Seven days of “business as usual” has been a growing problem in many places with British Columbia being no exception. As soon as businesses found that the Attorney General of B.C. was not going to enforce the Federal “Lord’s Day Act” it was wide open season.

For some five years the Social Credit Government took no action, realizing that the Sunday issue was a very difficult one with as many in favour as against a wide open Sunday.

Action Begins

In the Spring of 1976 Classis B.C. took a stand on the issue and sent an appeal to the government. Many members of our churches wrote in and sent another petition to the government. In the last year a committee which calls itself the Christian Involvement Group took as one of its concerns the battle for the Lord‘s Day. Again an all out effort took place, visiting government officials and attending conventions. It seemed that not much progress was being made. The response of the government was that the matter was under review.

Support Grows

Also others were concerned about the trend to the wide open Sunday. The Retail Merchants Association of Canada representing small business and the Retail Council of Canada representing The Bay, Woodwards, Eatons, Sears, etc., did their part to appeal to the government for some order in the confusion.

The issue especially came to public notice when Vancouver’s Mayor Jack Volrich and his Council decided to clamp down on businesses opening up on Remembrance Day. One of those violating the law was a large furniture establishment. Several businesses were taken to task. And a public debate took place in the newspapers and especially on the hotlines of the various radio stations.

It clearly appeared that the government would only act on the issue when public pressure increased. At first it was of the conviction that the matter was no issue. However, just as with the recognition of independent schools and the subsequent partial support, so with this issue much footwork and the shaping of public opinion had to take place before anything would be done.

Even after a resolution was passed in February of 1979 in a mini convention of the Social Credit Party, explicitly requesting the government to bring in legislation which would close down non-essential business there was still this reluctance to deal with it. Undoubtedly, taking action would not be too popular for the Social Credit Government. Political expediency always appears to play a major role.

   

Legislative Action

During the last session of the B.C. Legislature Bill 8 the [Holiday Shopping Act” was introduced, “. . . to permit municipalities and regional districts to regulate retail business on holidays. The present status of holiday openings will be retained unless a bylaw is passed by council and assented to by electors in a referendum.” Now a holiday means “. . . Sunday, New Year’s Day, Good Friday, British Columbia Day, Thanksgiving Day, Remembrance Day, Christmas Day and December 26.” Bill 8 did not get very far because it passed the whole matter to the municipalities without setting any uniform standards for the province. There was so much furor over this passing down the responsibility that according to the Attorney General, Mr. Williams, thousands of letters were received. An Ad Hoc Committee, in which the Christian Political Involvement Group was instrumental, visited with the government, met with government officials and pleaded for much better legislation. In a speech on Aug. 21, 1980 the Hon. L. Allan Williams introduced the rewritten legislation in the form of Bill 56 and stated among other things:

The Lord’s Day Act, as has been so often stated, is an antique, archaic and unenforceable piece of legislation at the provincial level. . . . It was concluded that there were three options. One was to provide that with respect to holidays, including Sundays, all business enterprise should cease. The second option, obviously, was that all businesses should be allowed to function on any holiday, including Sunday. The third option was that there should be some control, throughout the province, exercised in a way which would be understandable throughout the various communities in British Columbia . . . . I was not surprised, and I don‘t think any member of this House would have been surprised, at the response. Quite obviously the regulation of holiday shopping –and in particular on Sundays—is a matter of serious concern to a large segment of the people in this province. Church groups made strong representations about the legislation. There was an ad hoc committee established composed of representatives of church organizations throughout the province; the trade unions, of course, were concerned about persons who were required to work on Sundays; and retail merchants, who believed that six days of shopping activity were certainly sufficient, made their representations. . . . Therefore in Bill 56 the government has proposed that a standard be established which will be province-wide, . . .

This Bill called the “Holiday Shopping Regulation Act” means the following as taken from the explanatory note: The Act . . . prohibits the carrying on of retail business on holidays unless

(a) the Lord’s Day Act (Canada) ot herwise permits it,

(b) the retail business is specified in the Schedule to the Act,

(c) a municipality or regional district has adopted a permissive bylaw, or

(d) the Lieutenant Governor in Council has made a permissive order.

On August 22 the third reading took place, but not without a hot debate from the opposition, the New Democratic Party (NDP). One representative, Dennis Cooke, said: “Mr . Chairman, they (The Social Credit Government) are making it a little more difficult, but there is basically no change. It’s still a cop-out. Still, the government is not prepared to evenhandedly act across the province, dumping the final responsibility in such a way as to say, ‘it’s their fault, not ours’” (see (c) above).

This legislation passed without amendments. There is a loop–hole unfortunately. The N.D.P. has a strong point and predicts that there will be trouble. The reason the government left the possibility to change holiday shopping is because of the strong influence of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities which in their 1979 Convention decided in a vote of 60% in favour that the municipality should regulate these matter s of Sunday shopping.

On January 1, 1981 this legislation will become law. Most of what is open now will have to shut down on holidays and Sundays. Violators of the Act will receive up to a $10,000 fine.

Conclusion: Christian Responsibility

I would like to make some additional remarks. Christians will have to exert a strong loving influence in labour and business as well as industry to speak up on bread and butter issues. There are so many important issues which are being lost by plain default. Very important and even crucial issues have been lost because of a close vote at the political constituency meetings or at the conventions. This unfortunately happens because one or more thinks that his voice or his vote does not count.

It is indeed by God’s grace that many in the Christian community see their calling. As in the case of ·the Sunday issue in British Columbia what was achieved was because of a few simple people who began to study and do something and thus got many others involved. We can thank God for them, in B.C. and everywhere.

The Sunday issue is by no means the only issue. It is simply a symptom of a much bigger problem, namely the secularization in our society. At the same time that has to be addressed with God’s powerful Word. At least the Sunday issue was not so difficult. One could get a handle on it.

The late Dr. Peter Eldersveld said in one of his sermons on the Sunday, and I paraphrase, “The Sunday has been such a means of blessing to the nation that because of it the proclamation of the Gospel could continue and the Christian institutions sprang up everywhere. If we are going to lose the Sunday we are going to lose everything.”

John Van Hemert is pastor of the Calvin Christian Reformed Church at Pinellas Park, Florida. He was directly involved in the political effort he describes while in his previous pastorate at Langley, B. C.