The House met at 2:00 p.m.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I have been unable to give the Leader of the Opposition much advance notice of this statement but I have sent a copy of it across to him, as I have only just gotten back to my office to complete the drafting of it.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians understand the great hydro-electric potential of the Churchill River. However, to date, almost all of the benefits realized from the Churchill River have gone to Quebec under the Upper Churchill contract. Other potential benefits that could be derived if we developed the Lower Churchill have been lost, as the water has simply, year after year, flowed to the sea. This government is committed to achieving a far greater share of the benefits of the Churchill River for the people of our Province.

In recent days, news stories have indicated than an agreement is near involving the governments of this Province, Quebec, and the Federal Government, to develop the Lower Churchill. Mr. Speaker, I can inform the House today that no such agreement is imminent. What has occurred over the last several months, indeed since last January, are a series of discussions on hydro-electric issues involving potential development between Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and Hydro Quebec. These discussions have shown some promise. In the New Year, the discussions may lead to detailed negotiations. Those negotiations, if they occur, in turn, could lead to an agreement.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to make clear today, in light of some of the reports - and, I should add, false reports which have been circulating - that there are, at this stage, no negotiations. There are indeed discussions to indicate, or to investigate, whether or not the basis for negotiations themselves can be undertaken.

Mr. Speaker, if there are to be negotiations, three goals are fundamental to this government's position. First, there must be far greater benefits to the people of this Province under any new arrangement than under existing agreements; second, these benefits must include increases in our revenues as the price of electricity increases; and, third, any new arrangement must provide for power at long-term, stable prices for Labrador and power back to the Island portion of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, as the House may note, the existing Upper Churchill agreement provides for none of these, neither major benefits for the people of our Province nor any increase in our revenues as the price of electricity increases, nor power at long-term stable rates for Labrador and for the Island portion of the Province. This government is committed to achieving arrangements that are fundamentally different and markedly better for the people of our Province or there will be no agreement, Mr. Speaker, in future.

If our discussions with Quebec and the Federal Government at some point are successful, then sometime in the New Year we may be in a position to make public the basis on which we intend to commence detailed negotiations on Labrador hydro issues. In all of this, the government will be guided by the three goals that I have set out. These goals are fundamental to making hydro-electric development in Labrador one of the great success stories for our Province as we enter the Twenty-First Century.

Mr. Speaker, in summary, I say again to the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and to members of this House, no agreement is imminent. No negotiations are taking place. We are holding discussions; we are investigating the parameters for negotiations and if the parameters can be achieved, Mr. Speaker, which provide a benefit, long-term to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, we shall move forward, but not one moment before.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier, he has stated before that since last January there are negotiations going on between Hydro Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. I have asked him in this House, too, when he stated that, if there are also negotiations going on with the Federal Government, as to what Newfoundland is going to have to give to allow the hydro-electricity to be transmitted into the North American grid, and he has indicated we have no negotiations with the Federal Government. He has been on record as saying back in January, we have had negotiations between the utilities of each province - he stated that - and now, he is telling us there are no negotiations.

Is it like the negotiations with an agreement in principle? He announced a big conference: we have an agreement in principle, and the parties involved did not agree. The LIA said there is no agreement in principle. The Premier agreed that he would make an announcement that there could be an agreement in principle.

In 1991 we had a framework agreement. There has been no agreement, I say to the Premier, none whatsoever. The Premier has indicated already - and now he stands here and says that there are no negotiations going on. Now, that is not consistent with what he has been saying before, what he said on the public record that since January of last year there has been negotiations entered. He indicated he spoke with even Premier Bouchard on the issue and his officials are now getting into more detailed negotiations.

The Premier has been on record again and now here he stands again and gives another contradiction that so many times he has been doing lately, the Marine Atlantic is one other blaring example, I say, in the most recent. They can't even be consistent from week to week. How do you expect this government to come clean with the people and negotiate in good faith, when they can't even be consistent in the statements they are giving the people even on a weekly basis?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the Premier for clarifying the issue as to the state of play with respect to the Lower Churchill development. I do want to say that we should note that the bargaining power of the Province has improved as a result of the changes in electricity regulation in the United States. I know all Newfoundlanders are extremely concerned that any deal made by this Province is going to avoid the pit falls, not only of the Churchill Falls agreement, Mr. Speaker, but of many other development agreements that the governments of Newfoundland in the past has made that have been really at the expense of the long-term interests of the people.

I would encourage the Premier and ask the Premier to commit to making public the basis of negotiations as early as possible -

MR. J. BYRNE: There are no negotiations.

MR. HARRIS: - so that everyone should have an opportunity to participate in the discussion in debate.

Secondly, I want to say that most Newfoundlanders, I think, would rather wait until the window of opportunity opens up in whether it's 2016 or 2015, I will take the hit in the meantime -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - rather then give up our right to get a better deal on the Upper Churchill for the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I would like to apologise for the delay in passing this statement to the Opposition Health Critic.

Mr. Speaker, in light of the recent announcements by the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association (NLMA), I feel it is incumbent on me to inform the people of the Province as to where negotiations are between government and the NLMA today.

A joint management agreement between the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association and government is currently in place until March 31, 1998. We expect the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association will respect that contract until a new one is negotiated. In July of this year the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association presented part of its package, the economic package, to the Department of Health. The other two parts of their package included the administrative and the human resource components, and they were received towards the end of October. This is a very complex package,. After we received the full package we immediately engaged an independent consultant who worked with the departmental staff to evaluate the package and determined that it would cost government in excess of $30 million in the first year. We have since informed the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association that we will be ready to begin negotiations early in the New Year, and in fact we have our negotiating team in place, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday a news release by the president-elect of the Newfoundland Association of Obstetricians raised the issue of liability insurance rates, and the expected rise in the cost in the coming year. Government provided $800,000 this year to MCP to subsidize malpractice insurance rates for physicians. In other words, 65 per cent of the difference between the base rate and the total cost is subsidized by government. We know that costs will increase for obstetricians in January, and we have acknowledged that this is a very important issue to be addressed when we sit down with the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association in January. This is a legitimate concern for both physicians and for government. However, it is only one of the many issues which have to be negotiated with the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association to reach a new agreement.

The approach by the NLMA is unfortunate in that it is threatening job action before contract negotiations actually begin. We are aware that the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association has developed a dedicated media plan to be part of their negotiations with government for a new contract. In fact, in the December 8 issue of the President's Letter of the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association, physicians have been urged to garner public support. I quote the president's words from the newsletter, and he says: "I urge you to no longer make that special effort so as to ensure government sees the problem. As well when your patients complain about problems in the system sympathize with them but urge them to call their MHAs and/or the Minister of Health." Further, he says: "...I ask you to continue to take actions to garner public support." End of quote.

There is no doubt about the value and importance of physicians to all of us in our Province. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador are fortunate to have dedicated and loyal physicians providing medical services to all regions of our Province, and I thank them for their work. Yet, we have to look at the total picture. This year we have provided $140 million to compensate the 850 physicians in our Province. We provided a new $2.7 million this year to increase salaries for emergency room physicians. We also provided a new $2.6 million to increase salaries for rural physicians.

This funding was provided before negotiating a new contract because government does see the need to address the concerns and needs of physicians.

Mr. Speaker, government must also negotiate contracts with many other groups, including nurses, allied health professionals and the civil service. This is important and will all be done in due course. I ask physicians to understand that we are aware of their issues and concerns, particularly as they relate to the Canadian Medical Protective Association rates as well as other issues that we will discuss and negotiate when we sit down with doctors in January.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the physicians of our Province for their valuable work and the contribution that they make daily to our health system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for providing me a copy of the statement when she received it.

Minister, I am not so sure I can agree with everything you have said today. As a matter of fact, I cannot. I had the opportunity yesterday to speak to some of the doctors, and I find out that this problem has been known to the Department of Health ever before the statements were made on yesterday afternoon.

The one that I spoke to certainly pointed out to me that in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, in their particular field, the rate in Newfoundland is something like $225, and in our sister province in Nova Scotia it is something like $447. There is certainly a vast difference.

I do not know why in this Province we have to wait until we are in a crisis situation before we open the door to negotiations. The fact that we are going to negotiate in January is one thing, but the fact that your department has known about this for some time is another, and I believe that negotiations with these people certainly - certainly - should have started before today. They certainly should have started before yesterday, and I don't know why, again, we have to wait in regard to calling MHAs. I say to you, Minister, on that issue, the shop is closed.

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

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, as promised earlier this year, I rise today to update my hon. colleagues on the success of my department's 1997 parks privatization initiative.

Government has just completed its review of the parks that were privatized in the spring of this year. This review was a responsible approach which enabled government to monitor the new privatization arrangements for each and every park. I am happy to stand in the House this afternoon and report on those findings.

Mr. Speaker, all of the 21 parks offered for privatization have been successfully released to new operators. Three of these parks had a temporary operating licence in place for the 1997 season. Government operated one park, Duley Lake, for this year only. In the fall of this year, government issued a separate call for proposals for these four parks in order to secure a long-term operator for each. My department expects that this process will be completed and that new long-term operators will be secured within the upcoming months.

Mr. Speaker, thirteen operators have made capital improvements to their parks in the first season. These improvements range from the construction of a kitchen shelter at Sop's Arm park, to the installation of electrical and water hook-ups at Catamaran Park, to the start-up construction of a lodge at Indian River Park. Other operators are planning major construction for the parks while they are closed for the winter months.

My department's review of the parks has shown that the new operators remain committed to developing their business plans as outlined in their proposals. All have been encouraged to become members of the province's tourism association. Some parks are jointly exploring the option of marketing partnerships.

Mr. Speaker, these parks were made available to the private sector because they offered viable business opportunities for rural Newfoundland. Government also realized that it is no longer needed to play as large a role in the recreational camping industry as it once had in the 1970s.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this summer's review was to: (1) establish contact with the operators; (2) ascertain the operators' level of satisfaction in relation to their expectations; (3) identify any problems or obstacles being experienced by the operators; (4) assess operators' adherence to original business plans; and (5) determine operators' conformance to the conditions of the licence to occupy. I am pleased with the review of the parks, the success of the privatization initiative, but most importantly that these parks are being developed in a manner in which the government simply, could not afford.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House at this time that all the privatized park land continues to be owned by the government -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: - and that the operators hold a licence to operate. Government is committed to preserving and protecting the significant ecological features in these parks, and as such, portions of 10 of the privatized parks have been retained for land protection under the Provincial Parks Act.

Mr. Speaker, this privatization initiative will see a stronger recreational camping industry emerge in this Province. This initiative will benefit users in the long-term. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for a copy of her statement before she read it in the House. I would like to say to the minister that what she said in the statement is pretty basic as to what we have been hearing since indeed the parks were privatized. I suppose we could say it is a good news, bad news story. I guess, minister, what we on this side of the House are waiting for is what has it cost this government? What was the amount of money that was taken in on the sale of these parks? What did it cost us? In the beginning, how much money did we receive after we sold the parks? Where are we in that regard? Also, where are the concessionaires whose claims I understand are still not, some of them, settled by this government? Of course another great concern for us on this side of the House is the fact that there are still some forty-odd people who worked in these parks, who are today not working, who have lost their jobs because of the privatization of these parks. So minister, we would like to know what it cost the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. How much money was received for these parks and at the end of the day, where do we really sit?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that the results of privatization, the full results have not been made known by the speaker. She did not talk about the employees who have lost their jobs. She did not talk about the wage rates of people who are working there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) just heard that. He just said that.

MR. HARRIS: Not from the minister we didn't.

AN HON. MEMBER: He said it.

MR. HARRIS: We didn't hear it from the minister, Mr. Speaker. We didn't get a cost benefit analysis. We are finding out big-time in Labrador these last couple of days the results of privatization of public services in Happy Valley-Goose Bay with people receiving, in some cases, less than half of their pay, or being offered jobs at less than half of their pay. It isn't a policy that I or my party support, and I don't think the minister can paint a fancy picture of it without telling the whole story and the whole truth.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just noticed that when the Leader of the NDP was responding to the last statement - it has nothing to do with the one I'm about to make, because it is a very serious, good news statement, serious and good news - but one of the member mentioned the hon. Leader of the Opposition's hair cut. Very nice hair cut. They shouldn't make too much fun of it though, because I understand also it is part of an image make-over and he has had his heart and his blood pressure checked because he is thinking of running for the leadership of the PC Party. (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: You went to the doctor in December 1995.

MR. GRIMES: I did too. It is true too, Mr. Speaker, I did go to see the doctor in December 1995, and decided to spend January of 1996 in Mexico.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Sorry, Mr. Speaker, I didn't mean to get him riled up. I'm sure that will happen later on today.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce today that funding in the amount of $150,000 has been approved by the Department of Education for the development of a new camp at Northwest Pond for the Newfoundland and Labrador Council of the Girl Guides of Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Northwest Pond near Terra Nova National Park has been reserved by government for the youth of our Province.

The development of this twenty-five acre campsite will provide an ideal setting for the 13,000 active members, both girls and adults, in Newfoundland and Labrador for adventure and leadership in surroundings that stimulate environmental awareness, physical activity and challenge.

Mr. Speaker, the overall site is designed to accommodate Guiding units throughout the Province, and the facilities can be used for adult training and conferences as well. The facility will create immediate construction jobs and seasonal employment similar to the positions held by wardens at Scouts Canada's facility on the other side of the same lake.

Funding to complete the project will be provided over three years through grants of $50,000 per year administered by the Youth Services Division of the Department of Education.

Over the last several years government has funded a similar proposal for the Boy Scouts. This past summer I had an opportunity to visit the site and was extremely impressed by the first class operation there.

The Newfoundland Council of the Girl Guides of Canada and the Boy Scouts are to be congratulated for the excellent service they are providing for the youth of our Province. I'm pleased as well that Ms Margaret Breen, the provincial commissioner for the Girl Guides in Newfoundland and Labrador, and her associates could join us in the gallery for this announcement today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I never thought I would see the day - I'm here five and a half years - that the Minister of Education would stand up in this House and give a positive news statement here today. It is the first time I've seen it. It is good news. We are glad to hear it, we are delighted to hear it come from the minister. I'm sure his reward will be the Intergovernmental Affairs portfolio, I can assure you that, when the legislation passes through this House.

I would also like to give the Minister of Education some good news. I have spoken over the last day with numerous individuals who I guess are in a position to have a decision on Term 17 that is now, as we know, before the Senate. As I am speaking here today, Stéphane Dion is speaking to the Committee of the Whole in the Senate saying that there would be no amendments by the PC minority in the Senate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I have every confidence that by 3:30 or thereabout this afternoon, Term 17 will pass through the Senate, I say to the minister -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: - in the best interest in respect of over 70 per cent of the people here in this Province. And I can tell him, there are people on both sides of the political fence in the Senate and even in this Province who will probably go different ways, and in other areas; but we are confident that it will pass and that we can get on with doing the job that is needed here for the future of the children of our Province, that this government is waiting to get done. So now, let us get on with it and let us see this government take a stand and move quickly after it passes.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the Minister of Education for his compliments on my image make-over and I want to tell him that I have been to see my doctor and he tells me that my heart beats proudly and strongly as a New Democrat, so there is no chance, Mr. Speaker, that there will be any change.

Mr. Speaker, I notice the minister said that he was in Mexico in January of 1996; I also heard, when he heard by telephone that the current Premier was running for the leadership of the Liberal Party, he said: Well, I am staying here in Mexico for the rest of the month.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the statement, it is hard to say anything negative about -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. HARRIS: They are only kidding, Mr. Speaker, they are not serious.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave?

The hon. member does not have leave. No leave.

MR. HARRIS: It is Christmas, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member does not have leave.

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, as I understand it, does not have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

MR. HARRIS: Is that right?

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

Does he have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With respect to the statement, Mr. Speaker, it is hard to say anything negative about it - it is a very positive statement. I am glad to point out that the minister pointed out that the Girl Guides are on one side of the lake and that the Boy Scouts will be on the other side of the lake. It is a very positive incentive to learn canoeing, boating and other water sports and no doubt that will serve them well in their adult life. We will have safer boating in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker? I discussed -

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

MR. J. BYRNE: Just for a small, small presentation.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. J. BYRNE: Two days ago in this House of Assembly, in the spirit of Christmas and in the spirit of friendship and kinship, and as a token of his appreciation, Mr. Speaker, from a few suggestions that I made, the Minister of Finance presented me with a small gift and, in due course, when the scientists come up with a pill that causes a person's hair to grow, it will be well-utilized, I say to him, Mr. Speaker.

So, in the same spirit of kinship and friendship and Christmas, Mr. Speaker, I have a small presentation to make to the Minister of Finance, but before I do, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say this: That the use my gift will get, will be pale in comparison to the use that this gift will get, and I expect it will be worn out within a period of two weeks, Mr. Speaker, two weeks. I expect the Minister of Finance will open it, just as I did the other day.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is pretty obvious why the hon. member chose to part with these two items, the brush and the hair-dryer. One of his colleagues told me earlier that he took one look at this and decided he may as well do the job on this as well.

I guess the last thing -

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: I am sure he will not miss either item.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am told by some of his colleagues that the colour, as well, matches part of his wardrobe, which none of us on this side of the House get to see; although I wonder how his colleagues came by that knowledge.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You are very kind, and I will certainly put these under my Christmas tree and enjoy them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are for the Premier.

In light of the fact, I guess, that the Premier today has found a new synonym for negotiations - discussions - I ask him: The President of Hydro Quebec has been out commenting on negotiations taking place. Could the Premier just give us an update on the discussions that have been taking place since early this year? And he has been on record, I might inform the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition makes reference to the President of Hydro Quebec. I have here the CP story which I am happy to table, and I quote the President of Hydro Quebec: The discussions with Newfoundland are going very well.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

He might read well, but he does not listen well. I asked him if he would update us on the discussions that are taking place.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Justice has just pointed out, I gave a complete, fulsome, detailed and a very, very thorough report by way of a Ministerial Statement.

I can say again to the Leader of the Opposition, and through the Leader of the Opposition and the House, to the people of the Province, as I said a moment ago, for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the first thing that needs to be ascertained before we even contemplate agreeing to a formal negotiation, is whether or not the parameters around which such a negotiation would take place are acceptable to the Province.

I have said that the days when Newfoundland and Labrador can accept, for example, a circumstance like the Upper Churchill contract, are long over. Any future development that we become involved in must have no long-term contracts, no declining prices. There must be a provision that would allow us to share fully - fully and completely - in any upside of any price. There must be provisions that would bring power back to the Island of Newfoundland and Labrador, considerable quantities of power. We must have the capacity to stabilize energy prices in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We must have provisions to ensure that extra hydro is available for industrial development in Labrador itself. Labrador cannot be left behind. Mr. Speaker, we must have the lion's share of benefits from power that would flow from the resource of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of those kinds of conditions, well we would not enter the negotiations.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

He must be reading from my news conference, the statements over the last, I would say, almost a year and a half. Almost a year and a half of on the record, I say to the Premier, and if you call your statement thorough I pity this Province on a Lower Churchill contract if you call the ministerial statement thorough, that is far from thorough, I might add.

Now, the media has been reporting also that the signing of a deal -there must be a commitment from Ottawa to finance construction of power lines.

I ask the Premier will he tell us if he is working on a proposal or what kind of a proposal does he expect to see - or a commitment from the federal government on some type of financial or guarantees regarding the transmission of that power?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we have no agreement with the federal government on provision of financing on a Hydro development which would involve Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and Hydro Quebec, but, Mr. Speaker, I have certainly made it clear to everybody that I have had opportunity to talk to - and if the Leader of the Opposition would care to read the speech I gave in Boston a month or so again, that the Lower Churchill development and all of the associated works with it are important to Canada in the context to Kyoto.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the Leader of the Opposition has very carefully studied the Kyoto Conference and he knows that the net result of the Kyoto Conference is that Canada has agreed to reduce it's emission from what they would otherwise be, by 137 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions.

Now, if Lower Churchill power were brought onto development at this time, Lower Churchill power would produce about 20 per cent of Canada's total commitment to reduce greenhouse gases. Therefore, Lower Churchill development is not only in the interests, first and foremost, of Newfoundland and Labrador and secondarily, Quebec, if it were a partner in such a development, but is also in the interest of all of Canada. Mr. Speaker, I can say to the Leader of the Opposition that many people in Canada have seized upon the reality that Canada's commitment to the world can only be met if the Lower Churchill is developed and Lower Churchill will only be developed when it benefits first and foremost, Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now we are getting to the real crux of the matter, I might say.

This Premier stated that there are negotiations going on with Hydro Quebec and this Province and if they are not successful and the company that has $35 billion in sales are ready to come in alone with other companies, he stated that publicly. Now, let's not try to beat around the issue Premier and try to pass it off.

I ask the Premier: with the attempts to reduce emissions and a commitment by Canada to a 6 per cent reduction in emissions here, I ask the Premier is it contingent on the federal government or the talks you said you had with the Prime Minister, you indicated that before, you have had talks with the Prime Minister, you have indicated that if negotiations fall through with Quebec, you are going to look at private businesses to get into the negotiations, that is what he stated publicly. Is this Province prepared to trade-off a significant amount of Hydro electric power to be feeding into the North American grid as a contingency for the federal government to get involved in an effort to reduce emissions? There can be a transfer credit now on emission from one country to another?

I ask him is our Province, basically, going to be guaranteed or are there restrictions on what power can be retained in our Province for our own use to develop industries here in our Province? Is there restrictions being discussed on how much we can retain here in our Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I don't think the Leader of the Opposition understands something that is very important and this is all part of an attitude that I believe - and I say this to the Leader of the Opposition genuine - that we have to shake off in this Province.

The Lower Churchill is ours. The means and the conditions under which it will be developed is up to Newfoundland and Labrador. We don't have to ask permission or have conditions set for us by anybody and frankly, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, I resent the tone of the question, that Newfoundland and Labrador has to ask permission to develop it's own resources when those resources are in the interests of the world, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There was a former Liberal Premier who reminds me very much of you, who said the same thing, I say to the Premier, across this House, very, very much.

I have attended numerous environmental groups in the U.S., Environmental Protection Agency and others in meetings with a couple of your colleagues there.

I've had continuous discussions over the last year and a half since that too with what is happening in terms of trading off and credits and keeping the level down. Because pollution in the U.S. and so on moves into Canada, and the sharing of credits.

The president of Hydro Quebec seems to know what is going on. I don't know why our Premier doesn't know what is going on. I ask the Premier: Can he just tell us how this Province is going to benefit from the Lower Churchill, with reference to what is going to come to our Province in terms of revenues and taxes? I ask the Premier to ensure that the trade off to meet the federal agenda, we aren't going to be trading off from this Province to get the funding that is needed to guarantee to develop this, and there are no restrictions on the power and the recall rights that we would have in our Province.

Will the Premier guarantee that today, there will be no restrictions based upon the power we can use and the recall rights, and could he tell us what this Province has put forward? I'm sure they have a detailed economic plan to show what revenues and so on we would accumulate to this Province from the development of the Lower Churchill.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the people of the Province who are listening, or have the chance to listen to this debate, to reflect upon the tone of the questions that are being asked. The Leader of the Opposition almost sounds like he is frightened that Newfoundland and Labrador might negotiate a good deal, one that we can be proud of, that will bring billions of dollars of benefits to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I say to the Leader of the Opposition, he knows we are in discussions with Hydro Quebec. He knows I'm not going to go out and start negotiating publicly till such time as I see that there is a basis, and the Cabinet sees, and the government sees, there is a basis for a formal negotiation. To stand up and ask me to comment on what we might do or mightn't do in a discussion prior to a formal negotiation is irresponsible.

Let me just say this to the Leader of the Opposition. Before we enter into any formal negotiations, if we come to that point in time, I will table in the House and before the people of Newfoundland and Labrador fully the parameters of any such discussion so that every Newfoundlander and every Labradorian knows precisely what is on the table.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Premier is getting excited now, and we have hit a little nerve with the Premier now. Because he is privy to what is going on and he knows full well.

He stated before that if Hydro Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro don't reach an agreement, he is prepared to talk to this $35 billion company and others that want to get on with it. What happens if the federal government is not going to be a party to the process? I ask the Premier: In the best interests of our Province, what alternatives has the Premier looked at here if the federal government doesn't join in and become a part of this?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, just listen to the questions: If Hydro Quebec doesn't agree, if Quebec doesn't agree, if the federal government doesn't agree, if nobody will buy the power, if the dam can't be built, if the sun doesn't shine. My goodness, I suppose if the sun shines have not will be no more!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Minister, last week the local media reported that an individual, a dentist by profession, currently residing in Florida, holds the one, and possibly two, shrimp harvesting licences for area 2J, which is adjacent to Black Tickle in Labrador. Could the minister confirm for the House whether this particular story was accurate, and whether his department was aware of such licences being issued?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the only licence that I'm aware that is being held outside of Newfoundland are the offshore licences. I think there are some people in Nova Scotia, some people in New Brunswick, I hear some people in Montreal. Possibly they go to Florida from time to time, from Montreal, to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. I think there is one. Some of the licences were at the time John Crosbie was Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for Canada, and his friends and everybody complied and they agreed with it (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I guess I can assume from that answer that wasn't an accurate story?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: No, I'm putting the story out. It was a story that was on the CBC news, Mr. Speaker, and all I am asking is for confirmation of the story. I ask the minister again: Is it true, or is he aware of the story that a person living in Florida is presently holding one or possibly two shrimp licences for area 2J, adjacent to Black Tickle, Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the hon. member was asking if was harvesting or processing licences.

MR. FITZGERALD: Harvesting.

MR. EFFORD: Harvesting licences. I cannot name the individual and I cannot confirm if somebody living in Florida owns a licence, outside of the ones I already know. I can tell the hon. member very clearly, there are a number of fishermen around Newfoundland who live in Florida at some time of the year, who have sixty-five foot long-liners, who fish all around the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, but I do not know the particular individual he is referring to.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: I do not know the gentleman's name, although it was broadcasted and I think it is common knowledge. I do not care what the gentleman's name is - I asked if the licences were issued.

AN HON. MEMBER: When?

MR. FITZGERALD: It was last Wednesday night, I think, or last Tuesday night.

Anyway, Minister, the fish plant at Black Tickle was built and designed to process groundfish, mainly cod, and Greenland halibut which we know as turbot. Would the minister confirm that presently there is a 20,000 metric tonne quota of turbot allocated in waters adjacent to Black Tickle and 17,000 metric tonnes of this particular quota is harvested by foreign draggers and processed either at sea or in foreign ports?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, it has been pretty difficult to hear the hon. member. I get parts of the question -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: That is right; it gets pretty difficult to hear exactly what he is referring to. But the quota that is allocated by the Federal Government for turbot to be harvested, part of it is being harvested by the Seafreez Company and is being harvested by foreign vessels contracted out by the Barry Group of companies. Some of it is being processed, as far as I understand, in Port aux Basques, and some of it is being processed in Canso, Nova Scotia.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the minister, he had better check those figures, because out of the 20,000 tonne allocation, 17,000 tonnes is either processed at sea or in foreign ports by foreign fishers.

Would the minister also confirm, Mr. Speaker, that the Fishermen's Union, the Fogo Island Co-op and the Labrador shrimp company have recently obtained a shrimp quota and have sold that quota, which was 2,000 metric tonnes - that is over 4 million pounds - for a price of $1.2 million? Minister, my information tells me this quota of 4 million pounds of shrimp was sold in the water, all harvesting and processing done by foreign fishers, while our own fishermen remain at home unemployed.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: You talk about an hon. member putting a twist on a story that is not even close to being factual or a reality. First of all, I do not know what is happening on that side of the House over there and I do not know what is happening to the Party. You had a member out from Conception Bay, twisted his mind a couple of times last week (inaudible) and now you are opposing your own leader's brother on harvesting and processing fish and creating jobs in Newfoundland.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Carl Sullivan. I mean, he is doing a good job out there, is he not? What is the problem with that, giving people jobs and getting people to work fifty-two weeks in the plant every single year?

Now, the shrimp quota that was announced for the first time in the history of this Province was announced this year, 24,500 metric tonnes in total. It did not start to get harvested until late in the spring, early summer, and the one thing that we wanted to do was make sure we did not leave any shrimp in the water this year. It got to the point where the weather did not permit, for the sixty-five foot boats, to have the capability to go out there harvesting. So rather than leave that amount of shrimp in the water and nobody get any value, it was divided up among the union, the shrimp company, Fogo, and the monies that were benefited from it created jobs and subsidized jobs in those communities where they are badly needed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South, a final supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I have to tell the minister that he is totally wrong. He does not know what he is talking about here. That 4 million pounds of shrimp, I say to the minister, is caught by foreigners, being processed in foreign ports. Not one pound of it is being processed right here in this Province.

I ask the minister: Is this his idea of how the fishery of the future should unfold?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the royalties that are derived from the sale of that fish that otherwise would have been left in the water and nobody would get any benefits -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: It was decided in an agreement by all parties - by me, as Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, by DFO, by the companies, by industry, by everybody - rather than leave the shrimp in the water and nobody get any benefit, they sold it and used the royalties to benefit the people.

Is it the policy of the future? It was one-time only because we did not want to leave the shrimp in the water. We wanted to go back to Ottawa. We wanted to get an increase in quota for the next year that would benefit the people of this Province for the first time in history -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: - instead of giving it to the foreign countries, which your government of the past did in Ottawa.

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

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

I want to follow up on some questions to my friend, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. On Tuesday afternoon, towards the end of Question Period, I asked him some questions relative to minimum qualifications in training programs for clerks and other municipal officials in the Province. In his response, he said he was not too concerned about that, that in some cases, they kept their records on a scribbler.

I want to say to the minister, the Auditor General has indicated that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: - there is a real problem with minimum training standards in this Province for municipal clerks. We know it is a real problem in rural Newfoundland. It has been addressed in some other provinces. What is this Province doing about addressing the issues identified by the Auditor General? And when is he going to do something about putting real programs in place to make sure that all of the municipal clerks in Newfoundland, particularly those in rural parts of Newfoundland, have minimal standards of training?

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

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell you exactly how much the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs spends each year to help train and educate municipal officials, those elected, as well as employees, but I would guess that it is in the millions of dollars.

The Auditor General, for a number of years - not only Mrs. Marshall in her report, but the previous Auditor General and the Auditor General before that - has always mentioned the fact that we do have some people working in municipalities around the Province who do not have what she or he considers to be the top qualifications to do the job.

I say again, Mr. Speaker, that when you are dealing with little communities in the Province of 100 - 150 people, half a day is probably sufficient for a town clerk or a town manager to come into the town office and collect taxes and do whatever he or she has to do. Because the town council finds itself that they only need somebody for half a day a week in most cases, then they do not insist that the qualifications for that particular person be of any great degree other than the fact that they have some basic idea of how to collect taxes and interpret the Act, I guess, and do the legal things that person must do.

We, in that particular case, from a departmental point of view, send our people in then immediately. Immediately our people go in and we try to help those people as much as we possibly can.

Mr. Speaker, this side of the House cannot find, at this particular point in time, the monies to train all of these people to the quality that the Auditor General would expect us to train them.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the minister will admit that these officials are charged with the expenditures of millions of dollars in the aggregate. I also remind the minister that there are various training programs. There is Distance Education, there are correspondence courses, there are upgrading seminars, and his colleague, the Minister of Education, to be training people in Newfoundland for jobs that do not exist, might begin to train people in Newfoundland for jobs that do exist and these are at the municipal level.

I ask the minister: Why is it that he has participated - his department in drafting legislation on this issue - and I have that draft legislation here in conjunction with the Minister of Justice - the legislation is drafted with the co-operation of NLAMA, why aren't we moving to establish the minimum qualifications and engaging in training programs that I identified in my opening statements?

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

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the hon. gentleman is asking me. Is he asking me to force municipalities -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. REID: Protection, Mr. Speaker, from that big galoot, please.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the hon. gentleman is asking me. Is he asking me to insist that these municipalities who, at this particular point in time, are finding it very difficult to keep the lights on in their communities, are they asking me to ask these communities to spend money now in helping train these clerks and managers? I do not think he is asking me that. I will say to the hon. gentleman that, in most cases today, most of those people to whom the hon. member refers, are already doing training through ETV and other methods, and we are doing all we can from a departmental point of view, to try to help those people upgrade themselves as much as possible.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Education and it concerns the plight of massage-therapy students at the Career Academy, Mr. Speaker.

Will the minister confirm first of all, that he misled the House the last time I asked a question about the past rate of the -

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

I believe the hon. member's question is out of order. He is assuming that the hon. member's -

MR. HARRIS: Not intentionally.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to withdraw that statement.

MR. HARRIS: I withdraw the statement, Mr. Speaker,

Would the minister confirm that he gave the wrong information to the House when he was asked about, and when he was commenting on the pass rate for first-time students who wrote the exams for the College of Massage Therapists of Ontario; will he confirm, Mr. Speaker, that the information that is available by fax from the college, would disclose that the first-time writers of these exams in the years 95, 96 and 97, that the average pass rate overall is 78 per cent not the 25 per cent that he indicated was the common experience over that period of time and, Mr. Speaker, will he tell the House what he intends to do to help the students who are now without that qualification, the twenty-four students, and would he also tell us what he is going to do to help the 100 students who are still in the program, to guarantee them that they will get adequate qualification to be able to successfully write the Ontario exams which is the standard, Mr. Speaker, by which massage therapists in this Province are judged?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, the information that I provided there was, like with any numerical information, Mr. Speaker, depending on the period of time that is assessed and the information and the group and the timing, the information changes.

What I indicated to the House, to my recollection the last time when the issue was addressed, Mr. Speaker, was that in a period of time when 500 people, first-time writers had attempted the exam in Ontario, 125 of that 500 - I did not have any details what the dates were, whether it was 95, 96, 97 and so on - but that 125 of them were successful which is a 25 per cent success rate. So if you take different periods of time, different testing periods there would be different rates. I have had it shared with me by the hon. member the information for the dates that he is dealing with, and it is accurate for those testing periods, the average rate is closer to almost 80 per cent success rate.

Mr. Speaker, I am reluctant to talk about any details with respect to the current group of students who have filed a lawsuit against the particular institution, that will be dealt with through that particular channel and, Mr. Speaker, as I indicated when the issue was addressed a week or ten days ago, because it was brought to our attention by the member, we are working with the school to check again that the curriculum that was approved in September 1995 for the registered massage therapy course is being actually followed through and is a curriculum that satisfies the information and should prepare people fairly well for the examination that they write in Ontario.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the curriculum that the minister has approved may in fact be adequate by itself, but what I'm being told by students - current, and the crop of students who came out - is that the curriculum may not be being followed to a sufficient degree to prepare them to write these exams.

One hundred students have to plank down their money for the next semester by the end of this month, confirm their student loans, and pay more money to this institution. Can the minister guarantee those students will be protected and given an adequate program that would allow them to pass this exam? Can the minister give that assurance here in this House today, or is he going to do that before they have to plank down more money?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm not in a position at any point in time with any student to give them any assurance they will pass an exam no matter where it is written, whether it is in Newfoundland and Labrador or in Ontario. All I can do is indicate to the House that we are confirming and re-confirming with the school again that the conditions from September 1995 are being fully followed.

The conditions of the approval was granted with the understanding that the instructor would first and foremost be registered with the College of Massage Therapists of Ontario, where they write the examination; that the program would incorporate all aspects of the Ontario core curriculum, which is the test they write in Ontario; and that the school itself would provide students with the opportunity to complete a competency evaluation by the College of Massage Therapists of Ontario, and also to challenge the Ontario registration exam if they so desired.

They were the conditions by which the institution was given permission to actually start this particular course. It has been on the go for a couple of years now. We have had a group of students who have had only about a 25 per cent success rate when they have chosen to challenge the Ontario registration exam, and we are working with the school to check and see -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: - that the terms and conditions -

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

MR. GRIMES: - of the granting -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: - of this licence are -

MR. SPEAKER: Question period has ended.

MR. GRIMES: - still in effect, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Question period has ended.

MR. H. HODDER: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I'm wondering if we could do something about the heat. I was just speaking with my colleague, the Member for St. John's West about it. For the last several days it has been really chilly in this part of the Chamber over here. We anticipate being here for some number of hours, and I do think that something could be done to facilitate members' comfort. Maybe we could get a little propane stove and put it over here on this side of the House, or whatever. I am wondering if somebody who is responsible would call some of the officials to address that problem.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has been in contact with the people responsible for the heating in the House. There have been some difficulties, but we will certainly contact them again and get them in to see if they can get it under control.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before we dispense with the routine business of the day, there is a function that we would like to carry out at this point in time.

As hon. members know, of course, it is a custom to hang the portraits of all former Speakers on the wall. Before we can do that, of course, we will have an unveiling here in the Assembly. The former Speaker, now the Minister of Finance, has had his portrait done and it is now ready for unveiling. I am going to ask the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition to accompany the Minister of Finance, when we get the portrait in here, and have the unveiling.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I understand it is customary for the Premier and for the Leader of the Opposition, on such an occasion, to say a few words about the recipient of the honour.

Let me say, to begin with, that there is no question, bearing in mind the earlier gift that was given by our friend opposite, Mr. Jack Byrne, to the Minister of Finance, that indeed Gerald Squires has held up a mirror to the minister and has captured his likeness, I think, in an absolutely exemplary fashion. This is, indeed, a first-class piece of art, and it is befitting a first-class member of this House and a first-class Speaker in his earlier incarnation, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, there is no punch line. This is all seriously said of a member who I think has served this place well, and we might do well to remember that the Member for Humber West has been in the Chamber since 1989.

We all know that it is no accident to be re-elected after you have been elected the first time. All of us who serve in this place know the stresses and strains of the job, but to be able to come back not once but a second time - he has been re-elected again in 1993 and again in 1996 - this is no easy measure or test to pass in one's constituency year after year after year, and in the case of the member, all through government years and through years when many difficult decisions have had to be made, but Mr. Dicks has been successful in coming back again and again.

Of course, the Speaker knows better than all others in this place that the most difficult job in this Chamber, and indeed, at the end of the day, the most important job in this Chamber, the one that makes it function, is the Speaker's job. And may I say to you, Mr. Speaker, I know, notwithstanding difficult moments on occasion in this place, that the current Speaker has the full confidence and the good will of all of the members of this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: The current Speaker, then, knows full well just how difficult and how important it is, on the one hand, to maintain the rules of order, and also to read and understand the mood of the House. This is something that the Member for Humber West did with great skill, Mr. Speaker, when he occupied the Chair upon which you now sit.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Humber West served in the Justice portfolio, he serves now in the Finance portfolio. He has had the Speaker's chair, the Justice portfolio, the Finance portfolio. Who knows what the future will hold for the Member for Humber West?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the House that the Member for Humber West is studying French, and I noticed him scrutinizing very closely the seats in the House of Commons. It is rumoured that in the year 2006 or 2007 there may be an opening in one of the jobs up there - according to the current Prime Minister, not before.

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I just want to conclude with the usual good will we extend to one of our own when he is honoured in this way by saying that this is a member who has served the House well, has served the people of Humber West very well - and, Mr. Speaker, I will not dare say what is on my mind with respect to the comment just made by the Member for St. Barbe. Let me just say Mr. Speaker, that there are many people in this Province in recent budgets who have said that the Minister of Finance should be hung, and today he has been, and hung very well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly my pleasure to participate in this hanging ceremony.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: If there is ever a member who deserves to be on the wrong end of the hanging rope, it is that minister over there, I can tell you. I do not know what is after happening to him since he was Speaker. He has a job to get here on time. As Speaker, he was always prompt, always here on time. There is something in his life that has happened since, I do not know what it is. We will try to investigate. I will have to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That could be it, too. They are getting a little to close, I might add.

I think it is very inappropriate that the Premier would announce his support for the Member for Humber West, the Minister of Finance, to take his chair there when he vacates it. He certainly gave us that indication. I know, the Minister of Education is a little bit dismayed, but there is one thing - I have one request, though, wherever you hang this picture, you should put it in a place where the Minister of Finance can see it. That is one request - not behind the pillar there, I think it should be held - even if we had to relocate some of the pictures that are here, basically, I think it is very important.

Gerry Squires spent a fair amount of time in my district. He has a knack for turning what would be the most unusual photographs into a work of art. He has done a good job. I guess, those lonely hours at the lighthouse in Ferryland really helped him to become very imaginative, I say, as he stares out at bleak scenery, and his hand, of course, has taken a part in doing some tremendous work here in our Province - a well-known artist.

I guess, on a little more serious note, the former Speaker did an excellent job - we even got some favourable rulings, I might add. He did a tremendous job, he added a bit of humour and wit. The occasional little note would come down with little words of wisdom, a little comic relief, I guess, in a time of heated moments here in the House, so he added that to it. We hope - I am praising you up too much, I am told.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, sit down.

MR. SULLIVAN: We just wish he had been able to take care of the finances of this Province as well as he did his job as Speaker.

With that, I would say it is a good reproduction, as close, I guess, as we can get. And it is only appropriate to be hanging the former Speaker here, because he did make a very worthwhile contribution to the position of Speaker, along with some other very renowned and famous Speakers who have taken their places on the walls of this House. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I just want to briefly add a few comments to those of the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition. I am very pleased to see that artist Gerry Squires has done an excellent job in presenting the minister by way of portrait. The minister as Speaker, I have to say I appreciated him as Speaker, in his rulings. I was very happy to know that if it was one or two minutes after 2:00 p.m. I usually had a little bit of comfort in getting into the House. I do not have that comfort with the current Speaker. He is unfailingly prompt in being here at 2:00 p.m.

The former Speaker did an excellent job as Speaker, maintained order in the House, had very good eyesight, could see as far as where I was when he was here, down a little bit further into the corner, and I -

MR. SULLIVAN: (inaudible) down further next time.

MR. HARRIS: I am getting closer to the Speaker's Chair, I say to the Leader of the Opposition. I think it is a good likeness. There is no truth to the rumour, I understand, that this will be on his Christmas card next year. There was a rumour going around a little earlier that he really liked the painting and that is where he would have it to be. I do not know if he is that vain to actually do that. It is a good likeness, and I am sure he will enjoy admiring it from time to time in the House of Assembly late at night - come in and turn on the lights and have a good look at it.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I do want to acknowledge the former Speaker's contribution to this House, as Speaker, as member and as minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For anyone who has not had it done, to get your portrait painted is a daunting prospect. One of God's blessings to us in His infinite wisdom is that we do not get to see ourselves. We are sort of left to other people to have to look on us, so it is often a surprise to see what other people see you as, and certainly someone who is as insightful as Gerry.

When we went into this prospect of having to get the portrait painted - and it was interesting in that when I got elected Speaker, as the Speaker knows, it is something of a questionable job in the House in many ways. People look to be in Cabinet, yet when you look at it, the Speaker has the best job in the House, and certainly in government. But when you are offered the prospect, you are not quite sure if that is really where you want to be if there might be some other position. But when you consult people outside, all my friends told me: That is great; you are going to get your portrait on the wall of the House. So it does have those rewards, among others.

You do have a choice, as John told me. I did choose Gerry Squires. I did not know him before this time. The reason I chose him was that he had done some other portraits here, and I think he is very insightful. I think he found something in our former Speaker, Tom Lush, and I did not know Paddy McNicholas. But he certainly saw something in other people that I thought helped me see them differently.

Gerry Squires and his wife Gail are a great couple. One of the most pleasant things about having this done was I actually got to spend time with them. Gerry is a very erudite and a very humble man, who is very cultured, and he and his wife are very interesting people to speak with and to spend time with. One of the great pleasures of having this done was to actually have that time of my life to get to know them a little better.

The Premier said it was a first-class portrait of a first-class Speaker. I just note two things. First, he was not here when I was Speaker, and secondly, those who applauded were also not here when I was Speaker. The Speaker well knows it is not always the easiest job in the House or the most pleasant at times.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says about it, that it will be hung somewhere in the House. The great advantage of that, of course, is that we have had so many Speakers that now it will actually be hung out of sight behind the Chair. I take that as something of a consolation.

As to the hon. the Leader of the NDP, he said when I was Speaker I had good eyesight and I could look down on him at the far end of the House. I just want to assure him that as Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, I still look down on him.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, to be Speaker is to enjoy a unique position in this House. It removes you from the day-to-day fray of politics. One of the great things in the British tradition that we do not do here is that the Speaker never has to face the contest of re-election. We do not have that advantage in Canada, and particularly in Newfoundland and Labrador where we have so few seats. But having said that, during my time as Speaker I found that in listening to the debate in Question Period I was often impressed with the wisdom, clarity and insight and probing of the questions of the members opposite. I must say that since becoming Minister of Finance I am surprised how quickly they have lost that great insight and ability that they demonstrated while I was Speaker.

I any event, Mr. Speaker, let me just say that it was a great experience to be Speaker. It is one that I would not have missed, notwithstanding some of the other things I have said. I want to thank hon. members in the House for this honour today. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: We will go back to our routine proceedings now.

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, may I revert to Presenting Reports for a moment, with permission of the House?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave of the House.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees.

MR. DICKS: With leave, Mr. Speaker, I would like to present the consolidated public accounts of the Province for the period ending

March 31, 1997. Thank you.

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

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

I am pleased to rise today to present the following petition to the hon. House of Assembly. The petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland:

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is seeking to pass amendments to the Shops' Closing Act without adequate public consultation; and

WHEREAS Sunday shopping will increase the dominance of large national retailers at the expense of small locally owned businesses; and

WHEREAS Sunday shopping will negatively affect the family life of employees who will be required to work on Sunday, a day often reserved for family and recreational activities; and

WHEREAS many large retailers are uninterested in opening on Sundays, due to increased operating costs without significant increase in revenues;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to withdraw legislation designed to permit Sunday shopping.

Mr. Speaker, it has been some time in this House since I have seen such an outcry by the public from every sector of society with respect to a specific issue. The last time that I witnessed such an outcry was during the famous and long debates over the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Now, this public debate is less than six days old. There literally have been thousands upon thousands of names on petitions delivered to our offices. Mr. Speaker, I say to members opposite, I believe that we, as an Opposition, have done what is required. We presented petitions; we presented the debates; we have researched the issue; we have talked with the larger retailers who are not in favour of it; we have talked to small store owners, Mr. Speaker, who are not in favour of it; we have talked to consumers and taxpayers who are not in favour of it; we have talked to those employees who will be affected, in a very negative way, I might add, who are not in favour of it.

The question that is still looming large in this Legislature and out in the public as a whole is, why is this piece of legislation being pursued so aggressively, so consistently at all costs? This week we could have proceeded in this House along a different line but that did not happen. This piece of legislation has been put forward as a priority by government, as a priority above all other pieces of legislation that are on this table.

We witnessed the other night a debate up until about four o'clock in the morning where we debated this issue. We witnessed yesterday a closure motion introduced by the Government House Leader which, Mr. Speaker, it should be added, effectively will close debate on this piece of legislation. Because for those people who are sitting in the gallery, a closure motion effectively means that every member of the Opposition has twenty minutes, and twenty minutes only, to speak with respect to Bill 48.

Mr. Speaker, the question I would like to ask - I know many members, all members on this side of the House have asked it each and every time they have spoken to this particular piece of legislation. The question that I will ask again today or whenever government moves to this particular piece on Orders of the Day is: Why is this piece of legislation being pursued so aggressively? Why has it all of a sudden become a priority, when over the last two years, this debate on this piece of legislation has occurred on two separate occasions, and each time a former government under the leadership of Premier Wells dropped the issue?

Last spring, this government under the leadership of Premier Tobin pursued it again, and it was dropped again, Mr. Speaker and I believe fully the reason that it was dropped from the Order Paper was for the reasons I have previously outlined, the support in the community and the Province as a whole, simply is not there. Now, some arguments have been put forward suggesting that in some areas of the Province: Why not have Sunday shopping? For example: If a cruise ship is to come in to a particular area -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. E. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker, just to clue up?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave?

MR. E. BYRNE: No leave?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place today to support this petition presented on behalf of the people of this Province by the Member for Kilbride, something we have been doing for the past five or six days. We know that the opposition to this bill, to this legislation: An Act To Amend The Shops' Closing Act, is mounting, growing all the time. I cannot understand why the government has not backed off on this. We have asked many, many questions in this House of Assembly.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, they have, you know, and sometimes the government can be a bit wise and listen to the Opposition - listen and make a good decision.

We are here, Mr. Speaker, to represent the people of the Province, the people in our district. We are constantly receiving letters, faxes, petitions, wanting us to oppose this legislation.

Just as an example, Mr. Speaker - and we have brought this up in the House of Assembly before - at 8:30 this morning, just as I was going through the door, the phone rang and I answered it, Mr. Speaker; it was a lady from Torbay who works as a cashier in one of the stores here in St. John's and she was on the verge of tears saying that she has to work right now, six days a week to get in thirty-five hours to survive. She said if this goes through, what will happen is what we have said in this House of Assembly before, that she will have to work seven days a week to get the thirty-five hours in, Mr. Speaker. That is what she said, and she was on the verge of tears.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, I will. I will go outside, I will go anywhere, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy. I have no problem with that.

What I do not understand, Mr. Speaker - we have been in this House discussing this now for approximately six days and I have yet to see anybody on that side of the House stand and give the logic of this bill and the reason why it is being forced. There have been no answers given, no answers to any of the questions. The Minister of Justice got up the other day and said a few words, trying to be smart or facetious on the issue. But he did not give the answers as to why, who wants it, and who is going to benefit.

We know again - we said it here before that the Board of Trade is against it, the Chambers of Commerce are against it, the retailers are against it, employers are against it, we have letters from employers. We have employees against it, we are getting calls from the public against and we do not understand who is for it and who is pushing it.

Now, a comment has been made, Mr. Speaker, and there is some belief going around - some people believe this may be the case - that this is connected to the multi-nationals, who want to come in here and make, maybe large contributions to certain Parties, that if this goes through they might do that, and certain people will be able to build their campaign funds for a shot at different positions inside the Province, and maybe outside the Province. Is there a connection? That is what is being asked today out there. Because we cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, get to the bottom of it. We have asked the questions.

As a matter of fact, I have spoken to members on the other side of the House. I cannot get into names now, and would not do that. I am not sure everybody over there is strongly supporting this legislation. They will toe the line, I am sure they will toe the line. As a matter of fact, we have letters here today, an open letter, to all government members on the other side of the House asking them to back off on it. We have those types of letters. We have letters from businesses saying they are going to have to lay people off.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: We can produce them. They are going to have to lay people off if this legislation goes through. We said it here, Mr. Speaker, that there will be job loss because of this. There is no doubt, and now we have the proof to back up what we have been saying in this House of Assembly. I still do not understand why this piece of legislation cannot be withdrawn, put to a legislative committee, and go out across the Province and have consultation.

There was no consultation on this legislation. This Administration during the last election said they would be an administration of consultation. They would talk to the people on any major pieces of legislation. This is not a very thick bill at all; it is a couple of pages.

Here is another prime example of what is going on in this House with respect to the bullying of that Administration; brought in closure on this piece of legislation. Now, today, I was sitting - I couldn't believe what was happening. I could not believe it - five more bills given to us today, and they want to close the House of Assembly tomorrow. Is that not ridiculous, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

MR. J. BYRNE: I know. I have talked to the members on that side of the House. I know what they want, Mr. Speaker. Five more bills coming in.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to present a petition to the House of Assembly. To the hon. the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in legislative session convened, and it goes on. The bottom line to this is that it is the Shops' Closing Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: No, I have a drawer full of them, I say to the Minister of Education. This is on shop closing as well.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: I would like to say - oh, I have a drawer full of them.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Do not worry, I will, if I get the opportunity here to present them. I say today, Mr. Speaker, that I rise and stand in my place to support this petition. I find it almost incredible that there is nobody on the other side of the House - well, with the exception of the Minister of Justice who stood and supported this bill, and the minister. Nobody else has got out of their place. My office received two calls in the last forty-eight hours from Grand Falls-Windsor to know if their member got out of his seat to oppose this particular piece of legislation. I told the individual who called: Absolutely not. Somebody else spoke to my secretary who went and checked and said: No, absolutely not.

That is just one of the calls I got. Later on today, if we get into debate, I am going to read portions of a letter which I have received from a business in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador which clearly states that it has to lay off or will lay off every permanent employee it has in order - so who is over there who wants this bill? Does it really have anything to do with shop closing, or does it have something to do with the new elections Act that is being proposed? Is that what we are doing?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be able to continue.

AN HON. MEMBER: What elections Act?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Order Paper there somewhere?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FRENCH: No, not yet. The one you sent over for us to review to see if we would agree to it. We will not agree to it, by the way!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FRENCH: Anyway, I say to the Government House Leader, I hope he has his pyjamas, because we have five more pieces today. If he thinks we are going away because he is trying to bully stuff through this House, it will not happen, Mr. Speaker. If he is here tonight, he can stay here tonight, and we are quite prepared - and this will mark the third time I have said this - we are quite prepared to stay here with him. Those who have their tickets for early tomorrow morning, I would suggest you cancel them unless we are going to see closure on one pile of bills, because the word from some of your own members over there, I say to the Minister of Education, you have a lot of jaw when somebody is up speaking -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FRENCH: - but you have not jumped out of your seat yet to talk on this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FRENCH: Stand up and speak in favour of this bill if you are in favour of it. You voted for it. Stand up and speak in favour of it, as the rest of us on this side of the House have stood up and voted against it. Stand up and speak if you are in favour of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, the phone calls are still coming. I am receiving faxes every single day, and letters every single day. The City Consumers Co-Op, Mr. Keith Sheppard, President of the Board of Directors, opposes Sunday shopping. Honda One in Newfoundland and Labrador opposes it. Canadian Tire opposes it. Riff's Limited in Newfoundland and Labrador - I have a copy of the letter that they sent to the Premier, from the President of the Riff's Company and their 400 employees - oppose this particular piece of legislation.

So, Mr. Speaker, who is driving the bus? Who wants this piece of legislation? Who wants it? We do not know. Nobody over there has given us a reason as to why this piece of legislation should pass. We have not heard it. We sat until 4:00 a.m. and we did not hear it. I guess now we have brought in closure so they can sort of run us out, but that is fine.

MR. J. BYRNE: Abuse of authority that is all that is.

MR. FRENCH: That is exactly what it is, I say to my colleague, the Member for Cape St. Francis. That is exactly what it is. It is nothing short of abuse.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I rise today to support the petition put forward by my colleague, the Member for Conception Bay South, and to say to the House again, as we have said on many occasions in the last three days, that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are not persuaded with the arguments put forward by the government in favour of the proposals to open up all of the shops in this Province on Sundays. In other words, we are going to add another fifty-two days to the shopping schedule.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador do not want this to happen, and that is why we have all of those petitions. That is why this morning when I was out visiting a constituent, the first thing they said was: Do what you can, but make sure that you do stand there and try to stop this proposal for Sunday shopping.

Mr. Speaker, that is why we have stood here time after time, and we will stay here as long as necessary. We will work through the orders and the rules that govern this particular Legislature. We will work through them, and I know that at the end of the day, in a parliamentary democracy, the government will, if it chooses, get its way. That is the way Parliament works; however, our job here is to bring to the government's attention what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are saying about it. That is our job here. We will do it. We will do it until the very last minute, and if that takes us until 4:00 tomorrow morning, if it takes us until Saturday, if it takes us until next week, or takes us into January, that is the way it is. We will be unrelenting on this particular issue, and I can tell all of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that this caucus is united, it is very firm, and we will stay the course. Stay the course means that we will use every parliamentary option available to us to prevent the adoption of Bill No. 48.

We want the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to know, however, that if we fail to convince the government to take this proposed legislation off the Order Paper it will be because of their decision, not because we have not brought it forcefully to the floor of the House of Assembly.

We know there are more petitions arriving. They are arriving every day. They are arriving by fax, by courier, and we have put forward the arguments against this legislation. We say to the Premier, who is now in his seat, in the House the other day when he was not present, I reminded the House of his commitment in his Liberal manifesto that he put out in January 1996, when he said that he was going to facilitate an ongoing dialogue with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Well, we wonder what has happened to the ongoing dialogue. Because right now the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are saying: We want to have a chance to have public hearings on this issue and have a chance to have our say, want it referred to a legislation review committee. That is not going to happen. That has not been agreed to by the government. They voted down the hoist motion that we put in that would have allowed us to have more time to consider. Mr. Speaker, the government says: No, we are going to be bulldozing this all the way through. We are not going to accept any considerations that reflect the viewpoints of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We are going to be pigheaded, we are going to be aggressive, we are going to stay the course and we are going to make sure that this legislation passes, even if it jeopardizes some of the other legislation that we might have here.

Mr. Speaker, I say to all members that we, on this side, today, tomorrow, tomorrow night, whenever it is, we will not be relenting. We will be staying here as long as is necessary. Mr. Speaker, I say again that we have put forward the arguments; we have said that we will stay the course as long as it is necessary.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is moved and seconded that we move to the Orders of the Day. All those in favour, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, `nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

All those in favour of the motion please rise.

Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance, I believe, entered after the bar was across the House.

All those in favour of the motion please rise.

CLERK: The hon. the Premier; 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 Municipal and Provincial Affairs; Mr. Walsh; Mr. Flight; the hon. the Minister of Education; Mr. Penney; Mr. Oldford; the hon. the Minister of Health; Mr. Barrett; the hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology; the hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment; the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands; Mr. Wiseman; the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation; Mr. Andersen; Mr. Canning; Mr. Smith; Mr. Ramsay; Mr. Woodford; Mr. Mercer; Mr. Reid; Ms Thistle; Mr. Sparrow.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against please rise.

CLERK: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition; Mr. Hodder; Mr. Jack Byrne; Mr. Edward Byrne; Mr. Fitzgerald; 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.

Before recognizing the hon. the Government House Leader, I want to draw members' attention to Standing Order 11(2) which says, "When the Speaker is putting a question, no Member shall walk out of or across the House, or make any noise or disturbance." Members were walking around the House when the question was being put.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move Motion No. 3.

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of Motion 3, `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: We are voting on Motion No. 3.

All those in favour of the motion, please rise.

CLERK: The hon. the Premier, 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 Municipal and Provincial Affairs, Mr. Flight, 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, the hon. the Minister of Health, Mr. Barrett, the hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment, 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. 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: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Hodder, Mr. Jack Byrne, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Osborne, Mr. Ottenheimer, Mr. French, Ms. Osborne, Mr. Harris.

Mr. Speaker, thirty `ayes' and nine `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'.

Carried.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

All those in favour of the motion, please rise.

CLERK: The hon. the Premier, 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, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, Mr. Flight, 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, the hon. the Minister of Health, 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. 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: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Hodder, Mr. Shelley, Mr. Jack Byrne, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Osborne, Mr. Ottenheimer, Mr. French, Ms. Osborne, Mr. Harris.

Mr. Speaker, 31 yeas and 10 nays.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried.

Before we proceed any further, the Chair would like to inform the House of the questions for the Late Show today.

Question one is from the hon. the Member for Bonavista South: I am not satisfied with the answer provided by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture re my question on foreign fishing allocations.

Question number two is from the Member for Waterford Valley to the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs re my question regarding municipal qualifications for municipal clerks and administrators.

The third question is from the hon. Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi. I am dissatisfied with the answer provided by the Minister of Education re my question on private schools' massage therapy.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole and that I do now leave the Chair.

All those in favour, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, `nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members.

We will deal with the division question now, and we will then proceed with the Late Show. Then the Speaker will leave the Chair whenever the thirty minutes are up for the Late Show. I think that is the agreement we have here.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we agree that that would be the best procedure to follow to facilitate the rules of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the motion, please rise.

CLERK: The hon. the Premier, the hon. the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, the hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, the hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods, Mr. Penney, Mr. Oldford, the hon. the Minister of Health, Mr. Barrett, the hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment, 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, Mr. Noel, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Andersen, Mr. Canning, Mr. Smith, Mr. Woodford, Mr. Mercer, Mr. G. Reid, Ms Thistle, Mr. Sparrow.

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

CLERK: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. H. Hodder, Mr. Shelley, Mr. Jack Byrne, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Ottenheimer, Mr. French, Ms S. Osborne, Mr. Harris.

Mr. Speaker, twenty-five `ayes' and nine `nays.'

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, if I could, when Your Honour was reading out the ministers who were required to answer questions, I didn't get the names of the ministers who we were supposed to (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Question number one was to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, number two was to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, and number three was to the Minister of Education.

MR. TULK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried, but the Chair will not act on the motion until the Late Show has expired.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I stood today and asked a series of questions about foreign fishing, allocation of fish stocks to foreign interests, processing of fish in foreign ports.

One of the questions I directed to the minister was to confirm a story that was recently aired on the CBC Here and Now show where it indicated that a dentist presently living in Florida holds one, if not two or more, shrimp harvesting licences for area 2J. The minister asked at the time if I would let him know the person's name. I've since found out that person's name and I've shared it with the minister. It is a Dr. Bill Murphy who is a dentist living in Florida and owns and operates Murray Sea Foods in Liverpool, Nova Scotia.

I understand from the minister that those licences were given out at an earlier time. I spoke with the Premier about it, and he told me those licences were probably issued at a time when a party by the name of the party that I support was in power at the time. I don't care who was in power at the time, or who issued the licences. I think we are living in a time in this Province today that such licences and such activity should be immediately stopped.

I'm very familiar with what is happening down in Black Tickle. I worked in a plant down there for at least five summers myself, back and forth there on a regular basis; probably once every two or three weeks. It was a plant that was built and designed for groundfish, cod fish - turbot for the most part; Greenland halibut that we know as turbot. Right now, in that particular area today, in area 2J, there is an allocation of 20,000 metric tonnes of turbot. Out of that 20,000 metric tonnes of turbot 17,000 metric tonnes, Mr. Speaker, is harvested by foreigners, taken to foreign ports, processed by foreign workers. Not one ounce of that 17,000 tonnes is processed right here in this Province. We have a situation, Mr. Speaker, where our own people are out crying for work. Our fish plants are closed and we continually let foreigners come here and scrape the bottom of our coves and our bays and take the product back to foreign ports to process.

Mr. Speaker, shrimp is a shell fish that is offering many, many new opportunities in the processing industry in this Province. In my own district alone, FPI just recently announced an $11 million investment in a processing facility there to process shrimp. It is my understand, north and south of the fifty line, that the FFAW, the Fogo Island Co-op and the Labrador shrimp company, Mr. Speaker, has recently sold in the water, sold a resource in the water, four million pounds of shrimp. Four million pounds of shrimp sold to a foreign country, Mr. Speaker, to harvest and process on foreign soil. This should never be allowed to continue, I say to people opposite.

The minister says that we should harvest it rather than leave it in the water. Well that is the same kind of thinking that has gotten us where we are today. It is my understanding, in talking to fishermen - in fact, one particular fisherman has been pleading for part of this allocation for some time now. In fact, he has a sixty-five foot boat down in Goose Bay. As we speak, his boat is in Goose Bay willing to go out and take part in this fishery but is not allowed to do so. This particular resource is being controlled by a union that was put in place to protect the very people that are hurting here today but in order for that to have happened government must have given them the licence and given them the okay to go and fish. Government must have given them the okay in order to go and harvest that particular product and to give them a quota. It should never have been allowed to happen. It is better to leave it in the water then it is to allow it to be taken outside of our Province and deprive our fishermen and our fish plant workers of processing jobs. If this is the fishery of the future, I say to the minister, if this is what the fishery of the future is going to be than God help us.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the only analogy, the only description I can make of the member opposite is talk a second about the story of Rip Van Winkle who woke up and realized he had missed all of this time in history and all of the things that went on. The hon. member is exactly like that. Dr. Murphy and all those people who live in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have had licenses since John Crosbie gave them to them. Wake up, read the papers and learn what is going on and come down to earth and deal with the real issues of the day.

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

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

I wanted to address a few comments to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs relative to the training programs for municipal clerks. I have asked some questions on this in the House and I wanted to bring to the minister's attention that the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Municipal Administrators and the Federation of Municipalities have been trying to get some programs in place to help those clerks, particularly in the smaller municipalities. The minister will know that with the severe financial constraints that are now facing all municipalities, it is very important that they do have some kind of guidance as to what is acceptable. I recognize that some money has been provided to the federation, particularly to assist the upgrading of computers.

However, the difficulty that many of these clerks have is that they do not have the training in order to be able to operate the computers properly therefore we end up like some of the government departments where, a few years ago, with computers on desks that really are non-functional, not that the computers cannot function but the people who are operating them do not know the programs, so a piece of equipment like a computer is useless unless the people have some basic training and know how to work it within its own capacities.

Also, I bring to the minister's attention that, again the Auditor General recognizes that there is some need for training. I know that the minister is well aware that an act was prepared by his department and is called: An Act Respecting The Newfoundland And Labrador Association Of Municipal Administrators and his department has participated in drafting that legislation in consultation with the Department of Justice. Now, during the background for this particular series of questions, I did some consultations with Manitoba, with the Province of Saskatchewan, with Ontario to see what programs they have in place to assist rural municipalities to upgrade their clerks and the best program I could find of those that I was able to examine exists in the Province of Saskatchewan and in that province there is a program put on in conjunction with the University of Regina and that program is particularly geared to helping municipalities in the rural parts of the Province to upgrade their skills and is done by way of correspondence courses, a Distance Education Program and is a very, very good program I say to the minister, as I have had some consultation with the people in Saskatchewan on that.

I think it is inappropriate for us to say that these people in those municipalities have no need for skills. In fact, they have need for skills. I know that the municipalities sometimes cannot afford to be able to have them participate but these are jobs out there and they are handling public dollars. It is public treasury dollars, the taxpayers' dollars and the dollars of the Province and it is not sufficient for us to say that we do not really care or that we are not going to provide an educational program for them.

So, Mr. Speaker, what I am saying to the minister is that we have to address this issue because, again the minister seems content with the existing status quo, and I am saying to him that is not okay when other provinces are trying to address this. You do not have to worry about the big municipalities like the St. John's and the Mount Pearl and Corner Brook, Grand Falls, Gander, they have, you know, a fair size bureaucracy, but out in these municipalities the smaller ones, we have to say to the Minister of Education, he should be putting money into training programs where people have jobs and where jobs do exist.

So I would say to the minister again: Look at what is happening in the other provinces. Manitoba and Saskatchewan have a lot of relevancy to Newfoundland and, Mr. Speaker, I would say to the minister that his officials should make some consultations - again I have the acts that were passed in those provinces and have their educational programs for the education of the clerks, and they seem to be very, very good and are administered by the clerks themselves. There is a time set, there are seminars to which they can go and there are programs put out by correspondence courses and now that we are going to have the computers in these municipalities, I think the minister should make sure that it is no good to have the computer if you do not have the educational program to back it up, and with the Internet that is available in various parts of the Province and most places now can have access to Internet, only go to the school system and (inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: - and I am recommending to the minister that he would try to do something about this particular issue.

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

MR. A. REID: There are a number of questions and I would try to answer them all as quickly as I can, Mr. Speaker.

We are working with NLAMA and the Newfoundland Federation of Municipalities; training will be included in the purchase price and package to the smaller communities with the purchase of new computers and I am not satisfied with the status quo as it is today and I say it quite honestly to the hon. member, if he would talk to the larger communities like St. John's and Mount Pearl maybe, just maybe they might give up their municipal operating grants for the next three years then I can go out and give it to those small communities that the hon. member think so much about to be able to help - to be able to help those smaller communities.

So, I suggest to the member, go back to his council in Mount Pearl and ask to let me have their municipal operating grants so that I can go out and do what the hon. gentleman is saying.

God bless you and a Merry Christmas to you, too.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I want to make some further enquiries and elicit further responses from the Minister of Education concerning the private training schools in the Province in general, and focus initially at least on the massage therapists.

Mr. Speaker, the minister seems to insist that there is a wide variety of results for first-time writers of these exams in Ontario. The first-time writers of these exams overall do very well. Since July of 1995 to July of 1997, the only periods for which periods are published by the Ontario college, 1,519 students wrote the exams and 1,186 passed, for an overall 78 average. At no period for these exams that are published by the college was there a 25 per cent pass rate.

Mr. Speaker, the minister is really covering up the fact that there is a very, very high degree of pass rate for those who take those exams, and it is the standard that is accepted here in the Province of Newfoundland in the absence of Newfoundland regulation of the massage therapy profession.

Mr. Speaker, the other aspect of this, the minister read out some conditions of that licence, in particular the core curriculum from Ontario, and my inquiries reveal that the curriculum, the one of which they will not give out copies - of which the minister will not give out copies - my information is that the curriculum itself complies with the Ontario standard. The question is whether or not that curriculum is being taught.

The students who wrote those exams in October were provided with a copy of the core curriculum. They have listed numerous items on the curriculum on which they were being tested that, in fact, were not covered in their program. The minister has not addressed that.

The students who are there now, the 100 students who are there now who are being asked to continue to pay significant amounts of money to the college, do not have confidence that what the minister has said or done to date gives them any assurance that they are going to be properly trained for these particular courses. So, I would like the minister to elaborate on what is being done to ensure that the curriculum is, in fact, being followed.

I have seen complaints that people teaching the massage therapy course were not, in fact, registered massage therapists. The minister has those complaints on file in his office, that there were people teaching the course who were said to be registered massage therapists but, in fact, did not have that designation.

I want to ask a further question of the minister concerning this whole area of private post-secondary education. Does the minister have, as I am informed, on his desk, a document - it may be entitled `Post-secondary indicators '96', produced by the Division of Evaluation, Research and Planning - indicating the results of the post-secondary students in this Province, university, private colleges, public colleges, and can he tell us whether it shows the satisfaction rate for programs by post-secondary graduates between private colleges and public colleges? Does it show the student loan default rates for private colleges and public colleges? And does it give, for example, average salaries for employment gained after graduation between public and private colleges?

Does he have such a report dealing with post-secondary indicators '96, and why is he not making that public? Is he trying to keep the information from the public because it would support, perhaps, if we saw it, a call that I made in this House of Assembly about a month ago for an independent look at the whole issue of private post-secondary education and whether or not it meets the public needs.

Mr. Speaker, can he also tell us why there is no private training institutions review board, which appears to be necessary if the minister is even to refuse any applications. Is that why every application seems to be accepted because if he is going to refuse any application he has to give someone notice that they have fifteen days to go to a private training institutions review board and if one does not exist it seems pretty difficult for him to either refuse an application or turn someone down. So, I would like for the minister to address all those questions.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Probably tomorrow in Question Period or one of the Question Periods next week - the questions deserve attention - I think the public - I haven't sensed in my eight or nine years that they get attention in the Late Show, so maybe in a regular Question Period I would like to invite him to ask the questions and we will answer then all.

MR. TULK: Bill No. 48, Mr. Speaker, Committee of the Whole on a Bill "An Act To Amend The Shops' Closing Act No 2".

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

CHAIR (Oldford): Order, please!

Bill No. 48, "An Act To Amend The Shops' Closing Act No. 2".

Shall clause 1 carry?

Under closure each member has twenty minutes to speak.

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I rise again today to oppose this particular bill and to talk about what effect this will have on various businesses in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Today, I received a letter in the mail from a company in Newfoundland and Labrador and it says, `It is with deep regret that this company, after eighteen years in business, will have no choice but to immediately lay off all of its full-time employees once this bill comes into law and is enacted'. And it says, `It bothers us', meaning the company, `immensely that these dedicated men and women are being removed from their positions, not of their own inability, but because of government dictatorship. For this business to meet its financial obligations all full-time employees will be replaced with part-time workers just to accommodate the seven day work week and remain competitive with national companies. It saddens us', again the company, `as these men and women have young families, mortgages and have contributed immensely, not only to this industry, but the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Sunday shopping will be nothing but a demise in our industry. Besides all the economic issues, the only one above all that is the fact that Sunday shopping will have an erosion on the family life at that particular point in time. It means that there will be no time to spend with each other, and you can't put a price on that.

That is from one business within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Just imagine, they are going to have to lay off all of their full-time employees, and yet nobody, Mr. Chairman, gets out of their seat. Nobody is concerned. I have another letter which is a copy which was sent to the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador. It says:

We are asking for your support in lobbying, voting against the proposed changes to the Sunday shop closing act regarding Sunday shopping. We are totally opposed to the idea of Sunday shopping, and we 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. This is signed by a Gerry Rose for Ivan Riff and the 400 staff members of their company.

Four hundred staff members, the owner of a company, and these people are against Sunday shopping. Just imagine. Nobody over there cares. Nobody cares. Nobody gets out of their seat to ask a question. Just imagine. Nobody stands up to ask a question on this bill. Why? The calls haven't stopped. Let me tell you, I got more calls on this than I did on national unity, let me tell you that. Because after running an ad for some six to eight weeks I never got a call, but on this here, I've gotten lots of calls.

Yet, for some reason, we introduced closure. We have to ram this through the House. We on this side intend to do whatever we can legally do to stop this particular piece of legislation. We intend to do whatever we have to do to try and stop this particular piece of legislation.

City Consumers Co-Operative Society Limited, their head offices are in St. John's. This is a letter from its President, Mr. Keith Sheppard, President of the Board of Directors of City Consumers Co-Operative Society, and it is written - and this is a copy - to the hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

On behalf of City Consumers Co-Operative Society board, management, staff and members, I would like to express dissatisfaction with the new legislation concerning Sunday store openings. Sunday shopping openings will have a negative impact upon locally-owned businesses. Sales for six days will now be spread out over seven. This will mean increased cost for sales, plus increased cost to customers. But, Mr. Chairman, nobody over there cares.

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 multi-nationals. The enormous profits already made by these outside companies will increase and, as always, continue to leave our Province. And, of course, Mr. Chairman, these profits never return.

The letter goes on to say: We at City Consumers Co-Operative Society are very concerned about the social impact of Sunday shopping. We hope that as many of our workers in the Province should be able to enjoy Sunday as a day of rest. Workers should be able to spend time with their families. Church attendance and relative activities will suffer, thus eroding the moral fabric of our society.

The letter goes on to say: Please consider these suggestions as reasons for the withdrawal of the proposed changes to the Shops' Closing Act.

Nobody on that side of the House cares. If they do, some time between now and early tomorrow morning, I hope somebody stands to their feet and tells us that they do care, that when there are jobs going to be lost, somebody will stand up and say: I also oppose this particular piece of legislation. The petitions that we have from all over Newfoundland, I have one here, I think, with probably ten or fifteen names on it and they are not all from this area of the Province. I have them here from Grand Falls, Rocky Harbour, Corner Brook, Labrador City, Englee, and on and on it goes; Stephenville and so on.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bob, (inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: I will show them to you after, if you want to see them. I will certainly show them to you. I will certainly let you look at the names, I don't know if - I can only tell you that - you know - but there are names on here from Grand Falls and as I said earlier today and I wasn't kidding, I have received two calls from Grand Falls asking me about the issue and indeed if the member had voted for this motion or against it. That is what I was asked and if the member wishes afterwards, privately, I will be only too glad to tell her about the calls I received. I will only be too glad to give her the information. But I have received two calls from that area, two of somewhere now, close to 200 calls that I have received.

My wife told me the other day at home, that on all things, the education issue, the national unity issue, my phone never rang as much at home the other day as it did concerning this particular issue from all over the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and if that means that I have to stay here all night and argue this issue, then I am quite prepared to do it because I think this bill is wrong. I think this bill is a mistake and I honestly and truly believe that this bill should be withdrawn.

As I asked earlier and still cannot get an answer: Who is driving the bus on this legislation? Who is it? It is not the Board of Trade. It is not the Chamber of Commerce. It is certainly not employees. So, who is it? Where are they? Who wants this legislation? I say to this House, Mr. Chairman, who wants this legislation? Nobody, except somebody on the government side. Is it the Premier? Is it the minister? Is it the Government House Leader? Who wants this legislation? Somebody wants it.

MR. TULK: We do.

MR. FRENCH: Oh no, not we. No, you don't, no, no because not all of your members, I say to the Government House Leader, wants this legislation.

MR. TULK: We, did I say (inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: You said `we', who are `we'?

MR. TULK: Who are `we'?

MR. FRENCH: Yes, who are the `we', you tell me?

MR. TULK: Chris Decker does, not we.

MR. FRENCH: Oh, I see, very good.

Well, I trust then that the Member for Humber East will be up later on because in the petitions I have, there are certainly a lot of names there from Corner Brook as well. So I am sure that he will be up, remembering where he came from and who elected him, I am sure he will do that because I am sure he has not received the call, I am very sure of that. I am very sure that he has not had the call.

There are lots of people across this Province, Mr. Chairman who do not want this bill; there is not a member in this House, I don't think, this afternoon, who can say that they have not received calls. Very few. There may be some but I would be surprised. I have been told by people who have called me, that they have called members' offices and they have been told that those who are calling to oppose this bill by far outnumber the calls that they have received in favour of this particular legislation and I do not disbelieve some of the individuals who have called me, Mr. Chairman. I certainly do not disbelieve those individuals who have called my office to voice their displeasure at that particular piece of legislation.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why, why we are here today debating this and we will go into the wee hours of tomorrow morning debating this particular piece of legislation because I do not know for the life of me why, why this is before the House at this time of year, and I am sure there is probably nobody on either side of this House who does not have things that they could probably do over the next twenty-four to forty-eight hours or the next seventy-two hours because probably that is how long we are going to be here. That's how long we are going to be here dealing with legislation that has been introduced, not only this particular legislation but all kinds of legislation. One, two, three, four, five pieces which we got this afternoon. We will take our time on that legislation and we will review that legislation and whatever time we get through it -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Oh, I know you better than that. I think there is something there that you are going to be called. Yes, I'm sure there will be a couple, I say to the Government House Leader, that he will be called. I hope he has supper ordered for his members -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: No, you are not going to call then, good.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: You might, yes I know you might. It depends on what mood you are in when you are driving the bus. I can only assume now, to the Government House Leader, and until -

MR. TULK: You have to remember something now (inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Yes, you are going to be under, that's for sure. That's the truest words you ever said.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) that's not what we heard last night.

MR. FRENCH: No, no, I say not. As a matter of fact, I believe, I say to my colleague from Kilbride, about 3:30 a.m. the other morning when he was stood somewhere close to the Chairman's chair there that the comment was: I have orders to get this bill passed and I'm going to get it passed. I have orders to get this bill through and I'm going to get this bill through. That's the orders I'm under. That is what you told me the other night.

MR. TULK: Told you what?

MR. FRENCH: You got orders, you told me, to get this piece of legislation passed. So I can only assume that you must be the bus driver.

MR. TULK: You know I am an innocent (inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Oh, I'm sure - I say to the Member for Humber East, I wouldn't touch that with a twenty foot pole.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Yes, I would say later on tonight you had better put something across your back. You had better watch your back, I say to the Government House Leader. You better watch your back later on tonight because it might be cold and it might be warm but -

MR. TULK: I don't know why you are getting mad because you are a lot better fellow (inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Oh, I'm an easy going fellow.

So again, Mr. Chairman, we are here today -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: You have to learn something new, you know. I just hope you are right.

MR. TULK: I have to keep watching you now because you know.

MR. FRENCH: I know that one, yes.

MR. TULK: I have to (inaudible) now.

MR. FRENCH: Yes, another one of your colleagues told me something else too, but I will save that one for another time.

Mr. Chairman, these three letters are just amongst many phone calls, many petitions that I have received on this issue. There is absolutely nobody who is in favour or who wants this legislation.

I have spoken about a change to the family lives and the opportunities for families to be together, especially in this day and age where we have to have two parents who are working, and there are a lot of families out there where two parents work who are involved in the retail sector in this Province. I wonder about these people, because the one day that we could all be sure of that would be constant to all of us was Sunday. They could all be sure, all in favour, and all be guaranteed that Sunday was their day of rest.

Some might argue, well, there are industries in this Province where people have to work. I had a call this morning at home, before I left to come in here, from wardens in this Province who said to me that they fully realize in their industry that it is part of their job, it is part of what they do, but they were opposed to Sunday shopping. They were opposed to Sunday shopping, and these are people who have to work 365 days a year. They knew that, they accepted that, when they got into their particular area. When they went to work in these industries they were sure that this was when they had to work, and they accepted that. From the time they started these jobs until present, they always knew that they would work these days. The people in retail trade were never aware of that, and should not have to do it today.

Again we go back to some of the petitions which we wanted to present today concerning Sunday shopping - Larch Place, Reid Street, Copper's Road, West Valley Road, Pratt Street, MacPherson Avenue, and on and on it goes - Summerville, Queen Street in Corner Brook, Victoria Street and so on. All of these people have signed petitions; have sent petitions to this House. All of them opposing, Mr. Chairman, Sunday shopping.

That is a shame, when we have the president and the board of directors of a group of people in the Province of Newfoundland such as City Consumers Co-operative Society, when we hear from these people. They aren't only concerned for themselves, but they are concerned for their employees and they are concerned for their members. I think it speaks well of an organization such as theirs.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FRENCH: By leave, Mr. Chairman?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

CHAIR: Leave has been denied.

MR. FRENCH: You're sure? You're positive, no leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

CHAIR: Order, please! Order, please!

December 18, 1997        HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS         Vol. XLIII No. 54A

[Continuation of sitting]

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: I have one fan on the other side - two, three, four!

AN HON. MEMBER: Now, if you could only get (inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Chairman, I am speaking to this bill today because obviously we, on this side of the House, feel that the majority of people in Newfoundland and Labrador are against the opening of shops on Sunday. That has been made very clear over the air waves, through editorials, through phone calls, letters, faxes and petitions, that we have received on this side of the House.

It is not only the people in the general public, we have heard that the Lewisporte Chamber of Commerce -

MR. PENNEY: Be good now.

MR. T. OSBORNE: - is against - I am not going to say anything about the hon. member from that area, but I know that the Lewisporte Chamber of Commerce has faxed us and said that they are against the opening of shops on Sunday, that they have done a poll of their members and they are against it.

The Gander area Chamber of Commerce, the same thing.

MR. PENNEY: What about the consumers of Lewisporte?

MR. T. OSBORNE: According to the Open Line shows, the majority of consumers throughout the Province are against the opening of shops on Sunday.

The Gander and area Chamber of Commerce, the same thing. We received a fax today and their members unanimously are opposed to the opening of shops on Sunday.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: I am glad to see the Opposition Leader in the House because I know the Premier would want him here.

There is an announcement which the Premier would like to make which is fairly substantial and we will not take away from the hon. gentleman's time. We would like leave of the House to do it.

CHAIR: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, if I can and with the consent of the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition Party in the Legislature, I would like to formally advise the House of Assembly and, through the House of Assembly, advise the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that the new Term 17, unanimously requested by this Legislature and requested by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in a referendum, is now the law of the land - it has passed the Senate of Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, in a vote in the Senate of Canada by nearly a two-to-one margin, not quite - forty-five `ayes', twenty-six `nays', one abstention, Term 17, as requested by this Legislature, has now passed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I want immediate recognition of the historic importance of this amendment achieved today, finally achieved in a full and complete way by the Parliament of Canada, to recognize the non-partisan way in which members of this Legislature have approached this issue.

Mr. Chairman, my first words should be words of thanks to all members of the Legislature and to all the parties in the Legislature. We may have parted ways or parted company on occasion as we have gone through this long debate over some years, in particular over the last year, and over the referendum campaign, at the end of the day this Legislature demonstrated a commitment to reflect the democratically expressed will of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the leaders of the opposition parties in this Legislature rose to the challenge to fulfil their responsibility and I want to pay tribute.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I do want to pay tribute to the Member for Ferryland, and I want to pay tribute to him as a member of this place and as the Leader of his party. Mr. Chairman, this has not always been an easy file for the member. I think he has expressed clearly and with conviction, even when that conviction sometimes ran against the grain, public opinion, expressed his view, Mr. Chairman. I acknowledge, and I think members here should acknowledge, that sometimes it takes courage to stand against the wind, and the Member for Ferryland, the Leader of the Opposition, has done that. When the people of the Province expressed their view in a referendum in this Province and indeed in Ferryland district, the Leader of the Opposition, at that moment, Mr. Chairman, played a constructive role and shares I think, in a very important way, responsibility for the success that we, as a Province, have had in seeing this amendment pass the Senate today. I extend to you, Loyola, my thanks for the way you have conducted yourself.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I want, as well, to say thank you to the Leader of the NDP. The Leader of the NDP has, from day one, in a steadfast way, supported the cause of education reform. He joined me and the Leader of the Opposition in Ottawa, initially last year, to seek at that time, a constitutional amendment; was in Ottawa again recently to appear before the Senate to testify again on the need to proceed with reform and, Mr. Chairman, I think on this issue, as set aside, on all occasions, partisanship and has acted in a way which has been constructive and important, I think, for the historical development of this Province; and to Jack Harris I say thank you, and I acknowledge his work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Now, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that every member would join me in expressing our gratitude and, frankly, our admiration for the tremendous energy and ceaseless, unstinting hard work -

MR. E. BYRNE: Here it comes, he is going to (inaudible) today.

PREMIER TOBIN: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have been in public life - February 18 it will be eighteen years for me. I have never seen a more hard-working, a more energetic, a more optimistic individual on a more difficult file in my life than I have seen in the work of the Minister of Education, Roger Grimes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I think all members would agree with me when I say that once Mr. Grimes stands in his place to speak, one knows that he will not sit down until he has won all to his point of view. Mr. Chairman, not even the capacity of the Senate, to be stubborn and to be obstinate, could stand in the way of a powerful logic marshalled by the Minister of Education when he appeared before them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I am told he used only about one-quarter of his legendary reserve in marshalling his arguments before the Senate and they capitulated before the force of his argument. Mr. Chairman, seriously, I think the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador owes a great debt of gratitude to the Minister of Education for his tremendous work on this file.

Mr. Chairman, before I conclude, I think it would be appropriate as well to note, and this is a very important note, that none of this - and I think it is a worthwhile objective, a worthwhile conclusion, a most important conclusion and an historical change in evolution for our Province - none of this could have happened, would have happened, had not Premier Wells and his team had the courage to open up this file and begin this debate.

Chris Decker took on that file in his role as Minister of Education. I want to acknowledge the work of Premier Wells last time out, and indeed his work in recent days when he went to Ottawa and appeared before the Reform Party caucus and spoke to them, and Minister Decker who was there, on the education file, in opening this file to begin with. That took courage.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the Opposition parties, who, for a moment with me, have put aside their partisanship - that is not difficult for me, there is so little of it in my bones - and celebrated this important moment, I know that much work remains to be done. I know that Mr. John Ottenheimer across the way will be asking: Where is the next piece of the agenda? I want to assure him that once we have had some time to rest, and I hope we can begin resting very soon, over the Christmas holiday, maybe later in the evening, if not tomorrow morning. The Government House Leader over here loves to hang out here and tells me he has another bunch of bills he wants to introduce if necessary.

I want to say to members opposite that once we have had a chance to catch our breath, government will move very quickly to put in place the new single school system. Government will move very quickly to arrange for an election of school boards, and elected school boards in place across the Province. I want to say to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, through this place at this time, that the purpose of school reform, at the end of the day, was not to achieve a constitutional amendment, was not to achieve a vote of the House of Assembly, the House of Commons, and the Senate - that is not what it is about - not to celebrate an historical constitutional amendment, or a change of law.

The purpose of school reform was to make our schools better, to create a school system where all of our children, irrespective of their religion, could sit in the same classroom, go to the same schools.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: The purpose of reform is to ensure that we put our dollars into the best education system that we can afford as we can afford it in this Province, Mr. Chairman; that is the purpose of reform, that is the objective we want to fulfil.

I say today, as the Premier of this Province, and the chairman who gets to sit around the table, or share the job with Mr. Wiseman, of this caucus, that we have said all along, this is not a `winner-take-all' proposition, this is not a game of winners and losers. There are only winners when we reform our education system and we make it better. I want again today to reach out to the leadership of those organizations that have had difficulty with this amendment. I want to say to the leadership of the Catholic Church, I want to say to the leadership of the Pentecostal Assemblies, I want to say to the many individual members of our society all across Newfoundland and Labrador who did not vote `Yes' in the referendum, who have not until now embraced this reform, that we want in this place, all of us, to work with them.

For those who care deeply about education, care deeply about the quality of the system and the opportunity it presents for our children, I say to them: Do not go away, do not believe you have lost anything. Stay and participate. Become members of the newly-elected school boards. Stay involved in the councils, stay involved in the public sessions and the public meetings. And, yes, hold this government and successive governments accountable for developing and funding and maintaining the best education system that Newfoundland and Labrador can afford to give our young children.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I, too, received the good news I guess about the same time. I was keeping close tabs on it. Since yesterday, I had an opportunity to speak with our federal leader's office - the leader was on the road, I did not get to speak with him directly - and members of the Senate, as late as just before coming to the House today, and a few times this afternoon since, when they were in Committee and getting ready for the vote.

We certainly felt that the Senate should have a responsibility to get on with the wishes of the people here in our Province. The Premier referred to - I know back in a referendum, and I strongly believe, in the first referendum, I did not make one telephone call in the first or second referendum, to try to influence any constituent in any way. I felt an obligation to let them know where I was, personally, and I felt a referendum is to find out what the people of this Province want to do on their own, and nothing should be shoved down their throats.

Our caucus looked at it with a referendum on an individual basis. That was important, I think, in a referendum. The people are going to speak, and we acknowledge that. When the people of the Province speak in a democratic process, I am a strong believer in democratic principles. That is why we are still here today. I believe that the people of the Province should know what is best for them. It is their right, it is the way our parliamentary system operates, and I certainly respected that, and endorsed not only my constituents, too, but the people, in my position as Leader of the Opposition, the people of the Province basically. When you vote in the House you have to consider beyond your own specific district. That is very important.

I am delighted that we have arrived at this point in time. There are a lot of confrontations and arguments, church involvement, public, politicians of the day. I got elected to this House after the Royal Commission on education reported; in June of 1992 the Royal Commission report was down - just a few months before that. We have gone through a fair amount of time in which we need to move forward in our education system in the best interests of the students of our Province. I spent over twenty years dealing on a direct basis with the students of the Province. It is a time in our Province for a reconciliation, to forget what went on in the past, and to work together in a spirit of co-operation now to move our system forward and to ensure that we turn out the best students in the country - if we are not doing it already, I might add.

We need to do it, and we will. Our critic, the Member for St. John's East, certainly will do all in his power to hold the Minister of Education, the Premier and this government accountable to expedite basic reforms in education. Not only the structure of education itself, but the savings from education will move toward the ultimate goal that reform is all about in the system. It was not about the power of who controls the system. Evolution had taken care of a great amount of that over the years. It was directed to filter down to the bottom line or the front lines of the system, to the students, and we certainly hope we will see a lot of that over the next while. The elected boards that we believe strongly in, taking place - in February, I think, is the expected time - and to get on then with accountability to the people.

We believed in, and I personally stated I believed in, reform of the system to have it run by the Province and fully-elected school boards. I believed in that and we believed in that. We believed in hiring teachers on the basis of qualifications in the system. We have believed that all along.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: My entire life I have believed that. I taught in an R.C. system. I never did believe in having to deviate from basic qualifications or certain standards or contracts or otherwise, that there were. The law had to be followed and I respected that.

But I did believe - and one of the reasons I opposed it on referendum day, was that I believed we could have gone a little bit farther. The referendum should have taken a little extra in addition to these two. That is why I felt we should not have moved out of the system in which parents have the choice if they so desire and there are sufficient numbers, the same as would warrant having a class in advanced math or in any other subject. If the numbers sufficiently warranted it, and teachers were available to perform the task, the option or the choice of parents to make that decision should be there.

That is why I disagreed with it. I felt we were curtailing or limiting the choice of parents to make that decision within the system. I have said before that I felt it would be higher than 73 per cent if that option were there. It could be 90 per cent, possibly. Many of the people I have spoken with, on both sides of the fence, could have lived certainly with that particular scenario. But that is history now. We move forward. The Senate today has dealt with it. I was optimistic, to be honest with you, all along, that that result would be accomplished.

I spoke as late as seven or eight minutes before I came into the House with Senator Kinsella today and I have spoken with other people over the last twenty-four hours and I was, as I said today in the House, confident there would be no amendments forthcoming from the PC minority in the Senate. There were not any and the vote was reflective, I think, of respect for the democratic process. When the Senate abdicates its responsibility for democracy, I think it is time to start doing something with the Senate. I think, in this particular instance, they carried out their duties properly. I had some reservations, and I did not chastise the Senate before, because the Senate gave people here in this Province before, an opportunity to be heard at public hearings that were not provided by the House of Commons. I am a strong believer in the due process. I complimented them for taking the opportunity to listen to people on both sides of the argument. Before rendering a decision you take full opportunity to hear people's views regardless of what you think the end result may be, and that process was carried out.

I am pleased that we have reached this particular point in time, and now our focus, I say again in conclusion, is on reconciliation for people who have been on opposite sides, basically, of the argument, and to move forward now in the best interest of students in the Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

[Laughter]

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Of course.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, by leave.

MR. HARRIS: I do not need leave, I think, Mr. Chairman.

In any event, I thought, Mr. Chairman, at one point in September that my last act in the House of Assembly would have been to participate in a unanimous vote of this House to endorse the changes to Term 17 and send them to Ottawa for passage. If it had turned out to be my last act, Mr. Chairman, I would have been proud to have served in this Legislature and to have seen the culmination of what has been a debate in this Province that has gone on for many, many years.

Hon. members will know that the first party to ever endorse publicly or speak publicly about a reform of the denominational education system which would have removed the churches from the position of control over education was the New Democratic Party. So it is interesting to watch over the years, and even over the years when we were in this House, the twists and turns of politics within each party, whether it be our own party because it has not always been smooth even in our own party, nor the Liberal Party, nor the Progressive Conservative Party.

Even within the debate provincially - I know the current Minister of Justice, then Minister of Education, every few months was putting out a new document `Adjusting the Course, Part I,'- `Part II.' We were wondering whether he had lost his way. But all of these things were part of what was necessary to change the public opinion in this Province to realize that change had to take place, that the people wanted change, and ultimately, change took place.

I do acknowledge the thanks and the comments of the Premier about the role that all members in this House played and I thank him for his particular comments on me, but I do want to say that every single member of this House, in particular by the unanimous vote of this Legislature in September of this year, made an astounding difference to the debate in Ottawa.

The previous speaker indicated his conversations and his role with respect to the Senate and senators. He, the Premier and I were in Ottawa last year attempting to influence members of the House of Commons. I think even members opposite will acknowledge that the Premier is not the only person with influence in Ottawa. It is not an easy road, I say to people who have not been there. Going to Ottawa, just because you are going to your own partisan members, you do not get automatic support. You do not get automatic support because you wear the same political label. The people who are elected, as members of Parliament in Ottawa, take their responsibility seriously on issues of national importance, such as this and in the caucus meetings and in private sessions, you have to make the case and you have to make it as strongly as you possibly can. There is no automatic response, even within your own political caucus. So the role that was played by people who went to Ottawa, and I include myself amongst them obviously, in making the pitch and stating the importance of the non-partisan approach in Ottawa before the Committee was acknowledged by senators and members of the House of Commons who were on that committee. The importance of the unanimity of this House, even though the Member for Placentia had the sense and the –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: - wisdom, Mr. Chairman, to recognize that it was very, very important coming out of this Province even with a very high degree of referendum support, a unanimous vote from this House was extremely important to those in Ottawa who were required to make a decision.

In the past few days, Mr. Chairman, I have not been making very nice comments about the Senate. I am not a big fan of the Senate, as people know. I do have a lot of respect for individual senators so I do not want to get anybody's dander up, but I am glad to see that they recognize their role in this was to hear what had to be heard and to accede to the wishes of the people of Newfoundland and of this Legislature. I do acknowledge their role in doing that today without unduly delaying the matter and I thank them for their speedy passage of Term 17.

I just want to say one or two words about the future, Mr. Chairman. As the Premier has indicated, the whole purpose of school reform is to improve the quality of student life, the quality of instruction and the ability of our students to learn as much as they can about what they have to learn to participate fully in the world.

In this Province, Mr. Chairman, in Newfoundland and Labrador, students have very large hurdles to overcome. There are hurdles of isolation. There are hurdles of family and community poverty. There are hurdles of difficulties, whether they be learning disabilities or whether they be social difficulties within the community that make it more difficult in many ways in this Province to get a good education, to learn well and to get on in life and participate fully in what this country has to offer young people.

So I think that that is the next step, Mr. Chairman, and that is going to be the focus, as soon as we get back in this place after Christmas, to find out whether or not this reform that we all now support, is going to lead to the results that we seek, whether we are going to see the savings that are made go into improving education. That is going to be a challenge for the Minister of Education to fight with his colleagues in Cabinet to make sure that that happens. We are going to be making sure over on this side, that every effort is made to improve the quality of education. I think it is certainly an historic day, Mr. Chairman, to see at least the end of the road on this great effort of school reform.

I want in closing, Mr. Chairman, since the Premier has been so generous in his comments to all members of the House, to me and to the Leader of the Opposition, to make it clear that a large measure of responsibility for what has happened in this Province today as a result of these changes, the credit goes to the Premier, and he deserves it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: It would have been easy for him to carry on, Mr. Chairman, and say that the job had been done or had been attempted and we had gone as far as the people of Newfoundland were prepared to go, and not take on the challenge, but he did not do that, Mr. Chairman, he quite correctly and responsibly said that there was a process in place here leading to reform of the school system. A process could not take place without further measures being taken and he took upon himself the challenge and provided leadership at a time when leadership was required. Now, I have said this before so I am not trying to gild the lily. I have said before, Mr. Chairman, publicly, and I say today that the Premier deserves credit for providing the kind of leadership that was needed on that issue at the correct time which has brought us to the position we are in today.

I look forward to the challenges of the future, Mr. Chairman, and I am sure that members opposite would hope and expect that anybody with an interest in education would continue their interest, whether they be leaders in the Catholic faith or the Pentecostal faith or other religions that have a great interest in education, that that leadership and that interest in that direction would continue to try to make the new system work for the benefit of all students.

I encourage them, as well, to do that today. I also hope and expect that members opposite would want and expect members on this side of the House to challenge the government in every way they can to improve the system to the maximum possible for the benefit of all students of this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could just stay in our seats for a minute without calling any other business while the Opposition House Leader perhaps confers with one of his colleagues over there?

May I have that mike turned off, please?

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: I would like for members to be quiet and the Opposition House Leader to listen so that there is no misunderstanding.

We are assuming at the moment that we are in Committee of the Whole on the Education bill, whichever number that is -

AN HON. MEMBER: Bill 41.

MR. TULK: Bill 41. I think we have said that the Opposition critic on Education wishes to make a few points and then if the Minister of Education wishes to make a few points we will close the debate. If the Member for -

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: No, no, but I am saying, if the -

PREMIER TOBIN: We will come back to that bill where we left off.

MR. HARRIS: But I am just assuming that (inaudible) -

PREMIER TOBIN: He is asking, yes.

MR. TULK: I am asking, that is all; I am assuming that you will agree.

Do you want to speak on this on behalf of your Party as well?

MR. HARRIS: I just spoke.

MR. TULK: But, would you like to speak -

AN HON. MEMBER: There is no need to make a motion, (inaudible) make a motion to suspend these proceedings.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman -

MR. HARRIS: Why do you not just have a recess?

MR. TULK: Yes okay, we will do that.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The House will recess for five minutes.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I am not assuming, only because I have had conversations with the Leader of the NDP and the Opposition House Leader, that the closure motion we are now into in Committee, will not, in any way, be affected by what we are about to do. Right?

MR. E. BYRNE: `Beaton', continue on.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman -

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: The Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi seems to have some problems.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Well, let us go ahead and discuss it, and close 'er down at six o'clock and go for supper.

MR. TULK: What we want to do here, quite simply is, by unanimous consent - and we can do anything by unanimous consent in this House, we all assume that. And by unanimous consent, what we want to do, is not to affect what is happening with the closure motion in any way, to have the Member for St. John's South speak, to have the Minister of Education speak and close the debate, to have the vote put in Committee on all clauses of the bill, then to rise the Committee, call in the Speaker, do third reading and then come back into Committee as we are now.

Now, is that agreeable with all members of the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. TULK: So let us have the Member for St. John's South rise in his place and speak.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Well, if he wants to speak - and then the other thing we have agreed to is that we will go past six o'clock, if he speaks for ten minutes and the Minister of Education speaks for ten and we call in the Speaker, then we will add that on - we will still take half-an-hour or so when we are finished, and come back again. Right?

CHAIR: Is it the understanding of the Chair that an agreement has been reached that is acceptable to all members of the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I will call Bill 41 for Committee.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Order number, Mr. Government House Leader?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order 26, Bill 41, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Operation Of Schools In The Province".

Shall Clause 1 carry?

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased to rise to make a few brief comments with respect to Bill 41, the Schools Act 1997 which, in effect, amends the Schools Act which was brought before this Legislature approximately one year ago.

We had an opportunity at the time of second reading to make some very preliminary comments and I guess, most of what would be appropriate to say at this time, was said that time by myself and by other speakers.

Mr. Chairman, what this Act does, essentially is, it removes from the old Schools Act the references to the Denominational Education Committee and, in essence, the presence of the structured denominational education provisions as were found in the previous legislation.

Also, in a general sense, this Act removes the formation of a construction board, which, of course, was an important provision of the original schools Act. That particular provision is now removed, Mr. Chairman, and now such authority is given to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

Mr. Chairman, there are certain features of this legislation which are indeed important. For example, under Section 10(2): "A parent of a student in a school may request of the school principal, giving the principal reasonable notice, that a religious observance be held in the school."

Under Section 10(3): "A principal of a school shall, in accordance with the by-laws of the board, comply with a request of a parent with respect to a religious observance."

So, that particular provision is obviously in keeping with the wishes of the majority of the people of this Province when they spoke loudly and clearly during the recent referendum.

Another feature of the legislation which is obviously important and I guess is in the legislation as a direct response to the uproar that was witnessed in our Province over the past twelve to eighteen months, is that having to do with the whole idea of school closures.

There is a provision which that states that notwithstanding Section 75(1) of the section, a board may close a school only after parents of students affected have been given an opportunity to make representations to the board - obviously, an important provision, because it allows the parents of this Province to at least have some say. However, I say to the minister that the only caution I have with respect to this section is that we hope it is not just paying lip-service and allowing parents to come in and make representations without any real meaningful consideration being given by the decision-makers as to which schools in which communities are in fact scheduled to be closed.

It is unfortunate that this section does not go on to say that a board must take into account those representations, must take into account the arguments that are being made by parents, and this authority has been given now under this section and it allows parents to make the necessary representations. But if the board may take into account those representations, we would perhaps see a much more meaningful role being taken by the parents of our Province when, in fact, as a result of a reduced population or declining enrolment or whatever, there is some concern that schools in fact may close.

So, it is an important feature of this Act and it is one which at least allows parents to have some say. To what extent that say will be respected and considered by the board remains to be seen; and, as I said, that is perhaps a weakness which has to be brought to the attention of the minister in his discussions, I think, in closing debate on this particular Act.

I had an opportunity to discuss with the minister the provisions under Section 121, dealing with the abolition of the Denominational Education Commission, and there is there under subsection (2) an indication that: "Money and other property of the commission are the property of the Crown".

It is my understanding from clarification having been given to me by the minister, that we are talking essentially about chattels and equipment within that definition of property, as opposed to real estate or reality which, because of the ambiguity of the section, it is not clear as to exactly what is meant by that particular wording.

Mr. Chairman, this whole process has been for many people a very difficult process. It has been painful, I would say, when we review what the people of this Province have witnessed with respect to the whole process of educational reform. However, this is a day which will, I am sure, be remembered by many in our Province as a very important, significant day in the development of educational reform in our Province. We see now at least the last legal hurdle, at least from a parliamentarian point of view. That last hurdle now having been overcome and, as other speakers have mentioned, we must now put the past behind us. We have been given a mandate by the people of our Province to put the past behind us and we are now in a position that we must look forward to ensuring that the young people of our Province are given a system, an educational system, which allows them to be given the best educational opportunity possible to ensure that their potential is reached and to ensure that the rights of our young people are respected at every possible opportunity.

So, Mr. Chairman, with those few brief comments, we, on this side - I suppose the word `celebrate' is perhaps not inappropriate. We at least take some solace in the fact that the process is now complete. We have crossed the most important hurdles, and what is now important is that we all, as all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, all as educators and as parents and as elected school board officials in due course, we all respect the rights of our young people to ensure that their best interests are protected at all costs to ensure that their educational well-being is uppermost in all of our minds.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

They are unnecessarily prolonging my intervention here with these things. I will, Mr. Chairman, be sending over a copy of Hansard from a couple of days ago when the hon. the Member for Kilbride referenced where I might be going next, and the Premier has a note of that. I will be reminding the Premier of his kind commentary today, as well, when he -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: Now, Mr. Chairman, I think the very fact that we are at this point in time in Committee of the Whole, expediting the passage of this bill, again is a tribute to the ability and the willingness of the elected members of this House to rise completely above any political partisanship on areas of public interest and public policy, when we have understood that the will of the people of the Province has been clearly expressed, and that we are not going to stand in the way of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who want this to occur.

It will be an absolute pleasure for myself, Mr. Chairman, and succeeding education ministers over the years long after people like us, who are in this Chamber, are gone and doing something else - it will be an absolute pleasure to see them facing the challenges of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to provide under the new administrative regime that will be in place, quality education for the students of Newfoundland and Labrador. I think all of us understand, Mr. Chairman, that we have had to spend far too long, in the last five or six years, dealing with issues of governance and legislation, and I think it is fair to say that it has taken a little bit away from the effort we should be putting into quality education opportunities and the focus on that for our children.

I just to make this comment again, Mr. Chairman, because the leaders of the three parties represented here spoke volumes in terms of the comments that are on the record with respect to the commendation for the passage of this in the full Parliament of Canada and the treatment of it here.

The only thing from a personal point of view - give this comparison: a couple of years ago, I was involved as education minister in a community, and I was in a community hall, where people were saying, `You are not leaving this hall. We will not let you out.' The thought crossed my mind: why would I want to be here on my own birthday being attacked by very angry, upset citizens because of a decision affecting the education system that they did not like? I like the fact that they keep challenging the government to provide quality opportunities but, today, Mr. Chairman, I am hoping to leave, when we recess for supper for a little while, because this happens to be my own daughter's twentieth birthday. I will remember it always, of course, for my daughter's twentieth birthday, but the coincidence won't go without being marked in your own mind that on her twentieth birthday the system changed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: I think it is great in this context, Mr. Chairman, because I remember very well her fifth year when she went to school, after three or four years in a day care with all of her friends, of all denominations - they played, they were neighbours and everything else - they cried at the bus stop when they had to go to three different schools because they did not understand why. I think now, on her twentieth birthday, I will be able to go home and say: It won't happen. Your children won't have to go through that. I think that is the beauty of the whole thing.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.

CHAIR: Order, please!

A bill, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Operation Of Schools In The Province." (Bill No. 41).

On motion, clauses 1 through to 129 carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: I think it is understood that we will rise the committee, do third reading and then after we have done third reading, go to supper and come back, and assume that we had never left.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise and report a great deal of progress.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PENNEY: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report Bill No. 41 passed without amendment and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to sit again presently by leave.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I call third reading of Bill No. 41.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Operation Of Schools In The Province," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, maybe we should come back at 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The house is recessed.

The House resumed sitting at 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: 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: All those against, nay.

Carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I believe, by agreement, we said that we would come back in Committee as we were before. I would move that the House now resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

CHAIR (Penney): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, Bill 48, Committee of the Whole, An Act To Amend The Shops' Closing Act.

CHAIR: Bill No. 48, "An Act To Amend The Shops' Closing Act No. 2."

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Minister of Education isn't here now. I would like to congratulate him on his accomplishment with the education act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: I think it is admirable that this House listened to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Now I'm asking that this House listen again to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I don't know how many calls, faxes and e-mails are coming in on that side of the House, but I know we have been inundated with them. Even when we broke for supper, when I went up there were a couple of calls there on my desk, and more faxes continue to come in.

I know that there are some people in the Province who don't care one way or the other, and I know that there are many, many, many people in the Province who don't want Sunday shopping. I haven't heard anybody yet say: My goodness, isn't it great, we are going to have Sunday shopping.

I suppose every now and again if the stores are open on Sundays we will find it a convenience to run and get a tin of cream or cranberry sauce, or whatever it is that you ran out of or you forgot to get at the supermarket during the week. Then we will be doing that small convenience store on the corner out of business, because they keep themselves open seven days a week for us. While most of us are enjoying Sunday, somebody, the mom or the dad or some member of the family who owns that convenience store, is operating that convenience store for our convenience. They don't want the rest of the big stores open on Sunday.

The mom who is a single mother, who has a couple of children who are in school all week while she works, and then she probably gets Saturday off, you can be sure she isn't going to get Saturday and Sunday off. She will go to Sobey's or Zellers and she will work for $6.50 an hour and pay a baby-sitter $5 an hour to take care of her children while she works on Sunday. She can refuse to work on Sunday, I suppose, but then she would lose her job. What choice does that mother have? What will that do to the quality of her family life, and what will that do to erode family life?

Then from May to September there are many, many, many families in this Province who look forward to their long weekends. We have the gravel-pit campers. I think there is even a song named after the gravel-pit campers. They look forward from one year to the next to their 24th of May weekend. Will they come in from the gravel pit to go to work on Sunday or will we just cancel the 24th of May weekend, and will we cancel the Labour Day weekend and the Memorial Day weekend?

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you support gravel-pit camping?

MS S. OSBORNE: Sure.

Or they can go to the provincial parks. I bet you, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation will tell you that whether they are privatized or whether they are government operated, those provincial parks are full on the 24th of May weekend, on the July 1st weekend, on the Labour Day weekend and the Orangeman's Day weekend. They probably won't be anymore, and if they do unfortunately the family unit that would have been there, with the mom or the dad, will not be a unit because one of them will be out working on that Sunday, doing a four-hour shift probably, from two until six or whatever on Sunday afternoon. That will ruin the whole weekend. When it comes to Christmas, will we have the stores open if Christmas Day falls on Sunday?

I think the government should have a long, hard look at what they are doing and they should listen to the people who are calling, listen to the people who are e-mailing, listen to the people who are faxing. Now, there are not a lot of them present in the galleries because they are working now. This is a busy time of the year, which probably means that they have been blind-sided at the rush of this bill at this particular time of the year. It was -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, boy, I am expecting them.

Anyway, those people who are out working in the stores, none of them is in favour of it. I had a call today from a small store owner in the Village Mall and he said he personally visited all the small stores in the Village Mall; none of those small stores are in favour of Sunday shopping. They only have a certain budget for salary and they are not going to get any more revenue, because the people who are shopping, if they are going in to buy a suit of clothes, because the stores are opened on Sunday does not mean that they are going to buy an extra suit of clothes on Sunday. What they have to buy they will buy between Monday and Saturday. So it does not bring any more revenue into that store, but they still have to pay somebody for the extra hours that they are open on Sunday, which means that their staff will be spread out, staggered, split shift.

The grocery stores, the supermarkets, will pick up a small bit of business on Sunday from the people who are going there to pick up what they forgot to get during the week, but I am sure that it would not make an appreciable difference and they will still have the expenses of being open on Sunday. If I have a grocery budget and, under normal circumstances, I buy my groceries some time between Monday and Saturday, my grocery budget will not be stretched if that store is opened on Sunday. I will not have one extra cent to spend. So, it will not benefit me, it is not going to benefit the small stores, it is not going to benefit the major chains because the people only have the same amount of money to spend whether the stores are opened six days or seven days.

Who will be affected, however, are, as I previously mentioned, families, single mothers. The children will be affected because they will not get to spend that quality time with their parents. The crafts people will be affected. I know there are some families who have craft booths at the flea markets and they spend all week long crocheting, knitting, making their cookies or doing their wood-crafting, and they open their stall in the flea market on Sunday and they make enough money to keep them going; not an enormous amount of money, but enough money to keep them going.

In many cases, this keeps that family off the system, because they are probably under employed and they would be living below the poverty line if they were to depend on their regular salary. The few dollars they make because of the crafts they prepare during the week help them to extend their budget, gives them a few extra dollars to bring into the home, and extends their quality of life. So those people will be affected.

Craft stores will be affected in another way. I guess if somebody has forgotten to get a gift during the week, and they suddenly remember: Uh-oh, it's Aunt So-and-so's birthday, well, they will run off to the craft store on Sunday and pick up a gift. Now with the malls open they will succumb to the temptation - I would - to go into the mall and pick up that gift.

MR. TULK: You are not going Sunday shopping?

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, boy.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is what you just said.

MS S. OSBORNE: That is what I said, I would succumb to the temptation. That is what I said. I won't be unlike any other person. If the malls were closed and the craft stores were open, then I would go to the craft store and I would be putting more business into our Newfoundlanders rather than putting it into Wal-Mart or one of them which can ship the money out of Newfoundland with the Newfoundlanders who we are shipping out of Newfoundland.

They are a convenience, and we all succumb to temptation, and that is why they should be closed. On Sunday we should lead us not into temptation, because it is Sunday. We should have the bigger stores closed, we should be giving our Newfoundland crafts people an opportunity, our small store owners an opportunity.

The majority of retailers who will be governed by this legislation are quite satisfied with the present situation; I have to tell you that. Otherwise they would have lobbied for these changes long, long, long ago. I don't think any of the stakeholders have been consulted in this process, and that is contrary to what the Red Book said in the February 1996 general election. The Red Book said that this government would have a consultation process with the people. They have not been consulted. I can guarantee you, these people are consulting us, and they are making representation. We have eons of names on petitions. They just didn't sign it for the sake of signing it. They made up formal petitions, did a letter, signed it. All of us have gotten loads of these. Unfortunately, we don't get the opportunity to present them in the House because that gets stifled.

Some of the members on the other side have accused us of holding up this House by carrying on this silly filibuster to hold up Sunday shopping. I'm going to tell you that I don't consider standing in this House, representing the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who have made representation to us to speak on their behalf, to be a bit silly. If you think we are using up good House time, we have all the month of January, you can call us in any time. We will debate any bill with you. You don't have to close this House today or tomorrow. You can recess this House and bring us back in here in January.

We aren't holding up debate. We didn't tell you that we want to be out of here today or tomorrow. When we do want to be out of here, you don't need to close it, you can recess. That will make us happy, because that way we will be representing the people of the Province as we are when we stand to speak against Sunday shopping.

As I said, I turn a deaf ear to the people over there who say that we are wasting House time. I am not wasting House time when I'm standing here on behalf of the people who have called, faxed, e-mailed, and begged us: Stick to it, stick to what you are doing. We do not want the stores open on Sunday. It is going to erode our way of life. It will create too much of a hardship on us. There aren't any people in favour of Sunday shopping whom I've heard of.

As I said, there might be some people out there who say: Doesn't matter. Well, so what? But there are no people who have called and said: I want the stores open on Sunday. Please go down in that House of Assembly and vote to have the stores open on Sunday. It hasn't happened, but we have heard from all the people who don't want them open. Many of them are our constituents, and many of them are constituents of the hon. members on the other side. I'm afraid that these hon. members are turning a deaf ear. It is too bad that the people can't be served on the Sunday shop closing act as well as they were served on the education act, I would say.

In many cases, both mother and father are employed in the retail sector, and the likelihood of them both having the same Sundays off is not great. The chance of the family having a day together with mother and father dwindle with the shops being open on Sunday. As a person who made representation to me when he sent me an e-mail said: I certainly hope that the government is planning on more social workers. They are going to need them to deal with the problems that will arise because of the erosion of family life. Our children have enough pressures on them now from their peers. When they can gel together on Sunday at Sunday dinner, at a barbecue on Sunday, Sunday get-togethers with the family, or a Sunday outing, it is good for them. It is psychologically good for the children. Now when they are devoid of that they have nothing to look forward to, nothing to grasp onto, no family life, no sense of family, no sense of a unit. They are all part of the family, but some people are working on Sunday and the kids are in school during the week. Then Dad is busy painting or whatever on Saturday. The Sunday, the one day they look forward to having the day off to spend with their family, is gone from them.

Sunday shopping will be the removal of a family day. Sunday provides a breathing spell for people by removing commercial and employment pressure. It will certainly add a lot of stress to families.

I'm once again glancing over the letters that have come in. One person in his e-mail to me said: Twelve hours each day, six days of each week, is enough for anybody to shop. Nobody will be inconvenienced by the stores being closed on Sunday because there are seventy-two hours a week that the stores are open. Major supermarkets are open, in many cases, twenty-four hours a day.

We are not opening it for a convenience for anybody, because nobody works seventy-two hours a week. Maybe some politicians work seventy-two hours a week, and particularly this week, but there are no people who work seventy-two hours a week. So where retail stores are open seventy-two hours a week, they are always open some time that people are off. Supermarkets, which are open twenty-four hours a day, are always open at some period when people are off.

The small locally owned businesses are really going to suffer if the stores remain open on Sunday. The major chains will take the money and send it out of the Province, and the money that could have been kept in the Province by the continuous opening of the small businesses, that money would have been kept in the Province and now it is going out of the Province. Sundays should be a day off for family, recreation or religious purposes.

A person suggested in his e-mail that the percentage of businesses now open on Sunday, as presented by the hon. Minister of Environment and Labour, is certainly suspect. His question is whether there is data available to support his comment. So what I am asking is that this House, which still has time to do so, have another look at this bill and lift closure on this bill. On behalf of the mom and dad businesses, on behalf of the small businesses, on behalf of families that want the stores to be closed on Sunday, I am asking that the government have another look at this bill and kindly keep the stores closed on Sunday on behalf of these people.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Mr. Chairman, again today I rise in my place to represent the views of, by far, the majority of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador, not only in my district but in the districts of every member on that side of the House. By far the majority of people in Newfoundland and Labrador oppose Sunday shopping, not only the constituents, Mr. Chairman, but the businesses also.

Now I have to refer to a few words that the Minister of Education said here in this House of Assembly yesterday. I have them highlighted here, a few of them. He talked about a certain person in this House - now, I won't even get into that. Let me see now - they went around knocking on doors like the rest of us for three or four weeks in an election, knocking on the doors saying: I want to be your member so I can represent you. Now, Mr. Chairman, talk about representing people's views in this House of Assembly. Every one of the members on this side of the House have been up over the past week or so talking about and representing the views of the people in this Province, but we have yet to see anybody on that side of the House get up and speak in favour of Sunday shopping in this Province. I wonder why? I have asked that question and every member on this side of the House has asked that question, Mr. Chairman, including the Member for Signal Hill -Quidi Vidi.

MR. BARRETT: I had one e-mail.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, we have the Member for Bellevue over there saying he had one e-mail. Well, can we produce some of the petitions that we have here? Speaking of petitions, all kinds of petitions, petitions galore, and letters from businesses with 400 and 500 people working for them.

I had a phone call this morning, Mr. Chairman, 8:30 a.m. when I was going through the door. I had a lady almost in tears saying: Keep up working on what you are doing with respect to Sunday shopping. She said: I have to work 35 hours a week. I am just above the minimum wage and I have to work 35 hours a week. I have to work six days a week to get my 35 hours. She said: What is going to happen is that I will now have to work seven days a week. She said: I will have to quit my job. Seven days a week she said she will have to work, seven days a week.

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Well it depends on how much time you put in each day, I say to the Member for Bellevue. Oh, yes, yes. Don't give me that.

Mr. Chairman, we are in the midst of a debate here that I honestly thought the government would back off on. When they saw the Opposition mount to this bill, I thought the government would back off and see the mistakes, see the error in their ways; but no, they are going full force ahead, bullish ahead, to try and get this legislation through the House of Assembly.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the Opposition is doing their job and let me guarantee you that we will do our job. We have had numerous petitions in this House of Assembly, Mr. Chairman, and the government has even tried to stop us from presenting petitions in this House of Assembly. It is not unusual to see three and four petitions presented on a given day in this House of Assembly. What does the Government House Leader do, Mr. Chairman, when we are up presenting petitions? They permitted one the other day and I think we got away with two today. It is morally wrong for the government to be doing this. They are trying to be bullish, to stifle the debate on this, but we as an Opposition will give constructive criticism to government; that is our job. We have done it in the past and we will do it again.

We still don't understand why the government will not listen to us on this issue. It is not only us who are opposing this. We will continue to do everything which is within the rules and regulations of the House of Assembly, Mr. Chairman, to try and prevent this legislation from going through.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the Government House Leader brought in closure on this bill. The Opposition House Leader referred to this in an interview yesterday, in a scrum yesterday, that the abuse of authority in this House of Assembly in the past nine years is actually ridiculous, with respect to bringing in closure motions on debate in this House of Assembly. It has been exaggerated to the extreme over the past year and a half, since this new Premier and this new administration was elected to this House of Assembly. On everything that they don't want to be fully debated, they will bring closure in, use their pressure, use their force to try and mussel us.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) paper today.

MR. J. BYRNE: It was wasn't it? The only thing wrong with the picture in the paper today was the person next to me.

Mr. Chairman, the questions that we have been asked. Yesterday in this House of Assembly - now we know that the Speaker ruled on it with what he felt to be correct, but I have to comment on it. Because I believe what happened yesterday - it was a Private Members' Day, there was nothing to be discussed, no government business to be discussed yesterday; it was a Private Members' Day.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, we did not get the questions on yesterday that we wanted to get. Again we were stifled at the whim of the Government House Leader, as far as I am concerned, and we did not get our questions on yesterday. We couldn't bring them forward today, of course, because we didn't want to have a repeat of yesterday.

Mr. Chairman, the members on the other side of the House decided to try and make an issue of us leaving here yesterday, but the phone calls I received on this issue since yesterday afternoon were: Keep up the good work, continue doing what you are doing, pull every rule and regulation in the book with respect to the rulings of the House of Assembly, use everything you can to stop this'. So, Mr. Chairman, what we did yesterday - and the Minister of Education was talking about it here yesterday, about how we left the Member for Bonavista South to the wolves over there. He didn't use those words, they are my words.

What we did yesterday was political strategy. We knew what we had to do, we had to leave someone here because if everybody had walked out of here - everybody wanted to leave, but the Government House Leader would have had his way; he would have pushed everything through this House of Assembly yesterday while we were gone. We know the way that ministers thinks, I can guarantee you that.

Anyway, it worked out alright, we delayed it for another day. What else?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, the Minister of Education said they were elected to represent the people in this Legislature. Now, those are his words: Something has set in and I think it has set right into the inner part of their bones. Well, Mr. Chairman, if there is something set into us, into the inner part of our bones, let me tell you, I wish it would set into that crowd over there, because then they would start to represent the views of the people of this Province. If they could catch something from us, I hope it is what the Minister of Education was talking about.

Now, I say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, he looked pretty good today, almost as good as I did in the picture. I made him look good in the picture today, side by side. Side by side today, the two of us, Mr. Chairman, and I have to say I looked a bit better. In The Evening Telegram, side by side with yourself. They had me first, of course. The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs was complaining the other day that they haven't had a scrum since I was his critic. I asked him a question yesterday, and, sure enough, in the paper.

Now, let me see. Yes, as I said, the members opposite, if they could only catch whatever the Minister of Education was talking about with respect to us, it would be alright, and I'm sure this bill would never go through his House of Assembly. Hopefully, there will be certain members on that side of the House stand to oppose this legislation when it is voted on, I say to the Minister of Environment and Labour. Maybe he might. He might withdraw it by the time we are finished. We have a long night ahead of us, there is no doubt about that.

Again I ask the question of the Government House Leader - I asked the Premier the other day there when he was in his chair: Why is this legislation necessary? Who will benefit from this legislation? Either they don't know or there is some hidden agenda here that we don't know about. There are all kinds of assumptions that can be made, and I'm sure there are people in this Province who have all kinds of ideas, all kinds of assumptions as to why this legislation is being brought forth, but we have yet to get an answer as to why this is necessary.

What was the reason? Yes, one of the reasons that has been given, I think, by the Government House Leader, is that the act that is in place now is hard to enforce. Can you believe that? What a weak, weak answer; that the act or the legislation in place now can't be enforced.

MR. MERCER: What should be have done?

MR. J. BYRNE: What should we have done? The Member for Humber East, Mr. Chairman, is all the time interjecting when we are up speaking on this bill. We have asked him, Mr. Chairman, I've asked him and other members have, we have begged him, to get on his feet and speak in favour of this legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: He said, he doesn't know where it is coming from. He told the media that he didn't know where it was coming from.

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, the Member for Humber East, I am informed -

MR. MERCER: Sit down, and we will have some of your time.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, I will give you some of my time, if the Member for Humber East wants to get up and support this legislation, so I can take copies of it and send it to everybody in his district, send it to every business out there; if he wants to get up and support it. I wonder will he be in the House of Assembly, Mr. Chairman, when the vote comes, because the voting will be recorded, I can guarantee you that. There will be division brought on that, there is no doubt about it.

Mr. Chairman, what I would do with respect to this legislation - and I can tell you that right now - I would take it, if I were sitting in that chair, and just rip it up and throw it away. Because why fix something that isn't broken? The only problem is that they can't enforce the legislation.

Now, why do we have courts? Why do we have legislation in the first place? Why do we have the police? Why do we have all kinds of inspectors? That is what we have to look at. It is foolishness, Mr. Chairman!

I'm going to continue; there is so much to talk about. Who is opposed to it? Let's talk about who is opposed to it. Is the Board of Trade opposed to it? Yes, the Board of Trade is opposed to it. Is labour opposed to it? Yes. Why, I wonder, are they opposed to it? Retailers, Mr. Chairman, are the retailers in this Province - from what I can gather, from the letters and petitions we are getting, yes, they are opposed to it. As I said, who is benefitting? Who is pushing this?

There is another major factor here, and that is job loss. We had a letter today from a business - the Member for Conception Bay South - which says that if this legislation is passed there will actually be job losses. Why will there be job losses? Because he will have to compete on Sundays with the national chains. Yes, there will be job losses, and he said he will have to lay off all his permanent staff and probably hire them back on as part-time. If that is a step forward, I don't know what a step backwards is, Mr. Chairman, I can tell you that.

As I said before, I have numerous petitions here. The Member for Baie Verte has then, the Member for Bonavista South has them, everyone. I can't understand why, Mr. Chairman, petitions that have been sent to members on the other side of the House are not being presented. If the members here are elected to represent their constituents, why have they not presented their petitions? That is a good question. I wonder why?

Now, Mr. Chairman, I have to say this, in all honesty and sincerity: I have been in this House of Assembly for almost five years. We were here through the debates for hydro, we were here through the debates for education reform and other pretty important issues at the time, and I have yet to get the number of calls, letters, faxes on a topic as we have gotten on this one here. That is the fact of the matter. I would say that any other member on this side of the House would agree with me and say the same thing. It behooves me to understand why members on the other side of the House are not getting these. I can't understand it. The only thing I can see, Mr. Chairman, is that the public out there now obviously know that if they want representation in this House of Assembly they have to come to the Opposition. That is what the answer must be. That is all I can understand it to be, Mr. Chairman. They are not going to be represented by members on the opposite side of the House. They are not going to get up and speak to this bill and say they are in favour of it and why they are in favour of it. They have yet to do it. How many hours have we been discussing this now, I say to the House Leader.

MR. TULK: About twenty-three now.

MR. J. BYRNE: Twenty-three hours discussing this and nobody on that side of the House, Mr. Chairman, has stood up and spoke in favour of this. The Minister of Justice was on his feet yesterday discussing another bill. The Minister of Education was on his feet with a bunch of dribble when he talked about what we were doing here in the House of Assembly, but not to give reasons as to why this is wanted, why it is needed, who is pushing it, who wants it; none of that, nothing at all.

I see I have a note here that I only have twenty minutes left, so I will have to start to get to the points I want to make.

We have asked, in this House of Assembly, for a six-month delay, a six-month hoist, Mr. Chairman, but no it was voted down by the members on the other side of the House. They would not go along with that.

This administration, during the last election, talked about consultation. Where is the consultation? No consultation on this issue. As a matter of fact, when the Minister of Employment and Labour was asked in the media who he consulted he said: No one. I have consulted with no one.

Now, Mr. Chairman, how does that apply to this legislation when the Premier of this Province went out and asked for votes, like I did and every other member on this side of the House in the last election, and said: There will be a corner stone of his administration where he will consult with the people of this Province. Not likely! Not happening, Mr. Chairman, not at all!

Mr. Chairman, it was also suggested last spring, I think it was last May or June, that we would have a trial basis, that the government would look at a trial basis of this type of situation, where they would bring in Sunday shopping and see how it worked. I mean, I still have problems with it, but maybe there is a possibility where they can look again at who will benefit from it. They would see if it is a good thing, if it is a bad thing, if they should have left it alone or if the retailers would benefit or the general public will benefit from it; but no, no, can't do that. There is some hidden reason.

Now, it has been suggested that maybe this can be hooked to another piece of legislation that has not come before this House, that has been talked about but not brought in. Maybe that is the case, that the large multi-nationals, if the other piece of legislation came or the other bill and was passed, could make contributions to certain parties in the Province, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. J. BYRNE: There is no need to get into that; who. I mean, if you can't figure out who.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, it depends on any given situation, but it could open the doors for large multi-national corporations who have the bucks to make donations to certain parties and/or individuals for their future, Mr. Chairman. Will that person's future be here in the Province? Is there a great, big campaign thrust chest being put in place to help some individual to rise to a certain level of - what would be the right word here now? Let us just say that they are looking for a campaign trail a couple of years down the road, Mr. Chairman, to look for higher sights, higher goals, Mr. Chairman, in their minds.

Now that is something that has been put out there, that is a possibility. I am not saying that is a fact but it certainly is a possibility, Mr. Chairman.

Before I sit down - I know I do not have much time left - I have to say -

MR. H. HODDER: Well, keep on going.

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh I am going to the bitter end on this, I can guarantee you that, right to the bitter end on this one. I cannot believe -

MR. MERCER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I have to say to the Member for Humber East: Buddy, if you were as solid as I am, you would have no worries, I can guarantee you that.

When I came into this House of Assembly first, there were members on that side of the House who said to me - and I can name them - your first election is the easy one, the second time around is the hardest one, okay? I have gone through that. The Member for Humber East has not gone through it, so I would say, if the Member for Humber East was as solid now, Mr. Chairman, in every sense of the word that this member is, he would be doing alright for himself.

Now before I sit down, again I want to ask the members on that side of the House to get up and speak in favour of this bill and tell us why they support the bill. We would like the Premier or the Government House Leader to get up and tell us who is going to benefit from this bill, Mr. Chairman. I want him to answer the questions: Who is pushing this bill? Who is asking for this legislation to go through the House? Then we will see who will benefit in the long haul.

I can guarantee you it won't be the lady who phoned me this morning at 8:30 p.m. in tears, wanting this to be stopped because she will end up having to work seven days a week. She is not going to benefit, I can guarantee you that, and a lot of her counterparts are not going to benefit by any stretch of the imagination, Mr. Chairman.

The actual general public - I mean, our way of life, our traditions are being changed all the time. Now I am not against change, I am not against progress, Mr. Chairman, by any stretch of the imagination, but I do not see this as a step in that direction.

I read somewhere today - yes, in one of the letters that we received, an open letter to the Liberals actually, saying that we have succeeded here, have lived on this Island since 1497 without Sunday shopping. We have survived it. Why do we need to change it now?

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

CHAIR: No leave granted.

MR. J. BYRNE: None at all? Are you sure?

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I rise tonight to say a few words on Bill 48, The Shops Closing Act.

Mr. Chairman, here we are, on the eve of Christmas once again, in this House debating legislation. Very few people wanted to be here, Mr. Speaker, and very few people would have to be here if this particular bill was introduced to the Legislature in the proper way.

The Government House Leader has used his committees here in this House -

MR. H. HODDER: We could have been closed now if he had not been so foolish yesterday.

MR. FITZGERALD: I would imagine he knew before the House opened that such a bill was going to be introduced. If he had taken this particular bill at that time, tabled it and put it before one of the committees of the House, let them go out and have their hearings - maybe they could have had it just in St. John's, maybe they could have gone and visited some of the major centres - seek out people's opinions, seek out people's views, Mr. Chairman, talk to the small business owners, there is no reason that this would be happening right now. If the people wanted Sunday shopping to happen, then it would come back to this Legislature clear and loud. It would come back that this is the will of the people and nobody here would oppose Bill 48. Instead, what they have done is come in on the eve of Christmas, introduce a piece of legislation, that he knows is contentious, bring it forward, wear people down, open the Legislature in the night-time, introduce closure, stifle debate - do not ask questions, do not present petitions - ram it through, Mr. Chairman, ram it through and get our own way because it is something we believe in.

It is something, Mr. Chairman, that two or three people on the other side believe in, because I can assure you that if people on that side were allowed a free vote, if people on that side were allowed to get up and stand with the people that they are supposed to represent - if the people on that side were allowed to do that, I can tell you that this bill would never see the light of day. Bill 48 would die on the Order Paper. I am not so sure but it will die.

We saw something happen in this House here today, when the Premier came back. You notice today that it was a different day - different from the last two or three days. The Government House Leader did not have his own way. He was not allowed to get up and say this is going to happen, something else is going to happen. The Premier was there keeping him back in his seat: `Hold on now. Hold on. Let us talk to them. Let us ask the Opposition. There are other people here, let us listen to them.' Everything went very smoothly. We went up and had our dinner. We had an hour for dinner tonight, Mr. Chairman. If the Premier were not here, I doubt if this House would have closed for dinner - I doubt it very much.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, I know.

MR. FITZGERALD: You know that it would have, or it would not?

AN HON. MEMBER: He is on a diet. He does not care if (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: He is not on a diet. I say to the minister opposite that the Government House Leader is certainly not on a diet. If he is, it is not working. The fat cat of the Liberals!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: I would not want to be on the same diet that the fat cat of the Liberal Party is on. When I see him get up, I say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, he always reminds me of something. I am not sure what it is. It was only the other day that something flashed in my mind when he got up to speak. His big stomach was hanging out, and I said, now I know what he reminds me of. The Member for Humber Valley is looking and he knows very well what I am talking about. When we were growing up we used to go out and cut hay. The way that we would transport hay from the garden to the barn would be in a hay brin. You would put the hay brin on your back or carry it in front of you and you would have this big `pook' of hay. That is like the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal, with the big pouch in front of him there, and I can guarantee you, it is a strain on those braces. It is such a strain on those suspenders that if they ever let go and hit him across the chin, he will not know if we are here or where we are. Game over, Mr. Chairman. He will be suspended. But he is looking good. I cannot say too much about him, but he is a very cantankerous House Leader. He has gotten the House off the tracks. He has gotten it off the tracks.

If the Premier had stayed home, we would be home now. We would be home with our families. We would be out shopping, Mr. Chairman; we would be buying gifts for our families; we would be decorating the Christmas tree; we would be going and picking up some Christmas cheer. We would be into the festive season. We would be enjoying the festive season. But we are going to be here tonight, we are going to be here tomorrow, and by the time that those bells are finished ringing, I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that the telephones will be disconnected in members' houses this Christmas, because they will be tired of hearing bells. Santa Claus will not be around wearing bells - we will be tired of hearing bells.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Because if the Premier were not here, I can guarantee you, on Bill 41, you would have heard the bells ringing 123 times.

MR. WISEMAN: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: No we are not. I am telling you right now, `Ralph', she's off the tracks, she's on the rocks, she's come ashore, she's gone!

Now, Mr. Chairman, what is happening here on the eve of Christmas Eve is nothing short of shameful, to go against the will of the people. I went to the fax machine today and this particular fax was on the fax machine that we use - we only have one between ten or twelve people - and I would like to read it to you, because I do not know how it got on our fax machine. It is an open memo to all Liberal MHAs, that is what it reads, that is the way it came in, but it was on our fax machine. I would like to read to you what it says: `Is there anyone of all you Liberal MHAs with enough guts to oppose Bill 48?' That is the first sentence. `Surely, all of you cannot be in agreement with this bill. Speak up and tell who wants this bill passed. I have yet to speak to anyone who favours Sunday shopping, relatives, friends or strangers. Please, please, put an end to this bill which seems to be raising its ugly head every now and again.' It goes on - this is a phrase from the Bible: `In six days, I, the Lord, made the earth, the sky and the seas and everything in them, but on the seventh day I rested.' It goes on with Deuteronomy, verse 11, chapter 5. The last sentence: `We have survived since 1947 without Sunday shopping - why do we have to start now?' There is a name to it, I will not say the person's name, because I guess all of you people must have gotten it. Well, it came in on our fax machine, so I would like to pass it over to the Government House Leader now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Private members are not allowed to table things.

MR. FITZGERALD: No, I am not tabling it. If you would be so kind as to give it to the Government House Leader, because it is a memo that should have gone to every Liberal MHA.

AN HON. MEMBER: Signed `Dora'.

MR. FITZGERALD: I do not know who the lady is, I would not repeat her name, but it is a reflection of what is happening out there, of how people feel about this particular piece of legislation.

I received another letter today that was addressed to the hon. Oliver Langdon, Minister of Environment and Labour, and I will not give this company's name, but I will tell you it is a very reputable company in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, a company that has been in business for 105 years. I will read the letter. It says, `Dear Minister, re: Sunday shopping. As a retailer in the Province of Newfoundland, I would like to express my opposition –

CHAIR (Mr. Penney): Order, please!

The hon. member is permitted to quote from or refer to letters, but the hon. member is not permitted to read the letters into the record.

MR. SULLIVAN: Just quote it and paraphrase the rest.

MR. FITZGERALD: Okay, Mr. Chairman, I will just take one sentence at a time there and then I will go on to something else.

Mr. Chairman, as a retailer in the Province of Newfoundland, someone who has been in business here in Newfoundland for the past number of years - the company has been 105 years here, has employed hundreds of people here in this Province, presently has thirty five people working for them, has paid taxes, their employees are paying taxes. This business owner hit the nail right on the head. He said, `This unfair legislation opens up yet another door for more of this unfair competition to take place. Huge multi-national firms such as Wal-Mart, CostCo and Zellers, who are strictly profit-driven, are forcing legislators to bow to their wishes.' That is what is happening here. He struck it right on the head, Mr. Chairman, because I can assure you right now that the two companies driving this piece of legislation are exactly the companies right here. But I would add one more to that, our friend, Mr. Irving, who owns Kent Building Supplies. I will add his name to it as well. Those are the ones driving this piece of legislation. The calls that we are getting are from people who live within a two- and three-hour drive from St. John's. What they are seeing happen here is the Price Club opening up on Sundays. They can see Kent Building Supplies opening up on Sundays, Zellers, Wal-Mart. The people will flock into St. John's to those multi-nationals, Mr. Chairman, and spend their money.

If you want to buy your building material out in Carbonear - if Mr. Reid goes out and wants to put up a retirement home, he will take Sunday to come into St. John's and buy his building supplies instead of going to Garland's out in Carbonear. That is what will happen. You talk to Garland's out in Carbonear, see if they are in favour of Sunday shopping. Talk to Chester Dawe's up here and see if they are in favour of Sunday shopping. We are turning our backs on local Newfoundland businesses, businesses that built this Province and employ Newfoundlanders - that is what we are doing - and we are catering to the multi-nationals. We are catering to the group that the Government House Leader referred to the other day, the group with the satellite dishes up on their roofs, Mr. Chairman, that translate all their information to another province, probably to another country. That is what we are dealing with here. They have no feeling for Newfoundlanders, no feeling for local businesses. We are going to kill the local businesses that exist within a two- or three-hour drive from some of those major businesses.

In some places, Mr. Chairman, maybe it is not a big concern. I am not sure. Maybe it is not a big concern. Maybe if you went to the coast of Labrador it probably would not be a concern but I tell you it is a big issue on the Avalon Peninsula. I tell you it is a big issue in Bonavista. I tell you it is a big issue in Bloomfield, in Lethbridge. It is a big issue, because the people who do not want to have their businesses open on Sunday will have no other choice but to open them now. They will have no other choice, and a lot of them will have to lay off employees or take full-time employees and make them temporary part-time.

Members stood here on this side of the House today and talked about a company right here in St. John's who wrote a letter. A good employer who employs - I do not know how many people but it must be ten or fifteen mechanics, sales people and that sort of thing, maybe twenty or twenty-five. Twenty-five jobs is a lot of jobs today, I can guarantee you. His concern was: Look, this piece of legislation is going to mean that I will not have any more full-time employees. That is what it is all about.

One time, if you went to some of those big department stores -if you went to work with Dominion or Sobeys, you had a good job, Mr. Chairman. They paid good money and you were working full-time, but not anymore. Most of those stores now, Mr. Chairman, employ local people, and very few get any more than twenty hours a week, very few. In fact, before the UI went to EI, before the UI system changed where you had to have fifteen hours a week to qualify to get a stamp at the time, most of those people were working fourteen hours a week because the company did not have to pay unemployment insurance. They did not have to pay any benefits. They could get whoever they wanted to come to work for them because we are not privileged to have a lot of economic opportunity here in this Province, and that is what has been happening. We are driving that a step further now. We can say, `Boy, look, we are making a big deal over it now but give it thirty days or sixty days time and people will forget about it. It will be forgotten.

Maybe it will, only time will tell that, but that does not make the decision right, I say to the Government House Leader, that makes it all the more wrong. All we are asking - we are not obstructionist - all we are asking you to do is take the piece of legislation and put it before the appropriate committee of the House, go out have public hearings on it, bring it back again in the Spring when we meet again or come back in January if it is such an important piece of legislation - come back in January and debate it, but give people a chance to voice their opinion.

Is this a House of the people or is it the House of twenty-seven or twenty-eight people? I am not even sure if there are that many over there who agree with it. I have a feeling it is the House of one or two people who dominate the other side and force their views on everybody else and people just fall in line. It should not be done, Mr. Chairman. You come here to represent your constituents, to support local businesses, to try to make the place where those people live and the communities that you represent a little more prosperous. That is why we are here. We are all here for the same reasons I would hope and I am sure that we are, but somehow we get carried away and we jump on the bandwagon because a few of the people who are in control of a particular party or group, say we have to.

Well, Mr. Chairman, it is wrong. The tactics that this government is using in order to get Bill 48 through this House is wrong. We saw people here the other night freezing in their seats. In fact, the Member for Torngat Mountains, a fellow who is used to the cold, knows what it is to be out in the cold, is over there tonight and can hardly speak. He caught the 'flu here in this House last Monday night. There is only one person here who was not cold -

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. FITZGERALD: He cannot talk. Usually the Member for Torngat Mountains is the party animal, if there is something on the go he is there, he is out, and if he cannot find someone to dance with him, he will dance by himself - he is the life of the party. Last night he could not get a word out, he was hoarse, his nose was running, he was shivering, he had to go home; he could not enjoy himself at the Speaker's party - dying with the 'flu. We had people here wearing their mitts just to come here and sit and try to protect the people of this Province and stop this government from putting a piece of legislation through that would sound the death-knell for communities and for businesses in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Remember a few years ago - I have to go back to this, because it is something that got a lot of attention here in this House. We talked about the pharmacists, and I brought it up the other night: - they reduced the dispensing fee from $7.59 to $3.59; those figures may not be really accurate, but they are close. The big problem was then that the Wal-Marts and the Dominion stores were all getting into having their own pharmacist, and the big argument was put up whether they should be allowed to tender, or whether they should be allowed to dispense, or that Social Services would use their price and consider it as a base mark for a dispensing fee.

Now, we are going to take it one step further, and I know people out in my area and the Clarenville area who invested their own money and built their own pharmacies and have done - you know, they are surviving, they are not making a big amount of money, but they are employing people, they have a nice little business going.

This is another situation where, when those stores are open on Sunday, it will give them another day for the multi-nationals to pick at what they are doing, to take another few dollars from them. It will mean that they will have to lay off somebody else, probably go out of business. We are supporting the wrong people. But those are the people who are going to make the big political donations, who are going to write out the big cheque, whether it is going to be for the Premier's campaign to be the leader of this country or whether it will be to get his party out of the hole. I do not know how much the Liberal party owes now, but it is a heck of a lot of money. I think Mr. Price Club owner and Mr. Irving are quite capable of writing out a few nice cheques in order to look after the monies that are owed by this particular party. That is what is driving this. That is what it is all about. It is about the Price Club, it is about Zellers, it is about Wal-Mart, it is about Kent Building Supplies. That is what it is all about. That is what it will come down to. This is what people are scared of, and they have every right to be scared. They have every right, Mr. Chairman, to be scared of what is going to happen.

The reason, most business people tell you today, why their businesses are not doing what they did two years ago and four years ago - there are a lot of reasons, but one of the main reasons they will tell you is not because there is no money out in rural areas -it is that people have too much time on their hands. People are getting into their cars and they are going to the bigger areas, and it is a day out for them. You cannot blame them for that, and you cannot tell people where they are allowed to spend their money. It is a free country. You cannot control that, and I do not think we should try to control it. All we can do is try to compete, I suppose, and offer a service that would try to keep dollars in our local communities.

What is happening is people are going to the bigger centres and buying their groceries. It is a day out for them. While they are there, they see the doctor, they buy their groceries, they do their banking, and what have you.

Now, they see another day coming into play. They see a day coming into play now where most people - and it is not because - we are not against Sunday shopping because people may have to work on Sundays. That is not what it is all about. There are lots of people who work on Sundays. I have worked on Sundays myself, and was glad to be able to get up and go to work on a Sunday. In most cases I made more money on Sunday than I made on Monday. It is not about that at all. There is no shame -

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: There is no shame to work on Sundays.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: What it will do, Mr. Chairman, is take people out of those communities on another day where most people do have a lot of time. It will mean -

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: - more people are leaving the communities.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

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

I am delighted to get up again tonight and have a few more comments, and some new points I am going to add to this. After all the points I made throughout the day, there is always a new point to be brought up.

AN HON. MEMBER: My! You must have your (inaudible) for Christmas!

MR. SHELLEY: The truth is, I do have my dress for Christmas, I tell the member. I do have another dress for Christmas, as a matter of fact, yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: What colour do you have this year, red?

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Chairman, I wonder what it was like in their caucus meeting this morning when they went into the caucus room to find they did not have a table to sit at.

AN HON. MEMBER: What!

MR. SHELLEY: (Inaudible) ask the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile what happened to your table in your caucus room.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SHELLEY: That is why they probably did not have (inaudible) - too smashed. I do not know. You will have to ask the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile all about that, Mr. Chairman.

I wonder what the conversations around caucus and - I heard they had a Cabinet meeting, too, today. I am wondering what the conversations are around there when they start sitting down, quietly by themselves, not in the House of Assembly, and among themselves ask: What should we do about this?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SHELLEY: I am sure you do not know what happened in Cabinet. I do not think you have any worries about being at a Cabinet meeting. You have no fears about that. I do not think the Member for Topsail will have to stay up all night wondering if he is going to be in Cabinet tomorrow. I would say the best chance -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, sure it does. The point that everybody drives home here, Mr. Chairman, that seems like it is common for every single one of us to talk about, is where it comes from. That is the biggest question of all. That is the biggest question overriding - everybody out there that you talk to in the streets: Why is this? Is he doing it for the big store owners? When I heard that said - you know, that is not true either. It is not for the big store owners. Because I heard this morning on Open Line, and somebody in the news - I forget the name of the business, I would not say it anyway, but he does not want to open. It is a bigger business, he does not want to open. He said: We will have to open on Sunday if this passes and we do not want to.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: No, but that is where the Member for Topsail is wrong. If the Member for Topsail believes that, that is where he does not have a clue about business. That is where the Member for Topsail does not realize about business obviously, Mr. Chairman. He should talk to them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FITZGERALD: They will have to open. Do you mean to tell me, in Clarenville, where you have Save Easy, you have a Dominion Store and you have the Co-op, and if the Co-op decides they are going to open, that the other stores will not open?

MR. SHELLEY: That is why, I say to the Member for Topsail, that he does not understand business. This business said -

MR. WISEMAN: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Well, obviously, you must be out of it for a good reason, too, I say to the Member for Topsail. I can see why you are out of business if you thought like that.

This particular store, Mr. Chairman - I will not use the name - were disgusted because they will have to open, I say to the Member for Topsail. Because what happens is that competing businesses will be in business and they have to compete. Right now they compete six days a week and that is fine with them. They do not want to compete on Sunday. He did say, too, Mr. Chairman, as an employer of these people, that the prices will increase because of the simple reason that there is overhead, the electricity, employees on Sunday and so on. It has to increase. Somewhere along the way, the consumer will pay for it. That is what this particular person said who has a big business here in this Province.

They still ask the question, where it all started from and the root of it all. One of the answers that is given is the convenience of being able to go and shop on a Sunday. Now, how many people really, in this room of forty-eight people, say that shopping is so pressing for them that they need Sunday to go shopping? Then on the other side almost answers the question that they are asking, themselves, because they say, well, 60 per cent - and whatever that stat is, I do not remember, I heard it a few times - is it 62 per cent or 72 per cent of shops are open? Well, that is the answer to the question they are asking. There are enough open now, convenience stores and all those other stores that you do not need to open the bigger chains. The biggest point you are missing is the break that you are giving the small corner store. That is what we are missing every time.

The pros and cons, if you weighed them, Mr. Chairman, you cannot find a lot of pros for it. The only one I can find is that it is nice that I can go and shop on Sunday. To be honest with you, if you talk to anybody who is for this, they are not adamantly for it. All they say is that if it is open on Sunday maybe I will go and shop a little bit. If it does not open - I am going to tell you, if this bill was torn up today, you will not be getting any flack tomorrow from anybody saying, `Boy, you should have pushed through that Sunday shopping, that was desperate. We really wanted that badly.' Nobody ever says it, Mr. Chairman.

Now, here we are at Christmas - I was talking to the Member for Labrador West there a few minutes ago and a few of the other members, who are getting ready to go home for Christmas. The Member for Torngat, I am sure, is getting ready to go home for Christmas. And that is what a lot of us from outside of St. John's feel dearly about, Mr. Chairman.

MR. ANDERSEN: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: No, I did not see that. What was that? I did not get it.

MR. ANDERSEN: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Oh, is that right? You would have liked to have been there. Yes, and so you should be. I would not blame the Member for Torngat, we should be there.

MR. ANDERSEN: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: It is your House Leader who caused the problem.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, you are absolutely right, I say to the Member for Torngat. I should give a personal experience, too, Mr. Chairman, that I told my colleagues about today. On Tuesday night - and it was one of the toughest ones I have had here yet. I will tell the member this one, now that you brought it up, a personal case. On Tuesday night was my five-year-old little girl's kindergarten concert. She had two lines in it and she practiced for the last month or so. I helped her practice and I called home to let her know that I would be watching it on video. Her mom was going to tape it and so on. What she said to me was - a five-year-old - `It is not the same, you should be here.' That is what she said to me. And that was harder than anything I have done since I have been in this House, I say to the Member for Torngat, and I think he can understand and appreciate that. It is tough. And the rural members - I will put in a plug for the rural members here tonight.

I know a lot of the urban members who are here in St. John's, they will go home tonight. They can go to their homes tonight with their children and their families. The rural members cannot do that. Now, Mr. Chairman, especially at this time of year - is it next Thursday that is Christmas Eve?

AN HON. MEMBER: Next Wednesday is Christmas Eve.

MR. SHELLEY: Next Wednesday is Christmas Eve.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: No we should not be. My point is that we should not be here now either, Mr. Chairman. The House Leader should be bringing up the utility bill, the labour bill, all of those. If we were to co-operate like we did on Bill 41 today, where we showed our co-operation again - as a matter of fact, if you really go back through this session and be honest about it, we - when I say we, I mean both sides of the House have been very co-operative on a lot of the bills. As a matter of fact, one day myself and the House Leader - when our House Leader had been gone for the day, we worked through five bills in one day. Co-operating, we got them through. Right up to when this bill was called, I think there was a lot of progress being made in this place. We were getting bills through, four and five in a day, there was co-operation going on.

We showed it again today on Bill 41 when the Premier came in - but to see the mood change. The Member for Bonavista South is absolutely right - how the mood changed today when the Premier came in, the boss came in, and he said: Let's co-operate. I am sure we can talk to the Opposition House Leader and our House Leader and work out something. What did we do? We did it, Mr. Chairman. We did it through the co-operation of the House and the co-operation of this parliamentary system we have in place here.

What nobody likes, Mr. Chairman, is to be short-changed, and that is exactly what happened to us here, as we talked in our caucus. You remember, you are dealing with personalities, you are talking about groups, and as long as there was co-operation going on, we were willing to do whatever it took to pass certain parts of the legislation - even the other night, like the member said, sitting here at 3:00 and 4:00 in the morning.

MR. FITZGERALD: Ask the people over there.

MR. SHELLEY: No heat - everybody sick over here. He said: You should all go home. You are going to have to go home. If this goes on much longer, Mr. Chairman, we are all going to have to have 'flu shots because people are going to be getting sick here. I must say, it is much better tonight. The heat is on tonight. The heat is on. I could sing that.

MR. H. HODDER: Yes, the heat is on. The heat is on the government, too.

MR. MATTHEWS: If it is not hot enough here, go and stand under the lights.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, that is a good point. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation reminds us, Mr. Chairman, of the runway down here. I would not be surprised if one of these nights we are going to see one of those Air Nova jets land on the Parkway out there, because it looks like a runway down there. I have never seen so many lights. I do not know if this is right or not.

MR. TULK: It looks good.

MR. SHELLEY: It looks good. The only place, I say to the Government House Leader, I have seen more lights is on the house of the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. I drive by it every night. The only place with more lights on it is the minister's house. If you look down there when you come here, it is almost like a runway coming through.

MR. H. HODDER: (Inaudible) his cap.

MR. FITZGERALD: His cap - something like the one that `Bud' used to wear, the `Flemish Cap'!

MR. H. HODDER: `Bud' thought the Flemish Cap was something you could wear.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). He's got the 'flu.

MR. SHELLEY: The Member for Torngat Mountains is dying over there - dying, he is going to have to go home. He said pretty soon we are going to be expecting Snoopy and the Red Baron because they are going to be landing on the Parkway out there. I have never seen so many lights down the Parkway. I guess that is the excess money, Mr. Chairman, coming out of the - I think it is coming from the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, is it not? The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, I think, was out the other night with a ladder putting them up.

This particular bill, Mr. Chairman - we talk about all these changes we are going through and so on, and there is nobody who can sit around - when we sit around and have our discussions getting ready to come into the House, we say: Would it not it be nice now today if the Government House Leader had the gall and gumption to get up and just say we will come back in January, even. As the Member for St. John's West said today, we could come back in January if you want to come back for another week - give them a little time for a bit of consultation.

Maybe the minister could say the first couple of weeks in January: We are going to meet with some focus groups over January. He could say that. The government usually says: Give us some solutions. They are always complaining, so here is a solution, and it is not that tough. If there were a little bit of compromise in their bones, if the Government House Leader took a little lesson from his boss, the Premier, and put a little bit of compromise in his bones, he would say: Okay, I tell you what we will do. We will take on the rest of the bills, we will bring them before the House, we will have a great debate on some concerns we have on a little bit of the legislation, but for the most part, we checked most of the legislation besides this bill, and we do not have major problems. We have a few concerns with some it. We have our notes and our research done on all the legislation that he is willing to bring up.

I am sure we could sit here tonight and make a lot of progress on a lot of bills, with co-operation, but not as long as this bill is on the table. We are going to do - you have seen it - we are going to do whatever it takes for however long with any means we have, to oppose it. It is as simple as that. And we do get - some of the members on the other side say they are not getting calls. They probably are not, because what we are hearing is that people are calling us. We are getting the calls, the e-mails, the letters. I guess I cannot use the name on a letter we got today. I do not know if we can or not.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, the Paint Shop, you mean?

MR. SHELLEY: The Paint Shop? Oh, you did - the Paint Shop. The letter we had from the Paint Shop. How many stores? Forty stores across the Province on that, unanimous, Mr. Chairman, in opposing Sunday shopping.

A letter we received from the District of Lewisporte said: Our member did not contact us, nobody contacted us about this particular piece of legislation.

MR. H. HODDER: You cannot stand and object to that.

MR. SHELLEY: Not a bit. I am not reading from the letter, either.

The Member for Lewisporte, I guess, has seen the letter, he must have. I am sure he has, he is still the member. My gosh, the time has not gone already, phew! I got to my second note, Mr. Chairman, and I told you, they were all new points so far.

MR. CANNING: You are enjoying this almost as much as `Jack' is.

MR. SHELLEY: Almost - not that much, I say to the Member for Labrador West. I am enjoying it but I would not go that far, Mr. Chairman. There is a limit, I am not enjoying it that much. As one guy says: There is a difference between scratching yourself and tearing the skin off.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Chairman, the Member for Cape St. Francis really enjoys debate on this bill, he absolutely does; he loves it, he gets into it and, Mr. Chairman, I am telling you, he is adamant about it. As a matter of fact, he is one of those in caucus who keeps us going on this, saying he is going to do whatever it takes, and he has raised some good points.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: By the way, that saying goes a little bit deeper than that but I cannot say it in the House of Assembly. I will say it to the Government House Leader, I will not be able to say it here tonight, Mr. Chairman.

MR. H. HODDER: That saying is strictly unparliamentary.

MR. SHELLEY: The saying I just used goes a little deeper than that but I don't think it is parliamentary, so I won't use it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: What is it that Crosbie uses sometimes? ... asked the Speaker if he could throw him out of the House for something that he thinks, and, of course, the Speaker said no, but he said: I think you are - of course, he could not repeat that.

But, Mr. Chairman, there are continuous points behind this and although the points are obviously the same in a lot of respects, there is always somebody else coming with another view of it, and as I said today, we had letters from the Paint Shop, from the Chamber of Commerce, I think, in Lewisporte and so on; and the biggest complaint they have, by the way, all of these groups, is the lack of consultation; and that is why I am saying to all the members here that there is a simple solution to it: Take it off for now. Let us look at what we can do in the next few hours: take it off the Order Paper, bring over all the legislation you are talking about; we will discuss some of the concerns and some of the things we have. With utility bills and so on we have some concerns, but for the most part, you will see the bills pass that the government wants. Delay Bill 48 - come back in mid-January even or late January; meanwhile, at least have some consultation even as much as maybe to have some focus groups or some small business groups come in and give their opinions or maybe do a small trip across the Province. I mean, they did it with Rural Renewal and Fisheries and so on; just take a few weeks to say you went out, plus give people some more time to express their views. Because what they find now, Mr. Chairman - and believe me, there would have been a lot more protests except for the time of the year. People right now, are into the Christmas shopping, hustling and bustling and so on, and are not ready to pose anything.

If this were three weeks ago, you would have seen a lot more of it. They are too busy right now, but don't think for one minute that because they are too busy and are not out in the streets protesting this, that they like it. If you ask the average Joe on the street, and even the person who I said does not mind Sunday shopping - the only people I have found so far who said: Yes, I would probably shop on Sunday if it is open, I do not really care if it is open or not; that is the most support I have seen for this thing. Otherwise, there is nobody out beating the streets saying, if the government does not put through this, I can tell you we are going to be really upset with them if they do not put through Sunday shopping. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that the timing of this and where it has come from have raised a lot of concerns plus the suspicion of where it is all from.

Now, you have heard some things in the media yesterday about where it came from and why, but it is still not answering the question, Mr. Chairman. Because, we thought, or some people would say, that big business was driving this; but, at the same time, we heard some of the big businesses say: We do not want it either, and maybe, it is not only the big businesses, so the agenda, Mr. Chairman, has changed drastically in the last few days.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: That is where you have to let them go after the sea urchins and the squid and all that stuff. But, Mr. Chairman, this particular bill - the Government House Leader is trying to throw me off my important points here but he is not going to do it. He cannot do it.

I have too many important points to make, Mr. Chairman, on this.

We will stand and support - and as I said, a lot of rural members want to go home, but we will stay and hold tight to it, Mr. Chairman. We believe in it because of the people in this Province, how they have expressed their views over the past few days - because it has only been days that they really had a chance to dig into this and to realize what was going on. But, Mr. Chairman, I can tell you, even in my district, and I am sure mine is similar to others, the first thing people are saying to me is: What are you doing in there all night long debating Sunday shopping?

If you are in there all night long, at least talk about Voisey's Bay and talk about the mechanical harvesters and the TAGS Program, the things that are very important to us right now. Do not make this important. And it goes right back to the Member for Kilbride talking about this being a red herring; maybe he is totally right on that, too, Mr. Chairman - maybe that is what it is all about: while all the other things are in a shambles and they are just hopeful and optimistic about something for tomorrow, there is nothing for today. Something has to come in today, Mr. Chairman, not down the road.

We all look forward to Voisey's Bay being started, we look forward to the smelter being built in Argentia; we look forward to all those things but, they are all for tomorrow - people need to see something quickly, they need to see it today. That is why this bill should be ripped up, and as the Member for Cape St. Francis said: He would love to see the Government House Leader stand up in this House, take the bill and tear it up and say okay, let us get down to some real business; let us do some things in this place that are worth doing, that the people in this Province want to see done.

Another one I just mentioned to the Government House Leader today is that a good apprenticeship program is needed in this Province. That is something we should be discussing here today. The Government House Leader did hint to me that there was one being looked at, and I hope it is - a new apprenticeship program. I mean, that is something really, on which a lot of work should be done and soon, because it is one of the biggest incentives for getting young people back into training and so on, to know that they have that stepping stone. Because it is a disincentive to these people to know that they are being trained but cannot get into the workforce because workforce people are saying to them: You do not have this experience. Of course, they do not have the experience until they are hired! So what they need, is that link between training and getting into the workforce, that will encourage them to be trained - and by the way, hi-tech training. That is where it is going these days, Mr. Chairman, and those are the types of things you should be working on and trying to speed up.

A lot of things are happening, and rural renewal is what we need to work on. Those are the desperate things we should be working on to try -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. FITZGERALD: He made a lot of good sense, I tell you that.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I am rising today to continue the debate in Committee on Bill 48.

MR. E. BYRNE: Look, the new Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is all freshened up and changed, new suit, all set to go.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: All set to go, yes.

Bill 48, The Shops' Closing Act amendment considering Sunday shopping here in our Province, Mr. Chairman. For several days now, members on this side of the House have expressed their concerns and the representations on behalf of constituents and other people in the Province in expressing their objections to the proposed legislation, Bill 48, and, Mr. Chairman, I say it is a good thing there are members representing the public of the Province on this side of the House because it is clear that members on the opposite side are doing anything but that.

Mr. Chairman, we have had representations made both directly and indirectly by way of mail and telephone discussions and letters. And it is because it is so obvious to us that I find it so difficult to believe it is not obvious to members opposite, that this is a piece of legislation that clearly does not have the support of the majority of the people of this Province.

It is most unfortunate that government continues to reflect what is clearly just a minimal opinion, an opinion that does not have any support or any popularity; nevertheless, the government continues to press on, Mr. Chairman, government members continue to say to the majority of the people of this Province that the opinion of the people of the Province is not important. Mr. Chairman, that is a sad day because what we are debating here now is a little bit more than just Bill 48 and the Shops' Closing Act. We are now dealing with a bill on principle. We are dealing, Mr. Chairman, and I say to the Government House Leader, we are now debating principles. That is what we are dealing with.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: No, I say to the Government House Leader, we are debating right now what is right and what is wrong.

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: A good point.

We are debating, really, Mr. Chairman, what is both right and wrong. We are debating what the majority of the people in this Province are expressing loudly and clearly, versus simply not listening to what the people are saying loudly and clearly. And that is a sad reality, Mr. Chairman. I say to the Government House Leader, that is a sad reality.

We have yet to hear any representation, any comment from members opposite. This being at Committee stage, they are free as we are, as Opposition members, to stand up and give their opinion. They are free to debate. However, one has to question what liberties government members do have when they all sit so silently. They all sit, Mr. Chairman, with complete disregard for what the people are saying - complete disregard, I say to the Government House Leader. And it is a sad day, because we are debating principles of what is right and wrong.

We are debating, as it turns out to be, a bill, Bill 48. We are debating government's lack of accountability, lack of responsibility, government's unwillingness to even adhere to the slightest amount of public attention. What makes it perhaps even more troublesome, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that there is absolutely no consideration being given to even altering the legislation or proposing legislation which may indeed work. It may be in accordance with what most of the people want.

There have been many representations - in fact, I received a copy of a release today, which when you read it, Mr. Chairman, makes some sense because it talks about a licensing proposal, an alternative to Bill 48, an alternative to just the complete limitless situation that we will now be facing in this Province once this legislation becomes law, if in fact, Mr. Chairman, it reaches that particular point. This particular representation talks about establishing criteria. In other words, with clarification spelling out exactly what the definition of what is meant by the Shops' Closing Act. It also indicates for example that certain guidelines and certain restrictions ought to be well defined and these sorts of representations make some sense because it is not limitless, it is not without condition. It is a situation, Mr. Chairman, which establishes guidelines, establishes definitions and would be in response to what the majority of our people are looking for.

For example, this same piece of correspondence talks about a square footage allocation and that, Mr. Chairman, is very similar to what has been taking place in other provinces where stores of a certain size are free to open on a Sunday. Stores which meet certain criteria are free to open and others not, stores which will hire a certain number - for example, of one province any more than four employees will come outside the guidelines, outside the ambient of the Shops' Closing Act. Stores of a fewer number would be within the definition and therefore free to open on Sunday.

So, Mr. Chairman, these sorts of considerations are worthy of note. These sorts of considerations are worthy of at least some attention, and I would say, perhaps even minimal attention, because obviously, up to this point, there has been no attention given to any alternatives, to any other proposition that may in fact be a valid and legitimate one and may simply suit the needs of Newfoundland and Newfoundlanders. That is really what this is all about, I guess, Mr. Chairman. This is about what is acceptable, what is suitable, what is in accordance with the needs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Mr. Chairman, I have heard some hon. members opposite say: Well, they do it in Florida, it is done in Toronto, it is done in other large North American cities and I am sure in many European cities. That is fine, that is a different society and community. That is a community made up of different principles, different practices and different individuals. Mr. Chairman, what is wrong with us saying, in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, that we want to be, to use the term from out Quebec neighbours, a distinct society, we want to be a society which has our own definition, our own distinctiveness, our own way of doing things? By simply saying, in response to this legislation, that we have to do it because others do it, in my opinion simply doesn't cut it. That is simply not a legitimate reason which in any way comes close to justifying why we need Bill No. 48.

I think that difference, Mr. Chairman, is reflected in the way that the people of this Province have responded. We are a different people, we have different beliefs and we have a different way about us which very often says, in response to suggestions that come to us from the outside: Well, what may be good for one place is not necessarily good for us. Unfortunately, that acknowledgement that from time to time and in many different instances we are different, has simply gone unnoticed. That is indeed unfortunate because this is a government of the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. This is a government which ought to reflect the beliefs and the values of the people of this Province.

An individual said to me: What's all the fuss about? I spoke to him very briefly about what all the fuss was about and, Mr. Chairman, after we had an opportunity to discuss the issue he was quick to agree with me that we have strong reasons, sound reasons, to stand up on this point. The Opposition has a point to be made, and when it was expressed to this individual why we were contesting the legitimacy of Bill No. 48, the reasons why, that individual agreed with me. I might add, that was the only person I had any encounter with who expressed any doubt whatsoever as to why this legislation should not pass. That was the only person; but upon discussion and upon review of the various reasons, even that person was quick to change his mind.

Mr. Chairman, in this proposal, which I talked about earlier, which was represented to me, there were also some classifications of exemptions; for example, convenient stores, smaller drug marts and drug stores. Clearly there are stores which traditionally have always been open, ever since I can remember as a child. If you needed medicine or some article that was necessary for day to day usage, there were stores certainly available and one could go to the so-called corner store to pick up these items. Obviously, there must be exemptions, I say, Mr. Chairman, there must be exceptions to the rule, and that would not be different in any way to what we have in our Province today. There are many stores, I am sure literally hundreds and hundreds of stores, in our Province which, as a matter of course, are open every single Sunday; and it is accepted by the people of our Province that they be open on every single Sunday. It is a non-issue.

What is an issue is this carte blanche approach, this limitless approach, to opening stores on Sunday which, for some reason or other, has struck a tender cord, I would say to the members opposite, with the people of our Province. Because, for whatever reason, many individuals say, almost to the person, that this is something we do not want. This is a concept which is simply not flying with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

As part of the representation that was made to me, which I have alluded to throughout my few comments, Mr. Chairman, there is also the concept of a seasonal licence. There are a few examples that were given to me; for example, a garden shop and Christmas decoration stores. Again, that sort of approach would be something which would be, I am sure, accepted as being valid and as being quite understandable. I mean, if there were Christmas decoration stores which were open on Sundays from mid-November or the end of November up until Christmas, that is an issue which I'm sure would receive absolutely no objection from Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It is a specialty store, it has a place in our society, it meets needs which are out there when certain commodities are being sought at certain times of the year. I mean, that is a legitimate and valid point. Again, government has not seen fit to even consider that sort of proposal in this legislation.

Penalties and enforcement: I was giving some thought as to what is behind Bill No. 48. What is it? Was it big business? Possibly. Was it small business? Definitely not. Was it employees through their union representatives? Definitely not. Was it the ordinary Newfoundlander and Labradorian? Definitely not. What I'm suggesting, what this has to do with, Mr. Chairman, is the government's inability to enforce the present law, because the present law has gone challenged on many occasions; in some cases, successfully. In those cases where the Crown was successful, we see a situation nothing short of being ridiculous. A store, for example, like Canadian Tire being fined $25. I mean, the penalty provisions simply did not make the penal provisions that were found in the present act workable. It was an act without teeth.

So what the government appears to be doing, in response to a piece of legislation that really has no force and affect in terms of its penalty provisions and enforcement - what it does is say: Listen, we have to tidy this up. How do we tidy it up? We tidy it up, Mr. Chairman, by simply removing the very issue which was being challenged and debated in our provincial courts. The way to deal with it was not to tighten up the provisions, but to simply say: Let's make it open season for anybody to shop on any Sunday, any time.

What government has done is made this great leap. In an effort to remedy what was a defect in the act, the government has made a great leap, and in doing so it has offended the majority of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Alternatively, what government could have done was simply tighten up the present legislation. It could have made exemptions, it could have made clarification with respect to the existing act, and it could have made more stringent penalty provisions available. Then the courts and the judges would have legislation with teeth, that if the present law were being broken in any way, if the present law were being disregarded in any way, at least there was a legal alternative.

I would say to members opposite, that store owners would welcome that. Store owners in this Province would welcome legislation of significance. Store owners would welcome penalty provisions that were substantial. Because that would make it much clearer, I would say to members opposite, what the current Sunday shopping act is all about.

Unfortunately, the present act, being vague, being a piece of legislation without teeth, almost had a situation that was ludicrous very often, as I mentioned. I gave the example of a large department store being fined minimally; being fined less than a sixteen-year-old would be fined for shoplifting, for example. It was a ridiculous state of affairs. In response to it, government felt that the way to deal with this situation was to change the act completely, change it to the point where people could do as they wish in any retail outlet in this Province on any Sunday.

That is the only reason I can find, Mr. Chairman, having given this some thought, as to why this government has seen fit to come forward with Bill 48. That is the only reason I can find. It is, again, a sad reflection of what government's intention is, because it clearly had an option open to it. It could have accomplished many, many things had it acted differently. It could have, number one, not offended the majority of Newfoundlanders by simply not introducing Bill 48. It would have avoided this embarrassment, and this is, I would say, Mr. Chairman, an embarrassment to government. All we have to do is listen to the various media reports, listen to what our constituents are saying to each and every one of us.

All government had to do was amend the existing act, amend the existing act to the point of making certain, by way of definition, who could open and who could not open. That would be nothing new, because as I mentioned earlier, we have many examples where traditionally convenience stores, for example, are open regularly on Sundays. More importantly, it could have dealt with the penalty provision, the enforcement provision of the act. That would have saved government members opposite a lot of embarrassment. It would have saved government members opposite a lot of discomfort, because they would have been in a position to say: This is just an ordinary piece of legislation. We are amending it, we are tightening up the rules, we are clarifying many of the definitions, and we are going to put in place penal provisions that make sense, and simply have some teeth.

That would have been the easy way out, Mr. Chairman, but, no, the government did not opt for the easy way out. The government opted to introduce a piece of legislation which has offended the people of this Province. That is, in a nutshell, why we are here this evening at 8:45. From what I can gather, in discussing this with my colleagues on this side of the House, it may well be 8:45 tomorrow morning and we will still be here, and we will still be debating, perhaps not this bill, but other pieces of legislation, where we feel that the people of this Province need representation. The people of this Province, Mr. Chairman, need and want to be heard.

Clearly, we are in situations where we would like to be out in the mall now. We would like, as one of my colleagues said earlier, to be putting up a Christmas tree.

CHAIR (Oldford): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: We would like to be in a situation where we could do other things.

I say, in conclusion, we have a job to do and we are going to continue doing our job and, in the absence of government members' inability to represent their constituents, we have an obligation and will continue to do so.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

Mr. Chairman, we have seen the first move here tonight of what is going to happen in 1998. Well, there may be a little bit of digression; I hope that members will just give me a few moments before I get into Bill No. 48.

We saw earlier tonight, just before we broke for supper, the Premier of the Province in a very eloquent way describe the initiative and the actions of the Minister of Education. Mr. Chairman, he described in detail how this minister, with his logic in hand, tramped off to Ottawa and convinced the Senate how he marshalled the forces to ensure that education reform was put in place. Now two nights ago, in this Chamber, I made a prediction, and I see it here now, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Education sitting down there, he has a new suit, tie and shirt on and is ready for a new job in 1998. Guaranteed, Mr. Chairman, that is what is happening. I know it.

While the minister was up speaking, I was bantering across to the Premier saying: What job is it? Announce it, tell us, we can't wait; the anticipation is just to much. He said: Stay tuned for 1998; big things on the minister's horizon.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the members of the House for allowing me that small opportunity to make a few points with respect to the Minister of Education.

The act that we are debating tonight, the closure motion by government that was given notice of yesterday by the Government House Leader, is but another example of government's contempt for the opinions, desires and expressions that they themselves have received with respect to the Shops' Closing Act. There is no question in my mind, there is not even a doubt, as to what people outside of this Chamber and outside of this building are thinking about the Shops' Closing Act, from one end of the Province to the other. We have had written submissions faxed into us from some of the largest retailers in the Province, Sears and Canadian Tire Stores across the Province, who have expressed their dissatisfaction and their outright disgust with the fact that government is intent on pushing this through.

MR. SULLIVAN: There's one: Thirty paint shop outlets. That came in today.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, this was a letter send to the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. Loyola Sullivan:

`I am writing on behalf of our paint shop owner/operators to convey our opinions concerning the possible modification of the Shops' Closing Act.'

This letter refers to over thirty stores across the Province.

`At present there are thirty paint shop outlets operating within the Province, directly employing over 130 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.'

`Our employees and owner/operators are unanimously opposed to Sunday store openings within our sector of the retail industry. To allow Sunday openings will further disadvantage an already struggling small business sector. This part of our industry, which is vital to the economy of the Province, lacks the personnel to compete with large chains in the battle for extended operating hours.

`The ultimate loss, it goes on to say, Mr. Chairman, `would indeed be the small business owner/operator, either through the loss of market or we are forced to give up the one day that all freely enjoy with their families.

`It is also our belief, the letter continues on, `that the net economic impact of Sunday openings would be negative to our business.'

That is an important point to reiterate because it is a common theme, Mr. Chairman, that has come through from every business owner/operator. The theme is this: That the impact of Sunday openings would be negative to our business and zero to the government as we are obviously not generating new economic activity - Mr. Chairman, this is from individuals who operate business on a six-day week cycle - but merely spreading the existing consumer dollars over seven days.

MR. EFFORD: Santa just flew over Kilbride.

AN HON. MEMBER: His seal oil capsules hit him on the head.

MR. E. BYRNE: John, I can tell you one thing: While hon. members over here are in their apartments, or whatever arrangements they have, when this House closes my home is fifteen minutes away. So it is no problem to keep the House open from my point of view, none whatsoever. I can be home in ten minutes. We are on a shift system here, I can drop over. I was wrapping gifts last night and if you have a problem with it, I suggest to hon. members opposite, that they don't come to this side of the House to deal with it. There is one man who can handle all of this, the member right there, the Government House Leader. He can handle it all, John, so let's not get started on that.

MR. SULLIVAN: I think he botched it. I think he really botched it.

MR. E. BYRNE: They say, `but merely spreading the existing consumer dollars over seven days instead of six. Business operating costs rise while government tax revenues remain essentially unchanged, Mr. Chairman.

`We do agree that changes to the act are necessary. I think this is where we have to get to, that changes to the act are necessary so that a level playing field will be created for members of the retail sector who are presently disadvantaged by the content of the legislation.

`We feel these changes can be implemented without totally eliminating the Sunday opening restriction. I hope you will consider the position of our group as you make this very important decision along with our colleagues. If you would like to discuss this further, please phone my office, I will be pleased to do so.'

Mr. Chairman, this side of the House is not only considerate of what this individual has to say, representing 130 independent owner/store operators, but we support it, unreserved, without qualification. We agree also with the point raised in his letter, that there are indeed changes necessary to the act, but changes -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, sir, we are. You are wrong again as usual.

MR. EFFORD: Go out and talk to the people on the street.

MR. J. BYRNE: You are wrong again. Wrong! Wrong!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: I know. If only the Minister of Education was the present Minister of Environment and Labour, in the former post, I don't think we would be seeing this legislation. No, I can't say that. No, that's wrong. I digress for a moment because it is not that minister's bill. It is the Premier's bill, guaranteed. It is not the minister's. The heavy hand has been laid on this Legislature and this legislation, Mr. Chairman, and we have seen it. I am not going to get into it, but what I have witnessed here this week with respect to heavy handedness, I have never seen in the five years that I have been in here. It is the first time. Even in the most provocative, controversial debates over hydro which lasted for weeks in this Legislature, I did not see, not once, the Opposition being denied.

I saw closure motions upon closure motions, but in terms of Question Period the leader of the day was not denied questions when that bill was before the House. Do you know why? This book here, Mr. Chairman, referred to as Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, is a guide and nothing but a guide to the operations of this House. The Standing Orders of the House are what operate us. They are the rules and regulations essentially, but this is a guide, much like Coles notes that I used to get when we used to have Coles notes in school.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, but it is a lot like it. There is a lot left, Mr. Chairman, to the discretion of who sits in that Chair. I'm not going to question the Speaker. I'm not going to get into questioning the Speaker, but it is a guide.

All I'm saying is that in my time in the Assembly I have never seen what I witnessed yesterday. It is the first time I've seen it; such a narrow look at a rule when there were so many others that were left open to interpretation. I will move on from that, because that was yesterday, it is in the past, it is done.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: When was that? Last week or yesterday? That was yesterday. I hope I never see it again, but you never know. Timing, the environment, conditions, all could line up like the stars again and we may witness it like that or even worse again, I suppose.

Anyway, with respect to Bill 48, it is quite clear this legislation has been touched by the wand of the eighth floor. It is required, it must be done at all costs.

MR. TULK: There is some magic (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: And it isn't a magic wand either.

MR. E. BYRNE: There is magic. Whether it is white or black remains open for discussion.

When you look at one piece of legislation, Bill 48, while there are a number of bills left on the Order Paper that we have to go through, that government may want - I'm not going to be presumptuous because this is a wild sitting. I can't figure out what the Government House Leader has been up, can't figure out why he is up to it. So much legislation right here, and we are not proceeding to it. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I've been at a loss this week. Normally, at other times and under other conditions, I've been pretty close to saying what government would do and where we would be and what the agenda was, but I just can't figure this week out. Up until last Friday things were moving along smoothly. They were moving along, we were progressing, there was negotiation back and forth, we were making headway, and then, bang-o, Bill 48 was dropped on the Table and nothing else mattered. Not one other piece of legislation matters to this Legislature, not one.

Major amendments to the Labour Relations Act, we have only got to second reading on. The Public Utilities Act - no other piece of legislation that is before this Legislature. Until last week it all mattered, we were moving ahead on it, we were making progress.

Then Bill 48, for whatever the reason, is now government's priority this week. In the face of so much opposition outside this Chamber, in the face of employees who don't wish to see these changes made, in the face of business men and women who don't want to see these changes made - the type of business men and women we are talking about are small store owners, small independent operators such as in the letter from the 130 employees of the paint shops, to letters from Jack Fraser, to letters from Sears. Even the larger outlets do not wish to see this piece of legislation. It is one issue that I haven't seen in a long time -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: That is a small argument, and an argument that doesn't hold much weight.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Really? If the minister is convinced - go ahead. Hold on now, I want to ask you a question.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, I did. That doesn't make it right, though. Let me ask you this question. If they don't want to open, the minister says, they don't have to, but that isn't right. When administration at the Avalon Mall and the Village Mall have sent out letters -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Hold on now. I've allowed you to make your argument, let me offer this counter-argument to you. When administration offices at the malls have sent letters around to their stores which indicate that if Sunday shopping goes through, from January 4 then on all retail stores operating within the premises of those malls must be open seven days a week, that isn't choice, minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, it is.

MR. E. BYRNE: No, it isn't. How is that choice?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Minister, that is like saying: If you don't like the Province here, move. If you don't like the $800 we are giving you in social services, go to Alberta. That is what that is saying. That is not what government's role is.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: If only it were that simple. It is not that simple. That is the point, it is not that simple.

AN HON. MEMBER: Talk to the store owners; ask them.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: The red hearing is being offered by the government on this issue. Ask the store owners, the people who have actually signed the leases, the people who the money is coming out of their back pockets to pay for the leases; and the large sums of money. Ask them if they can negotiate their leases like that.

MR. TULK: Of course they can. (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: They have to fulfil the contract they signed.

MR. E. BYRNE: Minister, do you realize that some of these stores have entered into long-term three to five year leases, that there are significant penalties for breaking.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) without consent of the parties.

MR. E. BYRNE: Really.

MR. SULLIVAN: The parties involved.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Minister, in this House we regulate all sorts of things. We regulate the work week. If we are going to use the argument just put forward, are we going to let the work week throw open so that any employer can demand of any employee whatever hours they want without paying overtime, without providing safe working conditions, without providing a reasonable wage?

MR. TULK: That is where we should be.

MR. E. BYRNE: You believe that is where we should be. You don't believe that we should be regulating the work place as we do now?

MR. TULK: No, I am not saying that.

MR. E. BYRNE: I am lost.

Minister, I have never seen, with the exception of Hydro as I said yesterday, in the past five years, so much opposition, consolidated and of one opinion in society as it is on this issue. They are upset by the process that has been invoked here. They are upset that there is no public consultation. At the same time government has moved, with respect to other controversial issues, such as the RNC and guns, to legislative committee or they have moved in terms of taxing the sales of used cars, where they have accepted the rationale put forward by the public, put forward by the critic on this side, but yet on this issue we can't move forward at all.

Why can't we look at a pilot project, minister, for a period of a year? The big winners on this legislation will be Price Club - the minister knows it - the owners and operators of it, Kent, owned and operated by Irving and the Wal-Marts of the world. Those are the big winners with respect to this.

Mr. Chairman, we have better things to do as well. Members opposite are saying: When are we getting out of here? Let's get out of here tomorrow, etc., etc. We could have moved ahead on a lot of legislation had this not been put forward.

Members Opposite are getting the same calls that we are getting, no doubt about it; I know they are. I hope you are doing the job you are there for. I know that there are times when you can't get up and pound the desks here. That is unreasonable in terms of the system and the system that we work under. But behind the scenes you certainly can, you can lobby hard and say this has to go. There must be some influence that backbenchers have in government and I believe that influence is real and that it needs to be exercised appropriately. While it may not be appropriate at times to exercise it publicly in this Chamber, certainly outside of this Chamber, in government caucuses, with representations by your constituents to you, to the ministers, that is where it is appropriate and I hope that that is happening.

Mr. Chairman, with that, I know that we are into a closure motion in Committee of the Whole. My time is about to run out. How much do I have left?

MR. H. HODDER: You have two more minutes.

MR. E. BYRNE: I have two minutes left.

This is one example that we talked about in terms of people being contacted by their constituents. From the Lewisporte and area Chamber of Commerce, this is written to the minister: Dear sir, we have learned through the media - now this is right off the bat. "We have learned through the media." That is not what you would call a process of consultation with a chamber of commerce. However: We have learned through the media that you are introducing legislation in the House of Assembly for Sunday shopping. We have polled our members, and close to 100 per cent of the members of the Lewisporte and area Chamber of Commerce do not want Sunday shopping for the following reasons: it is a day of rest for customers and business people; our stores are now open six days a week; and with the way the economy is in Central Newfoundland the amount of money people have to spend will not increase. Although opening on Sundays will not be mandatory, we have - and here it is, minister - although it will not be mandatory, it goes on to say, that we will have no other choice but to follow suit at great expense to our bottom line.

That isn't the type of Liberal initiative that improves the economy, I say to the minister. The part-time employee is the fastest growing sector of our labour force. If we have to open seven days a week, this will create more part-time positions in place of full-time, and will weaken the economic base of the community. According to our observations, we have not been consulted by -

CHAIR (Penney): Order, please! Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Sorry?

CHAIR: The Chair has ruled before that it is not permissible to read letters. They can be quoted from or referred to.

MR. E. BYRNE: I believe my time is up. Is my time up, Sir?

CHAIR: Oh, sorry! The hon. member's time is up.

MR. E. BYRNE: I was just going to say, I would like to apologize to the Chair because he is correct. I didn't mean to fly in the face of the Chair, but it is just another example of how people are feeling about this important piece of legislation.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me say I'm very pleased with Your Honour's pronunciation of my district. I've noticed, but failed to compliment you, on your proper pronunciation of the historic District of Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi. It has only been historic as a district for not more than a year or so when the previous government changed around my district, called another district St. John's East, took sections out of my district, put other sections in and changed the name to Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi. The Chairman has correctly called it Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible)?

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: I will explain to the Government House Leader why it should be called Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi. There are many various pronunciations of the name Quidi Vidi. There are variations on the name. Some call it Quidi Vidi, some call it Quidi Vidi, some call it other things. When you are talking about the name -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please! Order, please!

The Chair is having quite some difficulty hearing the hon. member.

MR. HARRIS: When you are talking about the name of a place, Mr. Chairman, you have to show respect for the pronunciation that the people from that place give it. If we are talking about Newfoundland, we don't pronounce it the way they do in Arkansas. We don't say Newfoundland, we say Newfoundland. We don't go by the Toronto Globe and Mail's pronunciation of Newfoundland; we go by Newfoundlanders' pronunciation of Newfoundland. The same with Quidi Vidi. If you want to know how to pronounce Quidi Vidi, ask the people who live in the village of Quidi Vidi.

CHAIR: Order, please!

As much as the Chair appreciates the compliment from the hon. member for pronouncing his district correctly, I would remind him that he is debating a particular piece of legislation, and I would draw him to relevance.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, in representing the people of Quidi Vidi, who are my constituents, on this bill, that is how they pronounce it, that is how we pronounce it, that is how I pronounce it. That is it, that is the end of story.

Therefore, in speaking on behalf of the people of Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, the people of Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, like citizens and constituents all over the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, are wondering what the government is doing here and why we are sitting in this House -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please! Order, please! Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The people of Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi are wondering, like most citizens of the Province, most constituents, Mr. Chairman, why it is that the government is forcing everybody to sit here day and night, at 4:30 a.m., 12:30 a.m., we are probably going to be here until 6:00, 7:00 or 8:00 a.m. tomorrow morning just in time for breakfast before the House opens at 9:00 a.m., debating whether or not the stores should be open on Sunday. Why are we doing it? They want to know, Mr. Chairman. They want to know what is going on.

We have had messages sent to the government - now it is a good thing, Mr. Chairman, that many of the people are sending in to the Opposition too, because if they were only sent in to the government they would not be read out in this House, people would not know about it, Mr. Chairman.

The president of the City Consumers Co-op sent the minister a letter. Did he table it in the House, Mr. Chairman? No. It's a good thing, though, that he sent it to this hon. member and I was able to tell the House the contents of the letter and the concerns raised by the president of the City Consumers Co-op on behalf of their members, their staff, their Board of Directors and their customers, Mr. Chairman.

Their opinion is that the legislation is bad, Mr. Chairman, it is negative, it is backward, it is harmful to employees and it is harmful to the cooperative. It will increase the cost of sales, Mr. Chairman, a cost which they will have to pass on to the members of City Consumers Co-op. Now, they are saying that. These are ordinary people, Mr. Chairman, who have formed themselves into a City Consumers Co-op. They have thousands of members who shop in the stores that they own. They are a self management, Mr. Chairman. They are owned by their members here in the city of St. John's and they have a lot of information about the cost of doing business, the cost of operating the grocery store, the City Consumers Co-op, and the Gas Bar associated with that.

They are business people who are also ordinary people, Mr. Chairman, who elect a Board of Directors for the City Consumers Co-op. They manage that business and have managed it very well and very effectively for many, many years. They are telling the government, Mr. Chairman, that Sunday shopping will require them to open and require them to spread out their cost of sales over seven days, further increasing the cost of doing business, the cost of sales, increasing the cost -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: No, I say to the minister, I am not in a conflict of interest on this bill when I am talking about City Consumers Co-op. I am not a member of the City Consumers Co-op, perhaps I should be. I was a member of the Board of Directors of the Newfoundland and Labrador Credit Union though for a number of years, seven years. I was a vice-president of the Newfoundland and Labrador Credit Union, Mr. Chairman. I understand how cooperatives work. I was vice-president of the Newfoundland and Labrador Credit Union Council. So I do know a little bit about cooperatives and I do know a little bit about the cost of running and operating a business, but I am going to defer this case to the City Consumers Co-op president speaking on behalf of the board, telling the government, telling the minister, that the cost of sales are going to be increased as a result of this. They don't believe that anybody is going to benefit from this except the multi-national corporations.

They have recognized, Mr. Chairman, that no one is going to benefit from this except apparently the multi-national corporations, which apparently this government want to serve at the expense of local companies, local business and local employees, women in particular. Women in particular are going to be affected by this because most people working in the retail trade are women.

Someone posed a very interesting question: How many agreements with respect to custody and access are going to have to be renegotiated as a result of this bill? How many separation agreements, how many court orders providing for access on a Saturday or a Sunday, are going to have to be renegotiated because of this legislation, where a court has ordered access on a particular day, because the day is a day of rest, a non-working day, knowing that a particular spouse doesn't have to work on that day? Now all of a sudden -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, I know the Government House Leader would like everybody on this side of the House to go home. I want him to know that if it wasn't for the people on this side of the House there would be no democracy in this Province, because these guys would rule this Province the way they are trying to rule this House; bully people into submission.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, I think the people of this Province care what this government is doing here tonight. They are bullying people with this legislation, they are failing to consult people, they are ignoring the will of the people, they are ignoring the Board of Trade of St. John's, they are ignoring the Chamber of Commerce in Corner Brook, they are ignoring the 100 per cent vote, apparently, of the members of the Chamber of Commerce of Lewisporte; no consultation.

The previous speaker was reading from, illegally apparently, but at least he was informing the House of what the business people of Lewisporte believed. Because if the Member for Kilbride wasn't informing them of what the people of Lewisporte were thinking, there would be nobody else in this House informing them. Because members on that side aren't letting the House know what their constituents are telling them. They aren't letting us know. Mr. Chairman, nobody here representing the West Coast of the Province has come in and told this House that the people of Corner Brook don't want this bill. Nobody has told us that. Nobody has told -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, I know the Member for Port de Grave would like to engage in polite conversation across the House. He doesn't want to focus on the bill and focus on what this government is doing; trying to ignore the democratic will of the people and ram this bill through the House, using every trick in the book to try and rush this bill through the House without any consultation, without any questions being asked.

Yesterday, in order to get the attention of the press, because they only hang around for question period most of the time, we had to walk out the door, because the minister would not answer questions in this House. The Government House Leader stood and tried to prevent debate in question period on this important issue.

Mr. Chairman, I was here a couple of years ago when the hydro debate was on. While it was on, there were two pieces of legislation before the House dealing with the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and every single day that the House was open there was question after question after question asked of the government. They may not have gotten an answer, but the government got the answer eventually because they had to turn tail on it and change their minds in the dying hours of their government, because they knew that if they did not they were going to get turfed out by the people. They had to change their mind on the issue because they knew that the people of Newfoundland were against it.

Every single day, every single Question Period, there were questions asked.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Why is it that government can tolerate debate on the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, but the Sunday shopping Act gets brought in and what happens? Oh, no, we cannot have debate on that. We cannot have our minister being forced to answer questions in the House during Question Period on Sunday shopping - oh, no, we cannot allow that. We will have our Government House Leader bully the House into submission, forcing standing votes on everything, forcing the Opposition to challenge –

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, I would like it noted that the Member for Port de Grave wants to get physical on the back steps. I would like that to be noted on the record.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Maybe he has been taking too many of those seal oil capsules.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Perhaps the testosterone level is up a bit too high tonight. He might want to watch what capsules or pills he is taking. The testosterone level must be up through the roof. I would suggest the next time he is checking his blood, he check his testosterone level, too.

Mr. Chairman, what we have over there - they are bullying this House. They are afraid to answer questions, even on an issue like Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, which they knew they were going down on, they knew in their hearts they were going down on it, they did not change it. Did they get up and say: oh, no, we object to questions about Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro? There is a bill on the Order Paper on hydro, we cannot talk about that in the House. Read rule four, did they do that? Even when they were going down big time they did not do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much time does he have left, Mr. Chairman?

AN HON. MEMBER: Too much.

MR. HARRIS: Fifteen minutes left.

So, Mr. Chairman, even when they were going down big time, they did not come up with that tactic: Let us stifle Question Period - no no. But for some reason, Sunday shopping is a sore point over there. They cannot have debate about that, cannot have people ask questions and expect answers like: Who is promoting this bill? Who wants this bill? Why, all of a sudden, is there a big change from last June when the then minister, now the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods, said: Ah, we have seen the light. We were wrong and Mr. Baker was right - the one who then ran for nominations, I think for the - we were wrong and Mr. Baker was right.

Well, if Mr. Baker was right then, he is right now, because he still passes around the same briefs to all the members on both sides of the House as he was passing around then. If he was right then, he is right now. If the people of Newfoundland were right then, they are right now. So, why are we getting this bill?

For the first time, everybody seems to be united. The Federation of Independent Business, 90 per cent of their members; the Chamber of Commerce of Lewisporte, 100 per cent of their members; the Chamber of Commerce for the West Coast, all of their members; the St. John's Board of Trade, all of their members. They are all against it. Why is that, Mr. Chairman? Why is that? It is because they do not believe it is a good thing, Mr. Chairman, and this government, for some reason, wants to ram it through this House a week before Christmas, spoiling everybody's Christmas. Spoiling the businessmen's Christmas because they have to spend their time lobbying while they are trying to make hay while the sun shines; spoiling the employees' Christmas because they are working hard and they cannot lobby the government at the same time; spoiling the Christmas of the members of this House, making people stay up until 4:00 or 5:00 a.m. in the morning, 6:00, 7:00 or 8:00 tomorrow morning, all day tomorrow, all weekend and come back here next Monday and Tuesday. What for, Mr. Chairman? To ram a piece of unpopular legislation through the House as a Christmas present for somebody, Mr. Chairman, but the big question that we have not had answered yet is who is the Christmas present for? Who is the Christmas present for?

I think maybe the Member for CBS is probably going to speak now in a minute when I stop or in the next fifteen or twenty minutes when I finish. He might tell us what he told the people of Newfoundland on TV last night. He might tell us that again. That might be the Christmas present that we are talking about. Who is the Christmas present for? He is either trying to spoil - he is even trying to spoil the Christmas of the Member for Port de Grave, and look how crooked he is. He is as crooked as sin over there. His Christmas is spoiled by the Government House Leader. Mr. Chairman. He is as crooked as sin over there. He does not have a smile for Santa Claus.

So, Mr. Chairman, they are spoiling everybody's Christmas. I heard the Member for St. John's West say they are going to spoil the 24th of May, because people are going to have to come back to town on May 24 and work on Sunday. That is the concern.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: I am sorry to hear that, Mr. Chairman, I was just getting going.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, we want, on this side, to again rise and tell the government on the other side that they are on the wrong track. Now, my good friend from Conception Bay South put it well when he asked: Who is driving the bus? Well, Mr. Chairman, we want to know who is going to benefit from this particular piece of legislation? I will totally ignore you. You can do all the chitter-chat you want, it will not intimidate me one little bit, because I am going to say what I want to say anyway.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday the Member for Conception Bay South, in doing a scrum outside the House, said he wanted to know: Why are we doing this now? Of course, his point was that the businesses of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Chambers of Commerce said: We do not want this particular piece of legislation. The small businessmen of Newfoundland and Labrador said: We do not want this particular piece of legislation. The people who run businesses in rural Newfoundland, they do not want it.

So we are wondering why. Why is it that this government came in here just a few weeks ago and said we are going to bring in Sunday shopping? We are going to add fifty-two more days of shopping. Now, if you examine it right now in the St. John's area, we have six days of shopping from 10:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m., seventy-two hours. That is more than they have in Toronto. Now we are going to add on Sunday shopping, which conceivably could go from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. or from 12:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. whatever it is, we are going to have more shopping days in at the Price Club, at Wal-Mart, at Sobeys and Dominion, more shopping hours in a week than they have in Toronto.

So, we are asking the government: What's the agenda? Many people in Newfoundland and Labrador, tonight and in the last few days, have been asking us, why? They want to know fundamentally why is the government doing this now? Whose agenda is this? Is this the Premier's agenda?

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes.

MR. H. HODDER: Is this the agenda of the Liberal party?

MR. J. BYRNE: No.

MR. H. HODDER: Is this the agenda that facilitates fund-raising?

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes.

MR. H. HODDER: Is this the agenda that is going to be able to launch the Premier into the national limelight?

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes.

MR. H. HODDER: Is this going to get him into the offices when he goes to Toronto and says, I would like to talk to you, remember me, I am Brian Tobin, I am the Premier of Newfoundland. Remember when Wal-Mart or the Price Club wanted to have Sunday shopping, I am the person who gave you that, so would you open your doors, let me in, I will tell you what a great guy I am and I am here because in Newfoundland and Labrador it costs money to run political parties.

Mr. Chairman, what I am saying is that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are asking: Who is driving the bus and whose bus is it? That is what the Member for Conception Bay South was asking yesterday in a scrum outside the House.

Mr. Chairman, just to illustrate, I have a letter here from Paul Burt. He is a very good friend of mine. His father was the founder of the Paint Shop Limited. He writes on behalf of the thirty paint Shop outlets in Newfoundland and Labrador. One of those Paint Shop managers, who runs a small paint shop, said yesterday, `You know, if I have to operate on Sunday, I will not do that. I will not open my store on Sundays.' But he said, `Now I am going to be in this difficult situation. Right across the way there is this big chain and he said this big chain could be open on Sunday. `Now,' he said, `What do I do? Do I close up my business? Do I run the risk of losing my customers or do I go and do something that I just do not want to do, and that is,' he said, `I do not want to open up on Sundays.'

Now, Mr. Chairman, Paint Shop employees number over 130 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and these employees and the employers are saying unanimously that they are opposed to Sunday shopping. They say it would further disadvantage an already struggling small business sector.

The Paint Shop businesses are individually owned, and they are telling us - these thirty small business stores in Newfoundland and Labrador are all saying that this legislation is not good for them.

What they are saying is that this Act is unnecessary; it is going to further encumber their business. What they are saying is that their bottom line is not going to be affected in terms of gross revenue. They are going to have the same gross revenue in 1998 as they would have had in 1997, the only thing is, their expenses are going to go up and, of course, what is happening here is we are going to facilitate the big national chains in being able to under-sell the small businesses in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are going to do one of two things, either drive the small businesses out of business or we will have the prices going up.

That is the message that came from the Paint Shop which, again, has thirty stores in all parts of Newfoundland and Labrador, on the West Coast, the East Coast and there are four or five of them right in the St. John's, Mount Pearl, Conception Bay South area, and they employ 130 people.

Then we have the response come in from the Lewisporte and area Chamber of Commerce signed by Cluney Sheppard, President. This memorandum was sent to the minister, it was dated December 15. In this particular case, he said, `We are 100 per cent opposed to the legislation that is now before the House.' In other words, they represent all of the small businesses out there and they are saying, `We are 100 per cent opposed to it.' They argue that Sunday is a day of rest for their customers and employees, it is time that they can spend with their families, it is also, for some of them, a day of worship, and that is part of their lifestyle.

Mr. Chairman, they say their stores are open six days a week, and the way the economy in Central Newfoundland is going at the moment, they say six days a week is enough time to spend the money that is available to them. They say that Sunday will not increase their sales - their total sales will stay the same. All they are going to do is spread it from six days over seven days. They also say that the expense of operating on Sunday will far outweigh the benefits. Although they recognize it is not mandatory to be open on Sunday, they are saying that as independent business people, not part of a big chain, they will have no choice but to respond to the marketplace; to keep their business, keep their clients, they are going to have to open on Sunday, to keep their share of the business that they enjoy.

They also say the part-time employee is the fastest growing sector of the labour force. They are saying part-time employees will be disadvantaged. They say that instead of creating more full-time employment, all it will do is create more part-time employment. That will weaken, they say, the economic base of their community. They also recognize that part-time positions pay less than full-time positions; so therefore, they are saying that every time you hire on a part-time employee, you are not contributing as much to the economy as if you hired on a full-time employee.

So they say, according to the observations of local media - and, of course, we know the people in Lewisporte are listening to what is going on. The Member for Port de Grave says, all you are going to get in his district is tuned in, and that is wonderful, but they will note that he has not spoken in the debate yet. He has not gotten up and said why he is supporting Sunday shopping. Therefore, they are listening very attentively to the arguments against it. In fact, we have had nobody on the government side get up and say a word in this closure debate other than to announce the closure motion.

Therefore, the people in Port de Grave are wondering where their member is. The people out in Humber East are calling in and asking: `What is my member saying about that?' We are saying: `He is saying nothing, because he is not allowed.' At least the Member for Port de Grave is a minister. He has the opportunity, and the responsibility, to stand in his place and let the people know why this particular bill is necessary.

In fact, what they say here is that their members on that side of the House campaigned on a platform that they would consult the people, and they said they would make decisions which would be good for ordinary people. They would be a listening government. Of course, they are not a listening government, they have no ears. They are totally oblivious to what the people are saying.

The Member for Port de Grave can sit in his seat - he is not in his seat right now, usually is not in his seat. But the Member for Port de Grave has the opportunity of being able to stand up and tell his people in his district. Because these microphones are all live, and the Member for Port de Grave just said that everybody in his district is tuned in tonight. This would be a chance for them to know where he stands. Because right now he has not said a word. He is not allowed to say a word. We would like for him to participate in the debate but, of course, he is not doing that.

They say here to the minister as well: We have not been consulted by our MHA. Those are the people in Lewisporte. They say: We have not been consulted by our MHA or consulted by the minister's department, or by any arm of government. When they say any arm of government, it means that none of the ministers have gone out to their district and have had any meetings, any consultation. This is purely an opportunity to ram a government policy right down the throats of the people - no consultation.

In spite of what the Premier had said when he wanted to get around this Province and wanted to - when he said: I am going to be a consultation-type premier. I am going to involve you in decision-making. In fact, right after he got elected, he sent the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board all around the Province. He said: Tell me what you think about ways in which we can save money in this Province. Now, of course, we know that the tide has changed, the mood has changed. Now it is bunker down, hide from the people.

Of course, the whole idea here tonight is that the government is saying: We are going to ram this through. This is the closure motion we are having here now. Of course, we know that on second reading there was also a closure motion on the previous question. Here we are going to do a closure motion and -

MR. EFFORD: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR (Mr. Oldford): Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, on a point of order.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, I have been sitting here for the last hour listening and trying to understand the point that the hon. member opposite is making. If I understand correctly - and I want to be corrected on this. I am satisfied to sit down in my chair and be corrected. It is simply this. Should the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, should the people of Canada, in a democracy, have the freedom of choice to do as they wish? What is wrong with the rights of Canadians, the rights of Newfoundlanders, the rights of Labradorians, to have the freedom of choice to do as they so wish? Would the hon. member explain that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: To the point of order, Mr. -

CHAIR: I have already ruled there is no point of order.

MR. H. HODDER: You have already ruled on the point of order? Just as well if you did, Mr. Chairman, because we all knew that the minister is way out of order anyway. He has not improved very much with those seal capsules. He is way out of order. Because you see, I would say to the Member for Port de Grave, in the last election the Premier circulated this to everybody in this Province - he said: "A key element of our platform is partnership. We are committed to an open, on-going process of dialogue and discussion in decision-making." Your government made a commitment of consultation, and you have abrogated, totally disregarded, you just put that right under the carpet altogether. You have forgotten it. You got elected on the basis of consultation in decision-making, and you are not doing it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I have not recognized the minister yet.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, this House of Assembly belongs to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are only here at a privilege and at the pleasure of the people of this Province. We are here to represent and make decisions of the people of this Province. Are we now saying in this House this evening that the people of this Province should be so micro-managed, so regulated, that they cannot open their store or do as they wish without the control of a government of the day? I ask the hon. member: Should we have the freedom of choice to do as we wish according to the laws of this land?

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, the answer to the question is very simple. One hundred per cent of the employees at Riff's say they would like to be consulted on this matter. I mentioned it just now. One hundred per cent of the people represented by the Lewisporte and area Chamber of Commerce say: We would like to be consulted on that matter. We have here the Gander and area Chamber of Commerce saying: One hundred per cent of our membership would like to be consulted on this matter. We have petitions from all the employees and the management people at Canadian Tire in St. John's saying: We would like to be consulted on that matter.

When you look at the mandate in the Red Book, when in the Red Book you have the commitment, now the people are saying -

MR. EFFORD: A point of order.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: - if you were talking the talk, now it is time to walk the walk.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, on a point of order.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, we live in a democracy. We live in a community where people should have the choice to do what they want. We are not talking about the few large businesses which they are representing. We are talking about the population of Newfoundland and Labrador who, if they so wish, should, without breaking any laws or infringing on any rights of anybody in this Province, be able to do what they want to do. The only people objecting to this are those whom the hon. members opposite, the Tory Party, always represented in their lifetime, the large businesses. The Tory population, that is what it was!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I ruled on a couple of other points of order, and it says in Beauchesne that if a point of order consists of asking a question when a member is speaking, it is mere interruption. I rule there is no point of order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, the member asked about - he said we live in a democracy, but I will tell you, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are going to be surprised to learn about that. They are going to be surprised to learn that you people represent what a democracy is, because when you talk about democracy it means government by the people, except, of course, in the original Greek where demos means mobbed. Therefore, what we have now is government by the mob - that is what Aristotle would have said. It does not mean people in Greek, it means mob. So what we have now is the mob rule in the original Greek.

So, Mr. Chairman, what I am saying to the member over here is that if you believe in democracy you believe in consultation, you believe in representation. That is why we put forward the hoist motion. We said, Why will you not put it to a legislation review committee? Why will you not put it out so people can consult? What people are saying here is: We want time. You are rushing it through. Why the rush? Who was pushing to have this delivered by January 1? Why can we not have it delivered in the Spring? Why not consultation? Why not participation? The fundamental principles of liberalism is that you believe in people power. You believe in participatory democracy. That is what liberalism is all about. Your own party over here on this issue, you have totally abandoned your principles of liberalism. Read what Trudeau talks about when he talks about liberalism. Read what Joey Smallwood talks about when he talks about liberalism. Read what William Carson talked about when he talked about liberalism. You people have abandoned every principle of liberalism, and therefore, you have abandoned democracy. You have abandoned your mandate, you have abandoned your history, you have abandoned your tradition and, of course, you have abandoned all of democracy.

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, the responsibility of every hon. member in this House of Assembly, regardless of the party you represent, regardless of the side of the House of Assembly you sit on, is to get up and talk and have the right to present your case against a particular piece of legislation or whatever. You have that right, but you also have the responsibility, Mr. Chairman, to give out accurate information. When you stand in your place in this House of Assembly and you talk about a government of the day presenting a mob rule, it is not the accurate, absolute information and it is not the absolute belief of this Province. Because, if that were so, Mr. Chairman, and my point of order is this - the misleading information that he is putting forth, if that were so, I would ask the hon. member to explain how 56 per cent of the people of this Province, in the most recent poll, voted and chose this government and 65 per cent of the people of this Province chose the Premier of this Province to lead. How then can you be giving correct, accurate information on what the people of this Province are voting for and those they choose to have representing them? not the hon. members opposite who sit with nine people in the seats and one lonely child there.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I already ruled that your point of order was just a mere interruption. The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: I was going to speak to the point of order.

CHAIR: I already ruled there is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a very interesting letter here. I will make some general reference to it. I will not go so far as to say I will read it or anything of that nature, but I will make reference to it. This is a very interesting one, especially the last paragraph.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you write to Santa Claus again?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I send the same letter every year.

`We have learned through the media that you are introducing legislation in the House of Assembly' - I am trying to give a little summary here now, a synopsis, I would not dare read it - `for Sunday shopping. We have polled our members and close to 100 per cent do not want Sunday shopping for the following reasons:' -

MR. EFFORD: Who?

MR. SULLIVAN: - this is written to the Minister of Environment and Labour - I will get to it in a second. The last paragraph is interesting, so bear with me, you will enjoy it: `(1) Sunday is a day of rest for customers and business people to spend time with the families and a day of worship. (2) Our stores are now open six days a week, and the way the economy is in Central Newfoundland, the amount of money people have to spend will not increase. Sunday shopping will not increase sales levels, just spread it over seven days instead of six. If we are to open our stores seven days a week, the expenses will outweigh the benefits. (3) Although opening on Sundays will not be mandatory, we would still have no other choice as independent business people than to do so. If the multi-national chains open and we start losing our customer base, we will have to follow suit at a great expense to our bottom line. (4) The part-time employee is the fastest growing sector of the labour force. If we have to open seven days a week, this will create more part-time positions in place of full-time and will weaken the economic base of the community. We all know the majority of part-time' - I will tell you in a second - `We all know the majority of part-time positions in the retail sector pay less then full-time positions' and the interesting part - last paragraph now - `According to our observations in the local media, the majority of customers and business people are not in favour of opening on Sundays. You and your government campaigned on a platform that you would consult with the people before decisions of this magnitude were made.'

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I respect the people who wrote it and I will tell you in a second. `We have not been consulted by our MHA, your department or by any arm of government.'

MR. EFFORD: Who signed it?

MR. SULLIVAN: I will tell you now, I am getting to it - the signature is at the end, not at the beginning. `You and your government were elected by the people, for the people and in this case, if the legislation goes through, you will be hurting the small independent business person. It has been said that the independent business person is the engine that creates jobs and drives the economy of Newfoundland. Please put this decision on hold until our weak economy grows stronger. Thank you for your co-operation and a response by return fax would be appreciated.' It is sent to the hon. Oliver Langdon, Minister of Environment and Labour, signed by Cluney Sheppard, President, Lewisporte and area Chamber of Commerce.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read it out.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is not allowed to read letters.

MR. SULLIVAN: I did not. Who said I read it? How do you know I read that letter? How can you prove that I read that letter? I made reference to the letter - no, indication whatsoever.

MR. EFFORD: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, on a point of order.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, I know the hon. member opposite is in a desperate situation, I know the position he is in in the polls and his party and everything, but to ask the hon. members a question, how do we know you read that letter? We all got the same letter.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I say to the member, I am 2 per cent higher in the polls than I was a year ago, go back and look, if that is any consolation to you. I am on the way up. At that rate, in another ten years I will be there.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Go back and look at the poll last May when you were behind.

The next one, I will make reference to an interesting one here. This one is written by the President of the Gander and area Chamber of Commerce, represented by the Minister of Tourism, Recreating and Culture, the last one represented by the Member for Lewisporte, and the last one, just to let you know, it said - I am sure the member got that - `You and your government campaigned on a platform that you would consult with the people before decisions of this magnitude were made. We have not been consulted by our MHA, by your department, or by any arm of government.'

That is what the letter said. Now, I am not disputing that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: What?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I do not know.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Are you allowed to ask questions? Is this Question Period, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman says it is not Question Period. In Question Period tomorrow -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Progressive means moving forward with the wishes of the majority of the people in the Province. It does not mean rolling people over as you go down the track, like that big train you talked about.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you a free-market thinker?

MR. SULLIVAN: I am a free-market thinker, if you want to call it that. Are you?

MR. EFFORD: You cannot be. If you say you are now, you are not being very honest.

MR. SULLIVAN: No?

MR. EFFORD: If you are (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: He is telling me I am dishonest, Mr. Chairman. Is that parliamentary? Would you ask him to withdraw it?

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: A point of order.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, on a point of order.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member just raised a point. If the word I used was unparliamentary, then the Chairman will rule on that. But if the hon. member opposite is, as all hon. members in this House of Assembly should be, honest and direct and frank with the people of this Province, and he is or she is or they are free-enterprise thinkers, then how can we say to the people, the consumers, or the business people of this Province, that government must tell you when to shop, when not to shop, when to open, when to close? Is it not time to move away from that position and let people do, in the normal business trade, as they wished to do, on a daily basis? If you are not a free-enterpriser, say so; if you are, be honest with the people and tell them so.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition mentioned that the minister had uttered an unparliamentary word.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, he implied I was dishonest, he imputed motives. I think it is citation 419. I will let him away with it, I do not need to make a deal of it.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, if I inadvertently used a word that was unparliamentary, I will withdraw it.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister there does not practice what he preaches. This government controls government liquor sales. They are closed on Sundays. Are you saying they all should open on Sundays now? Liquor stores? Every store should open?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: No, Newfoundland Liquor Commission stores should open on Sunday, is that what you are saying? Are you saying, the Newfoundland Liquor Commission stores on Kenmount Road and Topsail Road should open on Sunday? Is that what you are saying? I say, put your money where your mouth is. If it is the ultimate, you cannot be selective.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I would like for you to put your two-and-a-half (inaudible) for what?

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I am saying he is talking out of both sides of his mouth. I am saying, do not even open the ones that are closed now. What do you think we were doing here for the last week? When are you going to get the message?

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible) cucumber (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. A shame, eh? I do not like cucumbers. They are good for you but I still do not like them.

MR. FUREY: Do you (inaudible)?

MR. SULLIVAN: Could be.

MR. FUREY: Should we close gas stations on Sundays?

MR. SULLIVAN: Do you open them on Sunday? I think you should close them when you are finished working.

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I did not say that.

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, so shut down everything.

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: So you are saying, open up everything. Open up Newfoundland Liquor store on Kenmount Road and Topsail Road on Sundays? Is that what you are saying?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: They are not open in Ontario. No, every single legislation has exceptions. There are lots of exceptions on legislation. I am saying you should sit down, and get up and speak on this if you want to.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Read Hansard, will you. Reuben, read Hansard will you?

MR. EFFORD: Shop (inaudible) on Sunday.

AN HON. MEMBER: Get up and speak if you want to speak on closure motion. Have the guts to get up and speak on the motion instead of taking someone else's time. Sit down and do what you are told!

MR. EFFORD: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. SULLIVAN: Fourth or fifth point of order, how silly!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, on a point of order.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This is getting close to the end of the year. We have a responsibility to the people of this Province; they are not playing games here. There are no hon. members on either side of the House playing games. Now, we have to get the clear direction from the members opposite -

AN HON. MEMBER: The Leader opposite.

MR. EFFORD: The Leader opposite who wants to debate and wants to get up and speak against this particular bill, Bill 48 - is the hon. member saying that every retail business in this Province should be closed down on Sunday? Should there be 25 per cent open, should there be 35 per cent, should they be all open? Say it clearly; no gas stations, no restaurants, no taverns, no beer sales, no pharmacies, no retail. You cannot have it both ways. Clarify your position.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: I am really surprised, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture would say open up the liquor stores on Kenmount Road and Topsail Road on Sundays; in other words, I am surprised that he would go on record as saying that here in this House. I am very surprised minister, that you would say that. He said: open them all up on Sundays.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, on a point of order.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is abusing his privilege of this House of Assembly. I did not say that every liquor store or every business should be opened. I am asking the member to state his position.

Every club in Newfoundland is open, every beer retailer is open. Should they be open or should they be closed? You answer the question.

MR. J. BYRNE: They should be closed.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I have already ruled that if the minister is asking a question of the member, then it is mere interruption, not a point of order, and this is again not a point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. J. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: A new point of order?

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis, on a point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: I have been sitting in this House now since four o'clock this evening and the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is trying to take this House on his back, he has been up five times on points of order which were not points of order, Mr. Chairman, and I want you to rule that man, out of order and sit him down and keep him quiet; and if he wants to speak to this bill, let him get up in his due place and speak to this bill and tell the people of this Province that he is in favour of this legislation, if not, shut him up!

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am very surprised that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture stated here in this House that we should be selective in what we allow to open on Sundays. He said: Do not -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please! Order!

MR. SULLIVAN: No, he asked: Do you want Kenmount Road and Topsail Road liquor stores opened on Sundays, yes or no? Do you? Do you want them opened? I ask him, does he want them opened?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Indeed he does not.

CHAIR: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is what he thinks - I got him!

MR. EFFORD: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, on a point of order.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, the people of this Province are watching what is going on in this House of Assembly. We have a responsibility here to the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, not only the business people, but all of the people of this Province, and the information, discussion and debate that comes out of the Province matters to every individual in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The hon. member is making a point and talking about what are the rights of the people in this Province.

Mr. Chairman, the point of order: what are the rights of the people of this Province? Should there be a retail -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: Should there be a retail outlet in this Province? Should we have a tavern open? Should we have a Bay store open? Should we have a pharmacy open? Should we have a retail store, a gas bar, a convenience store - and the hon. member is not answering the point. What is your position? All or nothing? You cannot have it both ways, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

Once again, there is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right, for the fifth time he is out of order. You should go and see a doctor, I tell you and check out that `out of orderness'.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: What?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: My blood pressure is pretty good, I tell you; do not worry about mine. I am not sure about Reuben's, I can tell you, I am not sure about Reuben's blood pressure.

AN HON. MEMBER: Reuben has his seal oil.

MR. SULLIVAN: Reuben has seal oil - that will not do; when you have three fatty acids they are not going to solve all the problems, I can tell you. There are some problems that Omega-3 fatty acids just do not solve, I can tell you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I do not know about that, I am not sure at all. I cannot see the logic of saying, we should give people the choice, leave open pharmacies, beer stores and now we are saying close is he - or leave open liquor stores on Topsail Road and Kenmount Road? How can you pretend to be selective in the choice that you are going to give? The minister does not make sense.

MR. EFFORD: You're stunned!

MR. SULLIVAN: The Minister of Health called me that three weeks before he got fired there last Spring. That is right, three weeks, so he will not - what? Three weeks before that he said I was `stunned' and the Premier said: Minister, you are stunned, I am going to fire you; we have to get a new minister in.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, (inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Oh, now, now, now!

MR. SULLIVAN: Six interruptions; name the member, Mr. Chairman, he is interrupting here.

MR. EFFORD: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, on a point of order.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, I have a right, as a member of this House of Assembly, to stand to this speaker any time I wish and, Mr. Chairman -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: Protect me, protect me.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, the misinformation, the misrepresentation of the people of this Province, the right - is the hon. member saying that we should be selective -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: - that we should be saying to you, you cannot open. You cannot have it both ways. It can either be a retail choice of the people or, no choice of the people. What is it, Mr. Chairman, a selective or not?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

For the sixth time, it is not a point of order.

MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Kilbride, on a point of order.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is exactly right that he has a right to stand in this House, but in this House, you have to it within the confines of the rules. It does not belong to John Efford, it belongs to each and every one of us. If you want to stand up and participate in this debate, do so according to the rules as outlined in the Standing Orders, Minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. TULK: To that point of order.

There is a point of order contained within -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I rule it is not a point of order.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman?

CHAIR: I ruled it wasn't a point of order.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, another point of order then.

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

MR. TULK: The hon. gentleman just did something that he is not supposed to do. Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman has been taught quite a few lessons -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. TULK: The hon. gentleman from Kilbride has been taught quite a few lessons in this House. Some of them he has learned very well, and some of them -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

CHAIR: Order, please! Order, please!

MR. TULK: I feel for Harvey. I will tell you one thing, Harvey, he isn't hiding. Harvey, he isn't hiding.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, to my point of order.

CHAIR: Get to your point of order, please.

MR. TULK: The hon. gentleman has used a member's name, and the hon. gentleman should know that he should refer to members of this House by their district, not their name. It isn't permissible for the hon. gentleman to look down and say John Efford. I would ask the Chairman to correct him.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Certainly, to the Government House Leader's point of order, I apologize. I shouldn't have referred to him as John Efford, but the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. At least the Government House Leader has stood and admitted one thing tonight, that unlike his colleagues over there on this particular issue, he has admitted at least this member has learned something at some time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: The hon. Leader of the Opposition, your time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh! Their time is soon going to be up, I say, Mr. Chairman.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Chairman, I notice the only person in the House who didn't applaud was the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to paraphrase a fax I received today. It was an open letter to all Liberal MHAs - you received this, didn't you? - and it basically asks: Is there any one of all of you Liberal MHAs with enough guts to oppose Bill 48? It says: Surely all of you can't be in aggregate with this bill. Speak up, and tell who wants this bill to be passed. I've yet to speak to anyone who agrees with Sunday shopping; relatives, friends, strangers. Please, please, the writer says, put an end to this bill which seems to raise its ugly head every now and again.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is reading that, Mr. Chairman.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I'm paraphrasing.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, you aren't.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I'm paraphrasing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. T. OSBORNE: To paraphrase this letter: None of the Liberal MHAs have any guts, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, we have heard from people at Canadian Tire, we have heard from the Lewisporte Chamber of Commerce who are against Sunday shopping. We have heard from the Gander and area Chamber of Commerce, and they are against Sunday shopping. We have heard from the Baccalieu Trail Chamber of Commerce, and they are against Sunday shopping.

Mr. Chairman, the only people, I think, in this Province who are in favour of Sunday shopping are Wal-Mart, Sears, Price Club and the Liberals.

We have received a letter from Honda One. The owners of Honda One here in the metro area of St. John's have said, that if Sunday shopping is passed they will perhaps have to lay-off their full- time employees and hire part-time employees so that they don't have to incur the expenses of medical and dental and so on. Is this what we want to have happen in our Province, because it is going to if Sunday shopping is allowed?

We have heard from City Consumers Co-op who have said they are against Sunday shopping, Mr. Chairman. We have heard from Sam The Record Man; they are against Sunday shopping. Why is it that everybody is speaking out against Sunday shopping and the only people that we have heard yet say that they are in favour of it is some lunatic from the Yukon and the Liberals.

We have heard from Riff's department stores -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, on another point of order.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, I understand the seriousness of debate in this hon. House and I understand the excitement and the enthusiasm, and sometimes we get carried away, but this country of Canada - and I have said it many, many times - is the greatest country to live in. The people in this country, from one coast to the other, have respect for each other, and we have community living. For the hon. member to stand in this House of Assembly and refer to a lunatic from the Yukon is shameful. I say that, Mr. Chairman, in all seriousness.

I suspect the hon. member got carried away and didn't give any thought - usually that is what they do over there, they don't give any thought to what they are saying. He should retract, because referring to an hon. member from the Yukon, from another part of this great country, as a lunatic is shameful.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

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

No point of order?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Chairman, the minister is right. Ninety-nine per cent of Canadians are great people, but there are lunatics in every province, I am looking at some of them now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Chairman, we have heard from Riff's department stores

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, I am rather enjoying the speech, but I will offer the hon. member an opportunity to escape gracefully because I think he feels sorry about referring to a lunatic from the Yukon. I am sure he would not want to suggest that we are all lunatics over here, but I think it would be quite acceptable - maybe he will get up one more time and say there are lunatics like the Member for Exploits, and I will not feel offended by that. That will be fine if he wants to make that point, but just narrow it down to me and we will forgive you for making two mistakes because I know you didn't really want to say it.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the comment, the lunatic from the Yukon, but if the Member for Exploits wants to refer to himself as a lunatic, I can't help but to agree.

MR. GRIMES: That is a lot better. I feel better now.

MR. FRENCH: Do you feel better now, Roger?

MR. GRIMES: Yes.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Chairman, we have heard from different followings of religion within the Province. We have heard from the Christian Worship Centre who are against Sunday shopping. We have heard from the Roman Catholic Church; they are against Sunday shopping. I have even spoken to a gentleman today who said that when he attended church on Sunday, Wesley United Church, the minister stood at the pulpit -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Chairman, I could not help but hear the Minister of Fisheries mirror his intellect, but the point of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, we will soon bury every one of those members.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: They are doing a good job of burying themselves.

Mr. Chairman, I spoke to a gentleman who attended church at Wesley United today, and he said that the minister there preached at the pulpit on Sunday, telling his parishioners to disagree with Sunday shopping, it should not be allowed, to phone their members, to phone the radio stations.

Mr. Chairman, we have heard from Canadian Tire and they are opposed to Sunday shopping. The St. John's Board of Trade is opposed to Sunday shopping. In fact, most of the Chambers of Commerce from across the Province have faxed in and phoned and said that they are against Sunday shopping. Various convenience store-owners throughout the Province, Mr. Chairman, have all said that they are against Sunday shopping. They are afraid that if Wal-Mart and Sears and Zellers and K-Mart -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. T. OSBORNE: The member is going to Port his Grave, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, Elaine Price, from the Federation of Labour has spoken out against Sunday shopping and said that her members are against Sunday shopping. The craft stores and local specialty shops are against Sunday shopping and for good reason, because if Wal-Mart and the Price Club, Zellers and K-Mart are allowed to open, they are going to drive the small, locally-owned and operated businesses out of business. What does that add up to, Mr. Chairman? Quite simply, it is going to put people out of employment which our Province cannot afford. It will drive people to the unemployment lines, it will increase the problem of out-migration and that is something that this Province cannot afford.

Some of the stores that will be forced to open up on Sunday because they are located in the different malls have already said, have already stated that it will not create more jobs in their stores. What it will do is create more part-time employment, less full-time, they will lay off their full-time employees and create part-time employment. To the single parents, the single mothers and even families, the working poor in this Province who have to face that, less full-time hours more part-time, that is going to be devastating. It is a recipe for disaster in this Province, Mr. Chairman, and make no mistake about that.

Mr. Chairman, the flea markets that operate in our malls will be forced to close down on Sundays and many of these flea markets right now donate the proceeds or part of their proceeds to charities. They make up for the short-falls where government cannot afford to donate to these charities. The flea markets donate to UNICEF and the like, helping out the charities and helping out our economy by allowing craft makers and authors and painters and so on to display and sell their wares through the circuit of the flea market.

Mr. Chairman, we have spoken to hairstylists who are afraid that, traditionally while they do not open on Sunday, they will be forced to, and they cannot afford to. They will be forced to open on Sunday because places like Sears and so on have hair salons in them and the smaller shops will be forced to open up on Sunday or they will lose their clientele. The malls have hair stylists in them and these smaller outlets, the smaller, locally-owned hair stylists, will have absolutely no choice but to open or lose their clientele which they cannot afford to do.

The same thing goes for small garages, corner garages, service stations and so on. With Wal-Mart, the Price Club and Sears all having service outlets, Mr. Chairman, these smaller outlets, the smaller service stations, will have to open up on Sunday. They will be forced to open or, again, lose clientele. That is a reality, Mr. Chairman, right here if this bill passes.

Let me say something else: While these stores will open up on Sunday, right now, through our process here, through the society we live in, there is only so much money out there through people's wages and so on, and if you spread that over seven days as opposed to six, the retailers are going to take in the same amount of revenue over a seven-day period that they would over a six-day period, only they will have higher expenses. They will have more wages to pay, more utilities to pay, and so on.

The only people really to benefit by Sunday shopping are going to be the larger outlets, the multi-national stores, and these multi-national stores will gradually, slowly, close down the smaller stores, the locally owned stores.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) go to sleep.

MR. T. OSBORNE: They won't go to sleep yet. If one of you guys gets up to speak they might.

Mr. Chairman, the travel agencies will have to compete with the travel agencies at Sears and so on. Again, the small, locally owned travel agencies, the agencies that can't afford to open their doors on Sunday, will be forced to, for no other reason but they are afraid they will lose their clientele to the large, multi-national chain stores that also house travel agencies.

Mr. Chairman, in a capitalistic society, yes, there is an argument for allowing stores to do as they choose, to open up on Sunday if that is what they chose to do, but under our legislation, if we allow stores to open on Sunday, should they choose, you have to look at the reality of the leases that are signed at the major malls. Those leases have a clause which states that if the mall is open for business, your store has to be open for business. Whether that store can afford to be open or not, there is no choice, they have to open. They have to open because of the lease they have signed, and if they do not want to breach their contract with the landlords, namely the owners of the mall, they have to open their doors on Sunday.

Mr. Chairman, many of these smaller stores, Sam the Record Man for one, Riff's and so on, have already stated publicly that they cannot afford to open their doors on Sunday, they cannot afford to take on the extra employees, they cannot afford to pay the extra utilities, but they will be forced to. So not only the small mom-and-pop stores that are located on Water and Duckworth streets, and the corner stores and the convenience stores, not only are they going to suffer, but the smaller stores in the mall outlets as well. They face the reality that they are going to be forced to open on Sunday. There won't be any choice at all. They will be forced to open their doors.

Mr. Chairman, really, we have to ask: Is that a democratic, a capitalistic society? It doesn't sound like it, when government can actually put in place legislation that will force an outlet to do something it doesn't want to do.

We have heard from dry cleaners, eye wear outlets and hardware stores, that are very much afraid that if the large multi-national stores open their doors on Sunday, that even though they can't afford to open their doors, they will have to. That is not legislation that the members on this side of the House want to see put through, and it is not legislation, I would guess, that some of the members on the other side of the House want to see put through.

Mr. Chairman, the Government House Leader and the Premier had said: Don't stand and debate this issue, don't stand and talk to this issue, don't say anything, let the guys on the other side of the House run out of breath, don't get up and say anything, let it run out, don't add to any time here, limit the time, limit the clock, but yet if they were allowed to speak their minds I'm sure there are members on the other side of the House who would say they are, as well, against Sunday shopping, but they are not afforded that privilege. They are stifled by the Government House Leader. They are stifled by the Premier and that is wrong.

The people of this Province, the public of this Province, want to hear from the members of the House of Assembly, and the reality is, it has only been the members of Opposition who have spoken out on this; the government members have not. They might have snuck back to their own districts, Mr. Chairman, and quietly said to the people in their own districts that they are against it, the same way some of them did on the parks privatization, the same way some of them say they were sandbagged on the Marine Atlantic bill. Mr. Chairman, I will tell you, there are members on the other side of the House who are not too comfortable with this bill. There are members on the other side of the House, Mr. Chairman, who are not comfortable with this legislation and their constituents would like to hear from them, not under the sneak of night, not on a private call to their home or to their office saying: Oh, I don't know, I'm not comfortable with this. I'm afraid I am being sandbagged by this. Mr. Chairman, they want to hear from their members here in the Legislature, in an open public forum where it can be debated.

The only people who have put up any debate to this legislation, Mr. Chairman, is the Opposition. The government have refused to debate this issue, the government have refused to answer questions to this issue, and the government have even refused to accept petitions on this issue. What type of democratic society do they think we are living in, Mr. Chairman? What type of democratic society are they portraying our democratic House of Assembly to be when they refuse to accept petitions from the people of our Province who have asked to have their petitions presented?

Mr. Chairman, the reality of this situation is that government is trying to ram this down the throats of the general public. They are trying to ram this down the throats of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador without any explanation from government, without any debate from government, without government answering any questions, without government even giving them the privilege, their right, to have petitions presented here in this House. Then they will go out and stand in front of the camera and say: We are trying to uphold the democratic process here in this House. Have a look in the mirror, my friends. You guys are the people who are standing in the way of the democratic process here in our Province, not the members of Opposition.

Mr. Chairman, we, the members of the Opposition, are listening and consulting with the people of our Province. We are consulting with the people of our Province. We are listening and we are prepared to present their petitions. Unfortunately, the Government House Leader and the members who sit behind him have felt comfortable not allowing petitions to be presented. They felt comfortable not debating this issue, not giving any answers to our debate and not allowing us to ask questions. Mr. Chairman, that's wrong. That is wrong and the people of this Province will let the members on the opposite side know, come the next general election. Some of those members will suffer, Mr. Chairman. Some of those members are going to suffer because of their arrogant attitude, the arrogant way in which they try to conduct government business, their arrogance in not listening to the people of the Province, their arrogance in not accepting petitions from the people of the Province, for not allowing the people's voices to be heard, Mr. Chairman, not allowing the voices of the people of this Province to be heard; and that is unfortunate.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. T. OSBORNE: By leave? I will clue up very quickly, Mr. Chairman, by saying that I am against Sunday shopping.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member has not been given leave.

On motion, clauses 1 through to 3 carried.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the title.

CHAIR: We have not gotten to the title yet, we have called clauses 1 to 3.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do each clause.

MR. GRIMES: Each clause? One at a time?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please! Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. TULK: Have you been recognized? I do not think you have. Check with the Chair. Did you recognize somebody?

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Hon. members on the opposite side of the House have already stood on Division. The Chair cannot entertain a point of order at this point.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: We are ready for the vote, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The Chair called clauses 1 to 3, and members did not call a point of order, they called Division.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I will ask all hon. members to take their seats.

MR. TULK: Signing ceremony.

CHAIR: We can resume the signing ceremony, gentlemen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

Will all hon. members take their seats.

All hon. members in favour of accepting the enacting clause, 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; Mr. Oldford; the hon. the Minister of Health; Mr. Barrett; the hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment; 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. Canning; Mr. Smith; Mr. Ramsay; Mr. Woodford; Mr. Mercer; Ms Thistle; Mr. Sparrow.

CHAIR: All those against, please rise.

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

Mr. Chair, twenty-four `ayes' and eleven `nays'.

CHAIR: I declare the enacting clause carried.

Shall the title carry?

AN HON. MEMBER: No

CHAIR: All in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

CHAIR: Bring in the members, let the bells ring.

CHAIR: All in favour of the title as read, 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; Mr. Oldford; the hon. the Minister of Health; Mr. Barrett; the hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment; 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. Canning; Mr. Smith; Mr. Ramsay; Mr. Woodford; Mr. Mercer; Ms Thistle; Mr. Sparrow.

CHAIR: All against, please rise.

CLERK: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition; Mr. H. Hodder; Mr. Shelley; Mr. Jack Byrne; Mr. Edward Byrne; Mr. Fitzgerald; Mr. T. Osborne; Mr. Ottenheimer; Mr. French; Ms S. Osborne; Mr. Harris.

Mr. Chairman, twenty-four `ayes' and eleven `nays.'

CHAIR: I declare the title carried.

Shall I report the bill carried without amendment?

All in favour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

CHAIR: Opposed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

MR. FITZGERALD: Division.

CHAIR: Bring in the members. Ring the bells.

CHAIR: All members in favour of the bill being reported without amendment, 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; Mr. Oldford; the hon. the Minister of Health; Mr. Barrett; the hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment; 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. Canning; Mr. Smith; Mr. Ramsay; Mr. Woodford; Mr. Mercer; Ms Thistle; Mr. Sparrow.

CHAIR: All members opposed, please rise.

CLERK: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition; Mr. H. Hodder; Mr. Shelley; Mr. Jack Byrne; Mr. Edward Byrne; Mr. Fitzgerald; Mr. T. Osborne; Mr. Ottenheimer; Mr. French; Ms S. Osborne; Mr. Harris.

Mr. Chairman, twenty-four `ayes' and eleven `nays.'

CHAIR: I declare the motion carried, and the bill will be reported without amendment.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Shops' Closing Act No. 2." (Bill No. 48)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR: It is moved and seconded that the Committee rise and report progress.

All in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Opposed?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

CHAIR: Bring in the members. Let the bells ring.

CHAIR: I ask all hon. members to take their seats.

The motion is that the Committee now rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

All those in favour of the motion, please stand.

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; Mr. Oldford; the hon. the Minister of Health; Mr. Barrett; the hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment; 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. Canning; Mr. Smith; Mr. Ramsay; Mr. Woodford; Mr. Mercer; Mr. Sparrow.

CHAIR: All those against the motion, please stand.

CLERK: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition; Mr. Hodder; Mr. Shelley; Mr. Jack Byrne; Mr. Fitzgerald; Mr. Osborne; Mr. Ottenheimer; Ms. Osborne; Mr. Harris.

Mr. Chairman, twenty-three `ayes' and nine `nays'.

CHAIR: I declare the motion carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. PENNEY: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has considered the matters to it referred, have directed me to report Bill No. 48 passed without amendment and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted, bill ordered read a third time, presently by leave.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, in calling third reading of this bill, I would also move that the question be now put.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is moved and seconded that the bill be now read a third time and that the question be now put.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Just a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker: Assuming that this is in essence - let me get my book out here. Are we dealing with five -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Are you going to try to ram this through tonight?

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure as to the procedure we are following here now.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is two motions.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: Is the previous question a motion?

MR. SULLIVAN: That is two motions.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Two in one.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, the previous question.

AN HON. MEMBER: No amendments allowed.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, we are now on the previous question.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: It is a debatable motion.

MR. SULLIVAN: I am allowed an hour?

MR. SPEAKER: I guess so, yes; every member is.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my opportunity to stand again and to go through many of the particular reasons why this is a bad piece of legislation. I might add - do we have the Red Book?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: In the Liberal Red Book, on the very first page, the Premier of this Province said: A key element of our platform is partnership. We are committed to an open, ongoing process of dialogue and discussion in decision making. That is what he said.

We almost got bowled over in 1996 with consultation. He has not consulted the ordinary people in the Province. Members over there have not consulted their constituents, they have not consulted small business, they have not even consulted large business, they have not consulted anybody. Then they try to tell us that people in this Province are in favour of opening stores on Sunday.

Ask the people who came out today, tonight - this hour of the night who are in the gallery - ask these people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: The people here at 11:35 in the night-time.

AN HON. MEMBER: They don't think it is a joke.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right - ordinary, working, business people in the Province.

We have letters galore, I might say. I have had twenty-five times the amount now that ever came to my office on education reform.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right, twenty-five times as many; letters and references, many particular reasons why. I am going to highlight some of the many, many reasons why we should not approve this particular bill.

First of all: Why is this government rushing to try and sneak something through before Christmas?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, it is a measure of deceit and deception that is occurring, to bring in this particular bill, and bringing it in in haste. It has been turned back before. It was even on the Order Paper, I might add. You even withdrew the bill to try a trial period. They withdrew that. Now the Premier is saying that if it does not work out we can revert. That is a pile of utter nonsense.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is the Premier tonight?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, where is the Premier tonight? He stayed tonight because there was a crew there to interview him after Term 17 in the Senate; the only reason we saw him here for a little while today.

MR. E. BYRNE: Gone on road trips, when it is really his bill.

MR. SULLIVAN: He has not been around in the Province. He has not been around to see people. He has not been around to answer one question. We were denied the opportunity to ask questions. Not one government member –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. members that when members are absent from the House, members are not permitted to make reference to their absence. That has been an accepted parliamentary rule, and I ask hon. members to keep it in mind.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I withdraw my statement implying or stating that the Premier is absent. I withdraw that.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, do you want me to leave it there or withdraw it, I say to the Government House Leader? I am not going to be bullied by the Government House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) see the Premier in his place.

AN HON. MEMBER: We resent that the Premier is not in his place.

MR. J. BYRNE: He could be in the House, but he may not be.

AN HON. MEMBER: Next time your leader (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Who told you about it?

AN HON. MEMBER: He has a higher rate of attendance than any other leader around here.

MR. SULLIVAN: Many businesses, many people, have contacted us through e-mails, through faxes, through telephone calls with numerous very valid points. By opening seven days a week, is it going to increase sales? Numerous studies have shown - and I will make reference to some of these - that if you are open seven days instead of six there is no increase in sales. There is a short-term period in which you might have an increase and then it bottoms out again. There is no long-term increase in sales.

What happens when you are open seven days? You have an increase in your variable overhead costs, driving up the cost of doing business which means it cuts into the profit margin of big corporations. So they have two things to do, they have to drive up the price of goods that once again affects the consumer or there is a downward pressure to keep wages where they are. That is the result, because businesses operate for profit and that is fair game. That is what businesses should operate for, profit. I spent over twenty years in business. Businesses want to get a certain profit and if they can't get that profit because of higher overheads, they will either jack up the price of goods or try to keep down the cost of labour and have a lower than normal increase in labour.

Today in this Province we have one of the lowest wages in Canada; $5.25 an hour is the minimum wage in the Province. Many people today are out there working for minimum wage. The last thing we want is a further downward pressure on wages in the Province where we have seen a freeze, basically, in people's incomes over the last eight years since this government came into power. In the public sector there has been a freeze in wages. Your buying power is getting less every single year and costs are going up.

It is getting tougher to do business here in the Province. We lost 16,000 people, a net loss from 1991 to 1996. There are less people to spend. There are less dollars in the economy. The average incomes of people have been affected and we have seen an increase in the inflationary costs of goods and services here in our Province.

To top that off, this government brought in a whole array of new taxes, hidden taxes. They said: no tax increases. Just to give you an example of no tax increases, they went through several pages of increases in licence and fees in this Budget, numerous ones, exorbitant increases in several pages here; about seven pages here of increases in licenses and permits.

I will make reference to some letters here. This one in particular: Lewisporte and area Chamber of Commerce. It says in this letter, that the majority of customers and business people are not in favour of opening on Sundays. `You and your government campaigned on a platform that you would consult with the people before decisions of this magnitude were made. We have not been consulted by our MHA; we have not been consulted by your department or by any other arm of government. There has been no consultation whatsoever.'

It says, `You and your government were elected by the people, for the people, and in this case the legislation that is going through will hurt small independent business persons. It has been said that the independent business person is the engine that creates jobs and drives the economy of this Province. Please put this decision on hold until our weak economy gets stronger.

`Thanking you for your cooperation.'

That is part of a letter written to the hon. Oliver Langdon, Minister of Environment and Labour, who is indirectly responsible for bringing this legislation in; because I am it is driven by the Premier of the Province who has not been accountable and has refused to answer questions and have anyone on his side of the House stand and debate this bill. The only thing we got from that side of the House today, when I spoke here tonight, are seven points of order and interruptions by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. He won't stand and speak on the motion. He will stand and interrupt people here when we are trying to make very valid points.

There are four other points in this made by the Lewisporte and area Chamber of Commerce, very valid ones. One particular point: Sunday is a day of rest for customers and business people to spend time with their families, and it is a day of worship.

The second point, stores are open now six days a week, and with a weak economy in Central Newfoundland, the amount that people have to spend will not increase. Sunday shopping will not increase sales levels. It will spread it out over seven days instead of six. If they have to open their stores seven days a week, expenses will outweigh the benefits.

A third point in this letter by the Lewisporte and Area Chamber of Commerce says that although opening on Sundays will not be mandatory, in some areas it will. In certain cases it will, in malls, and in certain contractual obligations it will. But in areas where it is not, they said they will have no choice as independent business people because the multinational chains are going to open and they will start losing a customer base so they will have to start following suit at a great expense to their bottom line.

A fourth reason given in this letter, the part-time employee is the fastest growing sector of the labour force. If they have to open seven days a week, it will create more part-time positions in place of full-time, and will weaken the economic base of the community. We all know that the majority of part-time positions in the retail sector pay less than full-time positions.

Those were some valid reasons put forward in that letter from the Lewisporte and Area Chamber of Commerce.

In another area, I received a fax today; it just came in this evening, from the Paint Shop. The President of the Paint Shop is writing on behalf of the Paint Shop owners and operators to convey his opinions on changing the Shops Closing Act.

He goes on to say there are thirty Paint Shop outlets operating within this Province, directly employing over 130 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It said: Our employees and owner/operators are unanimously opposed to Sunday store openings within our sector of the retail industry. Every single one of the Paint Shops in this Province are opposed to opening on Sunday. This letter goes on to say that allowing Sunday openings will further disadvantage an already struggling business sector.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Why? You do not know why it is struggling, I say to the minister? Well, you should take more seal oil capsules and you might find out if you do not know why.

The devastation from the fishery - 16,000 fewer people in the Province than when you became minister. People are packing up and leaving this Province almost on a daily basis, and the minister does not know why the economy of this Province is struggling.

This government has no agenda for economic growth in the Province. It is going on a whim and a prayer. That is what they are doing. You are part of the reason. The minister is part of the reason, I say, why we have a struggling economy here in the Province.

It said: This part of the industry is vital to the economy of our Province. It lacks the personnel to compete with large chains in the battle for extended operating hours. The ultimate losers will indeed be the small business owners and operators, either through the loss of market share or a reduction in the quality of life as employees and owners are forced to give up the one day they can all freely enjoy with their families.

This letter from the Paint Shop president: It is our belief that the net economic impact on Sunday openings will be negative to our business and zero to the government as we are obviously not generating new economic activity but merely spreading the existing consumer dollars over seven days instead of six.

This letter goes on to mention that business operating costs rise while government tax revenues remain essentially unchanged. In fact, government tax revenues may very well go down, because if the profit level goes down then the corporate income tax goes down and there are less dollars in the coffers of government. That could be the net result.

We do agree that changes to the Act are necessary so that a level playing field can be created for members of the retail sector who are presently disadvantaged by the content of the legislation, and we feel these changes can be implemented without totally eliminating the Sunday opening restriction.

This is a positive letter; it makes some suggestions. I hope you consider the position of our group as you make this very important decision along with your colleagues.

I have seen this House since this has started to be debated, over the last week, and not one single member on that side of the House stood to give any reason why this should go through.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not one reason.

MR. SULLIVAN: Not one reason to give any advantages or disadvantages, or to participate in any debate other than on points of order and to disrupt proceedings here. Not one member stood in his place.

When a minister introduces a bill, he normally closes debate on second reading. We had closure here, and Committee level of the bill. The minister stood up there today, and before we could even call, before one speaker in this House was given the parliamentary right to speak on third reading, he moved that the previous question be put. That means it is not possible to speak more than once on this particular bill in third reading. You cannot suggest changes, I say to the minister, you cannot make amendments to the bill. It is being denied - strong-arm tactics. The Government House Leader knows quite well what it is doing.

Gander and area Chamber of Commerce -

MR. E. BYRNE: Effectively, `Loyola', it has been two closure motions.

MR. SULLIVAN: Sure it has been - eight closure motions now from this Premier in less than two years. From 1949 to 1989 there were five, I think, I say to my House Leader, five closure motions in the first forty years of this Province. It is five. We have had eight since this Premier came to power here. Five times in forty years, and eight times since the House opened in May 1996, I think. In a year-and-a-half, eight closure motions. That is not a democracy we are operating under. It is far from a democracy. There is another word for it. Banana republic, that is what it is, tin dictatorships - very similar to what is going on. That is basically what is happening here. Very similar - I did not say it is, I say to the Government House Leader - (inaudible) point of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No it is not. It is very similar. Look at it. Five times in forty years, and eight times from May, and the House has been open about 100 days. It is ridiculous.

Another one from the Gander and area Chamber of Commerce. They are from all over the Province: The issue of Sunday shopping has been raised again. As we understand, the government is in favour of amending to allow for Sunday shopping. It is the third time in the last four years that this matter has been raised, and the opinions of the business community, represented by the Chamber in this area, have not changed.

I do not know - the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation represents that area. They had to take drastic measures, the seniors had to get out on the streets to try to get food back in Lakeside Homes in Gander. And here is the Chamber serving that town out there opposed to it. The fourth time, they have said, they have seen it now again, and nobody seems to be able to stand and tell us why. I mean, if there were valid economic reasons, if there were valid social reasons, if there were any valid reasons for it, but all the reasons are stacked against it.

The Chamber said: In our last poll, 80 per cent of the members polled were not in favour of Sunday shopping. Furthermore, the other Chambers in the Central region, they go on to mention, namely, the Exploits Valley Chamber of Commerce, and the Lewisporte area Chamber of Commerce that I referred to a few minutes ago, are also not in favour of Sunday shopping. As well, the Newfoundland and Labrador Chamber of Commerce is not in favour of Sunday shopping. They announced that in an Open Line interview on December 17, that was yesterday, I believe.

They said: There is strong public reaction to this issue voicing concerns about the impact this amendment would have on business, and the social aspects as well. The Gander and area Chamber of Commerce said: It is our position that while Sunday shopping may be beneficial to large retail outlets, small local independents in Newfoundland and Labrador are going to bear the brunt of decreased sales, resulting in closures and job losses. We are concerned that this matter was not given the lead time.

One of the concerns they have is not just against the basic principle, but this government defied the very principles on which it said it was going to do things, consult. Anybody in this Province back in February 1996 figured: We are coming back with a saviour who is going to lead us out of poverty in this Province, yes, and into the Promised Land.

MR. SHELLEY: A better tomorrow.

MR. SULLIVAN: A better tomorrow. Higher unemployment rates since 1989; there are about 16,000 fewer people working in this Province today than when the Liberals came to power and Statistics Canada says that at the rate we are going here another 40,000 people will be gone in the next twenty years.

What do we have to stop this tide going out? We have nothing. We have a ten-year tax holiday to Inco and Voisey's Bay on the books; that is reality. That is the laws of the Province that are sitting there now in this Province that we have been calling repeatedly. They talk about the offshore. Hibernia would not be there except for John Crosbie, except for the Federal Government stepping in. And for every billion dollars of oil that comes out of there in the next year-and-a-half, we will get 1 per cent of revenues; we will get $10 million, out of $1 billion. That is what we get.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Churchill Falls.

MR. E. BYRNE: There is a deal signed by Clyde K. Wells, Sir.

MR. SULLIVAN: Out of Churchill Falls - on a normal light bill now, I think, we pay around seven cents or seven-and-a-half cents.

MR. E. BYRNE: In 1991 that deal was signed.

MR. SULLIVAN: - and the mil rate, in a few years, will be thirty-five times that we pay on a regular electricity bill, what Hydro Quebec pays for power out of Churchill Falls; that is basically what we will pay, thirty-five times as much, when the rate drops to two cents in 2015. Right now we are paying around twenty-two to twenty-three times as much on our bill as Hydro Quebec gets the power out of Churchill Falls.

It is no wonder this Province is in the shape that it is in - our hydro resources given away. We looked at Voisey's Bay. This government fails to bring in legislation with respect to Argentina, Chile and every other country - South America. Other provinces in Canada have legislation that sets royalty regimes to get revenues into our Province, to help put dollars in our coffers with which to provide services or stimulate economic growth.

I received a letter from an individual, an e-mail actually, on December 13. This individual, who lives here in the City of St. John's, says: I am writing you in your capacity as Leader of the Opposition. He said in the letter: I was very upset to learn this week of the government's plan to introduce a bill to permit unrestricted Sunday shopping. I thought this very divisive issue was dead and was unpleasantly surprised to see it introduced with no time for public debate, at a time when people's attentions are focused on Christmas. I feel the introduction of Sunday shopping is undesirable for several reasons, both social and economic, and unrelated to religious considerations.

Social ones are the most destructive. A few things in this letter that this individual indicated is the removal of a family day. At present, Sunday is the one day when most people can get together as a family, with friends, unrestricted by job requirements. I think that is a very basic fundamental thing. I look forward to a Sunday, as an opportunity to visit parents or family or to gather around some family activity.

Today, 70 per cent of the people working in those stores are women - that is what studies show; to leave home on a Sunday, with young kids in school, probably the husband working, during the week, and the mother is left, on Sundays, having to go to work, having young kids with school, and family-based activities.

There are enough pressures and strains on the family unit here today in this Province without exacerbating the situation here. Strictly from that specific perspective alone, I think, it is undermining the basic values and principles of society and we are moving fast enough, too fast, into the main stream of American society. I think we need to look back at trying to keep our basic values and principles intact here in our Province. We do not need Sunday shopping - the economy is not calling for it, it is speaking out against it.

Second point, 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. It does. People look forward to a break. If you have a week of activity, the husband works Monday to Friday, the wife works Wednesday to Sunday - kids running with kids all over the place. I know what it is like even during the week in my instance. I am here in St. John's and my family are an hour-and-a-half drive away, and then you look at Sunday, it is the same with anybody. Lots of people are in this, people who travel, people who have to go away for work and are gone for two and three weeks at a time. Most people do not understand the daily types of life that people are leading. Most people here in the House have probably gone through the phase where maybe their kids are grown up in a lot of instances, some have younger kids. They do not listen enough to the people who count in our Province.

A third point, it will, without doubt, introduce much stress to families. It says: 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. Usually when Dad is coming in the door, Mom is going out the door, kids are caught in the crossfire, and it does not do anything for families. Currently, most families have two working parents; anybody who can get work, they need two of them working to be able to survive, to be able to pay their mortgage and to put food on the table. Most of them have not had salary increases in years, certainly in the public sector; the private sector has been hit hard enough trying to compete.

Many parents, particularly women, are in private retail outlets, as it goes on to mention in this letter; she now spends most Sundays away from home and it is utter nonsense to think that you do not have to work on Sundays. That is nonsense. If businesses are going to be opened on Sundays and you want to be an employee of that company, if the employee is forced to open to survive, they need the employees. You cannot pick and choose your hours; you cannot pick and say I will work Monday to Friday; everybody cannot work Monday to Friday.

I worked in businesses that, in instances there was pressure to work seven days a week, sometimes you worked around the clock, twenty-four hours, and I know what it is like for employees; I had to deal with employees, up to 200 of them. In fact, I worked on doing the shift system to accommodate them to give them that extra day off every week in addition to their regular day, because they had families and especially during the summertime when their kids were home to have an opportunity to be with them or to have a few days vacation.

A fourth point mentioned here: I see no strong pressure from Newfoundlanders requesting an end to keeping major retailers closed on Sundays. In fact, the recent November poll it says, shows a nearly even split. Well, I can tell you, with a properly worded poll asking the people of the Province for their choice, there would be 80 per cent or more, I would say, of people in this Province who would be opposed to Sunday shopping. The wording of a poll tells everything - people's conviction against Sunday shopping.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where the heck did they get that poll?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, that is right, where did they get it? It is all in the question many times. The result is in the question that you ask.

The letter says: I suspect, however, if a people poll had been asked about the strength of their preference, the pollsters would have found that the side in favour of keeping a day of rest would have felt more strongly than those wishing to open the major stores. People who might want them open really do not care much one way or the other in many instances, but people who do not want them open have a conviction, because it is destroying a fundamental way of life for people. It is not producing any economic advantages to business, so why have them open? Somebody on government side, tell us why you should have them open? Give us a reason. Do not stand up and say: This one is open, why do we want to close these? The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture got up and said, `Do you not believe in free enterprise? Do you not believe in opening them all up on Sundays to give people a choice?' I said to him: If you are giving people a choice, should you open up the Liquor Commission Store on Kenmount Road on Sundays? Should you open up the Topsail Road store on Sundays? If you are giving a choice, are you saying open them up, too? Oh, that is not what it said. So he wants to be selective. He wants to play both sides of the equation. You cannot have it both ways. They are shirking their responsibilities in not dealing with this issue in line with the wishes of the people of the Province.

Economically, this letter says, it will cost the Province more. No new wealth will be created by an additional shopping day. In each letter, the same reasons are coming up, some of the same basic things are being said over and over again. 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 Environment and Labour, 66.6 per cent of retail businesses are already open and all he is doing is deregulating the final one-third, is frankly absurd. Is the minister giving a one-person convenience store the same weight as a Wal-Mart store? The old adage that `statistics do not lie but liars use statistics' certainly comes to mind.

Finally, I note that 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 the government to back down from this bill. I tell you, we have done our best. We have used any avenue that was at our disposal to delay it, to allow people to be heard, to be open and meet with them, to return their phone calls, to listen to what they are saying out there, but the government has not listened, simply has not listened. For some unknown reason the Premier wants this to get through.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. SULLIVAN: Why? A good question. Why does the Premier want this through? We have not found out the reason. Nova Scotia said, no. Prince Edward Island said, no. New Brunswick had it, I think from Labour Day to Christmas and is now reviewing their policy. They are going back to review it. Our Province, the wealthy Province here with millions of dollars to spend and we are going full tilt ahead. I mean, it is just crazy. It does not make sense. People's disposable income has been declining.

Let us look at it realistically. Does opening seven days instead of six increase sales? Studies have shown no. I have asked across the House, will it increase it? People who are in business, some nodded and said, no I agree it will not increase revenues. It does not increase revenues. If you open a store seven days, you have certain fixed costs, maybe your rent is by a monthly basis and there are other fixed costs. You also have variable overhead costs. When the store is open you have extra costs associated with sales. You have extra people working and you have extra heating costs, depending on the type of business. You have extra overall costs that need to be dealt with. If you increase the cost to your business and you only have the same sales, then I say you reduce your profit. How many businesses out there today want to operate and reduce profit? God help us, the profits are shrunk enough as they are. Some businesses will respond. I asked: How are they going to respond? Three options businesses have under this circumstance. Number one, take smaller profits. Number two, increase the costs. Increase the price of goods that you have so that you can maintain the same profit margin. Number three, ensure that you provide lower wages. More part-time workers at lower wages is one of the three options that people have. That is the realities out there today.

Not many over there had an opportunity to operate a business, I had an opportunity to operate a business, the retail sector, the manufacturing sector, I worked in a variety of businesses in different sectors which I operated and owned, and I know some of the basic concerns of doing business in this Province. I spent over twenty years in business and dealing with up to 200 employees at one time and I know some of the human concerns of working daily in business, certainly, a lot of the financial concerns. And, as I mentioned before, you operate in business to make a profit and nobody denies that option to people, that is why you go in business. If you do not go in business for profit, you should join a charitable organization or a non-profit organization. Business creates employment, but it does so with the intention of providing profits to the owners of those businesses and there is nothing wrong with that; profit is not a dirty word. It is a word that is a fundamental part of what built North America today, private enterprise and ingenuity and entrepreneurship of people out in business today.

Even some of the advocates of opening on Sundays, The Evening Telegram December 13, editorial, of which I have a copy, said: Move ahead with Sunday shopping. Two days later, December 15, a little mini editorial there backed away a bit and said: We should look at what restrictions we are going to place on the hours we are open on Sunday. So, in a matter of two days there was a little drawing back from the picture altogether.

I heard the President of the Board of Trade one day this week saying: Well, there should have been a pilot project to look at the impact of it. He did not come out in support of unqualified Sunday shopping. He reserved some judgement, saying, maybe it is the wrong thing, maybe we should look at it, maybe we should do a pilot project.

MR. SHELLEY: That would be called consultation - you cannot do that.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, it would be called consultation.

Another point comes to mind. In 1992, in this Province, when a moratorium was announced on the fishery, people in rural Newfoundland automatically then were without a job. There was an income under NCARP payments and then TAGS payments. What happened to many small stores in rural Newfoundland - the small stores that employed maybe a husband and a wife and another worker - they found that the people then who were getting an income, who were not working, had so much free time on their hands, they went into major chains, major stores and spent their money, the major grocery stores, bought groceries here in St. John's and elsewhere. The small stores had to lay-off people and the businesses got squeezed and squeezed in rural Newfoundland and many of them closed and are not operating today.

MR. SHELLEY: They do not think about them.

MR. FRENCH: Small businesses do not count in this Province.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right, the little `mom and pop' stores that kept families intact for years. I am very familiar with one - actually, my in-laws have had one, a little store that that family operated for over forty years - still in operation actually.

They are just some examples of people independent out there not having to depend on any government and never having to depend on an unemployment cheque, they just run their own little businesses, one or two people in a family. They spent a lifetime in the business and they make a moderate living out of it to be able to survive. There are many other businesses like it and I see that many are facing hardship today. They do not have that extra employee, they cannot afford to have that extra worker on anymore. Instead of working nine to five and have someone come in part of the day or evening, they are having to spend more time away from their family, they are having to work twelve hours a day now in that store instead of the eight hours a day, and everybody is being stressed to the limit.

Those types of things are impacting. People have been leaving rural areas, the numbers have been going down and it is putting a lot of downward pressure on those particular stores to survive. If they open on Sundays, that is extra pressure again. That extra day will drive the nail even further, and be the downfall of small businesses here that have been able to sustain our economy for a period of time.

What happens with major outlets? Even many of these major stores do not want to be open. We are going to see major chain stores are going to be reaping the majority of sales, owned by shareholders outside this Province, primarily in Ontario, Quebec, other parts of the country, even outside the country, I might add, international chain stores. The profits are going outside this Province in an economy now that is getting siphoned of necessary dollars. The last thing we need is a further siphoning of dollars out of our provincial economy.

We all know our economy cannot sustain it. We do not have the diversity in our economy, we do not have the proximity to other provinces for cross-border shopping, we do not have numerous other aspects that are available in other parts of the country. We have stores moving out. Just look around the Province today. Look at the major stores that are moving out and expanding, and other stores being gobbled up. There is nothing wrong with having choice and competition in business today, but there has to be at least a level playing field, an opportunity to support Newfoundland businesses.

My colleague, the Member for St. John's South, asked the question: Why are we not doing things to help Newfoundland business? The Premier said: Well, what - you have some ideas. They never have answers. They want us to give all the answers. They have given up their responsibility to govern the Province. The Member for St. John's South went out and had a meeting last Friday with - people from about twenty-four businesses, I think, showed up. Holiday Inn - went out and booked a room, paid the cost. Opposition with no budget, none whatsoever, to operate, and now has a series of meetings looking at it across the Province. I guess the government was so embarrassed that the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation stood this week in the House and announced: We are going to look at ways now. I say to the Premier, he should give him a budget to do the rest of the Island, and come back with ways that you can help business.

A window company in my district, a fairly prominent one that sells to a major company here in St. John's, manufactures windows, a top-quality window, could not bid on work at a Crown corporation, a government-funded area, because they called for a specification that was made in Germany that was supplied through Nova Scotia. This was a comparable window in quality, and it was not in the specifications. So we could not provide them.

The product is made locally here in a town in Trepassey that is devastated from the fishery, a population of 1,400 in 1991 gone down today to a population of 800. Can you imagine a town that lost 600 people in a town of 1,400 people in five years? You think there are towns in this Province that have faced hardship? Go visit there. If you want to buy a house anywhere from $3,000 to $8,000, go up and buy one. You can buy a house. Two went for $3,000; $6,000 and $8,000 is not uncommon.

You have a company employing people there, paying their wages, and they could not put a bid for a window because the government, so pig-headed, put into the specifications a window that was not manufactured here in our Province. Build in Newfoundland specifications, if they are quality products, and give them that choice. They did not have that choice, even, to put a similar one there. It was not there. There are other instances, I am sure, and my colleague, the Member for St. John's South, has illustrated examples, and there will be numerous other examples of ways we have to look at helping Newfoundland businesses today to compete against the larger international, the multi-national, businesses that are competing against us.

We have to be competitive. We are not asking to give it out to Newfoundland businesses at all cost. That is not what is being asked. You are being asked to give us an opportunity to be able to compete at least on a level playing field, because Newfoundland and Labrador businesses have sprouted. They are supplying goods of different types all over this world. They can be as competitive as anybody. People here have the ingenuity, they have the commitment. Newfoundland workers have a strong reputation in other parts of the country. I have spoken with companies in different parts, in particular Western Canada, over the last few years, following up on recommendations from people. It was indicated people were even looking for workers from Newfoundland to go to work in Western Canada. There are people out there who have built up a strong reputation.

Back here, we are our own worst critics. Some people think Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are too lazy to work. There is too much garbage gets on through national media, Globe and Mail, national news. They pick out the worst case scenario and depict it: here what is happening in this Province. It is unbelievable some of the nonsense we see coming across our t.v. screens and in major newspapers here in the country. We have to start fighting back against this. We have to start supporting businesses and the people here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

One particular aspect, and as mentioned here - I think my colleague mentioned some other letters I think you had. There are a few here. I know I referred to them one day. I did not go into full detail. I am going to make some reference to them when I find them here. This was one that came off the Internet from the Council of Christian Reform Churches in Canada yesterday. It came off the Internet. It said: This particular group represents 220 congregations spread throughout Canada, 87,000 people living in 10,300 family units.

It looks at different reasons why there should not be Sunday shopping. It looked at economic considerations, the role of government, biblical background, present legislation. It goes into recommendations to government. It mentions some interesting things here. Just economic considerations for a few moments: Seven-day shopping weeks may be advantageous for some merchants, but studies have shown that it does not increase the total value of retail sales in the long term. If you have a big opening and people come out to a store and all that, the sales are great, and you keep up a certain level. Eventually, if there is competition, it tapers off. If you extend it for a day you might get a lot of people out of curiosity going in there, or showing up there, looking on it as being a convenience, but the dollars are not going to be there in the long haul. You cannot spend the same money twice.

It goes on to say: The additional costs of operating the store, estimate of some to be as high as 15 per cent extra cost by keeping a store open for that extra day - a 15 per cent increase, which is fairly high. Even marginal increases in operating costs, 8 per cent or 10 per cent, would be very significant on the bottom line. Unrestricted shopping hours work to the advantage of large malls and chain stores, largely at the expense of family-run business.

Now, they have done research and studies. Workers in retail trades, who comprise about 30 per cent of the workforce, are often forced by circumstances to accede to their employer's demands to work on Sunday. You are employed in a store. Do you tell your employer: None of us want to work on Sunday? If you do not want to work on Sunday, they will have somebody else who will work on Sunday at casual or part-time, a lower wage, and that means less hours available for these people the rest of the week. So you either work on Sunday, or you do not get the hours of work you need. Because if they need people in, you are not going to be able to hand-pick your hours if you are working in business.

It said: Of these employees, 70 per cent are mothers with dependent children. These employees need the weekend for family life and for recreation. Costly day care greatly reduces net income. Many retail workers are not organized into unions; they have low wages, and enjoy few other job opportunities. They enjoy few long-term benefits. The Council of Christian Reform Churches in Canada is stating this.

They said: Closing stores on Sundays will not automatically lead to better family and community life - that alone is not going to do it, nor does rest day legislation fulfil the government's role in enhancing family life. It says protecting a common non-commercial day is only a small part of pursuing a greater justice in the major public policies that affect families. We regret that some workers are now compelled to work on Sundays because they need that extra income to pay for basic family necessities. It says: To give lower income families the benefit of a common free day, governments need to provide adequate support for social and cultural institutions which enhance family life for all Canadians.

They just looked at some economic considerations, other considerations, social considerations. They said: In our present society, economic interest tends to dominate many aspects. If this argument were economically motivated, you might say, fine. If it is economically motivated, what about the social aspect of a society? This argument here does not have an economic foundation. It does not have a social foundation, in fact. The move to extend shopping on Sundays, according to the Reform Churches, is a symptom of over-emphasis on material prosperity.

It goes on to talk about numerous other aspects of a social nature. When you look at what this is going to do, in the long term, it is going to have a very devastating effect. It is going to be a change in a way of life, a change in the family unit. The family structure is going to be different. There are going to be pressures on businesses in our Province to be able to - it is going to put extra pressures on it - I have been involved, I say to the minister, in limited retail business. I have been in a variety of businesses over the years, from lounge businesses to retail businesses, the manufacturing sector and the processing sector. I have had a dabble in other aspects of business also. I have a little bit of experience in knowing some of those problems.

MR. MATTHEWS: What are you going to do after March?

MR. SULLIVAN: What am I going to do after March? The same thing I am doing right now, I suppose. I will be here in the House. I do not know if I will be here in this spot but I will be somewhere from here to up there, I hope.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Don't worry. I say, I will be here -

AN HON. MEMBER: I hope Scott Chafe is listening, because (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I had a little interview with Scott earlier. Scott has a great sustaining power. A lot more, I would say, than the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, who goes home every night and goes to bed. He could not sustain himself in the Health portfolio and I do not know if he is going to have much luck in sustaining himself in the Works, Services and Transportation portfolio. He is into a lot of hot water there already, wouldn't you say?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) over there; that is not bad.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is not bad. That is what the sunny South can do for you. It can do wonders. I can say when Mr. T heads South again, look out. I am wondering about the next election, whether the Member for St. John's North is going to have a seat. If he is it will be over on this side of the House, I would say.

MR. J. BYRNE: What party is he going to run for?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I think it is time now for a little lighter moment. The Member for St. John's North, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, the former fired Minister of Health, who could not maintain that portfolio and represent the people, and the minister before, that I was critic, the Member for St. John's Centre, Hubert Kitchen, I got him fired, too, I can tell you. Myself and the Member for Conception Bay South got that guy fired. Who are we going to get next, I wonder? Who are we going to get next?

MR. FRENCH: Oh, we will (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Listen, one of the requirements to get into the Liberal Cabinet is that you must have been a PC - a member of Brian Mulroney's 500 Club. Now, I would not go around singing that out -a member of Brian Mulroney's 500 Club, I can tell you, because Brian Mulroney is not the most popular name in Canada, I might tell you.

But he walked in here in - when did you get elected, 1993? In 1992 I got elected and in 1993 he comes in to see our Leader, Len Simms. A guy comes in and I ask, `Who is that guy?' They said, `That is Lloyd Matthews. He wants to run for the nomination for the PCs in St. John's North.'

MR. MATTHEWS: It is (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It is a true story.

MR. MATTHEWS: It is absolute `fibilization'.

MR. SULLIVAN: It is a true story. I never told a lie in my life, I say to the minister, and I hope I never have to, because if you do not tell a lie, you never have to make up excuses.

I will finish my story. He went in to see - I asked, `Who is that guy?" I was new around politics, only here a few months, got elected in June 1992, there was an election in May. They said, `That is Lloyd Matthews, the guy who ran down in Pleasantville before and lost.' I said, `Oh, I do not know if we want losers with us.' But anyway, he came in and he was going to run for us in St. John's North, and then Phil Warren decided he was not going to run, so the next thing we heard, he was out looking for the Liberal nomination in St. John's North.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, he is -

MR. SULLIVAN: That is a fact, I can tell you.

MR. FITZGERALD: He is right, `Matthews'.

MR. TULK: That is a real good story.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is a good story. Oh, yes, back to his seat now, points of order again, just like the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. J. BYRNE: Can't take the truth.

MR. SULLIVAN: Look, there he is, he can't take it.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh yes, a point of order. Speak on the bill, I say to the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, on a point of order.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, it is important to speak to the bill when you are up on a specific bill, but it is even more important to speak the truth regardless of what you are speaking to. And as I had to reiterate the other night in this House, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is engaged in gross `fibilization'. He is wagging a false pair of jaws. He is involved in an activity that is less then forthright, honest and truthful. Therefore, I would ask that the Speaker bring this to his attention because that type of activity in the House is not right.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: He spins a yarn, he tells a story that is, in fact, grossly inadequate, totally wrong, and I would ask that he, in the name of honesty and decency and in the spirit of the season, withdraw the remarks and get back to the matter at hand.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I will say, if the minister thinks it is not factual, when I finish now in another few minutes, I challenge the minister to stand and tell us what the real truth is and let us hear his side of the argument. We have only hear my side, we have not heard his.

MR. TULK: Tell the story again.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I will not tell it again because I only have a few minutes left. An hour passes so quickly when you are having fun, and I would like to get back to this business. It is a serious matter and I have been up on this matter many times before. The longest stretch I got without interruptions, I can say, in a long while. In twenty minutes today, the Minister of Fisheries interrupted me on seven occasions on points of order, utter nonsense. I am delighted we have some people in the galleries so that will keep these comments down.

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I am delighted to be able to be quiet for a change and be able to listen to some particular facts about this, and I hope the rest of my colleagues also -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to extend a brief apology to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I have listened to most of his hour at this particular time and the point he is trying to make now about being interrupted and so on. I probably have not paid 100 per cent attention to all of his points in this hour, mainly for two reasons: It is about the tenth or eleventh time in the last four or five days I have heard the same speech. Secondly, this point - I would like for him to speak to it afterwards, maybe explain to the people in the gallery as to why they have chosen this tactic - that over these last two or three days, there have been about two-and-a-half hours when we could have been debating this bill, whereas these members would ring the bells on division and run out of the Legislature every ten minutes -

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

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

MR. GRIMES: - and go on complaining, when there would have been lots of time to address the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible), boy!

MR. SULLIVAN: Sure, there are several reasons. I guess one reason is that when we have the Minister of Education, training slow learners, we have to repeat at least ten or a dozen times. It just does not sink in and has not sunk in yet. Nobody has been able to get on his feet and give one particular reason why it should go through. Another reason, I say to the minister, is because your government has denied us the opportunity in this House to present petitions on behalf of people who give us petitions to present in this House on Shops' Closing. We were only allowed to present one petition on one day out of the dozens of petitions we have here. We were denied that right.

I have not seen it in this House before - even the former Government House Leader, Ed Roberts, bad as he was, often allowed us to present eight or ten petitions, the people's petitions that come to us here; we have a right to represent, and the people, a right to be heard in this House; that is why we are doing it. In fact, I may make reference to a petition here now while I have an opportunity, in the few minutes left. Here is an example.

MR. GRIMES: Once again, why is he (inaudible) hours outside (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Because we are trying to stop you.

MR. SULLIVAN: Because we will use whatever avenue we have at our disposal to stop this bill from going through, because it is bad for the people of this Province, I say to the minister, that is why, and that is an answer.

MR. SHELLEY: We will ring the bells again in a minute.

MR. SULLIVAN: And a petition here - in fact, I will make reference to it now. We are not allowed to read it under normal times. There is a petition - I will go through the wording. It says:

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has introduced legislation to remove the current restrictions of Sunday shopping; and

WHEREAS legislation, if passed, would have serious consequences for retail and wholesale workers who now count Sundays as guarantee holidays which they can spend with their families; and

WHEREAS we do not need and we do not want the changes that this legislation would cause;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to withdraw Bill 48, "An Act To Amend The Shops' Closing Act, No. 2", from the Order Paper and abandon efforts to remove the current restrictions on Sunday shopping and as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

I will list the people here from - I see one from Gander, the rest are from St. John's, on this particular page two from Gander, St. John's, Park Avenue in the Mount Pearl area. There are different parts of the city here and a couple from Central Newfoundland as an example. That is why, I say we are standing here, because we are not allowed to do this when we are told here and it is listed on the order or routine proceedings where it says Petitions. Why shouldn't you change it to Petition, I only have one - that is all you are allowed.

Maybe it is an opportunity for somebody to get up now, on the government side and try to convince us what is good about it, why you want it, and who has ordered this particular bill. Whom do you listen to and who is being consulted? I might ask: who has been consulted? Ready for a better tomorrow based on consultation with the people of the Province, that was the platform but we have not seen it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right, I went through it, I have seen all the blank pages in it; every second page is blank.

MR. MATTHEWS: You love that Red Book, `Loyola'.

MR. SULLIVAN: What?

MR. MATTHEWS: You love that Red Book.

MR. SULLIVAN: You like Red Books and Blue Books. I say to the minister, you like all kinds of books. He flips a coin and says: I wonder which one will I read next? That is what he does.

I just want to touch on a few points. I have only a short period of time left and I want to reiterate a few key points. Number one: The major stores - my colleagues have referred to many of them today and there are additional ones that I have mentioned - do not want to see Sunday shopping. Small, independent businesses, retailers, do not want to see it. I had correspondence from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business - and independent business here in the Province - I will just make reference to it. I think there are 479 businesses in the Canadian Federation of Independent Business here in our Province. Out of the ones they polled, a significant number of those, only 12.2 per cent in the Province were in favour. This was done in a two-hour time span, this telephone poll.

They had no advance notice of consultation. The correspondence says: In the government release, the minister indicated that most Canadian jurisdictions have wide-open Sunday shopping hours. Nova Scotia does not, I mentioned; Prince Edward Island does not. New Brunswick is re-examining it.

From the Canadian Federation of Independent Business: It is one thing to have a significant change in legislation, but to do it without adequate consultation suggests that the government is responding to big business pressures. A similar attempt was made in Nova Scotia during the past six weeks -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - but Nova Scotia -

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SULLIVAN: Premier McKenna announced his province has no intention -

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

MR. SULLIVAN: - of expanding it.

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

The hon. member does not have leave.

MR. E. BYRNE: Stifled again, look.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will get my opportunity.

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MATTHEWS: He will not go thirty minutes, you watch him.

MR. FRENCH: If you can stay for thirty minutes - because you usually jump up and take off; but if you can stay for thirty minutes, I will tell you again what I have been telling you now for a week. And maybe at the end of this thirty-minute session it may sink into you, it just might get through the block - I doubt it, but it might. If you listen carefully you may hear what you have not heard yet in a week. You might, at the end of this, have the nerve and the fortitude to come out of your seat, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, come out of your seat with a bit of nerve and you tell us, and tell the people of this Province, why you want this bill to pass! Come up! Come up for thirty minutes and have your say!

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FRENCH: Never mind sitting in your seat and flapping your gums like you usually are, like you are rattling your gums over there again now. Get out of your seat, boy! Have a bit of nerve! Represent the people who elected you! Come out of your seat. Don't sit over there like somebody who is afraid or hiding. Get up! Have some backbone!

When I go through what I have to say, I will probably find petitions here from St. John's North because, Minister, I have sixty-one petitions to present which I have not been able to present for the last five days - sixty-one petitions, all of them, I might add, against Sunday shopping, every single one of them against Sunday shopping. These are from regular people who work in businesses around Newfoundland and Labrador. I have petitions here from Labrador, from Corner Brook, from the City of St. John's, from Grand Falls and Gander - I have them from all over this Province.

MR. J. BYRNE: But the people are for it - right?

MR. FRENCH: Oh, yes...I have not seen one!

I might add, Mr. Speaker, I am now receiving, between faxes and letters and phone calls, pretty close to 200, and the next phone call I get - unless one of the ministers here calls me - asking me to come into this House and support this bill will be the first one.

I am going to talk again about letters that I have received. I have three or four of them, and I have mentioned some of them, or I have touched on some of the points. I have one letter which I received today in the mail which says that this business is going to lay off every single employee it has and will now try to operate their business on part-time workers. Because now they are going to be forced to compete with multinationals. They say they cannot do that with full-time workers, they are going to have to do it with part-time workers, and they are now going to stretch their work week out to seven days a week.

That is ridiculous. Just imagine, we are going to drive people out of work. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, by working seven days a week we are going to see men and women, young families with mortgages who have contributed immensely to this business, we are going to see those people out of work.

I have another letter here, Mr. Speaker, I touched on it this afternoon, a letter that was written to the Premier, which I have a copy of, asking the Premier to lobby and vote against this particular piece of legislation. It was signed from Riff's Limited and its 400 staff members, Mr. Speaker - one company, just one, 400 people against this bill. I do not know who they consulted with this company and I do not know who they consulted at City Consumers Co-operative. Because the short and sweet of this, Mr. Speaker, is that those on that side of the House do not care.

I challenged them this afternoon, when I spoke earlier, to stand in their places and tell us on this side of the House and tell the people of this Province, why they support this particular piece of legislation. So far, Mr. Speaker, it has not been done. The only thing I ever heard was at 3:00 a.m., when I heard the Government House Leader, standing right there, say: `I got my orders and I am going to get this bill through.'

He may well, at the end of the day, get this bill through, but I tell you, Mr. Speaker, he is in for a late night tonight, he is in for a late night tomorrow night and he will be in for a late night the next night. And his members over there, if they are going to stick around, had better change their tickets or he had better call no more bills, because the co-operation from this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, is over for this session. I have never seen the like, and I am a new member. I have been here a year and I have never seen the like of this, the bullying tactics that have been used are unbelievable and they are a credit to nobody. I said the other day when I spoke, Mr. Speaker, if we had a free vote in this House, and members were willing to vote by the calls that they got and were willing to vote by their own constituents, I tell you, this bill would receive a resounding defeat.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as well, over the last week or so I have had the opportunity to talk to people who are in business in this Province. I made it a point to phone somebody at the Avalon Mall, in a business that I knew which is not a Newfoundland firm, and ask these people if they were really in favour of Sunday shopping. I found out, Mr. Speaker, that the person I talked to, who was manager of this particular store, a lady, told me that she had talked to their head office. She had talked to her supervisor and the supervisor had told her that in no way did they want this piece of legislation to pass. So again, Mr. Speaker, why do we want it? Who on the other side is driving the bus?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Nobody. Nobody is driving the bus; or at least nobody else, outside the minister, is saying, `Well, we want this particular piece of legislation.'

The Chambers of Commerce do not want it, the unions do not want it, and the employees who work in businesses in the Province of Newfoundland do not want this legislation. Yet, here we are at 12:45 a.m., six or seven days before Christmas, debating probably the most nonsensical bill that has been introduced in this session, the most ridiculous bill, I say to the Government House Leader.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education on a point of order.

MR. GRIMES: I am just checking briefly, Mr. Speaker, if you might make a ruling as to what appropriate dress is in the Chamber at any one time. I know it is late and we have been here a long time, mainly because we could have done this today or yesterday except for about three hours of standing outside the House with the bells ringing when all of the members were already in their seats. But we do have one of our hon. members, the Member for Bonavista South, without his jacket. I would just like a ruling, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It just shows exactly what this minister thinks of this bill. It shows what he thinks of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and it clearly shows that he must have no intention of running again. Either that or he is due a promotion.

MR. FITZGERALD: It shows where his priorities are.

MR. FRENCH: It shows where his priorities are, you can be sure of that. It is probably the only thing he has to worry about at quarter to one in the morning. I hope you are not going anywhere. I hope you do not have a ticket bought, because if you want to hear the bells ring, partner, you are going to hear the bells ring. You will be sick of bells ringing, I say to you, by Christmas Eve, because you will be sitting here if your man across the way keeps introducing legislation. You will be sitting here listening to those bells toll.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: That is right. You have put yourself in a corner, I say to the Government House Leader, a corner that we will not forget for quite some time to come, I say to you. If you think you can threaten us, then I think you bit off more than you can chew.

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, I think the only person being threatened here is me. I have not threatened the hon. gentleman; don't be so foolish.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That is one, two - that is two so far - no points of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Yes, boy, you are surly again now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: That is right, and it is too bad. You should really be ashamed of yourself because you should know the rules. You are the big bully and the big bull who, the last two or three days, has been ramming this legislation through.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FRENCH: And do you know what? We don't really give two hoots about what you try to do because we are not going to run and hide because the Government House Leader dances his jig, and has been dancing his jig since Monday. So you keep dancing, because this side over here is not the least bit worried about the jig that you do. We are not the least bit worried, I say to the Government House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: I would say my piece if fellows like you would sit in your seat and let me go ahead and say my piece instead of jumping up on your foolish points of order. Because you have never moved as many, I would say, in your life, and you have never been ruled out of order so many times in your life, as you have in the last four or five days.

Mr. Speaker, this is more important than the Government House Leader, than this bull in the china shop. This is more important to the people of this Province than that, and maybe he should answer his telephone.

Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, if he would read some of the letters that have come in, or look at some of the petitions that have come in, maybe he just might stand in his place and do the hon. thing and vote against this particular piece of legislation. Now I do not really think that is going to happen.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Well, I guess I am not the only one. I think there are sixty-one petitions here from people.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: You don't know the meaning of the word, my friend. I have seen lots of guys like you in my day. I have seen lots of them, and I have heard lots of ‘yappers' like you, who kept going, who could -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Don't worry, I will not fall over my desk. You just hang on to those braces, I say to the Government House Leader.

Mr. Speaker, back to this, because this is more important than he is. Sixty-one petitions that we have been barred from presenting in this House. I have never seen the like of that in the year-and-a-half that I have been here - have never seen the like of sixty-one petitions and us being stopped from presenting these petitions in this House. I have never seen the like of these petitions in this House. We have letters from businesses all over this Province which are opposed to this, and there is nobody who seems to be listening. What happens to family life? as my hon. colleague for Ferryland said a few minutes ago. What happens to family life if we just happen to have two people in a family working in retail in this Province?

Most times the family could depend on their Sunday off, regardless of what other days they had. Whether their children were in school or pre-school or whatever, they always were sure of one day a week off, and that one day a week off was Sunday. Conceivably now, we could have the lady of the family off on Tuesday and off on Friday, and maybe the husband off on Monday and maybe Saturday. By the time the rotation would get around... I wonder what effect this is going to have on family life and family values in this city.

The Board of Trade does not want it. The Chambers of Commerce does not want it. The workers in this Province do not want this bill. The only one that wants this bill is this government, and for the life of me I cannot understand why. I cannot understand it, it makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. From the phone calls and correspondence I have gotten, and that my colleagues have gotten, there is nobody who has sent anything to this side of the House saying we should support this legislation.

If there were a good reason - because we are not against every piece of legislation that comes before this House. We supported the education bill last year, we supported the education bill this year, and we supported it again today, and gave leave to have the education bill passed. That is just one bill. So we are not against every bill that comes before this House. For somebody to create or try to create that impression, they are doing nothing only creating a smoke screen. Here we are tonight talking about a bill that nobody wants. Since last Friday this probably makes the fourth or the fifth time that we, on this side of the House, will have spoken by 6:00 tomorrow morning, I would assume, on this particular piece of legislation.

We have not had a reply but we have all spoken loudly, and we have all spoken clearly, I believe, on this particular bill, a bill that nobody wants. Twice before, it was introduced, and twice before, it was either withdrawn or left to die the death that it deserved on the Order Paper. Yet it is still here, it is still carrying on, and it is totally amazing.

Petitions are here from all over the Province of Newfoundland. If we said it was just an issue for the City of St. John's or the City of Mount Pearl or the City of Corner Brook, fine, but it is not that issue, Mr. Speaker, it is an issue from all over the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Nobody wants this bill, nobody except, I would assume, members from government, because there is nobody on this side and there is nobody in the general public who wants this particular piece of legislation.

When you have business people who tell you they are going to lay off their full-time employees and run their business on part-timers, Mr. Speaker, that is frightening, that is scary - people with young families, mortgages and other payments to meet. It is scary, Mr. Speaker, and it is frightening that we are going to impose this on a business in our community in this Province. When we have City Consumers Co-op in this Province and its president writing to the minister saying, `Minister, we do not want this. On behalf of our consumers, on behalf of our customers, on behalf of our employees, we do not want this particular piece of legislation.' From another company with 400 employees, they do not want this particular piece of legislation.

I said, Mr. Speaker, the other day, that I drove out and had to go in to Canadian Tire on Kenmount Road. I made it a point to ask employees in there what they thought of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I cannot repeat in this hon. House the way they described this bill to me. I cannot use the language they used to describe this bill to me. So just imagine, that was probably five or six employees and three or four people from the general public and not one of them was in favour of this bill. So we are going to try to change a way of life in this Province that people enjoy today, because the one day of the week people were assured of being off was Sunday. I tell you, there would be some racket in this House, Mr. Speaker, if they ever came in here and said, `Boys, you are going to sit now seven days a week, ladies and gentlemen in this House.' I tell you, it would all hit the fan, wouldn't it?

AN HON. MEMBER: We would not do it.

MR. FRENCH: That is right, you would not do it. Nobody would do it, Mr. Speaker, because we would not want it. We would not want our way of life interfered with in that particular manner. We would not do it. It would never happen. So we sit here at 12:48 a.m. and we are still talking on this particular bill. We talked about, `Why do we do this? Why do we do that? Why do we make the bells ring?' Well, this is why we make them ring, Mr. Speaker, it is because we are opposed to this bill and we intend to fight this bill every step of the way, every inch of the way, and if that means all night then sobeit.

Tomorrow, well, it is now another day and we are quite prepared to sit through tomorrow if we have to and do the same thing to pass legislation in this House. That is what we are prepared to do, because on this bill there was no compromise. There was no consultation with anybody. It is a bill that somebody brought before this House and said let us pass it.

It is Christmas, so at Christmastime these guys will knuckle in. They will go away in two or three hours. But we have not done that, Mr. Speaker, and we are not going to. We are going to fight this bill because we decided to. It is a bill that is not just to the workers of this Province and it is not just to the small businesses in this Province. It is a shame what we are going to do to some of them. It is a shame what we are going to do to some of the small businesses in this Province. We may well force some of them out of business as well because of what we are doing here. Again, that is not right because people will lose their jobs and we will force Newfoundlanders, `mom and pop' type operations who work seven days a week, some of them, to try to survive... People say, well, you have people who work in hospitals, or you have policemen, or you have wardens, or you have doctors, or you have nurses.

I had a call this morning from Her Majesty's Penitentiary, and people (inaudible). That is something. Why would somebody down there... The conversation was that these people were against Sunday shopping. These people said to me: Bob, when we went into the jobs that we have, we realized that part of this job, if we accepted it, was shift work.

The person who went to work at the Avalon Mall, or downtown St. John's, or the Village Mall, or the mall in Corner Brook, or the mall in Gander, or wherever the stores may be in this Province, they did not go to work, they did not accept the position, whereby they would work seven days a week. They did not accept that. They were not offered that, and that was not a part of the conditions under which they went to work.

Again, who is driving the bus? There is no driver to this bus.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, there is. You do not know about it.

MR. FRENCH: If there is a driver then he is certainly not in uniform and he is certainly well hidden - he or she. If we do have somebody leading the parade on this one, I do not know where they are because nobody has really come out and accepted the responsibility for this particular piece of legislation. Nobody but nobody has come forward and said: This is what we want in this Province. This is what we are out to achieve. This is our goal at the end of the day.

Nobody in this Province wants this bill, and here we are, the eighteenth day of December, and people do not want to be here. They want to get home.

I can understand the plight of a lot of members in this House who have family who are probably not as fortunate as some of us to live as close to this place as we do, but there are colleagues of mine on this side of the House who want to get out. And I know how difficult it is for some of these members to make plane reservations, or whatever they have to make, to get home. It is very difficult for some of them, but they are willing to get into this for the long haul. So into this we are, and we will stay into this until the bill passes - sometime, I believe, around 6:00 tomorrow morning, or somewhere pretty close to 6:00 a.m.

MR. J. BYRNE: Why is this necessary?

MR. FRENCH: Why this is necessary, I say to my colleague, the Member for Cape St. Francis, I really do not know. I really do not know why this bill is necessary. I do not know why this bill was introduced this year at this particular point in time. I do not know why, for the life of me, this bill was introduced. I suppose maybe if somebody wanted it passed, I guess they figured it was a good time of the year to get it passed; that maybe, maybe, just maybe, this side would knuckle under and in a day or so this particular piece of legislation would be passed.

There are all kinds of questions out there on this bill, as to why it is out there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) job loss?

MR. FRENCH: Oh, there certainly will be job loss. The lady I spoke with in the Avalon Mall told me that if they have to go to seven days a week, they will make the same amount of money in seven days as they make in six, and they have the statistics to prove this. They said to me that if they have to do that, then they are probably going to go with it, using part-time workers, because they do not have to pay benefits; so if they go with part-time workers, why will they keep their full-time employees and have to pay them higher salaries?

Like I told you, I have one letter there from a business who, in the letter to me, Mr. Speaker, says that they are saddened by the fact that they will have to lay off all their full-time employees when this legislation becomes law.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you know the benefits they are getting?

MR. FRENCH: Well, I guess the multi-nationals are the only ones who will benefit from this. Because a lot of these shopping malls, if they open on Sunday, then the stores that hold leases from these malls have to open as well. So from all over the Island we have had letters and briefs from religious groups and from employees who say that they do not want to work Sundays, that they want to be guaranteed the same right that they have always had and that is, that they have had their Sundays off and we are not having that anymore. We are not going to have that way of life if this bill passes in this Province of ours anymore. And that is wrong, Mr. Speaker, it is wrong for the employees and wrong for, certainly the employers, because employers in this Province do not want this particular piece of legislation as well. Employers do not want it, they want nothing to do with it, they want to get rid of it, they do not want to open Sundays, they do not want to have to do anything on Sundays but enjoy their day of rest. They do not want to be doing schedules and arranging shifts and probably losing some of their most valued employees because seven days a week they are going to have to work and, Mr. Speaker, that is wrong. It is wrong I say to You, and I say to this House. To have people working this way is wrong.

We should stop this, the bill should be withdrawn tonight, it could be withdrawn now and we could probably move on to more important legislation which is yet to come. As in Education today, it was an important day, it was a very important piece of legislation and there was no problem on this side of the House for having that approved, but there are all kinds of problems, Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, with this bill. As I said earlier when I started, we intend to fight this bill to the bitter end, and if that means sitting all night, then sobeit. They have their shifts, we will have ours, and we will be back here to argue our points as we have been doing since the bill was introduced last Friday morning.

We will be back here for every thirty minutes on this side of the House at least, because I guess there is nobody over there getting up, there is nobody coming out of his seat to tell us and to tell the employees in Newfoundland and Labrador why we want this piece of legislation. Why they want it, Mr. Speaker, I have no idea. So again the question comes up: Who is driving the bus? I have been asking it since last Friday.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FRENCH: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Sir.

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

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

I was going to stand up like I usually do in this House and say I am pleased to rise today or tonight to speak to this legislation, but, Mr. Speaker, in this particular case, I am not. I am not pleased to rise at all, Mr. Speaker, because the more I watch this unfold by the night and by the minute and the more I look across the House at my colleagues on the other side, the more I realize, Mr. Speaker, how silly this whole thing is. I mean, for the last six weeks -

MR. MERCER: You got that right.

MR. SHELLEY: That is exactly right, I say to the Member for Humber East. So, smarten up, pull it off and let us start talking about what are the problems in Voisey's Bay, what are the problems with mechanical harvesters, that the Member for Humber East knows all about, what the problem is with all the people coming off TAGS, what the problem is with 16,000 people leaving this Province. Start talking about all that stuff; then I will stay right through Christmas Eve, New Years Eve or whatever you want, Mr. Speaker. But what the problem is, as we stand here tonight, again tonight - I do not know how many hours this is now, I think it is something like thirty hours of debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Twenty-six hours.

MR. SHELLEY: Twenty-six hours of debate on Sunday shopping and as my secretary will tell you, in the office, I have never had so many calls as in the last two to three weeks on this issue and a lot of other issues, too. The first thing my constituents say to me when they call is, `What about the people leaving the Province? What about the employment situation? Are you discussing that?' No, we are standing up all hours of the night talking about Sunday shopping. The very first question they ask me, Mr. Speaker, is: Who and where is this coming from? Where is it coming from? Who came up with this brilliant idea, just days before Christmas, that we are going to do Newfoundland and Labrador a big favour now, the government is going to take on the agenda and do this great thing of putting through Sunday shopping. That was the big brainstorm idea. I wonder who was sitting at the Cabinet table or the caucus table and saying, `Boys this is going to be very important that before 1997 is over we have to get Sunday shopping in and it is going to make a big difference to Newfoundland's problems.' Now, who in their right mind sat around and discussed that? I would like to have been a fly on the wall of that Cabinet room when people started to sit around and decide what a great issue this was.

Mr. Speaker, I still say that the Member for Kilbride hit the nail on the head some days ago when he said, `with everything happening in the Province, a good deflector. Throughout this issue, get everybody riled up again, get them away from all the main issues and we are going to talk for two weeks on Sunday shopping.' Now can you imagine, Mr. Speaker? So where it came from and what is driving it is still a mystery to many people. I know everybody in this House, even people on the other side, it is still a mystery to them. If they want to tell you the truth about it, they will tell you that they are not really sure of where it came from. The Member for Humber East, as a matter of fact, made a comment out in Corner Brook about it. He told somebody out there, when they asked him: Where is this coming from? He said he was not sure. He thought it was being driven by the justice department for whatever reason. So he was not sure where it was coming from.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Well, the Member for Humber East should have been listening to CBC Corner Brook radio the other morning, when one of his constituents said that when they asked the Member for Humber East where this was coming from, he could not answer them. All he could say was that he speculated it came from the justice department, for whatever reason. I cannot figure that one out either, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sandbagged again.

MR. SHELLEY: Sandbagged again, Mr. Speaker. It seems to be typical these days. So here we are, one week from Christmas Eve, at 1:00 a.m. talking about this particular bill. Every time we talk about it, we list out all the cons and when you go to take a list of the pros, you cannot find one. The best one I heard so far was convenience. Convenience? Mr. Speaker, this is 1997 - now you can shop - as a matter of fact, we can leave here tonight and go shopping at 2:00 or 3:00 a.m. There are twenty-four hour stores. A lot of them had the midnight madness. So you can go from Monday to Saturday and shop anywhere at any time. I went to the mall tonight - I think the mall is still open now if I am not mistaken. Monday to Saturday and then, Mr. Speaker, of course, with technology these days you can Sunday shop. We can do all that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I say to the Member for Bellevue, for people to take the time to come up here from work tonight and do what they did, come up for an hour or two, shows you how serious they are about it, Mr. Speaker. How many more people, if they knew about it, could express it like that? I tell you, I say to the Member for Bellevue, you are lucky it is this time of year, because a lot of people I have talked to are busy with their Christmas shopping, they are doing all kinds of other things but they are disgusted -

AN HON. MEMBER: I got one e-mail. How many (inaudible)?

MR. SHELLEY: You have one e-mail. Do you know why you have one e-mail?

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. SHELLEY: Because people say it is a waste of time to call you or to e-mail you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no, no.

MR. SHELLEY: That is what they say.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I did not say he was stupid. Where did you ever get that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Why, is that a problem?

AN HON. MEMBER: You said that you would (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: On this issue?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Oh, yes, that is what I am talking about. Be specific.

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

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the hon. member wanted a little break there because he was straying off the topic. I wanted to give him a chance to gather his thoughts again and get back to the topic.

He made a comment on which I would like clarification as a point of order. He suggested that people did not know about this, and all that kind of stuff. How can he make that tie into the fact that they have had their staff and some of their members out on Night Line most nights saying: Get up in the galleries. Pay attention, because they are up there dealing with the Shops Closing Act and it is your last chance to come up.

How can he say that when he is party to an action on the public airwaves of the Province, while he is speaking, to suggest to people to come up here. Now he is standing in his place and saying that nobody knows about it. So does it mean, when they try to suggest things like that, that people do not hear them or that they do hear them and just ignore them?

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

MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. the Member for Bonavista South speaking to the point of order raised by the Minister of Education?

MR. FITZGERALD: Another point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Then I would ask the hon. member to take his seat for a moment.

To the point of order raised by the hon. the Minister of Education, there is no point of order.

Now the Chair will recognize the hon. the Member for Bonavista South on a new point of order.

MR. FITZGERALD: A new point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like to call a quorum of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: There are fourteen here. Count them.

MR. SPEAKER: One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Eleven.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ring the bell.

MR. SPEAKER: There is a quorum present.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

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

I will continue on now with my point (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, the Chair did rule that there was no point of order raised by the Minister of Education.

MR. SHELLEY: I did not think so, Mr. Speaker. That made about as much sense, now, as telling the member to put his jacket on at 1:00 a.m.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I thank you, though. I thank the minister for that little break. I needed that break, no problem.

Mr. Speaker, now I will get back to the important points again. What I was going to do different this time, is, I was going to list the pros and cons and start with the pros, because there are not many of those, and then I will go into the cons.

What a lot of these employees talked about tonight, what a lot of these people are saying here tonight, is that the employees themselves work in some of these bigger stores. They do not want to work.

We have also been told by the employers that they do not open their stores but they will be forced to open their stores if this bill goes through. They have said that they do not want to open, but they will have to because of competition.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I have a request from the Minister of Mines and Energy to reduce the heat.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: You have to open the doors, I think, that is the only thing you can do.

Mr. Speaker, the employers, number one, who we all thought were driving for this, for all of these big companies, do not want it. They have been telling us that if this bill goes through, then they are forced to open, therefore costs go up because of employees that are hired back on, over-head and so on. So, there are all kinds of reasons there. Then the employees themselves say that that's their day. This is not going to create thousands of jobs or anything, all this is going to do is spread out those hours which these people work, usually for lower wages, into Sunday.

MR. BARRETT: How many calls did you get from Baie Verte on Sunday shopping?

MR. SHELLEY: You worry about your calls, I will worry about mine.

MR. BARRETT: How many calls did you get?

MR. SHELLEY: You worry about your calls, I will worry about mine.

MR. BARRETT: How many calls did you get from Baie Verte?

MR. SHELLEY: You worry about your calls, I will worry about mine.

MR. BARRETT: I got one. How many did you get?

MR. SHELLEY: That's good, I am proud you got one.

MR. BARRETT: The one I got was in favour.

MR. SHELLEY: Well, there you go; you are batting 100 per cent.

MR. BARRETT: How many calls did you get from your district?

MR. SHELLEY: I got plenty of calls.

MR. BARRETT: Come on, come on, be truthful.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Bellevue is awfully worried about the people in the Baie Verte district. I would suggest to him that he should worry about his own district.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, that is what I am hoping for again. I would like to thank you again, on behalf of the Premier and so on, for sending him down, Mr. Speaker. I already thanked the Premier and, as a matter of fact, many members on the opposite side thanked me for what I did many times over. On the q.t., very quietly, they came and thanked me wholeheartedly. I am still waiting for a written thank you –

AN HON. MEMBER: Not one of them.

MR. SHELLEY: Oh, yes! Do you want me to name them in the House?

MR. FITZGERALD: That was all orchestrated. They knew -

MR. SHELLEY: They knew the best way for termination, sent them down to Baie Verte. I thank you very much for that.

MR. TULK: Terminate who?

MR. SHELLEY: This bud's not for you. That is the sign that was on - by the way, Mr. Speaker, when I went into Little Bay Islands, which was a new part of my district, for the first time, on a big piece of plywood, up on top: This bud's not for you. Welcome.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, I bet you went in (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: No, no.

So, Mr. Speaker, that is what happened there. That is what the terminator did. That is why he sent them down, I think. What they call it in some parts of the world is a kamikaze pilot. He was coming in for the landing.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, back to -

AN HON. MEMBER: Would the hon. member permit a question?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: No, Roger he had his chance. He will get up after Paul and speak.

MR. SHELLEY: The only way I am going to give the member leave for anything is if he wants to tell me how great this bill is. If he wants to do that, he can have leave; otherwise he is not allowed to say anything because it is useless.

Mr. Speaker, when you start to list out the pros it just takes you five seconds, and it is a very weak one. When you start to list the cons to all of this, Mr. Speaker, it is a long list and it is every growing all the time, because it makes less and less sense all the time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Night Line.

MR. SHELLEY: I didn't know he was on Night Line, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the member a question: Do you think the employees in these stores are behind this bill?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: That they are for it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I bet that is not what you talk about. I bet you don't even discuss it. Besides that, you can't be because you are in here all the time and you are going to be in here again tonight.

Mr. Speaker, when you go through that list again, it is always the same thing. I say to the Government House Leader again, over the last five weeks, in this House of Assembly - and I think I can say it pretty safely - a lot of legislation, four to five pieces on average, went through a day. We had some very cooperative nights and we showed cooperation again today with Term 17. We showed it again with Term 17.

MR. TULK: Why don't we go to another bill now, take a break from this.

MR. SHELLEY: That's a good idea.

MR. FITZGERALD: Good idea, call another bill.

MR. SHELLEY: Good! Call another bill, go ahead.

MR. FITZGERALD: Do another bill, by leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: Chuck is here. (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Call another bill, Chuck, by leave.

MR. SHELLEY: Go ahead, we will give you all kinds of legislation. You call some other bills, we will help you through. We will just adjourn debate.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this whole bill, this legislation, that is what it does, takes it right off the beaten track, when there is all kinds of legislation that we could be discussing, the utility legislation, the labour act and so on; good legislation. We have to deal with important things like the Coat of Arms, Mr. Speaker. We have to discuss that. We are going to do another night sitting for that one and we will ring the bells for that one. We will ring the bells for the Coat of Arms.

MR. FITZGERALD: Changing the Coat of Arms act.

MR. SHELLEY: The Coat of Arms.

AN HON. MEMBER: I would say it will Easter before I get the sound of bells out of my head.

MR. SHELLEY: I am willing to bet, Mr. Speaker, every time the members hear the Mexican song, `Ring The Bell', over Christmas, you are going to turn it off real fast. If somebody turns it on, I am going to beat up the radio, I think.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: January 6th? Why is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the bell.

MR. SHELLEY: He is going to Vegas, is he? Ring the bells!

Mr. Speaker, I guess when you come to this stage in the morning you keep getting -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Yes, you should be debating this.

MR. SHELLEY: You will have to get leave, because we will be here for a while yet.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: No, I agree with you.

MR. SHELLEY: Well, I don't know. We have a couple of things up our sleeves yet, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: What a great line that was; most reliable. Now, I am going to give you a couple of lines and you have to do better than that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible), you will have to find a new House Leader.

MR. SHELLEY: Well, Mr. Speaker, we will offer a solution to him and the solution is: Relax on this, let everybody go home happy for Christmas, forget this bill. Look at what we could do tonight to make a lot of people happy. We could stop debate on this now, tear up the bill, take it off the Order Paper, bring in all the other legislation. We will pass them through as swiftly as we can; raise a few concerns on a couple pieces of legislations, not a lot. There are a few things on the utility bill. There are a few concerns on the labour act that is coming in. Otherwise, the other legislation - the Coat of Arms, we can get through that. We have a few things to raise about that of which we are not too sure. But all those other bills that are on the Order Paper now, you can get a lot of co-operation from this side of the House if you would only stop this one.

I mean, we were doing so well, we were ready to go home Christmas, all happy, all co-operative -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: No, he is on holidays actually.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is he?

MR. SHELLEY: I think he is, yes.

Mr. Speaker, all those other bills that are there on the Order Paper, we could simply take those, go through them and make everybody happy. We could all shake hands, wish each other `Merry Christmas' and go home. That is what we could be doing, Mr. Speaker.

MR. FITZGERALD: What happened to you. For two and a half years you sat over there and (inaudible), you became parliamentary assistant to the Premier and now you can't stop yapping. What is it, boy?

MR. SHELLEY: I don't know what it is. It is something about that chair, Mr. Speaker. There is always a `yap' coming out of that chair. It is a hoax. Yes, that is what it is. There is a `spell' on that chair, Mr. Speaker. As the Member for Placentia used to say: He is about as sharp as a bowling ball.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: No, I was talking about Danny Dumaresque. That is what Nick used to say, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: He had some humour (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Good man! Good man he is, boy.

Mr. Speaker, it is pretty easy to list the pros in this because there are none: the convenience of shopping. Otherwise, they did it for the employees or for the (inaudible), Mr. Speaker. There is not much to that.

When you list all the negatives of this -

AN HON. MEMBER: Bob Mercer said the jig is up for you.

MR. SHELLEY: Did he?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SHELLEY: The jig is up! Yes, boy, you have a really good grasp on my district, I must say. I have to bring you down to Ming's Bight for one day and you will see where the jig is up, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Speaker, if they go to Ming's Bight, they will (inaudible) vote on this.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, sir, I guarantee you.

AN HON. MEMBER: He has a real handle on the situation.

MR. SHELLEY: Oh, he has a real handle on the situation. If I had twenty-four hours with you down in my district you would get a real jig of what is going on down there. The only jig would be out on the jiggly part of the wharf down in Fleur de Lys.

The member doesn't know my district. A lot of people in here don't know other members' districts, actually. They like to guess on it. You hear all this speculation about this fellow is in trouble there and that. The member knows best. The members know if they are comfortable or not. You should know your district, if you are keeping in touch all the time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I've heard all that before. Oh, yes, I heard Bud was coming down, I never had a chance. Why don't you resign now, boy? I heard it all. The big Minister of Fisheries is coming down with those glasses down over his nose now, staying up in the Bay Vista Hotel; never before in his life down in Baie Verte. Me with about 300 people there, 280 of them are related to me, and he was there standing and pointing at me saying: We are going to miss you in the House of Assembly. That was his first mistake, Mr. Speaker.

MR. FITZGERALD: You must have been some excited when you heard Bud was coming, were you?

MR. GRIMES: The next time we will probably (inaudible) Kay Young or someone like that.

MR. SHELLEY: Thanks a lot, buddy.

MR. GRIMES: The next time we will send Kay Young or someone.

MR. SHELLEY: No, I think the Member for Bonavista South (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SHELLEY: I think he already has dibs in for that one.

AN HON. MEMBER: The former Minister of Education was a prize student.

MR. SHELLEY: A prize student, yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: She was a nice woman.

MR. SHELLEY: Oh yes, no doubt about it; a fine lady. She was just a little bit politically disillusioned, that is all. Otherwise she is a fine lady, Mr. Speaker.

To go down to Bonavista South: You watch how many people scramble down there to take on Roger Fitzgerald next time. There won't be any line-ups going down through Catalina, let me tell you, no motorcades going down there. I guarantee you that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Roger is probably going to be the only one left.

MR. SHELLEY: What? Oh, we are all going to be wiped out. I remember when it all started that night. I remember a few minutes before the polls closed, here was Bill Rowe - of course, the famous Bill Rowe - and, of course, the great Peter Fenwick with all the great comments he has now on CBC, Mr. Speaker. Peter Fenwick was making the comments: They are all going to be wiped out. There are going to be no Tories left anywhere.

MR. SPEAKER (Penney): Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, there are two things I would just like to mention in the point of order. One is that I know we don't mention names in the House, but Gerry Boyle has been hanging around the wrong (inaudible). I wonder if you would put him back in his seat.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I know it is tremendously dangerous at this point in time, but the Minister of Mines and Energy has a projectile in the House. I'm frightened to death it might go. I'm wondering if it is really permitted under rules to have that green thing in the House, because that could end up anywhere in the next little while the way this is going, and I fear for the safety of the House. Maybe we should have the constable come up and check it out to see if it is a land mine or something.

MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order raised by the hon. the Minister of Education: The green thing to which he referred is not a projectile unless the hon. minister decides to release it from his hand that it is being held in. I would advise him that that would certainly be out of order.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, this is one time I agree with the point of order. I second the point of order. I have to second the point of order, I agree to this one.

Mr. Speaker, just before the polls closed in the last election, of course, we had the great commentators, Mr. Fenwick and Mr. Rowe, up. Just before they closed: We believe there is going to be a wipe-out, there won't be a Tory left in the Province. We started the election at 16 per cent in the polls. The day the election was called we were 16 per cent. We ended up with nine great members, Mr. Speaker, and of course won the by-election just after that, ended up with 40 per cent of the popular vote in the Province, after coming up with all (inaudible).

We were all wiped out! We were all sitting home and the first poll that came in for me, of course, was the prison poll, and Bud was ahead by one. He figured he had us wiped out. The CBC were up to his headquarters, they were all getting ready -

MR. J. BYRNE: They had him declared elected, didn't they?

MR. SHELLEY: He went up and do you know what he did? Boy, he was jumping up and down I tell you and nobody up in the headquarters - CBC was actually set up in his headquarters, had projected that he was winning and that was it. There was going to be a big upset and everything else. Mr. Speaker, after that the polls turned nasty, I guarantee you that. Then I started to see the Member for Bonavista South elected and the new member for Conception Bay South, for St. John's South and so on, and then my good buddy from Cape St. Francis. The Member for Ferryland had one of the biggest votes. The Member for Bonavista South had one of the biggest majorities in the Province. We had to wait a little while for Kilbride but it came in a little bit later. Of course, Sheila Copps had all the forces out there, Mr. Speaker, but it came through again. So the big train coming down the track wasn't so big after all, Mr. Speaker.

That was a big wave, I say to members here, that was the big wave and Peckford did it too. It was a big wave, but it won't be a big wave the next time. The coat-tails won't be so long. You are going to have to win on your own. I give you a warning now, there will not be any wave. There will not be any wave the next time and those big long coat-tails that everybody was holding onto the last time, Mr. Speaker, will not be there.

MR. J. BYRNE: Humber East gone for sure.

MR. SHELLEY: Humber East is gone, Mr. Speaker. The Member for Grand Falls - Windsor, you are going to have to come in on your own this time. The Member for Windsor - Springdale just barely held on. It took the last couple of minutes to get that last little bit. He was just barely hanging on to a thread on the coat-tail, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Windsor - Springdale. He just made it, Mr. Speaker. No coat-tail.

Mr. Speaker, that is one thing about the group we see before us here, this Caucus, all on their strong merits, Mr. Speaker, and good representation; the ones that survived, the four or five and the new ones that came in. I will always remember the day that Bob French came in and said: I am going to win the seat. That was the first time I ever met him and that was the first thing he said to me, and he brought it through, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: He was going to run for us first.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, and then he came to his senses. There you go, he came to his senses. Smarten up.

MR. J. BYRNE: They can't smarten up. How do you expect them to smarten up? Give them a few smart pills.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: No, that's not true.

Mr. Speaker, a couple of minutes left just to clue up. This bill should never be before us at 1:30 a.m., one week before Christmas Eve. It is silly. It should never be there. It should not see the light of day.

The government is always saying we criticize and do not give solutions. The solution is this, Mr. Speaker: Tear up the bill. Let's put through other legislation. Let's do the right thing, tear it up and settle down so we can shake hands and wish each other a Merry Christmas and go home with some good legislation under our belts; take it out of the way. That is what we have to do, Mr. Speaker, that's exactly what we have to do.

Now, wouldn't that be nice? Wouldn't that be nice now if somebody came to their senses over there tonight, or somebody like the Minister of Education took the lead role tonight and went out and took the minister out of the House and said: Listen, this is nonsense. They are absolutely right over there. They are absolutely right again. We have to tear up this bill and get to more important things. Or the minister himself can take the (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Tear up the minister.

MR. SHELLEY: No, I would not tear up the minister.

MR. J. BYRNE: No, not that minister. The Government House Leader I am talking about.

MR. SHELLEY: The minister is just a little bit confused on this issue, but basically he has been a good minister so far. He is new in his portfolio, I will give him that. On this particular issue we disagree, but that is part of the game.

I think the smart thing to do now, Mr. Speaker, is all those ministers over there, with all the clout they have in Cabinet, get together and say: Guys, this is nonsense. If we cancel this at 1:30 a.m. tonight, tomorrow morning there won't be one call - you talk about no calls - there will not be any calls coming from anybody saying: Boy, we are really upset with you that you didn't push through this legislation. There will not be anybody calling saying that; I guarantee the minister that. If they do, blame it on us. If there are any calls, then you can blame it on us. We will take the heat. So we agree to do that. I think there is a consensus among our Caucus here to tear up the bill, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Definitely.

MR. J. BYRNE: Now, don't get me going on that.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's the problem?

MR. J. BYRNE: The people are opposed to it.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I have heard the employers say this in the last few days, they don't want to have to open their shop on Sunday. They will be forced to do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: They don't have to.

MR. SHELLEY: You see, that's a silly, silly statement. If you know anything about business at all: If I have a store and you have a store and we have the option to open, if all the Sobey's stores opened up, you would have to open up to compete.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: He doesn't want to! I'm telling you what an employer said to us of a big chain of stores who doesn't want to have to go in and bring his employees in. He wants his employees to stay home and take Sunday. He likes that part.

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

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

MR. SHELLEY: No leave?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I have to repeat what the Member for Baie Verte said: I'm not pleased to stand in my place at 1:38 in the morning and speak to this bill.

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible), Jack.

MR. J. BYRNE: I would say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation who is not in his seat: What is it to you?

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on this bill, but before I get into it I want to refer to a speech that was made yesterday in this House by the Minister of Education.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)?

MR. J. BYRNE: The Minister of Education. I ran home and got my mommy to do it, I say to the Minister of whatever he is over there, Mr. Speaker. What are you? Mines and Energy?

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible). Jack, read your questions, and then you read your speech. Surely you can a few words after all.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is over there with his dribble and drabble again as usual, not in his own seat. If he wants to speak, ask him to go to his own seat, get up and speak on this bill for a half hour like we have done throughout the week, a half hour here and a half hour there, and an hour here and an hour there. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is over there wasting the time of the House, not wanting to hear what we have to say; very important points to be made on this legislation.

MR. MATTHEWS: I say, you know what dribble and drabble is.

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, I'm listening to it all the time from you, so I should know.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to this bill, the Minister of Education –

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, he is still on that bill.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, I'm still on that. I'm on a speech that he gave yesterday in this House of Assembly. Some of the words he said were: Mr. Speaker, so I can represent you. These are some of the lines he used: They were elected to represent the people in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker. They abandoned their colleague. They started doing it in the wee hours of the morning a couple of nights ago. Something has set in, Mr. Speaker, and I think it has set in right into the inner part of their bones, Mr. Speaker.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that whatever set into the inner part of the bones of the crowd over here sets into the inner part of the bones of the crowd over there, because we are here representing the views of the public right across this Province. We have had so many of them here tonight in the galleries wanting and opposing this legislation, and wanting us to oppose this legislation.

I got a call this morning - and I will say it again, because it takes a long time for it to set in - from a lady in Torbay who works now in one of these chain stores. She works thirty-five hours a week, six days a week. She has to work six days a week to get her thirty-five hours in. What she told me this morning, in tears, by the way, is that if she has to work seven days a week, and that is likely, to get her thirty-five hours in, she will have to give up her job, because she won't be able to do it.

Mr. Speaker, that is the type of impact this legislation is going to have on this Province. We have had letters from individuals, from companies, from employees, wanting us to oppose this legislation. As a matter of fact, I got a call last week; I think it was last Sunday, from an individual who has a small store in the Avalon Mall. He told me that what would happen is it could actually drive him out of business because he would have to automatically open up. The ministers on that side of the House say they are not forced to open up, it is their choice, it is democratic process, but if he has a store in a mall, if he is to compete, he will have to open, he will be forced to open. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, what will happen is that his costs will go up and his revenues will stay the same.

MR. WALSH: The Avalon Mall has a barber shop. The barber shop is not open on Monday and Tuesday night, but everything else is.

MR. J. BYRNE: Is there another barber shop in that same mall?

MR. FRENCH: Yes there is, Jack.

MR. WALSH: There are clothing stores there (inaudible) closed on Monday and Tuesday nights.

MR. J. BYRNE: I will say to the former Minister of Tourism, the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island, I don't know anything at all about barbers; I can't answer the question.

Now, Mr. Speaker, with respect to this: We are now in closure on this bill. We have wanted, this past week, to bring in petitions in this House of Assembly and we have been stifled. We have had numerous petitions. Over the years, since I have been here, there have been occasions when we could present three, four, five, six petitions, but what happens now when we get a petition, Mr. Speaker? Up jumps the Government House Leader, the big bully that he is, and stops it. Today we managed to get two in because the Speaker happened to be looking our way; and he was quite upset that we got two petitions in, out of hundreds that we have to present. Why is he so opposed to us, in this House of Assembly, representing the views of the public, presenting petitions in the people's House of Newfoundland and Labrador? Why is he so opposed to it? I can't figure it out.

AN HON. MEMBER: Jack, you (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, sure I am. I will tell you this, Mr. Speaker, he is talking about wanting to be a Progressive Conservative.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't believe in Confederation.

MR. J. BYRNE: I was not born in Confederation, I was born in 1951, I say to the minister. I will tell you this, talking about being a Progressive Conservative: In September 1986, I was elected as mayor of a small town and in 1986 there was a bi-election in my district down there, St. John's East Extern, in December, and there were many, many people who wanted me to run at that time for the Progressive Conservatives, but I was not interested in politics at the time.

In 1989, I was approached to run, by the former Premier who (inaudible) to meet with him, for the Liberals, because they knew I would win the district down there, Mr. Speaker, and I said: No, not interested.

In 1993, I decided I was going to run, so I had to sit back and say: Well, what party will I go with? Being a realistic person and living with reality all the time, not like some people on the other side of the House -

AN HON. MEMBER: Jack, how's you blood pressure?

MR. J. BYRNE: I am blood pressure perfect, 110/70 all the time; even after my two major surgeries, the next day 110/70, perfect. I don't have to worry about blood pressure. I don't have to worry about what you are thinking about.

In 1993, I said: What will I do? What party will I run with? So, I sat back and thought about it, looked at who the Premier was at the time, and I decided, no. I looked at their policies and their platform and there is suppose to be a distinct difference between the Liberals and the PCs.

AN HON. MEMBER: So, you went with Lynn?

MR. J. BYRNE: No, with Len Simms; not Lynn, Len. At the time, to be honest with you, Mr. Speaker, I knew in my own heart and soul that if I got elected I would end up in opposition at that time. I am a realist.

The last time around, 1994, when we had the onslaught from the saviour from Ottawa - that's who my opponent was, the Premier. He was my opponent, no doubt about that. Many, many members on that side of the House came in on the coat-tails. I can name a few, I can guarantee you that.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Oldford): Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Following the debate intently and understanding it completely relevant to the bill at hand, but wondering how the statement that a man actually chose to run and desired to be in opposition is really going to impact on whether or not the shops open on Sunday and what that has to do with it, but could he explain further or did I misunderstand him. I understood he said that he ran knowing that he would be in opposition, and that there are people around who would actually chose to enter political life to be in opposition. Could he elucidate further, please?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: As usual! But I will explain the relevancy to him, because I wanted to run to be elected to represent the people; and we are here on this side of the House representing the people with their views on the Shops Closing Act which you are not doing on that side of the House. That is not too hard to understand, is it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) next time.

MR. J. BYRNE: In the next election I may be right there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where?

MR. J. BYRNE: Right there, if I so decide that I want to be.

Mr. Speaker, in 1993 I decided which Party I would run for, looking at the principles, looking at the platform, looking at who was in each Party and all that, and I decided to run for the Progressive Conservatives, and I am here. I have the courage of my convictions, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation who is not in his seat again, Mr. Speaker, mouthing off, spouting off. I have lots of questions for you by the way; you are in trouble.

We are here again discussing this closure, Mr. Speaker. We were not allowed to bring in petitions. We saw yesterday, in this House of Assembly - well, the day before yesterday because we are into Friday now, here in the morning talking about this. So it was not Thursday, it was Wednesday; it was the day before yesterday. We wanted to ask questions in this House of Assembly and, the first time I ever saw it, we were not allowed to ask questions. Again, the Government House Leader was up on his feet -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Ask what?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: About whom? You? Well, I won't.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, we were not allowed to ask questions because they were trying to use technicalities again. Well, you cannot blame them for that because we have been -

AN HON. MEMBER: You have twenty minutes left.

MR. J. BYRNE: Is that all? Is that all I have left, twenty minutes?

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I have a lot to say.

The questions that we could not ask yesterday - and the members on the other side of the House were quite shocked with the strategy that we used here in the House of Assembly yesterday, Mr. Speaker. We left the Member for Bonavista South here to discuss his resolution. We did not want certain things to happen on this side of the House so we left him here and we left this House, Mr. Speaker, to make a statement to the people of this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, that we were opposing this legislation, that we could not support it, Mr. Speaker, we could not support the tactics, the bullying tactics, of the Government House Leader, supported by the Minister of Mines and Energy, the Minister of Education, supported by - I cannot name them now, Mr. Speaker, because the faces are all blank to me.

MR. MERCER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Good! You picked up on that, I say to the Member for Humber East. You are very bright at 1:50 in the morning. He picked up on it. The Member for Humber East, Mr. Speaker, is finished, a one-time member. We have a candidate lined up for him already the next time around; he is gone, no trouble there. It is too bad. I feel badly for him.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much do you want to bet?

MR. J. BYRNE: How much?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Good enough! I will remember that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Will you?

MR. J. BYRNE: I will.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, with respect to this legislation, I have to ask the question again: Why is it necessary that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, we are doing better than you are doing on that side. We have 60 per cent. What do you have over there? You have 33 per cent by the way, give or take. That's the plan, Mr. Speaker.

Now, why is this legislation necessary, Mr. Speaker? We have asked this question in the House of Assembly, we have asked the Premier to answer that question, we asked the Government House Leader to answer that question, we asked the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture to answer that question, we asked the Minister of Mines and Energy to answer that question, we asked every member on that side of the House to answer that question and not one of them can answer the question: why is this necessary? Who is going to benefit from it? Who is pushing it? Those are three questions but no answers yet.

AN HON. MEMBER: The consumers of the Province.

MR. J. BYRNE: The consumers of the Province. Well, I can tell you, some consumers and retailers who are not doing it. Riff's with 400 staff members - and I am sure they are consumers, they live in the Province - they are not. We have a fax here from another group of people in Paradise, Amherst Street, St. John's, Gleneyre Street and what have you. They are not in favour of it, Mr. Speaker. We have petitions here from St. John's and St. Anthony. They are not in favour of it, Mr. Speaker. So the consumers can't be in favour of it. We have sixty or seventy petitions there, and we have letters from everywhere.

MR. FUREY: Do you believe there should be any Sunday shopping at all?

MR. J. BYRNE: Do I believe there should be - let me tell you something. Let me tell you this, now. This is not question period, I'm not a minister, but I will answer it. There are certain people, Mr. Speaker, who have to work on Sunday; there is no doubt about that. We have the R.N.C., we have the R.C.M.P., we have nurses, we have doctors, we have emergency people.

Mr. Speaker, we have been living in this Province, some of us, since 1497 without Sunday shopping; what they are trying to put through now. We have had certain traditions that we live with, certain traditions have been here since 1497. The Minister of Mines and Energy is trying to be coy and cute, trying to set some kind of a weird little stupid trap, that I can answer a question, you know, something foolish.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: It may be necessary for some. There are emergencies that arise. We have little convenience stores to handle certain Sunday shopping.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, wrong. There are little convenience stores out there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, right?

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you believe in the principle of Sunday shopping?

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you shop in those?

MR. J. BYRNE: I believe in the traditions that we have at this point in time in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have other provinces, Nova Scotia, P.E.I., and New Brunswick, that don't have Sunday shopping. That is being referred to in the definition here, Mr. Speaker.

MR. FUREY: Do you believe there should be no Sunday shopping, some Sunday shopping, or Sunday shopping (inaudible)?

MR. J. BYRNE: Do you want to speak to this bill?

MR. FUREY: Answer the question.

MR. J. BYRNE: Does the Minister of Mines and Energy want to speak to this bill? We are here now speaking to this bill something like twenty-eight hours and the Minister of Mines and Energy has not stood in his place and spoken in favour of this bill, to tell us why this bill is a good bill, to tell us why the people of the Province support it. He hasn't done that, the Premier hasn't done it, the Government House Leader hasn't done it, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education hasn't done it, and the Member for Humber East hasn't done it; stood in their places and said why this legislation should be put through the House of Assembly. No, they won't do it, because they know the people in this Province are opposed to it. They are being like lemmings; following the Premier over the cliffs. That is what they are at.

MR. FUREY: There should be no Sunday shopping: That is your position.

MR. J. BYRNE: Did you hear me say that? No, we never. Did you say that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Go read Hansard.

MR. FUREY: Well, tell me, tell me.

MR. J. BYRNE: I will tell you. I've told you.

MR. FUREY: There should be no Sunday shopping.

MR. J. BYRNE: I never said that. What I said was this: - now, listen carefully, if you can, because you might have something stuck in your ears - we are here since 1497. We do not have what is defined as Sunday shopping in this legislation. We have survived until now. We have certain traditions that we follow. We have convenience stores out there for emergency situations, we have garages that are open, but it is a different matter altogether. You can't connect the two of them like you are trying to do. You can't oversimplify things. You are trying to oversimplify; is it black, is it white? There are grey areas. Right?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: That is idiotic.

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible) Sunday shopping.

MR. J. BYRNE: You define Sunday shopping to me. Define Sunday shopping.

MR. FUREY: Sunday shopping: It is stores that are open where you can go to shop.

MR. J. BYRNE: What type of stores?

MR. FUREY: Drug stores, these gas stations that have all the amenities now.

MR. J. BYRNE: We have them now. That is part of our tradition. We have done that.

MR. FUREY: That is not true.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, it is. It is, you know that. You are wrong and you know you are wrong. We are talking about the big malls here that are going to be competing on Sundays with the smaller stores. There is a difference and you know it. You are talking about the big multi-nationals competing with the small stores in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is the thing. You don't know what you are talking about. You are trying to twist things, that is all.

MR. FUREY: You can't answer a simple question.

MR. J. BYRNE: Good one to take about answering a simple question.

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: We are here for five weeks now asking questions and we haven't gotten an answer yet. So, don't talk about answering questions.

Mr. Speaker, can you mute that, mute it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: He don't know what he is talking about.

MR. J. BYRNE: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, back to the issue.

Thank you, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy, for that ten minutes.

Anyway, who is in favour of this legislation? We have asked that question here: Who is in favour of the legislation? Is the board of trade in favour? No, the board of trade is not in favour. Is labour in favour? No, labour is not in favour; definitely not. They spoke against it. Are the retailers in favour of it? No, the retailers are not in favour. We have letters from retailers. One here, Riff's, 400 people opposed to it. A letter from Honda One, that says they may have to lay-off all their permanent staff because of this legislation; opposed to it. So, small business is not in favour, obviously. Who is in favour? Is it the multi-nationals, I wonder? Would it be people like CostCo up there or Zellers on Torbay Road or Kent Building Supplies? I wonder if it would be any of these groups?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Sure, I don't know the man. I don't know what you are talking about. So what! He has his own reasons for being concerned about it, don't he? You have to ask him that, not me.

The retailers, the labours and the Board of Trade are not in favour of it. So now we have to get back to who benefits from this? I will tell you who benefits. As I said earlier, it is certainly not the lady who phoned me this morning, an employee of one of these stores, who is going to have to work seven days a week now instead of six.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, she can't work (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: She can do what she wants. I thought this was democracy you were talking about. She works six days now to get thirty-five hours a week. See, that's how blind these people are. They do not understand that there are people out there working for minimum wage and a bit above minimum wage, who have to put in the hours, and the only way they can do it is get the hours, and it's going to happen. They don't have to, but they are going to be forced to.

AN HON. MEMBER: Five days. We are going to change the legislation too.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, I dare say you are going to change it all right. If you are going to change it, it is not going to be for the better, I can guarantee you that.

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, consultation - the Minister of Mines and Energy is at it there again, trying to distract me and what have you. Every now and then he does a good job. He is off on one little tangent, one small-minded, narrow view. That is what he is at.

This Adminstration, during the last election - I hate to touch that book. Is there any way to get that open without - that book talks about consultation, how the hallmark of this administration is going to be consultation. Mr. Speaker, we had no consultation on this issue. In this House of Assembly they won't even let us debate it properly.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Here is where I am: I am on this issue here with respect to Sunday shopping, the status quo. That is what I am interested in and that is what the people of this Province are interested in. We have done it for years and we are getting on very well on that. So the answer to your question is the status quo. We do not need those large stores open, the big malls and what have you, on Sunday. It is going to affect the traditions of the people in this Province, it is going to affect Sundays where people consider it their day of rest; all of these things, Mr. Speaker. I am interested in the status quo, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left, I wonder?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FRENCH: You have a half an hour left yet Jack.

MR. J. BYRNE: I should have another hour left because of the interruptions I say, Mr. Speaker, at least another hour on this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us where you stand.

MR. J. BYRNE: You want to know where I stand, do you?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. J. BYRNE: Do you really want to know where I stand? Well, at this point in time, I am in the House of Assembly in St. John's, Newfoundland, standing at my desk. That is where I stand. Now, do I have leave to go for an hour?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Now, what other stuff can I talk about here?

Mr. Speaker, we asked for a six-month hoist on this legislation, that it would be referred to at least a Legislation Review Committee to go out across this Province and talk to the people. The minister responsible for this was asked in the media who he had consulted. Answer: Nobody, I know it all. The Premier told me this is what the people of Newfoundland want, so I have to do it.

That is the bottom line, Mr. Speaker: I have to do it because the Premier told me to do it, because I am looking for donations from big companies to help me out in my campaign to become Prime Minister.

MR. FUREY: Where do you stand?

MR. J. BYRNE: I don't know. The Minister of Mines and Energy must be blind. He cannot see where I stand.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy, on a point of order.

MR. FUREY: Let me ask the hon. member where he and his Party stand on Sunday shopping. Are you against all Sunday shopping or for Sunday shopping?

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, is this Question Period? Sit him down - wasting my time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I am doing my job, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. I am here representing the views of, by far, the majority of the people in this Province, not only the consumers but the employees of businesses, the general public - the petitions that we have here. I am here representing their views; that is what I am doing. I do not know what you are doing over there, just sitting back and yapping away as usual.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Status quo?

AN HON. MEMBER: What is the status quo?