because it will not create more jobs. It will cause further scheduling of jobs that already exist but the employees themselves have said clearly -and I have petitions here from the first day the House has been opened since it was dropped but I am not allowed to talk about it. Petitions are here that came in from Canadian Tire store employees; people generally out in the public. It is a third, good reason not to proceed with this piece of legislation.

Now, there has been much talk about our traditional way of life with respect to this issue and how much this would be threatened et cetera. The argument that government has put forward is that: Well, stores do not have to open if they do not wish to. All we are doing is allowing them from a legal, legislative point of view, the opportunity to open if they wish. That has been the hub -

MR. SULLIVAN: No, their contracts - they have to open.

MR. E. BYRNE: That is right, that has been the hub of the minister's argument. But if the minister were to look at those retail outlets that are in the mall, the leases - if the mall is open on Sunday, many of the stores, according to the legal and binding terms of their leases, Minister, the mere fact is, if that mall is open, they have to open. It is not bunk, it is not nonsense; this information has not been plucked out of the air, it is coming from people in the retail sector at these malls.

A fourth very good point, but what about the process? There has been zero consultation with respect to this piece of legislation. It has come up through the bureaucracy yet once again and the question is, why? I have offered one reason. Maybe it is because the Department of Justice has difficulty in prosecuting those people who have flown in the face of the existing act. That could be a possibility. If that is the case, then I suggest that there are better ways to amend the Shops' Closing Act than opening up the floodgates altogether.

Let us look at a view of legislation. Let us look at amendments that would clearly prescribe times around peak seasons that would encourage more employment, that would encourage more revenue, especially from outside the Province, during the peak tourist seasons for example. It would make eminent sense to me during the tourist season to give businesses the opportunity, as the minister says, to open if they so wish; but it does not make sense, Mr. Speaker, to open it up altogether.

We have been debating this particular piece of legislation since what, four o'clock today, four-thirty today?

MR. SULLIVAN: Five, close to five.

MR. E. BYRNE: Right now it is five after one, Tuesday morning, and we will probably be here until each one of us is finished on this particular amendment because, let us be clear, all we have asked for, all that we are debating right now, for the record, is we are asking for government to put this particular piece of legislation on hold for a six-month period so that people may have the opportunity to debate it in a more public way, to allow full disclosure of the facts, and to allow representations from the public sector to be made to the minister; because nobody, Chambers of Commerce, business associations, employees, employer groups, the consumer, generally speaking, were aware that this was coming. Nobody was aware that it was on the Order Paper and nobody certainly, was consulted that it was coming.

I half suspected that on Friday morning when the Government House Leader moved Orders of the Day, and the minister responsible for this particular act rose to his feet to make a speech, that he was going to tell the House that while this was the third time that this particular piece of legislation was going to be debated, this time was different. I suspected that he would have said that as a result of consultations with those involved, the stakeholders, employer groups, business owners, small stores, employees, that because of his behind-the-scenes consultations, he was proud to stand and report that support for his amendments to the Shops' Closing Act were going to be supported by those groups this time, as they were not, but he did not.

The minister stood on his feet and offered this argument. He said: We are not, not demanding that shops be open on Sundays. Clearly, all we are doing is giving the stores the flexibility themselves to open. If they do not want to open, they do not have to.

That is what he said, but the argument has more holes in it than a leaky basket, Mr. Speaker, for many of the reasons which I have just stated. It does.

Now, the minister also at that time said that a poll suggested that close to 70 per cent - 70 per cent was the figure tossed around on Friday - of the people supported it. Today, I believe, it was 58 per cent, 58/42 per cent; 58 per cent in favour, and 42 per cent against. The poll was based upon 209 calls in the Province, with a plus or minus factor error of some 6.5 per cent.

Minister, really, if you want to know what people are feeling about this particular piece of legislation, get out and talk to them; get out and talk to the stakeholders involved in the process. They will tell you what people are saying. People will tell you exactly what they are saying about this particular piece of legislation.

Government has proceeded with far too much haste on this particular issue. People have called me from Corner Brook. I have had calls from Pasadena, from Stephenville, from Marystown, from Grand Falls. I have talked to people I knew in Bonavista. I have had -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Topsail?

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me?

MR. SULLIVAN: Any calls from Topsail?

MR. E. BYRNE: I believe I had a couple of calls from Topsail. I did get a couple of calls from people in Clarenville. I had a lot of calls from people in and around the city area. Certainly I had a lot of calls from my own district on it. Out of all the calls that I have received since Friday - about sixty - I had one call that was in favour of Sunday shopping.

MR. J. BYRNE: Did you get any from Exploits?

MR. E. BYRNE: One, that was it.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was from Topsail, right?

AN HON. MEMBER: That was from Ralph Wiseman, was it?

MR. E. BYRNE: I am not sure what district it was from, but a gentleman called me today at 12:00 and indicated that he was not in favour of the position being articulated by the Opposition, or those against Sunday shopping, that he felt that it should be wide open. That is a point of view I respect. I do not necessarily agree with it, but I do respect it and I defend his right to say it.

The other argument that has been put forward, and it is a legitimate one, is that we talk about the amount of increased revenue that Sunday shopping will provide. We live in a Province where the economic buy is very finite. Because we are going to be opened up on Sundays does not mean in any way, shape or form that revenues will increase as a result of it. Government has done no economic analysis of it, because if they had it would have supported that view. I say to the members and my colleagues that I am convinced that had government done that, if they had done their homework on it and could demonstrate clearly, if they had the stats themselves, if the minister had the information in his hand that he could table before the House and say this: As a result of amending the Shops' Closing Act, as a result of letting stores open on Sunday, our information has shown clearly, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that indications are very strong that revenue to businesses in this Province would increase, then I am convinced that we would have had that information now. It would have been a strong peg in their argument and a strong sort of approach if they could have demonstrated that, but they did not demonstrate that. The reason they did not demonstrate that was because they did not have any information with which to demonstrate it.

The Department of Environment and Labour has done no research, no economic analysis of the impact of businesses on this particular piece of legislation, because if they had done it and it was favourable you can rest assured that we would have read it by now. And the absence of it indicates to me that the converse is true, that the absence of such information being tabled before this House indicates to this member that had they done anything - and maybe they have. Let's give government the benefit of the doubt; let's say they have done an economic analysis, an impact statement on this particular piece of legislation. I believe they have. I will give them the benefit of the doubt.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, they have not.

MR. E. BYRNE: All I can say is that I have not seen it, it has not been presented; therefore, why not? Because it does not support the piece of legislation that they are putting forward.

What will it do to costs? Let's talk about business owners for a minute. What will it do to their costs? There was a gentleman on Here and Now on Friday night who owned and operated a grocery store. He did not really want to open up on Sunday. It was going to be one of his slowest days he figured. The costs of opening up - the employee costs, the cost of heat and light, the cost of maintaining property, the cost of bringing in cleaners per se, the costs associated with it - Sunday would cost him money; he would not make any of it.

The Minister of Education, in his own district, what are people in your district saying about Sunday shopping, I ask the minister? Have you had any calls on it? You have probably been too busy on the phone with other issues; probably, as minister.

MR. FITZGERALD: He doesn't answer the phone; he doesn't know what calls he gets.

MR. E. BYRNE: I had calls from his district. They told me that they were trying to get hold of the minister on this issue; that they spoke to people who - I guess it would be your executive assistant, or the person you have out in the district. What is the person's name again?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, they spoke to the minister's executive assistant. He knows what people are feeling out in Exploits about Sunday shopping. It certainly was indicated to me that it was indicated through his staff person to get to him what people's feelings were on Sunday shopping.

Let's talk about this; why not a pilot project? Minister, why not? Have you considered bringing back to Cabinet, on Sunday shopping, a pilot project like the former minister talked about? What would be the problem with slowing the process down?

The government (inaudible). Bring it before a legislative committee. Talk about a pilot project to see if the amendments would work, to give people a chance. Even if we bought into the concept the minister is talking about, there is no need to rush ahead at full speed.

Why not a pilot project? Why not look at taking a prescribed period of time that would allow people who own businesses, and employees, where it could be demonstrated that as a result of opening up on Sundays, from a point A to a point B situation, that revenues would increase, that employers could gain extra revenue, that employees in a specific period of time would make extra money? Why not look at a pilot project for that prescribed period of time, Minister? Would that not be certainly a moderate suggestion to make?

Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation was tabled in the House on Friday.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: The Government House Leader is correct; the debate on this piece of legislation began on Friday. Since Friday I have received - just today, just starting, the issue is growing. The Member for Bonavista South is right; all the Government House Leader has done tonight is brought more attention to this issue. Maybe that was in his plan anyway.

MR. FITZGERALD: They highlighted it.

MR. E. BYRNE: No question about it.

Attention labour critic - this is from 40 Harnum Crescent; it came to me today in Mount Pearl - I am absolutely opposed to this shopping. People will have no more money to spend in seven than they do in six days. We live on an island. Sunday shopping in other cities across Canada is more appropriate since those shoppers could very well go into the U.S. It is very different here since we are an island. Therefore it is not necessary to allow stores to open up on Sunday; a constituent from Mount Pearl.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many more do you have there?

MR. E. BYRNE: I have a lot. I got this on my e-mail this morning. It seems when you give pertinent or real examples to government they may listen more. It reads:

I am writing to you in your capacity as the Opposition labour critic. I was very upset to learn this week of government's plan to introduce a bill to permit unrestricted Sunday shopping. I thought this very divisive issue was dead, and was unpleasantly surprised to see it reintroduced with no time for public debate, and at a time when people's attentions are focused on Christmas. I feel the introduction of Sunday shopping is undesirable for several reasons, both social and economic, and unrelated to religious considerations. The social ones are the most destructive.

He goes on to say: These include, one, the removal of a family day. At present Sunday is one day when most people can plan to get together as a family or with friends, unrestricted by job requirements. Two, Sunday provides a breathing spell for people by removing commercial and employment pressures. It is no accident that most religions throughout the world have instituted a day of rest. Society needs it. It provides us with the necessary rhythm or cycle.

He is right. He says: Number three, it will, without doubt, introduce much stress to families by removing the ability of many children to spend time with both parents, and for both parents to act together for even one day as a mom and dad.

This point was driven home to me by an owner of a furniture store who has operated in this city for about ten years. He said: Ed, I have operated my business for in excess of ten years, and I have operated at that time twelve to fourteen hours a day, six days and six nights a week. While I do not want to open up on Sundays, I can guarantee you this, that if my competitor does I will be forced to.

This letter goes on to say: Four, I see no strong pressure from Newfoundlanders - and this is very true - requesting an end to keeping major retailers closed on Sundays.

In fact, the recent November poll shows a nearly even split. I suspect, however, if people polled had been asked about the strength of their preferences - and he is dead on here, Mr. Speaker; I referred to it earlier - the pollsters would have found that the side favouring keeping the day of rest felt more strongly than those wishing to open the major stores, and that is exactly what we are seeing right now. That is exactly the response and the reaction that the public is on to right now.

Economically it will cost the Province more. No new wealth will be created by an additional shopping day. Rather, the same amount of spending will be stretched over a longer period, resulting in increased sales costs and necessarily higher prices.

Finally, he goes on to say, the statistic quoted by the Minister of Labour that 66.6 per cent retail business is already open and that all he is doing is deregulating the final third is, frankly, absurd.

He asks a question: Is the minister giving a one-person convenience store the same weight as a Wal-Mart store? The old adage that `statistics don't lie, but liars use statistics' certainly comes to mind.

Finally, I note that the other Atlantic Provinces have chosen not to introduce unfettered Sunday shopping with good reasons. Once this genie, he says, is out of the bottle, he will be impossible to stuff back. I hope you can do your best to pressure the government to back down from this bill.

This was from a constituent from St. John's West, I might add, written today on my e-mail. Mr. Speaker, I have at least a dozen more there as of today.

Certain members opposite who have received calls have said to the people who have called them: Contact the Opposition. Contact the labour critic.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. E. BYRNE: It is a fact. Two calls from Corner Brook today indicated that to me, that one of the members in government indicated to them: Look, the best way to get this out is to contact the labour critic for the PC Party, who happens to be Ed Byrne.

It is a fact. They prefaced their comments to me early this morning by saying, `You would never believe who told me to call you'. That is a fact.

Mr. Speaker, for the record, what we are debating right now is what we call, in parliamentary terms, a six-month hoist. All we are asking is for government to take a second look at this particular piece of legislation - or a fourth look - and delay the legislation by six months. Give some opportunity to those people, the stakeholders involved or who will be impacted by this particular legislation, some time, some opportunity, to bring their concerns before government, to allow a period of consultation, to allow a period where people can articulate to the minister what their concerns will be, because they are the ones who will be impacted by this decision, and to allow the minister to respond to those concerns. Maybe, just maybe at the end of the day, some compromise may be reached.

Like the hon. Member for St. John's East said when he referred to the legislation introduced in the Province of P.E.I., that it was progressive legislation, that it was done for a prescribed period of time, that it would do certain things, namely that opening stores on Sunday during that prescribed period of time would allow for increased revenue, would allow for businesses to make more money..., but this government is not doing it. What we see is a carte blanche, dropped on the Order Paper, dropped on the Table of this House for debate without significant time for consultation. Frankly it is a high-handed approach that I thought was removed and gone, but obviously it is not.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will sit down. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just wanted to refer back to what was happening about two years ago. What we are saying now, what we are looking at now, or what we are debating now, is the hoist motion. Two years ago, in 1995, there was notice given on December 4, by the Wells Government, "An Act To Amend The Shops' Closing Act."

Mr. Speaker, this bill was brought before the Legislature two years ago, right before the government announced its many budget cuts. A couple of days after we had this bill introduced, we knew why it was introduced. It was introduced to deflect away from the government's sad story of having to do the December flip of 350 employees.

I remember discussing this with a member of Cabinet at the time and they admitted the strategy was one of trying to deflect away from a real issue that they were facing. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we had some discussion at that time; we had questions in the House. I should refer members back to questions in the House on December 7, 1995. The Member for Burin - Placentia West, Glen Tobin, asked a question to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, Tom Murphy, about Sunday shopping. He asked him what consultations had taken place. The minister, when he got up, was asked if he would name the businesses that had put pressure on the government to bring in the shops' closing changes. The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, Tom Murphy, got up and said: Perhaps I should answer the last question first. If I were to name all the businesses who have asked me and my colleagues to open, perhaps Question Period would go on until 8:00 or 9:00 o'clock tonight.

Mr. Speaker, that was Tom Murphy in answer to a question, and the question was: What businesses are putting pressure on you to bring Sunday shopping into Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. HARRIS: What happened to him?

MR. H. HODDER: Well, we know what happened. Let's deal with what happened to the question first, I say to the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, because you will recall that CBC asked the same question outside the Legislature and then there was hesitancy. So we said in Question Period, `Okay, go ahead.' In fact, Lynn Verge said, `Go ahead. By leave we will let you go on. Name all of them.' Of course, Tom Murphy didn't take her up on the offer.

Then, outside the Legislature, it was pressured by CBC that we should name some of those businesses. Would you maybe name a dozen? Would you name five? Then he went on: Would you name three?

Later on in Question Period - later on the next day, actually - there were questions put again to the same minister and he was pressured to tell the names of the businesses. Were these the multinationals? Were these the people who have their offices here but have their bank accounts and money kept in places that are certainly not in Newfoundland and Labrador - Toronto, Halifax or Montreal?

Mr. Speaker, that minister had to admit later on - and I have it all here in the record of Hansard, and there were questions by the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi on the same issue - that not one single business had contacted him and had said, `We want Sunday shopping.' Now here was a minister who stood in his place in the House and said that if he had to list them all off we would have to let Question Period go on until 8:00 or 9:00 o'clock at night. Upon questioning by CBC, he could not name five. He could not name ten first. They said: give us a list of ten. No, he could not that. He could not give five, could not give three and, in fact, later on admitted he could not name one business that wanted changes to the shops closing regulations in this Province. That is the history; no doubt about it.

MR. HARRIS: No wonder they raised a point of order when the questions were asked today.

MR. H. HODDER: Well, I mean, we tried today in this House, with the Leader of the Opposition, knowing this was a matter of great urgency in the Province, knowing that the debate might be called today, and on reflection of all of the faxes, the e-mails, the telephone calls and the visitations to our office today, and calls at home over the weekend, we made an attempt today to ask the government, because of this issue: Would you let the Leader of the Opposition ask a few questions in the Legislature. The first question was not even placed, it was only the preamble that had been given, when the Government House Leader stood in his place and said: No, you cannot ask questions on this particular topic because it is scheduled for debate, and under the rule in Beauchesne, I think it is Beauchesne 408 or 409 - and the Leader of the Opposition was stopped.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that the Speaker was wrong in making his ruling. We just thought that, with leave, anything is possible in a Legislature. We thought for sure that the government would have given the Leader of the Opposition leave today to ask questions on this very important issue. Therefore, we were surprised when the Government House Leader stood in his place, so quickly, to say no and call upon the Speaker to enforce the rules as contained in Beauchesne.

I am not saying that is not right to do or that is not parliamentary acceptable; all I am saying is that the government today, obviously, used the rules of Beauchesne to prevent the Leader of the Opposition from asking questions.

Mr. Speaker, we certainly have had our opportunity to put our questions forward in the last while, and we will continue to put them forward, because as the government knows and should know by this time that, this being the third attempt - there was an attempt last spring as well to change the Shops Closing Act. It was designed to facilitate the tourist season, particularly in Cabot year. At that time there was some pressure put on by certain craft people in the Province and the bill came in to have the Sunday shopping possible from, I think it was May 31 until December 31, and there was some discussion on that.

After a little while, in discussing it, the bill did not come forward because, in fact, if I remember correctly, that bill did not come forward because it was not introduced until the 16th of May, and you will remember we closed the House on the 18th of May. So on the 18th of May there was a big rush here to get things done, because at that time the government believed they should close the House, get out of here, because they wanted to go out and start trying to rescue some of the flailing and failing Liberal candidates in the federal election.

They were particularly concerned about St. John's West, St. John's East and Burin - Burgeo. There was concern about Humber - St. Georges as well. So the word went out: Do what you can, close the House, let us get out there and rescue our Party because we are going to be in big trouble and, of course, that is what was done. All of the Liberal members were to rush out and try to save the maximum number of federal seats for the Liberal Party. However, Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is that at that time there was no attempt to pass this because, quite obviously, the government at that time felt this was not a priority.

Mr. Speaker, today we come to the third attempt on this particular piece of legislation. While it was on the Order Paper, technically, from last spring, we know that there was no possibility that Bill 18 was going to see the light of day, because, obviously, why would you pass a bill in November saying that you could have the shops open on Sundays starting back in June? Even the government would not be that ridiculous.

Mr. Speaker, here we have Bill 48. Now, what is the purpose of the hoist motion? The hoist motion is to give the government an opportunity for consultation, an opportunity to say: Yes, this is a good idea. Maybe that list that Tom Murphy talked about, of consultation, businesses that were supporting it, maybe now he can find those fifty or 100 - or in his case, it would take him four hours to read the list. I assume he could read, say, 100 an hour, so we would have 400 or 500 businesses that would be in favour of this particular piece of legislation. This gives the government a chance to consult.

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my previous comments, consultation was supposed to be one of the key features of this government's mandate. I quoted earlier today from the Red Book where consultation was supposed to be a key feature; however, they are rather selective. On this particular issue, where we have had two previous attempts to introduce it, when we know that there is no complementary legislation in Prince Edward Island or in Nova Scotia, and we know that we are talking about changing lifestyle patterns and we are going against tradition in Newfoundland, we are going to go and introduce this with no opportunity for ordinary folks to have a say on it. There must be a reason for doing that. There must be a reason why the government is not holding consultations.

So a six-month hoist, when we get to the vote, which we will, I suppose, in another hour or so - another hour-and-a-half probably, or thereabouts - unless we are going to have government members speak up, which I doubt is going to happen, the vote will come in about another seventy-five or eighty minutes. Then we will have a decision by all members. Those in favour of having a six-month hoist will have a chance to say `yes'.

We believe, on this side, there are people on the government side who support this hoist motion, but they have told us: We cannot stay in the House because we do not want to stand in our places. Pressure is put on us. The discipline you have in politics is there, so we cannot stay in our place.

I would be interested to find out what the Member for Humber East is going to do right before the vote. Now, he is not one of the ones who has indicated that he is voting against our hoist motion. The purpose of the hoist motion is to say: Let's have a review. Let's go out there, let's consult with the business people, let's consult with the entire community, particularly small business people, and let's see what they are really saying. Let's have an independent review of this. The hoist motion permits all of that to happen.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell all hon. members, certainly by our presence here this evening - we told the Government House Leader, and we are telling you now - this is not going to get an easy ride. Therefore, all members know that means we might be here for some considerable time. There are ways in which the government can overcome that, but they certainly will have to take whatever measures they want to take.

So, Mr. Speaker, what we are saying on this bill is, if you want to have it passed then you will have to use all of the parliamentary procedures to make it happen. This caucus is not going to let this pass without the maximum allowable debate.

Mr. Speaker, what we are saying here is that many people have been caught off guard. I was apprised today of the calls that have been coming into the office upstairs, and we are keeping records of where they are coming from. The member who spoke before me, the critic, has been getting e-mails all day, and we have been getting people delivering petitions to our offices. Mr. Speaker, what I'm saying is that with the phone calls, the visitations, people saying, would you stand in there and make sure this thing doesn't get through the Legislature without an adequate debate - at the end of the day, if the government persists in moving with this legislation, it will win. That is the nature of democracy. It will win, but our responsibility on this side of the House is to make sure there is going to be a maximum presentation of all the issues, and we will be doing that.

It is a matter of how determined the government is. I can tell the Government House Leader that we on this side are very determined on this particular issue. If you want to stay here until 9:00 tomorrow morning, that is fine with us. We certainly will not, in any way, be intimidated by the clock or whatever procedures you might throw at us.

Mr. Speaker, therefore we are asking questions about, why the haste. That is why we have the motion for the six-month hoist. We believe there should be an opportunity for representations to be made to the Members of the House of Assembly. We believe people calling our office today are not all fabricating stories and information. In fact, we don't believe any of them are. They are calling up and saying: When can we have a chance to present our viewpoint? Thus far, the government has not made any opportunity whatsoever for these people to have any say.

The people are asking: Who is driving the bill, why the haste and why is the government rushing right now to get this passed before the end of this parliamentary autumn session? People are concerned. As has been said in the House many times in the last four or five hours, the independent business people are asking questions. They are saying they are very much opposed to it.

I see the Deputy Speaker looking up in the galleries. I remind him that his great mentor, Joey Smallwood, when he talked about Confederation, wasn't concerned about the galleries because he was aware there was a microphone in the Confederation debates. Therefore, the microphone lets all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador be your potential audience. While the Deputy House Leader may very look up and say, I don't see the crowd in the galleries, that doesn't mean we don't have a responsibility to speak up on behalf of people and on behalf of issues. Therefore, I say to the Deputy Speaker over there, the whole purpose of this debate is to make sure the voices of ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are heard; and through the medium of communications that happens.

Mr. Speaker, 77 per cent of members who are participants in the Canadian Federation of Independent Business are opposed. Maybe we should ignore that. Maybe we should tell all those independent business people: Nah, your viewpoint doesn't count, you shouldn't be listened to, because that is what the government is doing through its actions. It is saying they don't count. We believe on this side that they do count. We believe they should have an opportunity to be heard.

What they are saying is that many small rural firms will be negatively impacted, and there will be a lot of potential damage to small business in Newfoundland and Labrador. What they are saying is that if they are forced to open up at the same hours as regular retailers, there are going to be some difficulties. They are saying they will be forced, in some cases, to close up shop.

Mr. Speaker, we know, and we have said here before, that the small businesses, the mom and pop operations, are the life blood of small communities. Today we have had calls from all over the Province. I said earlier, I have had calls today from Corner Brook, Central Newfoundland, the Burin Peninsula and from my own area, small business people saying -

MR. A. REID: (Inaudible) had ten calls (inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: I say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, I had more calls from Friday until last night on this issue than I had on education reform in any seventy-two hour period, and I had a lot of calls.

Mr. Speaker, I just say to the members opposite, who are getting a bit antsy in this hour in the evening, and that is understandable -they now realize that they have a battle on their hands. So, Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs would get a bit out of sorts at this hour in the evening. It is rare I see him this hour in the evening and I am glad I don't see him too often at 1:45 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, what we are saying is that many of the small businesspeople, these mom and pop operations, are going to be in great difficulty, but the government doesn't believe that or they don't care. The six-month hoist is designed to let the government have an opportunity to consult with ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing that we want to point out is that this proposal for Sunday shopping will not increase revenue. When I talked to a small businessman today, he talked about the fact that his gross sales are $300,000 a year. That is the gross sales for a small business. He said: When I pay my overhead, my rent and these things, I won't get any more money by opening up on Sunday. It is not there. Therefore, what he is saying is that if he has to open up in order to meet the competition put out by the big retailers - he is a small businessman, he has to meet the competition - then he is going to have to pay staff, pay rent, pay for cleaning and pay the heat and light. What is going to happen is that he is going to be worse off then he is now. What he said to me was: If I had my choice, I would only be open five days a week. I wouldn't open Friday nights at all. Because he is only getting the same amount of money in six days as he would get in seven. As a matter of fact, his net profits will go way down. Therefore, it will not increase revenue and it will mean a reduction in profit for small business.

As we said, costs will go up. Labour costs will go up for a small business. It will mean that to keep their market share, they are going to have to open up on Sundays when they don't want to open up on Sundays. Therefore, there will not be enough increase in spending to offset the expenditure. Anybody in business knows that you have to have certain bottom lines.

Consequently, Mr. Speaker, we also want to say to the Minister of Education, who is a master at repetitive sentence structure and who has the record for the longest winded sentence - he would make Bronte look like she was writing précis by his long winded answers and –

MR. SULLIVAN: His long winded inexactitudes.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, my point to the minister is that people will leave their rural communities on Sundays to shop in the bigger centres. So, the only people who are going to benefit from this are the big monsters.

Now, in Nova Scotia they have gotten around this by saying, very simply, that the big retailers can't open. In Nova Scotia, anything over 4,000 square feet, you are not allowed to open on Sunday. That is the way they get around it. So, therefore, they protect the small business people and they handle the big conglomerates. We don't end up hurting the small business people in Nova Scotia.

In Newfoundland we are more interested in the Price Clubs, the Wal-Marts, the Zellers and all these big stores than we are in the small business stores. What we are saying is we want to see our monies drifting off to Stellerton, drifting off to Montreal, going off because the big stores will make the money. The small stores will suffer the losses.

Mr. Speaker, we also have information which tells us that this will have the effect, potentially, of decreasing wages because if the businessman has to have more employees then there will be a downward pressure on wages. He will try to save money wherever he can. So, when profits are reduced, wages get reduced because that is the only option that many business people have, to reduce the cost of doing business.

As we have mentioned many times before in this debate this evening, workers, particularly women, are going to be disadvantaged.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we could also make comments about the fact that because you have increased costs there will be increased costs to the consumers. In fact, the argument can be made that prices will go up, that this might be an inflationary pressure on the economy because obviously businesses have to recover their costs. If they have more costs there is a tendency to put the prices up. Therefore, we may have increased costs to consumers.

The other thing that we had mentioned earlier was that we had no pilot project. One of the favourable things that we looked at last spring in the proposal put forward for Cabot year, is that they look at it as a pilot project. Now members might ask the question: What was our position on that? Someone asked it earlier this evening. Well it is very simple: We, in the official Opposition, were prepared to look at a pilot project for June, July and August, but when the minister came in and said, no, I want June, July, August, right up to December, we said no deal. The same debate is taking place today that would have taken place at that time. We did say we were prepared to consider a pilot project for June, July and August of 1997, but, no, that wasn't enough. They did not want to do that.

The discussion I had with the minister at that time, the hon. Kevin Aylward, was that: We will look at that and bring it back to Caucus. In fact, Caucus talked about it. When the legislation was tabled on May 16 it was far different from what we had been told it would be. Our Caucus, at that time, said: If you are going to go from the first of June until the end of December, that we would not support it whatsoever because that was too long for a pilot project. Mr. Speaker, at that time the minister talked about a three-month project and then an evaluation after that. It did not happen.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure to rise again and talk about the Shops' Closing Act and amendments to it.

MR. BARRETT: At least you will be interesting.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you.

I must say, I have one fan on that side anyway, the Member for Bellevue; so far starting out. Maybe by the time I am finished I will not have any over there.

MR. WISEMAN: You're doing a good job.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you.

I will not refer to this article now. I am getting too many compliments from the Members for Topsail and Bellevue. I was going to talk about that sandbagger article. I will not do that now.

MR. TULK: Do it.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I will not talk about the sandbagger. He's not here. I don't like to talk about him -

MR. TULK: I'll go get him.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, when he comes in I will get him again. He just took a brief recess. He needs it here. I think my House Leader drove him out of the House. He was dealing with so many facts, and the member didn't want to hear the facts. He decided to leave.

Seriously, on this issue here, it is a really important piece of legislation, and one on which I felt government should have given people an opportunity to make representation. It wasn't done. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business found out recently about it, and they didn't have an opportunity. There are other people out there, businesses, labour unions, church leaders, ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, who should have been given an opportunity to make representation on this particular bill, rather than just sneak it in and try to ram it through in a short period of time. Certainly their commitment to have it rammed through is evident here today. They called the only piece of legislation here. It is going through with too much haste.

I might add, they are trying to sandbag people on this particular bill. I don't think they should be sandbagging people on this bill at all. Can you imagine, a back bencher aspiring to be a Cabinet minister says that the Premier sandbagged a number of them? He said: We weren't even aware it was on the agenda that day. That is the Member for Humber East, the `sandbagger' himself, the king of sandbaggers. He got sandbagged. That is right.

This article says: Tobin denies the accusation. In other words, we didn't sandbag him. I will ask the member: Were you sandbagged by the Premier? Who is right, you or the Premier?

AN HON. MEMBER: Sandbagged by (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The Premier is always right; you have to keep that in mind. If you want to be in Cabinet, the Premier is always right, he is never wrong! He is never wrong, I can tell you. The only cabinet he is going to get will be his kitchen, dining room or bathroom cabinet.

I heard someone saw him out on the Trans-Canada up in the woods with an axe. They said he was up cutting a Cabinet post.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, Ray Guy said that about Tom Hickey, actually. I read it about ten years ago, I think.

MR. TULK: The first one they said it about was Rossie Barbour.

MR. SULLIVAN: Was it?

MR. TULK: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, I read Ray Guy saying it about Tom Hickey; it must be ten or fifteen years ago, whenever.

AN HON. MEMBER: Loyola, you shouldn't be too hard on him, you know.

MR. SULLIVAN: On who?

AN HON. MEMBER: The Member for Humber East.

MR. SULLIVAN: Why?

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No. (Inaudible). Where was he the year before that, I ask? Where was he in 1995 when I needed him!? Where was he then? He wasn't anywhere to be seen, I would say! Always arriving too late, a year too late. I can tell you, he was a year late. Never on time! Can you imagine? I don't mind, after the Leader of the Opposition complaining, but to say his own Premier sandbagged him on an issue - I mean, realistically, he had a chance to get in Cabinet.

The Member for Bellevue is stepping up to the plate. I hope the Member for Bellevue won't get the same treatment the Member for Stephenville got when he got into that position and sat as the parliamentary assistant, ready to reach into that Cabinet, and all of a sudden: Oh no, Kevin, you wouldn't give up your seat for me. That is as close as you are getting. You can't get into Cabinet while I'm here. Sure enough, he didn't.

The Member for Bellevue, I hope the same thing won't happen to you as happened to the Member for Stephenville when he was parliamentary assistant. The parliamentary assistant now, traditionally, gets into Cabinet, but the Member for Stephenville couldn't get in. He wouldn't give up his seat for the former premier and he never got that extra step. I hope you are going to be more loyal to your leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: I am going to give up my seat for (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Don't worry, you won't need to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Don't worry about that. You don't need to give up your seat. There is somebody going to take it on you, that is why. They are going to take it on you. Yes, don't worry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, and if runs in Bellevue he will win, I would say.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, yes. I got a rousing endorsement from the Member for Cape St. Francis. He brought the House down this evening, didn't he? He did not beat around the bush.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. TULK: I would hate to see that other gentleman beat him out, that fellow from Harbour Grace, that Dougie. Mr. Speaker, I have to warn him, there is not one person cheering him on over there this evening, not one person pounding the desk, not even his House Leader who is being paid. He is there feeling for the soft spot on his back.

MR. H. HODDER: The point is, you are blind to it; you are blind.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As usual, he makes no sense. He is never in order; he is always out of order. I can tell you, I would be more loyal to my Leader than you have been to yours. Whoever is my Leader, I will be there. I tell you, if it is not me, if it is someone else, I will be there to support him, urging him on. That is more than I can say about the guy who sat - the print of his head was in the wall back there for about three years.

MR. TULK: No, no, the back of the chair.

MR. SULLIVAN: What?

MR. TULK: Back of the chair.

MR. SULLIVAN: It was in the wall. The only way to get him to move is to move the wall and he would be in another location, I can say. I can tell you, for the first three years I was up there in the back, the only member who did not change in three years was the Member for Eagle River and when he moved, I tell you, he moved in a hurry. He moved himself right clean out of the House of Assembly. It happened so fast.

You had to get rid of your other leader.

MR. TULK: I tried to warn him.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I know, he did not listen. We warned him too and he did not heed the words. This Parliamentary Assistant now is a hell of a lot smarter, I can tell you; I will give him credit. They are not going to move him out of there. No, sir! He is not going to Florida in the middle of an election I can tell you, he is not going south. If he has a suntan -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: In the middle of an election. If he happens to get a suntan, he will probably paint himself white for the election, I would say. He would do something to get rid of that colour.

AN HON. MEMBER: If Doug Moores was running against him.

MR. SULLIVAN: You would not be caught south, I tell you. You would be going twenty-four hours a day, and then you would have someone praying for you in the process.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) back as Interim Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: I will do you a favour, Loyola, (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I can tell you I won't be back again as interim Leader. I will be back supporting myself or whoever else is there, I sat, whoever it is.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, boy, I did not say that, you said that. The Member for Topsail has not been right very often. I would not want to put too much money on your opinion based on your record so far. I think I would keep my money in my pocket on this one.

MR. WISEMAN: I am trying to give you some support.

MR. SULLIVAN: I know, but I can do without that type of support, I say to the Member for Topsail. That is not the type of support I want at all. Look at the support you gave Bonnie and look where she ended up; look what happened there. We do not need that type of support. If you had supported Wally, it would be a little bit closer.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: What? Okay, I will keep it down. You have a headache? I am delighted you have a headache, I will sing out louder. I am glad you told me, I am delighted. It is the best news I have had all night. The Government House Leader has a headache. Can you imagine the headache you are going to have by nine o'clock tomorrow morning?

MR. TULK: No, I won't.

MR. SULLIVAN: You won't?

MR. TULK: No. (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Listen, this will go on. You could go on for days and I would not falter, I will be here. I would be the last one to fall.

MR. TULK: So long as you fall down.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, sir. You would fall down before I would, I can tell you, because when you fall, then I will probably jump on you to make sure you do not get up.

MR. TULK: No, you won't.

MR. SULLIVAN: I know when the bell rings, I will answer the call.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: That is the guy over there, take him out. The Government House Leader has a headache, he said.

Why are Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island so smart? Nova Scotia does not want it, Prince Edward Island, that great province; the great central people in Prince Edward Island who elected Pat Binns up there do not want it. New Brunswick has it from Labour Day to the end of the Christmas season, I believe, December 31 until Christmas. They do not want it. They even wanted to talk about changing it. And here is our Province wanting to go out and do something different. It just does not make sense.

AN HON. MEMBER: How is your pizza?

MR. SULLIVAN: It is grand. I love it. Good job! What did we order for breakfast?

AN HON. MEMBER: Breakfast is coming in from McDonald's.

MR. SULLIVAN: Breakfast from McDonald's, okay. Can we get breakfast on the way home or do we have to get it brought in?

AN HON. MEMBER: Bring it in.

MR. SULLIVAN: Bring it in, okay.

Will seven days a week increase revenues? Can someone answer that? Will it increase revenues?

MR. MERCER: No.

MR. SULLIVAN: The sandbagger said, `no'.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It all depends on how hungry people are. If you are not hungry, you don't get any. If you are hungry, who knows?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No. Two - two chicken legs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Loyola, he is the sandbaggee.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, he is the sandbaggee.

AN HON. MEMBER: Loyola, where did that come from that you are reading out there?

MR. SULLIVAN: Where did it come from? It says Aesop. Aesop, it said here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Member for Humber East. That was last year.

MR. SULLIVAN: What? Oh, Humber East. Hello, last year! Wait until I tell the member what it says. The heading says, `Tobin says Byrne should look again.' That is Gerry Byrne. `Premier Brian Tobin calls area MP Gerry Byrne's charges of political games false.' He calls them false. He didn't say he told lies, he was a liar; he said it is false. It means something so much different.

After the House of Assembly -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Indeed it is not. After the House of Assembly passed a resolution supporting Port aux Basques as the location, Byrne told The Humber Log that Tobin and those who voted for the resolution were playing politics and ignoring the facts.

I will give you a copy. I have a spare one. I just carry a spare one in case hon. members like to see one. Hang on, now. Now, don't share it with the Member for Humber East. We don't want him to get sandbagged twice in the one week.

I will read it for the record now, for the benefit of those who do not know it. Here is what Byrne said, Gerry Byrne, the guy who won by 200-and-some votes in a district that was 83 per cent or 85 per cent the time before, the guy who hung on by his fingernails. The only thing that saved him was the air ambulance announcement in St. Anthony. He said: I have gone through the transcript and really found no particular business case as to why it should be located in Port aux Basques. I have simply noted that there is a political reason as to why it should be located there.

Tobin said: Since Port aux Basques is the main entry point... and so on... I think Gerry should give this some more thought. If Gerry Byrne has a different view, he is free to make that view known to his colleagues in the Federal Cabinet, but I think - I would hope - that if he reflected on it he would realize that Port aux Basques is the logical conclusion. But Byrne says Corner Brook, from a business point of view, is the best location for approximately thirty jobs.

Then it goes on to say: To unilaterally state in a resolution, without due regard to the business case of the location, and just pass a resolution that it should go to Port aux Basques, with no questions asked, I think goes against public accountability, said Byrne.

Here is the good part. I highlighted this: Even Humber East MHA, Bob Mercer, was left scratching his head over the vote. A number of us got sandbagged, said Mercer. We were not even aware that was on the agenda that day.

Tobin denies the accusation that he sandbagged the Member for Humber East. Now, who is right, the Premier or the Member for Humber East? It is just like business, I say to the Member for Humber East; the customer is always right. The Premier is always right.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right. If he says, `jump', you are not supposed to say `sandbagged', you are supposed to say, `How high?'

Here is what the Premier said: There is no plot here. There is no conspiracy here. To me, the logic is compelling.

Can you imagine the Premier getting compelled with logic? Can you imagine that? Here is what Mercer said, more stuff. I didn't even see this before when I read it. Mercer said he would have gone against his Party and Premier and voted against the motion, had he (inaudible) resolution. `I would have had no choice, he said, `after all, I won by only seven votes the last time.' That is what he said.

`I don't want four people to change their minds the next time, he said, `I support Corner Brook's bid. Personally, I believe it is the best location,' and on and on and on he went. So, can you imagine? He said, `I would have voted against the party of the Premier.' Hello, he would have voted against the party of the Premier. He jumped in the line so fast, you didn't see him move, I would say. That is what happened to him. He didn't think it was going to get printed. Off the record he said to Jeff Ducharme: `Well, the Premier sandbagged us, but I don't really want you to print that,' but it showed up in print anyway and it makes for interesting reading. When I read that I was quite impressed, quite interested there that the Member for Humber East would take on the Premier, his next door neighbour who represents the riding at arm's-length away there. A part of it even borders on your district, doesn't it? Humber East and Humber West borders, and doesn't Bay of Island touch on a part of yours?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Humber West.

MR. SULLIVAN: All on Humber West? Even on the north side of the bay? Okay.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I know the riding. I didn't know if geographically the lines touched.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right, because you are from Humber Heights, right? I bet there is a part that touches. The North East part of it, which is the North West part of Humber East, touches on Bay of Islands. I bet it does.

I bet the Member for Humber Valley knows a bit about geography. He came first in geography in Grade III he told me.

MR. FITZGERALD: There was only one student in class.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) looking better back here.

MR. SULLIVAN: Which one? There is neither one that looks very good, so I don't know who you're talking about. Yes, they do, they definitely look better. The further away they get the better they look, I can tell you that. The closer they get, the worse they get.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Seventy-seven per cent of members oppose it. I believe the figure is 12.2 per cent is it? I will get the exact numbers here now, 12.2 per cent. That is the correct number in favour of Sunday shopping. Two out of three, said the Member for Topsail, two out of three said the Minister of Environment and Labour when he introduced this bill, sixty-six per cent of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians -

MR. H. HODDER: Sixty-six and two-thirds per cent.

MR. SULLIVAN: Sixty-six and two-thirds per cent. Or two-thirds of the people support - that is 66.66, repeating, per cent of the people support this. I don't know where he got his figures because they have been staying hidden, unless the ones that are in favour are staying hidden, they are ashamed to come out. We haven't found them at all.

MR. TULK: There is a would-be mayor (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I said before: Look, they are all mixed up in here. We have a Premier who wants to be Prime Minister of Canada. The Leader of the NDP wants to be the mayor of St. John's, I mean it is weird.

AN HON. MEMBER: He wants to be mayor (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is good. He came close though. I know what it is like to be that close. Not bad out of 40,000 votes. That was a pretty good effort.

AN HON. MEMBER: Look at the lead he had (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, that's right. At least I started off so far behind they didn't think I was ever going to catch up, but I almost got there. He started off about 30,000 votes ahead. Now, how do you lose a lead with 30,000 votes?

MR. TULK: Cellphone on a deck.

MR. SULLIVAN: Cellphone on a deck. Hello, this is Jack calling. I'm down to pay my taxes, could you get back -

AN HON. MEMBER: It cost him $16,000 to (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I think you had a right to scrap the recount. I think one of the basic things you learn in business is you cut your losses early. You don't want to exacerbate your problems. Get out while you are behind, I say, get out while it is close; it looks a lot better.

Anyway, he put up a good effort.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, he didn't.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thirty-nine thousand eight hundred votes or something and lost by, what was it, 107, 100 votes out of 40,000. You can't blame him. Imagine, to come so close!

AN HON. MEMBER: Because he had a lot of Liberal supporters.

MR. SULLIVAN: Someone said the reason he lost it, there were too many Liberals tied up with him. I heard there were too many Liberals tied up with him, that's why he lost it. If he had stayed away from them, he would have done alright. I am telling you, they are liabilities.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Don't get started on that now, Beaton.

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to him: No, boy, it was not the cellular phone. No, it wasn't that. It is when he used his line; he left it until too late. If he had used his line earlier - he saved it for his closing line. He used his line at the wrong place. Yes, the line would have been good in a heated debate exchange, but it wasn't there.

Anyway, everybody makes mistakes and that is the price you pay, I guess. We all make mistakes, we all pay the price. If he had to do it over again I am sure he would win it easily, wouldn't you? I would say he would, yes; if he had to do it over again. Sometimes you don't get a second chance to make a first impression. That does not always happen. You have to take advantage of it when it is there.

Now, what does this have to do with retail, opening shops on Sunday or closing shops on Sunday?

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It might not.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, boy, I have to do something. I only got to page one out of about forty pages so far. Would you like to hear a few facts now, a few facts of the case? I have mentioned some of these already. Can anybody tell me: Will opening stores on Sunday increase revenues to business on their annual sales? Will it?

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. SULLIVAN: Will opening seven days a week, 365 days a year, increase your annual sales?

MS S. OSBORNE: No.

MR. SULLIVAN: No. As a businessman who has been involved before, I would say so too. If it did affect it, it would be so marginal it would be negligible. So what does that mean?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, and he sold chicken too, I am telling you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you talking about Kentucky Fried or Mary Brown's?

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I did not say that. I wasn't even there, that's the sad part. If I were there, I would not have gone home hungry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't even know where it was.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I don't even know where it was. I wasn't there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, that's right. Just imagine, if you had a brand name you would be sued.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I don't know, boy. No, boy, I lost it myself. If I had to convince two more people to change their minds.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: You are mad now because they got you defeated when you were in Fogo. They kicked you out of Fogo. They said: Go back and do your work. And if you don't behave in Bonavista North they are going to kick you out of there, and then you are going to have to go and try to get elected in Terra Nova or somewhere else. Maybe the Member for Fogo & Twillingate might let you back there, but I doubt that very much because the majority of them are in the Twillingate end, the minority of them are in the Fogo end, and he just can't get back there again. I would say he's finished there. He's finished there.

MR. E. BYRNE: Is it true that when you retire you will be on 101 per cent of your salary. Is that true? It is true, I know it is. You are under the old rules.

MR. SULLIVAN: What's that? Who was?

MR. E. BYRNE: He will get 101 per cent of his salary when he retires.

MR. SULLIVAN: He is always under the old rules. He doesn't know the new rules. He doesn't know the rules of the game. He has to operate under the old rules. That's about it.

MR. E. BYRNE: Tom Lush and Graham Flight.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, and they are not the only ones. There are others. There are others gone out at 102 per cent. I will not mention any names.

AN HON. MEMBER: Gone (inaudible)?

MR. SULLIVAN: Gone out, yes. It is time to change the rules.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: There is something wrong when you lose money by going to work. People who go fishing now under the TAGS claw-back at $26,000 are only allowed to deduct 25 per cent of their business operation when their expenses are 40 per cent. I know people who made $7,000 extra and lost $9,000. They were $2,000 worse off than if they had to stay home. There is something wrong when there is a disincentive to go to work. Either they are getting too much to retire or not enough when they are working, one or the other. Whatever it is, I will leave that up to your imagination.

I suppose some people are worth it. I really say some people are worth it. I think they should scale them on performance. I would say everybody would get bonuses. God help the taxpayers, I would say.

Nobody has told me if they can increase revenue. In fact, some people said no, and I really agree with that, I say to the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island. I agree, I don't think you would increase revenues. If you don't increase revenues and you operate seven days a week, overheads will not increase by one-sixth. They won't increase by 16 per cent, but they will marginally increase, because some overhead costs are fixed overhead costs. Others are variable overhead costs. There will be marginal increases of, I would say - it wouldn't be unexpected - 5 per cent or 6 per cent, and then your labour costs could go up. You are increasing your cost, which means you aren't increasing your revenues.

One of three things is going to happen. Number one, the business is going to take less profit. That is not a practical situation for business. They want to maintain a certain profit per cent. That is their goal. That leaves two options. The other option is to increase the price of goods so you can get that per cent profit; second option. Or you would hold wages down lower and have lower costs in the process. They are the three possibilities. Whatever way you look at it, low labour costs; the consumer pays, the workers pay. You increase the price of goods, the consumer pays the price, as a result, or the business takes less profit. If you are working on a 20 per cent profit and you are now going to take 16 per cent or 17 per cent, it isn't going to work, because businesses are going to try to maintain a profit level in operation. That standard there fluctuates. There are the scenarios there, and it is not going to work. It is not a practical situation. That is one aspect of it.

Another aspect of it, overall, in this particular legislation is that it is going to allow large corporations, chain stores and others, to get - a higher per cent of people's disposable income is going to go into larger chains. It will increase the per cent if they were - I will use an example. If they are taking up 35 per cent now, it will probably go up to 38 per cent, and there is less for smaller businesses that are just able to make it now. They are paying their bills and they are running their own little businesses, they are putting a bit of food on the table and a little bit of disposable income to have besides. It is going to eat into that and it is going to make people who can't afford to hire - the person you were bringing in for twenty hours a week, you are going to start bringing them in for fifteen a week, and you are going to work that extra five hours in the business yourself. That is what happens in businesses.

They are going to have extra pressures and so on because they have to work longer. It affects their families and their free time, leisure and so on. It has an overall affect there and it isn't going to benefit. I can't see, from a business perspective, a common sense perspective, the sense of it. If I could, I would support it. I've supported lots of bills that came through this House because they made some sense. This is not an issue we are jumping on for the sake of opposing. Nobody has been able to show me why we should support this. If anyone can get up and give me reasons why, and you can substantiate them, I will change my mind. I haven't seen them, and I don't think I'm going to see them.

Even if it made economic sense, then you would have to weigh the economics against the values and principles that they would want. Sometimes people are willing to pay a price to adhere to certain values and principles. Certain times they are. Sometimes I prefer to pay extra for something to be able to maintain a certain level. Sometimes people are willing to pay that extra price. In this particular instance there, on either count you strike out. There is no straight value to doing what they are doing here.

Why are they in such a hurry to get it through? There is something sinister about something when you have to try to ram it through and don't give people adequate notice. Are you afraid that people are going to have time to respond and express their disgust with it, their opposition to it? Are you afraid its going to snowball? Well, if we have anything to do with snowballing it we will help it because it's wrong, it's bad, it's not what people want.

Why shouldn't you want a democracy? If a high percentage of people want to have something within reason and there is a rational for it, why not? But that is not the case here at all. In fact, I don't see any indication that that works. I don't see it from the business perspective, from a personal perspective out there, a value perspective or society at large. We can talk about that on and on again, it just doesn't make sense.

I mean, I was looking through The Evening Telegram for December 13 and an article there, I think, said it is time for Sunday shopping to move ahead. Then they come back two days later, in an article today which said: Well, maybe we should start looking now at what restrictions we are going to put on Sunday hours. First they said let's have it and two days later: What restrictions? Will we open it four or five hours a day or what will we do? So, they are even backtracking on their initial editorial on it. So, there is even –

AN HON. MEMBER: Probably heard from (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Probably heard from their advertisers. Maybe that's it. I am telling you, he who pays the piper calls the tune. That is right. He who pays the bills can dictate a lot.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: These people don't want to see seven days a week. Who does? How many like to get away in the winter on a Ski-Doo or skiing, or get away with the family for a week on Sunday? What about -

MR. HARRIS: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, on a point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, if we are going to have the House open all hours of the night we need some heat. Over in this end of the building it is - I invite Your Honour to come over and experience the cold. The Member for St. John's West and I are over here practically shivering. The Sergeant-at-Arms and the Member for Bellevue were just over here saying: Boys, it is awfully cold over here.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is not cold over here (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: That is where all the hot air is over there.

MR. SULLIVAN: And it is improper to wear over coats and stuff in the House; you are not allowed.

MR. HARRIS: According to the rules, Mr. Speaker, you have to be in the House uncovered.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, Jack, don't do that.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is the naked truth; he always tells it.

MR. HARRIS: So I guess I can't go get my coat, Mr. Speaker. I think either we have to adjourn the House or turn on the heat.

MR. J. BYRNE: One or the other.

MR. HARRIS: I know the Leader of the Opposition has been trying to turn up the heat for some time, but he has not really effected the -

MR. J. BYRNE: The clerk said he can't do anything about it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: It is kind of cold. The reason I jumped up to speak is because it was getting kind of cold here and I figured I would try to warm up this place a little.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a lot warmer over here.

MR. J. BYRNE: All the hot air is over there.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, we can see that. It will eventually work its way over here I suppose. It moves from an area of highest concentration to an area of low concentration. Is that what it does? What is that called? Diffusion, is it?

Why was government so intent on having a trial period or a test period on Sunday opening earlier this year, in the session last spring, and why are they not so eager to have it now? Why the change of heart? What mitigated the change by this government?

New Brunswick had one that lasted, I think, for four months, on a pilot project, and I hear New Brunswick is revisiting their legislation now, where it is open for certain periods of time.

We are going to see the impact that it could have on wages. It could have an impact on wages. It could drive down wages. I saw the effect in rural communities back in 1992, and many people who lived in rural communities may attest to this. After the moratorium, NCARP and then under TAGS, many people in rural communities, outside urban areas, left their rural areas, drove into cities because they had free time, bought their groceries and spent their money at the expense of small stores that ended up closing with the downturn, and people could not survive in rural areas.

This will also have an impact. It will centre people in the larger stores and chains, affecting small business in rural communities, and also putting money in the pockets of corporate shareholders that are owned by major corporations in Ontario, Quebec, and even outside this country. That will have an affect. In other words, they will get nickel-and-dimed to death, small businesses in this particular Province.

How many people would like their spouses to have to go to work on a Sunday, to spend all Sunday in a store, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.? I think it affects family life, basic values. People have looked at Sunday as a day of rest and relaxation, an opportunity to get away from the mundane things from day to day, and to be able to change the flow. People who traditionally like to have a long weekend and now will have to go to work on Sundays; it is not an acceptable situation.

What is going to happen is we are going to find that people now are getting scheduled to go to work on Sundays and other times of the week, and there is going to be a change in people's way of life by working seven days a week. Anybody who has worked seven days a work can attest to this. I've worked seven days a week, on times, for a number of years, and anybody who has been out in business knows what it is like to spend seven days a week working. Can you imagine that continuously? When you are your own boss you have some flexibility. Imagine you are an employee and you have to go to work every Sunday, and leave your young kids back at home; young kids in school, young kids away from the family.

I think in society today there are enough pressures and strains on families without exacerbating that with Sunday. I think we need an opportunity to get together, to cut down on various problems, to try to bring the family unit as close together as possible, rather than do something that would interfere. I'm firmly convinced Sunday shopping will have a deleterious affect, basically, upon family relationships. I'm quite confident it will.

Some people may not be in a position to feel that, but it isn't just us. Many of us here have gone through that stage. Many other people out there, the working people, the working poor, the middle-class people, the people who are just borderline above the poverty line; they will have to go to work. Because if they are scheduled to go to work - if they don't work on Sunday they don't get work, and they can't afford to give up an extra seven or eight hours' work on a Sunday. They can't afford to do it -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: What about them?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: If you are going to use that argument, they don't do it in Nova Scotia. We shouldn't do it. So be consistent.

AN HON. MEMBER: They do it in Pasadena.

MR. SULLIVAN: They do a lot of things in Pasadena! When there are floods they do sandbagging -

MR. SPEAKER (Oldford): Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education, on a point of order.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if you might make a ruling under Standing Order 51(2) which talks about: "The Speaker..., after having called the attention of the House... to the conduct of a Member who persists in irrelevance or needless repetition..."

If anybody can describe anything other than what we have heard since about 5:00 p.m. as anything but mind-numbing, needless, idiotic repetition, I would like to know what it is. Because if this is not the 15,000th time I've heard that pile of nonsense today, Mr. Speaker - somebody should just punch a tape from about 5:00 p.m., run it about 15,000 times, and you would hear the needless repetition that is going on from that side of the House, keeping people here, driving them out of their minds at 2:30 a.m., for no purpose whatsoever. Why is this in our Standing Orders if it is not there to silence the nonsense that is coming from that side, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: What amazes me is how he can keep serious when he says it. You know, that is what amazes me, how he can keep serious. That is what I'm amazed it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, of all the members of this House - and we could start with the list from the back and go all the way across, do the second row, do the front row, and come right back to the Minister of Education - of all the members who have ever been in this House, and that has been many, a long history going back 100 years, there is no other member sitting today, or who has ever sat in this House, who has been a master of repetition and non-answerer of questions, who has been long on lip and short on substance.

Here is a clear case: The Minister of Education at 2:35 a.m. trying to give this House lessons on relevancy. We would like for the Minister of Education to leave the House and go over and do something in (inaudible), and therefore tomorrow we can have some good answers that will be relevant to the questions that we asked here in this House.

Mr. Speaker, there is no point of order.

MR. J. BYRNE: As usual.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: He wanted to interrupt me. If I have to say it fifteen times before you understand it, I will say it fifteen times. For some I have to say it sixteen times.

MR. GRIMES: Fifteen hundred.

MR. J. BYRNE: No, you said 15,000 times.

MR. SULLIVAN: Fifteen thousand you said. That's right. That is hyperbole at it's finest.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's a slow learner.

MR. SULLIVAN: He's a slow learner. He is not a learner, he still has not learned.

I don't know if it's hypocrisy or what. Can you imagine someone weeping -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I didn't say he is a hypocrite. I said: Is it hypocrisy or what? I asked a question. If you say no, I will agree with you, it is not hypocrisy.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, it is not hypocrisy.

What do you call someone who weeps on the steps of Confederation Building for teachers and then turns around and cuts their jugular? What do you call that?

AN HON. MEMBER: You call it (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: What? Anybody got a word to describe that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Jim, what did you say?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I call it, yes, strictly political, not even planned. I don't know if it is planned because I really think it was sincere when he wept.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I wasn't.

AN HON. MEMBER: How come?

MR. SULLIVAN: Because I knew it was a fake.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were a teacher.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I was a teacher, but I wasn't there. I didn't have great faith in our leadership of the day, I just couldn't support it. I didn't have faith in the NTA leadership.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I did. I know, but I was too interested in studying. No, actually I didn't study anymore than anyone else.

No, I wasn't there, but I did get a firsthand report; and he admitted it to me after. He said he was really serious and he meant it at the time. He meant it when he fought for teachers, but when he cut their jugular he said he didn't mean that. That is what he told me, he didn't mean to do what he did to teachers.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, he did, he had tunnel vision. He had a political plan, yes. I think the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island probably hit it right on. Imagine what you wouldn't do in politics! Politics is the profession or job of flexibility, I thought. Yes, maybe it is. It is the profession of flexibility, politics. I don't know how else you could describe it. My colleagues know that, I am sure; it is the business of flexibility, isn't it? It doesn't matter what act you are discussing - flexibility.

Point of order?

MR. J. BYRNE: No, point of personal privilege.

AN HON. MEMBER: This could be good.

MR. J. BYRNE: No, it is a fact.

Mr. Speaker, I have been here for the past two hours, sitting in my seat, and the Member for St. John's West attempted to go get her coat to put on -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: I have been here for two hours sitting in my seat, and the Member for St. John's West has been chilled and she has been attempting to go get here coat. I am here and I can feel the cold air coming down on me now. We are prepared to debate this bill as long as it takes, but something should be done; either put the heat on the proper temperature or shut her down, one or the other.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, I agree with you.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is only cold on one side of the House.

MR. FITZGERALD: Change sides for a couple of hours.

MR. H. HODDER: Let's change it for longer then that.

AN HON. MEMBER: You won't live long enough to see it, you won't. You will be long out of this (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: On that point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with the Member for Cape St. Francis. I have also been experiencing this cold. The place is not properly heated.

MR. J. BYRNE: It is not.

MR. HARRIS: It is not properly heated and we should shut her down or heat her up.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I don't think it is a point of privilege, but we could probably instruct somebody to check the heating system.

MR. J. BYRNE: That is the third time now.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Actually, I would say even, before it was raised -

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) turn off the heat, getting on with the foolishness you are getting on with.

MR. SULLIVAN: The Minister of Education will not freeze. He has antifreeze in his veins.

Even before the point was raised, I said back twenty minutes ago how cold it was here. I even passed it on to the Chair. It is not warm, I can tell you. Maybe we can go out on the parking lot and properly finish the discussion.

Why wouldn't a government that prides itself, in campaigns, on consultation, consult with people on this bill? Why wouldn't they consult? Can anybody give us a reason why they should not consult? I don't know why; 10.8 per cent undecided, 12.2 per cent in favour. Where are the statistics to support bringing in this legislation?

MR. FRENCH: Where is Lloyd tonight, down in Florida?

MR. SULLIVAN: Some members are warm tonight.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: His private jet landed there. He will be back for tomorrow afternoon.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Minister of Tourism is cold. Look, she has her hands over her ears.

MR. SULLIVAN: Do you find it cold, Minister? Does the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation find it cold?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. T found it cold; he has gone home.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, we do have a problem over here. It is obvious. There are other people here very uncomfortable as well, and I think that we should be doing something about the heat and we should be making some adjustments so at least we can come here and debate this bill in comfort. I don't think the Member for Cape St. Francis was joking. I don't think the point of privilege he brought forward should be treated as a joke. It is uncomfortable here, and I think something should be done about the heat. I think we should get a ruling on it or somebody should make some decision.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, to that so-called point of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, that is not a point of privilege.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: What is wrong? Are you getting touchy? This crowd wanted to come in here, they wanted to stay all night, and then as soon as they get in here they get right touchy. The last thing they do is try to raise points of privilege which are not really points of privilege, that they are here and now they are cold. Well, go out and put on some clothes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I am speaking on this, boy; that is permissible. Where are you from?

Mr. Speaker, that is not a point of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It appears that the problem with the heating system is on both sides of the House, so I don't know that anybody is being treated unfairly because of this.

AN HON. MEMBER: We all are being treated unfairly.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't know what the answer is to this. Just hold it for a second.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, are you speaking on a different point of privilege?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: We are human beings. We cannot sit here and get a cold, and everybody end of sick tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, are you speaking on a different point of privilege.

MR. HARRIS: I want to raise it as a point of order. Mr. Speaker, it is 2:45 a.m. and we are here debating a bill that could just as easily be debated tomorrow, and the House is unable to provide a satisfactory environment for us to debate in. There is cold air pouring down on me as we speak, blowing down on top of my head. If this is the government's idea of how to get legislation through the House, I think it is an abuse of the privilege of the House and the Chair should declare adjournment until the government is able to provide an adequate environment for us to debate in.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is not a point of privilege. I understand this is a temporary thing and we should have the heat back. There is no point of privilege.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can see why they are not cold, they are feeling the heat. We are feeling the cold, I guess. Trouble is only temporary; please do not adjust your set.

AN HON. MEMBER: Your time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, not at all. I have another six or seven minutes, and then I will sit down.

MR. GRIMES: Your term will be up in March, by the looks of it.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yours was up in January of '96. Your time was up almost two years ago. I lasted two years longer than you did, two years longer than the Minister of Education; that is what happened. I bet the print of the train is still in his back. Just turn around and let us see. I bet the print of the train is still in his back when it drove him off the track.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, it didn't. You were back on. You were running trying to get off the track.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) on his forehead?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, it is on the Minister of Fisheries forehead.

MR. FITZGERALD: It was a choo-choo train.

MR. SULLIVAN: He didn't get out of the way of the train on the Trinity Loop, I would say, not that big locomotive that came from Ottawa, that the Minister of Mines and Energy talked about.

I was saying this before someone interrupted: Why wouldn't the government, who campaigned and prided itself on consultation, not consult people on this particular bill? Was that so difficult? We have committees here of the House. We have three committees here of the House to deal in different specific areas here. Why wasn't there an opportunity to hear from the people of the Province? Why in secrecy? A few months back you felt important enough to do a pilot project on it, and now you don't feel it is important enough to do that. Why the change of heart? What is the rationale for it? Can anyone give us a reason? Nobody can provide the reason why.

It is not much trouble to consult with people around the Province, to hear from different groups, to hear from the consumers, from businesses, labour people and people working in these stores. Where are your statistics to back up what you are saying? There was no analysis done of it. There were no studies in other areas to show how Sunday shopping has affected sales, how it has affected costs of these operations, how the profit margin is impacted, the impact it has on labour. Where is it all to? In other areas jurisdictions have moved forward. It is a bill that is moved without having an economic rationale for doing so, without looking at the impact, the human impacts, and ones that have been ignored. All we are going to do is force businesses to increase their costs with an extra day of work. That is what we are going to do. The same amount of sales and work an extra day.

The Minister of Education now for 15,000 times says he still does not understand it. He can't understand it for 15,000 times. So we have to go to 15,001. Does the minister feel it is going to hurt small businesses, I ask the Minister of Education? Do you think it is going to affect small business, negatively or positively? Even some of your colleagues across on that side of the House agree with some of the things we looked at. Anybody who has been out there in business knows that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Your colleague (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Which colleague? Which one?

AN HON. MEMBER: Baie Verte.

MR. SULLIVAN: Out of what business?

MR. SHELLEY: I never did say close it.

MR. SULLIVAN: My colleague from Baie Verte indicated that if somebody is licensed to do business in this Province they should adhere to the terms of their licence. The Minister of Education has the responsibility of carrying out the monitoring of any agency of anybody approved under them, the same as the Minister of Government Services and Lands has a responsibility for anybody licensed under them, or any other particular department. It is the role of the department to be responsible for monitoring any particular areas or departments which give out licences. If not, they should not have the power to give them out.

In fact, I called the Minister of Mines and Energy on one particular one in my district, and I spoke to the Minister of Environment and Labour on others, and I brought to their attention how it was being violated. They went up after, apparently, and suspended licences, took them away; they did not adhere to it. That was the right thing to do. If you do not adhere to the terms of your licence you should get it taken away, or a suspension, and you have to comply. That is all the Member for Baie Verte is saying, that the minister should be doing what he is appointed to do, doing his job.

Who is the Minister of Education protecting here in the Province? Is he supposed to be protecting students, the people who are paying the price?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SULLIVAN: Who seems to be fighting for students in the Province? It is certainly not the Minister of Education.

If the minister were concerned with doing the appropriate thing, he would sit down and talk with people affected, look at the problem, assess it, and come to the appropriate conclusion.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, you have it all done. Yes, it is all done before it starts. He has done what he wants to do, like the time I called for a study in the Grenfell area and he appointed an internal task force report. He did not do an investigation. I complained that doctors had their mail opened, had cheques taken out of envelopes personally addressed to them. A little internal investigation, swept it under the rug; that is what happens.

The minister is not there any more, the former Member for St. John's Centre. He has gone out of it since. We are going through ministers in health hand-over-fist because they are more interested in covering up than doing a proper investigation. That is the problem.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

The member needs protection. I brought it to the attention of the Table twenty minutes before anyone even raised it. I said it was really getting cold over here, so I jumped up and said I would try to keep warm. I am speaking here so we do not freeze up.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: You have ice in your veins that is why. Over there they have ice in their veins. That is what you have. You have no compassion, no sympathy for people. I think we should have a blood test done to see what is in their veins over there. I don't think it is normal blood. I don't say they have any haemoglobin there. I would say they are lacking haemoglobin.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: Just a few minutes to clue up, just a half-hour to clue up.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I will keep it sensible.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Before I start speaking on Bill 48, I would like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, if you would be kind enough to make a ruling on what is happening here tonight.

We are here trying to debate a piece of legislation and it is obvious, no matter what is brought up on the other side, that members opposite are not going to complain, are not going to be concerned about the temperature of the building or whatever. We have people here who are obviously uncomfortable. I think we should do one thing or the other: We should either repair the problem or adjourn the House until the problem can be repaired. We have independent people here sitting in this House who have looked at me and said they are cold, and I think it is unfair for us to sit here as Parliamentarians and try to pass legislation, or try to debate legislation, with the uncomfortable situation in which we find ourselves at 3:00 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask you to make some ruling or some judgement on what is happening here right now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has made some inquiries about the heating system here. I understand it is on an automatic system and that because of some overheating, maybe, with some of the lights up there; it is now in the cooling process. I do not know if that is accurate or not, but we do not have anybody around to come in and reverse it and change it. There is nothing the Chair can really do with regard to the heating system at this point in time.

If hon. members want to recess the House, or want to adjourn the House, that is entirely up to them.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, in light of the uncomfortable situation that we find ourselves in, I, as a member of this House, do put forward a motion that we adjourn the House until either the heating system is fixed or until due time to open this House tomorrow to debate legislation again, which is two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House do now adjourn.

All those in favour, aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Against, nay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion defeated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members.

 

Division

 

MR. SPEAKER: The House is ready for the vote.

All those in favour of the motion, please rise.

CLERK: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition; Mr. Hodder; Mr. Shelley; Mr. Jack Byrne; Mr. Edward Byrne; Mr. Fitzgerald; Mr. Osborne; Mr. Ottenheimer; Mr. French; Ms. Sheila Osborne; Mr. Harris.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the motion, please rise.

CLERK: The hon. the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal; the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General; the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs; Mr. Walsh; the hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board; the hon. the Minister of Education; Mr. Oldford; Mr. Barrett; the hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment; the hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour; the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation; the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands; Mr. Wiseman; Mr. Andersen; Mr. Ramsay; Mr. Whelan; Ms Hodder; Mr. Woodford; Mr. Mercer; Mr. Reid; Ms Thistle.

Mr. Speaker, eleven ayes and twenty-one nays.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion defeated.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. TULK: To be frank with you, Mr. Speaker, I would ask Your Honour just to rule on this. The hon. gentleman stood in his place and he was recognized. He did not stand on a point of order. He stood in his place and his opening remarks, I think, were: Before I begin my few remarks, I want to bring something to Your Honour's attention and see if I can get a ruling on it then. He spoke for a few minutes, Mr. Speaker, then moved the motion to adjourn and sat.

The ruling I would like Your Honour to make is whether, indeed, the hon. gentleman has now concluded his speech.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When the Member for Bonavista South stood, he made reference to the fact that he would be asking yourself to rule on this particular matter - the issue was the physical condition of the Legislature - before he would begin his comments. He prefaced that by these comments, so the Chair knew exactly what was being said. He didn't hide anything from the Chair or from the House. Therefore, we over here submit that his comments were made by way of asking the Chair to assure the physical comfort of the Legislature and therefore has no impact whatsoever on his time to speak on the amendment which is now before the House for debate.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the Chair would just like to consult with the Table Officers for a moment on what actually transpired. Maybe we can recess and check with Hansard to see exactly what the hon. member did say.

 

Recess

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order raised by the hon. Government House Leader: The hon. Member for Bonavista South, after the Chair had made a ruling that it couldn't do anything with the heating system here, rose and was recognized by the Chair, and he moved that the House adjourn.

Erskine May, on restrictions for motions for adjournment of the House or of debate says that a member who has already spoken to the main question is not permitted to move either a form of dilatory motion nor, having moved a dilatory motion, may he later speak to the main question if his motion is negative.

In this case, the motion was negative and the hon. member therefore loses his right to speak again to the motion.

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, in view of the condition of the House, I would like to move that the House to now adjourn until nine o'clock tomorrow morning, when I understand that the heating system will operate properly on its own.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I believe we just had a motion that the House do now adjourn and that motion was defeated in the House.

MR. HARRIS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, on a point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the motion that we just had a vote on was a motion in the alternative, which was a motion to either recess until we fix the problem or adjourn. Now, that motion was defeated. The House did not want to fix the problem. So if they don't want to fix the problem, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that a motion to adjourn until nine o'clock tomorrow morning is a different motion entirely, and that it ought to be voted on.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The truth of the matter is the effect of the motion that was put was the same.

AN HON. MEMBER: The same effect.

MR. TULK: The same effect. The motion is to adjourn and there has already been a motion to adjourn that has been defeated, on the same issue, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order: If I recall correctly, the hon. member when he first rose asked that I recess the House until the problem was fixed. But then he rose on a second occasion and moved that the House adjourn until tomorrow. So, it was clear that the motion was for adjournment of the House.

The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am continuing debate on the main motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We have to put the amendment. I thought the hon. member was speaking on the amendment

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

AN HON. MEMBER: He already spoke.

MR. SPEAKER: No. Okay, everybody has spoken on the amendment.

All those in favour of the amendment, aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Against, Nay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the amendment defeated.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Division. Call in the members.

 

Division

 

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favour of the amendment, please rise.

CLERK: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition; Mr. Hodder; Mr. Shelley; Mr. Jack Byrne; Mr. Edward Byrne; Mr. Fitzgerald; Mr. Osborne; Mr. Ottenheimer; Mr. French; Ms Osborne; Mr. Harris.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the amendment, please rise.

CLERK: The hon. the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal; the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General; the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs; Mr. Walsh; Mr. Penney; Mr. Oldford; Mr. Barrett; the hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment; the hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour; the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation; the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands; Mr. Wiseman; Mr. Andersen; Mr. Ramsay; Mr. Whelan; Ms Hodder; Mr. Woodford; Mr. Mercer; Mr. Reid; Ms Thistle.

Mr. Speaker, there were eleven ayes and twenty nays.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the amendment defeated.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise to speak to the main motion.

MR. HARRIS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, on a point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order which has to do with Your Honour's general responsibility for the operation of the House, to keep the House orderly. It appears that two things are happening, Mr. Speaker. The first one is that the general condition of the House is such that disorder is arising, because members are constantly rising and complaining about the problems with the heating system.

Secondly, there are issues raised as to the occupational health and safety of members of the House having to sit for long hours late at night without being properly dressed, clothed, for the occasion.

Mr. Speaker, I would refer you to page 98 of Beauchesne.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I will wait until you finish if you want.

MR. J. BYRNE: Page 98.

MR. HARRIS: Page 98 of Beauchesne at paragraph 328 refers to a ruling indicating the Speaker has some general responsibility for the operation of the House. In the middle of that paragraph it says: The House is nevertheless facing an impasse which it has been unable to resolve for itself. There comes a time when the Chair has to face its responsibilities. When circumstances change and the Rules of Procedure provide no solution, the Chair must fall back on its discretion in the interests of the House and all its Members. It says: This may require the Chair to modify or vary an earlier decision.

That would refer, Mr. Speaker, to the possibility of accepting a motion for adjournment or some other method of dealing with the impasse that we have here when members are complaining and the order of the House is threatened by the fact that members continue to complain about the conditions of the House. There is an impasse because the government here is abusing its majority to force the House to remain open in unacceptable conditions.

I am asking the Chair to use its general responsibility which it has to maintain order in the House and to be responsible for the operations of the House and to, in fact, yourself, Your Honour, declare that the House should recess until the problem can be fixed, regardless of the wishes of the majority.

MR. DECKER: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice, to the point of order.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I suspect that the hon. gentleman is really not interpreting the facts as they are. The fact of the matter is, it is not all that uncomfortable in this House. Our history, Mr. Speaker, goes back to the Colonial Building, and members will recognize that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Colonialism is over.

MR. DECKER: Members will recognize, Mr. Speaker, that the reason the government sits on the left side of yourself, which is contrary to the British parliamentary system -

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't you be so silly. Don't be so foolish.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Foolish, foolish man! We have people over here shivering and you are getting on with that nonsense here tonight. You should be ashamed of yourself.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, our history goes back to the old Colonial Building, and the very reason that government sits on your left is that that building was so cold that the fireplace was on the left. I would suggest, Your Honour, that it is not nearly as cold here, and that there were much better speeches, much more serious debate, that took place at Colonial Building than I have heard here tonight. The drivel and nonsense I have heard would put the speeches that were made in our history to shame, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. gentleman is misinterpreting. It is quite comfortable. As a matter of fact, I suggest to the Government House Leader that maybe we shouldn't start the sittings until twelve o'clock at night, because I find it much too warm here during the day when we are trying to carry on the business of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, to the point of order.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

While the Minister of Justice has tried to be entertaining and tried to be historical, we don't want to go back to the days of the fish merchants, back to Colonial days and all that kind of thing. We built this building here out of taxpayers' money for the comfort and convenience of legislators.

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to the sections on pages 98 and 99 of Beauchesne, sections 329, 330 and 331. Mr. Speaker, these talk about what is permitted in the House by way of clothing. For example, it says that turtleneck sweaters are not permitted. It says that a jacket and tie are required to be worn by male members. It tells you what you can and cannot wear. Therefore, it is a case, Mr. Speaker, where the rules are quite clear.

We are saying that precedence was set in this House three years ago, in December, when we had a storm. When that storm was on, we came in here on a Friday morning and we had difficulty with the weather. The House was deemed not to be able to sit because at that time we didn't have electricity here and with the circumstances for physical comfort people couldn't perform their duties. The same situation prevails today. The Speaker of that day had to rule that the House couldn't sit on that day. We are saying now, the comfort of members has to take some precedence. While the rules here don't talk about the heat that should be provided to the Chamber by way of comfort, it does talk about everything else by way of clothing. It gives you the responsibility, as the Speaker of the House, to maintain decorum, and we are saying that tonight the issue here, comfort of members is important and should be addressed so that we can continue on with the peoples' business.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order: The Chair had stated previously when this matter was raised that the Chair has no control over the heating system here. While it may be somewhat chilly, a bit cool, cooler than normal, the House is certainly not in any disorder or any disarray here. The Chair has absolutely no reason to recess the House or adjourn the House at this point in time.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I would make a motion that the question be now put.

AN HON. MEMBER: Seconded by the Member for (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that the question now be put.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, I now want to continue debate on the main motion, Bill 48, "An Act To Amend The Shops' Closing Act No. 2."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader just moved that the question be now put. We are now debating that motion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is standing on a point of order?

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader is trying to take this House on his back tonight. The Member for St. John's East was standing here in this House, Mr. Speaker, in the normal tradition since I have been in this House, when there was a member on this side of the House willing to stand. The Speaker says that when the minister speaks he speaks to close debate. We had a person standing on this side of the House ready to continue debate, Mr. Speaker. The Government House Leader is trying to abuse this House tonight and he should be ruled out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I believe the Chair had recognized the hon. Government House Leader before the hon. member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi had stood on a point of order. The hon. member had already indicated that he was going to speak in this debate. So, there is no point of order.

MR. J. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis, on a point of order.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, what had happened was, before the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi stood, yes, the Government House Leader was on his feet, but this Member here for St. John's East was on his feet also and he was recognized. This man tried to pull a fast one, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, you were not. He was on his feet first, Mr. Speaker. It is abuse.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

The Chair has already ruled on the point of order. No point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, just so that I can understand exactly what is happening here with all of the motions being made. We are moving, as I understand, to the previous question which means that hon. members on this side will now have thirty minutes each to debate that particular motion. We can now begin that debate and all members over here will now have thirty minutes in which they can participate in the previous question motion put by the Government House Leader.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me just say, it is my understanding that before that debate begins - am I right or wrong? I could be wrong, but before that debate begins we are supposed to put the question and then the debate ensues after. If that is not the case, then the debate can start.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is my understanding that the motion has been put. The hon. the Government House Leader made the motion, we now debate the motion and then put the motion later.

The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now join in the debate on the main motion, "An Act To Amend The Shops' Closing Act No. 2." This is a bill, Mr. Speaker, which would amend the Shops' Closing Act to remove Sundays from the list of holidays on which shops must be closed.

The first Shops' Closing Act which was put on the Order Paper on May 16 this year would have allowed shops to remain open, Mr. Speaker, on Sundays commencing at 12:00 p.m. between May 31, 1997 and December 31, 1997. But this government, the government opposite, Mr. Speaker, chose not to proceed with this legislation, and therefore it simply fell by the wayside.

This bill goes much further, Mr. Speaker. This bill will allow Sunday shopping on all Sundays with no restriction on the time of operation. Essentially, Mr. Speaker, it is open season. There are no restrictions as to which Sundays. We are obviously talking about any and all Sundays. There are no restrictions on time. Previous draft legislation at least suggested, Mr. Speaker, that the time could be between 12:00 p.m. and go to a certain time of the particular day; but that is not the case. We are talking, Mr. Speaker, about all Sunday, any Sunday, open season Sunday shopping; as simple as that.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this evening during debate we talked about legislation which is found in other provinces, and it could be seen that at least in other provinces there were periods of time, specific periods of time, when Sundays could be used, perhaps even on a trial basis. I referred earlier, Mr. Speaker, to the Province of Prince Edward Island which has legislation which talks about the last Sunday in November until the Christmas season. There was a three or four week period which allowed Sunday shopping. A piece of legislation, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, which is something which could be given serious consideration even by this House, if that type of wording and that type of thinking perhaps had gone into the legislation, rather than what is being proposed here this morning.

Mr. Speaker, in other pieces of legislation we saw examples, as well, where it was clear that workers' rights were protected, in the sense that it was not necessary to work. They had an option, they had a choice. If it was felt that workers did not want to work they could take advantage of labour legislation which protected their rights and protected their interests, by simply saying to an employer: Sir, Madam, on this particular day I choose not to work; and doing so, Mr. Speaker, their jobs would not be in jeopardy. That too is the kind of legislation which unfortunately has been completely overlooked by members opposite. There has been no consideration given to the protection and security of the rights of employees. There has been no consideration given to perhaps even a trial period or certain Sundays being considered. What we have here is simply workers being put in a situation that on Sunday if the store is open they work. That is what this legislation is all about.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that is why the members on this side of the House are not in agreement, and that is why we have now stood in our places for hour after hour debating the very essence of this legislation which we, as an Opposition, oppose. We oppose it, Mr. Speaker, because it is simply not good enough for the people of this Province. The people of this Province have spoken loudly on this fact, and what the people of this Province have said is: We do not want the type of legislation which is being proposed by members opposite. This legislation, as I indicated earlier, is all encompassing. There are no restrictions, there are no limitations, and it does nothing to protect the interests and the rights of our workers in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, a question that has to be asked is: Why the rush? Why is this legislation coming before us at this particular time? Why the rush? Why is it, when people have not been consulted in any way, why is it, when people have not been given the opportunity to give their two cents worth with respect to this legislation, why is it they are not being listened to? Why is it they are being completely ignored? It is because, Mr. Speaker, this government just wants to barrel on and thrust upon the people of this Province legislation which is clearly unwanted, legislation which is not in the interests of the public of this Province. Mr. Speaker, there are serious questions and concerns that have to be addressed when a government wants to simply thrust upon its people legislation which is unwanted.

We have heard from labour groups, we have heard from business types, we have heard from the labourers' council, we have heard from unions, we have heard from the ordinary Newfoundlander and Labradorian who, in the last thirty-six to forty-eight hours have said to members, I am sure on both sides of the House, that this legislation is unwanted, it is uncalled for and it is certainly, at this particular time of the year, unnecessary; which leads to the next point, and it was raised earlier by a couple of other members, Mr. Speaker: Why is it now, December 16, why is it towards the middle of December, just days before the House will close for the Christmas recess, why is this legislation now being so secretly brought in and introduced in the House, hoping for quick passage, hoping for legislation to be thrust upon the people of the Province without their input. That is what is happening. There has been no consultation. There has been no effort by members opposite to at least introduce this legislation to the public of this Province. Mr. Speaker, that is what is so offensive about it.

I have heard, as one member in this House, from constituents today; I have heard from constituents over the weekend who simply do not want Sunday shopping as envisaged by this piece of legislation. They are prepared to perhaps look at other options, other proposals, other limitations on the legislation which may be in keeping and consistent with the type of legislation they are prepared to live with, but not the very unrestricted and unlimited legislation which is found in Bill No. 48.

Again the question has to be asked, Mr. Speaker: Why is the government rushing? What is it afraid of? What is government trying to hide in bringing forward such a piece of legislation without the restrictions or limitations? The question has to be asked: Who is driving this bill? Where is government being guided? What groups or associations have advised and recommended to government that this is the type of law which the people of this Province want at this time?

I asked that question earlier and I will ask it again, Mr. Speaker. There have been no answers. Still, members opposite fail and refuse to participate in this debate. We have no idea why this legislation is coming forward at this time. The people of this Province have not been given answers to the questions which have been asked. They remain simply in the dark about the purpose and the basis upon which this legislation was drafted.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Businessmen, too, has quite loudly in the last number of days come forward with its views on whether or not this legislation is in the best interests of our people. In a survey, it was found that some 77 per cent of its membership opposes easing the restrictions on Sunday shopping. This has to be taken into account, Mr Speaker, as a serious indication of where this legislation really stands. If you have representatives of the Canadian Federation of Independent Businessmen in this Province coming forward with this sort of majority opinion, as to whether or not they agree with or oppose Sunday shopping, and the result is some 77 per cent, that is overwhelming.

Just a little while ago we witnessed in our Province, Mr. Speaker, a second referendum on education reform. It was felt by the majority of people, that 73 - 74 per cent was overwhelming. The majority of Newfoundlanders accepted that number as being overwhelming, Mr. Speaker. As a result of that, the process kicked in and we are to a point where the necessary amendments will be made to the schools' act, presumably sometime during this week. In this example, we have 77 per cent of representatives of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, upon having surveyed its membership, saying, this is what we want, this is what we do not want. Again, how does government respond to that? Government, Mr. Speaker, has responded by simply saying, we ignore what the majority of this membership is saying about the proposed amendment to the Shops' Closing Act and we will just barrel on ahead, we will push this through, we will not listen or adhere to anything that is being said by any member of the public, particularly a special interest group such as the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

Mr. Speaker, as well - and it has been raised by my colleagues this evening - the whole concept of the corner store is something which is going to be lost, unfortunately, as this debate unfolds. Right now, particularly in rural Newfoundland, but even in urban Newfoundland, we have many corner stores, convenience stores, groceterias or family food marts, this type of concept. There main business day, I would suggest, is Sunday, because that is the day when their main principal mainland competitors are not in competition with them. That is a day that they rely on, rely on the fact that their competition is not open, their greatest competition is not open and they can at least provide services to the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who rely on their services on that particular day.

That whole concept may well be lost and that whole concept of a corner store and the providing of services on that particular day may get lost in the shuffle, Mr. Speaker. Who loses? It is not the mainland conglomerate; it is not the huge corporate interest with its stores throughout all of North America, some of which are here in St. John's and other communities in our Province. The losers in this, Mr. Speaker, will be the ownership of the small grocery store. They are the ones who will, unfortunately, be on the losing end once this whole situation unfolds. That is what is most unfortunate. Because in each of those instances, Mr. Speaker, it is the ordinary Newfoundlander and Labradorian, that person who has invested his or her few dollars, few meagre savings, hard work industry and work ethic into the continuation of an operation which hopefully can provide the services which are needed as part of that corner store concept.

What does this government do, Mr. Speaker? It says to these people: Too bad, too late, we are going to just march on forward. We are just going to do what this government feels it will do without consulting with such individuals, and we will impose upon the people of this Province Sunday shopping. Let's open it up, lets open the floodgates, and to heck with other people. That is what this government is saying and that is why it is incumbent upon us, as an Opposition - if the government will not listen, at least this Opposition will listen to the many hundreds and hundreds of small store owners who are in this Province and who rely on the fact that they can stay open on a Sunday and provide the services to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, while their huge, mainland competitors will remain closed.

Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day when government refuses to listen to the ordinary Newfoundlander and Labradorian. It is a sad day when this government says to the ordinary Newfoundlander, the ordinary store owner: We are not going to pay any attention or pay any heed whatsoever to your arguments, to the fact that you have to make a living, to the fact that you have invested your life savings into this operation. It is a sad day when the people's own government turns its back on those very people who are prepared to work hard hours, long hours, to make an honest living, and now even that opportunity is going to be lost to them. It is a sad day, Mr. Speaker, when government responds to those people in that fashion, by simply saying: We will not listen to your concerns. We will do what we want to do despite the fact there has been absolutely no effort whatsoever made to at least consult with those people, to seek advice from those people in an effort to bring forward the best possible legislation so that at least their particular interests can be met.

Mr. Speaker, we had some discussion earlier, as well, about the rights of workers. What we will see happening in most cases, particularly if this legislation is passed, are situations in the larger stores where the vast majority of these workers will be part-timers who will, under no circumstances, be excused from work on that particular day. That too is more unfortunate. The legislation does not even recognize the fact that a worker may want to say no. If a worker says no, under the present legislation, that employer may say to that worker: I am sorry, you are a part-timer, you have no rights with us, and you are just simply out the door. What was perhaps a part-time job for that individual, maybe twenty hours a week, on a Monday, Wednesday or Friday, is simply gone, simply because that person refused to work, maybe, from two to six on a Sunday afternoon.

One would think, perhaps, that in this day and age that ought not happen, and that will not happen. One would hope it won't happen. However, the fact of the matter remains, Mr. Speaker, with this legislation it will happen. The rights of those individual workers are simply gone out the door. That is another reason, and another good reason I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, why we will stand up for the rights of those people, we will stand up to ensure that their rights are protected. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee it will be protected because this legislation does not provide them with a guarantee.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen examples earlier today and yesterday where other provinces in Canada have adopted similar legislation. But, as has been mentioned earlier, they have instituted as well examples where the legislation has been introduced on a gradual basis. It is not the type of legislation which is all encompassing and which just deals with the matter directly without any limitation whatsoever. We have the examples in particular from Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. As I indicated earlier in previous debate, we have the Province of New Brunswick which is seriously considering retracting the type of open-ended Sunday legislation which it now has so that the rights of employees, the rights of workers, are given much more protection and guarantees.

The point has been made as well, Mr. Speaker, that, to put it simply, there is only so much money to go around. If a person has $100 to spend on a Christmas gift or on several Christmas gifts, $100 is $100. The fact that a store is open on Sunday does not mean that there is going to be a greater opportunity for that person to spend more money, because that person does not have more money to spend, Mr. Speaker. That person only has x number of dollars to spend. So, why even open a store on Sunday? The limited amount of liquid assets available will not change whether a store is open six days or seven days. It remains the same, Mr. Speaker.

The argument was made, I believe, by the hon. minister when the bill was introduced that it gives choice or options. Well, there comes a point, perhaps, Mr. Speaker, when we have to be reasonable with this whole concept of choice and with this whole concept of options. When you weigh the benefits with the disadvantages, can it still be deemed reasonable that by simply giving a person an option to shop on Sunday that mere option outweighs all those disadvantages that have been referred to earlier. Can that be considered to be a reasonable conclusion to an argument when the only positive argument is that it gives a person a greater option or choice? I say, Mr. Speaker, that that is not reasonable. In fact, it is most unreasonable when you consider the arguments that have been put forward by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and when you consider what other provinces have deemed to be appropriate in preparing its own legislation in dealing with this whole idea of Sunday shopping.

The government opposite, Mr. Speaker, has not taken the proper steps to ensure that this legislation is workable. It has put itself in a situation where this legislation will be challenged. It has put itself in the situation where the rights of ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who work hard for a living will be forced to work on Sundays. There rights will have been violated. This government has put ordinary Newfoundlanders in a situation of great vulnerability, I would say, Mr. Speaker, and that is why this legislation is unfair and that is why this legislation ought not to go a step further then where it is right now. It ought to be taken off the Order Paper completely. It ought to be a piece of legislation which is withdrawn by the Minister of Labour, because this legislation does nothing only violate the rights of innocent ordinary, hard-working Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It is nothing more and nothing less. That is all this piece of legislation does.

When you look at what other provinces have done, it becomes clear, I say, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation is weak, this legislation is flawed, and it is destined to be a thing of the past. I will say it again, Mr. Speaker, it is only a matter of time before this legislation is challenged and it is out the window, and we are going to be back at square one again. So, why not, Mr. Speaker? Let's seize the opportunity right now, I say to the hon. minister - here is an opportunity to now abort any further discussion on this. Withdraw the legislation, I say to the minister. I challenge him to withdraw the legislation, to have another look at it so that he can include provisions which are sound provisions which protect the rights of individuals.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, it will also accomplish one more thing. It will give an opportunity for members opposite to listen to businesspersons, to listen to labour groups, to listen to individuals, to listen to ordinary workers who feel threatened and violated by the fact that they will be imposed to work on Sunday regardless of their wishes.

Mr. Speaker, there is a further opportunity - I referred to it earlier - that it could be delayed for a six-month period. That option appears not to be available anymore. However, there is still an option, by a reasonable minister, by a Minister of Labour who truly takes into account what is in the best interests of the workers of this Province, and as a Minister of Labour that is his mandate, to ensure that their rights are protected. Here is an opportunity, I say to the hon. minister, to seriously review and reconsider what this legislation is really doing. There is a prime opportunity to have a second look at it, and you are not going to be faulted for that, Mr. Minister. In fact, I would say to you, that you would be admired, because you have listened to what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have been saying and you are taking into account what their wishes and concerns are saying to you.

So I say to the minister, be bold, be brave, take into account what is in the best interests of our people, have another honest, sincere look at what this act is all about and pay attention to what the people of our Province are saying in response to a piece of legislation which clearly is flawed and it is just a matter of time. We can start the time count now. It is just a matter of time before this legislation is seriously challenged and we are back at square one.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, it seems as if we are going to be here well into the morning, probably eight or nine o'clock. So, as long as we are here, I don't think my colleagues are going to sit by. I think we are going to get up and say a few words too in this debate. Now, we might not take the full half hour. Some of us will only take twenty-five minutes. It is getting quite cosy and comfortable here now, Mr. Speaker, so I think we can continue and have a debate.

First I want to congratulate my colleague, the minister, for bringing forth this legislation, because this legislation recognizes the inconsistency in the present Shops' Closing Act. Two-thirds of the businesses in this Province are already open, Mr. Speaker. What the minister is putting in place now is a process whereby the consumer will decide whether or not a shop opens. If the consumer decides that Wal-Mart will not open, Wal-Mart will not open, Mr. Speaker. No business is going to keep its doors open if no consumer goes in to buy anything.

MR. H. HODDER: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, we have gone back and reconstructed the circumstances that we dealt with some time ago, in this last while, concerning the Member for St. John's East. Mr. Speaker, while recognized, it says in section 26 in the rules: ... order concerns the interpretation to be put upon the rules of procedure, and it is a matter for the Speaker or, in a committee, for the Chairperson to determine.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order because when we, on this side, had finished our discussions relative to the amendment for the six-month hoist, the Member for St. John's East stood in his place and was recognized by the Chair. The Speaker at that time said: The hon. the Member for St. John's East. The member was then recognized.

Mr. Speaker, we, on this side, feel that the rules of procedure have not been followed acceptably. We would ask that the Speaker take under advisement the way that the member was recognized, but then later on the Government House Leader gets recognized. We find, on this side, that the Member for St. John's East was not treated fairly in debate, having been clearly recognized by the Speaker. He was then not permitted to continue in debate, and he was clearly, absolutely, unquestionably, unequivocally recognized by the Chair. Then later on, when he was about to continue with his commentary, he was not permitted to do so. That, we find to be an abrogation of the privileges that he should enjoy as a representative of the citizens in the District of St. John's East and as a member of this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, we feel that something has gone wrong here and we ask you to review what we are putting forward, because we feel very strongly, on this side, that there has been a miscarriage of normalcy. Therefore, we feel that the traditions of this House have been abrogated. The traditions of this House say that when a member is recognized the Speaker has then the duty to listen to what that member is going to say before any other business is entertained. In this particular case, that did not happen.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, to the point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

The Chair has already recognized the hon. the Government House Leader to the point of order.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman from St. John's East rose to speak after debate had concluded.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I have sat here and listened to the hon. gentleman, now he should sit and do the same thing.

He rose when the debate on the amendment had come to an end. It was legitimately at an end. The next order of business that had to be done in this House was the vote had to be taken on the amendment. The hon. gentleman rose and he rose, Mr. Speaker, out of order. I say to the hon. Opposition House Leader he was out of order when he rose. Of course, the Speaker, as he should, looked over and recognized the hon. gentleman. But as soon as the hon. gentleman -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: As soon as the hon. gentleman said, I wish to speak on the main motion, the Speaker then said: You are out of order. And he was out of order, because the truth of the matter is that you had to put the vote on the amendment before he could speak on the main motion.

Now, Mr. Speaker, events will show if you look at this House, and if anybody can remember who was standing and who was recognized, that the Speaker then moved to put the amendment, as he should. We voted in this House on the amendment, the amendment was defeated and I rose, Mr. Speaker, as is normal in this House, got the attention of the Speaker first and was recognized. The only thing that was not within the realm of normalcy was the point of order that was raised by the hon. gentleman.

The truth of the matter is that the Speaker did exactly what he was supposed to do. The hon. gentleman, when he rose in the first place, was out of order. Mr. Speaker, it is very obvious what the hon. gentleman was trying to do. If I had not gotten recognized when I was supposed to be recognized, when people were supposed to be recognized, then the hon. gentleman would have stood and moved another amendment.

The truth of the matter is he would have stood and started to speak on the main motion and then moved another amendment. The truth of the matter is, I got recognized at the appropriate time when I was supposed to be recognized, when it was the call of the Chair to recognize me. I got recognized at the appropriate time and then did what the Opposition House Leader invited me to do this afternoon, and that is to use the rules of Parliament, a normal rule of Parliament, to put the previous question.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman may be upset at that, and I suspect that he is, because he was over there - I am going to tell him one of these days how he can keep this House open. There is another way, I say to him, but he has not yet caught on to it.

Mr. Speaker, let me say in my submission to you that His Honour this morning was perfectly right in what he did. The hon. gentleman when he rose to speak on the main motion was out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There seems to be considerable disagreement between both sides of the House as to the sequence of events. The Chair will therefore take the point of order under advisement and will check with the records that are available and the ruling will be presented in the House at that time.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, I congratulate the hon. minister for bringing forth this legislation. We have a mishmash now. Sixty-six percent of the businesses in this Province are now open. I can't think of anything that you cannot buy on a Sunday in this Province, Mr. Speaker. You can buy a house, you can buy a car, and you can buy a snowmobile, Mr. Speaker. In St. Anthony, up in my district, on a Sunday the Co-op store is closed. Just down the road, the Irving Convenience is open and there is not single solitary item in the St. Anthony Co-op that you cannot buy in the convenience. But there are more things in the convenience store than you can buy in the Co-op. You can buy tires, you can buy lubrication oil, and the list goes no and on, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can buy chainsaws.

MR. DECKER: You can buy chainsaws. You can buy anything. You can buy a roll of felt, Mr. Speaker. So the reality is, we have such a mishmash now that we are causing confusion, and the only way to deal with it, Mr. Speaker, is to let the consumer decide. No one is being forced to open their shop doors. That is entirely up to the owner. No one is forced to open on a Friday or a Monday or a Wednesday. That is entirely up to the owner and the business will decide, Mr. Speaker.

Having said these few words, I will now adjourn debate.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House adjourn until tomorrow at two o'clock.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House adjourn.

All in favour, aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Opposed, nay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at two o'clock in the afternoon.