December 16, 1997         HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS          Vol. XLIII  No. 52


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

 

Statements by Ministers

 

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Members of the Legislature are aware that we have tabled legislation to deal with a serious problem relating to the taxation of motor vehicles. Government has reviewed the situation, and our research indicates that the purchase price of vehicles which is reported to the Motor Registration Division appears understated. I tabled information regarding this in the House just a short time ago.

What the government is proposing, Mr. Speaker, is a system which would not penalize honesty but would deter dishonesty and abuse. We want everyone to be on a level playing field, so that an honest person who has paid tax on the actual purchase price will not have to pay more than someone who deliberately understates it in a private sale.

Over the past week, the hon. members and the public have been aware that the government was considering a system which uses value contained in the Canadian Red Book combined with the right of appeal. We have heard from members of this House and taxpayers on this issue and we have listened to their concerns.

Mr. Speaker, we believe that in a very high percentage of transactions, the actual purchase price is near the book value; however, government also recognizes that vehicles may legitimately be sold for a purchase price below book value. This may be for varying reasons, including rust damage, excessive mileage, or simply because an individual is getting a good deal.

Today we are announcing a system which combines a Red Book Valuation System with affidavits. Purchasers will be able to obtain Red Book information through a toll-free number provided by the Department of Finance so they can determine the book value before they register their vehicle with the Motor Registration Division.

If the purchase price is less than the average wholesale value in the Canadian Red Book, both the buyer and seller must swear to a Justice of the Peace or a Commissioner of Oaths, an affidavit specifying the purchase price of the vehicle. This affidavit will be required at the time of registration. Taxpayers can use a Justice of the Peace or a Commissioner of Oaths of their choice, or can avail of that service free of charge at a Motor Registration Division office or a provincial taxation office.

The affidavit will specify that it is an offence to provide false information, and a person found guilty of such an offence is liable for fines up to $10,000 and/or imprisonment for up to two years.

Affidavit forms will be made available at all Government Service Centres around the Province, through Motor Vehicle Registration, from the Department of Finance offices, and from Government's Home Page on the Internet.

Mr. Speaker, this program will be implemented on a one-year trial basis and the results will be reviewed at the end of that time.

I want to thank my colleagues and the public for their input. We, in this case, did not brush off any suggestions and, in fact, combed through each one that we received.

We are particularly grateful, as I said, to my Caucus colleagues but particularly to the Member for Cape St. Francis. He has with, I understand, the assistance of the Member for Windsor - Springdale from time to time but they certainly alighted on the very solution that we had arrived at a short time ago.

Mr. Speaker, it is no wonder that another candidate for the Leadership of the Conservative Party withdrew, he is probably reading the same polls we are, showing how the hon. member on the one hand is so far ahead in the Tory leadership race -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DICKS: - and secondly, how dismal that parties changes ever are of forming a government in the Province.

In the spirit of the season, Mr. Speaker, and in admiration for his wit, charm and intelligence from time to time displayed in this House, we on this side of the House would like to offer to the member opposite a small token of our gratitude. It is a gift that, while practical for most, may prove more inspirational for him.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to give credit where credit is due and I want to thank the minister for reading the statement here in the House today that I prepared for him and sent over. I want to thank the minister for reading the statement that I prepared and sent over to him.

Mr. Speaker, I want to actually congratulate the minister for taking the advice of this side of the House and backing off on this unfair, unjust, morally wrong tax that would have been implemented. We never had any input from any member on that side of the House, Mr. Speaker, none. I spoke to one but I won't say who it was, Mr. Speaker.

Now there is only one thing, Mr. Speaker, that he changed in this and that is the penalty for offence of this new policy of fines up to $10,000 and imprisonment of up to two years. I think that may be a bit too stiff, Mr. Speaker, because we have people in this Province, the working poor out there who buy used vehicles and may be tempted - I don't say it is right but they may be tempted to reduce the bill of sale somewhat but I have to congratulate the minister for taking the advice of this side of the House, Mr. Speaker. Another victory for this side of the House!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: With respect to the comment on the leadership, Mr. Speaker, we have a leader.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No point of order.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to acknowledge that what the government has done on this issue is giving the public the information in plenty of time, listened to what they had to say and responded by changing the policy and the new policy is a reasonable one. If only, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Environment and Labour would do the same thing with the Shops' Closing Act and –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: - give people time enough to respond and lobby the government instead of having to do it in the middle of Christmas shopping and Christmas shopping hours, it is time for the government to listen on that other issue as well and not keep this House going until 4:30 a.m. trying to push it through the House.

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

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honour a commitment I made in the House earlier this year to table my department's response to the special audit of the former Cabot Corporation. The audit reported on the Cabot Corporation for the period 1992 to 1995, before the Corporation was under the direction and control of government.

As my hon. colleagues are aware, the Corporation was run by an independent Board of Directors during that time period. Representatives of the former board prepared a response to the Auditor General's report and released it publicly earlier this year. The report being tabled today contains a summary of that response for the public record. In addition, the department's response clarifies the issues which were within the department's jurisdiction.

Mr. Speaker, given Cabot's independent status at the time, its Board of Directors was responsible for adopting and implementing reasonable financial and other corporate policies. The results of the Cabot year clearly demonstrate that the overall expenditure was effective and achieved the pre-determined goals.

I would like to use this opportunity to publicly thank the former Board of Directors for their work. These dedicated men and women completed an enormous amount of planning which provided the basis for the events in 1997.

I think that it is only now, as we have seen for ourselves the enormity of the Cabot events, that we can truly appreciate the amount of planning that was required to implement such an event and implement it as successfully as we did. This is the first time in our history that we had ever proposed such a monumental tourism initiative. In the end, the Cabot celebrations proved successful. It proved to be an investment in Newfoundland and Labrador, its economy and its people. I am proud to have been a part of it.

Thank you.

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

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

I want to thank the minister for sending over a copy.

Mr. Speaker, we note here, the minister is thanking the former board of directors for their work, and of course, we know that the former board of directors had some great difficulties in their contracts with the government and it has been the subject of some legal action in recent weeks.

Of course, we know what the legalities are, we also know what their morality is, and in this particular case, many people feel that these people were not treated properly, and while you thank them here for their work, it would have been much more appreciated by them if you had lived up to the contract that you had, from the moral point of view, rather than playing politics with them.

We will look forward to analyzing the result to see what the Province got for the $14 million, and see what that means for planning for 1999 and the 50th celebration of Newfoundland's Confederation with Canada. We will analyze the report and I am sure that this matter will come back by the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South by way of questions to the minister in the days ahead.

 

Oral Questions

 

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess I will have to ask the question for the Premier - I will catch up to him, I guess, sometime by the spring.

I will ask the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, in his absence, some questions pertaining to that particular department.

Now, Christmas, I say, has come early for the Federal Government because, as the minister is well aware, yesterday the Federal Government was relieved of its responsibility for the Labrador ferry service, and in return, we are left with not nearly enough money to complete the Trans-Labrador Highway; so we are left hanging in the balance.

I asked the Premier, in this House, over two weeks ago: what are the plans for this ferry service in the future, and he said the minister would respond to me with that within a week. He has not yet responded, I say to the minister - the Ministerial Statement did not tell us anything. I would like to ask the minister today -there are only three basic options I see there. Can he tell us which one this Province is looking at, in fairness to the people who have been employed and depending on this service?

Does he intend to have Marine Atlantic continue, at a subsidy like this year I understand, $12 million? Is it an option to put it out to private tenders for proposals to operate that service or, is the Provincial Government planning to run that itself? I mean, could the minister tell us, enlighten us, basically, because there are people depending on this and, Minister, for the last nine months we have known this was going to happen.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Service and Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for the question, because it is relevant and pertinent to what is happening on a go-forward basis with respect to Labrador transportation matters.

Yesterday was a rather, I guess, historic day of sorts, because we did yesterday take over effectively and in law the assets of the Marine Atlantic organization in Newfoundland. It was all part and parcel, of course, of an arrangement that we made with the Federal Government back in the early Spring, where we received the $340 million in return for taking over Labrador freight and coastal services' responsibility, along with a component to build two pieces of a three-part program in terms of highway construction.

The hon. member is not really correct when he says we do not have enough money to do the job we agreed to do. We do in fact have enough money to do what was structured in the original agreement. We have enough money to complete the upgrading of the highway from Lab West to Goose Bay. We have enough money to complete phase two, which is a new highway from Cartwright to Red Bay. We have enough money, on the basis of prudent investments, to run in perpetuity the coastal service for as long as we need to run that service up the Coast of Labrador.

To the other part of the question, I can inform him and the House that we have developed a business plan that will see us do the business of delivering coastal freight and other types of services on a go forward basis next year in a prudent fashion. The proposition is now before Cabinet. I expect we will be dealing with the business plan, my colleagues will, in Cabinet, within the next short time. After that, I will be able to outline more fully what that business plan is.

I can tell the hon. member that I have -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the minister to conclude his answer.

MR. MATTHEWS: - kept the members in Labrador and the members -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: - on the Island part of the Province, who have a -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the minister to conclude his answer.

MR. MATTHEWS: - particular interest in this matter - I have kept them informed as to the general direction that we are going and -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: - I expect that within the next week or two -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the minister to take his seat.

MR. MATTHEWS: - I will be able to announce formally what the business plan is -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: - for the coming year.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister did not deliver what you said a year ago when you were negotiating this. You said there would be a phase three. It was read out by the minister in this House, by your predecessor, that phase three would be from Goose Bay to Cartwright. You have not talked about it since. You have sold us out on $200 million dollars, so that we do not even have any money to complete the project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the minister, Christmas has come early for Nova Scotia's Premier, Russell MacLellan, who was handed a gift by our Premier at David Dingwall's dinner last Saturday night.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: A dinner, I might add, that was unscheduled, and compliments of the constituents in the district.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask him, in light of a resolution passed by this House for the jobs from Moncton to come to this Province, will the minister tell us now why the Premier of this Province is stating that North Sydney - he said at that dinner in Nova Scotia - should share the jobs from Moncton with this Province? Can he tell us: Why is he talking out of one side of his mouth in Nova Scotia and out of another side down here in our Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member will know that this government has taken a consistent and very definitive stand with respect to what we expect Marine Atlantic to deliver to this Province in the future in terms of services and job opportunities as well as business opportunities.

The reality still exists, as much as we would like it probably to be otherwise, in this fashion: There have to be ferry services, people running ferries, people untying and tying up ferries, people looking after reservation matters in North Sydney, as long as we are without a fixed link between here and North Sydney. As long as we are depending on ferries from Newfoundland to Nova Scotia, we will expect to have employees of Marine Atlantic located in Sydney, to some extent.

What we have said consistently is that given that reality, and given the acknowledgement of that reality that the Premier put forward, as is alleged by the hon. member, and appropriately so, but within the context of that reality we still expect the lion's share of jobs and business activities from and within the Marine Atlantic organization to take place in this Province, and to take place for the benefit of this Province and for the people in their organization who work in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Cape Breton Post, the headline: Share Jobs, says Tobin. North Sydney and Port aux Basques should share the jobs created by Marine Atlantic's move from Moncton to Newfoundland.

We are not talking about the jobs that are in North Sydney. We do not need any more jobs in North Sydney to run it. We are taking a headquarters from Moncton and putting it down here in this Province and sharing it with Nova Scotia. That should not be the case.

It is not what the resolution said. It is not what the Premier stated in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Now, I ask the minister: Will the minister tell us - and the Premier has indicated, I tell him in advance, he has spoken with the President of Marine Atlantic, the Chairperson of the Board at Marine Atlantic - will he tell us now if Marine Atlantic has sent a proposal to the federal minister, David Collenette, regarding the relocation of Marine Atlantic Headquarters? Has a proposal gone? He pleaded ignorance to it here when I know he knows about it.

Does the minister have any information that he could tell us here today on the status of that headquarters?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have met with the Chairman of the Board of Marine Atlantic on at least four or five occasions this fall. I met with Rod Morrison, the CEO of that organization, and repeatedly outlined to him what our position is as a government and what we expect to be achieved on behalf of the people of the Province through their organization in the future.

They did advise - and I believe they have probably moved to that extent now - they have put together a business plan, as I understand it, it was their intention to put together a business plan and present it to the Minister of Transportation in Ottawa on December 15 or thereabout. I think it happened a little earlier than that.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: I am telling you that Marine Atlantic have - or their board has put together, as I understand it, a business plan, and although I do not have written confirmation of it, I understand that they have probably presented that business plan to the Minister of Transportation in Ottawa.

I also want to tell the hon. member that I have spoken with the Minister of Transportation - his office - in the last four or five days and again apprised him, as I did in a meeting directly on August 6, of our intention of seeing achieved for the people of Newfoundland substantial benefits from that organization and I have every confidence and a high level of comfort that the Federal Government, through the federal Minister of Transportation, Mr. Collenette, will do on behalf of this Province what is right and proper, what is appropriate and what will be beneficial, not only in the interest of enhancing and maintaining a good service, but also in the interest of the employees who work for that organization and who are residents of this Province.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, you should get your information clear with the Premier. The Premier stated in this House, I say to the minister, that he knows nothing of a proposal that is gone, and the minister now is telling us. One of you is not telling the truth. Now, I ask him, who is it?

Another question I want to put to the minister: The Premier of this Province has been generous to Russell MacLellan on sharing jobs out of Moncton, that should never be, and that is not what he is stating here, and he has been generous to Paul Martin. The workers who are depending, as of yesterday, are now no longer employed with this service, are waiting with Christmas coming on and they only have thirty days to make fundamental decisions regarding whether they should sell their house in Lewisporte or move a family to another location in the Province or to North Sydney. I think it is only fair, I say to the Minister, that these people should not be kept in the dark?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister, can he see fit - since he has known about this since April 3, when the agreement was signed, he knew about it over nine months ago - can he see fit to let those workers know before Christmas what the future has for them, so they can get on and make a decision and at least be able to have a happy Christmas this year?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I believe, if the hon. member will check the record of Hansard and check the record of dates in chronological order, he will find that the answer given to the question previously, as to whether or not a business plan had gone forward, and what I have subsequently shared with him today - he will find that things happened in the interim, so that the answer the Premier gave six days ago in the House was correct and the answer that I have given you today is also correct. The fact of the matter is that activities have taken place in the last five or six days by Marine Atlantic to put forward the business plan to the federal minister and so, the information is entirely correct and entirely consistent.

Now, with respect, Mr. Speaker, to the employees who were working with Marine Atlantic - the employees of Marine Atlantic have known for some time that as of December 15, some of their employment would effectively be terminated as a result of the devolution of that service to the Province. I understand from the unions involved that the severance arrangements have gone quite smoothly. I understand from speaking directly to the employees, one of which I met with last week from Lewisporte, and with the union leaders, that the arrangements have gone well, and the employees, or at least their unions have expressed a high level of satisfaction as to what they have arranged in terms of severance packages.

With respect to the employees of Marine Atlantic, they did not come as an obligation with the arrangement we made on the highway.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer quickly, please.

MR. MATTHEWS: - with the arrangement we made on the highway. Their interests and their future employment prospects with Marine Atlantic can only be dealt with in discussions directly with Marine Atlantic.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: What happened yesterday or today is what happens when people look at the leadership polls, I say to the Premier.

My question, Mr. Speaker, is for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, who is responsible for tenders, regarding the sale of Elizabeth Towers. I have reviewed the tender documents and the information tabled by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs in this House; some interesting figures. The sale incurred losses this current fiscal year of $464,000. It sold for $351,000 less than the 1996 assessed value. We have been told it sold for $2 million less than it was offered two years ago.

The tender document indicates that the potential yearly income is $1,482,913. Will the minister confirm that the actual potential yearly income is really $1,717,313, which was $234,000 more than what was indicated in the tender documents? Why was the second floor commercial space not factored in in the tender documents for potential income?

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

MR. A. REID: I think, Mr. Speaker, there were two questions in that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Four.

MR. A. REID: Four? I only heard two.

AN HON. MEMBER: There was a leadership statement.

MR. A. REID: (Inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. REID: On the leadership statement, they know over there it had nothing to do with polls. It had all to do with the (inaudible) competition that he had out in the bay between the hon. (inaudible)...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. A. REID: Let me answer the last question first. We -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. REID: From the Housing Corporations' perspective, we asked MCP would they enter into a long-term arrangement or a lease arrangement with us. In fact, it was the hon. Member for Waterford Valley who told me some days after: They never ever did that, Art. I went back and checked it and that was absolutely correct. The hon. Member for Waterford Valley probably could answer these questions for his colleague just as easy as I could. They wouldn't give us a long-term lease contract, so we couldn't add the second floor tenants into the deal to make the deal sweeter.

The other question was - you were asking about the profitability of Elizabeth Towers. I've been here five years, Mr. Speaker, and if I'm not mistaken I think just one year we showed a profit at Elizabeth Towers of approximately $100,000. The direction of this government and the previous government, and by the way, and I will say, at the encouragement of the Opposition, has been for years encouraging this side of the House to devolve itself of assets belonging to and being used by the Housing Corporation in competition and conflict with the private sector.

We took the direction two years ago that we would start to devolve ourselves of those assets. One of the assets was Elizabeth Towers. Yes, we spent a lot of money in doing up Elizabeth Towers, but at the end of the day we had to sell Elizabeth Towers and we did lose money.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

I just want to note that the minister did not answer the question with respect to why the second floor space was not factored in in the potential income for Elizabeth Towers, I would say to the minister.

Second question: Will the minister confirm that Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation preferred an unencumbered proposal with minimum exposure to government, and can he tell the House if government is financing in any way or guaranteeing in any way, directly or indirectly, the accepted bid on Elizabeth Towers?

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

MR. A. REID: I hope we aren't, Mr. Speaker, because I think I could embarrass the people across if I had to tell who actually ended up getting Elizabeth Towers. I will guarantee you, it was no Liberal. I will say this to you, that if I felt that we were subsidizing it in any way, I would have to take issue on the question.

We lost money on Elizabeth Towers. It was a question of either cutting our losses at this particular point in time and getting out of the business, as we have been asked to do by the Opposition on a number of occasions - or continuing on to lose money and take losses. There is a fair amount of work to be done on the outside with regards to the balconies, for example, there is $1 million worth of work to be done on that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. REID: The answer is no, as far as I know we are not subsidizing and the question of the second floor is the same as I gave you a few minutes ago. We could not give any commitment in regards to the second for rental space and profit. In fact, we could not even give them the commitment that MCP would even be in the building after this year. So we could not add it into our profitability figures.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: I just want to be quite clear on this because the minister did not really answer the question. He said that they were not financing. My question was - now would he answer with a yes or no - that the government or Newfoundland and Labrador Housing in any way is not either financing or guaranteeing in any way, indirectly or directly, the bid that was accepted? That is a yes or no.

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

MR. A. REID: I don't know, Mr. Speaker. I said no a few moments ago but I know when we put the deal out, as the hon. members across the floor know, I stayed as far away from that deal as I possibly could. I didn't want -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. REID: I can't say, Mr. Speaker, categorically that we did not but I tell you what I will do, I will find out the information and before the day is out, I will provide it to the hon. member.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have some more questions today for the Minister of Education. First and foremost, Mr. Speaker, I want to mention to the minister about comments he made outside of the House yesterday about playing with this particular issue which is very, very serious. As late as today - whether it is thirteen students or one student, I say to the minister, it is important if it was wrong and it was wrong. I have been talking to those thirteen again this morning. I have talked to students who have been there for the last year-and-a-half. I have talked to parents as late as twelve o'clock today and the concerns are still there, Mr. Speaker. Now I want to ask the minister, is he confirming that the investigation is now completed? Is he satisfied that all parts of the act were in compliance with this particular institute? Is he satisfied with that?

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, maybe I will just wait and see what other questions he has already got written down to ask so I can answer them all the one time.

AN HON. MEMBER: We're touchy today (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: There is something there when he is not (inaudible) his windbag answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I think the Speaker can decide when I am going to ask the questions and the minister can answer the questions. So I will ask it again quite simply, is the investigation completed? Is he satisfied? Will he table the report of the investigation? Is that too complicated or would you like to answer that question?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Anyone who has been following the issue in the media already knows the answers to those questions. I will wait and see if he has any more questions.

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

MR. SHELLEY: I guess the minister thinks everybody is following the media but the most important thirteen people, Mr. Speaker, are still the victims of this whole situation, who the minister still has not talked to or reacted to.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it says by his own act, when in violation of the act, immediately repay to the person. Now that is the only part of the act that I will quote to the minister. Now that means immediately the violation was of course acknowledged by the minister. There was a violation, according to the advertising, and you have acknowledged that. The word says, `immediately.' Does that mean that the students will have their cash in hand today?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the questions because it is a serious matter that we have been trying to deal with without attracting too much unnecessary and undue attention to it. I think all of us would know that issues of this nature, persisted in by the now self-appointed education critic for the Opposition, an aspiring leadership candidate who has - I don't know exactly what his total motivations are with respect to the issue but the students themselves, Mr. Speaker, have been contacted by the owner/operator and by our department Friday, again yesterday, attempts again today, to the extent that the owners and operators of the institution stated categorically, in writing, which was passed along to each of the students that by the end of the day, if they had spent their time meeting with the owners and operators who have the money that is going to be refunded that they expect that all of those refunds, Mr. Speaker, would be completed by the end of today.

That can only happen, Mr. Speaker, if the students meet with the owners and operators of the institution. Mr. Speaker, our own staff have volunteered and offered their services to help and go to the meetings with the students, if they did not feel comfortable in going to the meetings themselves.

Our number one priority, Mr. Speaker, from day one, has been to make sure the interests of the students and the post-secondary training opportunity for the students are kept uppermost and forefront in everybody's mind. I am satisfied, Mr. Speaker, and I have stated publicly that that is exactly what has been occurring.

There have been some terrible accusations, hints and slurs made by the member who has been asking the questions suggesting that some connection to changes of government's policy, suggesting that there might have been something wrong with the application process, Mr. Speaker; I do not know what he is trying to get at; I do not know if he will ever have the nerve to come right out publicly and say what he is trying to get at -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer quickly.

MR. GRIMES: - but I would certainly be interested to hear it and deal with it at some point, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear the minister say that, well maybe, it will not be an accusation or a slur, Mr. Speaker.

According to the Act: Instructions shall not be given to a student in a private training institute until - a contract, the form by which it is approved by the minister has been completed between the student and the keeper of the private training institute.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary, he ought to get to his question.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the minister: I have a contract here of the student who started classes on October 13, the contract was signed December 16. Is that another violation of the Act? Will you commit that further investigation is needed and this is indeed another violation on the one you have already acknowledged that this is the second violation?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I repeat what I have said in the House for a couple of days now: I am saddened by the approach taken by the hon. member.

We are trying to do things, Mr. Speaker, that are in the best interest of the students and, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the contracts that have been entered into, one of the reasons, Mr. Speaker, that there has been and continues to be, a moratorium on the acceptance of new students into programs at that institute is because of those kinds of issues.

A number of them have been addressed with the institute. To my understanding, Mr. Speaker, they have been resolved; the students who had contracts that were signed as the one he is probably waving around now, have left the institute because they did not want to be there any more. Those fourteen, Mr. Speaker, are now looking at trying to get their money back because that is what they asked the department to facilitate for them.

The other eighty-five, Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge - and I am sure in any one day, another student could come forward who is disgruntled and we will deal with that issue. The other eighty-five are hoping that the hon. member would stop trying to slander and bring in to disrepute the reputation of the institution -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer quickly.

MR. GRIMES: - because they want to finish their training and get on with their lives, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Environment and Labour with respect to deeming and with respect to the statutory review committee of the Workers' Compensation Act.

The minister said some time ago in this House that, through his initiative and through his actions a committee was being put in place.

Can he update the House today on what action government has taken or initiated on the question of deeming with respect to injured workers and, update exactly what the details of those actions have been?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes. In conversation with the member yesterday, I told him that we are having a person from the Department of Labour, a person from outside of the community outside of government to sit on it and someone from our department, Occupational Health and Safety, to form a committee to take a total look at deeming and to, over the next couple of months, and before we bring the other recommendations from the WCC Report in the spring, that we will have a full report on deeming and make it a part of the recommendations of the WCC Report.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to provide the minister with an example. I did yesterday, but I would like to for the public record.

Deeming is an important way in which the Workers' Compensation Commission takes people off the system. For example: What does the minister say to this injured worker who had a head injury, who is deemed capable of selling real estate from his bed, the Commission said that he could easily sell real estate from his home over the phone, therefore not entitled to benefits.

Surely minister, that is not the spirit of what deeming was meant to be. What do you say to that injured worker? What commitment can you make that will certainly straighten out the deeming process?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR LANGDON: I want to thank the member for the question and, obviously, as I committed to him yesterday and I have committed to the House, there are problems with deeming, there are no two ways about that and this particular individual who was deemed to do a certain job, obviously was not capable of doing it and that is what this committee would do. There would be an impartial look at it and we want to clean up that particular part of the WCC Report and at the end, to make it fair for injured workers who are new on the system, so that they can get a fair share and not be treated, seemingly as this case here, ill-advisedly.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, that is but one example of what is taking place with injured workers and I am sure that the minister is aware of it.

I would like to deal with another recommendation.

Yesterday, in my office, an injured worker came in from my district who had a report from a specialist that said that he could not return to work. That specialist's report was overruled by a case manager again who was not qualified, who was not technically trained to make that decision.

Can the minister indicate to the House today that on that recommendation, with respect to specialists' reports being overruled by occupational therapists or case managers, can he say to the House today that he is initiating actions that will look at that specific recommendation within the Statutory Review Committee to end that particular action by the Workers' Compensation Commission?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to tell the member that every recommendation that was brought as a part of the overall review, we will deal with as expeditiously as we can, and where the system needs to be redefined we will do that; because basically, I guess, the whole premise, the whole philosophy behind the WCC, it is an insurance program to support injured workers, but at the same time I think it is very important that we put a human face on it to make sure that the people who are there are treated fairly, and that is what we propose to do when the final amendments are done.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

The minister will know that the Federation of Municipalities and the Newfoundland and Labrador Municipal Administrators' Association have been talking for some time about establishing minimal qualifications for municipal clerks and other municipal officers.

I say to the minister, given what is happening in other parts of Canada, can the minister today tell us that his office now is prepared to establish guidelines for municipal clerks, particularly those in rural Newfoundland and, if so, when will he be able to share that information with the towns and all municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, no. Even though the Federation of Municipalities, who represent most of the larger communities in the Province, and they do represent and voice opinions, as well as the Administrators' Association, I cannot stand here and say that I agree wholeheartedly with what they are asking me to do.

We have communities, for example, up on the North West Coast of this Province, on the West Coast, on the South Coast, in your district, in my district, where we have town clerks who work three hours a week - three hours a week - people who come in and open the office on Wednesday afternoon so that people can come in and pay their taxes, and basically don't do much more than that, and keep their records on what I would refer to as a scribbler.

We did turn around and put $500,000 into a budget this year to help some of these smaller communities as it relates to computerization and modern technologies that we have, but I cannot say, quite honestly, that I would be in favour, or this government would be in favour, of imposing the will of the Federation of Municipalities when it came to making sure that every single town clerk or town manager in the Province had a certain level of expertise that they would have to acquire by going to Memorial University or doing some programs.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. REID: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker, I cannot offer that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions as elapsed.

MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion?

Answers to Questions -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. FUREY: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. Could we revert to tabling reports for a minute?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees.

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a report of the Mineral Licences and Mining Leases issued for the period April 1, 1996 to March 1997.

 

Petitions

 

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate they do not have an enthusiastic bunch of members like we have over here, I can say. It is too bad.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Contradictions by ministers contradicting the Premier. I told the sandbagger from Humber East the Premier is always right!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: The Premier is always right. I warned him. The Premier is always right. You have to remember that if you hope to move up out of that spot where you are sitting.

PREMIER TOBIN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER TOBIN: A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier, on a point of order.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I told the people of this Province that I would meet the Leader of the Opposition the next election, and I was right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: No point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, and he told the Leader of the Opposition that every job for Moncton should be here, but he told The Cape Breton Post and everybody in Nova Scotia we should share the Moncton jobs with North Sydney. That is what you told, the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: You are on record, Premier.

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

The hon. member is on a petition. I ask him to get to the petition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Now back to the business at hand, back to the petition, before I was rudely interrupted by the absentee Premier in this Province. Now I want to get back to the issue at hand.

I have a petition here today, Mr. Speaker, and the petition is addressed to the hon. House of Assembly. The petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland:

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has introduced legislation to remove the current restrictions 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 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 No. 2", from the Order Paper and abandon efforts to remove the current restrictions on Sunday shopping, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, it is no understatement at all, to say that we have been on the record on this issue. We had an opportunity to present one petition yesterday - one petition we were permitted yesterday, and we have dozens of petitions here on this issue. There are some fundamental reasons why this bill should not pass. Who is benefiting from this bill?

Let us look at it realistically. Do the workers want it? The answer is clearly no. Do the businesses want it? The answer is no. The businesses do not want it. I heard a comment by the President of the Board of Trade yesterday morning on radio, decrying the manner in which this government has moved forward. The Federation of Independent Businesses has issued a news release condemning it. The point is, we are not going to increase revenues from those businesses. We are going to open up major chains to compete against small businesses to siphon dollars out of our economy to the shareholders in other parts of Canada, and even outside our country, at the expense of the small grocery store on the corner, the small-time operations here that are trying to survive today.

I said last night in the House I have seen instances in 1992 since the moratorium, under NCARP and under TAGS, where small, rural communities have laid off employees. They have been hit hard because people have moved into major centres with the free time of the moratorium, to spend their dollars there at the expense of local communities and businesses that are struggling and, I might add, putting money into coffers and profit-makers outside the Province.

Let us look at it realistically. Do we expect to increase revenues seven days instead of six? The answer is, no. If it did happen, it would be so marginal, it would be negligible. What happens then? If a company has overhead costs, they are going to increase. The variable overheads are going to increase. It is going to need more workers. There are going to be more wages, or there is going to be a downward pressure to keep wages down where they are. Therefore, what we are going to see as a result is an increase in price in the cost of goods. That is basically what is going to happen, and nobody is going to benefit.

The consumer will not benefit from this, I can assure you. The worker will not benefit from this. Business is not going to benefit from this, because businesses are out there to get a certain fixed profit margin that they strive to get, and they will push for that. If the cost of goods has to increase proportionately to get that margin, then they will get that, basically, and it is the consumer and the workers who will pay - the workers, in wages that will not rise -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No leave.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis. Are you speaking to the petition?

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in my place today to speak to the petition and to support the petition, of course.

I have to ask: Why is it necessary to bring in this Shops' Closing Act now, just before Christmas? I think it has something to do with a deflection of the real issues. We have not gotten to the bottom of it yet.

Mr. Speaker, when I went out of this building this morning at 4:30 or 4:45, I was almost blinded with the Christmas lights out in front of the building. I never saw the like of it before in the five years I have been here. Again, a very superficial thing, trying to make the people of the Province believe that everything is okay.

Mr. Speaker, I sat in this House of Assembly last night, up until 4:30 this morning, and I think around 1:00 a.m. or 2:00 a.m. we heard this noise, this loud noise, and members on that side of the House can confirm it. It was a plane flying over this building, very low. Why? Because he thought it was the runway out front, with the lights from Holiday Inn down to the intersection by the Arts and Culture Centre.

Mr. Speaker, you talk about spending money and saving money. I heard that the Premier gave a direct order that they had to be lit up by Sunday night. We had people out there working all night, all weekend, 700 sets of lights. We had employees going all over St. John's buying up every set of lights in St. John's so that when the Premier came back here he could look at that and say, `Now, isn't that nice?' That glow reminds him of Ottawa, reminds him of Waterford Bridge Road.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a petition. He ought to speak to the prayer of the petition.

MR. J. BYRNE: Relevancy, Mr. Speaker, there is no trouble to bring it back. I am trying to point out that these lights are deflecting the people's attention away from the real issues in the Province, trying to make them feel happy and good.

With respect to Bill 48, we said in this House, we do not know why it is before the House of Assembly right now. It is again trying to deflect people's attention away from the real issues. We have other legislation to be brought before this House, and the last few minutes -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) ready for a brighter tomorrow.

MR. J. BYRNE: That is a good line there. All those lights out in front have something to do with the Premier's brighter tomorrow. The only thing is, it is about a brighter night.

Bill 48 is before this House. We have been asking questions to try to find out why it is here. We know that the Board of Trade does not support it. The labourers do not support it.

MR. HARRIS: Now that the Premier is here we might find out.

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon?

MR. HARRIS: Now that the Premier is here we might find out.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, that is a good point, I say to the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi. Maybe the Premier would like to get up and speak to the petition and explain why we are discussing this Bill 48, "An Act to Amend The Shops' Closing Act No. 2". We cannot get any answers out of any of the people over there. No one can tell us who wants it. Over 66 per cent of the people in the Province are opposed to it, according to the poll that was done by the Member for Topsail - at least 66 per cent opposed to it.

We have the Premier here now. We have asked the Government House Leader: Is the Board of Trade in favour? No. Is Labour in favour? No. Are retailers in favour? No. Are the people of the Province in favour? No.

The opposition to this bill is rising all the time and I would like for the Premier to stand in his place and tell us who is pushing this bill. Who wants this bill? Is it the large chains? Is it the big businesses outside of Newfoundland and Labrador trying to push this? Who is going to benefit, Mr. Speaker? Who will benefit from this legislation? We cannot figure it out. We do not know on this side of the House. There are members on that side of the House who do not know because they cannot answer the questions. So I ask the Premier: Who is going to benefit from this legislation? I am sure it is not the people of this Province. We are going to have job losses. We addressed this last night for twelve hours, talking about this bill - twelve hours.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: You can read it in Hansard. You can go out there any time at all and get a copy of Hansard. You will have it tomorrow morning, I am sure. No problem, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) to read it to you.

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, you would not want to hear some of the stuff that went on here last night, I say to the Speaker. When you saw the abuse that this side of the House had to take last night, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy, you would not want to read it. You would be ashamed, you would be embarrassed to be sitting on that side of the House, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy. You would be like the Member for Port au Port, last night, who was up in the gallery when we were talking about this. He was repulsed by this legislation. He did not want to sit in his seat when this was being debated in this House of Assembly. It was being debated in this House of Assembly and we had a member of the House sitting up in the galleries who did not want to be here because he was repulsed by the legislation - that was the only conclusion we could come to - the only conclusion.

So I would like to ask, Mr. Speaker, before I sit down: Will the Premier stand in his place today and tell us who is pushing this legislation? Who wants it? Who will benefit from the legislation?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

Who will benefit from the legislation?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No leave.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I also have a petition from the citizens who are opposed to Sunday shopping. They want to see this legislation withdrawn. They are among the hundreds and thousands of Newfoundlanders who are asking the same question as is being asked here today and was being asked last night.

Maybe today, Mr. Speaker, now that the Premier is here, we will have the answer, because I want to tell him that the minister could not tell us why he was bringing in the bill. He told everybody on CBC radio, the Premier's favourite show on CBC radio, with the Premier's favourite interviewer - he was asked by that favourite interviewer of the Premier, `Whom had he consulted?' He said nobody. He had consulted nobody. That is fairly obvious, Mr. Speaker, that nobody was consulted on this because everybody who has had anything to say about it -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this petition and it is the exact same petition which hon. members just presented. It seems to me that we are going to take all afternoon discussing exactly the same petition. I say that, Mr. Speaker, because when Bill Marshall was the House Leader, I tried to do the same thing but I was stopped dead in my tracks. You cannot bring the same petition over and over, especially since we are going to debate the whole issue a little later on, on the Order Paper. I think it is just wasting the time of the House, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To that point of order, the hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, now we have seen gall. This is the same member who sat in Opposition day after day and presented petitions from one side of the street, got up the next day and presented petitions from another side of the street, photocopied them and did the same thing the next day. The reality is, Mr. Speaker, that the petition that the Member for Cape St. Francis was speaking to was one presented by the Leader of the Opposition. The one that is presented by the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi is a completely separate, different petition.

Now, with respect, Mr. Speaker, this is only the second petition. Hardly could it be justified or characterized as high jacking the House of Assembly on this Order Paper with only the second petition.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MR. HARRIS: Clearly, the only point of the Minister of Justice was to use up the time of the hon. member, just as yesterday he refused to answer questions in the House and raised objections. And we were hoping, now that the Premier is here we will know why this bill is here, because everybody who has come out has said that they are opposed to it. The Federation of Independent Business, there are 2,000 members and 90 per cent of them are opposed to it. I have a letter here written to the Minister of Environment and Labour, December 16, from City Consumers Co-Op Society, they are opposed to it, Mr. Speaker. They expressed dissatisfaction: `...a negative impact on locally-owned business, sales for six days spread over seven, increased cost of sales plus increased cost to consumers. Multinational chains will be the only ones to benefit from this change. Local ownership will suffer and may disappear, leaving the retail sector of our economy controlled by multinationals.' That is what seems to be the response of the people of this Province, Mr. Speaker - whether it be business people or whether it be ordinary people, workers, members of labour unions or the Federation of Labour itself, everybody seems to be opposed to it. I remember the former Minister of Environment and Labour, now the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods saying last summer how wonderful it was that he had listened and he was convinced by this young man from Sears, who had campaigned against Sunday shopping last June. He was on television praising him up saying what a wonderful government it was that listened to the people.

Mr. Speaker, what are we doing now? What has happened between now and then? Have the multinationals gotten to the Premier? Have the gotten to the Minister of Environment and Labour? Have they gotten to the government? Can we have an answer as to where this legislation is coming from, and will the Premier agree to put this bill away for six months, as we proposed last night, and let the people have public hearings, let people discuss it and debate it - not force it on the people a week before Christmas when even the business people, the shoppers and the workers do not even have time to lobby the government. Why can they not do that, Mr. Speaker?

MR. J. BYRNE: Who benefits?

MR. HARRIS: Who is benefiting? According to the City Consumers Co-op, only the multinational chains will benefit from the change in legislation. Now, why is this government being the handmaiden to multinational chains, Mr. Speaker? Perhaps somebody could answer that question over there. We got no answers yesterday in Question Period. We got no answers last night in eight or nine hours of debate and I am afraid that we are not going to get any answers anymore because if we ask questions in Question Period we are going to be ruled out of order on an objection from members opposite.

Now, I know that the members opposite cannot really say anything until the Premier is here to let them know what they are really allowed to say, but now that he is here, perhaps he will respond to the petition and tell us why his government is bringing in this legislation now -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - which was thrown out last spring and thrown out this time last year.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I am glad to rise to support the petition presented by my colleague, the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

Mr. Speaker, we have had a fair bit of discussion and an awful lot of response from the general public. For example, this morning on VOCM Open Line and it was on VOCM - of course, that is the Premier's favourite station, that is where people talk to the Premier, conversations with the Premier. This morning there was a conversation with the government. We had one call supporting the Sunday shopping proposal and that was from Yellowknife. A lady called in from Yellowknife and she said, `I am in favour of that'.

We listened to everybody else calling in. There was one guy who said, `I am not quite so sure, I am for freedom of choice.' All the other calls this morning, every other caller asked, `What is the agenda here?' Nobody who called in this morning was in favour of Sunday shopping.

I say to the Premier, two years ago, Tom Murphy brought in a similar bill, and on being questioned in the House, he said, `I have so many people supporting it, I would have to take up the whole of Question Period if I were to go and make - take until 8:00 p.m. or 9:00 p.m. So, we said, `Go for it,' and the Member for Humber East, Lynn Verge said: `Take it, here, take Question Period, give us the list.' And then, of course, he went out and CBC asked, `Can you name three supporting this?' He said, `Oh, I have lots of them.' They asked, `Could you name three, four, five?' Then, some days later, Tom Murphy had to say, `I have not talked to anybody, I cannot name one person who is supporting this proposal.' And, of course, when he got caught like that, we knew what was going to happen. It was two or three days before the Premier of the day came in with his December slash, two days before he laid off 350 employees and the whole idea was - and it was admitted to by some of the colleagues who were on that side at that time - the whole idea was to deflect away from this big layoff.

We want to know what is the agenda here? What is the real story? There is certainly - this cannot be all that it appears to be. There must be something that is happening that the government does not want us to know about or deal with. We asked yesterday, the Minister of Environment and Labour - we said: `Tell us 50 per cent.' He said: `66-2/3 per cent'. Not 65 per cent, not 68 per cent, not 67 per cent, he said, 66-2/3 per cent. He had it right down very precise and you know, it was a continuing thing, 66-2/3 per cent of the people that he talked with, and the people out there were in favour. But we want to ask him today: Would you give us a list of 500 businesses, 500 people who are supporting this proposal? If that is the case then we would have to say to those petitioners, in their hundreds, in their thousands, that they probably are not in the majority, but at this moment, our polls are running now about 500 to zero.

We have not had one single call - the Member for Kilbride has not had a call from any person saying: I am supporting this proposal. We went all around the caucus this morning and asked: Would you tell us how many calls you are getting? One hundred per cent of our calls are against this proposal for Sunday shopping, and we ask the minister: Would you give us your list where you got your 66-2/3 per cent, what people did you talk with and we want to know exactly why did you bring this in at this time? We say to the minister: you have said 66-2\3 per cent - we hope you can back it up. We are hoping you are not another Tom Murphy in disguise.

Mr. Speaker, we are saying to the minister today - you know, he is saying all of these people are supporting his proposal. We have petition after petition; they are arriving by fax, they are arriving by courier, there are people who are dropping them off at our homes. The Member for Kilbride has had petitions dropped off at his house and any way that they can get them here they are asking: `Please, please, would you stand up and make sure this government understands that we do not support Sunday shopping,' and, Mr. Speaker, that is why we stand here today. That is why we are likely to be here for many more hours, because I can say to the government - and the government knows what is likely to happen - that this particular proposal is not going to get (inaudible) by -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: - because we do not believe it is supported by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that we now move to Orders of the Day.

All those in favour, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against, `nay'.

Motion, carried.

MR. J. BYRNE: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members.

 

Division

 

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

Order, please!

All those in favour of the motion, please rise.

CLERK (J. Noel): The hon. the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal; the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy; the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General; Mr. Walsh; the hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board; the hon. the Minister of Education; the hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods; Mr. Penney; Mr. Oldford; Mr. Barrett; the hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour; the hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology; the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation; the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation; the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands; Mr. Noel; Mr. Wiseman; Mr. Andersen; Mr. Smith; Mr. Ramsay; Mr. Whelan; Mr. Woodford; Mr. Mercer; Mr. Reid; Ms Thistle; Mr. Sparrow, Ms Jones.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the motion, please rise.

CLERK (J. Noel): The hon. the Leader of the Opposition; Mr. Hodder; Mr. Shelley; Mr. Jack Byrne; Mr. Osborne; Mr. Ottenheimer; Ms Osborne; Mr. Harris.

Mr. Speaker, twenty-seven `ayes' and eight `nays'.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion, carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House not adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House do not adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

All those in favour, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye

MR. SPEAKER: Those against, `nay'.

Motion, carried.

 

Division

 

MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members.

Order, please!

All those in favour of the motion, please rise.

CLERK (J. Noel): The hon. the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal; the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General; Mr. Walsh; the hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board; the hon. the Minister of Education; the hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods; Mr. Penney; Mr. Oldford; Mr. Barrett; the hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour; the hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology; the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation; the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy; the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation; the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands; Mr. Noel; Mr. Wiseman; Mr. Andersen; Mr. Canning; Mr. Smith; Mr. Ramsay; Mr. Woodford; Mr. Mercer; Mr. Reid; Ms Thistle; Mr. Sparrow.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the motion, please rise.

CLERK (J. Noel): The hon. the Leader of the Opposition; Mr. Hodder; Mr. Shelley; Mr. Jack Byrne; Mr. Edward Byrne; Mr. T. Osborne; Mr. Ottenheimer; Mr. French; Ms S. Osborne; Mr. Harris.

Mr. Speaker: twenty-six `ayes' and ten `nays'.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion, carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I call Order No. 27, Bill 48.

Second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Shops Closing Act No. 2", (Bill No. 48), and I believe that the debate was adjourned by the Minister of Justice.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, once again, I want to congratulate my colleague, the minister, for bringing forth this bill. I can tell my friend that he has a lot of support throughout the Province. The Opposition has fallen into the trap whereby a few people have been making some noise and they believe that the whole Province is basically spouting the same line as they are. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of consumers have waited for this bill for quite some time, are waiting in anticipation, and are hoping to see it passed. I congratulate the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker, the Opposition has said it is against this bill. It has staked out its position as being opposed to it. I have to say that I respect its right to take that position. The very essence of our democracy is such that there is room made for those who want to oppose any action that the government brings forward, no matter how good, how admirable, that action is. Until I breathe my last breath, I will stand here and defend its right to be against this legislation, even though I know it is in the best interest of the consumers of this Province. I support strongly its ability to be against any legislation.

However, I cannot condone the actions the Opposition has been taking. I have to question its tactics. Last night the debates which we heard in this House were an absolute total disgrace to this institution. About 2:00 a.m. I went up to my office upstairs to get myself a cup of tea, and I had the speaker in my room turned on. I listened. I was thankful that television cameras are not in this House. I was thankful the people of this Province weren't tuned in listening to the absolute nonsense that was going on. Speaker after speaker got up and said exactly the same old thing, totally irrelevant to the legislation. Speaker after speaker droning on, repetition after repetition and repetition.

There was only one - at one time, the Minister of Education got so overcome by the nonsense and the drivel that was coming from the opposite side of the House that he was forced to rise on a point of order. It was the best speech that I heard in this House after all that debate. We were here until 4:30 a.m. debating it. The most sensible intervention I heard was that by the Minister of Education.

I recognize its right to be opposed, but surely goodness it must have some consideration for the people of this Province, and also for the people in government who have to sit and listen to the nonsense. The human brain, the human body, can only tolerate so much silliness. A little bit of silliness, as they say, is relished by the best of men from time to time, but to have it continuously over and over and over beaten into your head... I heard the member of the NDP talking about something under the Labour Relations Board or something as being occupational health and therapy. He was claiming that it was -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DECKER: This is the foolishness he went on with last night, Mr. Speaker. That it was cold here. It wasn't the cold that was posing the risk; it was the silliness they were going on with over there. That was what was posing the risk. Last night was nothing only a total waste of the time of the people in this House, an embarrassment, and thank goodness - I hope that nobody in the Province was listening to it.

They came again today prepared with the same old tactics. They came in with one petition that they had mimeographed, that they had copied over and over. As soon as Your Honour called petitions they all stood. Then when they started reading out the petitions we learned immediately that they all had exactly the same petition.

MR. H. HODDER: (Inaudible).

MR. DECKER: But for the wisdom, Mr. Speaker, of the Government House Leader, we would have been still here -

MR. SPEAKER (Penney): Order, please!

MR. DECKER: - wasting the people's time -

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

MR. DECKER: - listening to the same old petition over and over.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader on a point of order.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice knows he isn't permitted to communicate things that are inaccurate, and he knows to be inaccurate. The point of order we are making is that every single petition we have here is a petition signed by separate people throughout this Province. There are so many of them we don't need to photograph them, we do not need to mimeograph them. We can prove to the minister, if he wants to do that, that every single signature here is only presented on one occasion unless the individual who signed the petition signed multiple petitions. We have not photographed, mimeographed, or in any other way added to the list of petitions.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is not in a position to know whether the one petition was presented on more than one occasion, or was intended to be presented on more than one occasion. We will have to assume, until we are in possession of facts to the contrary, that was not the case.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, they came here loaded with petitions, with nothing only autographs signed by themselves. That is who they were signed by, and their intent was to tie up this House until 12:00 or 1:00 tonight with an absolute waste of time, just trying to drag this out, and that is a disgrace to this House. That is a disgrace to this institution. That is a disgrace to the people of this Province. If they oppose the legislation, oppose it and God bless them, but do it through the proper procedure. They came here with that stupid, silly intention, to tie it up. The Government House Leader, in his wisdom, was quick off the mark and brought them up, and what a bring-up they got. They were brought to their senses.

Then, after we crushed them with their phoney attempt to present phoney petitions, what did they do next? When we called to vote for Orders of the Day, there was a voice vote, Your Honour. What kind of a dimwit could look at the logistics of this House, and look at the number of people on this side who voted `aye' when the question was put, and somehow come to the conclusion that a vote that was counted after Division was somehow going to be different from the vote that was counted with a voice vote? Is it any wonder that the people of this Province are losing faith in politicians? That is the kind of nonsense which gives us all a bad name. That is the kind of nonsense which affects my privileges in this House.

MR. H. HODDER: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I just want to inform the minister that when we were looking at strategies in order to be able to get the people's voice out here today, one of the places I looked was in 1987 and 1988 when this minister was then in Opposition. We looked at all of the procedural things that they did and, I tell you what, you have not seen the fullness of the potential under the act or under Beauchesne because I tell you what, Minister; we are determined to make sure that the voices of ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians get communicated on this issue, and if we have to stay here until 12:00 tonight, or 5:00 tomorrow morning, that is okay with us.

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 take great pride in the period of time that we spent over there, and we did protect democracy for the people of this Province.

If the hon. members want to have a lesson in how to protect democracy, and how to look out for the interest of the people, I will be glad, with my colleague, John Efford, and a few more of us, to go over and give them lessons in how to conduct themselves, not to make absolute fools and a mockery of this House. There is no point of order. It is just interrupting a good speech.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is not in a position to rule on any proceedings of this House prior to today, anything that happened at a time prior to the sitting of today. There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. DECKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, it is the procedure they are using to try to delay. It is a delaying tactic, Mr. Speaker.

The topic which is before this House today would make an excellent debate, and I would be prepared to debate it all night, but I am not prepared to sit and listen to the foolishness they go on with, the delaying tactics that they are using.

The thing that surprises me and amazes me about it all is that hon. members over there are getting paid - are getting paid - to disrupt this House and put this House into ill repute. It is absolutely disgraceful. I think about the poor gentleman who is trying to get permission to cover this House on video. It is a worthy cause he is looking for, but I shudder to think what would happen if the people of this Province could only see the tactics that the so-called `Loyal Opposition' is doing.

I will not take any more time because we are debating a very important issue. I suggest that the members get up, make their points, and make them strongly. I will support their right to do it and then we will put it to the vote and then we will see whether or not this Legislature wants to support the legislation brought forward by my colleague. Then we will see and stop this nonsense with procedural tactics trying to delay democracy, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: More riveting than what we just heard, I say to the Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to read a letter that I received today from a Mr. Eric Bailey, Manager of Sam the Record Man store at the Village Mall. It was sent to the Minister of Environment and Labour. I would much rather read it because he has asked me to do so.

Dear Mr. Osborne: Enclosed please find a copy of my letter to Oliver Langdon, labour minister regarding the proposed amendments to the Shops' Closing Act. I employ you to reiterate my statements -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would remind members that it is not acceptable that letters be read in the House. Quotations can be made from letters or from documents, but it is unacceptable to read letters in the House.

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

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

MR. H. HODDER: While Mr. Speaker, we accept your ruling. It has been a long accepted practice - and to quote the former Speaker of the House, now the Member for Terra Nova, who when he was there he would say that, `While reading of documents in literal form is against Beauchesne', he will also say, `That members are allowed to use rather copious notes' and what the Member for St. John's South was reading was copious notes provided to him by the gentleman that he referred to and Mr. Speaker, because this gentleman sent him those rather detailed notes, it is quite acceptable and the practice of this House that all hon. members who have copious notes provided to them by anybody is free to go and use those notes. The ruling has been made on many, many occasions, particularly when we had Speaker Lush in the Chair and he made that ruling and it was accepted on many, many times. However, I would admit that reading absolute word for word might be offensive to the rules, however he is allowed to read the notes provided to him by the gentleman whose name he indicated at the time, I believe it was a Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Speaker, so we say that the member is in order if he uses his notes in a very copious manner.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, it is one thing for the hon. gentleman to stand on a point of order, but I say to him and I say to him with all sincerity, that it is another thing for him to question a ruling that was made by the Speaker and that is exactly what he just did through the back door, Mr. Speaker, stood up and said, `While we agree with the Speaker, we do want to quote another Speaker'. Now, Mr. Speaker, if that is not questioning you Honours ruling, I don't know what is. That is exactly what the hon. gentleman has done over there. That is exactly the kind of tactics that my friend the Minster of Justice was talking about a few minutes ago.

Now, let me make one other point to him, I hope he understands the difference between copious notes and a reading from a piece of correspondence. Now, Mr. Speaker, I say to him if I pick up and read a letter today addressed to Mr. Speaker, today I rise to - and go on as the hon. gentleman was doing, that is out of order and that is not reading copious notes, that is verbatim. He knows that, but he wanted to stand up in his place and question the ruling of the Speaker of this House.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has a choice, he can stand up over there and put a motion to vote against your Honours ruling or he can obey the Speaker of this House when he rules on a point of order or when he questions some other member or brings some other member to order, but he can't take the place on his back.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

It is one thing in this hon. House to decide that a member is speaking from notes. When a member is making a speech and is quoting from notes, it has been ruled before that the member is speaking with the advantage of the notes; even those notes may in fact be copious notes. But the hon. member did not say he was speaking from notes provided to him by somebody else. He stated quite clearly that he was reading a letter, and the Chair ruled that was clearly out of order.

The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do not question your ruling, but I will ask a question here. Being a relatively new member, I wonder, can I refer to the letter and portions of it?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

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

It is quite acceptable for the member to refer to a letter. It is quite acceptable for him to refer to a quotation from the letter. It is not acceptable for him to read it.

The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In referring to this letter I would like to point out a couple of facts that the person has written to the Minister of Environment and Labour.

He says first of all that he does not agree with the concept of Sunday shopping, and he goes on to say that he will explain why. First of all, he said that government's position seems to be that it would benefit the economy by boosting retail sales and increasing job opportunities. He goes on to say that that isn't necessarily so. He explains that after the novelty of being able to shop on Sunday wears off, the amount of spending will return to normal, that there will be no extra money spent. In fact, that it will be spent over a seven-day period as opposed to a six-day period. The unfortunate reality is that while the same amount of money will be spent over a seven-day period as opposed to a six-day period, the cost of operating the store will increase because of operating it seven days instead of six. I believe it works out to approximately a 10 per cent to 15 per cent increase in the cost of operations due to wages, utilities, and so on.

He goes on to say that no company wants to voluntarily lower its gross profit margins, but if it has to spend extra money such as on salaries, rent, heat, light, and other assorted expenses, for very little if any increase in the revenue, then they have to come up with this money somewhere. He said that is exactly what will happen here, that it will not be cost-effective for stores to remain open on Sunday. He says he is sure, as many stores in New Brunswick have found out, that it is not profitable for stores to be open seven days as opposed to six.

As for boosting job opportunities, he goes on to say that will not happen. He says he believes the cost-effectiveness of hiring people and spending extra time and money to train them and to pay benefits, sick benefits, medical benefits, and so on to these people, vacation pay and so on, just will not be worth it. What they will actually do is ask the existing employees to work more hours, and begrudgingly the employees will probably agree. They may have problems with that as well.

He goes on to say that while the consumers' salaries will remain the same, the stores' expenses will increase. The same amount of disposable income by the consumers will be there. Unfortunately, they will be forced to either raise their prices or go out of business. Because he said that many stores right now are barely surviving, and I believe that to be true in our Province today. He goes on to ask: Would government be willing to subsidize the losses that businesses will incur as a result of the extra expenses? He goes on to say he doesn't think so. To be honest with you, I don't believe they would either.

He goes on to say: Will he be spending more money? He says no, he doesn't think so, because he will be working on Sunday; because he probably will not be able to convince all of his employees to work on Sunday. He will have to fill in some of the spots. He will not be able to hire new employees and pay out new benefits.

His second point is that he finds it hard to believe that the majority of Newfoundlanders are actually in favour of Sunday shopping, Mr. Speaker. While there were 209 respondents to a public opinion poll they do not speak for the entire population. He goes on to ask, `Why doesn't government put it to a vote, a referendum or a plebiscite as they did the education reform issue?' He believes that this is an important issue that affects the lives of every Newfoundlander and Labradorian and I believe that he has a point there. He is right. `Would it not be the democratic thing to do' he asks `to put it to a referendum, to put it to a plebiscite, to let everybody have their say?' He believes and goes on to say that the impression he gets is that government is pandering to the lobbying efforts of a select few and that he would be willing to bet his house, that most of those people who are lobbying government are not actually the people who would be working on Sundays.

In fact, he says he's sure that he does not have to remind the Minister of Environment and Labour that you and all other government officials were elected to represent the people of the Province. Again, the gentleman there has a point. We have been elected to represent the people of the Province. We have been elected to - not just for a few that want Sunday shopping but the overall masses - we have been elected to represent the entire population of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. As such, it would probably be more democratic to find out in a plebiscite whether or not people want this drastic and dramatic change in their lives because it is a dramatic change in the traditions of Newfoundland and the lives of Newfoundlanders in our culture.

Mr. Speaker, he goes on to say that at least in theory, it would seem only proper to have a plebiscite to be answerable to the people who elect us. He goes on to ask, `Is it possible then that you could explain to him why government is taking steps to ensure that it incurs ill feelings towards itself from the retailers who helped to elect them in the first place?'

Mr. Speaker, his third argument is that government is saying that Sunday shopping would give consumers more time to shop. He says that that has no real validity, that most commercial operations are open now seventy-two hours, some even longer, Mr. Speaker. The average work week for most people is forty hours, so most individuals have at least thirty hours or in excess of thirty hours a week to shop. Mr. Speaker, that is a valid point as well. He says, `Can you honestly say that it is not enough time for people to shop in excess of thirty hours? Almost as much time as their work week itself.' If it is, he would be most interested in hearing the reasoning of government. He would also be interested in knowing what government intends to foist upon retailers next. Perhaps, he says, to advocate a twenty-four hour day of shopping at every institution; to put it into legislation to open every institution twenty-four hours a day. Is that just as reasonable as demanding that retailers open their doors on Sundays?

He works at the Village Mall and under his Terms of Lease - he goes on to explain - should he decide he does not want to open on Sunday but the mall decides they do want to open on Sunday, he would be in contravention of his lease agreement. He would be given a heavy fine for not opening while the mall was open. Under the terms of his lease, Mr. Speaker, he is required to open whenever the mall is open and as such, whether he agrees with opening on Sunday or not, because government did say it was at the discretion of the retailers themselves but, Mr. Speaker, that is just not so. At every retail mall in the city - or at most of them for sure - I know at the Avalon Mall and the Village Mall -, the stores at those malls signed a lease saying that they agree to open while the mall is open, and to not open would be in contravention to that lease agreement. They would be subject to heavy fines and penalties. Again, something that would probably drive them out of business, if they were subject to those fines. So it is not discretionary, it is mandatory for most shops to open on Sunday.

It goes on to say that in closing he would like to ask that we seriously consider what he said in the letter. He isn't only speaking on behalf of himself and his employees, but on behalf of most retailers who he knows. He isn't alone in this at all. We have received numerous petitions from Canadian Tire, numerous petitions from other retailers as well, from the general public. It isn't only Sam the Record Man that is against opening on Sundays, it is Canadian Tire. We have heard from people at the St. John's Board of Trade who say they are against opening on Sundays. We have heard from the Canadian Independent Business Bureau which says it is against Sunday shopping.

It seems to me that it isn't just the select few that are against it, it is the majority. We have heard from various chambers of commerce throughout the Province which say they are against Sunday shopping. In their small communities, while they are in glee at the opportunity of extra employment, having shops open on Sunday does not necessarily provide that extra employment, because it provides extra expenses to the retail shops, to the employers, and may eventually drive them out of business. While extra employment may be evident at first, in the long run it would actually be detrimental to the retail shops. Sunday shopping would be detrimental to employment in this Province, because you would find the small mom-and-pop operations closing, the corner stores, the hardware stores closing, and making way for the large national and multi-national corporations that can weather the storm initially until the smaller operations are gone out of business, and then they have more of a monopoly.

We have heard from owners of convenience stores who say that some of the highest profits they make are on the weekend, in particular on Sunday. An example that I used last night in this very argument was if a family is cooking Sunday dinner and it realizes it has run out of salt beef, or it realizes it has run out of split peas to make peas' pudding, if the supermarket is not open and it runs out for a bucket of salt beef, it will pick it up at the convenience store. Sure, it may be a couple of dollars more at the convenience store, but that is the whole idea, the whole concept of a convenience store. It is there for the convenience of the local neighbourhoods that they are in.

If the supermarkets are open on Sunday and they aren't quite as crowded because they are now open seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day, as opposed to six, then maybe that person would run out to the supermarket and pick up the bucket of beef a couple of dollars cheaper. Again, driving the small corner stores, the convenience stores out of business. If government can't see that trend, it must have its blinders on, really.

Elaine Price has spoken out against Sunday shopping. The federation of Labour has spoken out against Sunday shopping. The numerous craft stores in our Province, the craft stores that exist all throughout our Province and thrive most especially during the summer, during the tourism trade, are crying out for help here, asking that government not open on Sundays. Because if they do, the small craft stores, especially in the smaller communities, and - well, I guess, even most especially in St. John's really. Because the small craft stores would probably be overlooked, especially by tourists who would be attracted to the main malls if they were here on Sunday and went out to go shopping.

You would find that the large outlets such as Wal-Mart and Sears would probably start carrying local crafts. They already carry music by local musicians, books written by local writers, and so on, so why not carry local crafts? If they are going to attract the tourism trade in the summer on Sundays, why not carry local crafts? It would be something extra to sell. That would drive the small craft stores, the mom-and-pop operations, out of business. Like I say, while it would create more employment initially, maybe even for a year or so, because that is how long it would take for these smaller operations to realize it is just not going to work for them, they have to fold up, close the shop, move to the Mainland, create more out-migration, is this what we are looking for? If it is, it is certainly not what we are looking for on this side of the House. We are listening to the people.

While the government campaigned on the platform of consultation, it seems that the only people in this House who are doing the consultation are the members of the Opposition. There is something fundamentally wrong with that, Mr. Speaker, when we have to live up to the promises of government, but that is okay; we are getting used to that. It is good practice, because pretty soon we are going to be over there, and I assure you that when we get to the government side, which will be in the very near future, I, for one, will continue to do what I have been elected to do, and listen to the people of our Province, listen to the people who have elected us, to represent the people who have elected us, to serve the people who have elected us. Instead of putting our earplugs in and our blinders on, and doing whatever the hell we like, we will do what we have been elected to do and represent the people of our Province. It is something that the apathetic members on the other side have forgotten. They feel that they are unbeatable now because they are riding a little bit high in the polls, but people, come election time - we have seen it several times over with all parties. We have seen it with the Conservative Party federally, who were very high in the polls, but because of their apathetic nature were booted out like garbage. We have seen it here with the Smallwood administration.

MR. E. BYRNE: We have seen it in P.E.I.

MR. T. OSBORNE: We have seen it in P.E.I. where one member, one Conservative member -

MR. E. BYRNE: Translated into government.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Translated into government overnight, because the Liberal government in P.E.I. were apathetic, did not listen to the people of the province, figured they did not have to. Oh, they figured they were comfortable. One member in Opposition, they would swing it out for another two or three elections, they figured. Wrong. And those people on the other side are wrong as well.

The specialty stores in our Province are crying out against Sunday shopping, and I am listening to them. Unfortunately, the people on the other side of the House are not.

Mr. Speaker, the flea markets and so on, especially the flea markets at the Avalon Mall, who give 50 per cent of their rental income to charity, to UNICEF - what they rent their tables for, they give 50 per cent of that to UNICEF - not only are they going to suffer; UNICEF is going to suffer because they will not be able to survive the same as they do at the Avalon Mall.

One would argue - I have heard arguments from the government side - well, if people are interested in shopping at the flea market on Sunday then they are interested in shopping on Sunday. That is not the case. The flea market offers specialty items, local crafts, woodworking items, hand-knit items, paintings done by local artists, and so on; things that people go out and... It is a condensed area where they have a number of locally manufactured items. Instead of going into a large store and having to hunt these items down, it is a convenience for the people that are going in looking for locally made items. So, not only Mr. Speaker, are you going to hurt the flea markets and are you going to hurt UNICEF, but you are going to hurt the producers of these locally made items as well, which is going to create higher unemployment and further out-migration.

Mr. Speaker, this equation just does not add up to success. In the short-term maybe, but in the long-term, Mr. Speaker, Sunday shopping does not add up to success. We have heard it from people all throughout the Province. Each one of the members of Opposition - and I would suggest were getting more calls then government members because the people in the general public realize that the members of the government are more then likely going to toe the party line and vote in favour of Sunday shopping and probably realize the members of government are not going to listen to them anyway, so we are getting a number of calls, faxes, letters, Mr. Speaker - thank you, she agrees with me. She agrees Sunday shopping should not be allowed.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, -

MR. TULK: You should apologize for (inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes, I apologize for taking advantage of the Clerk, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Sunday shopping is wrong and the people of our Province have been putting in phone calls, sending in faxes, writing letters to us. We are getting phone calls at home; we are getting a number of phone calls here at the office, on the weekends - people telling us, they do not want Sunday shopping. It is not falling on deaf ears on this side, but I can assure you it is falling on deaf ears on the government side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, you get down to drug stores even. The local drug stores who are open on Sunday, and that has been an accepted practice here for some time, will now have to compete with drug stores that are in the large multinational stores, in the super markets and so on. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately if that happens again there will be fewer employees at the drug stores. The small locally owned drug stores, the mom and pop drug stores in a lot of locations, the drug stores that have been in operation in our Province for decades and decades and I know because I have two or three of them in my district that are locally owned and operated, will have to face stiff competition from multinational firms such as Sobeys and Dominion and we have seen it already.

Last year when government tried to ram down the throats of social service recipients a three dollar dispensing fee that finally the drug stores at Dominion and Wal-Mart and those locations said that they would swallow it because they could afford to swallow it because Wal-Mart is multinational, Dominion is all across Canada. They could afford to absorb that loss for a short time and unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, because government imposed that upon the social service recipients in our Province, unfortunately when the large multinational drug stores accepted it and decided to swallow it, some of the local drug stores when out of business. Now to think three dollars on a dispensing fee, because they had to swallow it, would drive them out of business. You would not think it, but it did. We know of a number of cases where they went out of business.

So, this is not fear mongering here, Mr. Speaker, these are legitimate concerns and if these locally owned drug stores have to compete with the large multinational drug stores on Sundays as well, then what may happen because of that one extra day, because while somebody is gone in and they are going to pick up a pair of sneakers or a shirt or something like that, they will pick up their prescription while they are at Wal-Mart or while they are going to pick up their groceries, they will put in their order for their prescription and shop for their groceries knowing that when they come back to the counter their prescription is ready, they do not have to stand around and wait. The small local companies may lose some of their clientele. Then what is going to happen? You know what is going to happen, Mr. Speaker, it may drive them out of business and that's unfortunate. It is not something that we, on this side of the House, are prepared to accept but obviously it looks like something that the government members are prepared to accept.

Even dry-cleaners, Mr. Speaker, you have small locally owned dry-cleaners operating throughout the Province and I know because there are some in my district as well. Now you know yourself, Mr. Speaker, you can walk into Sobeys and for ninety-seven cents you can have your shirt dry-cleaned. So if that privilege is there on a Sunday as well it may take away some of the clientele from the dry-cleaners that are not open on Sunday.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is there dry-cleaning done at Sobeys?

MR. T. OSBORNE: That's a fact, at Sobeys there is a dry-cleaning counter. For ninety-seven cents you can have your shirt dry-cleaned or at Dominion the same thing. The small local dry-cleaners, the locally owned and operated dry-cleaners are feeling the pinch on this, Mr. Speaker, and it is unfortunate. It is truly unfortunate that the government is willing to allow small locally owned companies to be driven out of business because of their desire, their blind desire to allow Sunday shopping.

MR. SPEAKER (Oldford): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The member has no leave.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I will sit down but before I do I will say that I am against Sunday shopping.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place again today to speak on this bill, a bill to permit Sunday shopping in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Before I get into the details of the bill and why I am so opposed, the Minister of Justice stood up in this House today, he adjourned debate last night and he talked about what we were doing on this side of the House. I don't know if he deliberately misled, Mr. Speaker, but he possibly, innocently misled the House when he said that we spoke on petitions on this side of the House that had been photocopied and that it was the same petitions on this side of the House.

Yesterday the Government House Leader, Mr. Speaker, tried to bully the House. He did it a couple of times yesterday. He bullied the House. We normally can present a number of petitions in the House of Assembly but the minister wanted to limit debate on this as much as possible, to limit our say on why we are opposed to Sunday shopping, Mr. Speaker, and he only allowed, I think, one petition yesterday. He did it again today. He only allowed, I think it was two petitions, on why we are opposed and why the people of this Province are opposed to Sunday shopping. The Minister of Justice got up on a point of order and said that we were presenting the same petitions over and over again but it is clearly not the case. What we have, Mr. Speaker, are petitions signed by different people. You cannot look at these petitions and see the same names. Now that would be dishonest, Mr. Speaker. We have not done that and we don't intend to do it. We have numerous petitions on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, and it is a tool in the democratic process that the Opposition can use to debate an issue in the House of Assembly.

We know, Mr. Speaker, and I am convinced that there are members on opposite sides of the House who have gotten phone calls, they have gotten petitions and they have gotten letters, Mr. Speaker, and they are not up speaking to their petitions. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the only member I saw on the other side of the House -from memory now, I stand to be corrected but the only person who got up and spoke in favour, I do believe, was the Minister of Justice on this. We have a number of backbenchers on that side of the House who have not spoken on this legislation yet they are going to stand in their places, Mr. Speaker, and toe the line and vote in favour of this legislation when they know that the opposition to Sunday shopping in this Province is mounting daily.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we were told last spring by the former Minister of Employment and Labour that there would be a trial basis put in place with respect to Sunday shopping but no, Mr. Speaker, that did not happen. We have a bill brought to this House of Assembly - the Government House Leader talked about it being on the Order Paper but a couple days, a few days before Christmas, the usual tactics, Mr. Speaker, bring it in, wear down the Opposition, wear them down and we will try and force it through.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you know why?

MR. J. BYRNE: Why?

MR. TULK: The truth of the matter is (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, well, well, well, Mr. Speaker. Now that is an interesting bit of news, Mr. Speaker, we thought that this may happen, that the Government House Leader may in actual fact recess the House, come back after Christmas and discuss some of the bills. Mr. Speaker, so be it. Good for him. No problem there, I think.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh well. I think he may be trying to pull a fast one on us here too, Mr. Speaker, by saying he is going to do that. Still, it doesn't alter the fact that we were here till 4:30 this morning because the Government House Leader would not listen to this side of the House. We were up on points of order; we were up on points of privilege, when there was no need to be here. If the Government House Leader is talking about coming back after Christmas, why did he keep us here till 4:30 this morning?

The Minister of Justice got up and adjourned debate on this, I suppose after he talked to the Government House Leader, because he was too embarrassed to do it at that time, because he had dug his heels in.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, we were here till 4:30 this morning. Let me tell you what happened after 4:35 this morning. I was driving in Logy Bay Road going home. I got in bed at 5:05 this morning. I watched television for half an hour because I had to kind of settle down. I set the clock for 7:00 this morning, after going to bed at going on 6:00 a.m. I had an appeal on for a constituent in my district that had an appeal this morning at 8:30 down at the Newfoundland Hotel. I went to that appeal and I came in here.

I haven't had a half-hour's sleep yet. I can tell the Government House Leader that I'm prepared to stay here as long as it takes to discuss this bill, to try and convince government to back off on this bill, which is the democratic process, which is why we are here. When we see faults in legislation, there is constructive criticism, and there are no benefits to this piece of legislation.

The Premier was in his place today -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Right on. The Premier was in his place today. Everybody on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, including the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, stood on this very legislation yesterday and this morning and asked the question: Who benefits from this legislation? We couldn't get an answer from the ministers on that side of the House. The Premier was here today, so we thought we might get an answer from him. I stood in my place and spoke to a petition, and I directly asked the Premier to stand in his place, speak to the petition, and tell us who was pushing this legislation, and who is going to benefit.

What did he do? He didn't respond at all. So I don't know now if this is actually going to go through the House before Christmas, because there is a lot of legislation to come. I don't know, there are probably twenty or thirty more bills. We are only in second reading. We have Committee stage. We have third reading. God knows how much more they are going to introduce at the last minute. I'm not convinced this is going to get through before Christmas anyway. I thought they were talking about putting this in place January 1. Was that the intent?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Exactly, Mr. Speaker. Maybe we are having some affect here. The Premier would not tell us why this is going through the House, and why he is pushing it. He wouldn't tell us who is going to benefit when we know who is opposed to it. We all know that. We know that the Board of Trade is opposed to it, don't we? We have all stated that here in the House of Assembly. We had members of the Board of Trade state that. We had the people with labour oppose it. Why do they oppose it? There must be a reason why they oppose it? Because they fear there could be job losses in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Humber East over there has yet to stand in his place to speak to this. He is going to vote for it, and he is asking me to give my version of it? I would like to ask the member, where has he been? I have been giving my version!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) sidetracked by rabbit tracks.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, what a piece of advice the Government House Leader gave me. I tell you that. The Government House Leader often impresses me.

MR. H. HODDER: He is quoting John Diefenbaker there.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, he may be. But don't get distracted by rabbit tracks, was it, when you are hunting big game.

MR. H. HODDER: And he said it to Roger Simmons.

MR. J. BYRNE: He said it to Roger Simmons, did he? Diefenbaker. Mr. Speaker, that is good advice. I have to say that is good advice. But sometimes when you hear these little quibbles in the back rows over there, people who are afraid to stand on their feet and support this legislation which we are opposing, because if they get up and support it, I will take a copy and send it to everybody in his district, and let people in his district know what he is voting for in this House of Assembly. That is why he will not get to his feet and speak. That is why he will not get up and support this legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: But he will stand up and speak to it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I have no problem with that, getting sidetracked. He is only helping out. The Government House Leader - I am getting sidetracked. Yes, I digress, but often when you are in this House of Assembly it is okay to digress once in awhile. It is okay to digress once in awhile, I say to the Government House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, I have to keep focused on the big game, I suppose.

Mr. Speaker, they are awfully concerned with respect to the leadership of this Party over there, and I can understand why they are so concerned. Because they know that whoever leads this Party in the next election is going to be the Premier of this Province, and they are trying to cosy up to whoever that might be. To whoever that might be, they are trying to cosy up to us on this side of the House - and we have ten potential candidates here. Any one of the ten would do a fine, fine, job as Premier of this Province. That is what I would say to members opposite.

Labour is not going to benefit from it. No, they will not benefit. The retailers in the Province have come out against this. We have petitions here, I think, from people who work at Canadian Tire, opposing this. We have the Member for Conception Bay South who just told me that he was in Canadian Tire today, and he said it is unreal the number of people who are opposing this. So why are we even here wasting our time debating a piece of legislation that nobody wants?

Who benefits? That is the question that has been asked. I have asked it. Every member on this side of the House has asked it. The only ones who have not asked who benefits are people on that side of the House over there, the people who are going to vote for this legislation. They are not asking who is going to benefit. They are being led like a bunch of lemmings because the Premier wants this to go through, for some unknown reason. For some unknown reason the Premier wants this. That is who.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Calm down, he said, Mr. Speaker. I would pray that the Minister of Mines and Energy never sees me angry or upset. He gets up in this House of Assembly every now and then and I get a bit intense on the issues, but he has never seen me angry. He has never seen me upset or mad, and he should pray to God that he never does.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Gonzaga gentleman.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, he reminds me that I am a Gonzaga gentleman, and that is a fact.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Celtics.

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, that is not nice to say. My son plays hockey for the Celtics now, I say to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Last week, Friday night, in The Evening Telegram was a picture of my son. He had two goals and three assists against some other team. He played for Gonzaga High School.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Like father like son, another Gonzaga gentleman.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, I could tell you a few stories about that too, Mr. Speaker.

Anyway, who is pushing this? Who is pushing this legislation? The Premier will not tell us; the Government House Leader will not tell us; the Minister of Mines and Energy will not tell us; the Minister of Justice will not tell us; the Minister of Education will not tell us; the Minister of Finance will not tell us. Why do they want it? There must be some reason why they want it.

Does government really believe they are going to get more revenues in from this? I maintain that there is only x amount of dollars in this Province, divided up among the people who live here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Play what? Guitar, trumpet, hockey, football, softball, what?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I was a studious student at Gonzaga, and that answers a lot of questions.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: That is because I was there.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I go back to it, Mr. Speaker: Who benefits from this? The Premier will not tell us. None of the ministers will tell us, so they must think that they are going to get more revenues in the form of taxes because people will be working longer, on Sunday or what have you, but people only have so much money to spend. They only have so much to spend and they are going to spend that over seven days instead of six days. We will have people in rural Newfoundland coming to the major centres on Sundays now, spending their money when they could be spending it in their communities. So, rural Newfoundland is going to be negatively impacted upon with this legislation. So, that is a factor that the government is not considering, they cannot be considering it.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker that is a concern of the Opposition party in this House. Her Majesty's loyal Opposition want to make the point that this is going to have a negative impact upon the rural areas of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I am just referring to a letter here from the City Consumers Co-op Society who oppose this. It says, `Sunday shopping openings will have a negative impact upon locally owned businesses. This will mean increased cost for sales thus increased costs to the consumers'. That is what they are saying, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Six o'clock to 6:30 p.m. for supper.

AN HON. MEMBER: Carry on Jack, boy.

MR. J. BYRNE: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, back on the topic. Now, who is going to benefit again? We have this group here, City Consumers Co-op saying that multinational corporations are the ones that are going to benefit from this, not the local mom and pop operations in this Province. I honestly believe that this Administration should be ashamed of themselves for even considering putting this legislation through this House of Assembly, ashamed of themselves, everyone on that side of the House, Mr. Speaker. I wonder how many will be there when the vote comes. I wonder how many will not vote on this, but when the time comes, you can mark it down, Mr. Speaker, if this should go through the House of Assembly that there will be division and their vote will be recorded, Mr. Speaker, for all eternity and people in this Province will be able to look at their members and see how they double-crossed them. Is that parliamentary? How the people on that side of the House double-crossed the people in this Province by bringing in this legislation?

Wrong, Mr. Speaker, wrong, wrong, wrong, I talked about the tax, about the tax on used vehicles and I have to give credit to the Minister of Finance for listening to the wisdom of the Opposition and basically changing the policy on that proposed tax. I said that tax was unfair, unjust and morally wrong. I believe that this legislation is unjust, unfair and morally wrong, Mr. Speaker, to the people of this Province. This proposed legislation is wrong.

So, we on this side of the House will do what we can to oppose this legislation. Make no mistake about that. I think we have proven that already and according to the Government House Leader he is prepared to sit us through another long evening here this evening, Mr. Speaker, and we have no problems with that. We on this side of the House have the courage of our convictions. I don't know about that side of the House though, Mr. Speaker. We have the courage of our convictions with respect to this legislation, let me tell you. We will put the time in, we will do everything we can to oppose this legislation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, consultation; that is a big word, consultation. I expect the Premier can say it, he is a good manipulator of words, I will say to you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't know what it means.

MR. J. BYRNE: He may not know what it means, but I am sure he can say it because he is a great manipulator of words.

MR. TULK: Who is that?

MR. J. BYRNE: The Premier.

Now, I believe during the last election, did he make some statement along the lines of - I am not sure - it was along the lines of, `This government will be a government of consultation'. Now, what do we see, Mr. Speaker, a bill coming through this House, no consultation with the stakeholders, none. The Minister of Environment and Labour said in the media, he was asked the question: Whom did you consult? I have to give him credit; he was honest enough to say: Nobody. It is like the Minister of Government Services and Lands, when I asked him questions in the House, he stood up and said: I don't know, to the Member for Cape St. Francis, I don't have a clue what you are talking about. The Minister of Environment and Labour was honest and he said, Mr. Speaker, that he had no consultation and that is the problem.

We have asked that this be referred to a Legislative Review Committee of the House, Mr. Speaker, we have asked for that - I cannot hold on to that book. Give me my gloves, give me my gloves, Mr. Speaker - that red book, the Liberal Red Book - We are committed to an open, ongoing process of dialogue with the people of the Province - that is the statement, Mr. Speaker, in the red book but no, Mr. Speaker, no. That is not happening so there has been no consultation. We have asked, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation be sent to a Legislative Review Committee of the House of Assembly; we have asked for a six-month hoist, to give the people of this Province a chance to say what they feel about this legislation. It is no big deal, Mr. Speaker. We have had it done before in this Province.

We had the Premier of this Province talk about unity. It was the Calgary Agreement, was it? - and he asked the members of this House of Assembly to go to the districts and talk to the people to find out what they felt on unity. Now, Mr. Speaker, I had a meeting in Logy Bay, in Airport Heights, a meeting in Torbay, in Flatrock, a meeting in Pouch Cove, a meeting in Bauline, and how many people do you think I got to? I am ashamed to say it, Mr. Speaker, I won't say how few people but they did not feel that this concern at this point in time was a major issue to them, but we hear people, Mr. Speaker, all over this Province opposing this legislation.

We are getting phone calls, we are getting petitions, we are on the Open Line shows, we know the members are getting calls, Mr. Speaker, and, Mr. Speaker, no consultation. So what would be wrong with going out to the people, have meetings across this Province, appoint a committee and hear what the people have to say. If the Premier was serious and believed in his statements in the red book, Mr. Speaker, well then we would be doing that at this very minute almost; we would not be debating this, at this point in time in the House of Assembly.

Now, days before Christmas, Mr. Speaker, why is it here? We have a number of other pieces of legislation coming to this House -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh yes. The Government House Leader says it is here because he wants it passed.

Well, Mr. Speaker, that is debatable. Let us debate that for some time, Mr. Speaker. We have other legislation coming to this House; we have the Public Utilities, we have the Labour Relations Act, Bill 52; we have other stuff that is coming to this House, we have all the committee work, Mr. Speaker, and we are here discussing this. I don't know but I think it is some kind of a deflection tactic, Mr. Speaker. I think it is being used here now to protect the various ministers on that side of the House, to draw people's attention away from what is going on in this Province.

We see the Minister of Education has education in this Province in a complete mess. We know that the Minister of Finance talked about balancing the Budget and now we are talking about this year, we are supposed to be balancing $20 million in deficit. The Minister of Health - well, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Conception Bay South and the Leader of the Opposition have asked the minister numerous, numerous questions with respect to health care in this Province and that is in shambles; health care is in shambles, Forestry in this Province is in shambles; the Minister of Mines and Energy cannot answer any questions with respect to Voisey's Bay.

When are the amendments to the Tax Act coming in here on Voisey's Bay? Where is that, Mr. Speaker, he cannot answer any question; when is the tax regime going to be? He does not know. We had the Premier of this Province last spring, running across the country going to shut off electricity in Churchill Falls, going to develop Churchill Falls and what have you, nothing, Mr. Speaker, nothing. The whole Province is in a shambles, Mr. Speaker, and the sooner that we have an election and rid this Province of the Red Liberals over there, Mr. Speaker, the better off we are going to be, the better off the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador are going to be.

I can tell you one thing. If we were on that side of the House we would not be bringing in this legislation to allow Sunday shopping in this Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have to refer to some of my notes. Why the haste? There is too much haste. We have asked for this to be delayed. We have asked for a six-month hoist. No, it cannot happen.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business just -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: They were told it is too late to make any representation. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business was told it was too late to make any representation to government. Talk about consultation; what about it?

Small businesses will be hurt, and a lot of people, I suppose - I don't know about a lot of people because I think most people out in the public understand that small business will be hurt. The only ones who do not understand that small businesses will be hurt are the members on the other side of the House. Small businesses will be hurt.

How will they be hurt? Because they will be forced into competition on Sundays, where they do not want to be. They will have to hire - no, they will not have to hire. What is going to happen is that the hours per day that they work will be cut back possibly, and then they will have to work an extra day and will be getting into shifts. So, in actual fact, the businesses in this Province will end up possibly paying more money for their staff to get them to work, but the cost will then be passed on to the consumer.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're in a trance.

MR. J. BYRNE: You should be. I think you must be in a trance. The Government House Leader must be in a trance because he is not listening to this side of the House. The Minister of Finance listened to this side of the House. He was wise enough to stand in his place today and give credit where credit is due, and back off, but the Government House Leader is in a trance. He just said himself, he is in a trance, and he cannot listen. He refuses to listen, Mr. Speaker.

What other provinces in Atlantic Canada have this? Nova Scotia and P.E.I. do not have Sunday shopping. Why? Nova Scotia and P.E.I. - P.E.I., with the tourism that Province has over there, especially in the summertime, does not have Sunday shopping. Why? Why are we going backwards? Why are we bringing it in now, and a few years down the road bring in amendments to close it again? We have other provinces that are looking to stop Sunday shopping, to close Sunday shopping, and we are here trying to bring it in, to force it down the throats of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

It will not increase revenue. As I said earlier, there is only so much money that people can spend; and with this administration, over the past nine years - I have said it before - we have seen taxes increase, we have seen salaries frozen for the civil servants, and other groups within the civil service, such as the RNC and different other groups of people, salaries frozen. We saw licences, permits and fees increased, doubled, tripled, quadrupled; and we see now the government wanting to bring this in, this legislation, when people have less disposable income than they had when this administration came into being, or was elected.

In the next election there is only going to be one question that we will have to ask. Ask yourself: Are you better off today than you were when this administration took over? The answer is going to be, `No way'. And they are going to be wiped out.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, yes, you know. Yes, you are running.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Anyway, it will drive up costs. I already covered that. I see my time is running short. I only have about fifteen minutes left.

Mr. Speaker, people will leave rural communities to shop on Sundays. I have already covered that. I do not need to repeat myself there, Mr. Speaker, but if I was a believer in the tactics of the former Premier of this Province - I can't speak ill of the dead, Mr. Speaker - but you have to repeat, repeat, repeat for certain levels of intelligence, for it to sink in. So maybe I should repeat it. The former Premier, Mr. Joseph Smallwood, that was what he believed in. If you repeat it, repeat it, repeat it, it will sink in eventually and that is why I harped on the tax for used vehicles, Mr. Speaker. I had to harp and harp and harp and it finally sank in, Mr. Speaker, and they backed off. That is what we are at here with this bill. We are harping and harping and harping on it so it will eventually sink in, Mr. Speaker, and we will win the day.

MR. WISEMAN: What are you doing, Jack (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Topsail is not in his seat. If he wants to speak to me send him over there, will you, Mr. Speaker, and I will address him. Now I don't mind speaking to the members here in their -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: What hours of the day, on Sunday, will the stores be open? Is that going to be legislated? Will it be from 12:00 noon until 8:00 p.m., will it be from 12:00 until 5:00 p.m. or 12:00 to 6:00 p.m. or what have you? That is a concern, Mr. Speaker, that we will have. Is it going to interfere with Sunday mornings in this Province when people partake of attending their church of their own choice? What impact will it have on that? That is not something that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. J. BYRNE: Why not lease a pilot project, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no leave.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I have to say first of all that government members cannot take the truth.

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wanted to stand up before my colleague sat down. I was afraid that somebody would not see me. Apparently in the last couple of days people have had trouble seeing me. I can't, for the life of me, understand why. I have never had problems in my life being seen -

MR. TULK: That is not hard to believe.

MR. FRENCH: That is true, I say to the Government House Leader. I have never had problems in my life being seen. As a matter of fact, there were times when I was seen when I wish I was not.

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

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman is referring to an incident that went on yesterday between me and him. I can say I can understand, given his size and my size, why it might be that somebody would see me first before they would see him.

MR. SPEAKER: No point of order.

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: I figured, Mr. Speaker, there was no point of order.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, there were times I wished that people did not see me but unfortunately there are times I wish that they would. I guess as time goes on I will pick that up and do my utmost to be recognized, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: I know and I will remember that.

We are here again today, Mr. Speaker, debating this bill that we were here until about 4:30 this morning debating. Again, Mr. Speaker, and I can only talk on behalf of myself but the calls again last night to my home, my wife told me, were something else. I have to say that I have not had the opportunity yet today to return some of the calls but I must have somewhere between fifteen and twenty calls in my office right now that are opposed, dead opposed, to Sunday shopping.

On my way in here today, Mr. Speaker, I had reason to stop at Canadian Tire on Kenmount Road and while there I had the opportunity to talk to - I think it was - three people who were in a waiting room with me. I struck up a conversation and asked about Sunday shopping. These people did not know who I was, and I got a very good answer that none of them wanted Sunday shopping. I then decided, well while I was there and while I was waiting maybe I should ask some questions, Mr. Speaker, of employees. These are the people who will be most affected by this. I said to one gentleman, who ran the particular section that I was in at the time: How do you feel about Sunday shopping? He said to me: Absolutely opposed to it. I am against it, it makes no sense, he said. The man who owns this franchise is opposed to Sunday shopping.

There was a young lady who worked there and I asked her: How do you feel about coming in here on Sundays to work? How do you feel about having to work on Sundays? Of course, I got the same answer: Absolutely not, I think it is ridiculous that we should have to work on Sundays and I would ask you to voice my concerns in the House of Assembly today because I am opposed to this particular piece of legislation.

A little while later there was another gentleman dropped in, again who worked at Canadian Tire on Kenmount Road, and I did not approach him, he approached me and he said, `Is this bill passed', I said, `No it isn't' and he said, `Would you on my behalf oppose this bill'. I said, `Yes, I will. I have been opposing it now since Friday'. `Would you oppose this bill' and I said, `Yes', and he said to me, `You know, it makes no sense why, why, why are we now having this bill before the House? Why are we debating this nonsense? We as employees in this Province don't want it'. He said to me, `We as employees in this store don't want this legislation. There is nobody in this store who favours this legislation', Mr. Speaker, he said to me. I said, `Well that is one store that has voiced their opinion to me'.

There was a young chap; I guess he must have been gone to lunch.

AN HON. MEMBER: He was out to lunch was he?

MR. FRENCH: Yes, I think he might have been out to lunch. This bill, I say to the Opposition Leader, is certainly out to lunch and when he came back as well, he laid in to me about Sunday shopping.

So, one store, four people plus two or three other customers voiced their concerns to me on Sunday shopping. Not one of them, Mr. Speaker, voiced their concerns to me in favour of it, not one of them. They all voiced their opinion to me, Mr. Speaker, about being opposed to it and I said: Well, this is really something. Who is driving the bus on this one? Mr. Speaker, I do not know. I asked the question on Friday morning, I asked it yesterday afternoon, I asked it again last night, who is driving the bus? Who is in charge? Who are we bailing out or who are we paying off for this bill?

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. FRENCH: Who are we paying off for this bill? Is there anybody, because there has to be somebody? There has to be somebody whom we are paying off here, Mr. Speaker. Somebody, whoever it is, it is not the business people in the communities in Newfoundland and Labrador; it is not the business communities.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am going to, if I might with your indulgence, digress a bit. We sat here until four o'clock this morning and I am prepared to sit here until six tomorrow morning, it really does not bother me, but I would like to say to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology that if she is here tonight, she had better dress warmly. My colleague here - and you can come down, Mr. Speaker, and sit here next to me and you can feel the draft coming down and we had points of order after points of order last night, so I say to the government, somebody had better get this system fixed because if not, there will probably be a riot here tonight because the people in this House last night were freezing and the same thing is happening again now. A draft was coming down here last night, my colleague from St. John's who sat there last night was frozen, and members on your own side were frozen.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Yes, the air is coming down, it is not as bad as last night but it is starting to come now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) turn up the heater.

MR. FRENCH: Well apparently last night they could not.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Well I say to the Government House Leader, it has gone into reverse. It is blowing cold now tonight, hopefully it will blow out hot.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: No. Lloyd, we were looking for you last night, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, to see if you could get somebody in to cure this.

MR. MATTHEWS: The override did not kick in boy.

MR. FRENCH: Two of your own ministers were frozen and my colleague who sits next to me, your member by the way, was frozen last night, she had to have her coat wrapped around her legs to sit here last night, Mr. Speaker, so I would ask, for goodness sake, that somebody tonight - and I know the Sergeant-at-Arms, as well and the Clerk, were all suffering in this House last night and I do not think that that is right, to have our people sit through this. I would hope that when tonight rolls around, this system will certainly be cured because the cold air is certainly blowing down here and I would ask you, Sir, through you, to send out a message to somebody to get somebody in here before it is too late in the day to have this system fixed; because if it is fixed, somebody didn't do a very good job of it.

Mr. Speaker, I will go back to the motion. As I said a few minutes ago, who is driving the bus on this one? Who is in charge of this one? Who wants this passed? Who wants this bill passed? Is it the Minister of Environment and Labour? Is it just the minister who wants this bill passed?

AN HON. MEMBER: Is this where the heat is coming out - or the cold?

MR. FRENCH: The cold, yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is it coming from?

MR. FRENCH: It is gone again now.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is gone.

MR. FRENCH: It comes and goes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Oh, I say to the Government House Leader, I wasn't the least bit worried about the cold. I enjoyed sitting in it. It doesn't bother me in the least. I had a grand chat with my -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Indeed I was, the same as yourself.

Hopefully tonight, for the benefit of some people who do not sit through it like you and I -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: What?

AN HON. MEMBER: He would not have gotten it.

AN HON. MEMBER: You know something, I can feel that now.

MR. FRENCH: You can, yes.

Now we have the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation here, so I say to him, if he could do it at all, if he really would do it, or do something to make sure this doesn't happen tonight because our Clerk and our Sergeant-at-Arms and some of the members here were frozen.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Okay.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) looking into it.

MR. FRENCH: I hope somebody is looking into this, and I hope they are serious.

Mr. Speaker, again today, the calls in my office this morning... I was upstairs for a few minutes when I got in this afternoon, and they are running today ten to nothing against Sunday shopping. I really and truly cannot understand why, with such bills as the education bill... Why this instead of the education bill, a bill that we have all waited for, a bill that we have all been anxious to debate in this House? We probably will not get to that one.

The energy bill, Mr. Speaker, we probably won't have to worry about that one.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: I listened to the Minister of Education last night when he wasn't in his seat. I gave him some leeway, but today the leeway could get on a very short leash, I say to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Later on tonight. It is too early for that. Points of order and all that later on when everybody is in the mood for them.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: No. Right now I'm hoping my colleague for Cape St. Francis is going. It is his turn to be the candidate today. Today I'm certainly with Jack.

Mr. Speaker, nobody driving the bus on this one. Go back again to the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade doesn't want the bill and stated publicly it doesn't want this bill. The people who work in small industry, in small convenience stores, are certainly going to feel the affect of this shop closing act. I had a call from a gentleman in my district last night who owns a very small store. I didn't get the opportunity to speak to him but my wife did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FRENCH: She tells me he said whatever he could do to help he would. He would put petitions in his store, he would ask residents to sign them. Because he said if some of these major chains are allowed to remain open on Sunday it is the death of his business. That, Mr. Speaker, is a shame.

These people, these Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, have a right to survive whether the minister thinks they should or whether the minister thinks they shouldn't. They have a right to survival in this Province, and over the last year or so some of these people have suffered, and have suffered a great deal. Because we have seen major chains come in, major supermarkets come in, that opened twenty-four hours a day six days a week. We have seen small type mom-and-pop operations suffer greatly.

I have seen them in my own district where they have gone out of business. Where they have had to close up and I know of the hours that some more of them put in to just survive and to stay afloat, just to stay afloat. Some of them have their businesses in their homes, they have to pay a mortgage and they are working morning, noon and night, Mr. Speaker, seven days a week just to survive, just to make a living for them and their families. This bill will certainly hurt the small business people in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

So, Mr. Speaker, again it is a shame here that we have this legislation before us the third time, once when I wasn't a member, twice since I have been a member, within a year and to be thrown in at this time of year, I guess when members opposite and on this side are saying, well you know maybe it is getting close to Christmas, I have things left to do, maybe we should be out of here. A government member said to me today, you know Bob, I should be in my own area doing things at this time of year, I am here, I had a mind I would go home right now because what I have to do is more important, I feel, then what I am doing here. I am not speaking on this, I am just sitting here, I am better off being in my own district accomplishing something and helping out the people in his district that he could help. That is a fact.

Yesterday on petitions, and we have lots of them by the way, one of these days we are going to get the right to present them. People's petitions from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, who want petitions presented to this House. Our right to do that has been denied. It was denied yesterday and I say it was denied again today. Our right to present petitions has been denied and that is wrong and that has to stop and it will stop because we on this side of the House are getting sick of it. We have lots of petitions, they are not photocopies, Mr. Speaker, either, -

MR. TULK: No, I don't believe that either.

MR. FRENCH: - they are petitions by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who want their point in this House.

MR. TULK: Bob, I don't believe that either.

MR. FRENCH: No, I am sure you don't. So, what has happened? Somebody is trying to muzzle the Opposition in this House and I got elected to represent the people of my district and that I intend to do, Mr. Speaker, and I guess somewhere down the road if we have to challenge certain rulings, then challenge them I will. I am sick of what happened. It turns my stomach what happened in this House yesterday and what happened again today makes me even sicker, if that is possible. It is ridiculous what has gone on in this House the last two days.

It is going to stop, because we as an Opposition are not going to stand for this. Trying to muzzle, trying to force, and trying to bully. Mr. Speaker, my dad owned a business, and I've seen lots of bullies; a lot bigger than anybody else in this House. Seen lots of them, watched lots of them, and listened to lots of them. At the end of the day they were still bullies trying to push their way in and push their way out. Whatever chair I sat in when they were around, when they left I was still sitting in the same chair. I say that I will still sit in the same chair here. I won't be bullied. I have a mental block in me that brings out the worst in me when it comes to being bullied, or tried to be bullied, and we aren't putting up with it any more.

I missed today, unfortunately. I couldn't be here for debate, but I will be here tomorrow.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Beaton is a pussycat. Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, if it happens I guess we are going to maybe have some fireworks. Maybe we are going to have some fireworks. Maybe we are going to see a few members named and maybe have to get out of here.

I think the time has come to stop trying to muzzle the Opposition in this House of Assembly. It has gone on for two days and that is two days too long. We won't be bullied and we won't be stopped in our efforts on this particular piece of legislation. I don't know how many calls the minister has received, but I've received lots of them. I haven't gotten a call, not one single call, from anybody who is in favour of this legislation; not one call.

When I was in Canadian Tire today I made it a point to see how their employees felt. I walked around where I was and asked questions. Not one of them was in favour of this legislation. Not one! Again I go back and ask the same question: Why the rush to have this approved? Because if there was a free vote right now in this House on this particular piece of legislation today, and members in this House voted as their constituents wanted them to vote, this bill would get a trouncing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: No, he is a pussycat.

Mr. Speaker, if we could only have a free vote on this piece of legislation, what a trouncing this bill would get. What a shellacking this bill would get. After the calls I have had, I am prepared to go to the wall. I said around 2:00 this morning that I would gladly sit all night, and we sat as long as the government wanted to sit. We are quite willing, this Opposition, to do the same thing again tonight because we are not giving in to this particular piece of legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: We are not giving in to this. We are not giving in.

AN HON. MEMBER: And every other piece.

MR. FRENCH: And on every other piece now, because now we are really getting our backs up. Why this has come before this House with so much important other legislation around is beyond me. It just blows my mind as to why this could not have been the education bill, why this could not have been the hydro bill, why this could not have been the bill for workers.

Where is the legislation for injured workers? Where is that? It is certainly more important to be in this House than this garbage here. Where is that bill?

We had a massive amount of petitions presented a little while ago and nothing on that bill; but this here, this garbage here, three or four days before Christmas, is what we see. It is ridiculous.

AN HON. MEMBER: They should be home with their families.

MR. FRENCH: Oh, they certainly should be home with their families. And members who live a fair distance away would love to be home with their families, I say to the Speaker.

You know, Mr. Speaker, in the fall of 1995 the Wells' government brought in similar type legislation. Mr. Murphy, I believe, tried to engineer it through the House. Where is he now? He is gone. When another former member of this House asked him to name ten, because he said he could name ten - I can name ten businesses, he said in Hansard. I can name hundreds of them, he said, and I believe it was Glenn Tobin, who was the critic at the time, said to him: Mr. Murphy, name one business that you have heard from. You know what, Mr. Speaker? He could not name one.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: No, that is the butcher shop. We are waiting for Aunt Martha's sheep.

Again, Mr. Speaker, we have this. Last Fall in the House - as a matter of fact, getting up again sometime in December we had this, or in the Spring, had the same stuff - only that we are going to have kind of a little trial period. We will try this for a certain period of time, we will see how it works, and we will see how it goes, but nothing. It just died a slow death on the Order Paper. It was just allowed to die; because again, business would not allow it to happen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FRENCH: If we want to talk about the devil, we should remember that sometimes the fellow who sings the loudest in the front of the church sometimes is the biggest devil in the back. We should always remember that.

I say to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, by the way, dress warm for tonight, because you will not have a very warm night in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I will go back and review some more of my notes on what this legislation is going to do. One former minister talked about inconveniencing the general public. I would like to know who we are inconveniencing. We are certainly not inconveniencing the general public. There is nobody in the general public who wants this legislation, so we are not inconveniencing them.

As one store manager at the Avalon Mall told me yesterday, from their head office in Ontario they will end up, at the end of the day, doing six days' business in seven days. They will not make a cent extra, not a nickel, not a dime, not a penny extra. What may happen in their business is that they may lay off some of their full-time employees. Because you see, they pay them more money.

So if we are going to space this legislation out, and we are going to have people who have to work Saturday and people who have to work Sunday, then we are going to use our part-timers, because we do not pay them benefits. In a lot of cases they are not paid benefits. They certainly earn a cheaper wage. So, if we could bring those people in and put them to work on Sunday, look at the savings because there will be no more business generated by -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Well, there was neither one. Neither one phoned one of the previous ministers. He could not name one, anyway. Again, Mr. Speaker, that is all in Hansard. That is all part of the public record from December 7, 1995. I was reading it last night, I read it again today, and he could not name one. He could not name a business.

Mr. Speaker, the effect this has on family life... A man and his wife who both work in retail, and who rely on Sunday as the only day of the week that they have together to spend with their children and to spend with the family unit, the only day of the week they have is Sunday. What would happen now if the man has Tuesday and Thursday off and the wife has Monday and Friday? Where is the time for the family unit? Or does the minister or the government really care about the family unit? Do they really care?

In the post office in Kelligrews this morning in my district I was approached on this bill and was told by my constituents to come here and stand in my place and vote and argue to have this bill defeated; and that I intend to do, because you should never forget where you come from; but, more importantly, you should never forget who sent you here.

In this bill, the people who have been muzzled on the other side should remember that and should check with their own districts to see how many of their constituents are in favour of this legislation. I would say absolutely nobody. There would be nobody, but nobody, in favour of this particular piece of legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FRENCH: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. FRENCH: Okay. Well, I will be back at about 1:00 or 2:00 tomorrow morning.


 

December 16, 1997        HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS        Vol. XLIII  No. 52A


[Continuation of Sitting]

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak against this bill today, and I would really like to know where it came from. I know what precipitated the bill in December, 1995, "An Act To Amend The Shops' Closing Act". That was to deflect from the present Premier who was then in Ottawa making cuts over unemployment, and to distract attention from other disasters that were happening within the Liberal policy.

In the spring of 1997, one day before the House closed for the summer, there was another shops' closing bill, Bill 18, and that was to deflect from health cuts, the bungled education reform, the lack of an energy plan, and the absence of a mineral royalty regime. I guess it was also because there was a pending by-election, and I would like to talk about that by-election right now.

When I campaigned in that by-election, I told the people of St. John's West that I would represent them; and since this bill came to this House I have had call upon call, e-mails -

MR. TULK: You have represented them very well.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you.

I have had e-mails and I have had petitions. Today I was out of this House for a little while, I was in my office, and I heard coming over the speaker the Minister of Justice -

AN HON. MEMBER: No justice.

MS S. OSBORNE: No justice is right - bringing us to order for representing the people that elected us. How dare he!

MR. FRENCH: That's right Sheila.

MS S. OSBORNE: I told those people in that by-election that I would represent them, and for the Minister of Justice to stand up and tell me that we were holding up this House because we are representing our people. Well, I guarantee you, as long as I am in this House, I don't care if I hold up you guys or not. If you never put a decoration on your Christmas tree, I will be here representing the people that I said that I would represent, and you can take that to the bank.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.

MS S. OSBORNE: And that includes you, Sir.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Okay.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible). Now, tonight when you come down here froze to death, I won't be saving you a blanket.

MS S. OSBORNE: I have blankets. I'm prepared for tonight, I guarantee you.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: That is right.

MR. FRENCH: The Minister of Education told me earlier he has his bed brought in for tonight.

MR. TULK: His what?

MR. FRENCH: He has his bed brought in for tonight.

MS S. OSBORNE: Anyway, I don't know who dreamed up Bill 48. It was somebody who didn't like families -

MR. J. BYRNE: That there, look.

MS S. OSBORNE: You. Don't you like families? Don't you like you wife?

MR. TULK: Me?

MS S. OSBORNE: You, yes.

MR. TULK: Absolutely.

MS S. OSBORNE: Are you responsible for that?

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: This is a serious bill, because if this bill is passed it is definitely going to have an effect on families. It probably won't have an effect on families of people directly in this House of Assembly because we do not sit on Sunday, but I am thinking about single mothers out there who have one or two small children, and they work in the retail trade, and the children are in school or in day care all week, and they are looking forward to Sunday - Sunday afternoon with their mom - to go on a picnic, or just go for a ride, or just spend some quality time. It can be sitting at home watching a movie, or anything. These same families, that same single mother, will have to get up and get ready to go to work for minimum wage and leave these children at home. Then we are talking about the pressure on families.

Now families have enough pressure these days in hard economic times - peer pressure for the children - and if there is not one day that you can sit down and have a meal, have a dinner with your family, then it is certainly causing an erosion. It is the only thing that many of these families have to look forward to during the week, and now we are about to take it away from them. There are many people who feel that if the stores are open for more hours then there will be more work hours out there for more people, but that is not true. Any of these small business owners who have made representation to me have said: We have the same amount of dollars - we have x number of dollars - and instead of spreading that x number of dollars over six days we will now be spreading it over seven.

There are stores in the mall that are privately-owned stores; they are not a chain store. Some person who has a little family business is forced to open - not a choice, is forced to open - on Sunday because the mall stipulates in its lease that if you are a tenant of the mall then you should be open on Sunday. That family person has to go and open that store on Sunday, and that is every Sunday, so there is nothing really for that family to ever look forward to. The x number of dollars that he had to pay out to maybe hire one staff over the six days is now spread over seven days.

The same thing will apply, really, in the bigger stores. They will just spread their staff out a bit more. Instead of a person doing two six-hour shifts they will probably do three four-hour shifts during a week, and one of that four hours will probably be Sunday afternoon. So whether they are open for six days or seven days, it is the same amount of money that they have to spend.

As I said yesterday, when I was in the mall on Saturday I was in a computer store and the owner - as an example, this is a person who is like the example that I cited a few minutes ago. It is a privately-owned computer store. I was in browsing, looking for a computer, and this gentleman came over and said, `When you go back to the House of Assembly, you tell them I am against Sunday shopping because it means that I have to get either my staff member here or myself to come in here on Sunday.'

I said, `Well, we are all against Sunday shopping but you should probably call your member.' He said, `Yes, I am going to do that; it is the Member for Topsail.' So I guess that call was one of the famous six calls, of which we still have not decided whether it is four and two or two and four.

I would suggest that a lot of the other members, although they may not want to admit it, have probably had representation from constituents and from people around the Province saying that they are against Sunday shopping. I know I have had faxes, e-mails, telephone calls -

AN HON. MEMBER: None of the people have been consulted.

MS S. OSBORNE: None of the people have been consulted, no. That consultation that was alluded to in the Red Book, that is a figment of somebody's imagination.

One of the e-mails that I received said that the shopping centres are currently open twelve hours each day, six days each week. I don't think there is anybody out there who works twelve hours each day, six days each week, so at some time during the time that they have off they will find a department store or a retail store open. As far as the grocery stores, the major supermarkets, are concerned, many of them are open twenty-four hours a day, six days a week. I don't think anybody works twenty-four hours a day, six days a week, that they cannot find some convenient time within that six days to buy their groceries.

Speaking of groceries, if you have $200 a week to spend on groceries, you will spend that between Monday and Saturday. I guarantee you, you will spend it between Monday and Saturday. Having that supermarket open on Sunday will not give you extra dollars to spend for your groceries. I mean, that is a fact. You have x number of dollars, so we are not putting any more business into these major supermarkets. We will just keep them open for an extra day, spread the staff around, inconvenience people, bring single mothers back to disrupt their family life for a couple of hours' shift, and dare them to say that they cannot come in on Sunday. Then they won't have any job at all to keep their children going.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Sobeys and Wal-Mart (inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: That is right.

As the person who sent me this e-mail referred to: once the major chains have successfully closed down the small locally-owned businesses, then they will have the monopoly and they can charge what they like. Once we put these small family-owned convenience stores out of business, then we will be at the mercy of the major chains, which will take the Newfoundland dollars out of this Province to follow the people who have left this Province because there aren't any jobs.

Regardless if you want stores closed for Sundays, not necessarily for religious - it could be for family purposes, recreation, or religious purposes. This person goes on to say that he is wondering whether there is any data available to support the comment and the percentages of business that are now open on Sundays - the comment made by the hon. Minister of Environment and Labour.

There is another e-mail I have here that refers to several reasons, social and economic, unrelated to religious considerations. These include the removal of a family day. At present, as I stated before, Sunday is the only day that a family is now guaranteed it can be together. That is unless one or the other of the parents is involved in things like nursing, or the R.N.C., or some job like that. For the most part, if they are involved in the retail trade they have the one day to look forward to - that is Sunday - and that day will be removed.

Sunday provides a breathing spell for people by removing commercial and employment pressure. I guess this person says it is no accident that major religions picked one day throughout the world as a day of rest. Society needs a day of rest. It provides us with that something to look forward to, the down time in our lives, I guess, a relaxing time that helps us to get on with the six days of the week that are not totally relaxing.

This bill 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 mom and dad. It is really sad that we unnecessarily are trying to pass a bill that will destroy that. The thing that we have to look forward to, to getting up, whether you went to church, whether you went for a walk in the park, or took the children out and let them ride their bikes through the park or whatever, and then came home and cooked family dinner and sat around and relaxed... It is too bad that this bill, that we still can't figure out where it came from, or the purpose of it, or who it will serve - I have yet to determine who it will serve - it is too bad that this has to come in and erode family life as we know it here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I have another e-mail here that also refers to not only a religious point of view, but also from the point of view of a family system. Husbands and wives who both work in the retail sector will never have a day together and, in the end, the family will suffer. As I said when I previously spoke against this bill, this person says that he hopes the government is getting prepared to hire more social workers who will be able to deal with the further breakdown in family lives. I mean, there is enough stress out there on the moms and dads now who have small children and teenagers. There is enough peer pressure on them now without the families never getting together as a unit to sit down, relax, have dinner, go to the park, or whatever.

This bill was brought forward with a lot of haste. This bill was brought forward very, very quickly. The Federation of Labour is against it, the Board of Trade is against it, small businesses are against it, and I do not know but some big businesses are against it, because they are going to have to take their money and spread it out over the seven days. I do not know if they were trying to blind side us the other day when they introduced it and did not think we were prepared for it, but we have had people making representation to us for a long, long time against this bill, and the heat has been turned up. The calls have been generated more, the faxes and e-mails have been generated more, and the petitions have been generated more since this bill went public a couple of days ago.

There is nobody out there in the Province who I know - and I have challenged the people on the other side. Maybe if they responded to that challenge and told us who really wants the stores open on Sunday we would be able to deal with it, but at the present time we have no idea who wants the stores open on Sunday. It will not increase revenue.

There are other provinces. Nova Scotia had Sunday shopping; it did not work and they closed it down. Prince Edward Island, a province that is known - I do not know if tourism is the biggest industry over there. Certainly if it is not the biggest one, it is second to the potato export. I do not know how many tourists visit Prince Edward Island every summer - I guess we would certainly be happy if the same amount of tourists came here - and they do not see the necessity to keep their stores open on Sundays. Their craft stores are open, and their Anne of Green Gables concessions and things are open, but they do not have their malls open.

There is nothing to be offered in malls for tourists. Tourists like to visit the craft stores where they can get the knitted goods, home-made things, things by our artists, books by our authors, but they certainly do not want to visit the malls where they will get a repetition of the same chain stores that they see in every other mall in every other province, and probably in every other country, that they visit. A mall is a mall is a mall, so why these stores need to be opened on Sunday is beyond me. It is not to serve families, it is not to serve tourists, it is not to serve the small businesses and, as I said before, I do not know if it is to serve the big businesses. Nobody is to be served.

Costs will probably be driven up because there will be added expenses on the stores that are open. They will have an increased light bill. They will have to pay for these hours one way or another and the one who will absorb the cost is the consumer. These consumers are the people who are saying: No, why do we want Sunday shopping? We can go to the mall six days a week, twelve hours a day. We can go to the grocery store six days a week, twenty-four hours a day. Why do we want the stores open on Sunday?

If you have to buy a suit of clothes, or you have to buy a computer, or you have to buy a pair of socks, you will know from Monday to Saturday that you need them. Having the stores open on Sunday is not going to say: Oh, that is right, I need to go shopping for a suit of clothes. You will make arrangements to get those items in the six days that the stores are open. Nobody is to be served by this, and the people who will be hurt by it are small businesses, the family convenience stores that are open, and it will probably even hurt the craft stores because if people go to move around the mall it will take them away from the areas where the craft stores are. It will hurt the craft people who now operate their little concessions at the flea market, and the flea market is an outing on many Sunday afternoons for a lot of families. They take their children in and they look at the various crafts and things that are made by our own artisans. They visit the booths that sell collector cards, collector coins, and things for which you would not ordinarily go shopping.

To leave the stores closed on Sunday actually probably does some of our crafts people and our tradespeople and our artists good, because they have an outlet on Sunday that they can display their wares. People become more aware of the workmanship of our Newfoundland and Labrador people, and they pick up these things. It is not a shopping thing. It is a leisurely time out to visit these booths and just have a look around and admire the craftsmanship and, in many, many, many cases, purchase the craftsmanship. So it generates business for these Newfoundland crafts people who would otherwise probably have no other place to sell their wares. Now, with the malls closed on Sunday, they can set up their booths there and proudly display their wares and have people come in and look around and purchase their wares.

As I said before, we are the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: No, New Brunswick does have Sunday shopping. Nova Scotia does not. They did; it failed and they closed. Prince Edward Island does not have Sunday shopping. New Brunswick does have it, but I do not think it is going over very well because now they are having a look at closing it.

MR. TULK: Sheila, give it up. We are (inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Are you trying to distract me?

MR. TULK: I am not trying to distract you. Sheila, I would not do that for the world.

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, you would.

MR. TULK: I just find you a very pleasant (inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: In any case, if the malls are open on Sunday there are many people out in the rural communities who, rather than staying at home and spending the day with their family, would probably come into town and that will take business away from the privately-owned stores that are in these rural communities.

When this bill was first brought up last week, The Evening Telegram had a major editorial in favour of Sunday shopping, and on the weekend they had a mini-editorial saying, sort of: Get on with it. If you are going to open the stores on Sunday, just open them for reduced hours.

I think that what The Evening Telegram has done is set a trend for what is happening in this House of Assembly, although many of the members - most of the members; maybe none of the members on the other side will admit this - since this bill was introduced the other day, many of them mentally now are mulling around the ideas and the thoughts that we have put forward in the past couple of days against Sunday shopping. I would say that if they were to be brutally honest with themselves, they would say that The Evening Telegram is now indicative of them. Oh, yes, we will have Sunday shopping, a big editorial. Now, well, maybe we should have a look at Sunday shopping, a mini-editorial.

I suppose I could make a concession if they are going to have Sunday shopping, that they could probably introduce it for a period of time, a limited period of time as a pilot project, and see if it works. I mean, I am not that adverse to a pilot project to see if it works. Prove that the people on this side of the House are right. We could probably approach this a bit more cautiously, have a look and see; and if it does work out, I will be the very first one to say: Okay, all these people who made representations to me, these e-mails, these faxes, these telephone calls, they were wrong. Go ahead, have your pilot project. I do not think that these people will be proven wrong.

The workers, as I said before, the moms and the dads who are both working in the retail trade, will be hurt by it because their family life with their children will be eroded. Their vacations will be taken away; and many of them do not have vacations. Many of them just have a two-day weekend to look forward to. Sometimes they can have a Saturday and a Sunday, and in some cases there is a long weekend.

What will we do with long weekends anyway? Will there be any more long weekends as we know them? Will there be any more 24th of May weekends? Because if the stores are opened on Sunday, on the 24th of May weekend and they are only closed on the Monday following that, they all will not be able to go together. The father can go on Tuesday and Wednesday, and the mother can go on Friday and Saturday, and then the older son can probably go Saturday and Sunday, but we will not ever get everybody off all at once, together, because there will be no more long weekends.

The Labour Day weekend will not be a Labour Day weekend. Stores will be open on Sunday; it will be Labour Day. The 24th of May weekend will not be the 24th of May weekend, it will be one holiday, Monday; stores will open on Sunday. The first of July weekend will not be a weekend any more. There will be one day only; stores will be open on Sunday, so we will have eroded that.

Many of the people who are out there working for minimum wage, that is really all they have to look forward to, three or four long weekends of the summer that they can go camping with their families. Now they will have Orangeman's Day, Labour Day, 24th of May and Canada Day, or Memorial Day, whichever way they celebrate it. They will only be able to have that one day; there will not be any more long weekends. That has not been considered, I am sure, in this.

It will change the way of life for a lot of people. People have a choice to attend church or not to attend church, but if a family is in a pattern of getting up on Sunday morning or Sunday afternoon and going to the church of their choice with their family, this will now be another part of the erosion of family life because the mother will probably have to go to work or the father will have to go to work; therefore, that family will have to cease attending church together as a family unit because the mother or the father has to go to work. They will not have any extra hours of work. Their hours will just be staggered and spread out more so that they will still be making the same amount of money, but their family life will be eroded to the point that the last thing that they have to do as a family unit will now be taken away from them because somebody in that family, the mom or the dad, has to go to work on Sunday. So that is another thing that we are taking away from our people.

As I mentioned before, the flea markets, the crafts industry, and charities that benefit by having booths open in these flea markets on Sunday - charities which, I might add, are taking the burden off our Department of Human Resources and Employment because these charities are giving to the underprivileged, the unfortunate, and the vulnerable people in our society who do not have work and are probably going out and giving food hampers, or arranging for a gift of clothing or a gift of something to that family that they would not ordinarily have had, or for which they would have had to go to the Department of Human Resources and Employment - once again, that part of the flea markets will change. They will take a new face because they will not be open any more and their avenues for raising money for charities will be depleted.

Once again I would like to refer to our Newfoundland crafts people, to our artisans, to our painters, to our authors, to the people who work with their hands and make beautiful woodworking things, and to the people who do crocheting and knitting and display their wares at the flea markets on Sunday. That will now be taken away from them. Their business will die, and we will lose the opportunity as well to visit these displays and see just what wonderful crafts people we have here in the Province. That opportunity will be taken away from us, and the opportunity for them to sell their crafts will be taken away from them. So I would like for whoever brought up the bill, and it might be you -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Premier.

MS S. OSBORNE: Oh, was it? Whatever buddy brought up the bill, it would not hurt...

That is why they have erasers on the top of pencils; we can all make a mistake. If the people on the other side of this House would consider that they have made a mistake, because they are going to hurt family life, they are going to hurt our crafts people, they are going to hurt small businesses, they are going to hurt big businesses in many cases because the hours will be spread out -

AN HON. MEMBER: And medium-sized businesses.

MS S. OSBORNE: And medium-sized -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you very much.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: I have a few for the minister. The question is, will you answer them?

MR. SULLIVAN: He probably will. (Inaudible) the second or third of it before he answers. That is what he will do.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I was perplexed today. I was very perplexed at the Minister of Education's responses. He left me saying: Where is the old Roger? Where is he? Where is that minister who so impressed me in 1993, that year of the title `Roger the Dodger'. What happened to him today? What happened to that minister today? Something must have happened. Something must be going on when the Minister of Education stands in his place and says, `I think I am going to wait for the next question and then I will answer them all together', and sits down. Something is up. There is no doubt that there is something up with that minister.

MR. J. BYRNE: What could that be?

MR. E. BYRNE: It could be a number of things. It could be that he is completely discontent with the position that has been assigned to him on the team. It would not be the first time. He could be completely discontent with the position that the captain assigned to him on this particular team. It would not be the first time that the Minister of Education was not happy with the team he was playing with, definitely not, whether that be a political team or another team, so it may be that. I am wondering.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No. Since the last election in 1995, boy, he has taken some hits on the chin. The first Budget, he travelled the Province, stood toe-to-toe with the citizens of the Province on the public school system, or the public college system.

I was at a meeting on Bell Island and saw the minister get berated, attacked, shouted at, yelled at, and do you know something, Mr. Speaker? This member and this minister didn't break a sweat. Not a bead of sweat did he break. These are reasons why he could be discontent.

Then, certainly, on the education referendum issue, he has carried the ball, he has carried the trouble, he has taken on the churches, he has taken on his family, he has taken on everybody on the issue. Finally we have seen the Education Act that more than likely may be debated - it looks like it is going to be debated - so he has had a rough go of it. He has been a salesman for the government and his job is done, but I know what is happening. I am telling you, Mr. Speaker, I know what is going to happen in the New Year.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I picked up the political crystal ball, boy, Eddy's political crystal ball, looked in it, (inaudible). I have a sense of what is going on.

MR. ANDERSEN: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, no, I say to the Member for Torngat Mountains; that has been reserved for you, Sir. You deserve it more than he does.

The legislation that has told everything about what is going to happen in January was the Intergovernmental Affairs Act. It told everything. It is telling us everything - what is going to happen post 1997 - guaranteed, because I am predicting today that the Minister of Education will not be -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Hold on now. He deserves a plum. This minister deserves a plum for the pounding that he has taken as a result of what the Premier has asked him to do. I said to the minister before -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Hold on. I have said to him before, and I have said in this House before, that I would never let anybody put me in the position that the Premier has put this minister in unless - it is important to qualify it - unless this was my last kick at the cat, and this is this minister's last kick at the cat. Come the next election, this minister -

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Hold on, I am getting to that. I say to the Member for Cape St. Francis: Relax Jack, I will get to that in a minute.

He has done his job for the government. It has not been easy for the minister, and today it was obvious. He wasn't his usual jovial self. He wasn't the minister up dodging the bullets coming from the Opposition. He just said: I have had enough of it. I am going to sit down. I will answer a question when I feel like it, and if I don't feel like it I'm not going to answer it.

That is the attitude, but it has been an attitude that has taken a long time; but he has been the government salesman.

Now in January - I want to get back to it - here is my prediction: intergovernmental affairs, changes to the act. There is a major shuffle coming, I am predicting.

MR. E. BYRNE: This minister -

MR. J. BYRNE: Where is he going?

MR. E. BYRNE: Hold on now, Jack; relax, Jack. I know it is the first time you are hearing it, and that you are excited about what I am about to say, but hang in there; we will get right to it.

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay, (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: This minister deserves -

MR. J. BYRNE: But where is he going?

MR. E. BYRNE: This minister deserves something, and he is going to get it, Mr. Speaker.

My prediction for post 1997, when the Cabinet shuffle comes, is that the Member for Bellevue is going into Cabinet.

MR. J. BYRNE: Bellevue?

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, because there is going to be one more post created. Seriously now, I am being serious.

MR. SULLIVAN: Education and training for Bellevue, yes.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, Sir. He has a good solid foundation and history in adult education and in the post-secondary side of the portfolio, which this minister obviously doesn't have at all, because his job -

MR. SULLIVAN: He has the department destroyed now. (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: You have to keep in mind that certain ministers at certain times are put in certain portfolios for certain reasons. Now, this minister was not put in that portfolio to be an administrator. He was not put in there to micro-manage, to make sure that inspections were being done, or this or that. This minister was put in that position to sell a particular concept, which he has accomplished, no question about it. Whether we agree with it or not is another question; the reality is that he has accomplished it. So it is time for this minister to move on, and he is going. Make no mistake, he is going - no doubt about it - and I know where he is going.

Last week when we talked about the Minister of Mines and Energy not being too satisfied that he is not travelling the globe any more, poor Roger was complaining that the furthest he could get was only Halifax or Ottawa. I know where this minister is going. The Premier is going to relieve himself of the responsibilities of Intergovernmental Affairs. He has to. This Premier, unlike the last Premier, does not want to be bogged down or held down by a department. This guy needs freedom to move. If he wants to go, he wants to go now; he doesn't want to wait a week or two weeks. If he is going to go, he is going now; and if he goes he is going all the way, no matter what he does, whether it is putting up lights on the parkway.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Oh, I am going to get up there. I am staying there. I am just using an example. When he goes, that man is going big, no matter what he does.

Now this minister here - here is the new minister coming.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Four years I have sat in this House, and I never heard the Member for Bellevue say anything until recently. All of a sudden he gets appointed principle or Parliamentary Secretary to the Premier and you cannot stop him from yapping over there - this, that, yapping. Before, he would sit over there with his white collar on, black suit, looking very parliamentary as the Deputy Speaker and Clerk of Committees, or whatever he was before, but he is -

MR. ANDERSEN: Money talks.

MR. E. BYRNE: Money talks. The Member for Torngat Mountains is right, money talks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: I can believe that because he is always telling me, `See you later, now.' That is what he says to me all the time, `It is nice knowing you; see you later.' He is going in Cabinet. But this minister - back to the Minister of Education - he is getting tired in the portfolio. He has done his job. He was the right man at the right time, in the right portfolio, to accomplish the government's agenda, so it is time to reward this minister.

MR. J. BYRNE: Where is he going?

MR. E. BYRNE: He is going to intergovernmental affairs, guaranteed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Do you know why? The Premier does not want to have intergovernmental affairs fighting with the people in (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: That is right. My colleague is right; it is what I was just about to say, that he needs a salesman now. I tell you, the Premier needs another salesman. He needs this salesman but he needs him in a different capacity. He needs a bird of prey from here to Victoria; that is what he needs. He needs a set of eyes and ears. He needs the tough guy to negotiate, but he wants to give the minister some flexibility to become more renowned within the nation. He needs a bit more flexibility, so I am predicting - guaranteed - that, we are seeing this minister the last time -

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you think he might get in a game of golf?

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you think he might get a scattered game -

MR. E. BYRNE: Oh, I am getting to that too. I know what is up. I know what reward means for this minister; let me tell you that. I know what reward spells for this minister in his mind, but he needs...

If I was in the Premier's chair he would certainly have what he wanted. I would not say go here or go there. I would haul him into the office and say, `Roger, you have done such a fine job, you can have any seat in the Cabinet that you want except mine; because you could have had that but you did not want it. You got scared of that and had to send the money back.' But really, that is what this minister wants. Now look -

AN HON. MEMBER: The doctor told him he could not run.

MR. E. BYRNE: I believe the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi said today he wished he had to talk to the same doctor Doug Moores talked to before he ran for mayor.

Really, Mr. Speaker, this minister has done his job, no doubt about it, but there is going to be a reconfiguration. The Minister of Mines and Energy is staying where he is. He is not moving anywhere else. He has only been recently there. He has a good handle. Some of the developments...

Look, boys, you have to size it up for what it is. There are certain posts that are holding up this government - there are a couple of them - and there are certain pegs that are important here. You have to keep in mind what the Premier's agenda is. It is not what the ministers' agendas are because it does not matter. What the Premier's agenda is is very, very important, extremely important.

On the one hand, resource development in terms of the Upper Churchill, the oil and gas industry; these are things - and Voisey's Bay - this is the foundation upon which Brian is going to build his temple in this Province. That is what he told us. The Minister of Mines and Energy is the leg that is supporting that side of the table. He is there for a reason. Poor old Rex is gone. He was pumped up with fictitious polls, how he was going to win and sit in the federal Cabinet, and he got defeated. That is important. This minister is not moving from there; it is too important. That is one of the posts.

The second one is financial. Fiscally, this Premier wants to be seen as being as red a Liberal as possible without tipping us over the balance sheet that would put us in disrepair or into looking at a financial abyss, like we were going to be. Now that is important, very, very important to this Premier, and he has a man on the helm there by the name of Dicks, Paul Dicks. He has his hand on the pulse of things. He knows what is happening. He knows where he can - and I will use his words - knows where he can invest $1 million here and get the most out of it, and claw-back $15 million or $20 million here for your New Age investments. That is the second post, guaranteed.

Now the third post -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: That is for after supper, I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo. This fellow here, he really doesn't figure in. He is there, sometimes he is not, he is in, he is out. He is close to the happy trio from the West Coast, but he is not really part of that mafia. He doesn't go back that long between Dicks, Furey and Tobin, but he is part of it because they need him. They need him in the worst type of way, I would say, Mr. Speaker.

What the Premier needs now is a salesman nationally. He needs a fellow who will not break a sweat when they get into negotiating. This minister will not. I have seen it. I have seen it in situations. I remember, before getting elected to the House, watching him on television when he was the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations - I believe it was 1991 - and he got the side of his face smacked off or clawed off, and he never broke a sweat. He just stood there. He never responded, completely calm, and turned the other cheek. That says something of the type of individual in terms of handling situations.

My prediction is that this minister is going to IGA. The Premier needs a tough negotiator, needs a firm hand, needs, above all, a smoothie, a fellow who is not going to micro-manage, but a great tactician, somebody who can handle the general thrusts and initiatives of a government in dealing with the other provinces. That is what is going to happen.

Mr. Speaker, it now being 6:00 p.m., I believe there has been an agreement that we will adjourn the debate until 6:45 p.m. for supper - recess for supper - so stay tuned for part two when we return at 6:45 p.m.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The House is recessed until 6:45 p.m.

 

Recess

 

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I believe before we recessed for supper we were dealing with certain ministers in terms of how they feed in and how they play the part in the Premier's court. I think I have dealt with, in terms of the telling sign, just to recap quickly, with respect to government's intentions on the bill before the House on Intergovernmental Affairs, and what that is going to mean early in 1998.

We dealt with the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board and the role he plays, one of the legs under the table at which the Premier sits; the Minister of Mines and Energy in terms of the resource developments that are on the table right now in terms of Voisey's Bay, the oil and gas industry certainly, and others; and the Minister of Education, who is about to get a promotion of sorts, about to get a new lease on life early in 1998.

What I didn't talk about was the domestic front. Who is the king of the domestic agenda for the Premier? That man right there, the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal, guaranteed. Socially, when there are problems that need to be handled and Cabinet committees that need to be put in place to handle them, who chairs them? The Government House Leader, guaranteed, no doubt about it. He is one of two ministers sitting on the pot of gold for the next four years: the federal-provincial agreement, worth some $50 million. He is the king of rural Newfoundland and Labrador; he is the minister charged with the responsibility of economic renewal in this Province - west, I should say, of Kenmount Road. Isn't that right, minister?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Kenmount Road.

MR. E. BYRNE: That is right. Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: I am east of Kenmount Road.

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, part of Kenmount Road is in your riding, or it used to be. Is it still in your riding?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, yes, (inaudible) of it.

MR. E. BYRNE: Still all of it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, right into Walton's Mountain.

MR. E. BYRNE: Right into Walton's Mountain.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is where I take over.

MR. E. BYRNE: That is where you take over. No wonder there is no water and sewer on Kenmount Road, Mr. Speaker. No wonder there is no infrastructure going in on Kenmount Road to open up development.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ed, at least he is not running in the ditches like you.

MR. E. BYRNE: I am talking about him. I am talking about this member.

In the District of Kilbride, the section of the Goulds that is in my district, there are very little problems with respect to water and sewer. There are some areas that need to be cleaned up.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Is that right? Easy to find, very easy.

MR. TULK: You know now, Ed, you get those fellows out of the city and they get near a couple of lights, and they are gone.

MR. E. BYRNE: East to find. This is called the second star to the right and straight on until morning.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Easy.

Well, Mr. Speaker, that, in a nutshell, is where the Premier is heading.

With respect to the piece of legislation before us today - I am not going to say much more - there is a simple request before government, very, very simple.

AN HON. MEMBER: Borrow your phone, Jack?

MR. E. BYRNE: We asked for a six-month hoist.

Yes, did anybody here see the NTV news? Well, I almost died. Being interviewed, the big grin on the face, and Jim Thoms brought the hammer down on him. He said: The minister gave him a comb, now he has to go find a use for it. That is what he said. Jack was in the caucus room buoyed right up by the coverage.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.

AN HON. MEMBER: I always knew there was something wrong with you. (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: It is a true story. We were out on a fishing expedition in the summer -

MR. J. BYRNE: Don't tell them too much.

MR. E. BYRNE: I'm not going to tell them too much, Jack.

Four or five of us, our annual fishing trip, a beautiful summer's day in August: One fellow comes out of the cabin, Jack has his shirt off, and he says: Jack, boy, it's a beautiful day. Jack says: It certainly is. He said: Well, why don't you take you sweater off, Jack. That is what he said to him: Why don't you take your sweater off then, boy? A true story.

We were up in the Caucus, boy, great coverage, Jack was beaming, about that high off the chair, until Jim Thoms said: Now, he has to go find a use for it. But, Mr. Speaker, it was good coverage. The minister, when asked, `Did Jack Byrne have any influence on you?' - broke a grin and said - well, he had to give it to him, Mr. Speaker; guaranteed.

MR. MERCER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Oh, it was out. I would say to the Member for Humber East that it is probably going to make one of the top ten news stories of 1997; guaranteed - Jack Byrne, Member for Cape St. Francis. Guaranteed, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MATTHEWS: He will be one of the top ten in the leadership race too.

MR. E. BYRNE: Oh, he will be higher than that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Review `97.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, guaranteed.

MR. TULK: Jack Byrne, the Member for Cape St. Francis (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Just wait until you see what we can get the Minister of Finance (inaudible). See if you will talk about that so much.

MR. E. BYRNE: We just hope, Jack, it doesn't make the news.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ed, wasn't it you who got lost on Woody Island or was it Fabian Manning?

MR. E. BYRNE: No, it wasn't me. I wasn't on Woody Island that time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Fabian, was it?

MR. E. BYRNE: I believe so.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's why he didn't make it back, I guess.

MR. E. BYRNE: Could be.

AN HON. MEMBER: He got lost.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the piece of legislation that is before us, government seems intent on having this particular piece of legislation. To quote the Government House Leader, two years ago in this House after becoming House Leader - I remember it was after an exchange, interaction. He picked up the Standing Orders of the House and said: There is one thing that members opposite must realize, that these Standing Orders and the rules that we are governed by allow two things.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

MR. E. BYRNE: The Government House Leader.

It allows for the appropriate amount of time to debate, but, he said: It does it ultimately for government to get through their agenda. That is what he said.

Now, the minister is intent on having Bill 48; that is my understanding. Every conversation he has had with me: I will get Bill 48. At the end of the day he is going to have it. Now, the question is: When do you expect to get the rest of the legislation that is on the Order Paper? Is it government's intent to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, it is not entirely up to yourselves. If it were up to me, you would not be getting Bill 48, but clearly it is not up to me if you get that or not. I am only but one voice in the Legislature here.

AN HON. MEMBER: We are going right through until Christmas, right on through, seriously.

MR. E. BYRNE: That is fine; we are here, not a problem. Somehow I doubt it, but we will be here. We are willing to be here. I am not sure the will exists on the other side.

Simply put -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: The same here; whatever it takes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I have to say, in all honesty, that while you are delivering that message with a straight face, I don't believe that members opposite from Torngat Mountains and Labrador, Port au Port, Bellevue, Burgeo and LaPoile, Harbour Main - Whitbourne, Humber East, Placentia and St. Mary's, Grand Falls - Buchans, are prepared like you are, because you only live fifteen minutes away from here, to be here on Christmas Day. I don't believe that, Ralph.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, they are going home for Easter. We have made the arrangements that people (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Listen, I am going to have to quote a former member of this House, Nick Careen, who said to another Government House Leader about another member one day: Minister, take him outside; you are going to have to have a long talk with that boy.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. E. BYRNE: You. Have a long talk with him, boy.

All we are asking for, Mr. Speaker, on this particular piece of legislation is clear: Adhere to the wishes of what people are saying.

Look at this: December 16, 1997, Riffs, established in Newfoundland since 1939. Premier Tobin and MHAs, Dear Sirs and Madams, we are asking for your support in lobbying and/or voting against the proposed changes to the Shops' Closing Act regarding Sunday shopping. We are totally opposed to the idea of Sunday shopping and feel it places an unfair burden on smaller independent retailers and their staff. Please put the Sunday shopping issue to rest once and for all. Signed, Ivan Riff and 400 staff members.

Mr. Speaker, that is but one communiqué that we have received on this side of the House, just one. There has not been put forward, by government, any sound, economic analysis of why this piece of legislation would be a good and positive piece to bring forward. If it was, if that analysis was done, don't you believe that we would have seen it already? If they had that information that demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that that was the case, that Bill 48 would have positive impacts for the economy, positive impacts on staff members, positive impacts for independent retailers, don't you believe they would have tabled it by now?

It seems clear that this time government is more intent than ever before on pursuing this particular piece of legislation, but I still do not know why. It does not serve any great public policy purpose, no great public policy purpose whatsoever.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the Government House Leader, I was hoping that our resident Occupational Health and Safety inspector from Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, would come in and entertain. I am not sure -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible)

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, I suspect about nine that he will be called in again for the night shift, to ensure that all of our interests are covered off to protect us even from ourselves sometimes, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: The Clerks at the table.

Mr. Speaker, the lack of economic analysis showing the positive effects of Sunday shopping has not clearly been demonstrated. I am just looking for another piece of information communiqué that we received, Mr. Speaker, and here it is. Here is Riffs - one second now, Mr. Speaker.

Here it is, Mr. Speaker. This is from a constituent and I received it about twelve o'clock today on my e-mail. He outlined four reasons, Mr. Speaker, which I think are most appropriate for us to look at. I will not read the entire letter but I want to get right to what he talked about.

The reasons, he said: The removal of a family day - at present Sunday is the one day when most people can get together to enjoy each other as a family or with friends, unrestricted by job requirements; one reason, he said, that we should not proceed.

The second reason, very legitimate: Sunday provides a breathing spell for people by removing commercial and employment pressure. It is no accident that most major religions throughout the world have instituted a day of rest. Society needs it. It provides us with a necessary rhythm or cycle; a very important reason, in my mind.

Thirdly, he goes on to say: It will, without doubt, introduce much stress to families by removing the ability -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure to have an opportunity to say a few words on this particular bill, Bill 48, the Shops Closing Act.

MR. H. HODDER: Closure motion (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, the strong-arm tactics, the government majority coming down on the small people of this Province, the little men and women in this Province who are trying to get a little bit of freedom from a seven-day commercialization of our businesses here in the Province.

I received this e-mail from a gentleman. It came in on Saturday, December 13, at 5:48 p.m. actually. `I am writing to you in your capacity as Leader of the Opposition. I am very upset to learn this week; this e-mail message goes on to say, `that the government is planning to introduce a bill to permit unrestricted Sunday shopping. I thought this very divisive issue was dead and was unpleasantly surprised to see it re-introduced in no time for public debate at a time when people's attention is focused on Christmas. I feel the introduction of Sunday shopping is undesirable for several reasons, both social and economic, and unrelated to religious considerations. Social ones are the most destructive.

Then there are some closing paragraphs. I will just outline some of those things. Maybe some other members may have gotten the same e-mail message. It said: No. 1) The removal of a Family Day. At present, Sunday is the one day when most people can plan to get together as a family with friends unrestricted by job requirements, and that happens in a lot of families. Even people who work on Saturdays may have Monday off and it is a Sunday-Monday weekend. A lot of people have Sunday free as a family day which is a very legitimate thing. I know, in my experience, I look forward to that particular day, Sunday, with the family and trying to schedule things around that particular time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I try to get there as often and as regularly as I can. I make an effort, but sometimes travel makes it more difficult. I do make an effort.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, you could go to another church. He used to give the sermon, did he? He used to give the sermon and you had to leave?

Anyway, the second reason this gentleman gave, and it is a very valid one: Sunday provides a breathing spell for people by removing commercial and employment pressure. It is no accident that most major religions throughout the world have instituted a day of rest. Society needs it. It provides us with a necessary rhythm or cycle. That is number two in this particular e-mail.

The third one -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I did not say. I am not sure if the person would want it released publicly. Maybe numerous others got the message too but -

AN HON. MEMBER: You better give us the name so we can check it out.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, if you want -

MR. H. HODDER: You would be like Clyde Wells, call all the people on a petition.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will give the date of the message maybe.

The third said: It will, without doubt, introduce more 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 mom and dad. Currently, most families have two parents working and in certain areas, of course, it is necessary almost to survive, for those who are fortunate enough to be able to go to work. Many parents, particular women, are employed in retail outlets now closed on Sundays. She will now spend most Sundays away from home.

AN HON. MEMBER: Loyola, you were a fine leader, weren't you?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I was. I tried to get elected but I didn't succeed. I came close.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It all depends, number one, if I go in and number two, if I do, if they want to elect me; two valid reasons. I can't think of any two -

AN HON. MEMBER: You have done a good job.

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, thank you. Coming from you, I know I have reason to worry, a real reason to worry.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. SULLIVAN: I heard this morning that one of my lighter moments last night was carried for three or four minutes, verbatim, on the Member for Eagle River. I don't know if anybody heard it. Somebody informed me about his suntan and his frostbite.

So I won't say too much about the Member for Topsail. I don't want this recorded on public radio around the Province because I am sure the people in Topsail will never elect him again if I say what is in my mind.

AN HON. MEMBER: Delegates from Eagle River are going to support you now.

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh well, I was hoping I would get Danny mad enough with me that they would all support me. That was my strategy. I knew if Danny was mad with me that they would all be mad at Danny. I knew that was one avenue on which it could succeed.

Number four: I see no strong pressure from Newfoundlanders requesting an end to keeping major retailers closed on Sundays. It goes on to say: 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 preference the pollsters would have found that the side favouring keeping a day of rest felt more strongly than those wishing to open the major stores. I agree with that.

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.

Now the statistics quoted by the Minister of Environment and Labour - and I am wondering if he can provide statistics on some of the things, what percentage are in favour and what the results are because they are not the ones that we are hearing every single day, from our calls and faxes around the Province and if you talk to people. My colleague from Conception Bay South went into Canadian Tire and heard numerous complaints. It is everywhere. I don't know what people they are listening to or who they are polling or who they are talking to, but it is time to start polling the real people out in Newfoundland and Labrador today; the consumers, the businesses and the people working in those particular stores.

It said: No new wealth will be created; rather the same amount of spending will be stretched over a longer period resulting in increased sales costs and necessarily higher prices.

The statistics quoted by the Minister of Labour, that 66.6 per cent of retail businesses are already open and that all he is doing is deregulating the final third, is frankly absurd, says this person. Is the minister giving a one-person convenience store the same weight as a Wal-Mart store? That is where it is coming from, let me tell you, places like Wal-Mart. The old adage that statistics don't lie but liars use statistics certainly comes to mind.

How about this one? This person wrote in and said - the old adage, statistics don't lie but liars use statistics. That probably sums it up fairly well.

Here is the final note by this person: The other Atlantic Provinces have chosen not to introduce unfettered Sunday shopping, and with good reasons. Once this genie is out of the bottle it will be impossible to stuff back. I hope you can do your best to pressure government to back down from this bill. Yours sincerely, and so on - a message that was on the e-mail, dated Saturday. That is just some indication.

I heard the Premier say today: If things don't work out, we always can change it back. That is a silly kind of an argument. Why didn't he go about it right? Why didn't he have his committee have hearings, meet with businesses, consumers and labour? Let's hear what people have to say, and not have to revisit legislation.

We brought legislation into this House last fall. The Supreme Court said it is contrary to Term 17 the same government produced, and they knew it was. It was thrown out. I've seen amendments in this House come back dozens of times to fix legislation that is hastily rushed through the House. It has happened umpteen times since I've been here.

There are many reasons why we shouldn't. Even our counterparts in Atlantic Canada, the place where the Premier is trying to land some new jobs, in Nova Scotia - just imagine! Can you imagine the Premier to stand in this House and say: I want every job out of Moncton to come to this Province? Then he goes up and tells Dingwall, at an unscheduled retirement party, given compliments of his former constituents in Nova Scotia, and tells the people up there that the jobs out of Moncton should be shared?

Not one job in Moncton has to be in North Sydney because every job that is needed to maintain it is there now. In fact, there are more jobs in North Sydney than are needed to maintain it. Not one reservation job is needed, when they are employing three times as many in North Sydney in reservations as they here in our Province. They all should be in our Province. A 1-800 number that dials in - you can answer the phone in Port aux Basques as easily as you can answer it in North Sydney. So that is utter nonsense. Every job in Moncton should come to this Province, not to North Sydney.

The Premier doesn't want to step on the toes of Nova Scotia delegates there to a federal convention. He wants to stay in their good books. That is why he giving Intergovernmental Affairs to somebody so he won't have to do the work to fight with his federal counterparts and go back and look for support for them over the next couple of years again. So they are all part of the Premier's strategy; deflected off.

Couldn't get back to the House here. There was a national camera up in Black Tickle. Look, Black Tickle people would starve only for The Globe and Mail article that raised it on the national scene, because the Premier didn't want to have a tarnished image nationally! That is why something was done. It is unfortunate when the Premier thinks his image will be affected nationally, with a national story, that he has to do something for people in Black Tickle.

It is shameful! It should never have to come to that. They are human beings. They should listen and look at people out there all over the Province. I'm sure some colleagues on the opposite side of the House know lots of hardship cases and so on, but there is none in a whole community itself affected by it, and nothing until an article.

I was up in Tors Cove during this standing committee on fisheries and the lady with The Globe and Mail came over and asked a few questions on communities, and made a reference to Black Tickle. I believe she went to Black Tickle afterwards. Yes, afterwards she was there, I believe, on site. I'm not sure if she was on site, and the member can say. Was the person who did the article in The Globe and Mail in Black Tickle? Was that, I guess, Erin (inaudible) who did the article? I spoke with the lady there who was down with the fisheries committee and she was talking to people in other communities.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where did Johnny go?

MR. SULLIVAN: You should know, he lives out in your area. Where did Johnny go the last time, when the Premier came down from Ottawa? You got off the track in a hurry. I always wanted to be premier of the Province. I'm getting old; this is my last chance to be premier of the Province. The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture said: I'm getting old, my last chance to be premier, and this man comes down from Ottawa and has to try to stop it. He said: I can't have this.

Chuckie said: Hear that chuck-chuckie coming down the track? That is the big train. It has just pulled out of Ottawa now. It is heading east. Put the tracks down that we hauled up. Put the tracks back again, because the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture wants to get on the track. But when he heard the engine coming he got off the tracks in a hurry, I tell you. He called a big news conference, called everybody together; we are going to have competition. He said: I regret that I will not be seeking the leadership of the Liberal Party of this Province, and called a news conference to say I am not going to run.

Well, I can tell you that I will not be calling a news conference to say I am not running, and I am sure a lot of other people will not if they are not going to run. I think I heard my colleague say today –

MR. TULK: Do you know what happened to Doug? He went over and saw Aiden Drover and Aiden said, `Boy, you have high blood pressure'. (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

MR. TULK: Aiden will be next.

AN HON. MEMBER: Aiden wants to run, does he?

MR. SULLIVAN: The Government House Leader has all of the answers. I think you would be afraid for your lives if he had to stay in there.

MR. TULK: What?

MR. SULLIVAN: You were afraid for your lives. You were shaking in your boots, I say. They were so nervous I would say that if your blood pressure was checked before today a lot of you would be admitted, I tell you. You would be on stretchers for days in emergency departments, I would say, waiting to be admitted. Or would they? Maybe they would go right on through. Maybe the stretcher would go right on through to the room and into the bed. That happens. I know of health ministers who have reputations for doing that. Yes, Sir, health ministers on that side of the House can skip the line and get the services provided when other people have to wait. That has happened. Was he a minister then, when that happened, or did he get fired?

AN HON. MEMBER: Loyola, Dougie got a case of yellow fever.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes? If it is, it is contagious in your area, I say to the member, because you got it first.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Yellow fever! Can you imagine anybody talking about yellow fever, but the person who wanted to be Premier and did not have the guts to get in the race? At least I have the guts. They told me two years ago, `Oh, I am just getting in to make a race out of it', and we made a race out of it. It came that close.

AN HON. MEMBER: John, you never had the seal oil.

MR. SULLIVAN: He didn't have the guts.

MR. EFFORD: If I had had the seal oil, I would have (inaudible) better.

MR. SULLIVAN: If you had the seal oil.

I have a copy of the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture's little calendar and it says: 10:00, meeting with Port de Grave fishermen; 10:30, take one seal oil capsule; 11:00, Cabinet meeting; 12:30, take another seal oil capsule; 12:35, go to lunch; come back from lunch. That is his daily agenda, daily log, his itinerary. You look in his little book on his desk: Take one seal oil capsule, take another seal oil capsule.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) cucumber book.

MR. SULLIVAN: I don't like cucumbers. I don't like them. I wouldn't eat the cucumbers. I didn't like them, not then, but I got used to them after. I knew they were Tory cucumbers. I know the Member for Humber Valley was the minister of Tory cucumbers, the fellow sitting right behind you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) got rid of them.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right, he got rid of them. I tell you, he sure did, and he was a PC when he got rid of them, wasn't he? That is right. You didn't praise him up when he was over here, did you?

MR. TULK: Oh, yes, we did.

MR. SULLIVAN: Indeed you did not. No, you did not. You didn't praise him up when he was there. I must say, he did pretty good when he was there; he did so. I cannot say anything about his performance there. It is always tough taking on a job when it has a stigma to it, like a Sprung greenhouse, I can tell you. You are not really walking into a bed of roses, you are walking into a den of lions, and he survived it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) cucumbers.

MR. SULLIVAN: Whatever it is.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) too.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: They were pretty scared. The blood pressure over there dropped, I would say, about thirty points today when they heard the announcement, I can tell you. They were worried to death. The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs was worried to death all weekend. He couldn't sleep. He called up the doctor and said: Go check out that PC candidate. You have to do something. The Member for Port de Grave said: If he comes down here after me I am going to be worried. My majority dropped by several hundred votes the last time. The Port de Grave member's majority dropped. His percentage went down.

MR. EFFORD: No, it didn't.

MR. SULLIVAN: His percentage went down. It went from 73.-some per cent down to 60-some per cent last time.

MR. EFFORD: No, it didn't.

MR. SULLIVAN: It dropped.

MR. EFFORD: No, it didn't.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, it did. Look at your per cent, it went down, I can tell you. It went down and he got a fright. He got the Premier out there the first week, he got the Premier out there the last week; he panicked. He threatened half of what was out there, I can tell you. He used every tactic in the book to try to survive out there and -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That's it; he was running scared I can tell you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: He didn't run against him.

MR. FRENCH: (Inaudible) see him coming towards you.

MR. SULLIVAN: That's right, he ran against -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: I would be more worried if he was on the back of me.

AN HON. MEMBER: You got that right.

MR. SULLIVAN: We made numerous points on Bill 48. Only 12.2 per cent of members contacted in the Newfoundland independent retailers, the independent retailers here in this Province are in favour of this bill. I mean, doesn't government care about independent retailers, the consumers, the working people, the people who have to work on Sundays? They are forcing people into a situation that has negative effects, basically, upon their family life, upon their free time. I mean, people having to leave their families on Sundays and go to work, I don't think is acceptable.

Just think about it. Just think about if you had to go back to work on Sunday, and if you don't go to work your going to be out of a job. I heard somebody saying: Well, you don't have to go to work on Sundays and so on. Look, if you don't go to work on Sundays and you are not available for work there are lots of repercussions that might occur.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Did a good job on (inaudible). Should have hit him harder though.

MR. EFFORD: I didn't want to because (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, I know, that's okay.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I watched that too, I must say.

MR. SHELLEY: He did a good job.

MR. SULLIVAN: I saw most of it.

MR. SHELLEY: You feel like grabbing him though, wouldn't you.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, it is only just a scam they are getting on with, isn't it?

MR. H. HODDER: Garbage heap of humanity they are.

MR. SULLIVAN: Giving you the impression of what is going on out there today. They talk about seal penises being used in half the seal, in a small per cent; look at all the rest of the seals. Look at the seal oil that the minister if getting that is benefiting from this. Do you pay for your capsules?

MR. EFFORD: That's right.

MR. SULLIVAN: Good. I was hoping that you didn't get them free. You are doing a good promotion. I heard on the radio yesterday morning when I was driving in from home, that the store, The Salty Box in Tokyo - did you get that back to him as he asked? Is it in the process?

MR. EFFORD: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: He talked about a good business. A person from Conche has a business going and is doing really well. Business is picking up and they are looking at another store opening now, to get some Newfoundland/Canadian products there. There is a demand there. It is not purely Canadian type, it is blended, but it is very attractive to foreign people, Canadians in particular there. It is good to see Newfoundlanders doing well in other parts of the world. It is good to see. Hopefully we will see more Newfoundlanders able to stay home and conduct business and work here in this Province.

MR. EFFORD: Keep the Liberals elected that is all you have to do and they will (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: If we keep Liberals elected here we will have another 40,000 mothers, sons and daughters go out of this Province in the next number of years. They are going out hand-over-fist, 16,000 net lose between the census in 1991 and 1996. That is the Liberal record, I say to the Minster of Fisheries and Aquaculture. If that's the record you are proud of, well its time to change the record. It is time to put on another record.

MR. WISEMAN: Between 1976 and 1982 there were 44,000 leaving the Province.

MR. SULLIVAN: What is the Member for Topsail yapping about? You were not born then. Who told you that?

MR. WISEMAN: Now listen, you (inaudible) statistics, I just told you. Between 1976 and 1982 we lost 44,000.

MR. SULLIVAN: We had a net loss between 1991 and 1996, the first net loss we have had in our census report, 16,000. Statistics Canada is saying we are going to lose another 40,000 people over the next twenty years, a net lose. So, you can imagine a net lose of 40,000 more people from this Province; we are down to 521,000 from 561,000. We were 583,000 or even more. I know we were definitely up to 583,000 at one particular point. And he talks about keeping the Liberals there! Keep the Liberals there and there won't be enough left here really to haul up a dory, I would say. There will not be enough left for a game of cards, if you leave them here.

Several aspects of this bill certainly need to be brought to your attention. Why is government rushing through, trying to get a piece of legislation through, that nobody seems enthused about? That is silly, to me, to spend all night long last night, into this night and, who knows, Thursday night, whatever nights are around - I am sure the Member for Torngat Mountains would just as soon head home for Christmas on Friday. I am sure all members would. Why have a silly bill here that nobody wants? It just doesn't make sense.

I'm still waiting to find out from somebody on the government side why it is important, or what is the advantage of having it. Why do we need to have this bill through? I haven't been told the answer, and I will certainly give up some of my time to hear a logical answer as to why. I haven't heard it. Because I don't think people believe in the legislation other than that: We brought it in so we will drive it through, and everybody get in line behind it. That seems to be the only rationale.

Look, it is time to start looking at certain bills on free-standing votes. Let members stand up and vote. It isn't affecting any government agenda. If it was something that is part of a government agenda, mandate, budget, other areas, yes. You have to have support if you are going to put through legislation that you believe strongly in, but this one hasn't got the support of members on that side. It has the support of a couple pushing it through, and you just let the agenda carry.

You can do the hon. thing and let it die on the Order Paper. Get rid of it there. Drop it after this point. The Government House Leader, stand and say: We are going to adjourn debate on this bill and never call it again. Call it back in January, call it back next year. Put it to a committee; let the committee look at it over the next few months. Let the people say what they have to say. Report back to the House and see what people want. Then, if it is good, if the majority of people want it, and it isn't going to negatively impact business, give it to them. They haven't given any particular reasons why.

It will hurt small businesses. In many of the small business areas, rural communities today are hit fairly hard and most rural communities today are within -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I don't know. Seriously, I don't know. I was on last night, yes, and I don't know how many called in this morning. As I was driving in I heard one from Yellowknife calling who was in favour of it for Yellowknife. I don't say they are driving from Yellowknife into the Wal-Mart here in the Avalon Mall or Wal-Mart on Topsail Road or anywhere. To go shopping from Yellowknife, that is a long drive. I wouldn't count that one in your statistics.

It will hurt small business.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: She used to live here and you turned her out of here. She is one of the statistics that the Liberal government drove out. She said she was four and a half years. There is a net loss of 16,000 since 1991 to 1996, the only net loss over a census period in our history.

Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island don't have it. Nova Scotia doesn't have it. The Premier is giving them jobs to help them out. The Premier is going to give them jobs out of Moncton. I said before, I warned you, you are going to have a satellite office up in North Sydney and we aren't going to get the jobs in this Province, and that is what is happening.

The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation said today in the House that he is aware of a proposal from Marine Atlantic to the federal minister on the location of the headquarters. The Premier said in the House two weeks ago, back on December 5, I think was the date - I have it in Hansard - he doesn't know anything about a proposal gone on to the federal government. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation stood today and said there is a proposal gone on.

He said -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

MR. SULLIVAN: No, he said he spoke at the time with the chairman. I know for a fact the report went on when I asked the question. I wasn't fishing for it. You find the date when the report was submitted, look up my question in Hansard and you will see the results yourself. You have access to know that, whether the minister got her report. Check it out. If I am wrong come back and give me the date.

MR. MATTHEWS: I only know what I know.

MR. SULLIVAN: Well find out what you don't know, I say to the minister, find out what you don't know. I know you can't do that in a year or ten years but you can try. You can't blame me for trying. If you find out what you don't know - he won't do it here tonight, I can tell you. It will not be done.

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) anything I don't know?

MR. SULLIVAN: I said if there is anything you don't know about this issue, anything at all - and if I am wrong, you check the dates. You have access to call the federal minister and find out when it was submitted.

Why would the Premier stand here in this House and say he spoke to the chairperson of the board, he spoke to the President, CEO and he does not know anything about a report gone in? You tell us that it is gone in. I am not sure of the exact words you said, but did you say it was gone in this past couple of weeks?

MR. MATTHEWS: No, I didn't say that. I said that in (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I mean this morning. No this afternoon in the House, I said. You indicated it has been gone in for some time, a couple of weeks. I asked it less than two weeks ago. I am just asking you to check Hansard when I said that - I think it was December 5. Check when the report went in and I can guarantee you, the report was in before I asked it because my sources told me a report has gone in, but the Premier denied it.

The Premier of the Province does not know - after speaking with the Chairperson and the president - if the report has gone in today about Collinet. Now how many can believe it? Anybody who saw him this evening on the news can believe it. How many can believe it? He is telling people up in Nova Scotia one story, up there to share jobs and down here telling us he wants all the jobs. That's hypocritical. When you are saying one thing to one group of people and you are saying something else to somebody else, what do you call it? Call it what you like. It is not consistent.

`I have been consistent,' he said. `All the jobs from Newfoundland, share them with Nova Scotia.' If that is what he calls consistency he has a warped sense of values. That is inconsistency. I call that inconsistency. There is another word for it but I can't use it here in the House. I can't use that word in the House. I don't want to cut my conversation too short. I am sure I am entertaining the Member for Topsail.

The Works, Services and Transportation Minister there, I don't want to cause him to increase his blood pressure. If they ever get him in the hospital I can tell you they will crucify him. The last thing I want to do is get the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation in hospital, because if you are ever in there and one of those defibrillators breaks down or one that wasn't serviced and does not work or the knife slips or something like that, you are in trouble. I think they would love to get you in the hospital, I say to the former Minister of Health.

MR. MATTHEWS: They had me up there last year.

MR. SULLIVAN: They did?

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: You must not have told me about it because I would have gotten the word out. Whose name did you use when you were admitted?

MR. MATTHEWS: Do you know what the nurse said to me when she was getting me ready for this dye job? She said, I wish I had brought my camera in this morning (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: So they injected dye in you?

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: So you are a little coloured now are you, a little more colourful than you were before?

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: It was blue dye by the way.

MR. SULLIVAN: Was it blue dye? Was it blue?

MR. MATTHEWS: It was blue, but it showed up red blood.

MR. SULLIVAN: Was it blue dye?

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) blue dye.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, it was blue dye. The Mulroney 500th Club dye - look, a special. You can get it on sale. Mulroney 500th Club dye, a special edition. They injected it into his veins.

Constituents of the District of St. John's North, the smallest electoral district on the Island of Newfoundland, 6,700 voters in his district, and 8,600 in the Ferryland district from Maddox Cove to Trepassey. Fortune - Cape la Hune, look at that district. Look at some other districts all over. There are 6,700 voters in St. John's North. Can you imagine?

MR. MATTHEWS: What's your point, Loyola?

MR. SULLIVAN: I am saying urban areas should not have considerably below the average for the Province, in urban areas where they are very close together. They should not have it.

In fact, I stated in this House when Moxie Moron Roberts or oxymoron -

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I don't doubt that. You don't live in your district, do you?

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, in fact I stay in your district when I'm in St. John's. I have a couple of places in your district when I'm in St. John's. Who knows how many more in your district.

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I got his card in my mailbox when I went back to my house Monday morning, yesterday morning - it seems so long ago. His card was in my mailbox.

AN HON. MEMBER: Really!

MR. SULLIVAN: A Christmas card, yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: From whom?

MR. SULLIVAN: Himself and his good wife. The mail is getting through, and when I went back again -

AN HON. MEMBER: Did he have a campaign donation in it?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, he didn't. He didn't have anything in it. He didn't give me any money at all. He gives Brian Mulroney $500 and he won't even give me, his critic here for two or three years, a cent.

MR. MATTHEWS: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. J. BYRNE: You're in the wrong chair.

MR. SULLIVAN: He can't be recognized, he is not in his seat. I can tell you, he can't even get in order. He doesn't know the Parliamentary rules here in this House.

MR. MATTHEWS: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Penney): The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation who is now in his right seat, on a point of order.

MR. MATTHEWS: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition short changes the former 500 Club by half. The contributions to that club had to be $1,000, not $500. I wouldn't want you to diminish the importance of that nonexistent Tory club.

MR. SULLIVAN: I guess they haven't told you that Brian Mulroney is not around any more, have they?

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: They haven't told you. How many years is he behind? When did we have that election, 1993?

Here's a letter to the Premier Brian Tobin and MHAs, Confederation Building, St. John's, Newfoundland from the value leader Riff's since 1939. It states: We are asking for your support in voting against the proposed changes to the Shops' Closing Act regarding Sunday shopping. We are totally opposed to the idea of Sunday shopping and feel it places an unfair burden on small independent retailers and their staff. Please put the Sunday shopping issue to rest once and for all. Ivan Riff and 400 staff members.

MR. BARRETT: You will get high blood pressure. You lost your memory, you just read that.

MR. SULLIVAN: I did.

MR. BARRETT: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I did not. You lost yours because the Member for Kilbride read it. I will challenge you in Hansard - I have a habit of profiting by members on that side. If you want to take me up on the task by doing it, Hansard will speak for itself.

MR. H. HODDER: He can't remember. He can't even remember what happened five minutes ago.

MR. SULLIVAN: One thing I have is a half decent memory. There are times it may fail me, but most of the time it is reliable. I usually remember what I say because I always try to tell the truth; then I never have to make up excuses, I say to the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: I knew I heard it before, I just thought (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, it was probably said before, no doubt about it.

I am sure this petition including members from the District of St. John's North, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, people petitioning, pleading with him to get up and stand up to your constituents, stop this nonsense.

When is your next Cabinet meeting?

AN HON. MEMBER: Thursday.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thursday. You are meeting on Thursday in Cabinet? Sit down and get a bit of common sense into those two people that are pushing this through on behalf of Wal-Mart and what is the other store? I do have a list of the people that are pushing it through.

AN HON. MEMBER: Price Club.

MR. SULLIVAN: Price Club that's it, exactly. Oh, yes, he even knows. Wal-Mart and the Price Club, that's a fact, they are the two that are pushing it.

MR. MATTHEWS: They are in (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: But who are the people they have clout with to get it through? Who is controlling the agenda? I am going to be looking for contributions to the Liberal Party next time to see what is there from Wal-Mart and Price Club. I am looking for big contributions. I wonder if we will see big contributions now; lift the contribution level, hit the ceiling - Wal-Mart, $75,000 for the Premier to run for Prime Minister, $75,000 from Price Club.

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Don't need any money, no.

MR. MATTHEWS: No?

MR. SULLIVAN: I will get a loan from you, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. Mr. T will give me a loan. Give me half of that jewellery there and I won't have to worry about any more money for the rest of my life; half of the jewellery he has and I will be all set. That is probably worth -

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I will take your Rolex and a few other items.

MR. MATTHEWS: The only thing I have is a watch donated by charity.

MR. SULLIVAN: By who? By charity?

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, a charitable organization gave me a watch.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Sure, why not, I say to the legal beagle. Will you be my legal beagle and guard -

MR. WISEMAN: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Member for Topsail, don't you worry. When someone comes after you the next time in Topsail, you had better be able to run.

MR. WISEMAN: Never you mind. Don't you worry about Topsail.

MR. SULLIVAN: You should, though. I won't worry about it, but you should.

Does Nova Scotia have Sunday shopping?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: No. Wrong again. Let's give them a test. Does Prince Edward Island have it?

AN HON. MEMBER: No. That is right, Nova Scotia has it.

MR. SULLIVAN: One for two. Nova Scotia has it. Does New Brunswick have it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Limited.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Limited and they are looking at reviewing that and possibly taking that away in the near future.

AN HON. MEMBER: Does Ontario have it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Does Quebec have it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Does B.C. have it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Does Alberta have it?

MR. SULLIVAN: I didn't think you could buy even a beer in Ontario on Sundays, unless it has changed. I don't drink beer, but –

AN HON. MEMBER: The malls are open in Ontario.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, but we are not in Ontario, we are in Newfoundland and Labrador. I say to the Minister, get your mind out of that. What about in Florida? Do they have Sunday shopping?

AN HON. MEMBER: Definitely.

MR. SULLIVAN: Do they? Well, we are not in Florida either, I say to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: I bought this shirt down there.

MR. SULLIVAN: You did? Did you see the former Member for Eagle River down there the last time?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SULLIVAN: Isle del Sol. That is it, is it, Isle del Sol? Isle del Sol down there, drove by it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I have a spy next door there. He doesn't know that, but I get a full report. When he was in Florida I was trying to ask questions on the Burin Peninsula. I was getting reports from a neighbour just a few doors away. I wouldn't dare tell him who he was. He has moved now, so I will have to put another spy there on you the next time.

AN HON. MEMBER: What was that?

MR. SULLIVAN: Never mind. I knew I would get his attention.

AN HON. MEMBER: Come clean with me, will you?

MR. SULLIVAN: What?

AN HON. MEMBER: Come clean like Harvey. Come clean.

MR. SULLIVAN: What I said, I said. I don't say anything that is false.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I know, and a former colleague on that side? I heard that. My colleague here has indicated it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I am not going to put it on the record of the House or anything, but I understand what you are saying. We understand. We have been informed by my colleague here who lives in that area.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, yes, I know. I am not sure what the prognosis is now, or anything, but his share of medical problems unfortunately.

Now, even the people who are proponents of Sunday shopping, indicated - there is an article here that I read, an editorial, just a few days ago, three days ago, in The Evening Telegram indicating, it is time to move forward with Sunday shopping. Then we see another little article just a little while after indicating that maybe we should look at limitations on when we can shop on Sundays. Maybe there should be a restricted period. That is here in an article, I think, on the fifteenth.

If the provincial government's Sunday shopping legislation passes before Christmas, what kind of hours should stores keep on this day? Elsewhere, the hours are usually noon to 5:00 p.m., and that works quite well. Sunday shoppers offer more convenient hours for Newfoundlanders, but there is probably no need to have 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. hours as offered by malls during the rest of the week.

So what do you do? Go in and open up for a few hours at extra cost, people getting to work. Overhead costs are going to be very similar over all, and it is not going to be a practical situation. We do not have the booming economy they have in certain parts of this country. We just do not have it.

We have been able to guard, probably a little more than some other parts of the country, a little bit of a community type life, smaller communities or family life. Usually family values change across the country. It is slower in our Province than elsewhere. It is smaller and it is rural, similar to Prince Edward Island and other smaller provinces. Now we are going to accelerate the pace at which we become urbanized or brought into the national stream. There are a lot of disadvantages to that pace here and we don't have the money to spend.

We are driving up costs. Businesses are struggling as it is. It will drive up costs. You are paying your bills for seven days of the week now when normally you would get by with a little lower heat and light bill than if you operate on Sundays. It does not make sense. I used this argument and no one seemed to give an answer. I know the member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island agreed with me the last day.

If you are open seven days instead of six, do your sales increase? The Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island said no and some others said no, and I don't think there will be any change in that either. It will be very much the same. So you take in no more money, you spread it over seven days instead of six, you increase your overhead costs, your variable overhead costs are going to increase, including your labour costs which are going to be part of it. So you are going to have to drive up the price of goods to maintain the same profit margin. That is an increased cost to consumers which means you get less for the dollar then. The value of the dollar you have then goes down. You can't buy as much for that dollar in the process and therefore it is self defeating. Why spend it at a large chain store where the profits go out of the Province when you can spend it just down the street, in a local area there? New Brunswick is reviewing that policy.

Wages, another factor - what is going to happen if profits are being squeezed by Sunday shopping? It will have the affect of keeping wages down. It will drive wages lower, at least freeze wages for longer periods of time. So that is one of the affects.

This government, back in the spring, introduced this bill - I think it was this spring - the Shops' Closing Act. This bill was introduced May 16 and they were looking at having a pilot project basically to look at piloting the act to see the impact. So the Premier is saying we will pass the bill but if it does not work out we will change it. Well, that's a silly argument to put forth. We will do it and then we will see if it works. The pilot aspect was even more palatable than the irreversible thing they are doing now. It is never going to revert back.

MR. TULK: You agree with that.

MR. SULLIVAN: I did not say I agree with it.

MR. TULK: Yes, you did.

MR. SULLIVAN: I didn't say it. When did I say that?

MR. TULK: Last night.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, when you were looking at it full tilt we tried to get you to come to some compromise rather than pull it through and try to back off come summer. That is what happened.

MR. H. HODDER: A three-month trial period. They wanted to go to a six-month trial period.

MR. SULLIVAN: You wanted to go six and we said just a three month period. We did not agree and we wanted an independent evaluation.

MR. TULK: As the Minister for Works, Services and Transportation would say (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: You would not agree on an independent evaluation either.

Now people are trying to plan their holidays.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

It is better than what? It is better than - what do they call it? What type of in exactitudes? What kind?

AN HON. MEMBER: Terminological.

MR. SULLIVAN: Terminological? I could see it is better than terminological in exactitudes coming from members on that side of the House. I would say it is a long way ahead. There is nothing worse than terminological in exactitudes.

MR. H. HODDER: I would rather quote Winston Churchill.

MR. SULLIVAN: We would sooner quote Winston Churchill than the Government House Leader or John Efford or the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Winston Churchill was a witty man; he had a lot of good quotes, a lot of witty conversations with Lady Aster.

It is an unstabilizing influence on families, on a way of life, to plan holidays, if you are off work on a Saturday and Sunday and your spouse has to go to work on Saturday and Sunday, if you work five days a week, and your spouse is working five, and you are never off the same day. That is difficult. There are enough strains and stresses today, especially on families with younger kids. It is demanding. Most people in here may have kids who are grown up and they probably don't see the advantage of that, but we have to start listening to people out there who it affects.

It is a way of life. It is a day that has been earmarked as a Sunday, a day free from the regular work. Even people years ago, in the fishing industry, the inshore industry, wouldn't fish on Sundays. It didn't matter what, Sunday was a day off, especially when people worked hard six days a week. They needed a break from the regular work.

People with various religious beliefs want to have a day of practice, and in many instances that particular day is Sunday. One of the arguments said: They are going to turn religious instruction out of the schools now, and now they are going to turn people to work Sundays, so you can't even get them to have their parents available for Sundays. They are going to take away all avenues. We aren't allowed to do it in school now, and now we are going to take away Sundays on them. That is another restraint. Surely the Minister of Education now can't agree with that. I can't see the minister agreeing with that at all.

Who is pushing it? I can't see who is pushing it. Apart from the legal beagle, I don't know who else is leading the charges on this one. I can't see who is leading the charges. I'm sure the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile doesn't agree with it, or the Member for Harbour Main - Whitbourne. A cabinet minister has to agree with it. I won't ask them. If you had a choice now and you left it alone, I would say the people here would say: Look, leave it. It is a thorn in the side. You are only turning off people. Why do it? Do you like punishment? Do you like being unpopular with people?

MR. WISEMAN: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: You don't go home for Christmas? I would say your wife is hoping this bill never gets passed. The last face she wants to see coming into the house Christmas is that of the Member for Topsail.

AN HON. MEMBER: She called me and said: Don't pass it.

MR. SULLIVAN: What did she call you?

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't pass it, she said, don't pass it.

MR. SULLIVAN: She called you `don't pass it.' I have heard you being called worse, I would say to the Government House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I won't comment on that. I can't comment on that one. That is not in my area of expertise. Maybe I have no areas of expertise, but that isn't in it.

One day for all, without shopping. One here: The Council of Christian Reform Churches in Canada. This came off the Internet, I think, wasn't it? We got this from the Internet?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

It shows: The Council of Christian Reform Churches in Canada represents and serves 220 congregations spread throughout Canada, with a combined membership of 86,800 persons living in 10,300 families. Each congregation strongly fosters family and community life through its teaching and programs. The members view and experience the family and the church as primary agents for the building of strong communities and the promotion of constructive social behaviour.

We could use a bit of that on the government side of the House, constructive social behaviour. We are very concerned that the provinces of Canada not only maintain but strengthen existing legislation governing a common day of rest, recreation and religion for all Canadians.

It says: The present Lord's Day act passed in 1907 restricted most commercial activity on Sunday, but allowed the provinces to set their own limits. In 1985, the law was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada because, in its words: It guarantees a freedom of conscience and religion that prevents the government from compelling individuals to perform or abstain from performing otherwise harmless acts because of the religious significance of those acts of others.

The Court's judgement indicates specifically that the federal government may not legislate retail hours on the basis of a particular religion. It said: All provinces now except Alberta have passed legislation to restrict commercial activity. Individual provinces' laws are now being subjected to separate court challenges. But perhaps the greatest challenge to rest day legislation - it goes on to say - is the increase in number and kind of exemptions granted to business because they cater to the tourist trade. This trend complicates the enforcement of the law. Proposals to allow commercial districts to be classified as tourist areas and expand the definition of essential services, as well as open defiance of the rules, are increasingly evident in most urban areas.

It goes on, in the last paragraph here, to say of present legislation: At present the governments of Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario favour letting municipalities decide on retail hours. The transfer of responsibility to local councils places neighbouring communities in competition with one another in regions where there is essentially one market area. This has a lot of drawbacks, a lot of negative aspects.

The last thing you want is one community saying, we want it, Corner Brook, and then Deer Lake says, we don't want it. Grand Falls - Windsor wants it, Lewisporte doesn't, Gander does, Happy Valley - Goose Bay does, another one doesn't. It should be something that is controlled provincially here, and there should be certain standards followed. We have to be careful, I think, when we open up the can here or a lot of worms will get out all over the place and we will have problems. So we should try to preserve as many of the values and principles, try to promote the establishment of the family unit, a day of rest, a day of relaxation, an opportunity basically to be able to socialize in activities that are more family-oriented on Sundays. Most people, I think, engage in more family-oriented activities on Sundays - it has been traditional - or on a specific day, whether it is Saturday or Sunday. Certainly, the Council of Christian Reform Churches in Canada that I mentioned, with 86,800 people - a significant number - living in 10,300 family units, certainly strongly advises that.

It goes on to other areas into which I will not go in any detail, but you can access it on their web site. It goes into the biblical background. It looks at social considerations and economic wealth. It is seen as the key to individual success in a good society. It talks about the economic considerations on this particular web site. It says: Seven-day shopping weeks may be advantageous for some merchants, but studies have shown that it does not increase the total sales of retail in the long term.

That is something that I stated yesterday. The Member for Conception Bay East and Bell Island, who has been in business, agreed with me that seven-day shopping might be advantageous for some but, in fact, studies have shown that seven-day shopping does not increase the total value of retail sales in the long term. That is what was shown.

It says the additional cost of operating the store, estimated by some to be as high as 15 per cent, extra cost by going that extra day, will be borne by everyone in higher prices or in reduced service on those other days that it is open; and that makes sense. If you bring in a bigger staff for peak periods, and you open it up on another day, you are going to scale it down in other areas and you will get a decrease in the quality of service.

Anyone in business knows that you do not get the same economies and numbers when you have a lower volume of sales. The economies are not there. If you get larger numbers, if you do $1,000 a day in sales and then you do $5,000, you do not need five times as many employees. If you do $10,000 you do not need double again, because as you increase your sales you get economies in your numbers where you can save money on labour and other areas. Now, when you spread it out you get the reverse. You don't get economies; you get increased cost of sales, and you lose those economies, a scale that would be there in other areas.

There are some very, very valid points. I ask you to read it. It is on the web site, the Council of Christian Reform Churches in Canada, some very interesting economic considerations. Unrestricted shopping hours work to the advantage of the large malls and chain stores, largely at the expense of family-run businesses. They have studies that have been done to show these things.

Workers in the retail trades, who comprise about 30 per cent of the workforce, are often forced by their circumstances to accede to their employers' demands to work on Sunday, because if they do not work on Sunday there could be significant repercussions that they might have to face. It said 70 per cent of these employees are mothers with dependent children who have to work in these chain stores, 70 per cent. Those statistics taken from studies have shown that sales do not increase. I say to the Government House Leader, they do not increase over the seven days when it is open, in the long term. They might get their short term, wear off after the first month and then it scales down. In the long term it does not work.

These employees need the weekend. Seventy percent are mothers with dependent children. They need their weekend for family life, for recreation. Costly day care greatly reduces net income. Many retail workers are not organized in the unions. They have low wages, enjoy few other job opportunities and they enjoy few long term benefits. So some interesting figures. It says to give lower income families the benefits of a common free day, governments need to provide adequate support for social and cultural institutions which enhance family life for all Canadians.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Five minutes, that's all. Well, there are four minutes to go, I guess. I can finish this in a minute.

In summation, Mr. Speaker, closing stores on Sundays will not automatically lead to better family and community life, nor does rest day legislation fulfil government's role in enhancing family life, but protecting a common non-commercial day is only a small part of pursuing a greater justice in major public policies that affect families. We regret that some workers are now compelled to work on Sundays because they need to get extra income to pay for those basic family necessities.

There are some very interesting points I might add, very interesting economic considerations. Studies have shown, just as we figured, that it does not increase sales in the short term. These are studies referred to by the Council of Christian Reform Churches in Canada. I trust their judgement to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, if I could just take the liberty -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: If I could just take the liberty, I think all of us would like to know. I don't want the media to report it or anything like that, but I just called Lily - I call Tom and Lily every day - and she tells me that her son, upon her command, squeezed her hand which is not a large indication that the young fellow is out of the woods or anything like that. The swelling apparently has gone down and the activity in the brain is a bit better as well. So I thought all members of the House would like to know that there is a very slight improvement and the options for Steven look a little bit better than they did yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, I would move that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House do not adjourn at 10:00 p.m.

All those in favour, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against, `nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

 

Division

 

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the motion please rise.

CLERK (Noel): The hon. the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal; the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General; the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture; the hon. the Minister of Education; Mr. Barrett; the hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour; the hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology; the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation; Mr. Noel; Mr. Wiseman; Mr. Andersen; Mr. Canning; Mr. Smith; Mr. Ramsay; Mr. Whelan; Mr. Woodford; Mr. Mercer; Mr. Reid; Ms Thistle; Mr. Sparrow.

MR. SPEAKER: All members against the motion, please rise.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition; Mr. Hodder; Mr. Shelley; Mr. Jack Byrne; Mr. Edward Byrne; Mr. Osborne; Mr. Ottenheimer; Mr. French; Ms Osborne; Mr. Harris; Ms Jones.

MR. HARRIS: Give him the count, Mr. Clerk.

CLERK: Mr. Speaker, twenty `ayes,' eleven `nays'.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure to have an opportunity to speak on this very important resolution now before the House. The question before the House is whether or not we should move the previous question. Should we move the previous question?

Well, Mr. Speaker, I am speaking against the motion. I do not think we should move the previous question. I think we should talk about it some more, and before we are finished talking about it we should refer it to a committee. We should refer it to a committee and I would move such a motion, Mr. Speaker, except that the Government House Leader has managed, at some late hour in the morning, after he froze out this side of the House, to finagle his way on the floor and get in a motion to do away with the debate that was going on and make sure that we were not going to be able to move any other resolutions.

Mr. Speaker, what we have before us now is a question as to whether or not we should continue to debate this for a long, long time, or whether we should send it off to a committee and listen to the people. Now, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance got an awful lot of mileage today out of the fact that he claimed to have listened to the people.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, he claimed that he listened to Jack Byrne.

MR. HARRIS: He claimed that he listened to the representations that were made in the House of Assembly, by, amongst other people, the Member for Cape St. Francis. He got a lot of mileage out of the Christmas spirit.

AN HON. MEMBER: I can't believe Paul Dicks gave him a comb?

MR. HARRIS: He did not say whether it was used or not but he might have given up a comb.

MR. J. BYRNE: It looked pretty clean to me.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, if we are talking about the Christmas spirit, we are talking about Christmas shopping, we are talking about the people who are affected by this being so busy this time of year that they are really unable to lobby members of the House, really unable to lobby the government.

At least the Minister of Finance brought this motion before the House. He had a ministerial statement several weeks ago. He allowed the Open Lines to talk about it, allowed people to have their say, and listened to the ideas that the people had, suggestions for coming up with a system that was not unfair to people who were being honest and that provided a pretty stiff deterrent to people who wanted to break the law and deprive the Treasury of its rightful HST.

Now, whether we should have an HST or not, that is a different question. But on the issue, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance rightly recognized that the role of government is to govern, but in doing so, they should be mindful of the wishes of the people and the will of the people.

Mr. Speaker, we have been debating this matter for a couple of days. Some of the media seem to think it was passed last week, the day it was introduced. Some of the media reported it as if it had been passed and some of them did not even bother to hang around here last night to hear the debate. This issue, Mr. Speaker, is one that people in this Province, who have expressed an opinion on it, who have thought about, are opposed to.

I have a letter here, a copy of which was sent to the Minister of Environment and Labour today, from the President of the Board of Directors of the City Consumers Co-operative Society, who wrote to the minister on behalf of the board, management, staff and members, wanting to express his dissatisfaction with the new legislation concerning Sunday store openings.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the President of the City Consumers Co-op says that Sunday shop openings will have a negative impact upon locally-owned businesses. Sales for six days will now be spread over seven days. Some of the arguments we were making here last night. He says: This will mean increased costs for sales and therefore increased cost to consumers.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the City Consumers Co-op knows whereof it speaks. They are controlled and owned by members, Mr. Speaker, who do their best to control costs and provide a service to their members at the same time. They know, Mr. Speaker, that the way the system operates is that the cost of sales is going to increase therefore the cost to consumers must increase as well.

This is a company operating, Mr. Speaker, not for profit, this is a company operating a co-operative, not operating for profit but for the benefit of its members who are shareholders of the organization. They know about the cost of sales because they have to deal with that on an ongoing basis.

Mr. Speaker, who is going to benefit from this? Well, in the opinion of the City Consumers Co-op, speaking on behalf of the board, management, staff and members, multi-national chains will be the only ones to benefit from this change. Local ownership will suffer and may disappear leaving the retail sector of our economy controlled by the multi-nationals.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I am telling the Minister of Education - I must say, I woke up this morning, Mr. Speaker, about two minutes to eight. Now, I got to sleep about five o'clock. I do not know whether it was a rehash of some interview he did three or four days ago or what, but the Minister of Education at two minutes to eight was praising me, I think, and was criticizing the Member for Baie Verte. He said: Harris seems to be on about something but this fellow Shelley, I do not know about it him. He does not know what he is talking about.

MR. FRENCH: Jack, do you know why his picture was (inaudible)? That was in case your youngster woke up, you could show him the television and say: If you do not drink your milk, that is what you will end up looking like.

MR. HARRIS: What amazed me, Mr. Speaker, was that the minister actually sounded coherent. He wasn't coherent, but he sounded coherent. This is after three hours of sleep and -

MR. SHELLEY: On CBC radio.

MR. HARRIS: On CBC radio, two minutes to eight, I woke up and heard Mr. Shelley's name, the Member for Baie Verte, and my own name, mentioned on the radio by a member who had four hours before been sitting back listening to all of this debate tonight. He didn't seem to learn very much, but he sounded coherent after three or four hours of sleep. I was impressed, Mr. Speaker.

I am not reading this letter; I am just telling him what the views of the President of the Board of Directors of City Consumers Cooperative are, who is speaking on behalf of the board, management, staff and members. They are saying that they believe the enormous profits that are already made by these outside companies will increase and, as always, continue to leave our Province, never to return.

Maybe that's the key, Mr. Speaker, to what is going on here. We haven't heard the real answer yet, but maybe that's part of the key.

I noticed, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier didn't say anything in the House today. He didn't respond to any of the petitions. He instructed the Government House Leader to bully the House again once more into moving to Orders of the Day without listening to the petitions of the people of this Province. We have had an example in the last couple of days, Question Period. Members on this side of the House wanted to ask the minister who was driving this? He wanted to ask, who did he consult? What was the response by the Government House Leader? The thumb screw, Mr. Speaker; let's not have debate on this issue in the House. Bill 48 is before the House - using the rules of the House to save the Minister of Environment and Labour from the questions as to why he is doing this.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have been asking these questions. They are now rhetorical questions because there is nobody over there answering them. Nobody can tell us why this is before the House.

Now, the Premier came back sometime last night or today, and I thought, for one, that now that the Premier was back members opposite would be allowed to speak because they would be told what was going to happen, why they were doing this, what they were allowed to say and what they were not; but Mr. Speaker, that is not what happened. The Premier didn't respond to the petitions -

MR T. OSBORNE: After - how many hours of debate? - they had one speaker up and the only reason the member got up was to adjourn debate.

MR. HARRIS: He instructed the Government House Leader to shut her down again; we don't want to hear petitions from the people. The Premier went out and spoke to the press, and what did he say? He said: Well, they are trying to stop this but we are going to proceed holus-bolus, we are not going to explain why we are doing this. The only excuse was: We are having a little trouble prosecuting people. Well, who did they try to prosecute, Mr. Speaker? Jim Baird. They tried to prosecute Jim Baird. We are having a bit of trouble, Jim is to much for us, to much of a match for the Minister of Justice, can't get him before the court. So, what we have to do, Mr. Speaker, is change the law because we can't get Mr. Baird to obey it. Never mind coming up with something creative and suggesting that there might be districts in which Sunday shopping would be allowed. Never mind coming up with something that would allow boutiques, book stores, galleries and record shops or certain types of services or businesses to be open. Never mind something like that, Mr. Speaker. No, we are going to open up the whole thing.

There is no protection for workers, Mr. Speaker. Where is the strength of the labour standards? Where is the right - I know the Member for Port de Grave would be interested in this -where is the right for someone to refuse to work on Sunday?

MR. EFFORD: Can I ask a question?

Do you realize that you are not on the government side, that you don't make decisions?

MR. HARRIS: Where is the right - make decisions, Mr. Speaker, I can't even get any answers out of the government, never mind make decisions. I can't get the government to answer any questions. They haven't told us why they are doing this. They don't listen to any reasonable suggestions on this side, Mr. Speaker. They haven't listened to any suggestions as to how to protect the worker. Where is the provision in this Act that allows someone to refuse to work on Sunday? Where is the provision, Mr. Speaker, to allow someone to refuse to work on Sundays? Where is it, Mr. Speaker? Where are the provisions that are going to protect workers from employers who are going to insist that workers work on Saturday and Sunday even if, Mr. Speaker, some individuals regard their Sunday as sacred? Mr. Speaker, many individuals regard their Sunday as sacred, some in a religious sense, some in a sense that it is sacred for me and my family to spend Sunday together. Why are they not allowed to refuse to work on Sunday? Why not provide that protection for people? Why don't we see that?

Mr. Speaker, the bill now before the House is something that they have tried to push on the people of Newfoundland a couple of times before and they are going to try again, Mr. Speaker, but maybe, just maybe, some time next week they will come to their senses.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, perhaps some time next week they will come to their senses if they keep listening to hon. members here on this side of the House outlining the problems, petitioning day after day, even if the Government House Leader, under instructions from the Premier, shuts her down. There are no more petitions. We cannot have people presenting petitions in this House one after the other. There was one after the other today; there were two, one after the other, presenting petitions one after the other. That is what the Minister of Justice said today:; we cannot have people presenting petitions one after the other.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I do not understand that, Mr. Speaker. You are only allowed to present one petition on any particular issue. This is a member -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Well, I was not here. I am told the member who presented a petition from one side of the street, then got up and presented one from the other side of the street, and then presented a photocopy of the same petition the next day, or the same day, Mr. Speaker.

What is happening here, Mr. Speaker, is that the government has indicated its intention not to listen to the Member for Humber Valley, not to listen to the Member for Windsor-Springdale, not to listen to the Member for Harbour Main - Whitbourne, not to listen to the empty chairs, not to listen to the Senator from LaPoile.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. HARRIS: He looks rather senatorial there? Not to listen even to the Member for Topsail, who has conducted an unscientific survey amongst his constituents, and six out of four people are in favour of defeating the bill, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to dwell on the Member for Topsail because I know he gets confused when he tries to explain this survey and I understand the difficulties he has been having with it.

Is the caucus over there listening to him, Mr. Speaker? I don't think so. I don't think they are listening to him, Mr. Speaker, and I understand why. It is not him I am concerned about but his constituents. I know his constituents have spoken to the Member for St. John's West, and she presented her views here last night -

MR. WISEMAN: Whose constituents are you worried about now?

MR. HARRIS: Yours. They are not very well represented, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WISEMAN: (Inaudible) worry about yours.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Topsail has a concern about my constituents. We won't worry about my constituents. I would invite the Member for Topsail to come to my constituents in the next election and we will see who my constituents choose, Mr. Speaker, to come back here and represent them, whether it will be me or the Member for Topsail. I invite the member to do that and we will see who comes back here to represent the constituents of Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

The Sunday shopping issue is one that is going to backfire on this government because they think that nobody is listening. They think that nobody is listening to what is going on in this House, but all of the opinions that have been expressed by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business - I do not often quote them in this House, but on this particular issue they are speaking on behalf of their members - 90 per cent of the 2,000 members are opposed to Sunday shopping, and they are the small business people, Mr. Speaker. They are the ones who are going to be hurt by this. They are the ones whose -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Why didn't they listen to them? They are always moving the lips, a lot of lip about entrepreneurs, lip service to the entrepreneurs, and when the entrepreneurs speak, when the small business people speak and say `Look, this is going to hurt our business', what do they do? They ignore them. You know this is a party of business, a party that has been supporting entrepreneurs. The Member for Port de Grave, one of the entrepreneurs par excellence, the man who - well, I will not say what he did.

AN HON. MEMBER: He sold stovepipes, (inaudible) panty hose (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: He sold stovepipes, Whisper pantyhose, yo-yos, Hula Hoops, and I think he started off selling little mirrors. I believe he started off selling little mirrors that used to say, `Would the lady on the other side please vote for Joey.' I think he started his career selling little mirrors. So why is there no support on the other side for the businesspeople who are saying to this government: Do not pass this legislation it is going to hurt us.

When the Member for Port de Grave is in Cabinet, why is he not supporting the small businesspeople of this Province who are saying -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Ninety percent, according to Mr. Peter O'Brien of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. Why isn't he saying we support them? Ninety percent of them are saying, `We do not want Sunday shopping.' Ninety percent of the members of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business who were surveyed by this organization -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) Peter O'Brien.

MR. HARRIS: I told you I didn't quote him often, but in this particular case he is talking about what his members have said in the survey. We are talking about public opinion here. We are talking about a scientific - of some sort - survey of members.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: It is just as valid as the Member for Topsail's survey, more so. When the Member for Topsail can have six out of four people in favour of a resolution to defeat Sunday shopping, then why can't we rely on what the Canadian Federation of Independent Business says about this issue?

I am more interested in the ordinary people, the workers who are going to be required now to work over a seven-day period and not six days; the supermarkets that are going to be expected to be open in a mall; the large department stores that are going to be open in the malls; the workers whose shifts are going to be affected by it, being reduced perhaps from eight-hour shifts to four-hour shifts; the dislocation to workers that is caused by that.

What about the person who the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods was praising last summer? Now the former Minister of Environment and Labour talked about what a wonderful young man he was, and we were persuaded by his arguments. Government listens to arguments that are sensible; that is what he said last spring. He was on TV praising himself for listening to the argument of this young man from Sears, Mr. Baker, who presented a brief. What did he say about how it was going to affect employees? It said that: Sunday will not be a volunteer day of work. Business will dictate that employees and their supervisors will be expected to work, most if not all, Sundays. They will lose what has traditionally been a common day of rest for all. Currently business dictates that retail workers have to work on Saturdays. They will demand that workers work both Saturdays and Sundays.

Families of retail children will suffer. Children are in school weekdays and therefore have no time to function as a unit, and having to work on weekends will eliminate any possibility of weekend recreational pursuits. These are concerns about family, about one of the things of which we say that we are all in favour. We are in favour of having strong, coherent, cogent families who have time to spend together, to do recreation together, on Sunday perhaps to go for a walk together, to go to church together, to go to social functions together, but now - just another commercial day where families will not have an opportunity to plan their day, to visit relatives, to go off to grandma's house and spend the day in leisure, because someone will have to run off and work for three or four hours here in the middle of the day, disruptive of family life.

The quality of working shifts will deteriorate. There is the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods. He is the one who was praising this young man last spring, praising Mr. Baker about his great ideas, and how we have listened to the people. He praised him to the stars - praising himself and Mr. Baker at the same time, of course - we have listened to the people. `We were wrong', said the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods. Well, if they were wrong then, what has happened since? Have the multinationals got to them?

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes.

MR. FRENCH: He lost the Liberal nomination.

MR. HARRIS: Is that what has happened? Have they told Mr. Baker that they do not care about his ideas any more just because he lost the Liberal nomination? Have they buckled in -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Fifteen minutes left.

MR. TULK: That is not true.

MR. HARRIS: I know the Government House Leader is looking forward to another fifteen minutes of my speech -

MR. TULK: I (inaudible) do a recount.

MR. HARRIS: I was going to suggest a recount on the last division, but I was concerned about the expense. Once burnt, twice shy.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Once burnt, twice shy on recounts.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I know the Member for Port de Grave is in a jocular mood now. He will not be in such a jocular mood 4:00 a.m. when we are here still debating this. We will only have ten-minute speeches then because it will be in Committee and we just go back and forth, back and forth.

The Member for Port de Grave was here the night that the former Member for Humber East and I did one-on-one, ten, ten, ten, ten, for hours and hours and hours. We kept her going. We will have another display tonight, and I am sure the Member for Port de Grave will enjoy that as the night goes on.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Oh, yes.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is an attempt by government to force its will on the people of Newfoundland. They keep saying that it is going to be voluntary, but not one of them yet has - the Member for Port de Grave would know this; he knows a little bit about business - a shopping centre lease. If you are in a shopping centre with a business, you have a contractual obligation under that lease to have your shop open when the mall is open, and the mall has the right to dictate the hours of operation of the stores in the mall.

Mr. Speaker, I have seen those leases. Try and change them. You do not get to negotiate them; they are presented by the owner of the shopping mall. If you want to rent in the shopping mall, those are the conditions; you open when the mall is open. It may be voluntary for the mall but it is not going to be voluntary for the individual shop owners who are going to be forced to open on Sunday, and the employees who will not have the right to refuse work on Sunday whether it is for religious reasons, family reasons, or not.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). The big ones.

MR. HARRIS: The big ones. The member wants to know what stores are not open. Wal-Mart is not open; Canadian Tire is not open; Zellers is not open; Dominion Stores is not open; Sobeys is not open; K Mart is not open. They are the ones that are going to be opening when this takes place, and they are the ones with the largest staffs. They are going to be open, and the other stores are going to have to open for competitive reasons. What is going to happen is that the locally-owned businesses are going to be required to open.

As the President of City Consumers Co-op said, `the only ones to benefit from this change will be the multi-national chains. These are the only ones who will benefit.' Now this is the City Consumers Co-op, representing the owners of business - the owners being the members - the staff, the management and the board, speaking in unison, opposed to this legislation.

I see the Speaker looking at his stopwatch there. I know he will just give me the nod when my time is up and allow me to finish this thought.

Mr. Speaker, I ask members opposite to listen to the people of Newfoundland, to listen to the petitioners, to listen to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, to listen to City Consumers Co-operative, to listen to the employees of the Canadian Tire chain who had representatives here last night in the House and have sent petitions over and faxes to the minister. I wonder if the minister could table all the faxes and letters that he has received. Would the minister do that? I have a copy of a letter sent to the minister. I do not have the original. I am not allowed to table it, but maybe the minister will be kind enough to table all the letters and faxes –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I would like the minister to lay upon the Table of this House all of the messages, faxes and letters. We only have copies of some of them, I am sure, but I know the minister has dozens and dozens and dozens of letters and faxes. I know the Premier has, too. Can he put them together in a pile or several piles, however many piles it takes, put them on the Table and show the members of this House what the people of this Province are thinking and saying about this issue. If he has one pile for those in favour and another pile for those against, we will see.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I am glad to rise today and say another few words. As I listened to the member, and as I listened to the comments from around the House, it is a funny thing about all of this; the members across the way are asking the same question that we are asking. The more I hear people talk, and the more I hear about how ridiculous it is to be here, if you stop and listen to everybody, we are asking the same question. How ridiculous is it for us to be here tonight talking about this piece of legislation when there are so many other things to talk about?

Mr. Speaker, just for the record, as a matter of fact, the last few weeks of this session have been very cooperative and there has been a lot of good legislation brought in. We have gotten up and commended the government and the ministers, and up to a certain point we have been cooperative. Not only have we been cooperative, and the Government House Leader got up to commend us for cooperating and for passing pieces of legislation, for worrying so that the people could get their money out - we would not hold up any money - not only have we been cooperative, but now they are starting to send us gifts. We have been listening so well lately, we are starting to get gifts from across the House. We started a few weeks ago. In the last couple of weeks, you talk about productive. The Member for St. John's East -

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. SHELLEY: A conflict of interest. He brought it up, raised some real good points about it. What did the Premier do? The Premier listened to it, fixed it, changed it. He listened to the Opposition, the Member for St. John's East, a great situation. He corrected it, improved it.

What happens next? The Member for Kilbride stands up - a single mother in the Goulds, a policy change - some good points by the Member for Kilbride, and what did this minister do? He changed it again; that is what he did. He changed it again, because what happened? Our colleague again, the Member for Kilbride, made a lot of sense about it, very good points, and what did the minister do? He changed it again.

Then our most recent hero just today again, time after time, the Member for Cape St. Francis, in the House... It was evident today on CBC and NTV - all over the Province it was quite evident - that again - and it was so good this time - they came bearing gifts. Even the Minister of Finance acknowledged it. He had a little smile on his face for a second but he took the smile off and he was very serious. `Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Opposition was right again.'

MR. J. BYRNE: Again?

MR. E. BYRNE: Again.

Here is the irony of the whole situation: Three major changes in less than two weeks, all brought on by our colleagues here on this side, and we are here tonight on what everybody agrees is a ridiculous thing to be standing here about. Here we are about ready to get our gifts for Christmas, ready to go home to our families for Christmas, and what are we doing? Sitting in the House of Assembly. But do you know what? You talk about the convenience of shopping; when we leave here 3:00 or 4:00 tomorrow morning we can still go shopping. I have heard some of the members across the way talking about people needing that Sunday to shop, how they do not get much time to shop. We can shop twenty-four hours a day now. You can shop by e-mail. You can go all over the Province and shop anywhere. There are all kinds of ways to shop. You can do it all kinds of ways.

What is so ridiculous, and the biggest point that they miss, is the small store owners. They talked about the percentage -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I will do it between Monday and Saturday. I won't have to go out Sunday to go shopping, I tell the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: It is a beautiful dress. As a matter of fact, while I am up -

AN HON. MEMBER: You should go and get one for your wife.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: The Government House Leader is keeping tabs on me. He even followed me to the Avalon Mall last year where I bought a beautiful black dress for my wife - for the record - and my wife will show you the beautiful black dress at any time.

What I find incredible is that in the mall - lots of people everywhere - I thought I was minding my own business and, low and behold, I come back to the House of Assembly the next day -

MR. J. BYRNE: Spy.

MR. SHELLEY: The Government House Leader has a private investigator following me. He knew how much I paid for the dress, where I got it, and everything.

MR. TULK: You bought it for your wife. What we you doing trying it on?

MR. SHELLEY: We are the same size, very slim. I had better qualify that.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader must have had me followed all around. He knew everything about me, where I was that night, how much I paid for the dress, and everything. It goes to show again that they are watching us very closely.

MR. J. BYRNE: How concerned they are.

MR. SHELLEY: The other funny thing that has been in this House the last few days is how concerned they are about the leadership. They are more concerned than we are. Talk about Mr. Moores and the big news conference; we were not at the news conference.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Doug Moores, I said.

We were not at the news conference. We were not making comments about Mr. Moores. We were watching the process unfold.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: You don't have a clue what's on the go, do you?

MR. SHELLEY: But I will tell you what we are not doing - having press conferences to say we are not doing anything. There is nobody going to have that press conference, Mr. Speaker.

MR. J. BYRNE: Who are you talking about?

MR. SHELLEY: No, I will not mention it. Nobody needs to know who did it.

MR. J. BYRNE: It is not the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, is it?

MR. SHELLEY: No, because I tell you, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture - I will cut that right there tonight. If there is one issue on which I do support the minister 110 per cent, and I commended him tonight when I came in - particularly tonight on CBC - I would go from here to Vancouver to China with him to fight the IFAW.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Well, we will stay here and do it. If there is one issue that we -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: If there is one issue on which I support the minister, and we should give credit where credit is due, it is the Minister of Fisheries -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) seal oil capsules.

MR. SHELLEY: Actually, the minister knows as much as I know about the seal oil capsules. That, in fact, with the omega-3 fatty acids, is one of the key ingredients and key reasons why the seal oil industry is going to boom; and I bet there are a lot of people in this Province -

AN HON. MEMBER: We are going to hear Bud's speech now.

MR. SHELLEY: You are going to hear Bud's speech. Listen. I remind the hon. member of one time when the hon. Mr. Hulan was in the House of Assembly, when he was telling me about the great combine harvester he brought out in Codroy Valley. He was telling me how this harvester - a 1974 John Deere harvester, if I remember right - that he bought for a friend of his out in Codroy Valley -

MR. J. BYRNE: Who paid for it?

MR. SHELLEY: The government paid for it.

- and he was going to sow all the grain. Here we are now with a wheat harvester over on the West Coast. He was going to do all of the grain. I asked the minister about it, and he said he welcomed the Member for Baie Verte to come out and sow the grain. The only problem was, he didn't have the grain himself.

AN HON. MEMBER: John Deere or Dear John?

MR. SHELLEY: Dear John, it should have been. John Deere.

Mr. Speaker, the irony of all this debate lately in the House of Assembly, back and forth across the House, everybody agrees on one thing for sure - we all agree on this; we should have a division on this one - that this is the most ridiculous thing, to sit here tonight and last night debating a bill. The biggest question I have asked today, just for curiosity sake while I was at the mall earlier, of anybody I bumped into, just for conversation, and everybody has the same question - whether they are for Sunday shopping or against it they have the same one - where and why is this now? Where did it come from, and why is it brought up now? Nobody can figure it out.

Some people who think they know the minister say: `Did the minister's constituents press him to bring in Sunday shopping?' Not a chance. I wouldn't doubt that there is one constituent in his constituency who bothered him about Sunday shopping. Is it the Cabinet members? No, because the truth is that the Cabinet ministers, his Cabinet colleagues, would very simply say to you: What in the name of Joe Antley are we doing here discussing -

MR. TULK: Who? Joe Antley was my great-great-grandfather.

MR. SHELLEY: I was trying to get a word that was acceptable to the Speaker, I say to the minister.

Mr. Speaker, certainly not his Cabinet colleagues.

MR. TULK: What in the name of gosh darn?

MR. SHELLEY: If you look around at his caucus colleagues, how many of them, I wonder, in the last two and three weeks were going to the minister saying, `You have to get this Sunday shopping through. This is important'.

MR. TULK: Paul, what in the name of gosh darn did you (inaudible)?

MR. SHELLEY: What in the name of gosh darn? Well, Mr. Speaker, down in Fleur de Lys they say, `What in the name of Joe Antley?'

MR. TULK: Joe Antley was my great-great-grandfather.

MR. SHELLEY: Okay, I will take that back, then, and say gosh darn.

MR. TULK: What in the name of gosh darn are we going here tonight?

MR. SHELLEY: What in the name of gosh darn are we doing here tonight? Is that okay? Can I go on now? Mr. Speaker, you have to protect me because we are wasting valuable time here now, and I have a lot of points to make.

Mr. Speaker, he says that he did not get it from his constituents, he did not get it from his Cabinet colleagues, he did not get it from his caucus, he certainly did not get it from us, he did not get it from all of the groups that we hear, he did not get it from the - who is it, the president of the Co-op? What is his name? He did not get it from Mr. Sheppard, I heard on the radio this morning, who is the President of the Board of Directors at the City Consumers Co-op. He did not get it from him. We have another letter here representing 450 employees with Riff's. He did not get it from them. He did not get it from the labour boards. So the question that we are all on the same road about is: Where did this come from?

The Member for Kilbride hit it right, I think. Here we have legislation - as a matter of fact we were talking to the Government House Leader today - there is legislation sitting in this House now on the utilities, on the labour act, important legislation that would improve things in those specific fields that would be good and useful, I say to the Government House Leader, but what are we talking about instead? We are not talking about that. We are talking about Sunday shopping, and every now and then one of the members from across the way talks about: Sure, there is already 70 per cent, or whatever the statistic is - I don't even remember now what it is; 72 per cent or something - of shopping already going on. Is that right or am I way off?

AN HON. MEMBER: Two-thirds of the stores.

MR. SHELLEY: Two-thirds of the stores supposedly.

There are a couple of points I would like to make. Yes, there is over two-thirds of shopping going on right now - I would like to do another statistic - but most of those are local small businesses, gas stores, convenience stores, small shops; that is what they are. Do you know what that means? When we spend our dollar there is goes back into Newfoundland and Labrador. What happens when the other third comes on stream now on Sundays, when Wal-Mart and Sobeys opens up? Where is your dollar going to when you go to Sobeys and Wal-Mart now? It is going out of the Province. That is the thing you have to remember; none of this thing about a right or whatever. We have six days a week, some twenty-four hours a day, to go shopping. Now if you cannot do your shopping in that amount of time - unless you are a shopaholic like some people might be. I ask the members here, how often do you go shopping? How many times do you go shopping? Can you get it in Monday to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Every Sunday go shopping, I ask the Member for Bellevue? What a bunch of hog wash. The more you think about it, the more irrational it seems to be.

The biggest reason that I oppose this bill and support the people who oppose it is for the simple reason: small-time Newfoundland businesses. That is who I am supporting. The Member for Conception Bay South in our caucus can tell you firsthand because he had one of those stores.

Mr. Speaker, if you want to get the real story of it, don't go out to fifty people; go to one small convenience store that has been operating in this city or in one of your communities, and just sit down with him at his counter - or go out to that little store in Petty Harbour that I drop into every now and then - and you ask him what keeps his little store going. They are not making a lot of money. These little convenience stores are not rolling in dough. They don't have Jags in their driveway. All it is is making a family business, just paying enough to keep the wolf from the door, keep the bills paid off, and be self-employed so they don't have to worry about all the cutbacks the government is doing. That is what they are doing. That is exactly what most of these convenience stores are doing. They are not rolling in dough. They are just surviving, making a job for themselves, and this difference on Sunday could be - you can mark it down and talk to people firsthand who own these stores who will tell you - I will not say it is definite, but for a lot of them it could be a death knoll for the small-time confectionery and corner stores in the Province. Because on Sunday, as the Member for Conception Bay South continues to tell us - he has a small store - on Sunday this is what happens. You do not have to be a genius or do a big survey to figure this; this is what happens: On Sunday, when the people are going off to their cabins, or going into the woods, or going on a little trip, what do they do? They run up to the corner store. They forgot some milk, or a loaf of bread, or a bit of salt beef, or something like that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) bologna.

MR. SHELLEY: A bit of bologna, or whatever it is. Like the member also said to us: Parents, on Sunday evening, realizing that their groceries are running low, and that they must have something for lunch for the kids next day who are getting on buses to go all over the place to go to school, where do they go? The corner store. Now, just take the reality of this. Here is the convenience store just down the street. Of course, the price is usually a little bit higher at the convenience store to keep it on par - not a lot - but a consumer would... Of course, if Sobeys is five minutes up the street he is not going to drop into this convenience store; he is going to go up to Sobeys. That is where he will go. That is where it hurts. And where is that dollar going that I just spent on a tin of milk or a block of butter? Sobeys, the bigger stores. That is just one example.

What one fellow said to me is this: Look, the people who are going to hurt are going to hurt a lot; but the people who are going to gain, which is a small number, it does not mean anything to them anyway. That is the thing with this bill, Mr. Speaker. Take the Sobeys store and take a little corner store. Sobeys is going to gain a little bit; they are not even going to notice it. They will be open for an extra day, they will have extra employees on, and so on, and they will have a little extra money; it does not mean anything to Sobeys. But to Joe's convenience store down the street, that is going to lose $100 or $150 or $200 out of his shop that Sunday afternoon because they went to Sobeys, it means a lot. You go and ask those people.

Forget your surveys or your scientific research. Just take the time to stop in to five or six or seven small stores in this Province and ask them how they will be affected. That is what you do, because none of this really makes any sense. I still say that there are people in this Province and in this House here saying: Where in the name of God is this coming from just before Christmas, to bring in Sunday shopping without any consultation whatsoever with the people who are mostly affected? Every time -

AN HON. MEMBER: They have heard it on this issue (inaudible) time.

MR. SHELLEY: Well they have heard it so many times before, you would think they would have blown it out of their minds altogether and gotten it over with, because what happened here is that... Whenever somebody is affected by a change in government, I have always believed, the first people who should be consulted are the people who are going to be most affected, and in this particular case it is not the consumer. I am not going to get too excited if I cannot go shopping on Sunday. The person who is mostly affected is the small-time, Newfoundland shop owner; so it would have made sense for the minister - and I give him this advice; maybe he will take advice again - what he should do is go and talk -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: He should have reeled in 100 of them, or fifty of them - fifty small-time shop owners - brought them in for a meeting and say: Now, tell me how you feel about this. He could have done it like that, in a week. He could have done a random pick, called fifty store owners around the Province: I want you to come in and give me your views because you are going to be most affected here. Give me your views on what it is all about.

I am going to tell you, if the minister had done that, you know what? We would not be sitting here tonight debating this bill, because you know what we would be doing? We would be cooperating on the other important legislation that is about to come to this House, like we have done in the last two or three weeks when we gave good advice, when the Member for St. John's East turned around the conflict of interest rules, when the Member for Kilbride turned around the policy concerning single mothers out in the Goulds, when the Member for Cape St. Francis gave the advice to the Minister of Finance and changed (inaudible). That is what we would be doing here today. Well, we would not be here tonight. We would be here again tomorrow at two o'clock giving him more good advice - good, solid things.

The Member for St. John's South, on housing, how he turned that around, day after day, driving home the points, and he does not sit on the fence.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: He tears it down. One thing about the Member for St. John's South, he does not sit on the fence.

Mr. Speaker, that is what we could be doing. Instead of all this nonsense that is going on, the minister should have brought in the people who are going to be most affected by it. Remember that, and keep that in mind. That is what was said to me last night, and it made a lot of sense. The people who are going to gain from this are going to gain very little, i.e. the Sobeys shops. The people who are going to lose - the small shops - lose a lot relative to Sobeys, but it means a lot to them. What it means is that they stay open. That is exactly what it means.

I have just a couple of more notes here, Mr. Speaker. Has anybody consulted with the employees, the people who work from Monday to Saturday now for $5.25 an hour? We are not talking about massive jobs here; we are not talking about a number of extra jobs.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) jobs. There is a loss of jobs.

MR. SHELLEY: There are no jobs. There is actually going to be a loss of jobs - drive up the prices in the bigger stores. You lose on all ends of it. There is no rationale for it.

I hear comments from across the way, `Well, there is Sunday shopping now.' That is exactly the point; there is Sunday shopping now just like it is. Why fix something that is not broken, I say to the Government House Leader? You never fix anything that is not broken do you? Or do you? He probably does. Well, Mr. Speaker, what they have to do is reconsider -

MR. TULK: Answer a question: Are you broken?

MR. SHELLEY: No, I am not broken.

MR. TULK: Well, if you are not broken I (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: What the minister has to do, in all seriousness, is to reconsider the factor of the people who are most affected.

MR. TULK: We will put a road down on the Baie Verte Peninsula with that combine harvester (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Oh, I am really worried about that. I remember the slogan in Baie Verte, when he walked into Baie Verte for the first time - of course Baie Verte where we usually get about twenty feet of snow -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) combine harvester.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, and not only that, a snow-maker.

MR. TULK: Do you have a snow-maker?

MR. SHELLEY: No, we don't want a snow-maker. Even the snow-maker in Marble that spent millions of dollars making snow last year, and all the rain, that does not matter. In a normal winter, Baie Verte gets anywhere from fifteen to twenty feet of snow. The Member from St. George's came out to Baie Verte. The first thing he promised, when you could hardly get in through door with snow, was a snow-maker. He was going to have a snow-maker down in Baie Verte.

MR. TULK: Who?

MR. SHELLEY: The former Member for St. George's. The first thing he did, in his first speech in Baie Verte -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: At the Bay Vista -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Oh, yes, Sir.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Co-operation, I say to the minister.

MR. FRENCH: Yes, from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

The Government House Leader was co-operative. That is what I am saying to you - and the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, I will give you another example. Look, we have used examples here all night. When you co-operate... There are lines you play in here. I have always said, there is the House of Assembly and then there is the real world when you get out there. All of the actions go on here, but when it comes down to helping out Newfoundlanders and Labradorians -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: No, he didn't take me on a trip. I had to pay for my own. No, I took him on a trip when we got over there, though, I say to the Government House Leader, and showed him a few things they do.

Mr. Speaker, what we did was co-operate with the Government House Leader, with the snow machine he is talking about now at Copper Creek. We sat down, we rationalized, we talked it out, and for the benefit of everybody we worked out something.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: That is right, but you go down and tell -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: The Government House Leader is so far off base it is almost laughable.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Do you want me to tell the whole story? You would look bad, let me tell you. You would look really bad if I told the true story of the groomer in Marble Mountain. Now don't tempt me.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Don't tempt me, I say to the Government House Leader, because if I tell the truth about the groomer that came from Marble Mountain to Copper Creek he would feel embarrassed. He is lucky that I involved him in it so that he could get a little bit of goodness from it.

MR. SULLIVAN: Copper Creek is well groomed now isn't it?

MR. SHELLEY: Copper Creek is well groomed now, I say to the minister.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) talk about the sawmill, if they ever get a sawmill down there (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Oh, is that right? Ask the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods about the meetings we had just this week about the integrated sawmill. We will send down `This Bud's for you'.

MR. SULLIVAN: `This Bud's for you', he said to Paul last year. Paul said, `You can have that Bud back'.

MR. SHELLEY: The slogan was, `This Bud's not for you'. That is what it was.

He was going to sell all the grain in St. George's with the 1974 John Deere.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, by leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Relevancy, yes, I agree. Back to the bill, Sunday shopping.

Anyway, the groomer in Copper Creek was very important for that mountain, very important, and it is all related to Sunday shopping because we bought it on Sunday.

AN HON. MEMBER: What does the combine harvester have to do (inaudible)?

MR. SHELLEY: Because the minister said last night that we could buy anything on Sunday - you can buy a car, you can buy a house - well, we bought a groomer on Sunday.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: All of this is relevant, I say to the minister, because exactly what I am talking about is that we, as an Opposition have been cooperating, have been advising, have been lobbying, pushing the government to make good decisions lately. The Member for Cape St. Francis put the icing on the cake today when he made the Minister of Finance, in front of cameras and lights, agree that what we put forward as an Opposition - and especially the Member for Cape St. Francis - changed the government. That is why we are here today, because we are trying to insist - if we put forward these points strong enough, sooner or later the government is going to listen on this one too. They have listened to a lot already, and they are coming around. There are times that they come around.

MR. J. BYRNE: You have to repeat it and repeat it and repeat it.

MR. SHELLEY: The thing is you have to repeat it over and over and over. That is a little bit tough at times, but we do not mind that.

We are abiding by the rules. Most times when my colleagues have gotten up to speak - last night and all night tonight - there is always a different point, always something new to add to it. When we think we are good, we get better. That is the most amazing thing about it, after all of us speaking. As one gets up, you say: My God, he was great. The next person gets up and he is great. And we get better and better and better.

Mr. Speaker, we are really excited about our leadership, about as excited as the Government House Leader is with our leadership. We are as excited about the leadership and the changes we are going through, and all of the things that are happening with us - more excited, or just as much at least - as the Government House Leader and all the members over there. They are all concerned about our leadership, wondering about the press conference that we did not go to.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Oh.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Time will tell, Mr. Speaker.

MR. J. BYRNE: They do not have a clue what is on the go, do they?

MR. SHELLEY: They do not know. The truth is it is killing them that they do not have a clue what is happening with our leadership, not a clue.

AN HON. MEMBER: Someone said you have a freight train coming out of Ottawa.

MR. SHELLEY: Oh, we had a choo-choo the last time anybody stepped aside, talking about the freight train that was coming along. There will be none of that.

MR. J. BYRNE: I think I can, I think I can, I think I can.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, they all talked about that. But what the government is starting to do with us - and we saw it in this session - when we really get everything settled down here and get full steam ahead as a group, we are going to change more policy by the government. That is what we have to do now, enhance the government, make good decisions, co-operate at times when it is beneficial for the people we represent.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: That is right. We are learning, though. That is one thing we do not say, that we know it all. When you get to that stage in here, you have to go through those double doors and walk away. You think you know it all here, but when you get to that stage -

MR. TULK: But you (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: No, I say to the Government House Leader, I have never, ever, said that I know it all; close, but not all. We just encourage the Government House Leader and the members on that side to keep paying attention to us. You never know; at the end of the day people are going to start saying: Well, they do actually listen to somebody. They do take advice.

It is a real challenge for us to put forward some good, credible alternatives to what the government is saying so that we show to the people of the Province that we are an alternative to the governing... That is what it is all about, to put forward policies, but the hard part is that in the four years that the government will be in power we have to be putting them back on track so often, and changing their policies, that we are going to use up all the things that we know, that we are saving to put on the table for a platform when the election is called in a year-and-a-half from now, a year-and-three-quarters, or whatever. Around the spring of 1999, maybe the fall of 1999, you will probably see an election, I say to the Government House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. SHELLEY: Oh, yes.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) policies like opening up fish plants, and stuff like that (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, that is right, opening up fish plants. Yes, like privatizing Hydro, like the Trans City hospitals (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, there are a lot more points to make yet. As a matter of fact, we are going to make another list of points as we go through Committee stage.

I have only one minute left and I want to conclude on the point with which I started. Wherever this Sunday shopping legislation came from, whoever hatched it, whoever borne it, in whatever back room it was in, should put it back in the back room. That is where it belongs; it does not belong out here. And I am willing to bet, I say to the minister, that if the minister got up tonight and said we are going to take this legislation off the books, you know what? There would not be a whimper tomorrow morning I say to the Government House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I bet you, I say to the Government House Leader, if they took this legislation off tonight, there would be a little headline tomorrow saying that the legislation was taken off, the government put it back, and you would not get a whimper from anybody saying: Oh, my, the Sunday shopping is stopped. It has me ruined. I am going to be really upset. We would have petitions here on Friday coming in left, right and centre. The truth is, Mr. Speaker, it should not even be.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. J. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if I could have leave to present a petition?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: No, I will not be the last speaker on this side because I have been informed that the Member for Bonavista South is on his way; therefore he should be here within the next while. We rang the bells today on three occasions and have been anxiously awaiting his arrival. Therefore, I can assure the Government House Leader that he should be here within the next twenty-nine minutes. If not, of course, we might ring the bells again and give him an extra ten minutes or so.

Mr. Speaker, before I make my comments on the bill here, I wanted to read into the record the fact that, on tomorrow, for Private Members' Day, we are going to be again listening to the brilliant presentations by the Member for Bonavista South on the private member's motion that he has on the Order Paper dealing with the moose in the pastures, and the expenses incurred by farmers in Newfoundland and Labrador as they try to cope with the hazards presented by moose, and what they do to damage the crops. That motion will be debated tomorrow, and I understand that the member is going to have an exceedingly good presentation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have been debating this particular motion now for a while. In fact, on second reading we spent three hours and thirty-nine minutes, not counting the time that the minister used to introduce the bill. On this side, counting the presentations made by the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, we spent three hours and thirty-nine minutes on second reading. Then we have the hoist motion from our side, not counting the feeble attempt by the Minister of Justice to engage in debate late last night. On this side of the House there were five hours and twenty-eight minutes taken up in debate, and at this point in time we know that we had Division on the hoist motion and it was very close. We almost had enough members on that side persuaded that a six-month hoist was what the people would like to have. There was all kinds of dissension. There were members leaving the Chamber, and people said, `No, I am not staying here to vote because I believe in a six-month hoist.' So we had that debate.

Then, of course, we had the debate started which the Government House Leader introduced last night when he thwarted an attempt by my colleague from St. John's East to get up and speak on the main motion. Of course he suspected, and I suspect that his suspicions were well-founded, that there might be a further amendment. In fact -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) happened once or twice.

MR. H. HODDER: Yes, it has happened once or twice before, and I would acknowledge that the Government House Leader knows the procedure. He knows what went on and, of course, members on this side were a bit offended because members felt that the Member for St. John's East had been recognized. They felt, and he felt, and this caucus felt, that probably he should have been recognized, but he was not and we will accept the rulings that are put forward by the Chair.

It is a case of where, on this side, we began, then, this particular motion which is, in accordance with Section 521 of Beauchesne, of course, a previous question. Now this is a form of closure. What you can do directly in Section 519 of Beauchesne, you can do indirectly by Section 521. So when the government does not want to go and be direct and say, `We are going to introduce closure on second reading.', then they can introduce the indirect motion which, of course, is to call the previous question. Of course that cuts off all further amendments and all that kind of thing. It is just laid out here –

MR. TULK: A little faster.

MR. H. HODDER: A little faster. I should point out to the Government House Leader that we have noticed his sensitivity to closure because, you see, there has been some criticism of the way in which this government thwarts debate and tries to circumvent the word `consultation'. Of course while they were elected on a mandate of consultation, now when they get their mandate they try to do anything else but consult. Therefore, by moving the previous question they were able to say, `Well, we did not bring in closure.', but as they did with several bills before -

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: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has to recognize, surely, that the previous question is closure. I say to him, it is just a little faster.

MR. H. HODDER: That is what I said.

MR. TULK: No, no. You were saying, `It is not really closure'; but it is.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, to that point of order. It is quite obvious that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I already ruled there is no point of order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

It is quite obvious, if you read Beauchesne, that there are two separate things, two separate methodologies. While one requires notice to be given, the other one does not require notice to be given. We just want to note the usual closure by this particular government.

Mr. Speaker, from 1949 to 1989 closure was used five times. In his twenty-three years in office, Joey Smallwood and his Liberals never used closure once - not once. Joey Smallwood got through the House of Assembly, got his legislation put through, and our records show that he never used closure, not one single time.

Then, when the Liberals took over, from 1972 until 1989, there were five occasions in which closure was used. I should say that in the session in 1979 it was used once. There was one closure motion in 1979. In 1984 there were three closure motions used. In 1988 there was one. In the seventeen years of Progressive Conservative government closure was used a total of five times.

Then in 1989 we had the Liberals elected, the new group - Joey Smallwood never used closure whatsoever, and then along comes the Wells administration. We find out that in 1990 closure was used on four separate occasions. In 1991 the Liberal government of Clyde Wells used closure seven times. In 1992 he used it seven times. In 1994 the Liberals, under Wells, used closure on four separate occasions and in 1995 on three occasions. In 1996 it was used on four occasions, and that was a leader change. The new Premier came back from away, took office, and, of course, he used it on July 25, 1996 on the famous Kodak bill to shut off debate that summer when we came back. We used it as well on December 17 of last year on HST in second reading, and then we used it in the Committee on HST and then on the schools act.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Yes, it was used twice. Therefore we had two separate ones.

MR. J. BYRNE: Is that something you are proud of, abuse?

MR. H. HODDER: Therefore, I'm saying to the Government House Leader, that means we have used closure now since confederation, nearly fifty years, forty-eight years, a total -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Is that something you are proud of, abuse of the House?

MR. H. HODDER: Counting what we are doing here today, this is the twenty-ninth time that we have used closure since confederation, and of course this is the first time in this session.

So, what we are saying here to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador is that we are going to shut off debate. We are closing discussion on this. What this whole process is about here tonight, what the previous question is all about, is that the Government House Leader is saying: I am finished with discussion on this particular second reading and we are now going to move. We are not going to have any chance for a six-month hoist, as we wanted to have so people could participate in the discussion. They voted that down earlier today and now they are saying: We are now going to say to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, we don't want to here what you have to say; in spite of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that I have all kinds of letters, telegrams and messages from all over Newfoundland and Labrador, people saying: Would you please slow this down. We have representation from the people who work in the various stores, from the big and small stores, from Riff's in Central Newfoundland. They sent a message today on behalf of their 400 employees saying that all of their employees do not what to have Sunday shopping.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have here some customers who were at the Canadian Tire Store here in St. John's, another list of people who do not want to have Sunday shopping. The list goes on and on. We have a petition to this House and it says that they want to have some chance for public discussion. This is from the Town of Gander and it was sent in to us.

Again we say to the government that their closure motion is saying to all of these people: We don't want to hear from you. That is in contrast to the first page, as I said last evening, of the Premier's letter in his famous Red Book when he says that he wanted to have an open and ongoing dialogue with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. The Premier only wants to talk to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador when it is convenient to him. Right now the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want to talk to the Premier, but the Premier doesn't return telephone calls. His Cabinet will not return telephone calls.

I had calls today, with the limited amount of time I was actually in my office, saying: Oh, we have called the minister of this or the minister of that and they have not called back.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: I say to the Government House Leader, not all Cabinet ministers return calls, or it is a case of where -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) more calls than you do.

MR. H. HODDER: I return every call, I say to the minister. I would say to the Government House Leader, in all probability it is correct that if he returns all of his calls then he returns more than I do, because I have a very satisfied group in my district. There is not the discontent that there would be in his district; therefore, his people have more reason to call him and I would expect him to get more calls. There is a greater level of dissatisfaction, I suppose, in his district.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that he represents a rural district, and I know the calls that go to my colleagues here who have rural district constituencies. The number of calls when you represent an urban district is completely different from those that you get when you represent a rural district.

Mr. Speaker, we have here again pages and pages of people who want us to make sure that before this vote is called they have a chance to have something to say. There are about eight or ten pages of names of people, and I just go on and on here with the people who have written us.

Here is another one, again a petition, and this one is coming from the St. John's area. I see names here from Paradise, Amherst Place, Hounsell Avenue in Mount Pearl, and from other parts of St. John's, Mount Pearl, and the Paradise area. Again, people are saying to the Premier: We would like for you to delay this process because we want to talk to you. We want to talk to you, Mr. Premier. We want to have a chance to have some dialogue.

When we talk about arming the RNC, we have a select committee appointed that is going to have hearings in Corner Brook, Labrador City, St. John's, Mount Pearl, and Churchill Falls, and we say that is the way we should be doing things because that is consulting with people in the local area. Now we are going to open up Sunday shopping 100 per cent, and we are saying to people: We don't want to have any consultation with the ordinary folks of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, this is in direct contrast to page one - again I repeat here - in the fourth paragraph of a very famous Liberal book called Ready for a Better Tomorrow. I will read the whole paragraph into the record. It says, "A key element of our platform is partnership. We are committed to an open, on-going process of dialogue and discussion in decision-making." That is the whole paragraph. Mr. Speaker, what a difference two years makes. What a difference it is when you are a Liberal out there campaigning on the doorsteps to what happens when you get elected.

Mr. Speaker, what the people here are saying to the government is: You committed yourselves to an open dialogue. This is signed by the Leader of the Liberal Party, Brian Tobin, and of course it is dated January 29, 1996. It was twenty-four days before the vote was taken. That was the commitment and, of course, people are saying now to the government: Would you want to live up to that commitment? Would you please live up to the commitment that you gave us in your mandate here? They want to make sure that their interpretation of a better tomorrow includes an opportunity for them to be able to participate in this discussion.

Mr. Speaker, I can only say to government members opposite that in the last number of years I have been here, the number of calls that we have received on this particular issue exceeds, in my case, the number of calls that I received on educational reform. As a person who got an awful lot of calls on that from all parts of the Province, I can tell you that this issue is not going over very well in any part of the Province.

To continue on with the list of people here who want to have discussions, we have more signatures here from St. John's, Mount Pearl and Conception Bay South. We have again, as I mentioned, the letter written to the Premier Brain Tobin on behalf of all the employees at Riff's. Just moving through some of the information I have here I should point out that the critic, the Member for Kilbride, has a whole folder over there of petitions on this particular matter.

So, Mr. Speaker, people of Newfoundland and Labrador want to be heard. We have had two occasions, and we will have another one very shortly - it could be in the next ten minutes or it might be in the next forty-five minutes or thereabouts, depending on if my good colleague from Bonavista South is able to arrive here, because there is a termination to this particular discussion. It could occur in ten minutes if he doesn't get here, and the vote will be taken. If he does get here it will occur shortly thereafter, in forty-five minutes.

Mr. Speaker, what I want to say to members is that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want an opportunity to participate in decision making. That's what the Premier talked about in his letter to the people. He said: A dialogue and discussion in decision making.

Now after this government got elected and they were going to do a budget, the Minister of Finance got all his slides and projectors out and went around with his dog and pony show. I remember the pictures on television, the Minister of Finance over in Corner Brook. He had all kinds of charts saying all of the information he had to deal with in making decisions on the budget. He was saying: It is a wonderful process because it lets the people come in and tell him what they would like to see changed, in terms of their priorities, and what decisions the government should take to meet its financial obligations.

Mr. Speaker, we are not saying that was wrong. We are saying that was part of the mandate given to the government, to the Liberal party. We find now that there is a lot of amnesia occurring. It is very selective. When it came to arming the RNC, the Minster of Justice in a scrum outside the House said: No, we are not going to take to anybody. We are going to make this decision ourselves here. But the Premier, who was in a scrum shortly thereafter, says: Yes, we are going to let the people have some participation in the debate. Of course the next day we have the appointment of a select committee of the Legislature. The Minister of Justice and the Premier were not talking from the same hymn book and, of course, we know what happens then, the Premier wins.

I am just saying to the Premier, and perhaps he might even be listening in his office, although I doubt that the Premier would be in his office this hour in the evening - it is rather late for him, I doubt if he is even in the area - but if the Premier is listening, he might remember that commitment made. He might want to reconsider, on this particular issue, the opportunity that people are looking for which is to have some chance to say why they are either in favour of or against Sunday shopping. That is all people want to have, the right to participate. But the minister is just bulldozing his way through.

I am pleased to welcome here, from his travels, the good Member for Bonavista South who today has caused the bells to ring on three separate occasions and ring for ten minutes every time. We have been anxiously awaiting his arrival and, of course, the good Member for Bonavista South has now arrived in the Legislature. We certainly want to welcome him because there is not a more dedicated member in this House than the Member for Bonavista South. He was out consulting with people today and I am sure he will be able to tell us very soon what people are saying to him about Sunday shopping.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to all hon. members, that all of the issues we have here centre around the various things that we have mentioned. They centre around the haste. Why the rush? As I said earlier today, when we talked about the minister standing up and saying that all of those businesses are supporting his proposal, or the minister has not named one business that is supporting his proposal, we would like for him to name ten, twenty, or maybe 100 businesses that are in favour of Sunday shopping; but he has not done any such thing. Mr. Speaker, he will have a chance later on, I am sure, in committee because we will be asking questions and asking him to give us a list of people who are supporting his proposal. People are saying: Why the big rush? Why do this now? Why are we doing this now? Is there some real reason?

People are asking questions about what the hidden agenda is, because we know, when it was tried before, there was a hidden agenda. It was a camouflage or to deflect from the 350 lay offs in the civil service. At that time, the then Premier introduced or caused to be introduced, the Sunday shopping act, two days before he told 350 people that they were no longer members of the public service. Some of them, I say to the members opposite, were senior members. We know what happened. Some of them were called up to the Premier's office and told: You have five minutes. The Premier will speak for three, you have two. After twenty-five or twenty-eight years that is the way senior people got laid off. Of course, in this government's case that would not happen because a man called Malcolm would look after those details. The Premier would not do anything like that. When he layed off some of the deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers he just left notes for them and said: Go see Malcolm. So there is a different style. At least the former Premier had the guts to do it right up front.

Mr. Speaker, we have proven in this House, and mostly every speaker who has spoken has said that this proposal will hurt small business. They said that all of the information we have says it is going to hurt small business. I say to the minister, we had calls today from Labrador saying that people in Labrador are not in favour of this particular proposal. What the people are saying to us is, they can't rely -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I don't mean to interrupt, he is doing such a good job. He usually does not do that good a job, but he is doing a good job tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a very serious point of order again. I am sure that the hon. member, the Opposition House Leader, just admitted that he breached the rules of the House, because his commentary, Mr. Speaker, is that in the last two days every speaker has made this point.

AN HON. MEMBER: What point?

MR. GRIMES: Every speaker has made this point. Now we have heard these speakers eight, ten or twelve times each, Mr. Speaker. He said: Every speaker has made this point.

In 51(2) of our Standing Orders, Mr. Speaker - I am paraphrasing a little bit, but basically, `The Speaker may direct the recognized person to discontinue his or her speech if there is needless repetition.' Now he just said that every speaker has made the same point. Mr. Speaker, if that is not needless repetition after all day yesterday, all night last night, right into the early hours of the morning, all day today, most of the night tonight - now there is needless repetition, in a short period of time, by myself in making the point of order. He admitted in his own words, Mr. Speaker - you can play the tape back - that every single speaker made this point repeatedly. If that is not needless repetition, Mr. Speaker, I don't know what it is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. H. HODDER: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to -

MR. SULLIVAN: Is the hon. Opposition House Leader speaking to the point of order?

MR. H. HODDER: I am speaking to the point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that the member said certain words repeatedly, but I also want to point out that when the member is standing, he is obnoxious, cantankerous and repetitive. When he is seated in his place he is obnoxious, cantankerous and repetitive. Last night, when he was half asleep and lying over there, I knew he was obnoxious, repetitive and cantankerous.

So, Mr. Speaker, I say there is no point of order whatsoever, just obnoxious and repetitive language.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I draw members attention to our Standing Order, No 52 and it says: "No Member shall speak disrespectfully of Her Majesty, nor any of the Royal Family, nor of the Governor or Administrator of the Government of Canada, nor of the Lieutenant-Governor of this Province; nor use offensive words against any Member of this House."

AN HON. MEMBER: What was the offensive word?

AN HON. MEMBER: Lying. He said he lied.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, he said when he was standing, sitting and lying; he used three things, standing, sitting and lying.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, what was the offensive word?

MR. SPEAKER: That the hon. member was obnoxious. I ask the member to withdraw it.

MR. H. HODDER: I withdraw the word `obnoxious'.

MR. HARRIS: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, to the point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to the point of order raised by the Minister of Education.

MR. TULK: The Speaker has ruled on it.

MR. HARRIS: No, he has not.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education was concerned about what he called the needless repetition on this side of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. HARRIS: I feel, Mr. Speaker, that if the repetition is needless, then it is out of order, but the repetition that is being made here is essential. It is not needless at all. It is very important that these points be repeated again and again and again, Mr. Speaker, because it is only when they are repeated again and again and again that there is any possibility that members opposite might, in fact, be convinced. It is a very slim possibility I recognize, Mr. Speaker, but it is a possibility nonetheless, therefore the repetition is not needless.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes that over the last numbers of hours there has been considerable repetition here in this honourable House. The Chair has heard the same comments repeated over and over and over again, but I would remind hon. members that, our Standing Order 51 (2) refers to `a Member who persists in irrelevant or needless repetition', not to members who are repetitious; a member.

Whether or not that has been needless or irrelevant, is somewhat debatable. I would suggest right now, though, that there is no point of order, and I would remind the hon. the Opposition House Leader that his time is up.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where were you all day, Roger. Account for yourself now.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will tell the member where I have been all day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: You are taking up my time, boys.

I started off the morning by going to the doctor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, if I do not go half-an-hour here tonight, it is because I am under heavy medication. I have two strains of the flu and I am on the borderline of double pneumonia from sitting here in this House last night, by the bullying of the Government House Leader. That is where I have been. What happened in this House last night, Mr. Speaker, was nothing short of criminal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: Roger, how is your blood pressure?

MR. FITZGERALD: My blood pressure is okay; that is under control.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: He is going to recommend a cure; seal oil capsules.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, on a point of order.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I am getting very concerned about the Tory members, not only opposite but in Newfoundland and Labrador, about their visits to the doctor. I make a suggestion to the member for Conception Bay South, or supposedly the member for Conception Bay South -

MR. TULK: The person who wanted to run.

MR. EFFORD: The person who wanted to be.

- and the Member for Bonavista: As much as I have said all of my life that I do not want to do anything and I would not do anything for Tories, there are seal oil capsules down in my office that will be delivered to the hon. members at 9:00 tomorrow morning.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I believe in the seal oil capsules, and there is no greater salesman than the Member for Port de Grave; there is no greater salesman.

Mr. Speaker, what happened in this House last night was shameful. I saw people in this House, neutral people, sitting here, carrying out a duty, shivering in their seats with the cold. They were cold. We had people wearing mitts in this Assembly last night, and then we had the Minister of Justice get up and give us a history lesson of what it was like in the old days down at Colonial Building. That is what he talked about. Where is he tonight?

MR. GRIMES: He is (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, that is probably where he is.

What happened here last night, Mr. Speaker: I will tell you one thing, the Government House Leader himself is going to be in trouble over this. He may have the Chair on his side now, but I can tell you one thing; there is a big wedge driven in between the Opposition and the Government House Leader, a big wedge.

In order for the Government House Leader to function, in order for him to be the Government House Leader, he is going to need to be able to come in here and strike his little deals, and do his little bit of negotiation. It is going to be very difficult for you. It is going to be very difficult for the Premier now to leave you in that chair and have every other member here mad at you, not wanting to co-operate because of the bullying of the Government House Leader. It is ridiculous!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I tell you, brother, we are closer together now than I have ever seen this caucus since I have been here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: I have not seen it before. In fact, I am going to write a letter tomorrow morning to the Speaker of the House asking him to do away with the Whip's job; there is no need of it any more. That is one designation -

AN HON. MEMBER: Keep the salary though.

MR. FITZGERALD: I will keep the salary, but do away with the job. There is no need of it any more because of this caucus and the way that they have fallen into line.

Mr. Speaker, after I left the doctor's office this morning I went out into my district. The Open Line show was on and they were doing a survey regarding Bill 48, and people were calling -

MR. SHELLEY: What was the count?

MR. FITZGERALD: I don't know what the count was.

MR. SULLIVAN: He said there were only six calls today.

MR. FITZGERALD: Six calls! The Member for Topsail must have counted those six calls, I say to the member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Your name was mentioned, by the way. Somebody from your district called in and said there were a lot more than the two people you had identified against the shops opening on Sunday, against Sunday shopping.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: You have been singled out on this, I say to the Member for Topsail. I don't know what it was, but there was one person who would have liked to have had a choice. Everybody else was against it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sue was for it.

MR. FITZGERALD: I never heard Sue. She must have called in before I tuned in.

AN HON. MEMBER: Before you got up for work, boy.

MR. FITZGERALD: No, it wasn't before I got up. I was up early.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, as I was driving back in tonight I was wondering: What is the motivation that is driving this government to now, all of a sudden, want to sit here nights before Christmas in order to bring in this piece of legislation?

The only reason I have heard is that the present legislation is very hard to deal with, Mr. Speaker, very hard to control. There are no teeth in the present legislation. You have shops opening that shouldn't be opening, you have people breaking the law and the present legislation doesn't give government a lot of room to manoeuvre and charge those people, or else they don't have the will to do it.

So, why not deal with the law breakers, I say to members opposite? If you are going to go out and change things, then deal with the people that are causing the problem. If you have somebody out pouching fish, the minister doesn't say: We are going to open the fishery; we are going to let everybody go out. You deal with the people that are breaking the law.

Mr. Speaker, I say there has to be something more than that because this is not the only thing that is happening here with the law being broken. Every day the courts are full of people and you don't bring in legislation to keep people out of the courts.

All of a sudden, Mr. Speaker, it struck home what is happening here, what is happening with this piece of legislation. It is almost like going to church. When you go to church there is a scripture reading and then there is a sermon and sermon is always tied in with the scripture reading; it follows the line. If you listen there is a theme to what the minister does. He ties in the scripture reading with the sermon, all together. If you listen to the prayer, the prayer is tied in as well.

Now, let's look back at this piece of legislation, where it came from and who it is going to help. Who is it going to help? Is it going to help the small corner store? No, it is not going to help the corner store. How about the service stations, the gasoline stations, is it going to help them? No, it is not going to help them. How about the workers that work at those multi-national stores, is it going to help them? They are all against it, their unions are against it. Who is it going to help? Who are going to be the big benefactors of this piece of legislation? It's going to be the Wal-Marts of the world, the CostCos of the world, the Price Club down here, the multi-nationals, the big corporations.

Bear with me now, I say to the Minister of Education. Listen now and you will follow.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are we getting the scripture now or the (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: No, we are leading into it. Pretty soon you will hear the homily.

Mr. Speaker, what happened a few days ago, a couple of weeks ago?

AN HON. MEMBER: I don't know what happened?

MR. FITZGERALD: People opposite, the Government House Leader wanted to introduce a piece of legislation, that will probably be forthcoming, dealing with the elections act. I don't know when he is going to bring it in, but he probably will. There is a limit now, a cap, a ceiling on what can be given to any political party here in this Province. What is it $5,000?

MR. SULLIVAN: The maximum is $10,000 in a non-election year.

MR. FITZGERALD: Ten thousand dollars. So now government wants to introduce a piece of legislation to change the elections act and make it unlimited, do away with the cap, don't need it anymore. Now, who is going to be giving contributions over $10,000?

AN HON. MEMBER: IFAW.

MR. FITZGERALD: Is it going to be the small corner stores? It is not going to be the small corner stores.

AN HON. MEMBER: IFAW, I'm telling you.

MR. FITZGERALD: Quite possible, you are after tapping into that already.

Is it going to be the small mom and pop operation out in Bonavista that is going to donate a $10,000 donation?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. FITZGERALD: Maybe it might be the Wal-Mart stores.

AN HON. MEMBER: CostCo.

MR. FITZGERALD: Costco/Price Club.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sears.

MR. FITZGERALD: Sears. So, it all ties in together, Mr. Speaker. Those are the only people that want Sunday shopping.

The only argument that I have heard from the other side - the other night somebody said: What are we going to do when the tour boats come in and anchor here in St. John's harbour? They want to go into the Avalon Mall and the Village Mall and shop, and they should be allowed to spend their money. Everybody agrees with that, Mr. Speaker, but when those people come here to this Province they don't want to go out and buy something made in Taiwan or Guatemala. Those people enjoy going to the Avalon Mall and taking part in the craft sales there, to buy something locally made right here in this Province. So, that is certainly not a reason.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Not to him.

MR. FITZGERALD: Not to me, I say to members opposite. There is $20,000 that has been identified on the books that you people, your cousins, have taken, I say to members opposite. The Premier came up with $1,000. I don't know where it came from. It was just a sheet that was passed around, but it had nothing to do with the party over here that I am a part of, I can assure you.

Mr. Speaker, that's what's happening here. Government is playing up to the multi-nationals, the big corporations. It is big time, big time government. You see the Minister of Fisheries go out in his district and have $1,000 a plate dinner. It is not small potatoes any more that we are dealing with here, I say to members opposite.

MR. E. BYRNE: And he didn't even get a dinner.

MR. FITZGERALD: He didn't even get a dinner. He got a few former Cabinet ministers, former members of the House, they tell me, who were going around with their little tabs on.

MR. MATTHEWS: Small fish, not small potatoes.

MR. FITZGERALD: Small fish.

I have to compliment the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation on the beautiful job his wife has done decorating their House. The nicest decorations up in the area where we live, I say to -

AN HON. MEMBER: What is that?

MR. FITZGERALD: His wife has a wonderful job done decorating his house.

MR. SULLIVAN: Where is that?

MR. FITZGERALD: Up in Cowan Heights.

MR. TULK: I thought you were talking about this place.

MR. FITZGERALD: No, no.

MR. EFFORD: Would you tell me something?

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, boy.

MR. EFFORD: What do you have in your pocket?

MR. FITZGERALD: I told you before what I had in my pocket, I say to the member opposite, and I won't repeat it because you know what I said.

I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, that his wife has a good job done decorating the House. It looks better every day and you can tell her I said that. If there was a prize to be given out, she would win it. She would win it hands down.

MR. TULK: Roger, tell him again.

MR. FITZGERALD: When I told that the last time it was only said very quickly, but a lot of people - even over in his own office - picked it up and I got a call when I got up to the office. They said: We heard that and you said the right thing. They are not all big supporters of the minister over in his own office.

Mr. Speaker, that's what's happening here. If the Premier gave the members opposite a free vote on this particular issue, I can tell you there would be a lot more standing over there to vote against this particular piece of legislation than would be standing on this side. There would be no need of sitting here a couple nights before Christmas, when everybody is out shopping, talking about this piece of legislation.

Government members on the other side of the House have come over here. They have talked to members on this side out in the corridors and said: Keep up what you are doing because we don't believe in this piece of legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Why fix something if its not broken?

It always happens that they put this kind of legislation over on a junior minister. Poor old Tom Murphy, a good member when he was here in this House, stood on his feet many times, took part in debate, put forward his constituents' views, put forward his own views, Mr. Speaker, but he was done in on a piece of legislation similar to this.

MR. J. BYRNE: Was he?

MR. SULLIVAN: We got a lot of calls from businesses.

MR. FITZGERALD: We got a lot of calls from businesses. The people that were calling into the open line show this morning, most of them were either people that worked in some of those department stores or were business owners. They wanted no part of this particular piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, because it is not going to create new jobs, it is not going to create new opportunities; all it is going to do is take away people's rights.

I don't know what is wrong with government. I don't know if they have all become a bunch of atheists over there or not. I don't know what has happened to them. They wanted to take the church, the religious part of the teaching, out of the schoolhouse. That is gone now. They blamed all the problems in the Department of Education on the churches' involvement. Now they are going to open her wide open on Sundays and try to deflect people's attention, to move people in a different direction, to keep them away from what they hold dear and what people hold very sacred in this Province.

It is not being done in other Atlantic Provinces. We always see people getting up in this House and comparing: Well, if it can happen in Nova Scotia, if it can happen in Prince Edward Island - those are the provinces to which we compare ourselves for the most part - then why can't it happen here? Well, this is not happening in Prince Edward Island, it is not happening in Nova Scotia, and here we are trying to bring about a change in legislation that the people do not want.

AN HON. MEMBER: Look in the galleries.

MR. FITZGERALD: It doesn't matter about the galleries. Listen to Open Line tomorrow morning. Listen to Open Line tonight. You can laugh at those programs all you want but, I tell you, that is the pulse of the people right there.

Mr. Speaker, that is what people are asking out there. They do not know why this piece of legislation is being brought about. They know why it is being brought about in the time frame that it is. They know that, because this is the way this government operates. They bring in a piece of contentious legislation a few days before everybody wants to get out of here. They figure they will wear down the Opposition; that we will get tired of standing on our feet; and then he will invoke closure and we will get out of here and people will forget about it. Well, that is not going to happen. This has gone on long enough.

I don't know what piece of legislation or what decision is going to break people's backs, but I will tell you one thing; there are a lot of hostile people out there today, and it is not going to take much for them to come in here and take this place and start shaking it, I say to the minister. It is not going to take much. You will see them out here on the steps of this building.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I have seen you before when the galleries were full, John. Not a word does the Minister of Fisheries say when the galleries are full.

MR. FITZGERALD: The minister is pretty quiet when the galleries are full.

MR. E. BYRNE: Not a peep does that man make when there are people in the galleries, not a boo, not a murmur.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, very seriously about this particular piece of legislation, rural Newfoundland finds itself in a situation today, I suppose, that is more frightening than it has ever found itself in before. Businesses are hurting. In one particular area in my district, in the Port Union-Catalina area, fifty-two businesses have closed this past three years.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) member.

MR. FITZGERALD: Well, they had another member, a member who sat on your side, when most of them closed, I say to the minister. It has nothing to do with the member, because the member cannot work miracles and the member cannot direct economic activity to a particular area any more than anybody else. That has to come from government being responsible and putting forward an environment where people will want to invest and come and start businesses in rural areas, Mr. Speaker. That is what has to happen.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: That is one member you cannot say that about. If there is any member in this House, you cannot say it about him.

MR. FITZGERALD: If you allow those large department stores to open seven days a week -

MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride, on a point of order.

MR. E. BYRNE: Let the record show that the Government House Leader just said that this member should be spending more time in his district than listening to open line shows.

If there is one member in this House that doesn't need to take that advice from that Government House Leader, it is this member right here; I can guarantee you that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I don't think that the hon. gentleman over there is trying to mislead this House in any way, but I just have to say to him that what he just said is false. I did not say, and I say this to him categorically, that the member did not spend enough time in his district. I did not say that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

MR. TULK: I did not say that.

MR. E. BYRNE: What did you say?

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

MR. E. BYRNE: You said that he should spend more time in his district than listening to Open Line shows. That is what you said, guaranteed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, that's what is happening here. If we allow those large department stores to open then you are going to see people leaving the small areas seven days a week instead of six days a week. You cannot justify it by saying that a convenience store is open on the corner or a small family grocery store is open seven days a week. They have to do that to survive.

Mr. Speaker, on the seventh day is when most of those people do their business. If we are going to allow those large department stores to open, then we are going to take another day's business away from this particular group of people; and that's happening. You are not going to change people's attitudes; forget about that. You are not going to be able to go out and say, let's convince people to support local businesses, and then they won't go to Clarenville to shop or they won't go to Gander to shop.

Let the Government House Leader, Mr. Speaker, go down in his district and visit the smaller towns down around the loop. I can assure you that they are finding the same problem that I am finding down in my district, that a lot of them have so much time on their hands now that businesses are suffering because people are going into Gander, they are going into Clarenville, they are going into St. John's and they are going out to Carbonear. They are going to the bigger shopping areas, Mr. Speaker, because they have so much time and they make it an outing. They go and have their dinner and spend the day shopping. You cannot deny them that, and that is not going to be stopped, but we should not start encouraging them because those dollars, Mr. Speaker, for the most part are not only leaving the communities but they are going right outside of the Province altogether.

There is nobody in this Province who is going to benefit very much from this particular piece of legislation. Now granted I suppose some of the part-time workers might be getting a couple of extra hours, but for the most part they feel that all is going to happen is that the hours they are presently getting are only going to be juggled around.

Mr. Speaker, when a piece of legislation so contentious as this piece of legislation - maybe the minister should have tried it on a trial basis first. Maybe he should have opened it up like one of the other provinces did, from maybe the first of July or the twenty-four of June up until Labour Day, or from June until Christmas Day, because I can tell you that the economy of this Province is not over-heated so much now that the six days cannot look after it.

You go into the shopping centres, you go up to your Avalon Malls and you go up to your Trinity Conception Squares come the second week in January and you will see if there is a need for a further day of shopping, you will see if there is a need for another extra day shopping. After December 26, Mr. Speaker, you will find that there won't be many line-ups at the cash registers.

MR. EFFORD: What does that have to do with it?

MR. H. HODDER: Because there is no need to have the extra day. There is lots of time there now, Mr. Speaker, for people to be able to go out and do their shopping. There is lots of time there now in the six days and the eighty-something hours a week, every week of the year that those particular malls are open.

If we are going to be bringing in legislation like this, then let's go out and use the committees of the House. That is what they are there for. Why did your former leader, why did the former Premier of this Province, put I think it was five committees of this House into action to deal with legislation if we are not going to use them? If we are not going to use them then I suggest that the Government House Leader take them off the books right now. There is no need of it. If it is only going to be used to sit down and talk -

MR. EFFORD: He's not listening to you.

MR. H. HODDER: He's probably not listening, but he should listen, and that is what has happened. Maybe somebody else over there might listen, I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Somebody over there might listen and somebody over there might grab the minister one of those days and say: Listen, boy, what we are doing here is wrong.

Mr. Speaker, members opposite say that they have their say around the Caucus table, but I would like to hear what has been said around the Caucus table.

MR. EFFORD: You will never get there.

MR. H. HODDER: Maybe I won't, I say to the minister, and I am not so sure if I want to be. If I am going to be stifled, if somebody is going to come to me and say you are not allowed to speak, you are not allowed to talk about something that is going to hurt your constituents, you have to follow your leader and if we tell you it is right then it has to be right and you should believe in it, then I don't want to be there. The next thing we will have another Jones town over there. The Premier will get up, Mr. Speaker, and he will drink his bit of serum and they will all fall in line; Jimmy Jones, Mr. Speaker. Who was the fellow that jumped on the Haley Bop comet? What was his name? You know him; you are one of those fellows. What was his name?

AN HON. MEMBER: Jimmy Jones.

MR. H. HODDER: No, the Haley Bop comet. The leader got up and they all committed suicide waiting for the comet to come and take them off to the happy land. Well that is like you fellows are over there behind your leader. You are no different. It's a cult!

MR. SULLIVAN: The Solar Temple.

MR. H. HODDER: The Solar Temple. What was the fellow's name?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member, I believe, used some unparliamentary language and I ask him to withdraw.

MR. H. HODDER: I withdraw that, Mr. Speaker. It is not a cult, it is a gang over there, Mr. Speaker, that is easily led. It is something like it. I don't know what the word is but, anyway, a lot of the people are following the wrong advice, they are following their leader and they are going to get in trouble. That bothers me because there are some good people over there, but they are not representing their constituents when they come and take part in voting for such a resolution, such a piece of legislation as this, Mr. Speaker. There is nobody out there that I have met who would be willing to come forward and speak in favour of this piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, what has happened here is, the Government House Leader, in his haste to get this piece of legislation through, has highlighted it out there in the Province today. This is the number one public issue in this Province today. This is the number one issue, Sunday shopping. They don't want it. You are a representative of the people. The people put you here to speak on their behalf. You should be representing them not representing one person with a desire to get to higher places, I say to the minister.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) unemployment.

MR. H. HODDER: It has nothing to do with unemployment; in fact it will create more. That has been proven, Mr. Speaker, that this piece of legislation will probably create more unemployment and reduce the level of wages further than they already are in this Province today and that is wrong.

How about our drug stores? The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation knows the number of calls he got when he was the Minister of Health regarding the reduction in the dispensing fees for drug store owners. A lot of people came here and lined up in the gallery, Mr. Speaker. They met with the minister and voiced their opinion very strong and very loud because those multi-nationals were coming and stepping in on their territory, opening drug stores, Mr. Speaker, dispensing drugs for a price that they could not compete with. They had to lay off workers, Mr. Speaker. Some of them closed down because they could not compete with the multi-nationals. Good arguments were put forward.

Here we are again taking another hit at them. Now we are going to open them for seven days a week. It is not only going to be the grocery stores, it is going to be the dry-cleaners, it is going to be the drug stores, it is going to be the film developing, Mr. Speaker; all of it. This is what small stores in small communities depend on in order to hire local people and to try to turn a profit to pay their expenses in those rural communities. It is wrong for that to happen.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave. The hon. member's time is up.

Order, please!

All those in favour of the motion that the question be now put, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against, `nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members.

 

Division

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

All those in favour of the motion, please rise.

CLERK (Noel): The hon. the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal; the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy; the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture; Mr. Walsh; the hon. the Minister of Education; the hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods; Mr. Penney; Mr. Oldford; Mr. Barrett; the hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour; the hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology; the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation; the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands; Mr. Noel; Mr. Wiseman; Mr. Andersen; Mr. Canning; Mr. Smith; Mr. Ramsay; Mr. Woodford; Mr. Reid; Ms Thistle; Mr. Sparrow.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the motion, please rise.

Order, please!

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; Ms Jones.

Mr. Speaker, twenty-three `ayes' and twelve `nays'.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried.

Order, please!

Is it the pleasure of the House that the bill be now read a second time? All those in favour, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, `nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members.

 

Division

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask hon. members for their co-operation, that when the vote is being taken there should not be any interruptions.

All those in favour of the motion, please rise.

CLERK: The hon. the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal; the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy; the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture; Mr. Walsh; the hon. the Minister of Education; the hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods; Mr. Penney; Mr. Oldford; Mr. Barrett; the hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour; the hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology; the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation; the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands; Mr. Wiseman; Mr. Andersen; Mr. Canning; Mr. Smith; Mr. Ramsay; Mr. Whelan; Mr. Woodford; Mr. Reid; Ms Thistle; Mr. Sparrow.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the motion, please rise.

CLERK: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition; Mr. Hodder; Mr. Shelley; Mr. Jack Byrne; Mr. Osborne; Mr. Ottenheimer; Mr. French; Ms Osborne; Mr. Harris; Ms Jones.

Mr. Speaker, twenty-three `ayes' and ten `nays'.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Shops Closing Act, No. 2," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole on tomorrow. (Bill No. 48).

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 41, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Operation Of Schools In The Province."

MR. SPEAKER: Order No. 28.

It is moved and seconded that Bill No. 41, entitled, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Operation Of Schools In The Province", be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Operation Of Schools In The Province." (Bill No. 41).

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, having distributed this bill some days ago and this being a very significant debate again in the Legislature, I would like to do this very briefly, but I think it will need a few minutes, maybe five or six minutes by way of introduction.

I think, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the details, because those who can actually see what I am holding here - if we were televised I could show them that it looks to be very thick and detailed but, in fact, to the opposition critics and the Leader of the NDP and others and the Opposition House Leader, I provided them some time ago with the sections that are being changed; many of them are not. Mr. Speaker, as the explanatory note points out, this bill revises the Schools Act that we passed last year in December in this House and proclaimed in January to bring it in conformity with Term 17.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to say at this point in time that we all know, and we are not showing any disrespect for the Parliament of Canada, that Term 17 has not passed the Parliament of Canada at this point in time. As an update, Mr. Speaker, to all members present, today, in the Senate of Canada, Senator Rompkey introduced the amendment to Term 17 as proposed by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and endorsed unanimously by this House of Assembly. I understand as well, Mr. Speaker, that the Senators, having participated in a joint committee for some two weeks, also wish to convene a Committee of the Whole tomorrow to hear from a couple of extra witnesses just for the Senators; namely, I think, the Council of Catholic Bishops of Canada and also Minister Dion on behalf of the Government of Canada which is proposing and has supported, shepherded and guided this particular amendment of Term 17 through the House of Commons.

So, Mr. Speaker, it will be well put, I think, to again, as we begin this debate, remind the Senate in Ottawa that we did have a referendum of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that had a 73 per cent result for the people directly impacted. Now this House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, in which the members are elected by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, respected the results of that referendum and voted 100 per cent, a unanimous vote, Mr. Speaker, to ask the Government of Canada to make the change. The House of Commons, just a week or so ago, Mr. Speaker - actually I believe it was a week ago today - voted 80 per cent in favour of approving the requested amendment, 212 for, fifty-three against.

Mr. Speaker, it is in the Senate today, and we do not mean any disrespect and are not trying to presume or assume anything. We just hope that they will deal expeditiously with this particular request to amend the legislation or to amend the constitution. I understand from members opposite that they agree and think it is appropriate for us to debate principle in second reading as to this particular Schools Act, Mr. Speaker, and that we probably, again in deference and respect to the Senate, will not go to Committee stage and vote on this particular piece of legislation unless and until the Senate, and then the full Parliament of Canada through that process, disposes of the bill in the National Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, with that said, to make sure that nobody in the Senate of Canada, nobody in Ottawa, misunderstands what we are doing, we are just trying to get prepared for an eventuality, hoping that they will approve the constitutional amendment so that we can then prepare ourselves for next year.

If we do have a successful passage, Mr. Speaker, of the request for an amendment to the Terms of Union with Canada in Ottawa, through the Senate, then we have already had a discussion with the School Board Association for Newfoundland and Labrador, who agree that if everything is in order legally, and if we have a passage in Ottawa and a successful passage of this Bill 41, that we will plan for a very historic election in this Province on February 17. That is the scheduled date. It is the earliest opportunity at which we could have an election.

The historic aspect of it, Mr. Speaker, is that it would be the first time in the history of this Province that the school boards will be elected 100 per cent on a non-denominational basis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: The school boards themselves, Mr. Speaker - I met with the Executive of the NLSPA and some Chairs and Directors on Monday morning in one of our fairly regular meetings. We have a meeting about every six weeks or so because there are a lot of issues that are important to them in Education that we are trying to work together on as partners. They are looking forward to that opportunity to have themselves elected. There are a lot of them who were very appreciative of that. There were very difficult times in the last year or so, having accepted appointment. Many of them, long-serving board members, some of them for as long as twelve, thirteen and fourteen years, are still looking forward to an opportunity to serve, and they want to be put in office, Mr. Speaker, by the electors in the ten districts that now operate schools in the Province. So that is scheduled, Mr. Speaker, if we have passage of Term 17 and this bill, for February 17.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, is that the Executive of the School Board Association has agreed that it makes sense to reduce the size of the school boards in terms of the make-up of the members from the current eighteen members per board down to fifteen. Mr. Speaker, in the original discussions that happened over the three years leading up to the referendum in 1995, it was always discussed that the school boards would have fifteen members, but when we were trying to reach a compromise with the denominational representatives, Mr. Speaker, even after the referendum and trying to see what schools act we would put in place which is currently there, they felt because there was some denominational representation guaranteed by the Constitution, that eighteen members would be more appropriate which is currently what is in place. But they have agreed with us that we can go back to fifteen members for the election.

The school boards would like to be quickly put in a position so that they can plan for an election on a basis of no denominational representation and fifteen members in total representing the geographic zones of their school boards, and not any denominational considerations. So, they would like to be able to get on with the planning, Mr. Speaker.

The bill, as I have described to members opposite and to our own Cabinet and Caucus, basically just brings the current Schools Act in line with what we hope will be the new Term 17, that again we hope will be passed this week. It removes all references that are currently in the Schools Act to anything respecting denominational rights because there is nothing respecting denominational rights in our proposed new Term 17.

Mr. Speaker, it combines the current Education Act which deals only with the school construction board and the Denominational Education Committee into the Schools Act, because the Denominational Education Commission or Committee would be abolished and the construction board, Mr. Speaker, which is in the Education Act and has denominational representatives on it would also be abolished, and construction requests would be handled in the Department of Education, the same way, basically, as they currently are in other departments like the Department of Health. So those issues are there, Mr. Speaker, and are explained in the appropriate explanatory notes in the sections.

As well, Mr. Speaker, I might point out just two other things, and then look forward to the participation of other members in the debate. There is a guarantee as a result, Mr. Speaker, of activities last spring where parents felt aggrieved with respect to some planned closures where they did not think they were given enough input and opportunity to address school boards, explore alternatives and so on. There is now a provision in this new Schools Act that says: If a school board is contemplating the closure of a school, then the parents must be guaranteed, by law, an opportunity to meet with that school board and explore alternatives and other possible arrangements before the final decisions are made.

So that is there, Mr. Speaker, to make sure that the complaints that we heard last spring, where some schools boards, the members of the school boards, because of shortness of time and their busy schedules, did not provide opportunities for parents in areas where closures where scheduled to meet with the actual school board members. They only had an opportunity to meet with some staff of the school boards. So there is a provision in this Schools Act, Mr. Speaker, that says: When a closure is contemplated, the parents must be guaranteed an opportunity to meet and discuss alternatives with the elected school board. If this is all passed, Mr. Speaker, we expect that is the process that will play itself out in the Province this spring as the school boards plan for next September.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, in compliance with and in conformity with the new Term 17, that again I cannot reiterate too often we hope will pass the Senate of Canada this week, it provides for religious education courses that must be placed in every school in the Province and made available in every classroom and every grade. It also gives the Legislative framework whereby parents can request religious observances, and it then obligates the school board and the school-based administration to provide for those observances that are requested under subsection 2 of the new Term 17 or subsection 3 of the new Term 17. Basically, Mr. Speaker, a bill that removes denominational references and brings the current Schools Act in compliance with what we hope will be the brand new Term 17, there is a great possibility, we certainly hope, to have final approval of that this week.

If all of those things happen, Mr. Speaker, we can successfully deal with this particular bill in second reading and in Committee before we adjourn for Christmas. Then the school boards are quite confidant that they will be able to gear up for the election and plan fairly appropriately and adequately for the next school year in September of 1998, the first year again, Mr. Speaker, historically, that there will be no denominationally-based schools in the Province. There will be a single school system in which all the children would go to the same schools regardless of their religious affiliation. Mr. Speaker, religious education courses will be available in every single classroom, every single grade, every single school in the Province, and observances that parents want to request will be guaranteed under the Constitution and legislatively provided for as a result of provisions in this particular bill.

So with that brief introduction, but a very important one, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that I look forward to further participation in this debate at second reading.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take the opportunity to thank the hon. minister for providing me with the consolidated notes in preparation for the amendment to the Schools Act, namely Bill 41. These notes, Mr. Speaker, were most helpful in simply allowing, upon review of the old act to see, in fact, where the appropriate changes were being made.

Members on this side of the House upon review of the legislation, have found that the legislation appears to reflect what the majority of the people of our Province have said in a recent referendum, Mr. Speaker, although there were some personal differences with respect to the referendum vote and the essence of what was being determined at that time of the referendum. All members of the Official Opposition voted unanimously in concert with the majority of their constituents and supported the passage of the amendment to Term 17.

Mr. Speaker, I would agree that any detailed debate at this time would perhaps be inappropriate in view of the fact that this matter is before the Senate of Canada and it is perhaps Thursday, I understand from the hon. minister, before the passage of the Term 17 legislation, in fact, completes the procedural hurdle with respect to the obligations within the Senate of Canada. Therefore at that time, we would certainly appreciate the opportunity to seek clarification, I say to the minister, in terms of some of the details and in terms of some of the provisions which are found in Bill 41.

I would like to, however, speak just momentarily with respect to the section that was mentioned by the minister, in terms of parents having some say or given an opportunity to make representations to the board with respect to the possibility of school closures. I agree that this is certainly an improvement and we have seen, Mr. Speaker, certainly over the past eighteen months, where government's attempt to close a number of schools in rural Newfoundland was met with much opposition by a number of communities and a number of parents. That opposition was brought to the steps of Confederation Building on many occasions.

It is hoped that this particular provision of the Act will be a safeguard to ensure, Mr. Speaker, that the parents are an integral part of the whole concept of school closure. I would say to the minister, perhaps had it gone just maybe a step further, that boards, from a legal point of view, are obligated to take into account the representations that are being made in arriving at a just and fair decision in terms of which schools are actually going to be affected as a result of the passage of Bill 41.

So, Mr. Speaker, I just want to make those few brief comments. I realize that this is introductory in nature. There are some particular points that will be addressed, primarily for clarification purposes during third reading. However, members of this side of the House, or certainly members of the Official Opposition, join with government in respecting the views and the consensus of the majority of the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that appears to be reflected in Bill No. 41, an amendment to the Schools Act, 1997.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure to speak on this bill, the introduction of the new Schools Act, 1997, which puts into effect the changes that would be corollary to the passage of Term 17 in Ottawa by the House of Commons and the Senate.

I was listening intently to the rather deferential remarks of the minister to the Senate. I don't share the same respect for the Senate that he appears to have; not that I have disrespect. There are a number of senators I have a great deal of respect for, but for the Senate in general I don't share his respect. I regard the Senate, Mr. Speaker, as a constitutional hurdle in this case, not as something that we should be overly differential to. Obviously we have to pay attention to their current constitutional role, while we urge them to find a lesser one and seek the abolition of the Senate as an undemocratic authoritarian and unaccountable body, Mr. Speaker. They are going through the processes which are now constitutionally available to them.

I just want to say a few words in support of Bill 41 because it does remove some of those aspects of the previous legislation which were somewhat convoluted and apparently impossible to have operate with the previous Term 17 that was brought in. I hope this bill will pass muster at the Supreme Court, if anyone sees fit to bring it there. It appears, Mr. Speaker, that there are less obstacles obviously in the way of the current legislation with the changes to Term 17. I say that in sincerity, Mr. Speaker, because I don't think we really need a lot more litigation over the schools of this Province. I think we need to see some cooperation and goodwill between denominations and between the adherence of the various denominations as we seek to implement a school system that respects religious differences while at the same time offering religious instruction and opportunities for observances, Mr. Speaker, where parents request it.

I hope, Mr. Speaker - and I know the Minister of Mines and Energy will share that hope - that in the operation of the new Schools Act we see parents, school councils and school boards working together to ensure that the kinds of traditional observances that students have had the opportunity to participate in, in schools, can continue in a way that respects the diversity of religious belief and adherence, and at the same time provides an opportunity for the parents and children to play their traditional roles in having religious observances and practices in the school system.

I am not going to go into, in great detail, the changes that we see in this act over the legislation last time. I think we are all interested in seeing the new Schools Act implemented and seeing the changes that came by way of Term 17 being brought to fruition. I hope, Mr. Speaker - and I only say it this way - I hope that the wordings chosen by the minister and the minister's advisors in terms of how the exemptions for participation in religious education work, how the requesting of the provision of a mechanism for religious observances will work, how the school councils would get involved in religious observances and acting on behalf of parents, I hope the wording will be successful in bringing about a degree of harmony between parents, schools boards and school children on these issues, and not lead to challenges either before the board or before the courts. I express that hope, Mr. Speaker, because I have not done a legal analysis of all the sections, only to note that they do, in fact, support the wording of Term 17 in attempting to provide for religious observances and participation in the way that Term 17 envisaged.

I do note the new paragraph 76(2), Mr. Speaker, which indicates that a school board may close a school only after representatives of the parents of children, affected by this change, have been afforded an opportunity to make representation to the school board. That, Mr. Speaker, is what the courts told the minister and the school boards last year and it is only sensible to put it in the act just so that those school boards who need to be reminded that they have an obligation to accept representations from parents, before they make decisions to close schools, have adequate opportunity for representations to be made.

I think a number of bad decisions were made, Mr. Speaker, without proper consultation, without allowing parents to be heard. One after another, Mr. Speaker, those decisions had to be reversed either by the courts or by recognition by the school boards that they were going to lose their court case. It was a bit unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that some of these reversals took place on the Court House steps or took place in court without the parents even being informed. They were not there to argue their case but the school board was conceding that the law of the land, the common law, required that they be heard before decisions that affect them were being made by a school board, by a statutory body.

There was a certain degree of arrogance, Mr. Speaker, expressed by some school board administrators in that whole process, in absence of the recognition that school boards had to pay attention to what parents wanted and what communities desired, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps a little bit of favouritism being played between one community and another. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that that won't take place under any changes that might need to be made under the new Schools Act, the new school system.

The experience, I would suggest, of some of these communities in carrying on these battles with the school boards has induced a number of people to want to seek representation on the boards themselves. I think we might see some very interesting elections, Mr. Speaker, for these school boards, not only in those areas where we had those kinds of battles but also in places like St. John's, Corner Brook, Grand Falls and Gander, the urban areas as well where people are taking a heck of a lot more interest in the process than they were before.

I think what is remarkable, I suppose, is that it has taken until now, 1997 or 1998 when the elections come about, to have 100 per cent of the school boards elected. Not many people know that we have never ever had 100 per cent of the school boards elected, whether denominational or non-denominational or what. We have still gotten by, almost to the 21st Century, with appointed school boards in this Province. I think that that is an anomaly whose time has long passed and I am glad to see that we will have 100 per cent school boards elected under to the new Schools Act, and that the school boards will be elected not on denominational lines, Mr. Speaker, but on the basis of who is chosen by the population to act in the interest of the school districts in the provision of education in this Province, subject, of course, to the Schools Act and to the direction of the Department of Education.

So I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation does not impose the problems that we had with the last piece of legislation, and I hope that all those interested in the education of children in this Province, work together to see that, particularly the provision with respect to religious education and observances, work smoothly and are not the opportunity for discord between denominations and between parents and between communities.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly appreciate the participation in debate and appreciate the continuing strong support for the principles that are expressed in this bill. I look forward as well, Mr. Speaker, to dealing with the issues in detail at Committee stage and third reading, and am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to have the privilege to move second reading of Bill 41.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Operation Of Schools In The Province," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 41).

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, "An Act To Amend The Retail Sales Tax Act," Bill No. 4.

Mr. Speaker, as I understand it - and I think it was very well put this afternoon by both the Minister of Finance and the Member for Cape St. Francis, what this bill was intended to do. I think, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Okay. I think, in terms of the principle of the bill, all that the bill would allow the government to do is to ensure that the retail sales tax that I -

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

I don't think I have recognized the -

MR. TULK: Oh, I am sorry. I am sorry about that.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Retail Sales Act." (Bill No. 4).

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

MR. TULK: Okay.

Mr. Speaker, I think what this bill does is allow the government -and I think the hon. gentleman has sat on a committee and I think he has done some commendable work on this bill - to collect certain taxes which it felt was being unjustly kept from it in the purchase of certain machines to this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I say that the Member for Cape St. Francis, if he is going to speak on this bill, can probably outline what the problems are with this bill and what has been resolved there to his satisfaction, to the Minister of Finance, better than I can.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I was taking a look through the clauses of this bill. Clause 1 of the Bill would amend section 2 of the Retail Sales Tax Act by adding to that section definition of the terms `new snowmobile', `registered dealer' and `registrant'. A new snowmobile is now defined as, "...a motorized vehicle with ski-like runners used for travelling in, on or over snow and ice and which has not been previously owned or operated by a consumer;", which means you can sell that snowmobile now five times or ten times and collect all ten sets of taxes on that snowmobile. Who determines the value? You don't have a Red Book value on a snowmobile, do you? Who determines the value? It is now going to be determined by the minister. They can set an evaluation on that particular machine.

I will skip down to Clause 3. Clause 3 of the Bill would amend section 8 of the Act to allow a valuation system, in accordance with the regulations, to be established with respect to vehicles sold by persons who are not registrants.

Further down, number 6: Clause 6 of the Bill would repeal and substitute section 60 of the Act to ensure a right of review by the minister for determinations of value made under the Act. Presently a right of review exists for valuations made by the minister.

I just want to touch on a couple of other points and then I am going to come back to this. I do not have a problem with -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: In Committee? Oh, I will do that. I will make my points. I am not expecting to get the answers back now, but I want to make these particular points. When the minister reads it, maybe when he comes back in Committee he will be prepared to be able to clarify certain things.

For example, the part that I don't have a problem with is: Back, I think, on December 13 of last year, when the HST was coming in, when you were ramming it through the Legislature here with two closure motions, do you all remember that? Car dealerships were concerned that because our taxes were going from 7 per cent GST - a 12 per cent piggyback, 19.84 per cent - that people were going to hold off and not buy a car until April 1.

It is good to look back. We said at the time, you don't buy the same car twice. Their sales were not good after that. A few people bought their cars in the initial flurry but obviously did not go back and buy the same one again. I understand the purpose now of this - and I do not have a problem with those clauses - is to allow the rate to be reduced from that percentage down to the 8 per cent on the retail sales tax portion between December 13 and the end of March; and the decision was made on ski-doos and snowmobiles - I think it was February 26 - to allow that to apply to ski-doos and different snowmobiles because people complained: Look, in Labrador that is a mode of transportation as much as another vehicle is here in some parts of the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is correct - and to move on it. That is fine. I do not have a great problem with that part of it, but overall there are certain aspects...

It says here in section 3 - it is section 8 of the act but it is clause 3 of the bill - basically: Where the minister is of the opinion that the purchase price charged is not the true value of the tangible personal property sold, or that the rental or other considerations charged under a contract for hire or lease of tangible other property...

There are parts in the act and there are also - it is not all spelled out here in the clause because we are only making the necessary changes here from the act. What it says in the act is: The rental or other considerations charged under a contract for the hire or lease of tangible personal property to which section 13 applies is not the true value of the hire or lease.

In other words, if it is the purchase it is not true value, or the hire or rental or lease that you have is not the true value. The minister may determine the true value, and the value so determined shall be taken for the purpose of assessing tax under this Act, 1978, G36-S8, section 8, so basically that is indicating that the minister could determine the true value.

Now, with most vehicles, I think there is a standardized value - the Red Book value we call it; we talked about it today - where currently now, if I am correct, there is one system now; if you sell a vehicle you have an affidavit, just the one affidavit basically - I have signed dozens of them as a J.P. over the years -where people came and took an oath saying that is the price they paid for the vehicle. Now, of course, the two affidavit system is there, but the minister can set certain values in these.

Am I assuming now that the affidavit system is applying to those specific ones in snowmobiles? If the minister says that snowmobile was listed as $3,500 but it is two years old, they might give an arbitrary value and say it is only worth $800; but if I buy it for $800 and they say, `No, that is supposed to be worth $2,000', can you apply the affidavit to that snowmobile? Things like that we need to know. Can we apply that? Because some snowmobiles might be useless after two years and some might be in tremendous shape after two years, and we do not want to see extra costs applied. It is very difficult and not as easy to deal with snowmobiles as you do with vehicles that are licensed and driven on our highways that are much more easily monitored.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, those type of things.

In 8.(2) of the act, in clause 3 of the bill, government is not only going to determine the rate that you are going to pay now, of course, that is determined here; what we also said is that it is also going to be able to assign a value for taxing purposes. If you want to get revenue, there are two ways you can do it. You can get revenue by increasing your per cent, or you can get revenue by changing your assigned value. The same as you look at property tax now - and we are dealing with municipal assessments now - there are two values; it is the value of the vehicle or it is the tax.

As the minister said, `Well, if the town does not need it, it could drop its mil rate.' Well, basically there is flexibility for government to use this as an avenue to collect extra taxes by having higher assigned values, and who has the power to be able to do something about that.

Those are some of the things. Most items -

AN HON. MEMBER: But would you change the (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is what I am asking. Is the affidavit system going to apply if the minister assigns a value that is not appropriate? If I am selling the Member for Cape St. Francis a Ski-Doo and I want to sell it for $400, somebody might think it is worth $800, but if I said, "$400 is all I want. I want to sell it for that." -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

MR. J. BYRNE: But according to the definition of a vehicle here, a vehicle -

MR. SULLIVAN: Is that the act you are looking at?

MR. J. BYRNE: - includes an aircraft, boat, ship, trailer, vessel.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where are you (inaudible)?

MR. J. BYRNE: Section 3 (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, in section 3.

MR. J. BYRNE: Bill 4, page 4, section 3.(3).

MR. SULLIVAN: I am just looking for what the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Anyway, it is in that there.

Overall, the basic points on the dates are straightforward - I do not have a problem at all with them - but the point that we are making here is that the evaluation of that particular snowmobile, or whatever it is, there is a system in place now for vehicles that we have out there, but it states here in this clause - I do not have the act in front of me. Certainly, before Committee, I will just check back to the act again. We have notes on the act, and by not having it in front of me at the moment...

It states here in this notice that we are amending clause 1 of the bill by adding to the section the definitions of the term `new snowmobile', so I gather the act does not define `new snowmobile' now. I say to the Government House Leader, according to this act, `new snowmobile' is not defined by the intent of this - I am having it just checked in the act to see - which means a new snowmobile is this: A `new snowmobile' means a motorized vehicle with ski-like runners that was not previously owned or operated by the consumer.

In other words a new one, for the definition of this act, you could sell the same one ten times over ten years to different people and it is still a new one, according to the definition. That is what is being added here in clause 1.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) which has not been previously owned or operated by a consumer.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, so every time it changes hands it is considered a new snowmobile.

MR. TULK: If somebody bought it then it is used, right? It is no longer new.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, according to the definition that you are adding here, `new snowmobile' will now be defined as - I will skip all the motorized vehicle part - "...which has not been previously owned or operated by a consumer;"

MR. TULK: Owned (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Owned or operated by `a' consumer.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Not by `the' consumer; okay, by any consumer.

MR. TULK: Right.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, by `a' consumer. Okay, because by `the' consumer would be a change of hands. Okay, I am quite clear on that. I am just trying to see if there is any reference to `new snowmobile' in this act.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I think we have that point clarified.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) in Committee.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, we can do it in Committee. I will not delay these things in second reading. I am going to check back on our own time and just get a specific definition, but overall there has to be an avenue by which - and right now it is basically the Cabinet who has the power to be able to set a valuation system, set the rates, and sometimes it is a difficult process. It is difficult enough with motor vehicles and that is one of the reasons we have to get the two-affidavit system in place. That, right now, gives a certain added degree of protection to government on the sale of these because when two people have to give an affidavit... Also what it does is allow at least a little bit of a level playing field, because it did give dealerships an advantage over private sales of vehicles.

Another thing has happened here, and I want to get this comment in at this point. HST necessitated - I guess government figured they needed to move and make a change, but what it also did was increase the per cent that people would pay on the private sale of these vehicles now, technically. It used to be, under the Retail Sales Act, 12 per cent. Instead, if the Retail Sales Act was redundant, or did not apply because this item is not a GST or HST taxable item, a new tax of 15 per cent was kicked back in to bring us in an extra $25 million or $30 million in revenues now, in that ball park. I have the figures. I went through them before. Ninety million in new taxation came in because of HST. This accounted for roughly one-third of that total. I am sure the associate Minister of Finance can confirm those figures. So what we have done now is gouged the consumer, gouged them by reaching out and saying, `You were only paying 12 per cent on the sale of vehicle before; now you are going to have to pay 15 per cent.' In other words, you are almost forcing people to be crooks.

AN HON. MEMBER: Almost.

MR. SULLIVAN: Almost, not quite, stopping short because people would not do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The Minister of Finance implied it, though, I can say. `We need to get rid of these people who are cheating and robbing us of taxes here in the Province.' That is what was said.

MR. J. BYRNE: He did not imply it; he said it.

MR. SULLIVAN: He said it. The Member for Cape St. Francis knows. He knows that the people out there are honest, hard-working people trying to make a living here in the Province.

If you want to sell something, what is wrong? If you go into a department store and an item is $50 and you negotiate and they say, `I will give you that for $30', nobody jumps up and says that company should have to make you pay taxes on $50. So if I have a vehicle that is worth $4,000 and I want to give it to somebody for $3,000 - it doesn't matter if it is my enemy, my friend, or whatever - what is wrong with doing that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is what I am saying. What is wrong with doing that? That is one of the reasons to bring it in. I should be allowed to do it. Dealerships do it on turn-ins; you apply one against the other. It might be on the lot for $12,000 but you might buy it for $10,000. They can do it, so why can't ordinary, private people do it so that it levels the playing field and it is a fair game? That is one of the reasons why initially when I saw this - and I talked to my colleague from Cape St. Francis. I know it in a finance area. He was very interested in it. It is a particular one on which he has done an effective job. I must say, the minister complimented him on it, and he left nothing unturned. He combed every single aspect of the particular legislation dealing with this.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, he combed right through it. There was nothing left unturned, I would say.

AN HON. MEMBER: There wasn't a hair (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Not a hair out of place. I am sure the Minister of Finance was delighted that the Member for Cape St. Francis had some excellent suggestions, and he did mention it. I think the Member for Cape St. Francis said today that he feels an obligation to give a gift back to the Minister of Finance, that he has a gift for the Minister of Finance. I am sure the Minister of Finance will get a gift in due course.

Anyway, when we get to second reading of this bill some time next spring I am certain I will have some other comments to make.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Or in Committee of the bill, whenever. On tomorrow, when we get to the Committee stage of this bill, I am sure the Minister of Finance will have some specific answers to our questions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the minister speaks now he will close the debate.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: The hon. gentleman has put forward some questions which he wants answered and which he has a right to have answered. He will put them forward again, I am sure, in Committee, and the Minister of Finance will attempt to answer them.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of the bill.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Retail Sales Tax Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 4)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act No. 2". Bill No. 52

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act No. 2". (Bill No. 52)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My predecessor, the hon. Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods, commissioned Mr. Morgan Cooper to do a report for government on the offshore labour relations process on offshore oil production platforms.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to say, as I did yesterday morning, that government has accepted the overwhelming number of recommendations that were proposed and recommended by Mr. Cooper. I guess what Mr. Cooper tried to do, and what this legislation has set out, I guess, is a balance between what the unions would be expecting and what the industry itself wanted. Nobody got 100 per cent of what they were looking for in this particular piece of legislation, but this is cutting edge legislation. We have a new industry offshore and we want to make sure that stability, safety and productivity are there for the industry. It means quite a bit to the Province and, I am sure, to the workers from this Province who will be employed not only on the Hibernia rig but others that would follow it. This, in a sense, would be the precedent-setting legislation not only for this particular rig but for others that would come after it.

In the bill, in the Explanatory Note, there are five different clauses there. I guess the fundamental clause, Clause 1, is that the government believes it is a right for the workers who are on the rig to decide, if they so wish, to be represented by a union. Obviously that particular right has to be given, and that is the guiding principle that I guess the piece of legislation sets forth. We are not saying that it must be mandatory. We leave it to the rights of the workers who work on these rigs to decide for themselves if indeed they want to be represented by a trade union; but, nevertheless, the choice is theirs.

Also, Mr. Speaker, as the bill outlines - and I had a chance yesterday to go down through that with the federation president, Elaine Price, and with the unions themselves. Obviously, I guess, they concurred that basically the legislation itself is sound but they probably might be able to see where it might be improved for them, and I guess it is the same thing for the industry itself. We think that we have a very important piece of legislation that addresses the rights of the workers and of the industry.

There are a couple of little variations, I guess, in the legislation that is before the House, from what Morgan Cooper presented in his report. Basically, in his recommendation number seven, Mr. Cooper recommended that the Labour Relations Board be mandated with the authority to give access to the people if they so desire from the unions, and if they want to unionize the workers offshore.

That particular right is in the Labour Relations Act right now, and that right is there for the unions. I am sure that the Labour Relations Board would be able to facilitate that particular going to the rigs if the unions so desired, and that can be done by them, and we are sure the Labour Relations Board can indeed be effective in that matter. Therefore, we did not think it was necessary to enhance it because it was already there in existing legislation.

The other variance, I guess, that the bill brings forth is that we said here as a government that we agree with Morgan Cooper that a council of unions should indeed have the opportunity to unionize the workers as any single union would. However, what the government did was, they went a little farther than what Mr. Cooper recommended and set down some guiding principles if a council of unions were to represent the workers offshore.

Basically, I guess, where it starts from the council of unions was, first of all, the unions themselves would have to agree for a constitution. Once the constitution has been formed then the council, for all intents and purposes then, would act as a unit, and the collective bargaining that would apply on the rig would be a total representation of the workers who are out there for the bargaining unit. We believe that the bar is not too high for the council of trade unions to be able to unionize the workers any differently than any other single unit.

These were the two variations in Mr. Cooper's report. Apart from that, the recommendations are there that if, for example, there is a unionizing of the rig then the agreement would be for three years; and if they could not come to an agreement there would be a binding arbitration. Also, for example, if after the first particular agreement had expired, and if they could not come to some amicable agreement and find a way for (inaudible) a contract between the industry and the worker, then there would have to be a process in place that would make sure that the safety and the working down of the particular rig for safety of the workers that are there would be done.

We believe that we have incorporated the heart of the Morgan Cooper report, and we believe we have good legislation here. We believe, as a government, that it will set the tenor for the industry. We believe that it would indeed enhance productivity, safety and stability within the industry, and encourage people to invest even more in the industry offshore.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Am I? He doesn't have the edge to him that former ministers in that department had, the former Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. He has a softer edge to him, Mr. Speaker. I want to point out quickly, meek does not mean weak - very important. I am not saying the minister is meek, but it does not mean that. I mean, sometimes a more thoughtful, reasoned approach is the best way to go with respect to matters like this. I have to say - pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, I know one thing; the Member for Twillingate & Fogo has no idea whatsoever what this legislation is about, none whatsoever.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South on a point of order.

MR. FITZGERALD: I don't know if anybody finds it warm here tonight.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FITZGERALD: The Minister of Mines and Energy finds it warm, and I certainly find it warm here.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is the pills (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: It might be the medication but, I will tell you one thing, it is really, really warm. I don't know if the controller of the heat can adjust the thermostats so we can have some comfort here or not, but it is certainly very, very warm here tonight.

MR. TULK: To that point of order.

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

MR. TULK: Unlike the hon. gentleman, I feel I have gotten to a place here in this House now where I feel warm on one side and cool on the other. Mr. Speaker, there is no point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

In keeping with the ruling that the Chair made last night, it is not within the powers of the Speaker's Chair to control the temperature in the Legislature. There is nothing that the Chair can do about that. If it is to the point that hon. members are not able to perform their duties then I suggest that they make a motion to adjourn.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: It was always around this time, when I was in university, that exams would be on, the pots of coffee would be on, up all night, papers that were overdue had to be in, and we used to call it fluorescent madness. Now I am not sure what type of madness it is, but last night the Member for Cape St. Francis got up and talked about the Government House Leader - it was very animated last night - experiencing the change of life. His mood swings were, he said, here and there, up and down. The Government House Leader confirmed it tonight. He was cold on one side and warm on the other. Now I didn't believe it last night; I took it with a grain of salt. I did take it with a grain of salt, but I am starting to think.

MR. TULK: I am getting confused.

MR. E. BYRNE: Another sign, he is getting confused.

It is nice to have a bit of brevity and a laugh sometimes in the Chamber, although the public may not understand it when we do and it is taken out of context. But certainly it is an important part of the function of the House of Assembly and the Legislature, as members, that outside of points of order, debates, and work-to-rule sorts of orders offered by the Opposition House Leader - he has all of the Opposition members under work-to-rule, this Opposition House Leader who we support in every way, shape or form - it is an important function, an important characteristic of the House of Assembly that I certainly would support and move on.

Mr. Speaker, to the legislation, this is a very important piece of legislation. It cannot be taken just within the context of what the labour management regime will be for the oil and gas industry because it is one important peg, or one important function or step, in what the government is, I suppose, trying to attempt with the entire industry - one, from a production point of view, which we are experiencing right now with tremendous success in terms of the anticipated amount of production compared to what realistically is happening.

I guess it is another point in terms of government's agenda to attract more business, to be able to compete, to offer businesses the ability to compete, but also government's approach in terms of offering safe working conditions to ensure the right for labour to organize, to choose its own representation, that all of that is encompassing.

In debating this piece of legislation, I think it is important from the onset to say that we cannot debate it in isolation, meaning that it cannot be debated on just what is between the covers of Bill 52. We must look at it in terms of the context of the entire industry and essentially what this piece of legislation will mean.

Now I am not going to get into the specific detail of the legislation because I know that is reserved for a more clause-by-clause debate. I believe that I will have some amendments that I will bring forward with respect to this piece of legislation, but I do want to make some general remarks. Specifically, I would like to talk about industry regulation and worker protection.

I noted during the press conference the Minister of Mines and Energy and the Minister of Environment and Labour, the two ministers who are essentially charged with this piece of legislation, one as the minister responsible for the industry as energy but responsible for the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board, and certainly the minister responsible for labour, because one of the foundations, it seems to me, within this legislation is that the existing legislation and associated regulations with the Labour Relations Board are accepted, the tenets of the Board, or the foundation upon which it has been set, that sets the premise for what will take place in this particular piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it is hard not to notice that the legislation is very interested in regulating workers and deciding whether they should have some kind of representation than it is in addressing a more pivotal concern, which is regulating the oil companies themselves. This point cannot be understated because I, as a member of the House and critic for mines and energy, have been very critical of the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board, and I think with a lot of good and sound reason. I have not seen legislation come before the House of Assembly that would strengthen that Board in terms of regulating more the activities and regulating more what the companies themselves are doing.

With respect to workers' concerns, and the type of labour regime that will be in place, or the climate that it sets, this bill is very specific in terms of the mandate it sets out, the criteria to which workers will choose for themselves what the regime will be. It is a very regulatory bill, in my mind. I believe government should, in order to create a climate and conditions to operate, based upon my research and understanding, adopt more of the approaches that are seen in the North Sea made pertaining to workers.

There are a lot of good examples in terms of what takes place in the North Sea, and some of the components of the model that I am talking about and, I guess, the amendments that I will suggest in the Committee stage, will come from that. But some of the things in the North Sea pertain to - or the model in which - really relate to the workplace environment, the occupational health and safety standards that are in place right now. As a comparison, the occupational health and safety standards with respect to the oil and gas industry in this Province that are still not approved, that are still in draft form, that are not before the Legislature for approval, and the impact of that.

I am not entirely sure of what the impact of that really is from a workers' compensation point of view, from a liability point of view, from an exploration rig point of view like the Willie Shoemaker, as compared to a production sort of view. Occupational health and safety standards for the oil and gas industry remain today still in draft form. I am surprised we have not seen legislation coming forth in this sitting on that particular issue. However, the minister has indicated in questioning that it is before the department and that it will be coming before the Legislature in the spring sitting.

Passing this bill doesn't ensure that workers can join a union of their choice.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me finish. What protection do workers have? That is the question. Right now workers do not have any individual standards or other permanent labour legislation that should be applied or created to deal with workplace situations offshore for the offshore worker. What I am saying is that unlike what took place in Bull Arm, where the labour relations regime was prescribed, it guarantees the ability for a union or a council of unions to represent workers, but it does not guarantee that a union will be on that rig. While it is a distinction, that is important to draw because it does not provide that guarantee, based upon the premise that workers themselves have a right to choose if they wish to have representation or if they do not.

The impression that is in this bill - or more correctly it is to the point, I think - is the presumption on this point that organizing is now a fait accompli, that it will take place, and that the conditions are there for unions to organize. That is the presumption that is based upon this bill, that an organized labour environment will exist, but it is a presumption. It is not guaranteed in this particular piece of legislation. Nothing can be further from the truth. Again, it is an important distinction.

Mr. Speaker, the items to look at in this respect are to explore the things that they have not done, not what they have done, because there is a difference. When the minister stands and says: We have guaranteed the right for workers to choose, and in this legislation - you read it throughout - it prescribes certain conditions. I am not going to get into it because that is reserved for the clause-by-clause debate. The presumption is there that there will be an organized representation by labour for workers, but it does not guarantee it. Correct?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Okay. Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board, as the minister who is primarily responsible for the C-NOPB from the Province's point of view, in the performances to date of government - I cannot say so much of this minister because he has not been there that long - really have been disgraceful. There is no other way to describe it.

Newfoundland and Labrador has been, in my opinion, on the slippery down slope since the heady days of the oil and gas regulations and appeals in the courts of Parliament in the 1970s and early 1980s to control the destiny of the offshore oil and gas. When you look at the spirit of the Atlantic Accord, and what the Atlantic Accord was supposed to enshrine in terms of technology transfer, in terms of employment benefits, in terms of infrastructure requirements, of what we thought we were going to get when the Hibernia project was developed and what we actually got, they are two different things. Certainly the technology transfer hasn't occurred at the rate it was supposed to take place, has it? Look at the projects that we lost in Marystown, Minister. You were Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology at the time. Seriously, when you look at -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I know some of the arguments that the minister has made; that we did very well, and that we got 85 per cent of employment out there. I understand that. That is acceptable. The point I have been making is that, simply put, when it comes to benefits like this, why should we be satisfied with 85 per cent when we could have had 90 per cent or 95 per cent, when we should have gotten it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) engineering.

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I am not satisfied with the - on what project?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I think so, yes, but I am not satisfied with the engineering work that is being done and where it is being done, to the extent that it is being done, with respect to the Terra Nova.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Go ahead.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I understand. I am not sure that it was quadrupled. That is a debateable point. I know that we at least doubled it, but that is one section. I still maintain that we did not get all of the employment benefits we should have gotten. Now, they may be minute in the scheme of things, but if somebody doesn't raise the point, who will?

AN HON. MEMBER: The Premier.

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: The Premier himself? Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: The unions are complaining that they hired (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: What unions are complaining?

MR. FITZGERALD: What unions? Name them.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: That you hired too many Newfoundlanders?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, are you talking about the international or the locals?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Two different stories, I say to the hon. member. If the international, which is located outside of here -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I am going to put out a news release on that tomorrow.

MR. E. BYRNE: Boy, I think I am going too.

MR. FITZGERALD: I am going to put out a news release on that tomorrow.

AN HON. MEMBER: You go right ahead.

MR. FITZGERALD: You will be taken to task on that one.

MR. E. BYRNE: No doubt about it.

MR. FITZGERALD: The iron workers?

MR. E. BYRNE: Any more? You say `unions' in the plural sense. Are there any more?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Okay.

MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I will tell you, the electrical workers' union is not saying that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, Sir.

MR. FITZGERALD: When you look at what happened with Kenonic Controls at Hibernia.

MR. E. BYRNE: Kenonic Controls, the local diver situation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I tell you, I have not heard that argument at all.

MR. FITZGERALD: I haven't heard that at all.

MR. E. BYRNE: I consider myself as close to the situation as anybody, not necessarily more but as close. I have not heard it. I can see that argument being made by an international with -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: They hired too many workers.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Who won't give them work?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Other locals.

MR. E. BYRNE: Other locals. Well, I think the situation that you may be describing with the iron workers is that there was a closed shop within the Iron Workers' Union, that when the amount of work that was required to be done, or the personnel that were required to be done, was almost triple what existed in the union, there was a significant number of members -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Hold on, let me finish. There was a significant number, about 60 per cent, that were taken in on permit, only for the project. So it may be coming from the core membership, but I can guarantee you it is not the feeling of everybody. No, I cannot see it.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, it is an important point. What I am doing is raising some concerns. I want to talk about the regulations, and this is important, I think. The presence or absence of unions on the rig, I think, will dictate how effective government regulations will be. Government does not have the resources to continually monitor what legislation it puts in place. Where you see trade unions involved - you look at the oil and gas industry with the North Sea model, with other models around the industry - it will clearly show directly that the effectiveness of a legislative sort of frame put in place by the democracy or parliament of the place that existed, clearly the effectiveness of that legislation and regulations existed by the presence that trade unions were there to enforce it. Now although it was prescribed in terms of their presence what they could or could not do, in terms of jurisdiction and other issues, their presence being guaranteed ensured that those regulations were enforced.

If anybody thinks for a moment that large corporations or companies, in doing business here quite legitimately, that if there is no watchdog in place in terms of regulations, and no watchdog to ensure enforceable regulations take place, that corners will not be cut or regulations will not be ducked around, I think they are sadly mistaken.

The central point, I believe: it is a fact that minimum standards, in my opinion, are needed in the industry. We do not have them with this legislation, in my opinion. A clear example of everything that has gone wrong is the scary, lingering, totally unacceptable absence - again I will refer to it - of occupational health and safety standards. It is an important point. It cannot be understated.

The importance of regulations has to be viewed in direct contrast to the degree of unemployment that exists here. We don't have to look too far, I say to hon. members, for individuals who throw all caution to the wind - and we have seen examples of it - for the sake of a few dollars, or where greed prevails. We have seen it. We have seen it in big projects. We have seen it in areas where the economy has been depressed, where people are crying out for jobs. The Westray Mine disaster is but one example of that situation and it is an important point that we don't get into that sort of situation here.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about the council of unions' concept that is here. I believe that the council of unions' concept is an important addition. As well as restriction on labour in this Province, it is an important addition from this point: There was a move, I believe, to restrict the whole notion of a council of unions or an oil development council because of the experience with the Hibernia site. I think that - while I am critical of the legislation in terms of it does not guarantee - there is a presumption that unions will exist or that a bargaining agent of some kind, whether it be a council of a union or one bargaining agent, will exist on site, there is no guarantee in the legislation that it will.

The introduction of a council of unions is an important introduction from this sense because it clearly says to those who were involved or who are involved in the industry up to this point that the concept is good, that the concept has merit, that it should proceed, but there are certain conditions that apply which are prescribed in the bill. I think it tightens up what we saw at the Hibernia site in terms of jurisdictional disputes, no effective dispute resolving mechanism that may have caused undue delays and, some would argue, significant amounts of money, depending on what side of the fence you are on. I see the introduction of a council of unions as an important point in this piece of legislation. I see it as a genuine effort that would allow those who have been involved in the industry to this extent so far, representing workers in the Province, an opportunity to do so if they can get their own house in order. I think that is what the legislation is trying to accomplish.

With respect to the Labour Relations Board, I think it will remain unchanged because of the legislation and development of the merging oil and gas industries. It is pretty clear I think, that that is the case. No measurable increase of work really is envisaged for that board as a result of this legislation or as a result of the activity that is incurring. The legislation and how it will be introduced, I think that we have to be concerned. It could be a field day for lawyers. It is very possible.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, even more. I think we have to be concerned about this because they, in my opinion, jockey for a position on one or another piece of legislation. I think it is an important point, a very important point that I don't think we can underestimate.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, well I will get into it in clause-by-clause.

I will close by saying this. I think all of us in this House, with respect to the industry, because it may be the industry that really does something from a revenue generating point of view - it has to. I mean, it may be the industry that puts us on a solid footing and creates more of an independent, strong character of where all of our roots came from, as opposed to a very dependent Province upon outside influences; and, being dependent upon outside influence, the ability to be dictated by outside influences.

So this is important, and I would think that we have to more than hope for this to happen. We have to make sure that it does happen. We have to develop some common purpose, all the stakeholders. We have to ensure, all of us, not only in the House but people within the industry, that in developing that common purpose we move towards working more collectively to bring this project to its best possible conclusion. I think that our expectations should not fall below that.

I do not think it is too much to expect that a sincere dialogue should ensue on this piece of legislation and the industry as a whole. I think our task is to ensure that the major companies that are here, that are participating, that are excited, that are going to invest in this Province as a result of the resources that lay offshore don't bleed the Grand Banks dry over the next twenty years, that exploitation really is not a bad word if it is exploited in the proper sense, and this is what we have to be concerned about. I think we have to ensure that in that period, over the next twenty years or more, that no lives are lost, that our occupational health and safety standards are not only up to scratch but are a model for the rest of not only the Province but the industry as a whole. I believe that we, as legislators in this House here, should ensure that our workers receive top dollar to the extent that they can. I believe that any technology transfer that is available to us, we must take advantage of it to the extent that we can. If that means purchasing it, learning from it and from others, then we must do it. If we do not, at the end of the day what will we be left with?

I think that the environment - and this is an important point for the minister because he has a dual purpose, unlike most ministers previously. He is the minister both for Labour and Environment at the same time, which is a very important task. I think, with respect to the portfolio, there was a time to put those two sorts of functions together, it is now. It is now; there is no doubt about it. I support that and have. The environment must be respected at all costs without undue impediments put forward that would interfere with the production of the industry, and that any bureaucratic mechanism, I say to the minister or ministers involved, has both the rationale and the mandate with the proper resources - because C-NOPB right now does not have the proper resources, but that is the bureaucratic mechanism to which I am referring - that it has the proper resources to accomplish these tasks and to be fully accountable and open to everyone in the Province. I don't think that these are unreasonable goals or unreasonable objectives that we should be aiming for.

Before I sit down, I understand that a former finance minister, Mr. Winston Baker, has been appointed to C-NOPB. It's a good move. I think so. When that member sat in this House and other members who sat here in the House with him, certainly from the Opposition side - his nickname was Wins. That `Wins' was a Prince, a very credible individual, and I think he has an acute understanding of the industry. He has a very acute understanding of this Province and he knows what it's like, more than some of the other members who are on the board - I don't want to be backhanded in any way in talking about the representation of other members who previously sat on that board - but he knows what it's like firsthand to be accountable.

I hope that this government and the ministers responsible have given Mr. Baker, a former colleague of all of us in this House, the mandate to say: Look, here is what we expect you to do as our representative on that board, and where it does not happen we want to know about it right away.

I think, with respect to the introduction of new members on the board, because it has to be forthcoming, sometime in the New Year the minister says; the sooner the better - supply some more resources to it. It needs to be done.

The Canadian Offshore Petroleum Board cannot ensure that our environment is protected at all costs; cannot ensure that Occupational Health and Safety standards and safety mechanisms are in place; cannot ensure that first priority in terms of employment benefits takes place; cannot ensure, as a watchdog of the industry, that our interests as a Province are being protected unless they have the resources to do so. So I hope government moves in that direction because it is very relevant to Bill 52 because this legislation is only that. If we don't have the mechanisms in place to ensure that it is enforceable and that people involved in the industry, all stakeholders, from representatives to individual workers themselves to whoever they may chose, if they so chose to have a bargaining agent, the oil companies themselves, then that is all it is; it will be words on paper. The only mechanism and the one that we hang our hat on, the one that was negotiated, is the Canadian Offshore Petroleum Board.

So, Mr. Speaker, with those comments, I will sit down on second reading of Bill 52 and look forward to the debate in Committee of the Whole, the clause by clause debate. I may have an opportunity to put forward some amendments for further debate and for consideration of all members in the House.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was going to say I am pleased to rise to speak to this bill, but I have to say though that Bill 52, "An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act No. 2" to be introduced at 11 o'clock at night, the week before Christmas, and to be required to enter into substantive debate after 12 o'clock at night, after we sat until 4:30 a.m. the morning before, is not really an appropriate way to deal with this most serious of topics involving our merging offshore industry and establishing provisions in the Labour Relations Act which will have the effect of setting the tone and setting the rules for the development of industrial relations in the offshore sector for many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, we have had, for consideration since last April, or the government certainly has had since last April, the Morgan Cooper Report, a very thoughtful and thorough document that is examined on the international level; particularly the Norwegian and United Kingdom experience legislatively, the labour relations processes in place there and their affect on some very important matters, Mr. Speaker.

The issue enshrined in a number of conventions and treaties that the Canadian government is bound by, in relation to the international labour organization, the provisions for free collective bargaining and the freedom of association, has to be taken into consideration. Also, the special conditions of offshore operation and the particular aspects of that work environment, the dangers associated with offshore, and the particular dangers associated with an operating platform which may have to be shut down in the event of a labour dispute or interruption of production.

Mr. Speaker, we know that considerable effort has gone into the Morgan Cooper report. I'm surprised that government saw fit to tinker with the recommendations of Dr. Cooper in accepting some of them, and parts of them, without accepting others, Mr. Speaker, others that are interrelated and are designed to maximize the ability of workers to be represented by the trade union of their choice, and at the same time facilitate productivity on the offshore rig.

I realize some of that gets into the details of the bill, but I'm not sure the government, in principle, has achieved a fair balance in that regard. It seems to be very patronizing in its approach to the trade union representation. It hasn't expanded and strengthened the ability of trade union representatives to have access to oil rigs as was recommended by Dr. Cooper in his report. He recommended that the existing provisions in the Labour Relations Act must be strengthened in order to provide reasonable and economic access to an oil rig for the purposes of organization. It is not sufficient, said Dr. Cooper, to allow organization only at the heliport area or at people's homes, and that the Labour Relations Act itself needed to be strengthened in order to provide the kind of access that would be required, Mr. Speaker.

He based his recommendations not on some theoretical notions of what was required, but on the basis of experience under the United Kingdom legislation and the Norwegian legislation. There has been some considerable experience - twelve or fourteen years at least in experience - in those areas where offshore oil platforms have had union representation to a much greater extent in the Norwegian model, to a lesser extent in the model adopted in the U.K.

Mr. Speaker, when we are talking about union representation offshore, I think it has to be remembered that one of the most important aspects of offshore operations and necessities of consideration is that of safety. I note Dr. Cooper did a very extensive analysis of the offshore safety regime. He noted, as did I, Mr. Speaker, that the provisions for occupational health and safety are not vested with the minister who is responsible for occupational health and safety in the Province of Newfoundland. They are, in fact, vested in the Minister of Mines and Energy, not the minister and the department responsible for the enforcement of occupational health and safety rules, but in fact in the minister responsible for mines and energy, for consulting with, for negotiating with or dealing with the offshore oil companies on other matters, matters related to production, matters related to revenues, matters related to other aspects of the offshore oil industry that in some respects are counter to the demands of offshore safety.

Mr. Speaker, I know industry representatives would say they are one and the same, that there is a community of interest there. That is something you would expect them to say, just as industrial developers would say they are concerned about the environment. Yet, Mr. Speaker, we know that providing adequate offshore safety costs money, interferes with the profit, regulates employers, and imposes on them obligations they might not otherwise undertake themselves. That is the job of an independent agency that doesn't have to, at the same time, sit down and negotiate with these companies on other matters related to the operations.

I guess a little bit of evidence as to how that works, Mr. Speaker, is that there has been, in effect - Dr. Cooper identified that the offshore safety regulations have been in draft form for seven years and haven't been put into effect. In fact, they are still not put into effect, Mr. Speaker, after we have production. We will be told, I know, that as a condition of the permit they have agreed to abide by the draft, but that tells me that these are still in negotiation; not negotiation between the minister responsible in this Province for occupational health and safety and his officials and the employees involved through their union representatives, but negotiations between HMDC or the operator and the Minister of Mines and Energy, leaving the minister in charge of occupational health and safety out of the picture altogether.

That disturbs me, Mr. Speaker, and it should disturb anybody in this Province. We had an awful tragedy in this Province with the Ocean Ranger in 1982, an awful tragedy which resulted from inadequate training, inadequate systems in place to deal with evacuation of rigs. I realize this platform is not a rig. We won't get into that debate here. We have had an awful experience, a great tragedy, Mr. Speaker, which is represented in memory by our Ocean Ranger memorial to the west of Confederation Building here on Confederation Hill.

Mr. Speaker, I'm very disturbed about that. In fact, it disturbs me that Dr. Cooper didn't make a stronger recommendation than he did. He made the observations that need to be made, but he didn't make any strong recommendations. If you read between the lines it is very clear from the Cooper report that he recognizes the importance of trade union representation in having an adequate offshore safety regime; not only in developing the regulation, Mr. Speaker, because you have trade union representatives who are experienced in dealing with the operations of a workforce and know what needs to be put in place to ensure that workers are able to respond to safety issues without putting their lives at risk, but also that the security of a trade union agreement and trade union representation in a collective bargaining regime ensures that a workers is not setting himself or herself up to have to pay a price for raising safety issues offshore. That is a concern I have, Mr. Speaker.

The approach that HMDC is taking - and I don't have any final and ultimate objections, nor ideological objections, to workers sharing in the value of productivity. I don't have any ultimate objections to that, Mr. Speaker - it is a fine thing - but if the aim of that type of regime, the profit-sharing or productivity-sharing, is to have a more compliant workforce, if the aim is to have a less independent workforce, if the aim is to ensure there is less attention paid to the risks that might be taken by workers, then we have to be very, very, very concerned indeed.

When we combine that with what Dr. Cooper has identified in his report as the antipathy - you have to say that on the tip of your tongue, Mr. Speaker, at twelve-thirty at night - of the oil and gas companies to unionization, we have that as a potential serious problem in our offshore. I would have liked to have seen far more leaning, not only in this report but in the legislation, towards the ease of union organizing and collective bargaining without too many hurdles and barriers and impositions of conditions on a constitution, than exists here today. Because, Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe our offshore will be safer for our workers if there is qualified, competent, experienced trade union representation to ensure that the workers are able to speak up and take effective action when safety becomes an issue, and not be concerned that their job or their rotation on a schedule or their relationship with their employer might be threatened by some action on the safety side that is necessary, Mr. Speaker, but might be avoided out of concerns as to the consequences to the worker. That is a concern.

The second concern that I have, in looking at clause 3, where the Board, in determining the appropriateness of a council, has to look at a series of provisions in the constitution to determine whether or not the bargaining unit is appropriate - what does that do, Mr. Speaker? If an organization, a council of trade unions, is formed, and I say this quite seriously to the minister, and somebody gives them advice as to what type of sensible constitution they should have, or they take a constitution off the shelf and try and conform to the act, if they go to the Labour Relations Board, Mr. Speaker, and engage - and I guarantee you, the antipathy of the oil and gas companies to unionization will result in very serious challenges to any application to the Labour Relations Board. If they go before that Board and if, somehow or other, that constitution is inadequate in a particular respect, is the only choice of the Labour Relations Board to say: No, I'm sorry, you aren't an appropriate bargaining unit? You can't be certified because here or there this constitution displeases us as a board.

What authority does the Board have to make a conditional certification and say: We have a problem here with your compliance with one particular section, and we are prepared to certify your body on condition that certain changes are made in the constitution? Because while you are before the Board, Mr. Speaker, the application is there, your constitution is there, it is a fixed document. You can't go off and change the constitution in the middle of a hearing to anticipate or to deal with arguments that come up.

That is what happens, Mr. Speaker, when you start imposing obligations on organizations and constitutions. I don't like the term a lawyer's field day, because lawyers use the law to make arguments based on what is before them. Here in this House we are setting out the rules, and we have to anticipate what use will be made of those rules when there is a conflict. I will guarantee the minister that on any application for certification of an offshore oil rig, there will be a conflict. There will be lawyers hired, highly skilled, well-paid lawyers, representing the offshore oil interest, the licensed operators, who will take this legislation as they always do and pick apart every single word. Every single advantage that they can get from this they will seek it. Every single barrier or obstacle in the way of certification that they can find here they will use.

I have seen it, Mr. Speaker. I have practised law in this Province for seventeen years and the area of the law which is probably the most contentious is in the area of certification, where management lawyers, on both sides obviously, represented their clients interests, go to any number of extremes to pursue an interpretation of a piece of legislation or an act.

I will give you an example. In the Hibernia Bull Arm project, there was a designation under the legislation of a special project and of a bargaining unit. The bargaining unit was designated as everybody covered by a particular collective agreement. As it turned out, Mr. Speaker, that collective agreement did not cover all the workers at Bull Arm, and when workers who had not been contemplated by the collective bargaining regime, came on stream, whether they be draftspersons, office workers or other people who were not included, when they sought to be represented under collective bargaining under the normal rules and said, we are a unit who want to be represented by collective bargaining, the Labour Relations Board said yes, but the Supreme Court said no, Mr. Speaker. The Supreme Court said no because they said that the Labour Relations Act was totally excluded from the operation of Bull Arm because of the existence of an Order in Council designating a particular collective agreement as the one in charge.

That flies in the face of what I think the intention of the Legislature would have been; it flies in the face of what I am sure the minister would have believed that all employees had access to collective bargaining. Nevertheless, that was the decision rendered by the court. It happens all the time now, as the minister now knows; I am sure he has been apprised. Even since his ascendancy to the Ministry of Human Resources and Labour, the Labour Relations Board is constantly challenged in the courts for doing things that are contrary to the Act or purported to be contrary to the Act or legislation or regulation.

So it is a highly contentious area, I say to the minister, and I know he is being advised of that, presumably by his deputy and others who are involved and by the people involved in labour. Anybody involved in labour, particularly on the legal side, will tell you that Labour Relations Board matters and the courts are constantly battling. There is constant battle between the courts and the Labour Relations Board over jurisdiction, over whether the Labour Board is acting properly and within its jurisdiction.

I can see, in clause 3, a number of serious areas - that being one of them - that I would see very problematic without some amendments which no doubt will be proposed by me. I say to hon. members, I intend to consult with the Official Opposition critic and with the union representatives who have been involved in this process in one form or another for a long time and see if we can make, together or separately, some constructive, not obstructive but constructive, recommendations and amendments which will see that the offshore labour regime will be set up in a way that will be conducive to the aims that the minister has, and all members should have, in terms of having a productive offshore with a good labour relations regime.

That is one of the reasons, Mr. Speaker, I am unhappy about the fact that, here we are at 12:30 at night debating this legislation. It is the week before Christmas and all through the House we have creatures stirring hoping to get out and get home, and we will have, you know, a session like this some night next week, maybe Wednesday or Thursday. We will be trying to put forth constructive amendments and the minister will be saying: Oh, I do not have time to consult with my deputy and I do not have time to consult my law officials, I do not have time to look at it. We will be forced to accept legislation that may well be imperfect, Mr. Speaker, but could be greatly improved by having the kind of debate that we are having here, by relying on the experience - and I say so in modesty, Mr. Speaker - of people like myself who have practised in the labour field for many years; the experience of the Member for Kilbride who worked for a trade union prior to coming to this House and who has extensive experience in the labour field; and the experience of others.

I know the minister is being lobbied by the industry, I know the minister is being lobbied by others, but this House is the final arbiter of what is the best way to put things in legislation that is helpful to the process. I think that there is something to contribute in this legislative process and I hope that the minister will be open to the kind of suggestions, recommendations and amendments that might come forth over the next number of days.

Mr. Speaker, I have a concern about the provisions in clause 3 that deal with another aspect of limitation, if you will, on the board's ability to certify a trade union, requiring the board to be satisfied that the Council has a constitution that satisfies the requirements of section 1. Those are the ones we talked about. Can it be conditional? Can there be measures that the board could set out that the council would have to meet in order to satisfy the requirements?

The second one, I think, is a little bit more airy-fairy and I think that is going to lead to all kinds of opportunities before the Labour Relations Board to make arguments and call mounds and mounds and mounds of evidence as to whether or not the certification would impede workplace productivity and stability or the flexibility of the employer to assign work.

Now, first of all, I say to the minister that the second part of this, the flexibility of the employer to assign work does not appear in the recommendations of Dr. Cooper. I say also that I think, from a legal point of view, a certification always has some affect on workplace productivity and stability. Because, Mr. Speaker, when you introduce the notion of collective bargaining, when you introduce an obligation to have workers' rights, when you introduce an obligation to respond to the workers' rights in a collective agreement, there is obviously going to be some impact on productivity.

In open theory, Mr. Speaker, if the employer can do exactly what he wants, whenever he wants to do it, productivity is not impeded except perhaps by the stupidity or the incompetence or the bumbling nature of an employer. So that is the impeding, Mr. Speaker, but a certification will always impede productivity. The question, really, is not whether it would impede productivity but whether it would unreasonably impede productivity. I think that term is too absolute, Mr. Speaker, because there will always be some impediment to productivity if you have certification, if you have an obligation to bargain, if you have an obligation to comply with an agreement. So, Mr. Speaker, that has to change.

Mr. Speaker, some of the provisions for arbitration and the length of agreements might need to be fine tuned. I leave those for later but, Mr. Speaker, I go back to what I said earlier about needing a stronger bias in favour of unionization because of the offshore safety issue. I believe that the operation of the platform can be safer for workers and safer for everybody if, in fact, we have a regime that is unionized and productive. That has been recognized, Mr. Speaker, by the enquiry into the Piper-Alpha disaster, a platform in the North Sea, Mr. Speaker, which was a huge fire causing great loss of life. Lord Cullen was in charge of the public enquiry into the Piper-Alpha disaster. He indicated his willingness to accept the potential or trade union representation to have a positive impact on offshore safety.

He said as follows, Mr. Speaker, and I am quoting from Dr. Cooper's report on page 68, `In light of the evidence of which I have heard, which admittedly came from trade union witnesses, I am prepared to accept that the appointment of offshore safety representatives by trade unions could be of some benefit in making the work of safety representatives and safety committees effective, mainly to the credibility and resistance to pressures which trade union backing would provide.' A very important recognition, Mr. Speaker, that the resistance to pressures that trade union backing provides is much more satisfactory than having worker representatives, safety representatives, without that kind of protection and backing. So, Mr. Speaker, I think that that is very important in that context.

I think that the access provision should be strengthened. I would again quote from the Cooper Report, this time at page 47, where it says, `When regard is had to the low levels of union representation in the offshore petroleum industry and the antipathy of oil and gas companies to unionization, there is considerable merit to requests by labour stakeholders for effective and economical access to offshore oil production platforms. The necessity for effective and economical access to workers of offshore oil platforms is particularly compelling where the requisite level of support for collective action must be attained from members of a bargaining unit which comprises the entire platform.

That is what we chose to do, Mr. Speaker. The minister chose to accept, in his first draft of the bill, the entire platform as the appropriate bargaining unit. In doing so, he failed to accept the recommendation of the Cooper Report that the existing provisions of the Labour Relations Act with respect to access ought to be strengthened by including the words reasonable and economic to the provisions already there providing for effective access. That appears, Mr. Speaker, in recommendation number seven of the Cooper Report saying: It is recommended that discretion be vested in the Labour Relations Board to grant access to remote sites, be strengthened by a provision requiring it to provide reasonable and economical access to offshore oil production platforms.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would like to say that this bill deserves thorough consideration by this House, and adequate time to consider all of the potential amendments that can be brought forth to strengthen the role of the Labour Relations Board, to fix the provisions of the act, and hopefully have an ongoing regime in the offshore that can satisfy the needs of workers, the needs of the oil companies, and the needs of the Province for adequate revenue.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister speaks now, he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the two speakers for participating in debate on second reading. We look forward to doing more in Committee stage.

Thank you very much.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act No. 2," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 52)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House adjourn until tomorrow at 2:00 p.m., at which time I understand we are going to be debating that motion so ably put together by the Member for Bonavista South on moose, cabbage and damages.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, before that motion is put, I wonder if I could ask a question of the Government House Leader? I wanted to know, relative to Thursday - we haven't had the distribution of Bills 53 and all the way down, if we can have these probably tomorrow?

MR. TULK: You will have them in due time (inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: January is fine with us.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 p.m.