December

16, 1997 HOUSE OF

ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 52

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Members of the Legislature are aware that we have tabled

legislation to deal with a serious problem relating to the taxation of motor

vehicles. Government has reviewed the situation, and our research indicates that

the purchase price of vehicles which is reported to the Motor Registration

Division appears understated. I tabled information regarding this in the House

just a short time ago.

What the government is proposing, Mr. Speaker, is a system

which would not penalize honesty but would deter dishonesty and abuse. We want

everyone to be on a level playing field, so that an honest person who has paid

tax on the actual purchase price will not have to pay more than someone who

deliberately understates it in a private sale.

Over the past week, the hon. members and the public have been

aware that the government was considering a system which uses value contained in

the Canadian Red Book combined with the right of appeal. We have heard from

members of this House and taxpayers on this issue and we have listened to their

concerns.

Mr. Speaker, we believe that in a very high percentage of

transactions, the actual purchase price is near the book value; however,

government also recognizes that vehicles may legitimately be sold for a purchase

price below book value. This may be for varying reasons, including rust damage,

excessive mileage, or simply because an individual is getting a good deal.

Today we are announcing a system which combines a Red Book

Valuation System with affidavits. Purchasers will be able to obtain Red Book

information through a toll-free number provided by the Department of Finance so

they can determine the book value before they register their vehicle with the

Motor Registration Division.

If the purchase price is less than the average wholesale

value in the Canadian Red Book, both the buyer and seller must swear to a

Justice of the Peace or a Commissioner of Oaths, an affidavit specifying the

purchase price of the vehicle. This affidavit will be required at the time of

registration. Taxpayers can use a Justice of the Peace or a Commissioner of

Oaths of their choice, or can avail of that service free of charge at a Motor

Registration Division office or a provincial taxation office.

The affidavit will specify that it is an offence to provide

false information, and a person found guilty of such an offence is liable for

fines up to $10,000 and/or imprisonment for up to two years.

Affidavit forms will be made available at all Government

Service Centres around the Province, through Motor Vehicle Registration, from

the Department of Finance offices, and from Government's Home Page on the

Internet.

Mr. Speaker, this program will be implemented on a one-year

trial basis and the results will be reviewed at the end of that time.

I want to thank my colleagues and the public for their input.

We, in this case, did not brush off any suggestions and, in fact, combed through

each one that we received.

We are particularly grateful, as I said, to my Caucus

colleagues but particularly to the Member for Cape St. Francis. He has with, I

understand, the assistance of the Member for Windsor - Springdale from time to

time but they certainly alighted on the very solution that we had arrived at a

short time ago.

Mr. Speaker, it is no wonder that another candidate for the

Leadership of the Conservative Party withdrew, he is probably reading the same

polls we are, showing how the hon. member on the one hand is so far ahead in the

Tory leadership race -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DICKS: - and secondly, how dismal that parties

changes ever are of forming a government in the Province.

In the spirit of the season, Mr. Speaker, and in admiration

for his wit, charm and intelligence from time to time displayed in this House,

we on this side of the House would like to offer to the member opposite a small

token of our gratitude. It is a gift that, while practical for most, may prove

more inspirational for him.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to give credit where credit is due and I

want to thank the minister for reading the statement here in the House today

that I prepared for him and sent over. I want to thank the minister for reading

the statement that I prepared and sent over to him.

Mr. Speaker, I want to actually congratulate the minister for

taking the advice of this side of the House and backing off on this unfair,

unjust, morally wrong tax that would have been implemented. We never had any

input from any member on that side of the House, Mr. Speaker, none. I spoke to

one but I won't say who it was, Mr. Speaker.

Now there is only one thing, Mr. Speaker, that he changed in

this and that is the penalty for offence of this new policy of fines up to

$10,000 and imprisonment of up to two years. I think that may be a bit too

stiff, Mr. Speaker, because we have people in this Province, the working poor

out there who buy used vehicles and may be tempted - I don't say it is right but

they may be tempted to reduce the bill of sale somewhat but I have to

congratulate the minister for taking the advice of this side of the House, Mr.

Speaker. Another victory for this side of the House!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: With respect to the comment on the

leadership, Mr. Speaker, we have a leader.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No point of order.

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, does he

have leave? By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to acknowledge that what the government has done on

this issue is giving the public the information in plenty of time, listened to

what they had to say and responded by changing the policy and the new policy is

a reasonable one. If only, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Environment and Labour

would do the same thing with the Shops' Closing Act and

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: - give people time enough to respond and

lobby the government instead of having to do it in the middle of Christmas

shopping and Christmas shopping hours, it is time for the government to listen

on that other issue as well and not keep this House going until 4:30 a.m. trying

to push it through the House.

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

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honour a

commitment I made in the House earlier this year to table my department's

response to the special audit of the former Cabot Corporation. The audit

reported on the Cabot Corporation for the period 1992 to 1995, before the

Corporation was under the direction and control of government.

As my hon. colleagues are aware, the Corporation was run by

an independent Board of Directors during that time period. Representatives of

the former board prepared a response to the Auditor General's report and

released it publicly earlier this year. The report being tabled today contains a

summary of that response for the public record. In addition, the department's

response clarifies the issues which were within the department's jurisdiction.

Mr. Speaker, given Cabot's independent status at the time,

its Board of Directors was responsible for adopting and implementing reasonable

financial and other corporate policies. The results of the Cabot year clearly

demonstrate that the overall expenditure was effective and achieved the

pre-determined goals.

I would like to use this opportunity to publicly thank the

former Board of Directors for their work. These dedicated men and women

completed an enormous amount of planning which provided the basis for the events

in 1997.

I think that it is only now, as we have seen for ourselves

the enormity of the Cabot events, that we can truly appreciate the amount of

planning that was required to implement such an event and implement it as

successfully as we did. This is the first time in our history that we had ever

proposed such a monumental tourism initiative. In the end, the Cabot

celebrations proved successful. It proved to be an investment in Newfoundland

and Labrador, its economy and its people. I am proud to have been a part of it.

Thank you.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we note here, the minister is thanking the

former board of directors for their work, and of course, we know that the former

board of directors had some great difficulties in their contracts with the

government and it has been the subject of some legal action in recent weeks.

Of course, we know what the legalities are, we also know what

their morality is, and in this particular case, many people feel that these

people were not treated properly, and while you thank them here for their work,

it would have been much more appreciated by them if you had lived up to the

contract that you had, from the moral point of view, rather than playing

politics with them.

We will look forward to analyzing the result to see what the

Province got for the $14 million, and see what that means for planning for 1999

and the 50th celebration of Newfoundland's Confederation with Canada. We will

analyze the report and I am sure that this matter will come back by the hon. the

Member for Conception Bay South by way of questions to the minister in the days

ahead.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess I will have to ask the question for the Premier - I

will catch up to him, I guess, sometime by the spring.

I will ask the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, in his absence, some questions pertaining to that particular

department.

Now, Christmas, I say, has come early for the Federal

Government because, as the minister is well aware, yesterday the Federal

Government was relieved of its responsibility for the Labrador ferry service,

and in return, we are left with not nearly enough money to complete the

Trans-Labrador Highway; so we are left hanging in the balance.

I asked the Premier, in this House, over two weeks ago: what

are the plans for this ferry service in the future, and he said the minister

would respond to me with that within a week. He has not yet responded, I say to

the minister - the Ministerial Statement did not tell us anything. I would like

to ask the minister today -there are only three basic options I see there. Can

he tell us which one this Province is looking at, in fairness to the people who

have been employed and depending on this service?

Does he intend to have Marine Atlantic continue, at a subsidy

like this year I understand, $12 million? Is it an option to put it out to

private tenders for proposals to operate that service or, is the Provincial

Government planning to run that itself? I mean, could the minister tell us,

enlighten us, basically, because there are people depending on this and,

Minister, for the last nine months we have known this was going to happen.

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

Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for

the question, because it is relevant and pertinent to what is happening on a

go-forward basis with respect to Labrador transportation matters.

Yesterday was a rather, I guess, historic day of sorts,

because we did yesterday take over effectively and in law the assets of the

Marine Atlantic organization in Newfoundland. It was all part and parcel, of

course, of an arrangement that we made with the Federal Government back in the

early Spring, where we received the $340 million in return for taking over

Labrador freight and coastal services' responsibility, along with a component to

build two pieces of a three-part program in terms of highway construction.

The hon. member is not really correct when he says we do not

have enough money to do the job we agreed to do. We do in fact have enough money

to do what was structured in the original agreement. We have enough money to

complete the upgrading of the highway from Lab West to Goose Bay. We have enough

money to complete phase two, which is a new highway from Cartwright to Red Bay.

We have enough money, on the basis of prudent investments, to run in perpetuity

the coastal service for as long as we need to run that service up the Coast of

Labrador.

To the other part of the question, I can inform him and the

House that we have developed a business plan that will see us do the business of

delivering coastal freight and other types of services on a go forward basis

next year in a prudent fashion. The proposition is now before Cabinet. I expect

we will be dealing with the business plan, my colleagues will, in Cabinet,

within the next short time. After that, I will be able to outline more fully

what that business plan is.

I can tell the hon. member that I have -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

members -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

have a -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: - particular interest in this matter - I

have kept them informed as to the general direction that we are going and -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: - I will be able to announce formally what

the business plan is -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: - for the coming year.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister did not deliver what you said a year ago when

you were negotiating this. You said there would be a phase three. It was read

out by the minister in this House, by your predecessor, that phase three would

be from Goose Bay to Cartwright. You have not talked about it since. You have

sold us out on $200 million dollars, so that we do not even have any money to

complete the project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the minister, Christmas has come

early for Nova Scotia's Premier, Russell MacLellan, who was handed a gift by our

Premier at David Dingwall's dinner last Saturday night.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: A dinner, I might add, that was

unscheduled, and compliments of the constituents in the district.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask him, in light of a resolution passed

by this House for the jobs from Moncton to come to this Province, will the

minister tell us now why the Premier of this Province is stating that North

Sydney - he said at that dinner in Nova Scotia - should share the jobs from

Moncton with this Province? Can he tell us: Why is he talking out of one side of

his mouth in Nova Scotia and out of another side down here in our Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member will know that this government has taken a

consistent and very definitive stand with respect to what we expect Marine

Atlantic to deliver to this Province in the future in terms of services and job

opportunities as well as business opportunities.

The reality still exists, as much as we would like it

probably to be otherwise, in this fashion: There have to be ferry services,

people running ferries, people untying and tying up ferries, people looking

after reservation matters in North Sydney, as long as we are without a fixed

link between here and North Sydney. As long as we are depending on ferries from

Newfoundland to Nova Scotia, we will expect to have employees of Marine Atlantic

located in Sydney, to some extent.

What we have said consistently is that given that reality,

and given the acknowledgement of that reality that the Premier put forward, as

is alleged by the hon. member, and appropriately so, but within the context of

that reality we still expect the lion's share of jobs and business activities

from and within the Marine Atlantic organization to take place in this Province,

and to take place for the benefit of this Province and for the people in their

organization who work in this Province.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Cape Breton Post, the headline: Share Jobs, says Tobin.

North Sydney and Port aux Basques should share the jobs created by Marine

Atlantic's move from Moncton to Newfoundland.

We are not talking about the jobs that are in North Sydney.

We do not need any more jobs in North Sydney to run it. We are taking a

headquarters from Moncton and putting it down here in this Province and sharing

it with Nova Scotia. That should not be the case.

It is not what the resolution said. It is not what the

Premier stated in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Now, I ask the minister: Will the minister

tell us - and the Premier has indicated, I tell him in advance, he has spoken

with the President of Marine Atlantic, the Chairperson of the Board at Marine

Atlantic - will he tell us now if Marine Atlantic has sent a proposal to the

federal minister, David Collenette, regarding the relocation of Marine Atlantic

Headquarters? Has a proposal gone? He pleaded ignorance to it here when I know

he knows about it.

Does the minister have any information that he could tell us

here today on the status of that headquarters?

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

Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have met with the Chairman of the Board of Marine Atlantic

on at least four or five occasions this fall. I met with Rod Morrison, the CEO

of that organization, and repeatedly outlined to him what our position is as a

government and what we expect to be achieved on behalf of the people of the

Province through their organization in the future.

They did advise - and I believe they have probably moved to

that extent now - they have put together a business plan, as I understand it, it

was their intention to put together a business plan and present it to the

Minister of Transportation in Ottawa on December 15 or thereabout. I think it

happened a little earlier than that.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: I am telling you that Marine Atlantic have

- or their board has put together, as I understand it, a business plan, and

although I do not have written confirmation of it, I understand that they have

probably presented that business plan to the Minister of Transportation in

Ottawa.

I also want to tell the hon. member that I have spoken with

the Minister of Transportation - his office - in the last four or five days and

again apprised him, as I did in a meeting directly on August 6, of our intention

of seeing achieved for the people of Newfoundland substantial benefits from that

organization and I have every confidence and a high level of comfort that the

Federal Government, through the federal Minister of Transportation, Mr.

Collenette, will do on behalf of this Province what is right and proper, what is

appropriate and what will be beneficial, not only in the interest of enhancing

and maintaining a good service, but also in the interest of the employees who

work for that organization and who are residents of this Province.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, you should get your information clear with the Premier.

The Premier stated in this House, I say to the minister, that he knows nothing

of a proposal that is gone, and the minister now is telling us. One of you is

not telling the truth. Now, I ask him, who is it?

Another question I want to put to the minister: The Premier

of this Province has been generous to Russell MacLellan on sharing jobs out of

Moncton, that should never be, and that is not what he is stating here, and he

has been generous to Paul Martin. The workers who are depending, as of

yesterday, are now no longer employed with this service, are waiting with

Christmas coming on and they only have thirty days to make fundamental decisions

regarding whether they should sell their house in Lewisporte or move a family to

another location in the Province or to North Sydney. I think it is only fair, I

say to the Minister, that these people should not be kept in the dark?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister, can he see fit - since

he has known about this since April 3, when the agreement was signed, he knew

about it over nine months ago - can he see fit to let those workers know before

Christmas what the future has for them, so they can get on and make a decision

and at least be able to have a happy Christmas this year?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I believe, if the hon. member will check the record of

Hansard and check the record of dates in chronological order, he will find that

the answer given to the question previously, as to whether or not a business

plan had gone forward, and what I have subsequently shared with him today - he

will find that things happened in the interim, so that the answer the Premier

gave six days ago in the House was correct and the answer that I have given you

today is also correct. The fact of the matter is that activities have taken

place in the last five or six days by Marine Atlantic to put forward the

business plan to the federal minister and so, the information is entirely

correct and entirely consistent.

Now, with respect, Mr. Speaker, to the employees who were

working with Marine Atlantic - the employees of Marine Atlantic have known for

some time that as of December 15, some of their employment would effectively be

terminated as a result of the devolution of that service to the Province. I

understand from the unions involved that the severance arrangements have gone

quite smoothly. I understand from speaking directly to the employees, one of

which I met with last week from Lewisporte, and with the union leaders, that the

arrangements have gone well, and the employees, or at least their unions have

expressed a high level of satisfaction as to what they have arranged in terms of

severance packages.

With respect to the employees of Marine Atlantic, they did

not come as an obligation with the arrangement we made on the highway.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

please.

MR. MATTHEWS: - with the arrangement we made on the

highway. Their interests and their future employment prospects with Marine

Atlantic can only be dealt with in discussions directly with Marine Atlantic.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: What happened yesterday or today is what

happens when people look at the leadership polls, I say to the Premier.

My question, Mr. Speaker, is for the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation, who is responsible for tenders, regarding the sale

of Elizabeth Towers. I have reviewed the tender documents and the information

tabled by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs in this House; some

interesting figures. The sale incurred losses this current fiscal year of

$464,000. It sold for $351,000 less than the 1996 assessed value. We have been

told it sold for $2 million less than it was offered two years ago.

The tender document indicates that the potential yearly

income is $1,482,913. Will the minister confirm that the actual potential yearly

income is really $1,717,313, which was $234,000 more than what was indicated in

the tender documents? Why was the second floor commercial space not factored in

in the tender documents for potential income?

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

Provincial Affairs.

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

questions in that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Four.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: There was a leadership statement.

MR. A. REID: (Inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. REID: On the leadership statement, they know over

there it had nothing to do with polls. It had all to do with the (inaudible)

competition that he had out in the bay between the hon. (inaudible)...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. REID: From the Housing Corporations' perspective,

we asked MCP would they enter into a long-term arrangement or a lease

arrangement with us. In fact, it was the hon. Member for Waterford Valley who

told me some days after: They never ever did that, Art. I went back and checked

it and that was absolutely correct. The hon. Member for Waterford Valley

probably could answer these questions for his colleague just as easy as I could.

They wouldn't give us a long-term lease contract, so we couldn't add the second

floor tenants into the deal to make the deal sweeter.

The other question was - you were asking about the

profitability of Elizabeth Towers. I've been here five years, Mr. Speaker, and

if I'm not mistaken I think just one year we showed a profit at Elizabeth Towers

of approximately $100,000. The direction of this government and the previous

government, and by the way, and I will say, at the encouragement of the

Opposition, has been for years encouraging this side of the House to devolve

itself of assets belonging to and being used by the Housing Corporation in

competition and conflict with the private sector.

We took the direction two years ago that we would start to

devolve ourselves of those assets. One of the assets was Elizabeth Towers. Yes,

we spent a lot of money in doing up Elizabeth Towers, but at the end of the day

we had to sell Elizabeth Towers and we did lose money.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

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

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

I just want to note that the minister did not answer the

question with respect to why the second floor space was not factored in in the

potential income for Elizabeth Towers, I would say to the minister.

Second question: Will the minister confirm that Newfoundland

and Labrador Housing Corporation preferred an unencumbered proposal with minimum

exposure to government, and can he tell the House if government is financing in

any way or guaranteeing in any way, directly or indirectly, the accepted bid on

Elizabeth Towers?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: I hope we aren't, Mr. Speaker, because I

think I could embarrass the people across if I had to tell who actually ended up

getting Elizabeth Towers. I will guarantee you, it was no Liberal. I will say

this to you, that if I felt that we were subsidizing it in any way, I would have

to take issue on the question.

We lost money on Elizabeth Towers. It was a question of

either cutting our losses at this particular point in time and getting out of

the business, as we have been asked to do by the Opposition on a number of

occasions - or continuing on to lose money and take losses. There is a fair

amount of work to be done on the outside with regards to the balconies, for

example, there is $1 million worth of work to be done on that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. REID: The answer is no, as far as I know we are

not subsidizing and the question of the second floor is the same as I gave you a

few minutes ago. We could not give any commitment in regards to the second for

rental space and profit. In fact, we could not even give them the commitment

that MCP would even be in the building after this year. So we could not add it

into our profitability figures.

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

Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: I just want to be quite clear on this

because the minister did not really answer the question. He said that they were

not financing. My question was - now would he answer with a yes or no - that the

government or Newfoundland and Labrador Housing in any way is not either

financing or guaranteeing in any way, indirectly or directly, the bid that was

accepted? That is a yes or no.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: I don't know, Mr. Speaker. I said no a few

moments ago but I know when we put the deal out, as the hon. members across the

floor know, I stayed as far away from that deal as I possibly could. I didn't

want -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. REID: I can't say, Mr. Speaker, categorically that

we did not but I tell you what I will do, I will find out the information and

before the day is out, I will provide it to the hon. member.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have some more questions today for the

Minister of Education. First and foremost, Mr. Speaker, I want to mention to the

minister about comments he made outside of the House yesterday about playing

with this particular issue which is very, very serious. As late as today -

whether it is thirteen students or one student, I say to the minister, it is

important if it was wrong and it was wrong. I have been talking to those

thirteen again this morning. I have talked to students who have been there for

the last year-and-a-half. I have talked to parents as late as twelve o'clock

today and the concerns are still there, Mr. Speaker. Now I want to ask the

minister, is he confirming that the investigation is now completed? Is he

satisfied that all parts of the act were in compliance with this particular

institute? Is he satisfied with that?

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, maybe I will just wait and see

what other questions he has already got written down to ask so I can answer them

all the one time.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: There is something there when he is not

(inaudible) his windbag answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I think the Speaker can decide

when I am going to ask the questions and the minister can answer the questions.

So I will ask it again quite simply, is the investigation completed? Is he

satisfied? Will he table the report of the investigation? Is that too

complicated or would you like to answer that question?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Anyone who has been following the issue in the media already

knows the answers to those questions. I will wait and see if he has any more

questions.

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

Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: I guess the minister thinks everybody is

following the media but the most important thirteen people, Mr. Speaker, are

still the victims of this whole situation, who the minister still has not talked

to or reacted to.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it says by his own act, when in violation

of the act, immediately repay to the person. Now that is the only part of the

act that I will quote to the minister. Now that means immediately the violation

was of course acknowledged by the minister. There was a violation, according to

the advertising, and you have acknowledged that. The word says, `immediately.'

Does that mean that the students will have their cash in hand today?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the questions because it is a serious matter

that we have been trying to deal with without attracting too much unnecessary

and undue attention to it. I think all of us would know that issues of this

nature, persisted in by the now self-appointed education critic for the

Opposition, an aspiring leadership candidate who has - I don't know exactly what

his total motivations are with respect to the issue but the students themselves,

Mr. Speaker, have been contacted by the owner/operator and by our department

Friday, again yesterday, attempts again today, to the extent that the owners and

operators of the institution stated categorically, in writing, which was passed

along to each of the students that by the end of the day, if they had spent

their time meeting with the owners and operators who have the money that is

going to be refunded that they expect that all of those refunds, Mr. Speaker,

would be completed by the end of today.

That can only happen, Mr. Speaker, if the students meet with

the owners and operators of the institution. Mr. Speaker, our own staff have

volunteered and offered their services to help and go to the meetings with the

students, if they did not feel comfortable in going to the meetings themselves.

Our number one priority, Mr. Speaker, from day one, has been

to make sure the interests of the students and the post-secondary training

opportunity for the students are kept uppermost and forefront in everybody's

mind. I am satisfied, Mr. Speaker, and I have stated publicly that that is

exactly what has been occurring.

There have been some terrible accusations, hints and slurs

made by the member who has been asking the questions suggesting that some

connection to changes of government's policy, suggesting that there might have

been something wrong with the application process, Mr. Speaker; I do not know

what he is trying to get at; I do not know if he will ever have the nerve to

come right out publicly and say what he is trying to get at -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: - but I would certainly be interested to hear

it and deal with it at some point, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. SHELLEY: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear

the minister say that, well maybe, it will not be an accusation or a slur, Mr.

Speaker.

According to the Act: Instructions shall not be given to a

student in a private training institute until - a contract, the form by which it

is approved by the minister has been completed between the student and the

keeper of the private training institute.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

question.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the minister: I have

a contract here of the student who started classes on October 13, the contract

was signed December 16. Is that another violation of the Act? Will you commit

that further investigation is needed and this is indeed another violation on the

one you have already acknowledged that this is the second violation?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I repeat what I have said in the House for a couple of days

now: I am saddened by the approach taken by the hon. member.

We are trying to do things, Mr. Speaker, that are in the best

interest of the students and, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the contracts that

have been entered into, one of the reasons, Mr. Speaker, that there has been and

continues to be, a moratorium on the acceptance of new students into programs at

that institute is because of those kinds of issues.

A number of them have been addressed with the institute. To

my understanding, Mr. Speaker, they have been resolved; the students who had

contracts that were signed as the one he is probably waving around now, have

left the institute because they did not want to be there any more. Those

fourteen, Mr. Speaker, are now looking at trying to get their money back because

that is what they asked the department to facilitate for them.

The other eighty-five, Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge - and I

am sure in any one day, another student could come forward who is disgruntled

and we will deal with that issue. The other eighty-five are hoping that the hon.

member would stop trying to slander and bring in to disrepute the reputation of

the institution -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: - because they want to finish their training

and get on with their lives, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Environment

and Labour with respect to deeming and with respect to the statutory review

committee of the Workers' Compensation Act.

The minister said some time ago in this House that, through

his initiative and through his actions a committee was being put in place.

Can he update the House today on what action government has

taken or initiated on the question of deeming with respect to injured workers

and, update exactly what the details of those actions have been?

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

Labour.

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes. In conversation with the member yesterday, I told him

that we are having a person from the Department of Labour, a person from outside

of the community outside of government to sit on it and someone from our

department, Occupational Health and Safety, to form a committee to take a total

look at deeming and to, over the next couple of months, and before we bring the

other recommendations from the WCC Report in the spring, that we will have a

full report on deeming and make it a part of the recommendations of the WCC

Report.

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

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to provide

the minister with an example. I did yesterday, but I would like to for the

public record.

Deeming is an important way in which the Workers'

Compensation Commission takes people off the system. For example: What does the

minister say to this injured worker who had a head injury, who is deemed capable

of selling real estate from his bed, the Commission said that he could easily

sell real estate from his home over the phone, therefore not entitled to

benefits.

Surely minister, that is not the spirit of what deeming was

meant to be. What do you say to that injured worker? What commitment can you

make that will certainly straighten out the deeming process?

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

Labour.

MR LANGDON: I want to thank the member for the question

and, obviously, as I committed to him yesterday and I have committed to the

House, there are problems with deeming, there are no two ways about that and

this particular individual who was deemed to do a certain job, obviously was not

capable of doing it and that is what this committee would do. There would be an

impartial look at it and we want to clean up that particular part of the WCC

Report and at the end, to make it fair for injured workers who are new on the

system, so that they can get a fair share and not be treated, seemingly as this

case here, ill-advisedly.

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

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, that is but one example of

what is taking place with injured workers and I am sure that the minister is

aware of it.

I would like to deal with another recommendation.

Yesterday, in my office, an injured worker came in from my

district who had a report from a specialist that said that he could not return

to work. That specialist's report was overruled by a case manager again who was

not qualified, who was not technically trained to make that decision.

Can the minister indicate to the House today that on that

recommendation, with respect to specialists' reports being overruled by

occupational therapists or case managers, can he say to the House today that he

is initiating actions that will look at that specific recommendation within the

Statutory Review Committee to end that particular action by the Workers'

Compensation Commission?

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

Labour.

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to tell the member that every recommendation that was

brought as a part of the overall review, we will deal with as expeditiously as

we can, and where the system needs to be redefined we will do that; because

basically, I guess, the whole premise, the whole philosophy behind the WCC, it

is an insurance program to support injured workers, but at the same time I think

it is very important that we put a human face on it to make sure that the people

who are there are treated fairly, and that is what we propose to do when the

final amendments are done.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are

for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

The minister will know that the Federation of Municipalities

and the Newfoundland and Labrador Municipal Administrators' Association have

been talking for some time about establishing minimal qualifications for

municipal clerks and other municipal officers.

I say to the minister, given what is happening in other parts

of Canada, can the minister today tell us that his office now is prepared to

establish guidelines for municipal clerks, particularly those in rural

Newfoundland and, if so, when will he be able to share that information with the

towns and all municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, no. Even though the Federation

of Municipalities, who represent most of the larger communities in the Province,

and they do represent and voice opinions, as well as the Administrators'

Association, I cannot stand here and say that I agree wholeheartedly with what

they are asking me to do.

We have communities, for example, up on the North West Coast

of this Province, on the West Coast, on the South Coast, in your district, in my

district, where we have town clerks who work three hours a week - three hours a

week - people who come in and open the office on Wednesday afternoon so that

people can come in and pay their taxes, and basically don't do much more than

that, and keep their records on what I would refer to as a scribbler.

We did turn around and put $500,000 into a budget this year

to help some of these smaller communities as it relates to computerization and

modern technologies that we have, but I cannot say, quite honestly, that I would

be in favour, or this government would be in favour, of imposing the will of the

Federation of Municipalities when it came to making sure that every single town

clerk or town manager in the Province had a certain level of expertise that they

would have to acquire by going to Memorial University or doing some programs.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

offer that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions as elapsed.

MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion?

Answers to Questions -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. FUREY: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. Could we revert to

tabling reports for a minute?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees.

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a report of

the Mineral Licences and Mining Leases issued for the period April 1, 1996 to

March 1997.

Petitions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate they do not

have an enthusiastic bunch of members like we have over here, I can say. It is

too bad.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Contradictions by ministers contradicting

the Premier. I told the sandbagger from Humber East the Premier is always right!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: The Premier is always right. I warned him.

The Premier is always right. You have to remember that if you hope to move up

out of that spot where you are sitting.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER TOBIN: A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I told the people of this

Province that I would meet the Leader of the Opposition the next election, and I

was right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: No point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, and he told the Leader of the

Opposition that every job for Moncton should be here, but he told The Cape

Breton Post and everybody in Nova Scotia we should share the Moncton jobs

with North Sydney. That is what you told, the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: You are on record, Premier.

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

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

petition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Now back to the business at hand, back to

the petition, before I was rudely interrupted by the absentee Premier in this

Province. Now I want to get back to the issue at hand.

I have a petition here today, Mr. Speaker, and the petition

is addressed to the hon. House of Assembly. The petition of the undersigned

residents of Newfoundland:

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has

introduced legislation to remove the current restrictions on Sunday shopping;

and

WHEREAS this legislation, if passed, would have serious

consequences for retail and wholesale workers, who now count Sundays as

guaranteed holidays that they can spend with their families; and

WHEREAS we do not need and do not want the changes that this

legislation would cause;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to withdraw Bill 48, "An Act To Amend The Shops'

Closing Act No. 2", from the Order Paper and abandon efforts to remove the

current restrictions on Sunday shopping, as in duty bound, your petitioners will

ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, it is no understatement at all, to say that we

have been on the record on this issue. We had an opportunity to present one

petition yesterday - one petition we were permitted yesterday, and we have

dozens of petitions here on this issue. There are some fundamental reasons why

this bill should not pass. Who is benefiting from this bill?

Let us look at it realistically. Do the workers want it? The

answer is clearly no. Do the businesses want it? The answer is no. The

businesses do not want it. I heard a comment by the President of the Board of

Trade yesterday morning on radio, decrying the manner in which this government

has moved forward. The Federation of Independent Businesses has issued a news

release condemning it. The point is, we are not going to increase revenues from

those businesses. We are going to open up major chains to compete against small

businesses to siphon dollars out of our economy to the shareholders in other

parts of Canada, and even outside our country, at the expense of the small

grocery store on the corner, the small-time operations here that are trying to

survive today.

I said last night in the House I have seen instances in 1992

since the moratorium, under NCARP and under TAGS, where small, rural communities

have laid off employees. They have been hit hard because people have moved into

major centres with the free time of the moratorium, to spend their dollars there

at the expense of local communities and businesses that are struggling and, I

might add, putting money into coffers and profit-makers outside the Province.

Let us look at it realistically. Do we expect to increase

revenues seven days instead of six? The answer is, no. If it did happen, it

would be so marginal, it would be negligible. What happens then? If a company

has overhead costs, they are going to increase. The variable overheads are going

to increase. It is going to need more workers. There are going to be more wages,

or there is going to be a downward pressure to keep wages down where they are.

Therefore, what we are going to see as a result is an increase in price in the

cost of goods. That is basically what is going to happen, and nobody is going to

benefit.

The consumer will not benefit from this, I can assure you.

The worker will not benefit from this. Business is not going to benefit from

this, because businesses are out there to get a certain fixed profit margin that

they strive to get, and they will push for that. If the cost of goods has to

increase proportionately to get that margin, then they will get that, basically,

and it is the consumer and the workers who will pay - the workers, in wages that

will not rise -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No leave.

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

the petition?

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in my place today to speak to the petition and to

support the petition, of course.

I have to ask: Why is it necessary to bring in this Shops'

Closing Act now, just before Christmas? I think it has something to do with a

deflection of the real issues. We have not gotten to the bottom of it yet.

Mr. Speaker, when I went out of this building this morning at

4:30 or 4:45, I was almost blinded with the Christmas lights out in front of the

building. I never saw the like of it before in the five years I have been here.

Again, a very superficial thing, trying to make the people of the Province

believe that everything is okay.

Mr. Speaker, I sat in this House of Assembly last night, up

until 4:30 this morning, and I think around 1:00 a.m. or 2:00 a.m. we heard this

noise, this loud noise, and members on that side of the House can confirm it. It

was a plane flying over this building, very low. Why? Because he thought it was

the runway out front, with the lights from Holiday Inn down to the intersection

by the Arts and Culture Centre.

Mr. Speaker, you talk about spending money and saving money.

I heard that the Premier gave a direct order that they had to be lit up by

Sunday night. We had people out there working all night, all weekend, 700 sets

of lights. We had employees going all over St. John's buying up every set of

lights in St. John's so that when the Premier came back here he could look at

that and say, `Now, isn't that nice?' That glow reminds him of Ottawa, reminds

him of Waterford Bridge Road.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

prayer of the petition.

MR. J. BYRNE: Relevancy, Mr. Speaker, there is no trouble

to bring it back. I am trying to point out that these lights are deflecting the

people's attention away from the real issues in the Province, trying to make

them feel happy and good.

With respect to Bill 48, we said in this House, we do not

know why it is before the House of Assembly right now. It is again trying to

deflect people's attention away from the real issues. We have other legislation

to be brought before this House, and the last few minutes -

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

tomorrow.

MR. J. BYRNE: That is a good line there. All those lights

out in front have something to do with the Premier's brighter tomorrow. The only

thing is, it is about a brighter night.

Bill 48 is before this House. We have been asking questions

to try to find out why it is here. We know that the Board of Trade does not

support it. The labourers do not support it.

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

out.

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon?

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

out.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, that is a good point, I say to the

Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi. Maybe the Premier would like to get up and

speak to the petition and explain why we are discussing this Bill 48, "An Act to

Amend The Shops' Closing Act No. 2". We cannot get any answers out of any of the

people over there. No one can tell us who wants it. Over 66 per cent of the

people in the Province are opposed to it, according to the poll that was done by

the Member for Topsail - at least 66 per cent opposed to it.

We have the Premier here now. We have asked the Government

House Leader: Is the Board of Trade in favour? No. Is Labour in favour? No. Are

retailers in favour? No. Are the people of the Province in favour? No.

The opposition to this bill is rising all the time and I

would like for the Premier to stand in his place and tell us who is pushing this

bill. Who wants this bill? Is it the large chains? Is it the big businesses

outside of Newfoundland and Labrador trying to push this? Who is going to

benefit, Mr. Speaker? Who will benefit from this legislation? We cannot figure

it out. We do not know on this side of the House. There are members on that side

of the House who do not know because they cannot answer the questions. So I ask

the Premier: Who is going to benefit from this legislation? I am sure it is not

the people of this Province. We are going to have job losses. We addressed this

last night for twelve hours, talking about this bill - twelve hours.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: You can read it in Hansard. You can go out

there any time at all and get a copy of Hansard. You will have it tomorrow

morning, I am sure. No problem, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, you would not want to hear some of

the stuff that went on here last night, I say to the Speaker. When you saw the

abuse that this side of the House had to take last night, I say to the Minister

of Mines and Energy, you would not want to read it. You would be ashamed, you

would be embarrassed to be sitting on that side of the House, I say to the

Minister of Mines and Energy. You would be like the Member for Port au Port,

last night, who was up in the gallery when we were talking about this. He was

repulsed by this legislation. He did not want to sit in his seat when this was

being debated in this House of Assembly. It was being debated in this House of

Assembly and we had a member of the House sitting up in the galleries who did

not want to be here because he was repulsed by the legislation - that was the

only conclusion we could come to - the only conclusion.

So I would like to ask, Mr. Speaker, before I sit down: Will

the Premier stand in his place today and tell us who is pushing this

legislation? Who wants it? Who will benefit from the legislation?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

Who will benefit from the legislation?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No leave.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I also have a petition from the citizens who are opposed to

Sunday shopping. They want to see this legislation withdrawn. They are among the

hundreds and thousands of Newfoundlanders who are asking the same question as is

being asked here today and was being asked last night.

Maybe today, Mr. Speaker, now that the Premier is here, we

will have the answer, because I want to tell him that the minister could not

tell us why he was bringing in the bill. He told everybody on CBC radio, the

Premier's favourite show on CBC radio, with the Premier's favourite interviewer

- he was asked by that favourite interviewer of the Premier, `Whom had he

consulted?' He said nobody. He had consulted nobody. That is fairly obvious, Mr.

Speaker, that nobody was consulted on this because everybody who has had

anything to say about it -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this

petition and it is the exact same petition which hon. members just presented. It

seems to me that we are going to take all afternoon discussing exactly the same

petition. I say that, Mr. Speaker, because when Bill Marshall was the House

Leader, I tried to do the same thing but I was stopped dead in my tracks. You

cannot bring the same petition over and over, especially since we are going to

debate the whole issue a little later on, on the Order Paper. I think it is just

wasting the time of the House, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, now we have seen gall. This is

the same member who sat in Opposition day after day and presented petitions from

one side of the street, got up the next day and presented petitions from another

side of the street, photocopied them and did the same thing the next day. The

reality is, Mr. Speaker, that the petition that the Member for Cape St. Francis

was speaking to was one presented by the Leader of the Opposition. The one that

is presented by the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi is a completely

separate, different petition.

Now, with respect, Mr. Speaker, this is only the second

petition. Hardly could it be justified or characterized as high jacking the

House of Assembly on this Order Paper with only the second petition.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MR. HARRIS: Clearly, the only point of the Minister of

Justice was to use up the time of the hon. member, just as yesterday he refused

to answer questions in the House and raised objections. And we were hoping, now

that the Premier is here we will know why this bill is here, because everybody

who has come out has said that they are opposed to it. The Federation of

Independent Business, there are 2,000 members and 90 per cent of them are

opposed to it. I have a letter here written to the Minister of Environment and

Labour, December 16, from City Consumers Co-Op Society, they are opposed to it,

Mr. Speaker. They expressed dissatisfaction: `...a negative impact on

locally-owned business, sales for six days spread over seven, increased cost of

sales plus increased cost to consumers. Multinational chains will be the only

ones to benefit from this change. Local ownership will suffer and may disappear,

leaving the retail sector of our economy controlled by multinationals.' That is

what seems to be the response of the people of this Province, Mr. Speaker -

whether it be business people or whether it be ordinary people, workers, members

of labour unions or the Federation of Labour itself, everybody seems to be

opposed to it. I remember the former Minister of Environment and Labour, now the

Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods saying last summer how wonderful it

was that he had listened and he was convinced by this young man from Sears, who

had campaigned against Sunday shopping last June. He was on television praising

him up saying what a wonderful government it was that listened to the people.

Mr. Speaker, what are we doing now? What has happened between

now and then? Have the multinationals gotten to the Premier? Have the gotten to

the Minister of Environment and Labour? Have they gotten to the government? Can

we have an answer as to where this legislation is coming from, and will the

Premier agree to put this bill away for six months, as we proposed last night,

and let the people have public hearings, let people discuss it and debate it -

not force it on the people a week before Christmas when even the business

people, the shoppers and the workers do not even have time to lobby the

government. Why can they not do that, Mr. Speaker?

MR. J. BYRNE: Who benefits?

MR. HARRIS: Who is benefiting? According to the City

Consumers Co-op, only the multinational chains will benefit from the change in

legislation. Now, why is this government being the handmaiden to multinational

chains, Mr. Speaker? Perhaps somebody could answer that question over there. We

got no answers yesterday in Question Period. We got no answers last night in

eight or nine hours of debate and I am afraid that we are not going to get any

answers anymore because if we ask questions in Question Period we are going to

be ruled out of order on an objection from members opposite.

Now, I know that the members opposite cannot really say

anything until the Premier is here to let them know what they are really allowed

to say, but now that he is here, perhaps he will respond to the petition and

tell us why his government is bringing in this legislation now -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

out this time last year.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I am glad to rise to support the petition presented by my

colleague, the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

Mr. Speaker, we have had a fair bit of discussion and an

awful lot of response from the general public. For example, this morning on VOCM

Open Line and it was on VOCM - of course, that is the Premier's favourite

station, that is where people talk to the Premier, conversations with the

Premier. This morning there was a conversation with the government. We had one

call supporting the Sunday shopping proposal and that was from Yellowknife. A

lady called in from Yellowknife and she said, `I am in favour of that'.

We listened to everybody else calling in. There was one guy

who said, `I am not quite so sure, I am for freedom of choice.' All the other

calls this morning, every other caller asked, `What is the agenda here?' Nobody

who called in this morning was in favour of Sunday shopping.

I say to the Premier, two years ago, Tom Murphy brought in a

similar bill, and on being questioned in the House, he said, `I have so many

people supporting it, I would have to take up the whole of Question Period if I

were to go and make - take until 8:00 p.m. or 9:00 p.m. So, we said, `Go for

it,' and the Member for Humber East, Lynn Verge said: `Take it, here, take

Question Period, give us the list.' And then, of course, he went out and CBC

asked, `Can you name three supporting this?' He said, `Oh, I have lots of them.'

They asked, `Could you name three, four, five?' Then, some days later, Tom

Murphy had to say, `I have not talked to anybody, I cannot name one person who

is supporting this proposal.' And, of course, when he got caught like that, we

knew what was going to happen. It was two or three days before the Premier of

the day came in with his December slash, two days before he laid off 350

employees and the whole idea was - and it was admitted to by some of the

colleagues who were on that side at that time - the whole idea was to deflect

away from this big layoff.

We want to know what is the agenda here? What is the real

story? There is certainly - this cannot be all that it appears to be. There must

be something that is happening that the government does not want us to know

about or deal with. We asked yesterday, the Minister of Environment and Labour -

we said: `Tell us 50 per cent.' He said: `66-2/3 per cent'. Not 65 per cent, not

68 per cent, not 67 per cent, he said, 66-2/3 per cent. He had it right down

very precise and you know, it was a continuing thing, 66-2/3 per cent of the

people that he talked with, and the people out there were in favour. But we want

to ask him today: Would you give us a list of 500 businesses, 500 people who are

supporting this proposal? If that is the case then we would have to say to those

petitioners, in their hundreds, in their thousands, that they probably are not

in the majority, but at this moment, our polls are running now about 500 to

zero.

We have not had one single call - the Member for Kilbride has

not had a call from any person saying: I am supporting this proposal. We went

all around the caucus this morning and asked: Would you tell us how many calls

you are getting? One hundred per cent of our calls are against this proposal for

Sunday shopping, and we ask the minister: Would you give us your list where you

got your 66-2/3 per cent, what people did you talk with and we want to know

exactly why did you bring this in at this time? We say to the minister: you have

said 66-2\3 per cent - we hope you can back it up. We are hoping you are not

another Tom Murphy in disguise.

Mr. Speaker, we are saying to the minister today - you know,

he is saying all of these people are supporting his proposal. We have petition

after petition; they are arriving by fax, they are arriving by courier, there

are people who are dropping them off at our homes. The Member for Kilbride has

had petitions dropped off at his house and any way that they can get them here

they are asking: `Please, please, would you stand up and make sure this

government understands that we do not support Sunday shopping,' and, Mr.

Speaker, that is why we stand here today. That is why we are likely to be here

for many more hours, because I can say to the government - and the government

knows what is likely to happen - that this particular proposal is not going to

get (inaudible) by -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: - because we do not believe it is

supported by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

now read.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that we now move to

Orders of the Day.

All those in favour, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against, `nay'.

Motion, carried.

MR. J. BYRNE: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members.

Division

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

Order, please!

All those in favour of the motion, please rise.

CLERK (J. Noel): The hon. the Minister of Development and

Rural Renewal; the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy; the hon. the Minister

of Justice and Attorney General; Mr. Walsh; the hon. the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board; the hon. the Minister of Education; the hon. the Minister of

Forest Resources and Agrifoods; Mr. Penney; Mr. Oldford; Mr. Barrett; the hon.

the Minister of Environment and Labour; the hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade

and Technology; the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation; the

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

Government Services and Lands; Mr. Noel; Mr. Wiseman; Mr. Andersen; Mr. Smith;

Mr. Ramsay; Mr. Whelan; Mr. Woodford; Mr. Mercer; Mr. Reid; Ms Thistle; Mr.

Sparrow, Ms Jones.

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

CLERK (J. Noel): The hon. the Leader of the Opposition;

Mr. Hodder; Mr. Shelley; Mr. Jack Byrne; Mr. Osborne; Mr. Ottenheimer; Ms

Osborne; Mr. Harris.

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

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion, carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House not adjourn

at 5:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House do

not adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

All those in favour, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye

MR. SPEAKER: Those against, `nay'.

Motion, carried.

Division

MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members.

Order, please!

All those in favour of the motion, please rise.

CLERK (J. Noel): The hon. the Minister of Development and

Rural Renewal; the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General; Mr. Walsh;

the hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board; the hon. the Minister of

Education; the hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods; Mr. Penney;

Mr. Oldford; Mr. Barrett; the hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour; the

hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology; the hon. the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation; the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy;

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

of Government Services and Lands; Mr. Noel; Mr. Wiseman; Mr. Andersen; Mr.

Canning; Mr. Smith; Mr. Ramsay; Mr. Woodford; Mr. Mercer; Mr. Reid; Ms Thistle;

Mr. Sparrow.

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

CLERK (J. Noel): The hon. the Leader of the Opposition;

Mr. Hodder; Mr. Shelley; Mr. Jack Byrne; Mr. Edward Byrne; Mr. T. Osborne; Mr.

Ottenheimer; Mr. French; Ms S. Osborne; Mr. Harris.

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

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion, carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Shops Closing

Act No. 2", (Bill No. 48), and I believe that the debate was adjourned by the

Minister of Justice.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, once again, I want to

congratulate my colleague, the minister, for bringing forth this bill. I can

tell my friend that he has a lot of support throughout the Province. The

Opposition has fallen into the trap whereby a few people have been making some

noise and they believe that the whole Province is basically spouting the same

line as they are. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of consumers

have waited for this bill for quite some time, are waiting in anticipation, and

are hoping to see it passed. I congratulate the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker, the Opposition has said it is against this bill.

It has staked out its position as being opposed to it. I have to say that I

respect its right to take that position. The very essence of our democracy is

such that there is room made for those who want to oppose any action that the

government brings forward, no matter how good, how admirable, that action is.

Until I breathe my last breath, I will stand here and defend its right to be

against this legislation, even though I know it is in the best interest of the

consumers of this Province. I support strongly its ability to be against any

legislation.

However, I cannot condone the actions the Opposition has been

taking. I have to question its tactics. Last night the debates which we heard in

this House were an absolute total disgrace to this institution. About 2:00 a.m.

I went up to my office upstairs to get myself a cup of tea, and I had the

speaker in my room turned on. I listened. I was thankful that television cameras

are not in this House. I was thankful the people of this Province weren't tuned

in listening to the absolute nonsense that was going on. Speaker after speaker

got up and said exactly the same old thing, totally irrelevant to the

legislation. Speaker after speaker droning on, repetition after repetition and

repetition.

There was only one - at one time, the Minister of Education

got so overcome by the nonsense and the drivel that was coming from the opposite

side of the House that he was forced to rise on a point of order. It was the

best speech that I heard in this House after all that debate. We were here until

4:30 a.m. debating it. The most sensible intervention I heard was that by the

Minister of Education.

I recognize its right to be opposed, but surely goodness it

must have some consideration for the people of this Province, and also for the

people in government who have to sit and listen to the nonsense. The human

brain, the human body, can only tolerate so much silliness. A little bit of

silliness, as they say, is relished by the best of men from time to time, but to

have it continuously over and over and over beaten into your head... I heard the

member of the NDP talking about something under the Labour Relations Board or

something as being occupational health and therapy. He was claiming that it was

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DECKER: This is the foolishness he went on with last

night, Mr. Speaker. That it was cold here. It wasn't the cold that was posing

the risk; it was the silliness they were going on with over there. That was what

was posing the risk. Last night was nothing only a total waste of the time of

the people in this House, an embarrassment, and thank goodness - I hope that

nobody in the Province was listening to it.

They came again today prepared with the same old tactics.

They came in with one petition that they had mimeographed, that they had copied

over and over. As soon as Your Honour called petitions they all stood. Then when

they started reading out the petitions we learned immediately that they all had

exactly the same petition.

MR. H. HODDER: (Inaudible).

MR. DECKER: But for the wisdom, Mr. Speaker, of the

Government House Leader, we would have been still here -

MR. SPEAKER (Penney): Order, please!

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

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

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

over.

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

point of order.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice knows

he isn't permitted to communicate things that are inaccurate, and he knows to be

inaccurate. The point of order we are making is that every single petition we

have here is a petition signed by separate people throughout this Province.

There are so many of them we don't need to photograph them, we do not need to

mimeograph them. We can prove to the minister, if he wants to do that, that

every single signature here is only presented on one occasion unless the

individual who signed the petition signed multiple petitions. We have not

photographed, mimeographed, or in any other way added to the list of petitions.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is not in a position to know

whether the one petition was presented on more than one occasion, or was

intended to be presented on more than one occasion. We will have to assume,

until we are in possession of facts to the contrary, that was not the case.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, they came here loaded with

petitions, with nothing only autographs signed by themselves. That is who they

were signed by, and their intent was to tie up this House until 12:00 or 1:00

tonight with an absolute waste of time, just trying to drag this out, and that

is a disgrace to this House. That is a disgrace to this institution. That is a

disgrace to the people of this Province. If they oppose the legislation, oppose

it and God bless them, but do it through the proper procedure. They came here

with that stupid, silly intention, to tie it up. The Government House Leader, in

his wisdom, was quick off the mark and brought them up, and what a bring-up they

got. They were brought to their senses.

Then, after we crushed them with their phoney attempt to

present phoney petitions, what did they do next? When we called to vote for

Orders of the Day, there was a voice vote, Your Honour. What kind of a dimwit

could look at the logistics of this House, and look at the number of people on

this side who voted `aye' when the question was put, and somehow come to the

conclusion that a vote that was counted after Division was somehow going to be

different from the vote that was counted with a voice vote? Is it any wonder

that the people of this Province are losing faith in politicians? That is the

kind of nonsense which gives us all a bad name. That is the kind of nonsense

which affects my privileges in this House.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I just want to inform the

minister that when we were looking at strategies in order to be able to get the

people's voice out here today, one of the places I looked was in 1987 and 1988

when this minister was then in Opposition. We looked at all of the procedural

things that they did and, I tell you what, you have not seen the fullness of the

potential under the act or under Beauchesne because I tell you what,

Minister; we are determined to make sure that the voices of ordinary

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians get communicated on this issue, and if we have

to stay here until 12:00 tonight, or 5:00 tomorrow morning, that is okay with

us.

MR. DECKER: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

point of order.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I take great pride in the period

of time that we spent over there, and we did protect democracy for the people of

this Province.

If the hon. members want to have a lesson in how to protect

democracy, and how to look out for the interest of the people, I will be glad,

with my colleague, John Efford, and a few more of us, to go over and give them

lessons in how to conduct themselves, not to make absolute fools and a mockery

of this House. There is no point of order. It is just interrupting a good

speech.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is not in a position to rule on any proceedings of

this House prior to today, anything that happened at a time prior to the sitting

of today. There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. DECKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, it is the procedure they are using to try to delay. It

is a delaying tactic, Mr. Speaker.

The topic which is before this House today would make an

excellent debate, and I would be prepared to debate it all night, but I am not

prepared to sit and listen to the foolishness they go on with, the delaying

tactics that they are using.

The thing that surprises me and amazes me about it all is

that hon. members over there are getting paid - are getting paid - to disrupt

this House and put this House into ill repute. It is absolutely disgraceful. I

think about the poor gentleman who is trying to get permission to cover this

House on video. It is a worthy cause he is looking for, but I shudder to think

what would happen if the people of this Province could only see the tactics that

the so-called `Loyal Opposition' is doing.

I will not take any more time because we are debating a very

important issue. I suggest that the members get up, make their points, and make

them strongly. I will support their right to do it and then we will put it to

the vote and then we will see whether or not this Legislature wants to support

the legislation brought forward by my colleague. Then we will see and stop this

nonsense with procedural tactics trying to delay democracy, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: More riveting than what we just heard, I

say to the Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to read a letter that I received

today from a Mr. Eric Bailey, Manager of Sam the Record Man store at the Village

Mall. It was sent to the Minister of Environment and Labour. I would much rather

read it because he has asked me to do so.

Dear Mr. Osborne: Enclosed please find a copy of my letter to

Oliver Langdon, labour minister regarding the proposed amendments to the Shops'

Closing Act. I employ you to reiterate my statements -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would remind members that it is not acceptable that letters

be read in the House. Quotations can be made from letters or from documents, but

it is unacceptable to read letters in the House.

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

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

point of order.

MR. H. HODDER: While Mr. Speaker, we accept your ruling.

It has been a long accepted practice - and to quote the former Speaker of the

House, now the Member for Terra Nova, who when he was there he would say that,

`While reading of documents in literal form is against Beauchesne ', he

will also say, `That members are allowed to use rather copious notes' and what

the Member for St. John's South was reading was copious notes provided to him by

the gentleman that he referred to and Mr. Speaker, because this gentleman sent

him those rather detailed notes, it is quite acceptable and the practice of this

House that all hon. members who have copious notes provided to them by anybody

is free to go and use those notes. The ruling has been made on many, many

occasions, particularly when we had Speaker Lush in the Chair and he made that

ruling and it was accepted on many, many times. However, I would admit that

reading absolute word for word might be offensive to the rules, however he is

allowed to read the notes provided to him by the gentleman whose name he

indicated at the time, I believe it was a Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Speaker, so we say that the member is in order if he uses

his notes in a very copious manner.

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

point of order.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, it is one thing for the hon.

gentleman to stand on a point of order, but I say to him and I say to him with

all sincerity, that it is another thing for him to question a ruling that was

made by the Speaker and that is exactly what he just did through the back door,

Mr. Speaker, stood up and said, `While we agree with the Speaker, we do want to

quote another Speaker'. Now, Mr. Speaker, if that is not questioning you Honours

ruling, I don't know what is. That is exactly what the hon. gentleman has done

over there. That is exactly the kind of tactics that my friend the Minster of

Justice was talking about a few minutes ago.

Now, let me make one other point to him, I hope he

understands the difference between copious notes and a reading from a piece of

correspondence. Now, Mr. Speaker, I say to him if I pick up and read a letter

today addressed to Mr. Speaker, today I rise to - and go on as the hon.

gentleman was doing, that is out of order and that is not reading copious notes,

that is verbatim. He knows that, but he wanted to stand up in his place and

question the ruling of the Speaker of this House.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has a choice, he can

stand up over there and put a motion to vote against your Honours ruling or he

can obey the Speaker of this House when he rules on a point of order or when he

questions some other member or brings some other member to order, but he can't

take the place on his back.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

It is one thing in this hon. House to decide that a member is

speaking from notes. When a member is making a speech and is quoting from notes,

it has been ruled before that the member is speaking with the advantage of the

notes; even those notes may in fact be copious notes. But the hon. member did

not say he was speaking from notes provided to him by somebody else. He stated

quite clearly that he was reading a letter, and the Chair ruled that was clearly

out of order.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do not question

your ruling, but I will ask a question here. Being a relatively new member, I

wonder, can I refer to the letter and portions of it?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

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

It is quite acceptable for the member to refer to a letter.

It is quite acceptable for him to refer to a quotation from the letter. It is

not acceptable for him to read it.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In referring to

this letter I would like to point out a couple of facts that the person has

written to the Minister of Environment and Labour.

He says first of all that he does not agree with the concept

of Sunday shopping, and he goes on to say that he will explain why. First of

all, he said that government's position seems to be that it would benefit the

economy by boosting retail sales and increasing job opportunities. He goes on to

say that that isn't necessarily so. He explains that after the novelty of being

able to shop on Sunday wears off, the amount of spending will return to normal,

that there will be no extra money spent. In fact, that it will be spent over a

seven-day period as opposed to a six-day period. The unfortunate reality is that

while the same amount of money will be spent over a seven-day period as opposed

to a six-day period, the cost of operating the store will increase because of

operating it seven days instead of six. I believe it works out to approximately

a 10 per cent to 15 per cent increase in the cost of operations due to wages,

utilities, and so on.

He goes on to say that no company wants to voluntarily lower

its gross profit margins, but if it has to spend extra money such as on

salaries, rent, heat, light, and other assorted expenses, for very little if any

increase in the revenue, then they have to come up with this money somewhere. He

said that is exactly what will happen here, that it will not be cost-effective

for stores to remain open on Sunday. He says he is sure, as many stores in New

Brunswick have found out, that it is not profitable for stores to be open seven

days as opposed to six.

As for boosting job opportunities, he goes on to say that

will not happen. He says he believes the cost-effectiveness of hiring people and

spending extra time and money to train them and to pay benefits, sick benefits,

medical benefits, and so on to these people, vacation pay and so on, just will

not be worth it. What they will actually do is ask the existing employees to

work more hours, and begrudgingly the employees will probably agree. They may

have problems with that as well.

He goes on to say that while the consumers' salaries will

remain the same, the stores' expenses will increase. The same amount of

disposable income by the consumers will be there. Unfortunately, they will be

forced to either raise their prices or go out of business. Because he said that

many stores right now are barely surviving, and I believe that to be true in our

Province today. He goes on to ask: Would government be willing to subsidize the

losses that businesses will incur as a result of the extra expenses? He goes on

to say he doesn't think so. To be honest with you, I don't believe they would

either.

He goes on to say: Will he be spending more money? He says

no, he doesn't think so, because he will be working on Sunday; because he

probably will not be able to convince all of his employees to work on Sunday. He

will have to fill in some of the spots. He will not be able to hire new

employees and pay out new benefits.

His second point is that he finds it hard to believe that the

majority of Newfoundlanders are actually in favour of Sunday shopping, Mr.

Speaker. While there were 209 respondents to a public opinion poll they do not

speak for the entire population. He goes on to ask, `Why doesn't government put

it to a vote, a referendum or a plebiscite as they did the education reform

issue?' He believes that this is an important issue that affects the lives of

every Newfoundlander and Labradorian and I believe that he has a point there. He

is right. `Would it not be the democratic thing to do' he asks `to put it to a

referendum, to put it to a plebiscite, to let everybody have their say?' He

believes and goes on to say that the impression he gets is that government is

pandering to the lobbying efforts of a select few and that he would be willing

to bet his house, that most of those people who are lobbying government are not

actually the people who would be working on Sundays.

In fact, he says he's sure that he does not have to remind

the Minister of Environment and Labour that you and all other government

officials were elected to represent the people of the Province. Again, the

gentleman there has a point. We have been elected to represent the people of the

Province. We have been elected to - not just for a few that want Sunday shopping

but the overall masses - we have been elected to represent the entire population

of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. As such, it would probably be more

democratic to find out in a plebiscite whether or not people want this drastic

and dramatic change in their lives because it is a dramatic change in the

traditions of Newfoundland and the lives of Newfoundlanders in our culture.

Mr. Speaker, he goes on to say that at least in theory, it

would seem only proper to have a plebiscite to be answerable to the people who

elect us. He goes on to ask, `Is it possible then that you could explain to him

why government is taking steps to ensure that it incurs ill feelings towards

itself from the retailers who helped to elect them in the first place?'

Mr. Speaker, his third argument is that government is saying

that Sunday shopping would give consumers more time to shop. He says that that

has no real validity, that most commercial operations are open now seventy-two

hours, some even longer, Mr. Speaker. The average work week for most people is

forty hours, so most individuals have at least thirty hours or in excess of

thirty hours a week to shop. Mr. Speaker, that is a valid point as well. He

says, `Can you honestly say that it is not enough time for people to shop in

excess of thirty hours? Almost as much time as their work week itself.' If it

is, he would be most interested in hearing the reasoning of government. He would

also be interested in knowing what government intends to foist upon retailers

next. Perhaps, he says, to advocate a twenty-four hour day of shopping at every

institution; to put it into legislation to open every institution twenty-four

hours a day. Is that just as reasonable as demanding that retailers open their

doors on Sundays?

He works at the Village Mall and under his Terms of Lease -

he goes on to explain - should he decide he does not want to open on Sunday but

the mall decides they do want to open on Sunday, he would be in contravention of

his lease agreement. He would be given a heavy fine for not opening while the

mall was open. Under the terms of his lease, Mr. Speaker, he is required to open

whenever the mall is open and as such, whether he agrees with opening on Sunday

or not, because government did say it was at the discretion of the retailers

themselves but, Mr. Speaker, that is just not so. At every retail mall in the

city - or at most of them for sure - I know at the Avalon Mall and the Village

Mall -, the stores at those malls signed a lease saying that they agree to open

while the mall is open, and to not open would be in contravention to that lease

agreement. They would be subject to heavy fines and penalties. Again, something

that would probably drive them out of business, if they were subject to those

fines. So it is not discretionary, it is mandatory for most shops to open on

Sunday.

It goes on to say that in closing he would like to ask that

we seriously consider what he said in the letter. He isn't only speaking on

behalf of himself and his employees, but on behalf of most retailers who he

knows. He isn't alone in this at all. We have received numerous petitions from

Canadian Tire, numerous petitions from other retailers as well, from the general

public. It isn't only Sam the Record Man that is against opening on Sundays, it

is Canadian Tire. We have heard from people at the St. John's Board of Trade who

say they are against opening on Sundays. We have heard from the Canadian

Independent Business Bureau which says it is against Sunday shopping.

It seems to me that it isn't just the select few that are

against it, it is the majority. We have heard from various chambers of commerce

throughout the Province which say they are against Sunday shopping. In their

small communities, while they are in glee at the opportunity of extra

employment, having shops open on Sunday does not necessarily provide that extra

employment, because it provides extra expenses to the retail shops, to the

employers, and may eventually drive them out of business. While extra employment

may be evident at first, in the long run it would actually be detrimental to the

retail shops. Sunday shopping would be detrimental to employment in this

Province, because you would find the small mom-and-pop operations closing, the

corner stores, the hardware stores closing, and making way for the large

national and multi-national corporations that can weather the storm initially

until the smaller operations are gone out of business, and then they have more

of a monopoly.

We have heard from owners of convenience stores who say that

some of the highest profits they make are on the weekend, in particular on

Sunday. An example that I used last night in this very argument was if a family

is cooking Sunday dinner and it realizes it has run out of salt beef, or it

realizes it has run out of split peas to make peas' pudding, if the supermarket

is not open and it runs out for a bucket of salt beef, it will pick it up at the

convenience store. Sure, it may be a couple of dollars more at the convenience

store, but that is the whole idea, the whole concept of a convenience store. It

is there for the convenience of the local neighbourhoods that they are in.

If the supermarkets are open on Sunday and they aren't quite

as crowded because they are now open seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day,

as opposed to six, then maybe that person would run out to the supermarket and

pick up the bucket of beef a couple of dollars cheaper. Again, driving the small

corner stores, the convenience stores out of business. If government can't see

that trend, it must have its blinders on, really.

Elaine Price has spoken out against Sunday shopping. The

federation of Labour has spoken out against Sunday shopping. The numerous craft

stores in our Province, the craft stores that exist all throughout our Province

and thrive most especially during the summer, during the tourism trade, are

crying out for help here, asking that government not open on Sundays. Because if

they do, the small craft stores, especially in the smaller communities, and -

well, I guess, even most especially in St. John's really. Because the small

craft stores would probably be overlooked, especially by tourists who would be

attracted to the main malls if they were here on Sunday and went out to go

shopping.

You would find that the large outlets such as Wal-Mart and

Sears would probably start carrying local crafts. They already carry music by

local musicians, books written by local writers, and so on, so why not carry

local crafts? If they are going to attract the tourism trade in the summer on

Sundays, why not carry local crafts? It would be something extra to sell. That

would drive the small craft stores, the mom-and-pop operations, out of business.

Like I say, while it would create more employment initially, maybe even for a

year or so, because that is how long it would take for these smaller operations

to realize it is just not going to work for them, they have to fold up, close

the shop, move to the Mainland, create more out-migration, is this what we are

looking for? If it is, it is certainly not what we are looking for on this side

of the House. We are listening to the people.

While the government campaigned on the platform of

consultation, it seems that the only people in this House who are doing the

consultation are the members of the Opposition. There is something fundamentally

wrong with that, Mr. Speaker, when we have to live up to the promises of

government, but that is okay; we are getting used to that. It is good practice,

because pretty soon we are going to be over there, and I assure you that when we

get to the government side, which will be in the very near future, I, for one,

will continue to do what I have been elected to do, and listen to the people of

our Province, listen to the people who have elected us, to represent the people

who have elected us, to serve the people who have elected us. Instead of putting

our earplugs in and our blinders on, and doing whatever the hell we like, we

will do what we have been elected to do and represent the people of our

Province. It is something that the apathetic members on the other side have

forgotten. They feel that they are unbeatable now because they are riding a

little bit high in the polls, but people, come election time - we have seen it

several times over with all parties. We have seen it with the Conservative Party

federally, who were very high in the polls, but because of their apathetic

nature were booted out like garbage. We have seen it here with the Smallwood

administration.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: We have seen it in P.E.I. where one

member, one Conservative member -

MR. E. BYRNE: Translated into government.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Translated into government overnight,

because the Liberal government in P.E.I. were apathetic, did not listen to the

people of the province, figured they did not have to. Oh, they figured they were

comfortable. One member in Opposition, they would swing it out for another two

or three elections, they figured. Wrong. And those people on the other side are

wrong as well.

The specialty stores in our Province are crying out against

Sunday shopping, and I am listening to them. Unfortunately, the people on the

other side of the House are not.

Mr. Speaker, the flea markets and so on, especially the flea

markets at the Avalon Mall, who give 50 per cent of their rental income to

charity, to UNICEF - what they rent their tables for, they give 50 per cent of

that to UNICEF - not only are they going to suffer; UNICEF is going to suffer

because they will not be able to survive the same as they do at the Avalon Mall.

One would argue - I have heard arguments from the government

side - well, if people are interested in shopping at the flea market on Sunday

then they are interested in shopping on Sunday. That is not the case. The flea

market offers specialty items, local crafts, woodworking items, hand-knit items,

paintings done by local artists, and so on; things that people go out and... It

is a condensed area where they have a number of locally manufactured items.

Instead of going into a large store and having to hunt these items down, it is a

convenience for the people that are going in looking for locally made items. So,

not only Mr. Speaker, are you going to hurt the flea markets and are you going

to hurt UNICEF, but you are going to hurt the producers of these locally made

items as well, which is going to create higher unemployment and further

out-migration.

Mr. Speaker, this equation just does not add up to success.

In the short-term maybe, but in the long-term, Mr. Speaker, Sunday shopping does

not add up to success. We have heard it from people all throughout the Province.

Each one of the members of Opposition - and I would suggest were getting more

calls then government members because the people in the general public realize

that the members of the government are more then likely going to toe the party

line and vote in favour of Sunday shopping and probably realize the members of

government are not going to listen to them anyway, so we are getting a number of

calls, faxes, letters, Mr. Speaker - thank you, she agrees with me. She agrees

Sunday shopping should not be allowed.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, -

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes, I apologize for taking advantage of

the Clerk, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Sunday shopping is wrong and the people of our

Province have been putting in phone calls, sending in faxes, writing letters to

us. We are getting phone calls at home; we are getting a number of phone calls

here at the office, on the weekends - people telling us, they do not want Sunday

shopping. It is not falling on deaf ears on this side, but I can assure you it

is falling on deaf ears on the government side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, you get down to drug stores even. The local drug

stores who are open on Sunday, and that has been an accepted practice here for

some time, will now have to compete with drug stores that are in the large

multinational stores, in the super markets and so on. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately

if that happens again there will be fewer employees at the drug stores. The

small locally owned drug stores, the mom and pop drug stores in a lot of

locations, the drug stores that have been in operation in our Province for

decades and decades and I know because I have two or three of them in my

district that are locally owned and operated, will have to face stiff

competition from multinational firms such as Sobeys and Dominion and we have

seen it already.

Last year when government tried to ram down the throats of

social service recipients a three dollar dispensing fee that finally the drug

stores at Dominion and Wal-Mart and those locations said that they would swallow

it because they could afford to swallow it because Wal-Mart is multinational,

Dominion is all across Canada. They could afford to absorb that loss for a short

time and unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, because government imposed that upon the

social service recipients in our Province, unfortunately when the large

multinational drug stores accepted it and decided to swallow it, some of the

local drug stores when out of business. Now to think three dollars on a

dispensing fee, because they had to swallow it, would drive them out of

business. You would not think it, but it did. We know of a number of cases where

they went out of business.

So, this is not fear mongering here, Mr. Speaker, these are

legitimate concerns and if these locally owned drug stores have to compete with

the large multinational drug stores on Sundays as well, then what may happen

because of that one extra day, because while somebody is gone in and they are

going to pick up a pair of sneakers or a shirt or something like that, they will

pick up their prescription while they are at Wal-Mart or while they are going to

pick up their groceries, they will put in their order for their prescription and

shop for their groceries knowing that when they come back to the counter their

prescription is ready, they do not have to stand around and wait. The small

local companies may lose some of their clientele. Then what is going to happen?

You know what is going to happen, Mr. Speaker, it may drive them out of business

and that's unfortunate. It is not something that we, on this side of the House,

are prepared to accept but obviously it looks like something that the government

members are prepared to accept.

Even dry-cleaners, Mr. Speaker, you have small locally owned

dry-cleaners operating throughout the Province and I know because there are some

in my district as well. Now you know yourself, Mr. Speaker, you can walk into

Sobeys and for ninety-seven cents you can have your shirt dry-cleaned. So if

that privilege is there on a Sunday as well it may take away some of the

clientele from the dry-cleaners that are not open on Sunday.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: That's a fact, at Sobeys there is a

dry-cleaning counter. For ninety-seven cents you can have your shirt dry-cleaned

or at Dominion the same thing. The small local dry-cleaners, the locally owned

and operated dry-cleaners are feeling the pinch on this, Mr. Speaker, and it is

unfortunate. It is truly unfortunate that the government is willing to allow

small locally owned companies to be driven out of business because of their

desire, their blind desire to allow Sunday shopping.

MR. SPEAKER (Oldford): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The member has no leave.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I will sit down

but before I do I will say that I am against Sunday shopping.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place again today to speak on this

bill, a bill to permit Sunday shopping in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador. Before I get into the details of the bill and why I am so opposed, the

Minister of Justice stood up in this House today, he adjourned debate last night

and he talked about what we were doing on this side of the House. I don't know

if he deliberately misled, Mr. Speaker, but he possibly, innocently misled the

House when he said that we spoke on petitions on this side of the House that had

been photocopied and that it was the same petitions on this side of the House.

Yesterday the Government House Leader, Mr. Speaker, tried to

bully the House. He did it a couple of times yesterday. He bullied the House. We

normally can present a number of petitions in the House of Assembly but the

minister wanted to limit debate on this as much as possible, to limit our say on

why we are opposed to Sunday shopping, Mr. Speaker, and he only allowed, I

think, one petition yesterday. He did it again today. He only allowed, I think

it was two petitions, on why we are opposed and why the people of this Province

are opposed to Sunday shopping. The Minister of Justice got up on a point of

order and said that we were presenting the same petitions over and over again

but it is clearly not the case. What we have, Mr. Speaker, are petitions signed

by different people. You cannot look at these petitions and see the same names.

Now that would be dishonest, Mr. Speaker. We have not done that and we don't

intend to do it. We have numerous petitions on this side of the House, Mr.

Speaker, and it is a tool in the democratic process that the Opposition can use

to debate an issue in the House of Assembly.

We know, Mr. Speaker, and I am convinced that there are

members on opposite sides of the House who have gotten phone calls, they have

gotten petitions and they have gotten letters, Mr. Speaker, and they are not up

speaking to their petitions. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the only member I

saw on the other side of the House -from memory now, I stand to be corrected but

the only person who got up and spoke in favour, I do believe, was the Minister

of Justice on this. We have a number of backbenchers on that side of the House

who have not spoken on this legislation yet they are going to stand in their

places, Mr. Speaker, and toe the line and vote in favour of this legislation

when they know that the opposition to Sunday shopping in this Province is

mounting daily.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we were told last spring by the former

Minister of Employment and Labour that there would be a trial basis put in place

with respect to Sunday shopping but no, Mr. Speaker, that did not happen. We

have a bill brought to this House of Assembly - the Government House Leader

talked about it being on the Order Paper but a couple days, a few days before

Christmas, the usual tactics, Mr. Speaker, bring it in, wear down the

Opposition, wear them down and we will try and force it through.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you know why?

MR. J. BYRNE: Why?

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, well, well, well, Mr. Speaker. Now that

is an interesting bit of news, Mr. Speaker, we thought that this may happen,

that the Government House Leader may in actual fact recess the House, come back

after Christmas and discuss some of the bills. Mr. Speaker, so be it. Good for

him. No problem there, I think.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh well. I think he may be trying to pull a

fast one on us here too, Mr. Speaker, by saying he is going to do that. Still,

it doesn't alter the fact that we were here till 4:30 this morning because the

Government House Leader would not listen to this side of the House. We were up

on points of order; we were up on points of privilege, when there was no need to

be here. If the Government House Leader is talking about coming back after

Christmas, why did he keep us here till 4:30 this morning?

The Minister of Justice got up and adjourned debate on this,

I suppose after he talked to the Government House Leader, because he was too

embarrassed to do it at that time, because he had dug his heels in.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, we were here till 4:30

this morning. Let me tell you what happened after 4:35 this morning. I was

driving in Logy Bay Road going home. I got in bed at 5:05 this morning. I

watched television for half an hour because I had to kind of settle down. I set

the clock for 7:00 this morning, after going to bed at going on 6:00 a.m. I had

an appeal on for a constituent in my district that had an appeal this morning at

8:30 down at the Newfoundland Hotel. I went to that appeal and I came in here.

I haven't had a half-hour's sleep yet. I can tell the

Government House Leader that I'm prepared to stay here as long as it takes to

discuss this bill, to try and convince government to back off on this bill,

which is the democratic process, which is why we are here. When we see faults in

legislation, there is constructive criticism, and there are no benefits to this

piece of legislation.

The Premier was in his place today -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Right on. The Premier was in his place

today. Everybody on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, including the Member

for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, stood on this very legislation yesterday and this

morning and asked the question: Who benefits from this legislation? We couldn't

get an answer from the ministers on that side of the House. The Premier was here

today, so we thought we might get an answer from him. I stood in my place and

spoke to a petition, and I directly asked the Premier to stand in his place,

speak to the petition, and tell us who was pushing this legislation, and who is

going to benefit.

What did he do? He didn't respond at all. So I don't know now

if this is actually going to go through the House before Christmas, because

there is a lot of legislation to come. I don't know, there are probably twenty

or thirty more bills. We are only in second reading. We have Committee stage. We

have third reading. God knows how much more they are going to introduce at the

last minute. I'm not convinced this is going to get through before Christmas

anyway. I thought they were talking about putting this in place January 1. Was

that the intent?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Exactly, Mr. Speaker. Maybe we are having

some affect here. The Premier would not tell us why this is going through the

House, and why he is pushing it. He wouldn't tell us who is going to benefit

when we know who is opposed to it. We all know that. We know that the Board of

Trade is opposed to it, don't we? We have all stated that here in the House of

Assembly. We had members of the Board of Trade state that. We had the people

with labour oppose it. Why do they oppose it? There must be a reason why they

oppose it? Because they fear there could be job losses in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Humber East

over there has yet to stand in his place to speak to this. He is going to vote

for it, and he is asking me to give my version of it? I would like to ask the

member, where has he been? I have been giving my version!

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, what a piece of advice the

Government House Leader gave me. I tell you that. The Government House Leader

often impresses me.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, he may be. But don't get distracted by

rabbit tracks, was it, when you are hunting big game.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: He said it to Roger Simmons, did he?

Diefenbaker. Mr. Speaker, that is good advice. I have to say that is good

advice. But sometimes when you hear these little quibbles in the back rows over

there, people who are afraid to stand on their feet and support this legislation

which we are opposing, because if they get up and support it, I will take a copy

and send it to everybody in his district, and let people in his district know

what he is voting for in this House of Assembly. That is why he will not get to

his feet and speak. That is why he will not get up and support this legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I have no problem with that, getting

sidetracked. He is only helping out. The Government House Leader - I am getting

sidetracked. Yes, I digress, but often when you are in this House of Assembly it

is okay to digress once in awhile. It is okay to digress once in awhile, I say

to the Government House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

game, I suppose.

Mr. Speaker, they are awfully concerned with respect to the

leadership of this Party over there, and I can understand why they are so

concerned. Because they know that whoever leads this Party in the next election

is going to be the Premier of this Province, and they are trying to cosy up to

whoever that might be. To whoever that might be, they are trying to cosy up to

us on this side of the House - and we have ten potential candidates here. Any

one of the ten would do a fine, fine, job as Premier of this Province. That is

what I would say to members opposite.

Labour is not going to benefit from it. No, they will not

benefit. The retailers in the Province have come out against this. We have

petitions here, I think, from people who work at Canadian Tire, opposing this.

We have the Member for Conception Bay South who just told me that he was in

Canadian Tire today, and he said it is unreal the number of people who are

opposing this. So why are we even here wasting our time debating a piece of

legislation that nobody wants?

Who benefits? That is the question that has been asked. I

have asked it. Every member on this side of the House has asked it. The only

ones who have not asked who benefits are people on that side of the House over

there, the people who are going to vote for this legislation. They are not

asking who is going to benefit. They are being led like a bunch of lemmings

because the Premier wants this to go through, for some unknown reason. For some

unknown reason the Premier wants this. That is who.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Calm down, he said, Mr. Speaker. I would

pray that the Minister of Mines and Energy never sees me angry or upset. He gets

up in this House of Assembly every now and then and I get a bit intense on the

issues, but he has never seen me angry. He has never seen me upset or mad, and

he should pray to God that he never does.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Gonzaga gentleman.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, he reminds me that I am a Gonzaga

gentleman, and that is a fact.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Celtics.

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, that is not nice to say. My son plays

hockey for the Celtics now, I say to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Last week, Friday night, in The Evening

Telegram was a picture of my son. He had two goals and three assists against

some other team. He played for Gonzaga High School.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

gentleman.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, I could tell you a few stories about

that too, Mr. Speaker.

Anyway, who is pushing this? Who is pushing this legislation?

The Premier will not tell us; the Government House Leader will not tell us; the

Minister of Mines and Energy will not tell us; the Minister of Justice will not

tell us; the Minister of Education will not tell us; the Minister of Finance

will not tell us. Why do they want it? There must be some reason why they want

it.

Does government really believe they are going to get more

revenues in from this? I maintain that there is only x amount of dollars in this

Province, divided up among the people who live here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

football, softball, what?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I was a studious student at Gonzaga, and

that answers a lot of questions.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

Anyway, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I go back to it, Mr. Speaker: Who benefits

from this? The Premier will not tell us. None of the ministers will tell us, so

they must think that they are going to get more revenues in the form of taxes

because people will be working longer, on Sunday or what have you, but people

only have so much money to spend. They only have so much to spend and they are

going to spend that over seven days instead of six days. We will have people in

rural Newfoundland coming to the major centres on Sundays now, spending their

money when they could be spending it in their communities. So, rural

Newfoundland is going to be negatively impacted upon with this legislation. So,

that is a factor that the government is not considering, they cannot be

considering it.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker that is a concern of the Opposition party

in this House. Her Majesty's loyal Opposition want to make the point that this

is going to have a negative impact upon the rural areas of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

I am just referring to a letter here from the City Consumers

Co-op Society who oppose this. It says, `Sunday shopping openings will have a

negative impact upon locally owned businesses. This will mean increased cost for

sales thus increased costs to the consumers'. That is what they are saying, Mr.

Speaker.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Carry on Jack, boy.

MR. J. BYRNE: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, back on the topic.

Now, who is going to benefit again? We have this group here, City Consumers

Co-op saying that multinational corporations are the ones that are going to

benefit from this, not the local mom and pop operations in this Province. I

honestly believe that this Administration should be ashamed of themselves for

even co