Committee Transcript 1991-Aug-01 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Retail Business Establishments Statute Law Amendment Act, 1991, Bill 115 / Loi de 1991 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne les établissements de commerce de détail, projet de loi 115

Collingwood and District Labour Council

Barrie and District Ministerial Association

Town of Collingwood

United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1977

Collingwood and District Real Estate Board

Georgian Triangle Economic Development Institute

Sally Stone Boutique

Cloth Shop of Collingwood

Collingwood Chamber of Commerce

Georgian Triangle Tourist Association and Convention Bureau

Len Rocque

Bev Blais

Ontario Hotel and Motel Association

Douglas Wilson

Adjournment

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Chair: White, Drummond (Durham Centre NDP)

Vice-Chair: Morrow, Mark (Wentworth East NDP)

Acting Chair: Cooper, Mike (Kitchener-Wilmot NDP)

Carr, Gary (Oakville South PC)

Chiarelli, Robert (Ottawa West L)

Fletcher, Derek (Guelph NDP)

Gigantes, Evelyn (Ottawa Centre NDP)

Harnick, Charles (Willowdale PC)

Mathyssen, Irene (Middlesex NDP)

Mills, Gordon (Durham East NDP)

Poirier, Jean (Prescott and Russell L)

Sorbara, Gregory S. (York Centre L)

Winninger, David (London South NDP)

Substitutions:

Daigeler, Hans (Nepean L) for Mr Chiarelli

Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville NDP) for Mrs Mathyssen

O'Connor, Larry (Durham-York NDP) for Mr Winninger

Wessenger, Paul (Simcoe Centre NDP) for Ms Gigantes

Wilson, Jim (Simcoe West PC) for Mr Harnick

Clerk: Freedman, Lisa

Staff: Swift, Susan, Research Officer, Legislative Research Service

835

The committee met at 0856 at the Cranberry Inn, Collingwood.

RETAIL BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES ÉTABLISSEMENTS DE COMMERCE DE DÉTAIL

Resuming consideration of Bill 115, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act and the Employment Standards Act in respect of the opening of retail business establishments and employment in them.

Reprise de l'étude du projet de loi 115, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les jours fériés dans le commerce de détail et la Loi sur les normes d'emploi en ce qui concerne l'ouverture des établissements de commerce de détail et l'emploi dans ces établissements.

The Vice-Chair: I would like to call the meeting to order. First of all, I would like to say that we are all quite happy to be here in Collingwood on August 1, this being the first day of our road show, as you can see, on the public hearings on Bill 115.

Before we go into the public hearings, I would like to call upon the honourable members to duly elect an acting Chairman for the duration of the public hearings. Are there any nominations?

Mr Mills: I would nominate Mr Cooper.

The Vice-Chair: Any further nominations?

Mr Sorbara: Is this a free vote?

The Vice-Chair: Yes, it is.

Mr Sorbara: I will second the nomination of Mr Cooper.

The Vice-Chair: There being no further nominations, I declare Mr Cooper duly elected.

COLLINGWOOD AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL

The Acting Chair (Mr Cooper): Could we have the first group of presenters, the Collingwood and District Labour Council?

You will be allowed half an hour for your presentation. You can either make a half-hour presentation or else you can make a short presentation and allow time for questions and comments from each of the caucuses which will be split evenly.

Please introduce yourself for Hansard.

Mr Doupe: I have prepared a brief on short notice. My committee has been away. My name is Murray Doupe. I am the president of the Collingwood and District Labour Council, which is affiliated to the Ontario Federation of Labour and the Canadian Labour Congress in Ottawa. Our labour council represents five unions and approximately 1,000 workers.

We are committed to working towards a program for the retraining of unemployed workers. We feel that Bill 115 fails to recognize the right of workers to a common pause day. The wording in the proposed amendment to subsection 4(2) says "shall take into account" and "should be maintained." However, the council in passing a bylaw failed to maintain the principle that holidays are to remain a common pause day, that is, to ensure they remain days on which most businesses are not open and most persons do not have to work.

In Collingwood, Sunday shopping has been passed by the town council so that any or all stores can be open on Sunday.

On July 28, 1991, in our local paper a full-page ad appeared for Zellers giving 25% to 50% off certain goods only if they were purchased on Sunday. The ad read, "The lowest price is the law." If businesses can give discounts on Sunday, why not the same discount any day from Monday to Saturday? This would bring the consumers in during the week and still give the people jobs in this time of recession.

Closing the doors for a common pause day, as we have traditionally done in Ontario, is not going to send consumers storming from this area to cross-border shopping; it is at least a three-hour drive. Tourists do not come to Collingwood because of open Sunday shopping. They come to ski on our many ski slopes, to boat in our waterways and to enjoy our other summer and winter sports activities.

All Sunday shopping will do is spread some of the hours of shopping over a seven-day period instead of a six-day period. The staff will not be increased, the hours they work will be adjusted according to peak sales times. Workers in general do not want to give up their Sundays. Because of Sunday work, families and friends have been kept apart on the only day most people can plan to be together.

In Collingwood, we have no day care open on Sunday, private or public, which presents yet another problem for the working parent. Where do they find care for their children? Our public transit does not run on Sundays or holidays, thus presenting another problem for workers and shoppers.

In this community, if the large grocery chains such as Loblaws and IGA were to stay open on Sundays the small, family-run corner stores would be unable to compete; they would be forced to close, thus putting more people out of work, because these small stores hire students to work part-time.

In Collingwood, we have many workers who, because of their choice of occupation, have to work some but not all Sundays -- police, ambulance workers, firefighters, just to name a few -- but their shifts are so arranged that they are not required to work every Sunday. They still have some Sundays to spend as a family unit.

Surveys have shown that opening on Sundays does not create extra business; it just spreads the same amount of shopping to an extra day. In Collingwood, most of the large stores are now open at least 72 hours each week, providing ample time to shop.

In British Columbia, they have had open Sunday shopping for at least 10 years. Cross-border shopping has not decreased, it has increased, so Sunday shopping does not play any big part in the number of Canadians going to the US to shop. But their lower prices, our high taxes, free trade and the GST do play a large part in the reasons for going.

Open Sunday shopping can create problems for single mothers who find they have to work part-time. It affects the time they can spend with their children. Take, for example, a single mother in British Columbia, with two children, ages 13 and 15. She is a part-time cashier at a store in North Delta, a suburb of Vancouver. She rarely sees her teenagers. When they come home from school, she goes to work.

On the weekends, she is at work. On holidays, she is at work. She keeps in touch with them through notes scribbled on bits of paper. Here is one week's schedule: Monday, day off; Tuesday, 6 pm to midnight, gets home, quickly unwinds, gets some sleep; Wednesday, 10 am to 2 pm, hardly worth going to work; Thursday, day off; Friday, 6 pm to 10 pm, catches the bus, it is a 35-minute ride home; Saturday, 10 am to 6 pm -- it is the busiest day of the week -- gets home and is wiped out; Sunday, 9 am to 6 pm. They call this part-time.

What if she needs a Sunday free one week? She can request a day off, but she might lose two shifts that week as a result. "You do not ask very often," she said. Needless to say, where is the protection for asking for a Sunday off?

The end result is a negative impact on the employee's obligation to the family and religious beliefs; ultimately it puts a strain on the employer-employee relationship. Most of the workers only know what is promised at election time, not a full understanding of the wordings of all the acts and bills that are being changed and amended.

The biggest argument against Sunday shopping is the social cost. One working parent on a Sunday means families cannot be together for meals or activities. Surveys have found that senior citizens in nursing homes get fewer visits and fewer outings with their families in areas where Sunday shopping is allowed. Attendance has dropped at family entertainment spots and church attendance has dropped even more. We need a common pause day of rest. As we watch our society change, let's take a step backwards in Collingwood and think, "Do we really want the effects that Sunday openings will bring?" I think not. To prevent this from happening, we know that there is only one way. We need a strong provincial law to stop the further erosion of our way of life.

The Acting Chair: Thank you very much. There will be about seven minutes for each caucus. Mr Sorbara.

Mr Sorbara: I want to thank the presenter for his submission. It is very reminiscent of the submission that we heard from the Labour Council of Metropolitan Toronto. My first question relates to your membership. You say the Collingwood labour council represents approximately 1,000 workers. What is the largest component of those 1,000 workers?

Mr Doupe: I do not know whether I quite understand your question.

Mr Sorbara: What is the biggest local union which makes up the 1,000 workers in the Collingwood labour council?

Mr Doupe: That would be the glass and brick workers, LOF Glass of Canada.

Mr Sorbara: Right. Now, is that facility open on Sunday?

Mr Doupe: Yes it is, Mr Sorbara.

Mr Sorbara: Is the Collingwood labour council organizing its troops and its forces to try and force that plant to close on Sunday?

Mr Doupe: No, that is not the point at all. I believe that the people who work there on shifts have days off through the week; and, you know, not everybody works every Sunday. Nobody is trying to force --

Mr Sorbara: The reality for Sunday openings in the retail sector is that very few workers have to work on Sunday, and even fewer have to work every Sunday unless you own the business yourself. If it is a one-person operation or a husband-and-wife operation, often the family members will keep the business open on Sunday if they choose. But the evidence that we have heard before this committee -- at least from the hearings and we only have had hearings thus far in Toronto, but we are going around the province -- is that most employers have a list of a few or as many as hundreds of people who are anxious to work those Sunday hours. One employer who has about 15 employees says he has a list of some 200 people, mostly students and young people who are looking for extra hours, and who are anxious to work if the store is open and if they qualify to work those hours.

So we are talking about even fewer demands on the workforce than would be the case at the glass works. What I cannot understand from labour councils is, if you really believe as you say in your first page, that most persons should not have to work on Sundays, why is the labour council here not trying to close down LOF?

Mr Doupe: I do not understand why you keep coming back to LOF. I do not think that was my point.

Mr Sorbara: Because it is a major employer and virtually every other worker in the province -- whether you are a nurse or a firefighter, whether you are an auto worker with the CAW in Oshawa -- virtually every other member of the workforce might be called upon to work on Sunday. If I am a secretary in a lawyer's office, that lawyer could say, "I'm sorry, I need you to come in on Sunday," and while the worker can refuse under the Human Rights Code, there is no other legislation to prevent that worker from being required for Sunday work. It just seems to me to be terribly inconsistent of the labour council to be arguing that no retail worker should work on Sunday, and yet you are not mounting a campaign to close the industrial establishments, which are the major employers, on Sunday. Retail workers represent a small fraction of people who work on Sunday. Is that not somewhat inconsistent?

0910

Mr Doupe: The corner store that we spoke about, yes, they are family businesses and I would hate to see big corporations like Loblaws and IGA and so forth stay open all day Sundays and close these family stores. Students need work for summer. They need work to go back to school.

Mr Sorbara: Most students work all year round, part-time.

Mr Doupe: Not in this area, they do not. There are no jobs for them.

Mr Sorbara: But we are trying to make laws for the province as a whole.

Mr Doupe: I can understand that, but I am just saying to you, why not give students more work on weekends, because that is the only time in a lot of cases they get the opportunity to work, especially if they are going to school through the year. I am not against drugstores opening and this sort of thing; I am not at all. I am just saying total wide-open Sunday shopping.

Mr Sorbara: I appreciate that but even most of the big stores have said that they provide work for students and people who want to work part-time. Indeed, this government in its wisdom is presenting the most stringent rights in its bill so that nobody is going to have to work on Sunday in the retail business if he or she does not want to. Yet labour councils are still saying: "It doesn't matter. Still close the stores." But you are not arguing to close down the major manufacturers on Sunday. I just cannot see how that is consistent if your concern for workers is comprehensive.

There are lots of single mothers who will be working in your plant or in General Motors who have to put in that one Sunday a month on the assembly line. Why should they be required to work, and yet if you work for Loblaws and you want the opportunity to do those Sunday hours because it means more in the family bank account, the labour council argues that you should not have the opportunity to do that, particularly when you are protected by such strong rights in this bill?

Mr Doupe: In Collingwood, Mr Sorbara, we used to have the Collingwood shipyards. They hired 1,000 people. All of a sudden, for some reason, the shipyards closed. I am not knowledgeable of why they closed and so on.

Interjection.

Mr Sorbara: Mr Fletcher says it was because we were in power.

Mr Doupe: I would not even acknowledge that.

Mr Sorbara: Neither would he.

Mr Doupe: I am just saying that shipyards closed and we lost Bendix here, this sort of thing. I would hope that people would rather have a factory open and work Monday to Friday and be happy to get a paycheque instead of standing at a food bank.

Mr Sorbara: Absolutely. I agree with you entirely. I just think, and I will close with this, that it is high time we realized that some storekeepers need to participate in a Sunday market. We ought not to have the provincial government insisting that they have to close, particularly when to close might mean the demise of their business just like the demise of the shipyard here and some other things. I would encourage you, in closing, to reconsider that and talk to your workers about whether they really want the government in Toronto to pass an edict that says no store shall open in Collingwood even if the storekeepers and the workers want them to open and the citizens of the community want them to open.

Mr Carr: The goal the Solicitor General cited when he introduced the bill was to have a common pause day. On the last page of your submission you said, "We need a strong provincial law to stop any further erosion of our way of life." But on the first page you say, "We feel that under Bill 115 of the present act it fails to recognize the right of workers to a common pause day." So what you are saying is that in your opinion the government has failed to meet the mandate of legislating a common pause day. Is that correct?

Mr Doupe: I think it is the wording there in one section: "should be maintained." A little grey area, that is what I thought, in my opinion.

Mr Carr: You do not think this bill has done that?

Mr Doupe: I am really not that knowledgeable about government and how it works, and I think there are thousands and thousands of people like me. But I am saying that when presenting this brief, we felt that just the words "take into account" and "should be maintained" --

Mr Carr: You are not alone in that. I have been here since September 6 and I find it is strange to see how government works sometimes as well. We are all learning as we go along.

The next question I have relates to the protection of workers, which I guess is the paramount concern of yourself and the council. We heard from some of the employers in Toronto, some of the major employers of people, like the Bay and so on, where they said that they are even in favour of strengthening the protection of the workers so that they do not have to work. A couple of them said: "We have workers in our retail stores who do not want to be there, and if their faces are hanging down to the floor it is going to hurt sales. We would rather have people who want to work." Some people are concerned because they say you get forced into working, even though there are really tough laws in place. Some of the protection they have here is where you can, say, refuse to work and give notice that you do not want to work on Sunday, even at the last minute, even if you had agreed to it before. What would you say to those employers who say that we can protect the worker; we can legislate and put in protection for the workers so that they do not have to work, for whatever reason -- if they want to spend it with a family, or because of religious reasons they do not want to work on Sunday. Some of the employers say it can be done. What would you say to them?

Mr Doupe: I do not have a big problem with that. I am just saying if a person is forced to work on a Sunday and be away from the family every Sunday, I think that is a bad thing. If the employer said they could arrange for them to be off without penalty and that, then I cannot see any really big problem with that. I am just saying as long as it is not wide-open Sunday shopping.

Mr Carr: One of the things that has come up too is that some of these people who have been in the business say they see an increase in employment. Different people were giving different figures. Some of the large employers said as many as 2,000. Some of them would be part-time. But if in fact it is true, there were quite a few of them who came through who said that they would be hiring more people. Conceivably, in a lot of places you would actually be looking at an increase in membership, if they did in fact hire more people. But I was just wondering whether you believed that and, if so, why you would not be interested in something that would potentially increase the membership and the amount of employment for your particular groups. Do you disagree with that? Is that why? Maybe you could enlighten us on that.

Mr Doupe: I do not know about other places, but I know about Collingwood. As far as the bigger chains go, I have spoken to some -- one chap in particular at Loblaws -- and they felt business had dropped off on a Sunday and they really did not need that many people to work. They just moved them around or whatever. If the bulk of your business is not on a Sunday, it is on Saturday in this area, because most people want to be on the beach or wherever on Sunday, like Wasaga Beach in this area, or hiking, or enjoying the outdoors, especially in the summertime, and mostly in winter too, because with the skiing here, a lot of people are on the slopes -- in a lot of cases, you can buy groceries in Toronto cheaper than you can here, whether it be for transport, whatever it may be, for materials. But a lot of people bring their goods with them and go right to their cottages on the weekends, especially on Sundays. As far as increasing and hiring people to work on Sundays, their business is just not there.

Mr Carr: Some of the tourist groups are saying we are in a competitive position and that people, for example, in the United States who are looking for places to go to spend their tourist dollar can go to New York state, and many of them are coming into Ontario -- we forget about that -- and that a lot of those people are used to having Sunday shopping and come up here and think it is here. Then when they find out it is not, they go back, and word spreads to the people back in New York state that Ontario does not have it. While there are a number of factors, certainly the beautiful area up here being the number one attraction, it is a factor in people deciding, for example, in New York state, to come up here for a weekend. Do you think that is not the case, that they do not consider Sunday shopping as being a part of it, or how would you deal with that?

Mr Doupe: As far as Americans coming to Ontario or the rest of Canada, I think they are a little hesitant at the moment because of the cost of gasoline and the cost of goods. I know we have some American friends and they have said it is really costly to come. They love to come to Ontario, and especially the ski areas, but if it costs any more -- it is getting phenomenal, especially for goods and gasoline and so forth, so they would rather spend their time in their own area.

Mr Carr: All I can say is it is a beautiful area and Americans are missing a great deal if they do not come up here.

Mr Doupe: I agree.

0920

Mr Fletcher: Thank you, Murray, for the presentation. I have just a couple of questions and a couple of comments. As far as the employee protection part of the bill is concerned, do you think it should be a little tougher, strengthened a little more? Is it okay the way it is?

Mr Doupe: I think it should be very clear. I feel that, as I said before, it should be maintained. I should be on holidays this morning, but I am here, so I am just saying that to be very clear about the wording.

Mr Fletcher: And just make it a little tougher.

The employees at LOF Glass, are they on a continental work shift?

Mr Doupe: Yes, they are.

Mr Fletcher: You know what a continental work shift is. Has that always been the practice at LOF?

Mr Doupe: To my knowledge.

Mr Fletcher: As for the labour council and what it was doing for other employees, I remember when I was president of the labour council in Guelph that Uniroyal in Kitchener went on strike to try to prevent the continental work shift coming in, which would have had them working Sundays. I know the labour movement is trying to make sure that people are not working every day of the week, and I applaud your efforts.

As far as working and the big stores that are opening -- you alluded to what Loblaws said. I remember the last time the bill was going around the province -- Bill 113, which was the Liberal bill -- Loblaws was saying that rather than hiring more people, work schedules would simply be adjusted for existing employees to compensate for the extra day. I know you said that. Is that the practice you are seeing, or is that what you anticipate if wide-open Sunday opens up?

Mr Doupe: That is what I anticipate with wide-open Sunday -- continental shifts at LOF Glass. I also work 12-hour shifts. I am an ambulance officer. I understand what it is to work on Sundays. I understand what it is not to be able to be with my children when one of them graduates, and so on, if I have to work. I understand that. When I took the job on, I understood that I had to work on Sundays, but, for instance, if you were hired to work and when you were hired there was no mention of Sunday work and then after you have worked there a few years, wherever you may be, legislation comes along and says, "You work Sunday," that was not part of your hiring. Of course you accept it. I do not mind working the odd Sunday, but I certainly do not want to work every Sunday.

Mr Fletcher: This is my last question. If Collingwood were to open wide-open for Sunday shopping, you do not have bus service on Sunday, so it means that would have to be an increase in cost. Your police forces would have to have extra people because of the increased shoplifting that could be going on.

Mr Doupe: As you say, there is no public transit on Sunday. It certainly is going to increase the workload on the police force, I would think, which would incur more costs to the taxpayer. All sorts of services, I think, would be more busy if they were open.

Mr Fletcher: Who is going to pay for the extra services?

Mr Doupe: It would be the taxpayers.

Mr Mills: Thank you very much for your presentation. As you know, the real thrust of this bill is to preserve the common pause day, and through that preservation of the common pause day to enhance family life. I am very interested in your brief. It is the first time there has been mention of the effect on seniors through not having visitation from their relatives who work on Sundays. I know from my experience in visiting senior homes how very important those visits are on the weekend. Thank you for bringing that to the attention of the committee. We are here to listen, and I thank you for that part of your very well put presentation.

Mr Morrow: I would like to thank you further for taking the time out to come and present this morning. I just wanted to touch briefly on LOF. They negotiate their continental work week, do they not?

Mr Doupe: I do not know much about how LOF negotiates. I do not know a lot about them.

Mr Morrow: Okay. I apologize for that. Obviously most retail workers in this area do not belong to local unions, so they would not have the

protection of the union, or the LOF.

Mr Doupe: That is correct.

Mr Morrow: This bill would therefore basically help the retail workers in this area.

Mr Doupe: I believe so, yes.

Mr Morrow: The last question I have is that you have talked briefly about being able to shop in six days and not in seven, and the amount of money being spread out over seven days would be the same as six. You have also talked about the demise -- I guess what I am basically getting to is that if the amount of money of six days is spread out over seven, you are not really creating any new money in the municipality or the area.

Mr Doupe: No, I do not believe so, not when we are open approximately 72 hours every week.

Mr O'Connor: I found your brief very interesting. Perhaps you could elaborate a bit on the devastation that must have taken place when the shipyards left. The community must be really trying to build up on the tourist aspect of the area. Would you believe that is correct?

Mr Doupe: I understand your question. To promote tourism?

Mr O'Connor: Yes, in this area.

Mr Doupe: Definitely. We certainly depend on tourism in Collingwood, but you need the year-round hourly worker to look after the services to pay the bills. Tourists are fine, but you really cannot depend totally on tourists. We enjoy having tourists. Tourists are a big part of this area, but you need the hourly working people. We need industry here. I hope everyone is listening. We need industry here.

Mr O'Connor: Increased part-time work will not help the economy then.

Mr Doupe: I do not think so.

The Acting Chair: Thank you very much. The time is up. Mr Doupe, on behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you for your presentation.

BARRIE AND DISTRICT MINISTERIAL ASSOCIATION

The Acting Chair: I would like now to call somebody from the Barrie and District Ministerial Association. I would like to thank you for appearing today. What we do is we allow you a half-hour. You can take that time any way you choose. You can do a half-hour presentation or you can do a short presentation and then the remaining time will be allotted among all three caucuses equally. Could you please identify yourself and proceed.

Mr Storey: My name is Arthur Storey. I am the minister of Grace United Church in Barrie and I have come representing the Barrie and District Ministerial Association.

I would like, if I may, to present this brief and then respond to questions. I might say off the cuff, before I start, two or three things. One of the things: I am very nervous. I do not know why. I hope this is a friendly process.

The Acting Chair: It is very friendly.

Mr Storey: The way the process of notification and general direction on how to prepare a brief was carried out was a little bit disconcerting. I received the instructions on how to prepare a brief yesterday in the mail, and this being my first endeavour, I hope you will bear with me.

Mr Mills: It is like preparing a sermon.

0930

Mr Storey: Thank you. You will find that much here is in general terms, but I will proceed.

On behalf of the Barrie and District Ministerial Association, an organization representing the Christian churches of Barrie and region, here are presented certain concerns for your consideration in relation to current and proposed legislation dealing with business opening on Sundays and holidays and a common pause day.

Remarks will be gathered around four areas which, for convenience, are labelled a practical concern, a social concern, a political concern and a religious concern.

A practical concern: The practical concern relates to an apparent ongoing inconsistency in past and proposed legislation vis-à-vis those businesses that have been and apparently will be exempt from Sunday and holiday closure provisions, ie, the hospitality industry. Implied in the general language of the proposed legislation is an entitlement, if not right, for workers to refuse work on Sundays and holidays for all workers except those employed in exempt businesses. This seems neither fair nor just. There must have been a valid principle behind this entitlement to refuse work on Sundays and other holidays.

Such businesses that are not essential to life and health, such as those that are hospitality- and tourism-related, seem to have been stigmatized and left uncovered in relation to this entitlement. Such businesses, by the nature of the employment offered -- hourly rated, unskilled service -- encompass many workers without the skills or practical leverage to negotiate or bargain for their work time in relation to their family or personal quality-of-life needs. Many health care workers suffer from a similar vulnerability and they are also exempted.

These workers may have more need of the support of legislation than others if they have been specifically left out. Expediency and commercial interests here seem to be the determining forces, not justice. Proposed changes in the legislation do not convincingly seem to address this inconsistency. Admittedly, this is a difficult matter to govern. However, the provincial government, by its very nature, is the main practical defence of the worker in general and is the body most able to shape and protect the quality-of-life issues in our system. It seems reasonable to expect the provincial government to maintain concern and initiative in the practical matter of fairness and justice for all workers, no matter how complex the issues.

Simply, why should any group of workers be left outside the protection of legislation providing for the negotiation and determination of their quality of life in relation to work hours, particularly workers who may be very vulnerable? Does proposed legislation really provide effective protection for all workers?

A social concern: It would not be a stretching of reality to premise that the pressure for liberalizing opening hours on Sundays and holidays for retail businesses comes from large commercial interests whose motivation is largely profit or market share. The media have indicated that you have already received some forceful presentations, including some dire warnings.

In a capitalistic, market-based society, profit is not a bad thing. On the contrary, a healthy economy benefits everyone. However, arguments that support marvellous economic advantages of open Sundays and holidays must be judged by who presses the hardest. Apart from some voiced concern regarding the convenience of shopping hours from among consumers, there has not been a large groundswell of public demand for change in this area, even after some opportunity to experience the new scenario. Large commercial interests are the ones who speak and demand the loudest. Small businesses, churches, community groups, workers' organizations and many others speak about a concern for the quality of life for families and individual workers.

Our history, traditions and legislative practice have stated in effect that while accepting the value and worth of commercial enterprise to society, we prize above all the value of people, the dignity of workers, the stability and worth of the family and the quality of life of people. The reason we have any discussion of these issues and have legislation upon which to work grew out of the struggles in the 18th and 19th centuries to establish these values during the Industrial Revolution. Often Christian leaders and churches then led the struggle, out of direct concern for the vulnerable and oppressed in society. Sunday laws were instituted to give a pattern of protection, rest and even education to workers long before they became directly related to religious customs or practice. These original concerns still are being expressed by the churches.

Again, the provincial government, more than others, is the body that has had and still has the paramount position in this whole area of quality of life and it must not lose patience in the complexity of the problem or devolve upon others this serious responsibility.

There is a current crisis in the ongoing problem of maintaining the quality of life among our people and families. The pace of life, the pressures of a materialistic society, the rapidity of change are all creating incredible strains. Statistics of all kinds -- family breakdown, abuse, chemical abuse, crime, etc -- all point to this as fact. The cost of failure to attempt to deal practically with the dynamics here will never be available for comparison with profits gained. In human terms, loss here is loss for everyone.

A political concern: The concern here is that proposed legislation lays responsibility for decision-making in this whole area upon municipal governments. These governments are the most vulnerable to pressure of a financial and commercial nature. Although most accessible to local conditions, councils are the most vulnerable to the uncertainties of economics and the pressures of special interests. These councils lack the traditions, the overview, the resources and the machinery to be truly disinterested and just to businesses, workers and families. They are too close to the particulars to have the luxury to consider the general good.

Given the already expressed concern of this particular provincial government for quality-of-life matters in general and the urgency and history described elsewhere in these comments, it seems inconceivable that this proposed legislation would be passed without at least guarantees of responsible ongoing involvement of provincial authority built into the draft legislation.

As an aside, frankly the amendments that relate to the Employment Standards Act appear to provide no real protection for workers. In fact, they seem to guarantee abuse and hardship for those workers who think that they have rights and entitlements.

A religious concern: It is our concern that in the past revision of the legislation under discussion, and in current discussions, the subject of religion is not discussed. In fact, it is avoided. There was a very religious element in the development of early legislation. Like it or not, religion, not specific religions, is a very real part of the reality of life and society. In all these discussions the subject of religion is not being allowed to surface. While this subject may not seem to fit into the immediate matter at hand precisely, it should certainly be of concern to this standing committee and any discussion that relates to justice and quality of life in our society.

Built into the original and subsequent laws which governed Sundays and holidays was a guarantee of the integrity of faith and the right and importance of religious practice. Few legislators then shrank from asserting these values. Practically, the value of faith in the individual, and religion in general, was acknowledged.

True, this was a society that saw itself as uniquely and generally, if not solely, Christian. The demise of that homogeneous or one-religion society, or rather the growing of a multicultural, multifaith society, and a growing concern for separation of church and state, have resulted in the elimination of all reference to religion in the discussion of this and almost all legislation. This is unfortunate, because lost also has been much discussion of the rights and, more importantly, the value and place of religion. The fact that, universally, declarations of human rights and freedoms defend specifically the freedom of religion implies not only the importance of the individual freedom of faith and the practice of religion, but also the intrinsic value of both for life in general.

In the process of ridding ourselves of the embarrassment of discussing a difficult issue, have we left out something vital? Given the immense potential contribution of religion and religions to society, have we missed something important? In our widening and developing concept of society, do we fail to secure for all people what was guaranteed for the Christians and, admittedly, a few others in the early legislation, namely, the right of freedom of faith and the practice of religion? Did we thereby deprive ourselves of the benefits of religion in general to the quality of life in our society?

0940

The term "holiday" is, in its original definition, a religious event or period of time. Where is the protection and the guarantee that existed heretofore, more narrowly, for the individual to live and practise his or her religion? Practically, it would appear that the right or freedom and the ability to practise religious faith are unprotected.

This whole area of life can be dictated and controlled by an employer. We are "entitled" to vote, and provision is guaranteed to make that possible. We are "entitled" to leisure time, and now that is provided for. We are "free" to worship and practise religion, but not "entitled" to do so, nor is provision made. Where do religious holidays, the original holidays, get protection from this society that otherwise seems dedicated to the richness of inclusiveness and diversity?

Ladies and gentlemen, this is not a mingling of church and state. It has very little to do with organized religion. It has rather to do with fundamental rights and the value of a varied and powerful force in our society. Not to have a concern for this area does not, as it may appear, create a situation of equality and justice. On the contrary, it can leave free all the unfortunately incipient and destructive forces of bigotry, racism and prejudice which will do their ugly work and, at the same time, deprive us of a wealth of richness, variety and intrinsic good. Dare we continue to ignore such a difficult but important element of life? Is it sufficient to throw up the hands and say it is not our job?

Finally, and in conclusion, may we express our surprise that the proposed legislation seems committed to a common pause day but does not seem to really strongly denominate that pause day as Sunday. Practically, we now have a common pause day in Sunday. Why is this day not specified more strongly to entrench the idea? If the rationale is in some way to attempt to reduce attention to what is seen as a "Christian" day, the result will likely be failure. We have a common pause day now in Sunday. Its associations will change in time but the loss of that particular day could very well mean the loss of this rich potential resource for ever. It would seem to be better to preserve what we have and enhance it strongly for the value of all.

The effect of some of the wording in the proposed legislation and the lack of a strong emphasis on establishing Sunday as a common pause day does raise the question: Is this a sincere effort to deal with the Sunday and holidays issue, to establish a genuinely universal common pause day, or is this a good-sounding but in the end meaningless legislation? This is a question that concerns our organization very greatly.

Thank you for your attention.

The Acting Chair: That leaves about five minutes for each caucus.

Mr Daigeler: Thank you very much, and you do not have to be nervous. We certainly appreciate that you took the time to put your thoughts down on paper and to appear before us.

We did have already a presentation from a ministerial association yesterday, and you are here today to represent, I presume, an interdenominational group of ministers. Obviously, by the fact that you are representing the ministers, one could be left with the impression that is it just the ministers trying to protect their particular bailiwick in terms of making sure that people can come to their congregational services on Sunday. I am exaggerating, but I think sometimes the feeling can be left out there that this is what it is.

I would like to ask you to what extent that question of Sunday shopping, Sunday work, time off, is being discussed, not just by the ministers but by the members of your congregations. You were referring to the fact that there has not been a large groundswell of public demand for change. At the same time, if I am not mistaken, Collingwood has decided to be open, so there seems to be some support. I am just wondering to what extent you are speaking for the ministers, as it were, and to what extent you are speaking for the members of the congregations.

Mr Storey: I can only give an impression, and I think that I speak both for the ministers and the congregations. I would like to point out that church life, religious life, is a seven-day activity. At this particular point I do not think church attendance is affected as much by these circumstances as many people think, but the seven-day activity that involves ministers and their people has to do with the quality of life.

The level of counselling that professional ministers find themselves engaged in, the ongoing dealing with the problems of family life, is what raises most of these issues. It is not so much whether we have formal attendance of worship on Sunday; it is the general quality of life of our own people and the people around us. This is where most of these comments have come from: a deep concern for trying to hold family life together and face the realities.

I think perhaps I am suggesting that what we hear from a legislative point of view does not really reflect a confidence in the actuality of families being able to have much say as to what happens. If I could just give you a point of reference, a large amount of the commercial activity on the weekends takes place with part-time workers. This involves a large number of young people in families, teenagers. These young people have their own reasons for working. They are not likely to resist the strength of an employer when the employer dictates when they will work. Therefore that feeds back into the family and the family's ability to enjoy life together and so on. That is where we --

Mr Daigeler: If I could just interrupt a little bit, because we have only five minutes for each caucus. I appreciate what you are saying, but where I am coming from is that, so far at least, we have had quite a few people come to us and say, "I want and I have the right to work on Sunday and you are taking it away from me by not giving me the opportunity to do business on Sunday." I think it makes it very difficult, certainly for me as a politician, to argue, "No, you shouldn't have that right." That is what I am trying to say. You may have the view that you are putting forward, but is that a view that the members of your congregation are sharing, and are they actively discussing it? Are they doing something about it?

What I am trying to say is that it is very difficult for us to legislate something that is not supported by a large number of people. At least from the representations that we have had so far, the mood seems to be going in the other direction; namely, people saying, "I have the right to work on Sunday and I want to work on Sunday."

Mr Storey: I must admit I have not heard this kind of thing. I certainly have heard a lot of small business people complaining that they have to work now because they have to be involved in the marketplace to maintain their share of the market. I hear a lot of small business people complaining about this. I do hear those who are employed in large businesses really saying, "When it gets down to it, if the employer says I have to work, I have to work." So you have workers who are complaining about the situation in a larger commercial establishment where the reality is that if the employer says you have to work, you will go and work. You do not have the resources to resist the pressure of the employer.

I might quote one person who finds himself in a high level of a commercial endeavour in a department store, who says, "When the sales are at their peak, you put in your best team." If Sunday is the day the best sales are going to take place, then you will see that your best employers are there. This is the kind of reality in the business world that our people have to deal with, and we are trying to help balance that against people who are struggling to hold family life together.

Mr Carr: Thank you very much for your presentation. It was an excellent job. One of the concerns that many people have, or some of the people like yourself who are opposed to Sunday shopping, is that the tourism sections are so broad, and virtually the entire province could be allowed to open. As I look at them, there is not a place in this province that does not meet the criteria.

As a result, many people feel that what is going to happen is that it is going to take a longer time, but there is going to be Sunday shopping. It is going to be a snowball effect. Windsor is going to open and then the neighbouring municipality says, "They're open, so we are." Collingwood opens, so neighbouring people say, "We're going to lose business," and they will open. Is that the way you see it happening with the present legislation? Maybe I could just ask for your comments on that, if that is what you see happening over the next little while.

0950

Mr Storey: That is what I and many of my colleagues are afraid is going to happen. It will be a general erosion. It seems to be a matter of market share, of not missing out, and therefore we are afraid this will happen. I really am worried that we can stop this process. I know it sounds like a radical kind of solution, but we think the social costs, the personal costs, are worth the effort. We really do think this is what will happen.

Mr Carr: What about some of the other areas? There are many industries. For example, in this day and age you can go out and drink beer on Sunday. You can go to a movie theatre. I come from the Oakville area. You can go down and watch the Blue Jays, for example. What do you say to people who say there are many things that you can do in society and to be fair you should either shut everybody down or open everybody up? What do you say to those people? Are you in favour of cutting back, for example, on movie theatres and the bars and so on? Would you move us back? How do you answer that suggestion that it is not fair, that shopping is no different than going to a baseball game or a movie theatre?

Mr Storey: I cannot speak for all my colleagues in this particular area, because there is as much diversion of opinion on this as there would be in any other area. Personally, my own feeling is that there are differences of activity and we have to accept the fact that shopping has become almost a leisure activity. So it is really difficult.

However, we seem to have reached a kind of balance about those things that add to the quality of life. Leisure activities, sports and so on, have been accepted as part of leisure-time activity, and that does require some people to work. But that does not necessarily mean that therefore everything has to open.

In the last presentation somebody asked about the tourists coming from the United States to visit in Canada and not being able to shop. I do a lot of travelling myself, and what my expectations are as a tourist are not the same as a local inhabitant's. The wide-open shopping is not of as much interest to me as the things I am interested in that relate to tourism. However, the local retailer who is looking for a market share might see that from a different point of view. I am sorry, I am not sure I answered your question.

Mr Carr: It was helpful. The other area, and this is the area where obviously you are the expert, gets into the religious field. A group of ministers from one of the other areas came in and was quoting from the Bible -- how, strictly speaking, if we were to interpret the Bible and the commandments about not working on Sunday, we should not be going to baseball games and things like that.

That is why when we start saying "on religious grounds" -- and I know you put something in there -- if we were to interpret it, then to be fair everybody would have to close down. I am just wondering why, in order to make the argument, we throw in the religious aspect of it. Is that a big thrust of the reason that you do not want to, because of the basic principles and the commandments?

Mr Storey: I hope you will not misunderstand what I said about religion. There are people in our society who feel bound by religious laws to conform to certain behaviours. This representation really does not take that point of view. In a multicultural, multifaith society, we have to be fair to all people. If some people feel they cannot work on Sunday, then they need to be protected, I feel, as their religious right, but we are not advocating that.

The suggestion that had to do with religion really is that all religions seem to have been left uncovered with the change of legislation and practice, so that where at one time Christians at least had the advantage of the practice of their religion, now none of the religions has any opportunity to negotiate, with the support of the government, some of the things that relate to the practice of religion. Any religion -- pick one -- has some things that the worker would like to be able to negotiate with his employer to allow him or her to practise his or her faith. That is where my point of view is coming from, in more broad terms. As for rules as to whether you should worship or work on Sunday, that should be, with proper protection, worked out between the employer and the employee.

Mr Wessenger: First of all, I want to thank you for a very thoughtful presentation. I would like to zero in on some of your comments with respect to the amendments to the Employment Standards Act. To start with, you indicated you feel the amendments provide no real protection for workers. Is that a general statement or is that really applied to those workers you identified in a weak bargaining position, the ones, for instance, that do not have union representation? It would be fair to say, I think, that members of the union would certainly have more than adequate protection under the act. Is it those more susceptible part-time people you are referring to there?

Mr Storey: I am referring to those who are the most vulnerable, those who are not protected by systems. The legislation says one thing, but can it deliver to the single mother who really must work a number of part-time jobs to keep things together, or to the teenager who is a very integral part of our commercial system? These are the people we are most concerned about.

Just as my own response, I have three daughters who are all involved in this process. One, during the last series of open Sundays in Barrie, was informed, when she said she did not want to work on Sundays, "Well, temporarily you can do this, you can refuse to work on Sunday, but when we see how the law settles down, we may have to make a decision about whether you can stay with us or not." How can you fight that kind of logic? It is so easy to shuffle people around and lose the ones who want to make a stand.

Mr Wessenger: Do you see any means of strengthening the amendments to the Employment Standards Act, or do you think it is just a problem that cannot really be resolved through protective legislation?

Mr Storey: Is it fair for me to say that I think it cannot be made stronger?

Mr Wessenger: Yes.

Mr Storey: That is the optimist in me. I think it could be made stronger to make certain there are systems to protect those who do not have leverage in the society.

Mr Wessenger: Do you have any specific suggestions in that regard?

Mr Storey: Without some kind of system and the ongoing involvement of the provincial government, I cannot see how any protection could be very effective. If there is not some kind of point of recourse that relates to an authority strong enough to have some weight, I cannot see how any legislation will really protect.

Mr Wessenger: Would it be fair to say that it might be a question of administrative backup, of when you had the strong administration, it might be workable?

Mr Storey: I would hope so.

Mr Wessenger: Is it fair to say that you see the basic thrust of protecting workers as the whole question of restricting the opening on Sundays?

Mr Storey: I am sorry.

Mr Wessenger: The main thrust of protecting the common pause day is the restrictions on the Sunday openings. Is that where you see the main aspect of protecting people, protecting families?

Mr Storey: From our point of view, yes, I think so.

The Acting Chair: Thank you, Rev Storey. On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you for your presentation.

Mr Storey: Thank you for the opportunity. I appreciate a system that allows us to do this, and your attention.

1000

TOWN OF COLLINGWOOD

The Acting Chair: I would like to now call on a representative from the town of Collingwood. The format we have been following is that you are allowed one half-hour. You can give your presentation for a full half-hour, or you can make a short presentation and allow questioning from each caucus. I understand we are starting with a 10-minute presentation on video.

Mr Lloyd: That is correct.

The Acting Chair: Could you please identify yourself.

Mr Lloyd: I am Councillor Rick Lloyd from the town of Collingwood. I have along with me Councillor Bonnie Griffiths as well from the town. Mr Chair, committee members, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the town of Collingwood I want to take this opportunity to welcome you to our beautiful community. Hopefully, you will have time to visit and enjoy our attractions during your stay. In the event time does not permit, I have taken the liberty of arranging with Lisa Freedman a short video presentation. You will see Collingwood as it is today, and the potential for our area to grow, particularly in the areas of tourism, recreation, and leisure services.

[Audio-visual presentation]

1010

Mr Lloyd: The town of Collingwood, with a population of 12,500, stands in a very favourable position in every sense of the word. Both natural and man-made circumstances allow us to offer a long list of amenities one can enjoy in the most beautiful countryside of Ontario that you have just seen.

We are the major service centre for an area extending from Owen Sound to Barrie. Collingwood has the best of both worlds, close enough to the major population centres of Ontario and yet far enough away to enjoy an unspoiled natural environment.

Collingwood is committed to recreational and cultural activities and boasts over 150 clubs, organizations and associations that involve people of all ages. Organizations such as the Blue Mountain Foundation for the Arts focus attention on art shows, musical presentations as well as live theatre events.

Collingwood considers this area as a four-season tourist destination point. We are located less than a driving day away from a majority of the population of North America. Collingwood is well situated to take advantage of increased leisure time and spending. During the winter, Collingwood is transformed into the ski capital of Ontario, where downhill and cross-country ski enthusiasts enjoy excellent conditions. Top-level ski competitions that attract North America's best are hosted at the following ski clubs: Blue Mountain Resorts, Alpine, Craighleith, Devil's Glen, Georgian Peaks, Osler Bluff and the Toronto Ski Club.

Major local attractions include tours of the world-famous Blue Mountain Pottery, the popular Candy Factory, Kaufman house, Collingwood Museum, scenic caves and caverns, the Blue Mountain slide ride and water slide. The Georgian Triangle tourist and information centre offers convention services and lodging assistance as well as tourist information. The list goes on, with Wasaga Beach offering one of the world's longest freshwater sandy beaches. The Georgian trail, which we are quite proud of, 32 kilometres in length, offers cyclists, hikers and cross-country skiers magnificent views of Georgian Bay and the Niagara Escarpment with its interesting plant and animal life. There is more: hiking, sailing, golf, parks, fishing, flying and windsurfing. Need I say more. I sincerely hope you plan to move to Collingwood in the future.

Having said all this, what else do Collingwood and the three million annual area visitors need? Our retailers and real estate businesses must have the right to remain open on Sunday if they so choose. Council of the town of Collingwood, after hosting a public meeting on Monday, July 22, has taken the following position:

"That bylaw 91-47, being a bylaw under provision of the Retail Business Holidays Act to permit retail establishments to remain open on holidays, having been considered in committee of the whole, be presented, read a third time and finally passed this 22nd day of July 1991."

On behalf of council, the retailers and the citizens of the town of Collingwood, I urge the New Democratic Party of Ontario to consider legislation that will permit this community to grow and blossom, and I solicit the support of the official opposition and the third party.

Mr Sorbara: Thank you for a delightful presentation and a very good public relations piece for the town of Collingwood. I noted the reference to political stability. I take it, then, that the video was made before the last provincial election.

Mr Lloyd: Well, no, since.

Mr Sorbara: Yes or no.

Mr Lloyd: Perhaps.

Mr Sorbara: I saw the copyright date there. I understand that Collingwood has recently passed a bylaw. In fact, I understand Collingwood has gone through some real turmoil on this issue of whether or not its retailers should be allowed to open for part or all of Sunday and that, after much consternation, you have come to a resolution of that issue. In your wisdom, you have decided you will look after the Sunday market as you see fit. Is that right?

Mr Lloyd: That is correct. We feel the merchants should have the right to choose and that the need is there, very much so, in this community. Actually, I urge this constituent to look at it with the whole province because I feel we must have the right. In this day and age, I think we feel there is so much legislation that it is certainly nice to give the people of Ontario the opportunity to choose on their own.

Mr Sorbara: Has the result been that in Collingwood stores are open the same hours or in the same configurations as they would be, say, on a Saturday or a Friday?

Mr Lloyd: They are choosing, many of them, to open after lunchtime on Sunday. With the tourist atmosphere that is happening in this community, they find they are quite busy. We feel that with today's age, the way it is happening, the community has changed. It had been embroiled around the shipyard for so many years, but when we lost that major industry we definitely took the routes of tourism. We feel that we have to go out and assist our industries and our commercial retailers as much as possible.

Mr Sorbara: Since that time, have you noticed a deterioration of the quality of life of your community in the town of Collingwood or in the area?

Mr Lloyd: Certainly not; everything but.

Mr Sorbara: Have the pastoral associations and the various churches noted a dropoff in church attendance, that you know of?

Mr Lloyd: Not that I know of. I can sympathize very much with their concerns. I think they are real concerns of everyone in this room. I believe we have reached a milestone and that it is time we took a very positive look towards this issue and get on with it.

Mr Sorbara: As a councillor, have you noticed any of your constituents who work in the retail sector coming to you with the message that they are being forced to work against their will on Sundays?

Mr Lloyd: Not so at all.

Mr Sorbara: If that were the case, would they come and talk with you about it?

Mr Lloyd: Yes, at this tier of government we are very amenable to phone calls and in fact people knocking on your door.

Mr Sorbara: Or at three o'clock in the morning.

Mr Lloyd: That is correct. I feel they would be there. I have not heard any concerns. In fact, I hear more concern of finding jobs in this community.

Mr Sorbara: Have the Sunday openings provided some new opportunities for people to work in the community?

Mr Lloyd: Yes, they have, definitely, for our students as well. As you are quite aware, it is very difficult this year for students to find jobs, and it has opened that avenue as well.

Mr Sorbara: Do you think that, if we created the same opportunities you have created in Collingwood for the entire province, the quality of life would deteriorate in Ontario?

Mr Lloyd: I do not believe so, sir. I think the quality of life will remain and that the church will become stronger.

Mr Sorbara: I just want to end by once again saying that was a pretty powerful piece. By the way, I think the piece, as it sets out what is happening in the global economy, is startlingly accurate. It is good to see that in Collingwood you are coming to grips with the internationalization of our economy. I hope you do get a chunk of the action here. I know how difficult it has been, particularly at the employment levels as you go through some very powerful restructuring. If you are aggressively recruiting the way that video indicates, it bodes well for the future, so good luck.

Mr J. Wilson: I too want to add my congratulations to the town and the council for the excellent video. It is the first time I had the opportunity to see it. It is certainly superb.

Mr Sorbara has covered most of the questions, as he very often does when he goes first.

Mr Sorbara: Repeat them and maybe you will get different answers.

Mr J. Wilson: No. Rick is very consistent, I can tell you that.

There has been some experience in the town in the past and recently with Sunday shopping. Can you tell us whether there is any preliminary data available -- what is the word on the street for retailers? Is there an increase in retail sales, or is it really just spread out over the week, for instance, as the labour council said in its brief?

Mr Lloyd: No, I believe indications were very prominent last Sunday. Most retailers who remained open for Sunday shopping were quite thrilled with the turnout and the increased sales they had; as you are quite aware, Jim, we have a lot of weekend residents in this community. Unfortunately, that only gives an opportunity for one-day shopping, which is Saturday. But fortunately, with the opening this prior Sunday, there are greater sales in most of the stores that did open. They were quite delighted. It was profitable and an area that they feel will only get better.

Mr J. Wilson: Just to give the committee members a feel for the experience last Sunday, about what percentage of the retailers are open?

Mr Lloyd: I would say a good 35% to 40%.

Mr Carr: Getting back to this spread over the week, this is a tourist area. I will lay out the way I see it working. Tell me if I am wrong. I come from Oakville, from where many people come up to this fine area. If things are closed on Sunday they may still pick up the same goods, but they may go back to Oakville to pick them up and wait till Sunday. You are saying, then, that on the weekend, when your population increases dramatically with people coming from all over on the weekend, those people are spending their dollars locally, as opposed to going back home and spending it? Is that essentially what you are seeing has happened so that you are benefiting from it, and that regardless of whether people are spending more, this community is receiving more economic benefits?

1020

Mr Lloyd: That is very much so. We find that the problem with Sundays closed is that many people are bringing their goods from Oakville or Toronto or wherever they may be coming from. Thus, with the retail market being opened for them, they will spend more time shopping and spending money in this community. Again, that has become our largest industry for this whole area, the tourism aspect. I feel we must cater towards it and create as many jobs as possible. I really do not think at all that it will hurt the quality of life in the home.

Mr Carr: What was the vote in council?

Mr Lloyd: Unanimous.

Mr Carr: How many are on council?

Mr Lloyd: There are nine, including the mayor.

Mr Fletcher: That was a very good presentation. Is Bill 115, as it stands now, prohibiting you from opening up on Sundays? Is it standing in the way of anything you want to do?

Mr Sorbara: It is not the law yet.

Mr Fletcher: If it becomes law.

Mr Lloyd: If it becomes law with Sunday opening? We feel that allowing Sunday openings and allowing the retail people of Collingwood to open will certainly open a new avenue for extended businesses to advance in this community. We feel that with the closures, it is closing the door to the market in our community. As I have already indicated, with the tourism aspect being the largest industry of our community, it is only sensible that the choice of that extra day of shopping or retail available should be up to retailers.

Mr Fletcher: As I said, I really enjoyed the video and I would love to be able to come up and play golf or go for hikes with my family on a Sunday. But if I am one of those people who is not a business person, just a working person as I have always been and if I have to work on Sunday, when do I enjoy all the things I saw?

Mr Lloyd: If you had the opportunity to work on Sunday, then you have the opportunity to go skiing on Monday when there are no lineups at the ski hills and so on. Quite often we can enjoy the less crowded avenues in our community during the weekdays. Sometimes it might be more unique to take a day off during the week, a day of pause perhaps on a Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday and enjoy your leisure time, Sunday being inundated with newcomers to the community as well as weekend residents. I feel it is a totally different atmosphere, perhaps, than other areas of Ontario.

Mr Fletcher: I just noticed in your brief that the retailers and real estate businesses really are pushing for this. I did not see anything about the people who have to work on Sunday pushing for this. That is a minor point.

There was just one other point, and this is from the July 23 Owen Sound Sun Times, where the person representing LOF Glass said that employees there are in favour of it because employees working seven days a week should be able to shop on Sundays. But they are working a continental shift. Those employees only get one Sunday off a month. It is not really a valid statement to say that is why they want it.

Mr Lloyd: Actually, as indicated through the history of the province, many do work continental shifts; many do not get Sundays or weekdays off. When we can enjoy shopping from Monday through Saturday, they perhaps get Sunday and Monday off and do not have the same opportunities to do their shopping as you or I would. So if stores are open Sundays, they will have the same right as everyone else in the province. The workers at LOF and some other industries feel that it would be quite an asset to have Sunday shopping available so that they could do their groceries and their shopping as every other citizen in Ontario has the right to do.

Mr Mills: Thank you very much for appearing here, Councillor Lloyd, and for your presentation. We are here to listen with a certain amount of caution and the government is intent on the common pause day legislation. However, the tourist criteria and the draft regulations for them will indeed allow a place like Collingwood great opportunities, as you put it, to grow and blossom.

Mr Sorbara: I just wanted to ask either Mr Mills or a representative of the Ministry of the Solicitor General for clarification, and it arises out of Mr Fletcher's initial question to our witness. Mr Fletcher suggested to the witness from the town of Collingwood that Collingwood would be able to do everything it wanted to do in terms of allowing the storekeepers to make a free choice under Bill 115.

As I read Bill 115, it says in subsection (3) of section 4 that: "A bylaw may be passed" -- that is, allowing some stores to stay open -- "under subsection (1) only if there is compliance with the tourism criteria set out in the regulations made under this section."

Am I to understand from Mr Fletcher's question that a town like Collingwood could allow stores to stay open without reference to the tourism criteria?

The Acting Chair: Mr Mills, do you want to take that one?

Mr Mills: I have a legal adviser here from the Solicitor General and perhaps Janet would like to answer that.

Ms Scarfone: Janet Scarfone from the Ministry of the Solicitor General, legal branch.

In response to the question, a bylaw must be passed only if there is compliance with the tourism criteria, so the criteria have to be met before a tourism bylaw can be passed.

Mr Sorbara: In effect then, it is the case that unless the town of Collingwood identified an area or a particular set of stores as coming within the tourism criteria, they would not be allowed to stay open and that would be inconsistent with what they are doing now under the current law, is that right?

Ms Scarfone: What has to occur is that the area designated as a tourist area must comply with the requirements in the legislation before a bylaw can be passed.

Mr Sorbara: Right, thank you.

Mr Fletcher: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Does this bill impede them in any way? I did not suggest in any way that this bill was going to help or hinder them. I just wanted to know what they were going to say. I did not suggest anything.

Mr Sorbara: My problem was, by suggesting to the town of Collingwood that once Bill 115 is passed they would be able to do exactly what they are doing --

Mr Fletcher: It was your point that I did suggest, and I did not suggest that. I never would have suggested anything like that in the first place.

The Acting Chair: That was not a point of order, Mr Fletcher.

Councillor Lloyd, on behalf of the committee I would like to thank you for your presentation. Although there may be some disagreement on the best area to locate in Ontario, I am sure Collingwood will become second on most people's list.

Mr Lloyd: Thank you very much.

1030

UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS

The Acting Chair: Our next presenter will be from the United Food and Commercial Workers. As you know, you will be given half an hour to give your presentation. You can either make a half-hour presentation or a short presentation and allow members from each caucus to ask questions. Would you please identify yourselves for Hansard and then proceed.

Mr Williamson: My name is Brian Williamson and I am president of United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1977. I merely represent Zehrs employees. With me is Alan McLean, the business agent from our local union. Al also is a permanent resident of Collingwood.

Mr Sorbara: You represent what employees?

Mr Williamson: Zehrs markets. We are going to make a brief submission. Our union has made several submissions, will be making more submissions and we will try to answer your questions as best we can.

I work for Zehrs, which is a retail food store chain in southwestern Ontario. It is owned by Loblaws Corp. I have worked there for 17 years full-time in the stores, and Al worked for 15 years in the stores. We can really only speak to the Zehrs and, as we see it, working with Zehrs.

We, the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1977, are pleased to have this opportunity to appear before this committee to present our members' views on the issue of Sunday shopping and Sunday working.

Our local union represents over 3,900 employees of Zehrs supermarkets in 40 stores, as well as employees of one Valu-Mart and two Mr Grocer stores. These employees work and live in the following cities and towns in southern Ontario: Guelph, Kitchener-Waterloo, Cambridge, Elmira, Fergus, Caledonia, Ancaster, Brantford, Ingersoll, Strathroy, Goderich, Kincardine, Port Elgin, Owen Sound, Wasaga Beach, Wingham, Listowel, Orangeville, Bolton, Uxbridge, Alliston, Stratford, London, St Thomas and Orillia.

Prior to presenting our brief to this committee, we would like to express our complete support for the brief presented to this committee by our Canadian director, Clifford Evans, at Queen's Park on Monday, July 29, 1991. We have enclosed, at the conclusion of our presentation, a copy of Brother Evans's recommended amendments.

This is an extremely emotional issue and we must all look at this objectively and make recommendations that are going to benefit the many, as opposed to the very few selected businesses motivated by greed. We are very concerned and sympathetic to the businesses, both small and large, that have been hurt by the current recession and, contrary to popular belief, the labour movement and our union in particular are not opposed to companies earning a profit. After all, profits usually ensure job security and job creation.

That is why we must address this most important issue with a view to solving the problems by strengthening the legislation to prevent abuses in an effort to meet the government mandate of ensuring a common pause day for retail workers.

During the brief period between June 1990 and March 1991, when the Retail Business Holidays Act was struck down in the courts, there was no legislation regulating retail hours of business in the province, and many if not most food retailers opened for business on Sundays.

Fortunately, the employers in Local 1977 we have collective agreements with chose exclusively to remain closed, providing a common pause day, allowing their employees a day to be with their families. These employers, however, were considering having to open to protect their market share if legislation to provide for a common pause day was not legislated by the government.

There are too many myths surrounding this issue to be discussed in our presentation, but we wish to discuss the following. First, the creation of jobs: To dispel this myth, we should look at the Zehrs markets situation in the towns of Port Elgin and Kincardine. In Port Elgin, which is open under the tourist exemption provisions of the act -- and I would add that Port Elgin and Wasaga Beach are the only two Zehrs locations that are open on Sundays -- when they were opened in the late 1970s, from day one they were open July and August because they were exempted under the tourist exemption. Historically they have only been open those two months, and people hired there understood that they were going to work or may be required to work Saturdays and Sundays through the July-August period. Zehrs, to remain competitive, has been forced to open on Sundays throughout the summer months.

Kincardine, on the other hand, has chosen not to open on Sundays, although minutes down the road from Port Elgin. Comparing the two stores, Kincardine has been overall a more consistent and stronger store, employing more full- and part-time employees, which indicates there is no concrete proof that jobs are created or lost to Sunday openings or closings.

Second, is tourism enhanced by Sunday shopping? We must ask ourselves whether people are vacationing in the Orillia, Collingwood, Wasaga Beach, Huntsville or Muskoka regions of our province because they are allowed Sunday shopping.

Since the Retail Business Holidays Act's inception, we do not believe that people's ability to shop or not to shop on a Sunday has had any effect on the growth of tourism in cottage country. When responding to these and other questions, we believe the attached recommendations will help to ensure a common pause day for retail workers without hurting the economy of this province.

It should be understood clearly that our members do not want to work on Sundays, and failure to provide legislation that will adequately protect the principle of a common pause day will only result in forcing our members to work.

If I could take a second, it has been raised a number of times and it came up this morning about the increase in business by being open on Sundays. In the retail food industry, we found, and I believe the presenter from Canadian Tire yesterday stated that he found that his business shifted from Saturday and Monday and Tuesday to Sunday, and what he really did was spread his business over seven days as opposed to six. He brought figures to show that. We believe that is what will happen and what has happened in the retail food industry. They are not increasing their business, or they have not indicated they are. It is just a shift in the business.

I cannot speak for other industries, but speaking about the retail food industry, there are certain crafts in the industry such as meatcutters and bakers, and I think we have a tendency to think of the people who might be able to come in off the street and work on a Saturday or work on a Sunday. Cashiers and people can be fairly easily trained to do those tasks, but if you have meatcutters and bakers and people with certain skills that require a fair amount of time and training, there is a limited number of those people who are hired for each store. It is almost impossible to go out on the street and find these people, so the stores are going to be in a position where they may not force these people to work on Sundays, but there is certainly going to be pressure there so the store can operate in full capacity providing meat and baked goods.

In discussing the work on Sundays, because of the shift in business, I do not believe employers, on the whole, try to force or intimidate employees to work on Sundays. People who are working 24 or 27 hours a week, if the business is lost on Fridays, Saturdays, Mondays and Tuesdays and shifts to a Sunday, to maintain their incomes are forced to work on Sundays voluntarily to maintain their livelihood. So it is not that the employer does, it is the fact that the customer has shifted his or her shopping habits. People are there to work when the customers are there, and the hours are there to follow the business, not the business there to follow the hours.

I think there is a pressure from the way the business is transacted, or shifting them. That is about all I have to say.

The Acting Chair: We have about seven minutes. Mr Poirier.

Mr Poirier: I can understand very well what you are saying, and personally I would also strongly support worker protection against abuses. I would also support their right to refuse Sunday work. If I remember, you have been with us most of the time, if not every day, in Toronto, listening to some of the presentations from just about everybody we have had so far. Am I not correct?

Mr Williamson: Correct.

Mr Poirier: I look at page 3, for example, at the top. It says, "This is an extremely emotional issue" -- quite correct -- "and we must all look at this objectively and make recommendations that are going to benefit the many, as opposed to a very few selected businesses that are motivated by greed."

That is a rather strong statement. You seem to put everybody, those who support the right to ask to work on a Sunday -- you seem to lump them all in "a very few selected businesses that are motivated by greed." Maybe some are, I am not denying that, but you were there when you heard some of the small business owners and the not-so-small business owners saying they have lots of people who want to work on a Sunday, or themselves, or just their families to open their small business on a Sunday.

If I were the owner of a small tourist-type business here in Collingwood, for example -- Blue Mountain Pottery, or whoever they are -- I would be upset that you would label me as a selected business motivated by greed if I wanted to capture the Sunday tourists that come to Collingwood. How would you react to that?

Mr Williamson: I believe in our recommendations that follow this we are recommending that there be a 4,000-square-feet exemption, which we feel would help the small business people if we allow them to open on Sundays. We think the larger chains are trying to take the business away from the mom-and-pop operations, particularly in the retail food industry. Those are the people we feel are going to suffer in the business world, and we think that is motivated by market sharing. Greed may be a strong word, but certainly profit motivated.

Mr Poirier: I am not saying some people may not be motivated by greed, but maybe you should reword this, with all due respect, so that those that are under 4,000 or 2,400 square feet -- you seem to lump them in the statement here, which I do not think is what you are aiming at from your explanation. Correct?

Mr Williamson: Correct.

Mr Poirier: Therefore, some small business people might want to open and choose to work on Sunday, and not be necessarily motivated by greed.

Mr Williamson: Correct.

Mr Poirier: Thank you. I am glad you specified this for me, because I was surprised this is where you were coming from. I was a bit upset, but thank you for clarifying this.

1040

Mr Sorbara: I enjoyed hearing from the United Food and Commercial Workers again. I want to begin with the point you made about meat cutters and bakers. I think the point is well taken. In some food stores where there are bakery facilities and there is a fresh meat counter, you do need very competent people who understand more than simply stocking shelves or processing food at a cash register, although that work is sophisticated as well.

There are meat cutters and bakers who have to work on Sunday in restaurants and in banquet facilities. Should we be closing those down as well? What distinction do you make? Why should we be requiring those workers to work, and not permit the meat cutters and the bakers, who may even want to work in a Zehrs on Sunday, the opportunity?

Mr Williamson: I would really like to answer the question, but I am not aware of any banquet facilities or restaurants that have their own meat cutters or bakers.

Mr Sorbara: Let's take a chef, who is dealing with the meat after it is cut. Why should the chef have to work on Sunday and the meat cutter not?

Mr Williamson: I believe it is similar to baseball on Sundays. Families sometimes go out for Sunday brunch as a group. I think part of it is, when they go to work in that restaurant, they understand it is a seven-days-a-week operation.

I started working in the retail food industry as early as 1965. Back then, we worked Tuesday to Saturday. The hours have expanded. Some Zehrs stores are now open from 7 am to 11 pm on a six-days-a-week operation, so I think it has expanded, but clearly Sunday was a common day for retail workers, and I think if I were working in the restaurant industry or considering being a chef, I would understand that I would probably be required to work on a Sunday.

Mr Sorbara: Just a very few years ago in Ontario, those who were advocating the common day of pause were strongly advocating that no sports facilities be open, no cinemas be open, no recreational facilities be open, and in fact some were advocating that no restaurants be open. Indeed, one could not order beverage alcohol. The bars certainly were not open.

Why is it that we should make such a special case for those businesses which would like to open and those workers who would like to work? Why should the state prohibit that in the way in which the government is attempting to do with this bill?

Mr Williamson: If I go back to a presentation I heard made in Cambridge a number of years ago by a fellow from the African Lion Safari, the chap who owned it said that if you allow the stores to open in Kitchener-Waterloo-Cambridge, it is going to absolutely be detrimental to him because he is not in the tourist industry; he is a tourist attraction.

Mr Sorbara: But should he be protected? Should the state protect him to make sure he does not lose business? Should we not create a society where people are free to make choices -- free to join a trade union, not to join a trade union, free to open their business, not to open their business?

Mr McLean: If I could address the remarks you are making, that was the first time I had the opportunity to view that video on Collingwood, myself being a resident of this town for seven years and loving every day of it. I have three active boys who participate in all different types of sports, and last winter my oldest son was fortunate enough to be a provincial champion and a North American silver stick champion. I found it very interesting that they showed sporting events and things like that.

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the home games for my son during the winter were Sundays. Being in the retail business for 15 years, Saturday was a day that I worked very often. The bulk of my sons' sporting events fall on Saturday and Sunday, tournaments, regular games and such as that.

If you are asking why we should protect those retail workers who are in that type of business, I think we have to look at the fact that when those people have gone into those jobs and taken the decision to make that their livelihood and to support their families through that, they did so knowing it was a six-day operation.

I believe it is paramount that the government protect that established common pause day for very many reasons. The comment was made that I could ski on Monday. If I want to ski with my children, I would much rather ski on Sunday when they are out of school than ski by myself on Monday, even though there is nobody on the hill.

Mr Sorbara: I am just trying to understand your argument. Are you saying because that is the way it used to be? It seems to me, as I remember the retail sector a few years ago, you would never see a store open beyond 6 o'clock except perhaps on Friday or Thursday night. Now in Metropolitan Toronto, most of the large shopping malls are open until 9:30 every evening. Some people went into that business on the basis that the stores would close at 6. Should we be prohibiting stores from opening beyond 6 o'clock? Where do you draw the line? Do you just say, "That's the way it was, so that's the way it always should be"? Should we be demanding that LOF Glass close on Sundays so that those workers have the same rights as retail workers?

The Acting Chair: Could we have a quick answer to that question and then move on to the next caucus?

Mr McLean: In an industry like LOF, they do the same job every day. Obviously a certain machine is probably the same on a Monday as a Saturday. In the retail business it is completely different. Everything is geared and gauged to the amount of sales and the business that goes through that department. Being a produce manager, there is a tremendous difference in what went on in the operation on a Monday as compared to a Saturday.

Mr J. Wilson: Just a clarification here. You mentioned, for instance, Wasaga Beach, which is also in the area I represent. It has a very large IGA store which has always been open on Sunday to serve the tourists and local people. What are you really suggesting here? Would you allow exemptions for tourist areas for your stores, the large ones like the Zehrs stores, or do you want them closed right across the board? I am just not quite sure what you mean there.

Mr Williamson: We are suggesting that stores that are 4,000 feet or under be allowed to open on Sundays in the tourist areas and, over that, they be closed. Zehrs has indicated over the last couple of years that it would just as soon not be open in Wasaga Beach or Port Elgin, but because historically it has been open and the fact that the IGA and competition in Port Elgin are open, it is forced to stay open on Sundays. If they were closed, they would be much happier.

Mr Carr: What percentage of your membership is in food as opposed to retail? Is there a split?

Mr Williamson: They are all in retail food.

Mr Carr: One of the concerns I have is that in looking at the agendas, you have made representation in the other sectors; for example, the major retail stores have made presentations. But looking at the schedule, none of the major food retailers is making presentations on something that can fundamentally affect their business one way or the other. They are strangely silent. Do you have any thoughts as to why they have chosen not to make any sort of representation either pro or con?

Mr Williamson: I do not think I can speak on behalf of the major food retailers, Loblaws, A & P. I think the comment made by Mr Agnew from the Bay yesterday was rather interesting and it may flow into the major food retailers' thinking. He said that if they had the same kind of legislation in Ontario as they do in Manitoba and Quebec, although they would not be happy -- he has clearly stated that they would like to be open for business on Sunday -- they could live with that, they could do business. I believe that possibly is where the major retail food chains are coming from: "If we're open, let's all be open; if we're closed, let's close it down and not create any unfair advantages."

We believe the retail food industry got involved in Sunday shopping and Sunday working because of the fact that the so-called drugstores, which were not really drugstores, were selling products that traditionally have been grocery items, were in the business, and they felt their profits and their merchandise were being sold out from under them. They did not have a fair advantage and that is what has motivated them to get into it. I think they believe if that problem is resolved, then that clearly puts the battle back on an equal footing and they can do business in a six-days-a-week operation.

1050

Mr Carr: I see. We had people like the Bay who came in and said workers can be protected and so on. You obviously believe that in retail food they cannot be protected. It would have been nice to have some of those large and small retail food operations be able to come here and say, "This is the concern of the union." For all we know, they may support them, as you are saying. I just find it very strange that in an issue as important as this the retail food companies have chosen not to come.

I appreciate it, because I see the amount of effort you are going through, travelling with us, spending all this time going around the province, and the people who are affected -- because their business will be affected, one way of the other -- have chosen not to be there. I just found it a little bit strange and I was just wondering why. Maybe I can make some inquiries on my own about that.

Mr Williamson: It might help to ask them.

Mr McLean: Maybe they are just pleased with the presentations we are making and they are just happy with the way it is going.

Mr Carr: Maybe that is it. I hope so. Is there more time? Two minutes?

The other question I had relates to how you see it going, based on the present legislation. The feeling of some people is that with the tourist exemption being so large and this particular area being so important, many municipalities will in fact begin to open up, and that it will take a little bit longer but we will have Sunday shopping, including for all your workers. Is that the way you see it heading if the legislation stays the way it is? If not, why do you think it will not happen that way?

Mr McLean: I believe that is part of Cliff Evans's recommendations on tightening up some of the tourist criteria to make them not so broad as to allow, as you were saying, wide-open Sunday shopping eventually, because the way we interpret it, it would be just about impossible for a community not to declare itself exempt under these criteria. So we would like to see it as our recommendations say.

Mr Morrow: Thank you, brothers, for taking the time to come to talk to us. You seem to represent an awful lot of retail workers, 3,900 to be precise, in a large chunk of the province. Recent surveys say that over 70% of the Ontario public does not want to work on Sunday. Is this fairly consistent with your membership, or what are the figures?

Mr Williamson: We have ongoing regular membership meetings. We travel around the area where we represent people and hold quarterly meetings, information meetings, for our members. We concluded negotiations last summer and it was a major issue, the fact that they wanted to be protected against having to work on Sunday. I do not think they were too confident that they were going to be protected under legislation, and they felt it was incumbent on us to try to go out and protect them against working on Sunday. Again, I say it was a major issue, so yes, I would believe that in our organization, with Zehrs, it is an even higher profile, possibly because of the company's decision to try to stay closed as long as it can and maintain a common pause day.

Mr Morrow: Will this legislation create any job loss at all?

Mr Williamson: No, not for Zehrs employees.

Mr Morrow: Is it not true that fewer people actually worked at, say, an A & P once they created wide-open Sunday shopping?

Mr Williamson: I really could not answer that. What we do know is that A & P laid off over 200 people just recently.

Mr Morrow: Would it not be better for local councils to determine the needs of their communities based on specific provincial criteria for, say, tourism?

Mr Williamson: I agree.

Mr Morrow: Thank you very much.

Mr O'Connor: I want to thank you for coming here. These hearings are a perfect part of the democratic process. We get to hear from worker representatives, council members representing the local residents, some business people, people from all different sectors. As a resident in this town when the shipyard closed -- that was some time ago. Were you a resident at that time?

Mr McLean: Yes, I was.

Mr O'Connor: There were 1,800 jobs lost as a result of that, 1,000 in the shipyard and several others. You must have seen a terrific change in the town during that period.

Mr McLean: There was certainly a lowering of morale or a mood altering. I think a lot of it was reinforced by the way the media continued to play it up. It was impossible to turn on the local news or even the national news without some sort of reference being made to Collingwood, that it was on its last breath and so on and so forth. I personally still believe that Collingwood is a strong community and will continue to be that way and continue to grow, but there is no doubt there were some hardships that were experienced by quite a few local residents.

Mr O'Connor: In an area that has been devastated, a single-industry community like this being devastated by a large operator closing, do you think wide-open Sunday shopping would create jobs for those 1,800 who lost those good-quality, high-paying jobs?

Mr McLean: If I believed that, I would be in support of wide-open shopping. I have some very close personal friends who operate businesses in this town and the surrounding communities. If I believed for one minute that Sunday openings were going to be the cure-all to some of the economic problems we are experiencing here, I would definitely be in support of it, but I truly cannot see any evidence of that. We only need to look at areas like British Columbia and Alberta where wide-open Sunday shopping has been the norm. They are still going through economic problems as far as cross-border shopping is concerned. There is a host of other issues. I think it would be unwise for us to try and confuse this and bring in all these things and figure that Sunday shopping somehow is going to cure the economic problems of Ontario.

Mr O'Connor: I have a couple of other points. I have two brothers who are meat cutters. One works on Sunday because the store is open Sunday. I know the quality of his family life does suffer because of that. He has split-up days. My other brother's store does not operate on Sunday. He has Sunday and one other day off in the week, so his family life is a little bit better. As a negotiator working trying to enrich the lives of your workers, do you feel this legislation will be enough to protect those workers? Do you think it should be stronger or do you feel there is no need to protect them, that all the retailers are concerned about their employees?

Mr McLean: I am not going to say that all retailers are not concerned, but I think we have to be very conscious that there are those retailers out there who would put pressure on individuals to work. It is paramount that we do have legislation that will protect these workers.

Mr O'Connor: We heard from one of the ministerial groups earlier that it has been advocating for some protection for workers too. I think if there is not that negotiated right that you have working for the collective workers, then we definitely need this legislation.

Mr McLean: Probably the best safeguard is to have the stores closed, with the exclusions of the tourist exemptions and the square footage. That is probably the best way that I would suggest we try to ensure they are not forced to be working on Sunday.

Mr O'Connor: Do you feel tourism is perhaps one of the catalysts that will help Collingwood come back?

Mr McLean: I was listening to some of the briefs that were made in Toronto as well, and I personally never had thought of Toronto as a tourist area, but to hear some of the numbers that were batted around as to 18 million visitors a year, I think in Toronto, Ontario and Canada, for that matter, tourism is a big part of it. I do not think we need to change our way of life just for the simple reason of trying to cater more to a tourist.

I believe that as a tourist I myself have never once booked a holiday or a vacation with only the intent of going shopping or changed from one location to another because one community was open or one was closed. If I go on a vacation, I go to enjoy what is there, and usually I do not have any trouble spending the money I am going to spend whether it is in six days or four days or whatever. So I believe we should still maintain the integrity of a common pause day.

The Acting Chair: Mr Williamson and Mr McLean, on behalf of the committee I would like to thank you for your presentation.

1100

COLLINGWOOD AND DISTRICT REAL ESTATE BOARD

The Acting Chair: The next presentation will come from the Collingwood and District Real Estate Board. I want to thank you for being here. As you know, our format is you will be given half an hour. You can use that in any way you want. You can either give a half-hour presentation or give a short presentation and allow members from each caucus to ask questions or make comments. Could you please identify yourself for Hansard and then proceed.

Ms Schulz: I am Margaret Schulz. I am president of the Collingwood and District Real Estate Board. I am representing 230 members of that board. First of all, I would like to welcome you to the four-seasons recreational capital of Ontario. I think we are known for that. We have been historically known for that.

The Collingwood board's objective is to give the best possible service to our clientele. Needless to say, that means we need to have our offices open on Sunday. We are a unique area in that we enjoy a small-town flavour. We have good community living but we also have a strong recreational weekend community which contributes to our lifestyle and our living. Mother Nature has blessed us with Blue Mountain, which provides skiing for us in the winter months. We have the Bruce Trail, we have excellent hiking facilities and we have Georgian Bay, which provides us with all the water sports we could possibly want. I do not know where else within a two-hour radius of Toronto you could find everything we have to offer.

Again, many people throughout Ontario enjoy everything we have to offer, that we enjoy on a day-to-day basis, primarily on weekends, because they too earn a living. Most of them work five to six days a week. The only opportunity they have to purchase recreational property is generally on a weekend. They work and they come up on Saturday or Sunday. It is a major decision for them. They do not make it in one day. They generally need to view properties over a given number of days and have time to sit down in the comfort of an office, not on the hood of a car, to make their decision. We realtors are there to provide the service to help them make that decision. I find it ludicrous that we are not allowed to open our doors on Sunday but have to sign a deal on the hood of a car, so to speak.

We also have a strong young community that lives here year round. There are often two wage earners in a family. They have young children who attend all sorts of sports and are involved in sports. Their weeks are very busy. Most of them just run from the beginning of the week to the end of the week. They do not have time, either, to look for their major purchase, which is the home. Generally we look after those people on the weekend and it does not take one day. Very often a deal is wrapped up on a Sunday. It takes a lot of counselling, a lot of time and most people are around on weekends. That is the time they have available. We may have a few short hours during the week, but generally the weekend days give us the largest block of time to service the clientele, whether they be recreational or year-round residents.

We need to survive. There are some real estate companies which deal primarily in recreational properties. They do not deal at all with residential. Their livelihood depends on the tourist, the weekender, the skier who wants to have accommodation of his own for the time he spends up here. If they were to close or if they were not able to be open on Sunday, I am afraid we would lose yet another two or three businesses, perhaps even more. We really need to have that time. We need to have the option to open. We are not asking that we have overall Sunday opening; we are asking that we have the option to open. I believe that also includes the retail stores. There are some who I think would not benefit from Sunday openings and there are others who would, but they should have the option to choose. In my opinion, this is what Canada is all about.

I believe that pretty well sums up what I wanted to say. I have not said it in the order that I planned, but nevertheless I hope my message has come across. There are some realtors in our community who choose not to work on Sunday. That is just fine. As you all probably know -- no doubt you have all purchased property of some kind, rented or whatever -- we are on call 24 hours a day. I do not have a problem with whether I work Sunday or not. I make sure I have time for my family. I put that time aside, but it is not always on a Sunday.

With that, I would like to thank you for giving me time to present our view to you. I hope you will seriously consider the option to open. We are a tourist area. Whether we are officially designated as that or not, we are a tourist area. We are also a good, healthy community where young families grow. We just need to be able to function whatever way we can. I think the option to open is the only way to go. Thank you.

The Acting Chair: We have eight minutes.

Mr Daigeler: Thank you for your presentation and, in particular, that you are making a presentation on behalf of a real estate group. When I read the bill, its implications, I of course realized the impact on the real estate industry and I thought for sure there was going to be a percentage from your business who were going to make presentations to us. As it turns out -- and I have just reviewed the schedule -- you are the only one from the real estate sector who, at least so far, is scheduled. I am just wondering why that is. Have you been contacted by anyone in particular to speak on behalf of the real estate sector generally or are you just coming on your own initiative? Do you have any kind of explanation as to why apparently nowhere else are the real estate people going to express their concern?

Ms Schulz: Mr Daigeler, I am very surprised to hear we are the only board that is making a presentation. We have regions. We are part of Region 6, which encompasses south to Orangeville and up to Huntsville. There are approximately seven or eight boards that are represented there. I think a lot of realtors were not aware that they were breaking a law by opening their door on Sunday. I was not. It was not until I was at a Region 6 meeting, where Parry Sound expressed its frustration. They were told to close. The OPP came and said, "We will fine you if you open." They came down very hard. This was back in early spring. That was my first introduction to this issue. We feel very strongly about it in Collingwood.

We are professionals. We do not want to break any laws. We feel we have to be professional, we have to represent ourselves that way and we cannot do it if the law says, "You must not open your door on Sunday." So I feel very strongly about it. No doubt you can tell that. I do not know why other real estate boards are not representing themselves, except that perhaps they are not really aware. I have no answer for that. And no, no one did contact me directly. I was contacted by Lisa Freedman's secretary, I believe, to say would I like to, probably because I represented the board at council, where a bylaw has been passed that allows us now to be open Sundays until whatever happens with legislation. Then I guess we will go back to the drawing board.

Mr Sorbara: I congratulate the witness on coming here to make the point. If one looks simply at the definition of retail business, as amended by the bill that is before us, it may well be that soon in Ontario we are going to ask the OPP to start putting padlocks on real estate offices on Sundays because they are breaking the law.

Mr Fletcher: Come on, get serious.

Mr Sorbara: Well, first of all, they are not tourist establishments. I do not think any realtor could advertise itself as a tourist establishment, and the definition of a retail business is, "`Retail business' means the selling or offering for sale of goods or services by retail." If there is any sort of service that can be construed as retail, it may well be -- and this has happened in some communities -- the allegation is that these real estate offices are retail businesses. That is going to become a problem.

We have heard from the Food and Commercial Workers that they want the stores to be closed so that their workers do not have to work. Would you, or would your members, like to see the government of Ontario prohibit the sale of real estate on Sunday so that real estate agents would not have to work on Sunday?

1110

Ms Schulz: I hardly think so, because we do a great percentage of our business on Sunday. I do not have the figures in front of me.

Mr Sorbara: But is it not the case that a contract signed on Sunday is not a legal contract?

Ms Schulz: No, that is not the case.

Mr Sorbara: It was the case, or was it not?

Ms Schulz: It was, but it is not now. No, a contract is legal and binding signed on a Sunday.

Mr Sorbara: But just a few years ago, it was the case. In order to promote a common pause day on Sunday, it was illegal to sign a contract to purchase a house on Sunday.

Ms Schulz: Yes, sir, I am aware of that.

Mr Sorbara: And the world changed a little bit, did it not?

Ms Schulz: Yes, it did.

Mr Sorbara: Now much of that activity is going on on Sunday. Why is that?

Ms Schulz: Well, for the reasons that I stated previously. I believe that families are busy, trying to create a good lifestyle; therefore, there are two wage earners in the family. They do not have the same kind of time during the week. Mom cannot go out during the day and look at houses and sift through them and say, "Okay, Dad, I've narrowed it down to three." She is busy working. She is trying to earn a living and keep her family going. I think that is probably the reason. We are just far busier than we were a few years ago.

Mr Sorbara: But the fact is that many of the sales agents representing those vendors are working women who get involved in that profession, knowing full well that it is going to involve some Sunday work. Is that not the case?

Ms Schulz: Yes, that is right.

Mr Sorbara: And when the law changed to allow you to sign a house sale agreement on a Sunday, was there any group that came before the Ontario government, or did you come before the Ontario government, to say that this would reduce the quality of life in the province of Ontario?

Ms Schulz: No, I did not. I do not believe I was selling real estate.

Mr Sorbara: Do you think it did reduce the quality of life in Ontario, to allow people to sell their homes on a Sunday?

Ms Schulz: No, I do not.

Mr Sorbara: Neither do I. Thank you.

The Acting Chair: I believe Mr Mills wants to clarify something, as parliamentary assistant to the minister.

Mr Mills: I think that before we go on with this discussion, it is very important to clarify some key information that you may not be aware of. I would ask at this time, Mr Chair, for Janet Scarfone, legal adviser from the Solicitor General's office, to cover the point that I want to make clear to you.

Ms Scarfone: With respect to real estate offices being allowed to open on holidays, it is the opinion of the Ministry of the Attorney General that while the matter is not free from doubt, the better view is that residential real estate offices are permitted to open on holidays for the purposes of offering services in connection with living accommodation, in accordance with clause 3(7)(b) of the Retail Business Holidays Act.

Ms Schulz: I see. I do not think that most of us in this community were aware of that. So in fact we were not breaking any laws when we were open?

Mr Daigeler: According to some lawyers.

The Acting Chair: Thank you for that clarification. Do you want to proceed now? Mr Carr.

Mr Carr: The question I would have, then, is where was the location you said the real estate offices were being charged?

Ms Schulz: Parry Sound. I do not know if any of them were actually charged, but they were warned that if they opened, they would be charged.

Mr Carr: So we have one opinion, and yet the reality is that something different is happening. Were you aware, in the Solicitor General's legal department, that people in Parry Sound were being threatened with closure?

Ms Scarfone: I am not aware of this particular instance.

Mr Carr: I will make a note to investigate that.

Ms Schulz: I would imagine that you will hear from the executive officer of the Parry Sound office, probably in North Bay. I was in contact with her --

The Acting Chair: Just one moment.

Mr Mills: Excuse me. We have a further point of clarification that Janet would like to make about charges, the latest news.

Ms Scarfone: A directive has gone out to police forces, basically indicating what I have just said to you.

Mr Mills: No charges.

Ms Schulz: When, may I ask?

Ms Scarfone: That has been delivered to all chiefs of police and the OPP commissioner.

Ms Schulz: May I ask when that came into effect, when that was delivered?

Ms Scarfone: I think it was very recently.

Ms Schulz: I am sure it must have been, because there was a time, probably six weeks or two months ago, that we were told by the police that they would be policing that Sunday. We were warned. I do not know that anyone was ever approached or anything else, so that must be a very recent release. That is good to hear.

Mr Daigeler: Mr Chairman, would it be possible to table this directive with the committee members?

The Acting Chair: I do not see any problem with that.

Mr J. Wilson: Yes, that is a good suggestion, to table it. Margaret, thank you very much for your presentation. You are absolutely right. A number of real estate agents and representatives have contacted me over the past few months; there is a lot of confusion out there. I did not know as a legislator what the answer was until right now, and I am still not sure that the ministry has taken the appropriate steps to clarify any ambiguity.

I would ask Mr Mills, as parliamentary assistant, would the minister, or would you undertake to ask the minister yourself, to come out with a ministerial statement clarifying the status of real estate agents and offices on Sundays under the proposed legislation?

Mr Fletcher: That will have to come from the Attorney General.

Mr J. Wilson: The Attorney General's legal opinion should be written down so that we all have it. I will leave it with the government, and I strongly suggest that you do it.

Mr Fletcher: It should also be directed to the police.

Mr Sorbara: Well, why should they have to work?

The Acting Chair: Thank you for the clarification. Can we proceed with the questioning now?

Mr J. Wilson: I am not terribly concerned that a number of real estate boards have not appeared before this committee, because I think all members will admit that representatives of the Ontario Real Estate Association have been around to see pretty well all of us a couple of months ago, and made it very very clear in the brief to members of the provincial Legislature what their position was on this, and that they wanted the ambiguity cleared up.

I do have a question though, Margaret, on your experience to date. Are Sundays your busiest days? How is the volume that day on showings and closings compared to other days of the week?

Ms Schulz: I work in a very small real estate office, and very often our door has been locked simply because I am out showing property. Saturday and Sunday, and then Monday, are usually the three busiest days I experience. Monday is the day you do all the paperwork and everything you have to do; your letters are written, copied and sent to solicitors, that sort of thing. But I do find, as far as showings are concerned, Saturday and Sunday are the greatest days for volume.

Mr J. Wilson: When you had the door locked, did you have any complaints from people that they did not know you were open on a Sunday?

Ms Schulz: No, we have not, Jim. Could I make a suggestion? When this is clarified, could you release it to the press and ask them to do a headline for us? You know this has raised such a red flag with the public that we need to have a positive statement.

Mr J. Wilson: That is why a ministerial statement is usually the best type of statement.

The Acting Chair: One other point I would like to make is that there is a package of written briefs from people from the real estate board. You will be the only ones doing a presentation but there are written briefs, so you are not alone.

Ms Schulz: I am here, though.

Mr Carr: I would like to thank you for your presentation. Some of the discussions that have come up have been around how to protect workers on Sunday. In your industry most people have got into it because they presumably knew they were going to work on Sunday, but there could be somebody who says, "I would like a career in real estate but for religious reasons or whatever, I do not want to work on Sunday."

I realize that your operation is fairly small, but do you know of any agents who do not work on Sunday, who say, for whatever reason, "I want to spend time with the family," and who take that day off and only work the other days?

1120

Ms Schulz: Yes, I do know several that do that. We do come into this industry with our eyes wide open and it is up to us whether we want to provide service on a seven-day basis or whether we want to provide service on a six-day basis. It is a very individual decision, and from my own experience I do not know a broker who does not respect that.

Mr Carr: So there are some who --

Ms Schulz: Yes. There is a broker out in Meaford who does not work on Sunday and does not believe in it, but he allows the realtors in his office to make the decision as to whether they want to open or not.

Mr Morrow: I am really glad we cleared up that exemption problem. I also understand that the Attorney General sent letters to the police boards, the chiefs of police and the real estate board just days ago. Actually, they were faxed just a few days ago and the real estate boards were asked to fax them to all their agents and brokers.

You talked about strong young families. My own family is a two-wage-earner family. I have very small children. My daughter is four and my son is 19 months old. We basically use Sundays for our family time and we feel very strongly about that. I think you also said that wide-open Sunday shopping created a better family atmosphere. I view that as just the opposite, actually. Do you have any comments on that?

Ms Schulz: I do not remember saying that. I think my statement was that there should be an option to choose. I really do not have an opinion on wide-open shopping. My feeling personally is that we should have the option to choose, and if families choose not to shop on Sundays, if they want that day for themselves, it is their right to make that decision. Just because the store is open, they do not have to go in.

Mr Fletcher: Thank you for your presentation. I sympathize with you. I hate signing deals on the tops of cars, especially in a used car dealership. That is the worst place.

As for shopping on Sunday, if I were an employee of A & P and they wanted me to work Sundays, should I also have the right to say no?

Ms Schulz: Yes, in my opinion.

Mr Fletcher: The right to refuse to work on Sunday and the right to say yes to Sunday working is part of the bill we are proposing. You see no problem with that?

Ms Schulz: No. I feel very strongly that we should have the right to choose.

Mr Wessenger: Just to clarify a point, I agree with the comments made with respect to the fact that under the existing Retail Business Holidays Act, real estate offices have the right to open on Sunday. In view of the fact that that has not changed under our present legislation, I assume we could take your presentation to mean that you do not want us to change that exemption, is that correct?

Ms Schulz: That is absolutely correct.

Mr Wessenger: You obviously believe in a common pause day, is that correct?

Ms Schulz: Yes, I do.

Mr Wessenger: You would like to see legislation that would ensure that families have the right to a common pause day.

Ms Schulz: That is right.

Mr O'Connor: There are just a couple of things I would like to touch on. You talked about the change in times and the need for two incomes for a family to survive. Do you feel that some part-time jobs could be created and that creating more part-time jobs would help real estate sales in Collingwood, or do you think perhaps two full-time incomes are needed to be able to secure the financing to buy a house?

Ms Schulz: In most cases, the two jobs are necessary. We are not on a high pay scale in our area, with the exception of a few companies. I think there are some families who probably could survive with one full-time wage earner and a part-time. Again, real estate companies employ part-time people. There are some people who can get by with working several evenings or a weekend day.

Mr O'Connor: Not too many part-time workers could afford to buy a house, then.

Ms Schulz: No. I think we were very lucky when I was raising my children that we still were able to stay home with our children.

Mr O'Connor: Times have changed. Thank you very much.

The Acting Chair: Mr Sorbara, you would like to clarify something?

Mr Sorbara: I have a question to Mr Mills, representing the government and the bill, just on the matters we discussed relating to real estate offices. My question is simply this: Why is it that the government is now being expansive on the question of real estate offices? Surely if the overall policy objective of the government is to be restrictive and only allow tourist establishments to open on Sunday, and you could argue that some shopping is leisure, surely the purchase of a house is not a leisure activity. There should not be special preference given to retail workers over real estate agents. So why is the government being expansive? Why not clamp down and require that real estate offices be closed and prohibit the sale of houses on Sunday?

The Acting Chair: You can choose to answer that if you will, but it does not directly have any bearing on the bill. If you want to clarify it, you can.

Mr Mills: In a general sense, the Attorney General looked at this and decided, and I am not privy to how that decision was arrived at at this time. Hopefully, we as a committee will at a later date be privy to how that decision was arrived at. I think it relates somewhat to the decision that it is living accommodation that is being offered on the market. It is very difficult for me --

Mr Sorbara: I guess my point is, why is that okay to sell on Sunday and why is it okay for real estate agents to work on Sunday but not retail workers? My problem is with the distinction.

Mr Mills: I have a daughter-in-law who is in real estate, and she tells me that she does not consider herself as a retail worker, but rather a private entrepreneur in business for herself, and she does not mind working on Sundays because she realizes that is the time to contact people. You have put me on a difficult spot. I do not know that --

Interjections.

Mr Mills: No, no, I realize that. I am trying to say that the rationale behind this decision is strictly with the Attorney General, and hopefully we will get to discuss that later. I would like to leave it at that.

The Acting Chair: Ms Schulz, on behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you for your presentation.

Ms Schulz: Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to appear before you. I have enjoyed it.

1130

GEORGIAN TRIANGLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE

The Acting Chair: Our next presenter will be from the Georgian Triangle Economic Development Institute. Thank you for being here today. Our format is that you will be given half an hour for your presentation. You can either make a half-hour presentation or you can make a shorter presentation and allow members from each caucus to offer their questions and comments. Could you please identify yourself and then proceed.

Mr Rohmer: My name is Richard Rohmer. I am a Collingwood resident and I practise law here and elsewhere. I am a member of and appear today on behalf of the Georgian Triangle Economic Development Institute, which I may refer to as the institute or the Georgian Triangle institute.

The purposes of the institute, which is not incorporated, are as follows: the enhancement and preservation of the social and economic prosperity and wellbeing of the businesses, institutions and citizenry of the Georgian Triangle area. In particular, our purposes deal with the enhancement and the preservation of employment opportunities in the area and the effective planning, development and processing of housing, recreational, commercial and industrial projects within the Georgian Triangle.

I have attached to the brief as appendix A a map showing what the Georgian Triangle is, how it is is constituted, the municipalities that are involved in it. The municipalities can be seen from the map. There are 13 of them: the village of Creemore; the towns of Collingwood, Meaford, Stayner, Thornbury, Wasaga Beach; and the townships of Collingwood, Flos, Melancthon, Mulmur, Nottawasaga, Osprey and Sunnidale.

The current membership of the institute is shown in appendix B. You can see from that that our membership includes professional persons, business people, companies engaged in construction and development and others interested and involved in the preservation and maintenance of the prosperity that this area has enjoyed and in the recovery and restoration of job opportunities that have disappeared here in large numbers over the last seven years.

From the scope of our membership and the large geographic area covered by the Georgian Triangle, it can be seen that the interest of the institute embraces six municipalities in which tourism is an essential and major component in their respective economies and in job creation. Those are the municipalities that have frontage on Georgian Bay and those that also have skiing facilities. They are the tourism municipalities: Collingwood, Collingwood township, Meaford, Nottawasaga township, Thornbury and Wasaga Beach.

The Georgian Triangle Economic Development Institute appears before you today in support of the general principles of Bill 115 because the bill provides a mechanism that will continue to permit retail business establishments to be open on holidays, and in particular on Sunday, for the maintenance and development of tourism.

With the departure of manufacturing jobs from this area on a massive scale, even in the pre-recession days, the dependency upon tourism and recreation here is enormous, which is one of the strong reasons the institute supports Bill 115.

The mechanism provided by Bill 115 can be characterized as cumbersome. Like all provincial legislation that passes jurisdiction and power down to the local municipalities, the mechanism invites abuses by members of local councils who are biased either against Sunday shopping or for it. It invites municipal elections to be fought by pro or con Sunday shopping factions. It invites fights over which retail business establishments in which areas of a municipality might be permitted to open on holidays, including Sunday. And when all is said and done, Bill 115 declares in subsection 4(8) that the council's decision is final, which of course is simply not true, because an aggrieved applicant who has been rejected by the council can go to the courts for justice on a point of law.

Then there is the question of enforcement of Bill 115 and the proposed regulations made under it. By enforcement I mean not only by the local municipal councils in regard to all retail business establishments within its boundaries, but also the enforcement by the government of Ontario against all local or other municipalities that purport to pass bylaws to permit retail business establishments to be open on holidays for the maintenance or development of tourism.

On the face of it, Bill 115 not only invites but requires the government of Ontario in general, and the Solicitor General in particular, to set up at Queen's Park a new bureaucracy that could be called the Big Brother Sunday Shopping Enforcement Agency employing hundreds of new civil servants.

On the other hand, the Georgian Triangle institute will be the first to encourage the government to locate the headquarters of that enforcement agency right here in the Georgian Triangle, in this most attractive area in Ontario in which to live, with its year-round recreational, cultural and virtually no-need-to-commute-anywhere environment.

If there is a major defect in the bill, it is the erection of a bureaucracy to enforce its provisions.

The problem of enforcement can be demonstrated in this way: Subsection 4(1) says the council of a municipality may by bylaw permit retail business establishments in the municipality to be open on holidays. So far, so good, but then these words appear, "for the maintenance and development of tourism."

Assuming we have a definition of tourism, what do the words "maintenance or development" mean? And who is to say what they mean, somebody in the Solicitor General's office or somebody at the municipal council level?

Then we pass on to proposed regulations to be made or amended by the stroke of the next Lieutenant Governor's pen.

By subsection 1(2) retail business establishments in a geographic area may be exempted if the area has characteristics which fall under two or more of the six categories that are referred to in subsection 1(1) of the regulations as tourism criteria. The six are: the area has historical or natural attractions; the area has cultural or ethnic attractions; the area provides a concentration of hospitality services; the area provides for shopping activities which feature a unified concept or theme -- whatever that means, farmers' markets -- we know what that means, the sale of heritage or handicraft items, and so forth; the area provides an access to hiking and boating; and fairs and festivals.

If the municipality believes it has two or more of the six categories but the enforcement agency says it has only one or none, then what?

Subsection 1(1) of the proposed regulations says, "This section sets out the tourism criteria that must be met before a municipality may pass an exempting bylaw under subsection 4(1) of the act."

The tourism criteria must be met. Otherwise the municipality cannot pass such a bylaw, which means that if it does pass such a bylaw, the bylaw is null and void and of no effect. But who is going to declare it null and void? Right now it could only be the courts under the way the bill is structured. And who could apply to the court for an order declaring such a bylaw null and void? The Solicitor General, on the advice of his enforcement agency, or an interested citizen, association or corporation.

There is one simple solution that might overcome the mechanical problems I have outlined. It might not prevent the erection of the enforcement agency, although that agency could be comprised of one person and a secretary if this suggestion is accepted.

It is suggested respectfully, and with all due deference to the civil servants at Queen's Park who drafted Bill 115, that there be an appeal permitted to the Ontario Municipal Board in regard to all decisions made under Bill 115 and the regulations made thereunder.

Before I conclude, there is an ancillary point I would like to draw to the attention of the members of this influential committee. I have already made passing reference to it, but for the purposes of the record I wish to briefly enlarge on it.

The urbanizing recreational and cultural sector of the Georgian Triangle fronts on Georgian Bay, Nottawasaga Bay, and is backed up by the most important skiing complexes in Ontario. With its four-season recreational opportunities -- skiing, skating, winter sports, golf; all the things you saw in that excellent video -- this area is without question the most attractive area in Ontario in which to live, work, play, retire or raise a family. Some committee members may not agree with that assessment, but that is the way we see it. In comparison to Metro Toronto and the greater Toronto area, this sector of the Georgian Triangle is the Utopia of Ontario, the way we see it.

The institute therefore supports the proposition that the government of Ontario should direct those of its ministries that are computer or electronically oriented in their administration to look closely at moving their computer operation cells out of Metro Toronto into this superb living area, rather than forcing people to go into the bowels of the city. The institute will be preparing and mounting a campaign to sell this proposition to the headquarters of the big banks, insurance and other financial institutions in Metro Toronto and the greater Toronto area, and the big oil companies and credit card operators, just to name a few. We want them to pick up their computer operations and move them here. Tax incentives to get them out of tumultuous Toronto would be of great assistance.

However, the institute has no plans to try to move the provincial Legislature up here. We would not be able to cope with the chaos.

The businesses, the economy and the workers of the Georgian Triangle need all the help they can get to survive, to beat the recession and to overcome the massive manufacturing and building construction job losses that have occurred here. For these reasons, the institute supports the principles of Bill 115 and the proposed regulations, with our recommendations for their improvement, all of which is respectfully submitted.

1140

The Acting Chair: That leaves us each about seven minutes.

Mr Sorbara: I want to begin by making a brief reference to the second paragraph on page 3 of Mr Rohmer's submission, where he refers to "the next Lieutenant Governor's pen." You should know that if the incumbent Prime Minister is doing a realistic search for a new Lieutenant Governor, the pen the witness refers to is being held by an appropriate candidate. I am wondering whether our witness has been contacted by the Prime Minister to determine whether he is interested in the job, because certainly, if we are looking for eminent Canadians, our witness this morning qualifies as one.

Mr Rohmer: That was a very liberal and generous statement. On the advice of counsel, I choose not to answer that question.

Mr Sorbara: I note that the witness also is continuing to use the initials QC after his name. That continues to be lawful notwithstanding the best efforts of the former Attorney General.

I note as well the reference to the creation of the BBSS Enforcement Agency. I wonder whether the witness is suggesting that this bill gives rise to BS squared on behalf of the new government of Ontario.

Mr Rohmer: On the advice of counsel, if I could change the question, the question really deserves this kind of response. I think the point we have tried to make here is a valid one that there is a vacuum in relation to this issue: If the government of Ontario takes one interpretation and a council takes another interpretation, who is going to adjudicate between them? Second, who is to adjudicate between municipal council and the people in business who are making application?

I am simply saying that in all fairness there should be some means of appeal that leaves the element of independence to whatever extent the OMB can give it. I know that I put my finger on an area of some concern there, but there should be some mechanism, otherwise there will have to be constructed a bureaucracy to ensure that the enforcement from the provincial government level is undertaken.

Mr Sorbara: I think the point here is an important and valid one. Certainly, if we are only going to be allowed to make minor amendments to the bill, an appeal to the OMB is entirely appropriate, as Mr Rohmer suggests, because it is the body of the province most suited to handle those sorts of issues.

Notwithstanding that the institute has chosen to support in general principle the thrust of Bill 115, I would like to know whether the institute would be aggrieved or upset if the government in its wisdom simply determined to repeal the existing Bill 114 and allow Sunday shopping hours to be set in the very same way that shopping hours are set on every other day, that is, by determination of the municipal council under the Municipal Act.

The reason I suggest that is that some of the businesses that would open in Collingwood under a tourist exemption under Bill 115 compete on a daily basis with the shopping mall that is just on the outskirts of Barrie, which is fighting for the retail dollar. Under this bill, as I interpret it, probably that shopping mall would not constitute a tourist facility; it is over 7,500 square feet and would not be allowed to open.

I suggest to our witness that in my view that represents unfair competition. Would the government not be better advised simply to recede from this territory and use its scarce resources to do something else other than to set up new agencies and try to pick the winners and losers in the Sunday shopping battle?

Mr Rohmer: That is an excellent question. I will answer the first part of it. I have taken a consensus of the members of the institute. The answer to the question would be that they would not be aggrieved.

Mr Sorbara: They would not be aggrieved; good answer.

Mr Poirier: If this were not as much of a tourist area, do you think your institute would still have the same feeling about this problem of designation? Obviously, if you were not touristic you would not have the same freedom this bill would provide for you to decide what you want to do with your Sunday businesses. Is this correct?

Mr Rohmer: The question is a hypothetical one; therefore, I must answer it on a hypothetical basis. If this area were not touristic, this area would be in total collapse at the moment. With the departure of the 1,800 jobs in the last seven years out of Collingwood alone, quite apart from the other constituent municipalities, without the tourism and all of the abilities we are talking about here to Sunday openings, in a way this area would be in a disaster.

I do not know whether I have answered your question, but in any event tourism is at the heart of the representation here.

Mr Poirier: And you need to have these businesses open on a Sunday to make sure that your tourism sector, which is a key element to your economic survival, remains intact.

Mr Rohmer: That is exactly correct. The jobs are provided and made available to people who desperately need them.

Mr Poirier: Fair enough. I will just take 30 seconds to a final note. I really liked the way you made that very important point about who decides what, if at all possible, with tongue in cheek and humour. On page 3 there is a statement that if you were a politician you would really be in deep trouble for having said so. You were saying that BS squared, as my friend called it, agency can comprise one person and a secretary. From what I know of the English language, this seems to be a mutually exclusive definition of a person. If this were a secretarial appreciation week or day, we might have a hard time trying to reach you or secretaries; so with tongue in cheek I return this comment to you.

Mr Rohmer: Well, I have replaced the tongue in my cheek. If you look carefully at the wording, you will see that I have selected it carefully, having regard for all of the flags you are trying to raise. First of all, I am not a politician, although I have been fringed with it.

I did indeed sit on the council of a municipality which was then called the township of North York. That can take you back a long way. We did dramatic things in the township of North York in those days, and I will not give you the years.

In any event, when I speak of being composed of one person and a secretary, a secretary can be a person. On top of that, a person can be male or female and a secretary can be male or female, so I did not discriminate, even in the context of the government's policy, which is quite discriminatory hiring policy today. I did not want to raise that, but since you did -- you raised it.

Mr J. Wilson: Thank you, General Rohmer, for appearing this morning and honouring us with your presence. In addition to pointing out what Mr Sorbara let out of the bag, that we could very well have the next Lieutenant Governor addressing us this morning here, I should point out to committee members that General Rohmer is a recipient of the Order of Canada. We are very proud of him in this area. He received that for his good works and intellectual abilities, which we have seen demonstrated this morning.

General Rohmer, in your heart of hearts do you think this legislation will work? I will just do what most politicians do and preface that by saying it seems to me it is going to create a snowball effect, just to set the stage.

Mr Rohmer: In my opinion, if the legislation is amended, certainly along the lines I have suggested in the brief, it can work, but there has to be some sort of body to which an appeal can be made. I think it will put an onus on the municipalities, which the municipalities probably do not want. The do not want to be in a quasi-judicial position vis-à-vis their own constituents in their own towns. They would probably prefer not to have that, but I think most of the municipalities and councillors I know could do the job. But it is a cumbersome piece of legislation. I have said that and I think it can be made to work if it is changed.

1150

Mr J. Wilson: I think back to the period last year where we had several months of unregulated Sunday shopping. In this area we had some stores open and some not. In parts of the riding we had entire areas not open. In the riding we have Cookstown. That has always been open, for instance; Wasaga Beach has often been open.

Did your group give any consideration to what the experience was during that unregulated period? Is this an area where perhaps the government should be legislating? Although you are a lawyer, this legislation may very well turn out to be a field day for lawyers, in my opinion.

Mr Rohmer: I cannot say we turned our minds to the very question you have raised. For example, here in Collingwood, where the town of Collingwood has passed a recent bylaw in relation to Sunday shopping, opening it, as I can see that certainly reflects on a unanimous basis the views of the people of the town in relation to the need to have this facility available on Sundays.

Also, when you have a situation where Thornbury is open and Wasaga Beach is open, there is the need to have some generality and universality from the competitive point of view. I do not know that I have answered your question, but I think that by and large the Sunday situation could be taken care of by eliminating all the restrictions. If it is going to go, it would really have to come along, the kind of legislation we are looking at, but repair the major holes in it.

Mr J. Wilson: Just from the map of the Georgian Triangle, do you envision that most of the municipalities, the larger ones in the service area, will be open?

Mr Rohmer: I would think so. That is Meaford, Thornbury, Collingwood township, which is a very important sector, and the town of Collingwood, Wasaga Beach, Nottawasaga and Stayner. I think they would be hard pressed not to adopt the legislation and go for the bylaws that are provided for.

Mr J. Wilson: On the surface your suggestion of the right to appeal to the OMB is a good one, but I find that in dealing with constituents who must now go before the OMB, they find it a very intimidating board, often requiring legal assistance because the Municipal Act itself is quite complicated. The way the OMB is structured now, in your experience with it, is it accessible and friendly enough, user-friendly, as they say?

Mr Rohmer: It is user-friendly. The people on it are first-class; it has nothing to do with any political side of things. They are hard pressed in terms of handling all the business in front of them. The number of acts they have to deal with is in the range of 50 to 60, and then they cannot get them all counted. It is an overworked organization, and it is formal. The problem with this kind of forum, where you have adversarial activity between this party and that party, is that it is a place where they do give as much comfort as they can, but because it is adversarial it is a place where most of the time you really do have to have a lawyer with you to take your case. Certainly in this instance I think applicants could go to the OMB without a lawyer, but by and large, probably in nine cases out of 10, they would have a lawyer to handle the matter for them. It is the same thing in the courts. But what I am really saying here is that there should be some mechanism of appeal. There may be some better way than the OMB, but at the moment I would be hard pressed to provide one for you.

Mr Carr: My question is regarding the interpretation of the tourism exemption. Notwithstanding the fact that municipalities may be biased one way or the other, but from a strictly legal standpoint, do you see any part of the province of Ontario that could not meet the tourism criteria as they are laid out in this paper?

Mr Rohmer: My judgement would be yes, there will be many places that would not meet the six tourism tests.

Mr Carr: What would be the one that would hold it up? Is there any particular one of the criteria?

Mr Rohmer: I had not addressed that question, but any one of them could be a block or a bar because they do not exist within a particular municipality or a particular area. You could undoubtedly find any number of areas where five or six would not be present.

Mr Carr: You know they do not have to meet them all.

Mr Rohmer: I know. They have to meet two. Again, as I say, if the municipality thinks it meets two and somebody at the provincial level thinks it does not, then who is going to make the decision on the point?

Mr O'Connor: I want to thank you for coming today. It has been terrific here in Collingwood to see such terrific support coming from so many different groups here. I think one of the things that stands out, though, is the sense of community and the community sticking together and trying to make sure the community survives.

You have pointed to tourism aspect as one aspect of the town's survival. I think perhaps in the video that was shown earlier they also stressed the need for high-technology, value added jobs to enhance the economy of the area. Could you expand on that a little bit?

Mr Rohmer: Yes, I think there is a general realization in the town and the area that the manufacturing jobs that have disappeared will not return. You could take the shipyard by itself, but there are many others -- for example, those that have been automobile-oriented, parts and things of this kind -- where the prospect of industry coming back here for manufacturing is remote, to say the least.

What we are looking at is what the video talks about and what I did in my brief, and that is, what have we got to sell and to whom do we have to sell it? We have the lifestyle here, and we have the organizations in the greater Toronto area to whom we can go and say: "You can move, for example, your high-tech or your computer units up here. The place is open, we have the residential aspect ready, we have the training aspect." It is a great place to live and it is something we think we can sell them, but it will be a hard sell. That fundamentally, apart from tourism, is the way I think the community is looking at its future in terms of jobs.

Mr O'Connor: So the tourism aspect, then, of the economy would not necessarily be the opening of the large chain stores; it would be more the interesting ones and the service aspect of it?

Mr Rohmer: The stores that are here, the businesses that are here, are the ones that are going to be open.

Mr O'Connor: One area that you have talked about, and we have mentioned it quite a few times now in our discussions, is the appeal process. I would just like to give you a message, because this committee process, in going to the communities to try to get some -- it seems to have been brought up quite a few times and I just wanted to reassure you that we are open and listening to suggestions brought forward. In fact, your suggestion has been made several times over. The UFCW, I believe, made it, though I think they called it something different than the humorous little anecdote you put in there. I think you called it a tourist exemption board, if I am not mistaken. That suggestion has been put forward and we appreciate that.

Mr Morrow: I would like to thank you very much for presenting this morning. You raised a really good point about the OMB. We have done a lot of consulting and have found through talking to various groups that they also agree with you, but they have been looking at maybe a different level of the OMB because, as we all know, to get something through the OMB can take years, and sometimes megayears, to resolve that. Possibly, if we can split that up, and I am not talking about -- I know we would create more bureaucracy, but we might be able to do something there. Thank you very much for your suggestions.

Something was raised this morning, which I just thought I would ask you about, by the town of Collingwood. They said that under their new bylaws 35% to 40% of all businesses are open. To me, that would mean that 60% chose not to open. Can you possibly tell me what kind of businesses opened and what kind of businesses did not open, just for my own clarification?

Mr Rohmer: I cannot on the broad base because I did not go and inspect the situation, but since you have asked, Johnsons Home Centre was open. They have building materials and things of this kind. In the Wednesday, July 31 Collingwood Enterprise-Bulletin, on page 10B they have put in an ad which says: "Sunday shopping creates new jobs. Johnsons Home Centre, the people who care, are looking for new sales staff. Order desk sales with experience in building materials, flooring department, etc, and all individuals must be prepared to work on Sundays." There were also shops that sell ladies' dresses and things of that kind, but I cannot tell you from my own direct experience and I would not do this on a hearsay basis. That is the kind of shop that was open last Sunday.

Mr Morrow: I also want to thank you very much for your support.

The Acting Chair: Mr Mills, you have about a minute and a half.

Mr Mills: Thank you, sir, for coming here. I have listened. As you probably know, the regulations are draft regulations and I am here along with my colleagues to listen. I have heard with interest your thoughts on the appeal process. They are noted.

I would just like to talk for a second or two about your paragraph 3 on page 2: "The mechanism invites abuses by members of local councils who are biased either against Sunday shopping or for it." I would just like to draw your attention, sir, to part I of the bill. It establishes the principle that retail business holidays are common pause days and that municipalities should not use their exemption powers to permit retail business establishments to open on holidays except to maintain or develop tourism. I think councillors really have to adhere to the principles of the bill. With that, I will give my colleague from this area a minute to close off.

Mr Wessenger: First, do you feel the tourism exemption provides a competitive advantage for tourism areas?

Mr Rohmer: I do not really know what you mean by competitive advantage.

Mr Wessenger: An economic stimulus.

Mr Rohmer: An economic stimulus? Oh, yes. A competitive advantage against some other area, I could not say.

Mr Wessenger: But certainly an economic stimulus.

Mr Rohmer: Yes.

Mr Wessenger: Second, as a former administrative lawyer are you recommending some administrative tribunal as distinct from the courts?

Mr Rohmer: Yes.

Mr Wessenger: Or the OMB, yes.

Mr Rohmer: A division of the OMB. Probably that is what the government might be thinking about, putting the OMB into different divisions and increasing its population.

Mr Wessenger: Fine.

The Acting Chair: Mr Rohmer, on behalf of the committee I would like to thank you for your presentation.

The committee recessed at 1203.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The committee resumed at 1310.

The Acting Chair (Mr Cooper): I would like to call this meeting back to order.

SALLY STONE BOUTIQUE

The Acting Chair: Could we call on our first presenter? It will be someone from Sally Stone Boutique. I would like to thank you for coming today. You will be allowed 15 minutes. You can use that 15 minutes to make either a 15-minute presentation or a shorter presentation and then allow for questioning and comments from each of the caucuses. Please identify yourself and then proceed.

Ms Stone: First of all, I would like to thank the Chair for giving me this opportunity of speaking today.

My name is Sally Stone. I am the owner-operator of a retail store in the town of Collingwood, Sally Stone Boutique. I have almost 40 years' experience in the retail business and for 18 years owned and operated the Duchess of Westbury in the Westbury Hotel in Toronto.

I was asked to speak today because recently I made a presentation to our local council on behalf of over 100 merchants seeking the right to be open Sundays and the clear designation as a tourist area. It should be noted that if I had spent a little more time gathering signatures there would probably have been another 200 merchants. The content of my presentation was as follows.

Although the present economic crisis presents our town with many significant concerns and problems, it also provides us with a challenge and an opportunity.

People in this town are hurting. Our business base is hurting, and we the merchants are hurting. Whatever can be accomplished by our deputy commissioner -- and we know we need his efforts and focus -- will primarily affect the future, not today.

As merchants, our survival depends on utilizing every possible means to ensure we maximize the buying potential in this town. The attitude of passively accepting what comes our way and what is convenient will not position us for survival or growth. We have to fight for every available dollar, as does every town, province, country, store, church, school and individual. Not only do we individually have to fight, but we need all the available expertise and creativity in this town helping to fight. We need organizations such as our chamber of commerce, the BIA and members of our town council all focused on the fight. We need the synergy created by a common purpose and working together.

The greatest challenge before us is change. Change is the one thing we are not educated to deal with. Individuals, companies, groups, etc all have tremendous difficulty dealing with it. In order to fight the effects of change, we need strong and co-ordinated leadership.

What worked 10 years ago will not work today. Our town has changed. We are no longer a small town with common values, purpose and understanding of the way it has always been. We are a community made up of three major segments: full-time residents, weekend residents and tourists, each an important part of the whole. Each contributes to the survival and the health of our town. Each deserves to be recognized for that contribution.

How many hotels, motels, restaurants, golf courses, sports stores and ski facilities would we need to serve just the full-time residents? Without the tax base and the buying power provided by the weekenders and tourists, could 12,000 residents support the fine school facilities we enjoy, the fine library and the excellent hospital, the museum, the Leisure Time Club for seniors and the quality of health and welfare services provided in this town? It is doubtful, and particularly now with the loss of industry and jobs we would all be much more seriously affected.

Many small towns experiencing similar economic problems to ours would give their eye-teeth to have this exceptional revenue source and the bonus of a significant tourist trade. Weekenders are just that. They are here for two days a week. Tourists, likewise, are often here for one to two days. Under the present ruling of no Sunday shopping we are in effect cutting their potential buying time and dollars by 50%. Although we are designated by the Ontario government as a four-season tourist area, we appear not to be set up to either service that market or capture the available dollars brought into our town. Quite frankly, we cannot afford to sit back and watch those dollars leave our town. We cannot believe the council can afford to sit back either.

When you visit Niagara-on-the-Lake, from the moment you arrive by boat, car, bus or foot, you know the town wants you there. Every shop is ready for you. Restaurants are geared to handle the theatre crowd. The town is dressed for entertaining with flowers, beautiful parks and an attitude of service. You enjoy spending your money.

In today's world, if a community is not progressing, it is regressing. It is never static. If we do not gear up to provide a positive atmosphere for our weekenders and tourists, we will ultimately lose and everybody will suffer.

Closing this town down, even for one day, will have a domino effect which could cost us the bright future that is our potential. Even the few shops and restaurants that are still open feel the effect: no traffic, no buyers, no sales.

We collectively urge you to accept the challenge of change and find a way to help us take advantage of opportunities within our grasp.

Following this, as you may or may not know, our town council responded, held the required public meetings and passed the required bylaws to allow merchants the choice of opening -- and I do say choice.

I do not understand all the ramifications of your proposed legislation, but I do understand it is an effort to curtail Sunday shopping except under special circumstances, ie, tourist and/or historical designations.

As you can tell by my accent, I come from England, and I have worked and travelled a fair amount during my lifetime. In Europe you can shop whenever or whatever time you wish, from 10 in the morning till 10 at night. They long ago gave up trying to legislate morality and they understand that retailers have the right to go after business whenever and wherever the market is there for them. The marketplace is what dictates the hours of the operation.

As a retailer, I find it beyond comprehension that you would single out my business and try to tell me when I can open. If this is to be the case, I feel it only fair you apply the same standard to every profit-oriented facility service in our province. Why should I have to close on Sunday when plants such as our local LOF Glass of Canada continue to produce, when gas stations, drugstores and convenience stores continue to open, when sports activities and entertainment facilities continue to earn their living?

The term "common pause day" has long since become redundant. Your efforts to hold on to a concept that is no longer applicable through legislation which negatively affects my ability not to become rich but to earn a respectable living is destructive, to say the least.

Collingwood is a tourist area. However, every merchant in every town or city should have the right to open and serve his customers when the marketplace indicates the business exists. They should have this right without going through multiple levels of government.

Thank you very much indeed for listening, and for considering the opinion of one very concerned retailer.

The Acting Chair: We have time for about one quick question from each caucus.

Mr Poirier: Thank you, Ms Stone. I think it is extremely important to hear from people like you who have small businesses, not only the large businesses.

You reiterate that you support this principle for you as a business person to decide, no matter when, no matter where, whether you are inside or outside a tourist area, to open and not let the government decide for you as to when you would want to open. Is that correct?

Ms Stone: Yes, it is.

Mr J. Wilson: Thank you for your presentation. Can you give the committee a feel for some of the types of retailers that signed your petition?

Ms Stone: The best part of the whole town. Actually, if I had spent more time getting names, I am sure there would have been a couple of hundred people, because after it had been closed and given to council, there were people still coming in my store saying, "I didn't know anything about it." But unfortunately I started rather late and one cannot leave the store too long. We have to be there for business.

Mr J. Wilson: It is my understanding your bottom line is all or nothing: either allow everyone to be open or --

Ms Stone: Not exactly. I do feel that the Toronto area and the busy area should be open but, most positively, tourist areas like ourselves should definitely be open. We get a living from local people, but you cannot get a big living. You really need the tourists. They are the ones who are buying our homes, buying our clothes, eating in restaurants, building -- everything. The small town definitely has to have Sunday shopping, without any doubt at all.

Mr Fletcher: Thank you for your presentation. You are not part of a big chain, or any --

Ms Stone: No, I am a one-man business.

Mr Fletcher: That is right, and you believe that you do fit the tourist exemption as far as you are concerned, that you really should not have too much of a problem with that part of it, that you would be open. Is that correct?

Ms Stone: Yes.

Mr Fletcher: Okay, fine, thank you.

1320

CLOTH SHOP OF COLLINGWOOD

The Chair: Our next presenter will be from the Cloth Shop of Collingwood. Would you please come forward? Our format will be that you have 15 minutes to make your presentation. You can either take the whole 15 minutes for your presentation or make a shorter presentation and allow questions or comments from each of the caucuses. Could you please state your name and proceed?

Ms Huycke: My name is Katherine Huycke. I own and operate the Cloth Shop of Collingwood. I have four other retail outlets in other communities. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak here this afternoon.

I want to begin by saying that our ancestors arrived in this country and worked hard from dawn until dusk to create a place they called home. To earn a living they worked six days and on the seventh they did rest, and even then they died at a very early age.

This is 1991. We are living in the wealthy province of Ontario. We have become fat and we have become lazy. We demand good service, and perhaps that is all we can offer in these economic times.

You are aware that we, the retailers in this community, live and work in this recreational destination. Its population is some 13,500 persons. It has remained this way for many years. Heavy industry appears to be a thing of the past. Service industry is on the rise. We have significantly higher numbers on good winter and/or summer weekends, possibly an additional 25,000 persons. Visiting Wasaga Beach are possibly 100,000 persons.

There is obvious confidence in Collingwood by our government and our banks, as certain groups here have received hefty loans: approximately 5,000 new condominium owners. They bring with them their guests; they spend a two- to three-day weekend here; they encourage convention groups to use their condominiums.

As my retail outlet, the Cloth Shop, is situated, luckily, on Highway 26, it is my personal observation that hundreds of cars pass my door to these developments and/or tourist attractions. There is unlimited potential for our services and our businesses.

Business is business. We are all here to promote ourselves; we all promote ourselves, our country, our town, our places of work. We spend millions of dollars on promotion to get our messages across. It becomes more significant if we in this community of Collingwood can make ourselves available to service the needs of these potential patrons. When our town needs the revenue, does it not make good sense to be able to be available to people on weekends?

I invite you to stay in the Collingwood area so that you might see at first hand the numbers of visitors that drive to this destination. If our stores do close down in the near future, we will perhaps feel like the fisherman sitting in a stocked fish pond without a hook on his line. For the people of Collingwood, when we are on the brink of prosperity, with continued planned development in our future, without the ability to serve we are lost. I ask for your consideration regarding this issue today.

The Acting Chair: Each caucus will have about three minutes.

Mr Poirier: Ms Huycke, you obviously strongly feel that, being a tourist area, you should be the only one to decide when you want to open, how you want to open, regulate the nature of your business hours. Is that correct?

Ms Huycke: I feel we should have the choice.

Mr Poirier: Fair enough. Do you believe that this should be limited to tourist areas and whatever? What is your opinion on that?

Ms Huycke: I would like to see it more tourist areas, yes. It is going to be very hard, I suppose, to define a tourist area in the future.

Mr Poirier: So you see a problem with the definition of the tourist area. How do you feel about the local municipality ending up having the responsibility for defining what is tourist or not or what is a tourist service or not?

Ms Huycke: I would perhaps like you to throw it back into the municipality's area to decide on that. They live here. They have firsthand experience with what is going on.

Mr Poirier: And you are comfortable with that?

Ms Huycke: I am.

Mr Carr: Thank you very much for your presentation. One of the concerns the government has expressed is how to protect workers, and I was wondering, as somebody who schedules workers in and out, how you would see that being done. Do you force people to work on Sundays, do people volunteer, are there enough people who would work Sundays, and how would you balance that out? Maybe you could just explain to the committee.

Ms Huycke: Mr Carr, I believe strongly that all of the business is well looked after by our government to ensure that our staff persons are looked after. There is legislation already in place. I do not feel you can harass your staff or press them to work. I think it is an absolute smokescreen that that is a problem. More and more we are having shared workplaces, because of maybe economic times or women wanting to spend some more time now with their children. I have been operating for eight years with my store being open on Sundays and have never yet found a problem staffing my shop.

Mr Carr: What would happen if, for whatever reason, and it probably would not happen here, in fact you had to close down on Sunday? How much of your business do you think you would lose as a result?

Ms Huycke: I do not think I can answer that question, but I want to impress upon people that I am sure it it is of major importance that the town does have revenue on a Sunday to stay alive and well. Personally, my feeling is service. I want to underline service. The contacts would be invaluable. It is not so much the commerce I want to do on Sunday. In fact, my Sunday business is open from 12 until 4 and it is basically there just for service.

Mr Carr: Thank you very much, and good luck.

Mr Fletcher: Thank you for your presentation. I really do believe that you as an employer would not coerce or try to force your people to work if they did not want to.

One interesting fact was that you said they have enough protection. If I can just quote from a former Liberal MPP who was on the road with the previous Bill 114 that was supposed to protect employees: "You have to work when the business is there and employees are jeopardizing their jobs by refusing to work. An employer will eventually find someone who is willing to work on Sundays." This was with the Liberal law that was put in before, and a Liberal MPP, Mr Rick Ferraro, who is no longer in the Legislature, who was stating that fact. There are employers who will coerce and do things. As I said, I do not think you would because of the nature of your business. But one of the things is to strengthen that so that employees and employers can have some understanding.

Ms Huycke: I think you are going to see in the 1990s that basically the hands-on management has changed significantly. I do not feel that kind of management is going to stand anybody in good stead in the future. You are going to see shared, co-operative work climates.

Mr Fletcher: As I say, not all employers such as yourself are that forward-thinking, and I am glad to hear that from you, but there are going to be cases where legislation is going to have to be there.

Ms Huycke: Yes, I am sure. There always are.

Mr Fletcher: I think that is why it is there, just in case someone does get a little out of whack.

Mr Poirier: May we work for you?

Ms Huycke: Certainly you may.

The Acting Chair: Ms Huycke, on behalf of the committee I would like to thank you very much for your presentation.

The Acting Chair: Our next presenter will be from Darsco, Mr Ed West. No. Is anybody here from Clarkson's Country Furniture? All right, we will take a 10-minute recess.

The committee recessed at 1330.

1344

COLLINGWOOD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

The Acting Chair: I call this meeting back to order. We have somebody from the Collingwood Chamber of Commerce as our next presenter. Our format is that you will be given half an hour for your presentation. You can either use the full half-hour for your presentation or you can make a shorter presentation and then the allotted time afterwards will be split evenly between each caucus. Would you please identify yourself and then proceed.

Mr Mansfield: My name is Craig Mansfield. I am the past president of the Collingwood Chamber of Commerce, and I am here on a double-edged sword. I am here to represent the chamber of commerce and some of my own personal views, which I will separate.

Most 10-year-olds can tell you what happened to the dinosaurs. They did not adapt to changes in their neighbourhood and they died off. The world is changing everywhere, and I do not know why people keep thinking it cannot happen here. We see manufacturing jobs disappear and there will likely be many more if free trade goes through with Mexico. The same thing is happening in the United States. We should do something other than standing around and waiting for these jobs to come back.

Retail sales is an area where we can do something. North America is becoming a service industry. We are a service continent. We have to start looking at what our forte is and what our strengths are. We can do service, we can do retail and we can do research and design. These are our strengths. Retail is the issue today and we feel in the chamber of commerce that we are being held back by the type of legislation you people are putting at us.

This chamber of commerce started in 1988, and I will give you a brief background. In 1988, we did a survey of our members. Of 200 members, we got a consensus of 54% that we would like freedom of choice. In other words, we wanted to decide ourselves whether we would open our businesses on a Sunday. Most of the businesses that do not wish to open will not open. That is what Canada is all about, freedom. The entrepreneurial spirit of this community and of this country is at stake here. If you do not allow people to have freedom of choice, if you do not allow people to run their businesses in a profitable manner, they will not stay here. We will be losing businesses to the USA, where they have more freedom, and we cannot afford this in Canada.

Our local council has just gone through a second reading of Sunday shopping laws in this community, and the consensus of our council and of most of the community at this time is that we require Sunday shopping. When we look at our main street, we have empty stores. The reason we have empty stores is because retail is not profitable. We are two years, three years behind what they are doing in the United States, and if we are going to compete in the North American market, you have to allow us to compete on a level field. You have not allowed us to do that.

My thoughts on running a business are that if I had not opened my business -- I have a lock and key business in Collingwood here and I started it 12 years ago. When I started this business, I started out of my home. When I looked at the marketplace I had to service, I had to look at when I was going to get at the customers, the customers being the people who fill the homes in this area. If I had not chosen to work on weekends -- and I am saying Saturdays and Sundays, when the skiers and the summer people and the fall people and the spring people come up here and use their chalets -- I would not be sitting with a business today employing two people plus myself. I still work Saturdays and Sundays, and the reason I did this was because I looked at the market and said: "This is when the people are here, therefore this is when I want to work. This is when I have to work."

We are a tourist area, and to not allow us to do work when the people are here is just absolutely ludicrous. Collingwood is situated within 60 miles of Metropolitan Toronto, of the Golden Horseshoe, which has eight million people in it. We are a destination area; there is no doubt in anybody's mind that this is a destination area. If these people come up and then cannot get service, it is like opening a plant and saying: "Well, we are only going to let you work three days a week. The other four days we are going to close it down because that would be really nice." But it does not make any sense.

1350

If the people who are making the decisions on when businesses can open and close would say to us: "All right, we are going to allow the businesses not to open on Sundays, but we are going to cut your taxes by one seventh, we will cut your education tax by one seventh, we will cut your contributions to OHIP by one seventh and we will absorb it. The workers and the homes will pay the extra money rather than businesses, because business pays the major part of what goes on in this province."

You have got to start looking at the cost of doing business. If there is no profit to it, why are we doing it? Why are we spending all our time creating jobs for people and not making a profit from it? All we are doing is being legislated back.

We are only asking that you allow businesses to operate on a fair and equitable playing field. To say to us that a manufacturer -- LOF is an example in this community -- LOF Glass can open seven days a week, 24 hours a day, why am I as a retailer restricted?

Close down LOF. Do not let them operate seven days a week. Why is it that old laws -- and this is what we are talking about -- are in place in our society today that are not relevant to today's business climate?

I think as a whole all government has to take a look. I refer to all three parties. I think all three parties have to look at their involvement in business, their interference in business. We are very viable and strong in this province, but if we keep on taxing and keep on legislating and keep on putting roadblocks in the way of businesses, we will not have the strong economic community we have had in Ontario. It is not going to stay here if it cannot grow, if there is no incentive to it. You cannot take away the entrepreneurial spirit of business people.

Coming out of university in the United States, most people come out of college, as we call it in the States, and they want to go and start their own business because it is inbred to them to go out and start a business, and when you start a business you employ people. We do not have that spirit in Ontario. Every time we turn around, we say: "Why do I want to be a lawyer by myself? I think I will join a firm. It is much easier." We do not make it easy for businesses to start up. The loops that government puts businesses through and new businesses through are just horrendous.

I object to the words "Sunday shopping." Seven-day openings is what we are talking about, the ability to operate a business efficiently. This community in effect needs it.

We have sat here. We have gone through this where we looked at it two years ago and we said: "What do you want in this community? Do you want empty stores, people unemployed, no business taxes?" Today we are sitting with empty stores, people unemployed and no business taxes coming into the community because we waited too long to legislate municipally our Sunday openings.

This is why we are losing to cross-border shopping. We waited too long to come back and say: "Okay, let's get a level playing field. Let's let these businesses work." We are five years behind the United States on a retailing level. That is unacceptable. There is no reason we should be five years behind. We should be leading the way, but because of the legislation in Ontario and in Canada we are five years behind. Now we have to play catch-up and it is much tougher to play catch-up than it is to lead.

I think you people have really got to take a long, hard look at what you are going to bring down in legislation here.

The Acting Chair: Each caucus will have about six minutes.

Mr Sorbara: I want to take issue with your view of history. My understanding is that the dinosaurs were trying desperately to adapt but, as it so happens, there was a socialist government elected at the time and they just put up too many roadblocks. The rest is history, but it was not the fault of the dinosaurs. It was the fault of the environment at the time.

Mr O'Connor: I object, it is hearsay.

Mr Sorbara: I take the same view as the business community right now, both retail store owners -- whether they are large conglomerates or, even more so, small business people -- and the people, the men and women who work for them.

Is it not the case that the marketplace changes and shifts with the passing of time and trends, and that in the retailing business the secret to success is to move with the environment as that shifts?

Mr Mansfield: We have to have the freedom to do this, though. If we do not have the freedom to make our own choices and people say, "No, you can't do this; you are breaking the law if you do this," then you cannot change. Then you are going to die. This is what this legislation that you people have in front of you is going to do. It is going to kill the retail business in this province.

Price Club is an example of a way of Sunday shopping. These people have come into Canada. They have set it up. They have organized it and they are doing what the Americans are doing openly across the border. We have to do it under a membership.

Mr Sorbara: As a retailer, would you like the provincial government to legislate the Price Club out of existence?

Mr Mansfield: No. I think the Price Club has its place in the marketplace. I think this is an excellent idea and I think the competition is what we all thrive on. If there is no competition, there is nothing to strive against. Canadians are very good entrepreneurs if we are allowed to do these things.

Mr Daigeler: Just a brief question that Mr Sorbara might come back with. I was not travelling a couple of years ago with the committee when there were hearings over the Liberals' proposed legislation, but I get the sense that the tenor of the presentations was very different at the time. Either it was different people or there was a significant shift of opinion since then.

I am wondering, are you aware whether your chamber made a presentation then, and was it the same position that was put forward? Do you know at all what the position of the Collingwood chamber was with regard to the Liberal legislation?

Mr Mansfield: I do not know what year they were doing this. In 1988, we did our first survey and the chamber has constantly stayed on the same focus: that we are freedom of choice. That has been the consensus of our membership throughout.

Mr Daigeler: You supported at the time the municipal option.

Mr Mansfield: Yes. That was at the same time.

I had a conversation with Mr Clarkson, who was scheduled to speak here today and at the time that the Collingwood council was having its open debates over Sunday shopping, Mr Clarkson was not in favour of Sunday openings. However, down the road in early spring I happened to speak to Mr Clarkson. He had since opened his store on Sundays and I said to him, "How are you making out opening on Sundays?" He said to me: "As much as I hate to say it, I am able to employ people and make a profit. I didn't want to open Sundays but economically I have to." He also created jobs by doing this and we do not have enough jobs in this province now.

1400

Mr J. Wilson: It is always interesting to have lectures about economics from the Liberal Party. Mr Sorbara's correction of history from the party that raised taxes at unprecedented rates --

Mr Sorbara: Here we are getting into political discourse.

Mr J. Wilson: Just thought I would throw that in, Greg. Craig, thanks very much for appearing before the committee today. I am going to play devil's advocate for a minute, what the NDP do. You did a 1988 survey, if I heard you correctly, and you had 54% of retailers surveyed at that time who wanted freedom of choice. As former president of the chamber of commerce, I guess you have to represent all the views. When you allow those retailers who want to be open to open, does it put undue pressure on those who do not want to be open?

Mr Mansfield: No, I do not believe it does. I think every business will survive at the level that the owner and entrepreneur wants his business to survive. You make the decision in business to either become very large or stay very small and you find the level that suits you, the income that suits you and I think you go to that level. We are like water, we take the easiest route.

When I came to town there was one other locksmith in the community. He never worked the Sundays. He never worked the Saturdays. I chose to. He still does not work the Saturdays. He still does not work the Sundays. That is his choice. I have never forced him to. He has never forced me to.

I do not look at my competitor and say, "You sell this at $10." I look at my costs and I say: "I have to get $12 for it. Therefore, I am not going to sell it one dime under $12. I will not do it for nothing." You do what is best for your own business, and each business looks at itself as an entity unto itself.

Mr J. Wilson: It sounds like your bottom line would be that you would just prefer the government not to regulate in this area at all.

Mr Mansfield: I think if the government is going to regulate in the retail area, then it should start taking a look and changing everything. Either shut down General Motors and shut down LOF Glass and shut down everything else -- if you are going to regulate me as a retailer, which is my choice, then you shut down everything. Otherwise you are discriminating against me and I will not accept that. You have no right, because I chose to be a retailer instead of a lawyer or a doctor or a factory worker or a foreman or a general plant manager, to place me on a separate scale and say, "Okay, you're a retailer; you can't work."

Mr Carr: The Ontario Chamber of Commerce came in earlier in the week. I do not know if you are familiar with it, but one of the provisions in here for somebody getting a tourist exemption is that he has to have the support of the chamber of commerce. The Ontario Chamber of Commerce said it was horrified when that came out, because in fact it had not been consulted and it was sort of thrown in its lap. I was wondering if you could comment on that, what your feeling is about forcing chambers of commerce across this province to have to jump into the fight with a letter of support if you are going to get a tourist exemption.

Mr Mansfield: We are not an elected body. We will come to the municipal government, we will come to the provincial and we will come to the federal with our opinions, but we are not an elected body. Our membership changes every year. Every two years we change our leadership. So to put this onus on somebody is not the effective way to do it. You want continuity in what you are going to do. What they are trying to do with this is the same thing as the Liberal government did when it dropped it on the municipalities. They are trying to distance themselves from the decision-making. All you have to do is say, "Open it up; make your own decisions," not through this body or that body.

We do not need more bureaucrats. We do not need more muddle and paperwork. We just need to be able to work, and to drop it on the chamber of commerce is completely unfair, the same as it was completely unfair to drop it on to the municipalities.

Sometimes politicans have to stand up and say, "This is what's right." That is what people in this province are looking for, somebody who will stand up and say, "This is what's right for the province of Ontario."

Mr Fletcher: Just a short couple of questions. We think this is right.

Mr Mansfield: Unfortunately.

Mr Fletcher: We are standing up and saying it, and that is what you asked us to do, sir. As far as the Sunday working situation, do you agree that employees should have the right to refuse work on Sunday?

Mr Mansfield: Definitely, but when are they going to have the right to refuse to work at LOF Glass and General Motors?

Mr Fletcher: This is a retail business act. This is not the Employment Standards Act.

Mr Mansfield: Why am I different from LOF Glass and General Motors? What makes me such an ogre and those guys so great?

Mr Fletcher: I do not know. I did not say you were an ogre.

Mr Mansfield: Why are you legislating against independent business? That is what you are doing: You are trying to legislate against independent business.

Mr Fletcher: Am I being asked the questions or am I asking them?

The Acting Chair: He has a right to ask questions too.

Mr Fletcher: Suppose Collingwood does open wide open. You do not have bus service on Sunday and that will be a requirement, possibly, for people to get to work and everything else. The transportation, the expanded police force activity, day care facilities that are going to be needed -- who is going to pay for this? If this law is wrong and we say, "Okay, wide-open Sunday shopping for business interests," is business going to pay for the costs?

Mr Mansfield: The business taxes that are paid --

Mr Fletcher: Is it business exclusively that is going to be paying for it, business municipal taxes?

Mr Mansfield: If you people would be more efficient with it instead of throwing it around in $9-billion deficits, then there would be more money around to do it. The business taxes we pay on a seven-day-a-week basis would more than cover it, yes.

Mr Fletcher: So property taxes would go up to cover this also?

Mr Mansfield: I do not see any taxes going up if we would have a little bit of efficiency in this world.

Mr Fletcher: That would come down to the municipality when it comes to expanding the services. It has nothing to do with us, and you are the people who want the services expanded.

Mr Mansfield: I do not know where you are from, Mr Fletcher.

Mr Fletcher: Guelph.

Mr Mansfield: You are coming from Guelph and you are telling us here in Collingwood what we are going to have to expand.

Mr Fletcher: The same holds true for my city.

Mr Mansfield: Different strokes. What you are saying is not necessarily true.

Mr Morrow: Yesterday we had the Ontario Chamber of Commerce present a brief, indicating that in 1988 it adopted a position that is very close to what we tried to achieve. Did you agree with their position then?

Mr Mansfield: I am not aware of what that paper said, so I cannot comment on it.

Mr Morrow: I can give you briefly what they said yesterday in their brief. It says the majority of surveyed retailers would prefer to remain closed on Sundays.

Mr Mansfield: That was not the survey that was taken by the members of the chamber of commerce in Collingwood.

Mr Morrow: Do you agree with the absolute right to --

Mr Sorbara: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I think if for no other reason than as a matter of courtesy and respect to the submissions that we heard yesterday from the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, Mr Morrow should be pointing out here in Collingwood as we hold these hearings that the witness there, Mr James Carnegie, testified that the opinion of his members, although they had not adopted a new policy resolution, on the question of whether or not a store should be able to be opened has changed dramatically since 1988, and that was the real thrust of his testimony.

The Acting Chair: That is a point of information, thank you. Mr Morrow.

Mr Morrow: This is April 1991. Do you agree with the absolute right of workers to refuse Sunday work?

Mr Mansfield: Yes I do.

Mr Morrow: Can you possibly tell me how many jobs were created by the Sunday shopping option?

Mr Mansfield: No, I cannot tell you how many jobs are created. Could you tell me how many have been lost because we do not have it?

Mr Morrow: What kind of jobs?

Mr Mansfield: Excuse me, I could not answer yours, but possibly you could answer mine. You seem to have all the information. How many jobs have been lost because we do not have it?

1410

Mr Morrow: I have the figures here, sir, that no jobs were lost due to Sunday shopping. Can you possibly tell me --

Mr Mansfield: You believe that?

Mr Morrow: I believe that very strongly. What kind of job, sir, do you feel that you are creating by opening on Sundays, full-time or part-time?

Mr Mansfield: I believe I can create full-time jobs and I believe that we can create good part-time jobs, which would give our unemployed students, which we have an abundance of in this province right now, the opportunity to earn some funds. Possibly if they could earn some funds, we would not have to spend as much on subsidizing their tuition.

Mr Morrow: Now that you have this bylaw in Collingwood, what business is open? What type of businesses? Big stores, small retail?

Mr Mansfield: It looks like more small retail stores that would have maybe an owner and two employees.

Mr Mills: Thank you for coming and talking to us. Everything you say has been taken into consideration, I assure you.

You made one statement that said, "We, in Canada, are five years behind the US." I take it that was to mean in wide-open shopping, so my question to you, very briefly, is: Can you see the importance of family life in Canada being somewhat different than the United States, vis-à-vis the opening of Sundays and allowing families to be together or not being together? Do you attach any importance to that consideration?

Mr Mansfield: I attach a great deal of importance to families being together, and I would like to relate a story to you, sir, that maybe would emphasize this. When we were discussing Sunday shopping in Collingwood, we had a presentation from a lady named Sylvia who worked at Towers. She was very adamant that we should not have Sunday shopping because it was a family day, and she had to spend it with her family. She wanted to walk among the roses and smell the fresh air and spend time with her family on Sundays, and this was her first presentation at the first public meeting.

At the second public meeting, she did not come quite as well prepared with her written statement, and she got a little carried away when there were more people there supporting Sunday shopping. She got up and wanted to have her say, and as she was running through having her say, it turns out that on Sundays, her Sunday outings were spent on a farm up in Feversham. Her husband works, she works at Towers, and they have a 100-acre farm up in Feversham. The Sunday outing consisted of looking after and caring for 100 head of cattle that had to be done. So this was a family outing, working on Sundays.

The family will find the time to be together. The parenting skills that people have, they will bring out of themselves. You do not have children for the sake of not spending time with them. You make the time, but you also prioritize these times to suit your own lifestyle. To say that everybody has the same lifestyle is not true.

The Acting Chair: Mr Mansfield, on behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you for your presentation.

Mr Mansfield: Thank you very much for having me.

GEORGIAN TRIANGLE TOURIST ASSOCIATION AND CONVENTION BUREAU

The Acting Chair: We will now call on the Georgian Triangle Tourist Association and Convention Bureau, which was displaced from first thing this morning. You will be given 15 minutes. You can give a 15-minute presentation or a shorter one that allows time for questions and comments from each of the caucuses. Please identify yourself and then proceed.

Mr Sorbara: Mr Chair, on a point of order: My impression was that organizations were provided with half an hour before this committee. Is there any particular reason why we have limited the Georgian Triangle to 15 minutes?

Clerk of the Committee: The reason for that is when the Georgian Triangle called me and I was speaking with them, they said they could do their presentation in 10 minutes. That is why they were slid in at 8:50 this morning. It was at their request. If the committee wants to extend the time, that is up to the committee.

Mr Sorbara: I note that the next witness is scheduled to be here at 2:30; perhaps we could just allow a little flexibility so that if any of the members of the committee have additional questions, you will use your discretion and provide us with some more time.

The Acting Chair: Sure. We will take that into consideration.

Mr Sorbara: What a refreshing change on this committee.

Ms Metras: Thank you very much, Mr Sorbara, and thank you very much, Mr Chairman, for giving me that opportunity. I hope the time will allow.

My name is Sheila Metras, and I am the executive director of the Georgian Triangle tourist association. Our association represents over 450 tourism and tourism-related businesses, many of which are small business operators. We are speaking today directly on their behalf.

We represent as well the chambers of commerce of Meaford, Beaver Valley, Collingwood, Wasaga Beach and Stayner through a committee of our tourist association known as the Georgian Triangle interchamber committee. That is a committee that allows us to share and exchange views on matters of concern and interest to our respective members.

The Georgian Triangle area covers the geographic, cultural and economic area from Meaford in the west to Wasaga Beach in the east, a total of seven core tourism municipalities. The Georgian Triangle area is an interdependent linked marketing area, very heavily dependent on tourism and on the hospitality retail sector for its economic wellbeing.

Tourism is, at the present, the mainstay of our Georgian Triangle economy. The area has suffered greatly from the heavy layoffs and plant closings in the industrial manufacturing sector. Some of those jobs which have been lost locally will not be regained in the future. The majority will probably not be replaced without great difficulty.

In 1987, when the largest employer in the area, the Collingwood Shipyards, closed its doors, the community looked to tourism to sustain it through the transition to new employment opportunities for the labour force. A construction boom, brought on by the high demand for recreational housing, fuelled high prosperity in the entire Georgian Triangle area. In the present, in the severe recession which we have been experiencing and which we are afraid is not yet over in Ontario, we are once again counting on visitor dollars to generate employment and future opportunities for our citizens.

The Georgian Triangle is one of the most tourist-intensive, four-season destination areas in Ontario. We fit six out of the six criteria established for the official municipal tourism exemption under Bill 115. Our Georgian Triangle visitors enjoy exploring the area. That is a great part of their vacation experience. However, for many, shopping while they are on holiday is a pleasurable component of their holiday experience.

Many of our visitors were startled to find the entire town of Collingwood with its beautiful Main Street, which is so attractive to browsers and set up that way with music and shade trees and benches, closed up tight on Sundays. Fortunately other shops in the Georgian Triangle area were open, though visitors are deprived of the excellent quality and variety of shopping to be found in Collingwood. Collingwood really is the major draw in the Georgian Triangle.

As you know, tourism is highly competitive. We are struggling mightily to keep our market share. To do so, we must provide all services, and that includes shopping on a seven-day, everyday basis if we are to maintain that market share, particularly in tough times when discretionary dollars are in very short supply and the visitors can afford to be choosey. They do not have to come here; there are other places they can go.

The Collingwood Chamber of Commerce did a study in 1990 which showed the majority to be in favour of Sunday and holiday opening in Collingwood, and very recently Collingwood passed bylaw 91-47, permitting retail establishments to open on holidays and Sundays. This will start the process for the town to apply to the province for tourism-exempt status.

The policy of the Georgian Triangle tourist association is to support the tourism-exempt status for those Georgian Triangle municipalities that wish to apply for it. We support the right of individual businesses to choose if they wish to open or remain closed on Sundays and holidays. Last, but most important, we respect and support the right of retail workers to refuse to work on Sundays and public holidays. There are more than enough persons willing, and in many cases wanting, to work on Sundays and holidays that no one should be forced to work. In a recreation area such as the Georgian Triangle part-time employment for students and for others is an integral component of the local economy.

We would like to point out that the Georgian Triangle tourism and hospitality industry must, with some seasonal exceptions, provide continuous service to our visitors seven days per week, 365 days per year. Our own tourist information centre is closed on one day only, Christmas day, and we still have requests from people to open on that day.

Our employees have always accepted this fact as a precondition of employment in an industry which is dependent on good service, goodwill and professional hospitality. The present Employment Standards Act protects all retail business establishment employees. Employees can be asked to work at any time by employers beyond their normal working hours and many are more than willing to do so. However, no employee can be discriminated against for not accepting work outside of normal working hours. Indeed, most employees are treated with dignity and respect by employers whose businesses are so dependent on staff attitude. The tourism industry is built on co-operation and a certain esprit de corps, so the employers have a vested interest in keeping their employees happy. So we ask, is there a need to establish any new law to protect worker interests beyond that which exists already?

1420

We expect that a tourism-exempt status for applying Georgian Triangle municipalities will stimulate our tourism through increased services to visitors. It will also provide desired services to our very large second-home market. Close to 4,000 new condo units have been constructed in the area since 1988 and are primarily owned by weekend and holiday residents. Anecdotal surveys confirm that Sunday shopping will be viewed as an important service, particularly, as an example, for the home handyman who breaks an essential tool or runs out of paint in the middle of an important home project on Sunday.

We support the motives behind the amendments to the retail business establishments statute in Bill 115 because it endeavours to recognize the importance and value of tourism to the local and provincial economies. However, we must articulate some of the concerns that surround Bill 115; namely, the difficulties that municipalities, retail businesses and other organizations face in interpreting, administering and applying the proposed tourism criteria fairly. To begin, we would recommend the following changes in the tourism criteria regulation.

Under tourist area characteristics, these changes and recommendations include that the list of characteristics for a qualifying geographic area should be expanded to include the following tourism criteria: (a) tourism in the area has historically been an important part of the local economy and (b) it provides goods or services necessary to tourist activities in the area.

Under the retail business restrictions section, we recommend that the clause that asks for the number of persons serving the public and the floor space occupied by a qualifying business should have no bearing on its ability to meet common tourism criteria.

Tourism season qualifier: These time periods will vary of course within a designated tourism area, as will the length of the tourism season for various types of qualifying retail business establishments for a wide variety of circumstances. We feel the qualifier could be removed from this subsection.

The following are concerns that have been expressed by Tourism Ontario in its brief to you, which you have already received, and we would like to see some of these concerns addressed.

The first one is that the empowerment of local municipal councils, clause 1(1)(aa) of the Retail Business Holidays Amendment Act, 1989, should be amended to permit all local municipal councils within a district, county, metropolitan or regional municipality to enact bylaws to permit retail business establishments in each local municipality to be open on holidays for the maintenance or development of tourism. It is duplicative, unnecessary and unfair to burden metropolitan or regional municipal councils with applications from local councils regarding designated tourist area exemptions.

Councils' obligations are a point that we were quite concerned about. Municipal councils should not be granted discretionary power through which they can refuse to pass a designated tourist area bylaw permitting any or all retail business establishments which meet the provincial tourism criteria and apply for exemption to be open on Sunday.

To make a given municipal council's decision final on whether or not it wishes to pass a bylaw to permit retail business establishments in a municipality to open on Sundays and holidays defeats the whole purpose of its having such authority in the first place. That is to suggest that no legitimate reasons or causes could ever be presented to a municipal council which had refused to designate a tourist area under a tourist area bylaw exemption, regardless of merit, including future development of tourism infrastructure or ventures within said municipality. Surely, in the democratic society which the government of Ontario is committed to for all of its citizens, such a draconian clause could be withdrawn.

Procedures of councils: Municipal councils should not be granted the sole power to limit the number of applications from retail business establishments that they will consider in a given year. Businesses should be free to apply for the exemption at least once every calendar year. We are also in agreement with the basic philosophy behind the recommendations of Tourism Ontario that will eliminate obstacles which prevent businesses from exercising their basic fundamental rights and freedoms to open when and where they perceive a need to provide retail shopping services. We support the right of the public to choose where and if they wish to shop on Sundays and holidays. We support the unrestricted right of Ontario citizens to work, provide services and earn income from the production and sale of goods and provision of services any day of the week.

We support elimination of a costly administrative burden on the municipalities and the potential for possible litigation problems by providing for an appeal process or a body such as the Ontario Municipal Board to act as a mediator between the local councils and the province and between the business community and the local council. This is of great concern to us because there does not appear to be any appeal mechanism outlined in the bill at this point. This is an important element if we are to eliminate potential litigation on both sides, for the municipalities and for the businesses, and to allow businesses the right to a fair hearing without the need to establish a costly and cumbersome new bureaucratic office within government.

The town of Collingwood, in its brief on Sunday shopping, addressed that problem. There would have to be some fair criteria set out by them, so they are aware that there is a great responsibility on their part to come up with a process through which all businesses can access the right to open.

We would like to see those concerns addressed. These are as reiterated by Tourism Ontario in its brief to you. Tourism Ontario, as you know, is an independent federation of tourism organizations and groups. We have had great service from their advocacy in the past. We hope you will address those concerns so that we all can feel that due process has been given.

Our association thanks the standing committee for the opportunity to speak to you about the value and importance of Bill 115 to the Georgian Triangle tourism industry. Tourism is an integral and major component of the Georgian Triangle economy and indeed Ontario. We hope the recommendations and representations made to your committee by Tourism Ontario and other tourism organizations such as ourselves and the chambers of commerce will be carefully considered before the legislation is passed.

1430

The Acting Chair: Thank you. I think we will allow about two and a half minutes for each caucus. I am sure that with short and concise questions and answers, we will get through this.

Mr Sorbara: A very good and interesting presentaion. There is one irony in it, not to say inconsistency, that I wanted to question you about. The major thrust of your submission seems to suggest that you support the bill in general terms and you set out a series of amendments which would make it better. By the way, I agree that if we are going to have this bill, amendments along those lines should be adopted by the government. But then in your submission you say, and I think I am quoting, "We support the right of retail businesses to open when and where they please." You go on to say, "We support the unrestricted right" -- and I am paraphrasing here, but I think it was "of citizens to be able to shop in the manner which most accommodates their lifestyle."

This bill that we are confronted with says retail businesses shall not have the right to open on Sunday unless they can come within narrow criteria and come within some sort of tourism exemption. The notion that businesses, not just tourist businesses but businesses generally, should have the right to open when and where they please is inconsistent with that.

Which does the Georgian Triangle advocate? Is it the freedom for a non-tourist business to participate in the market on Sunday or is it a restriction to tourism with better criteria?

Ms Metras: Mr Sorbara, we are speaking to the bill which we see here. We have suggested some amendments in the tourism criteria, but we would expect there would have to be criteria for businesses to open. I do not think you can have unlimited opening any place or time that a business might want to. We are respectful of the intent of the bill because it does recognize the value of tourism. It is going to establish some criteria for communities to apply, and we feel that is fair.

Mr Sorbara: So you support the view that there should be special rules for Sunday openings that do not apply for openings on any other day of the week?

Ms Metras: Yes, I think we could support that.

Mr Sorbara: Under this bill, any business that is over 7,500 square feet would have to make a special application and have the certification of the local chamber of commerce before it was permitted to open. Do you think that is fair?

Ms Metras: No, I do not. I think that wherever the municipality can meet the criteria for the tourism exemption, all businesses within that municipality should be allowed to open, regardless of size.

Mr J. Wilson: Thank you, Sheila, very much. I found it very informative. On the question of the size of the establishments, with the 7,500 square foot limitation now, if that were to pass as is in the proposed legislation, how many businesses or to what extent would businesses be affected in the Georgian Triangle?

Ms Metras: There would probably not be that many. There are two or three which I think would open, though it is interesting, because if the business has the right --

Mr J. Wilson: Excuse me, how many would not be able to open if that criteria were in?

Ms Metras: You mean if the 7,500 square feet was kept as the --

Mr J. Wilson: Yes, and the eight-employee one too.

Ms Metras: I am really not sure. I think there would probably be a few, but again, as Mr McMullen said, at IGA it takes 20 people to open his shop and he probably would not do it at a grocery store. That would be one of the businesses that potentially would not be allowed to open if that criterion was held to, but there will be others that would open if they had that opportunity. I do not know how many.

Mr J. Wilson: During the period last year when we had essentially unregulated Sunday shopping, what was your experience here from a tourism perspective in the sense that some of the stores were open? Maybe you can give me the history. We had unregulated shopping for, what, about eight months? We had some stores open, some not open; it was basically freedom of choice. I received zero letters on the subject during that period. The office at Queen's Park, I should say, received zero letters on the subject. It did not seem to me once we had unregulated Sunday shopping that people were too upset about it, at least to the point of writing to their legislators. Was that your experience?

Ms Metras: Yes, it was. I think most of our visitors, and I think I can speak to that, were quite pleased to have the opportunity to shop when and where they wished. We did not see any severe dislocation and there did not seem to be any problem that some businesses were open and others were not. It did not take our visitors very long to find out what was open, and they would go there.

Mr J. Wilson: I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that this law has a guise in it that it is going to protect workers, give them a right of refusal. I do not think that will work. As I said before, I think it is going to be a field day for lawyers and that it is just another burden on people in this province, another whole pile of regulations that are piled on the books that we are going to have to follow. I do not think it will be workable a year from now. We will find that much of it is tied up in the courts.

It seems to me a lot of groups come forward with good amendments because they figure it is the best they are going to get; the government is committed to going ahead with this bill. I would agree with them. I am glad they do, as you have made suggestions. But if you had your ultimate choice, Utopia here, would you just prefer not to have regulations?

Ms Metras: I think almost any sensible person would say that.

Mr J. Wilson: Some do not. Reverend Wilson behind you would probably disagree on that.

Ms Metras: When you wade through the amount of paper that is before us, it is a very difficult bit of legislation. We understand the intent of it and we are sympathetic to that. Of course we would appreciate having wide-open Sunday shopping in the province and we would appreciate the province taking the responsibility to do that.

Mr J. Wilson: I think that is what you are going to get anyway. I think it is a shell game they are playing here.

Mr Mills: Ms Metras, I would like to thank you for your input here this afternoon. I would just like to take you up briefly on one issue. You seem to have some level of criticism for the tourist criteria. I would just like to tell you that these criteria were established through very wide consultation with the tourist industry in North America and internationally, and from that wide consultation process, these criteria evolved as to what tourism is. That is why they are in here. It is not something our government dreamed up as criteria; it is from the industry. Thank you very much.

Ms Metras: Thank you, but with respect, we would have hoped that those criteria would have been established through consultation with organizations such as ourselves, not international or even across Canada.

Mr Mills: We went to the industry.

The Acting Chair: Mr Fletcher, you have a quick comment and then Mr Lessard.

Mr Fletcher: Thank you for your presentation. I found it to be very refreshing and very articulate. I agree with some of your recommendations. It is nice to see that you come with recommendations rather than just to bash away at certain things. At least you want to participate. I am glad to see there is a lot of participation; that is what this committee is all about. As I said, some of your recommendations I think are very good and you certainly assured me on some things.

Ms Metras: All we can ask is that you consider our suggestions. We are very pleased to work with you at any time to give you the local flavour.

The Acting Chair: We have one more question. Mr Lessard, one quick question.

Mr Lessard: I hope you can provide your recommendations to us in writing so that we can look at them in depth as well.

If I understand your submissions, you do not think there is any distinction between stores that are small and stores that are very large. You think that distinction should be removed. You also think that if there is a certain geographic area that is within a tourist zone, then all of the stores that are in there should be able to open, including department stores, large grocery stores and things of that nature.

I am going to suggest to you that there may be a difference between how employees are treated. You say all employees are treated with dignity and respect, and I am going to suggest that there may be a distinction between employees in small, independent stores and ones who might work in large department stores or grocery stores. Would you agree or disagree with that?

Ms Metras: I can only speak from my own experience within my own industry in my own Georgian Triangle area, so I could not say. I do not have any experience --

Mr Lessard: Within this area.

Ms Metras: Philosophically, anything is possible.

Just one last comment: Considering the gravity of the matter at hand, we were somewhat concerned about the lack of notice we received as a tourist association of this particular hearing. We do not feel a notice in the local newspaper is sufficient for something as important as this. If you are going to hold more meetings in future, I suggest that certain organizations which would have a direct interest in participating, such as chambers of commerce and business organizations, be notified by mail.

1440

The Acting Chair: Thank you for that comment. We will take that under consideration. Ms Metras, on behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you for your presentation.

Interjection: Was this advertised?

Ms Metras: Evidently it was. I do not know how many times. That is not sufficient for something as important to the business community. It is just a matter to think about.

The Acting Chair: Just for your information, the clerk can clarify this.

Clerk of the Committee: Generally, it is up to the committee to decide how it wants to advertise. Committees generally advertise once in every daily newspaper across Ontario. Some committees specifically send out invitations to certain groups and other committees do not, depending on the issue.

The Acting Chair: We will move on now. Our next presenter --

Mr Carr: Just for the record, we did not decide on this city without a lot of debate. Just for the people who are out there, the fact we even got to come to this city was because of a push by different groups. What went on in the Toronto area -- Queen's Park -- during the debate was that certain cities did not want to be included because they were border towns. It was sort of last minute that we ended up with this city, and the committee had the option of sending out the invitations.

The Acting Chair: Thank you for that point of information.

LEN ROCQUE

The Acting Chair: Our next presenter is Mr Len Rocque. Thank you for coming here today. You will be allowed 15 minutes for your presentation. You can either take the full 15 minutes for your presentation or you can make it a briefer submission and allow time for questions and comments from each of the caucuses. Please identify yourself and proceed.

Mr Rocque: My name is Len Rocque. I am the president of Vacation Investment Properties Inc and Greenfields Realty Inc, two Collingwood firms that provide marketing and sales services exclusively to the resort condominium industry in the Collingwood area. I am also past president of the local Liberal provincial riding association, but I hasten to add that I am not here in any partisan role today.

I am a member of the Collingwood and District Real Estate Board, the Ontario Real Estate Association and the Canadian Real Estate Association. I am appearing here today on behalf of my own firm and not on behalf of any of the associations of which I am a member.

I appreciate the opportunity to address the committee very briefly. My comments are brief. I would like to touch initially on the three principal objectives of this bill as I see them, and I have several very specific recommendations.

The three principal objectives of Bill 115, as I see them, are the maintenance of a common pause day, the delegation of the right to create tourist exemptions to local councils and the protection of employees from Sunday work. In principle, I support all three of these objectives, but I have some reservations. As I have indicated, I have a few recommendations that maybe the committee would like to consider.

On the subject of the common pause day, I would comment only that if a high percentage of Ontarians enjoy a two-day weekend, an even higher percentage enjoy a Sunday common pause day because most retail outlets are closed under current legislation. With appropriate exemptions, I support the concept of a common pause day, and I have no recommendations in this particular category.

On the matter of local councils determining exemptions, I have the following observations. A whole leisure-time industry has sprung up to meet the leisure-time needs of Ontarians. Most of these are Saturday and Sunday oriented and would include attractions and events of every description, from festivals to antique car shows, from cottages to resort condominiums and everything in between. Most of these industries involve some degree of retail merchandizing of goods and services on Sunday. This government should support this leisure-time industry in every way possible. It is a growing but struggling part of Ontario's economy. It is a major contributor to the economy of many communities. Nothing in this legislation should impede this industry from growing and prospering.

With regard to local councils deciding the exemptions, I am very concerned for the small retail merchants in those communities that do not pass enabling legislation or enabling bylaws, those retail merchants who clearly meet the government's intent or the intent of this bill: the small roadside potter or other craftsmen; the antique-shop owner; garden centres; ski shops; pro shops and golf courses; vendors of recreational and vacation property, either the developers themselves or, in my case, the real estate broker who works exclusively with recreational and resort property.

I strongly recommend to this committee that additional categories of retail merchandizing be added to the provincial legislation so that, at a very minimum, these kinds of operations can stay open province-wide and are not subject to local council approval.

Still on the matter of local councils passing Sunday opening bylaws, I cannot understand why a bylaw passed since first reading of this bill, one which meets all the criteria of this bill, would automatically be repealed when this bill finally comes into force. I consider that to be a waste of time. I can see more public meetings. These public meetings are generally difficult in this community, and I recommend that this part of the bill be changed.

Still on these local bylaws, I recommend that a council passing a Sunday opening bylaw would not be able to repeal that bylaw unless in a specified time period, say two years. I can envision a scenario where a duly elected council, prior to election time, passes enabling legislation so categories of tourist business can stay open on Sundays. You have an election and four weeks later the new council repeals the bylaw. I can see a situation where somebody leases a store for three years, thinking he is going to run a tourist operation out of that, retail merchandizing that caters primarily to tourists, only to have the bylaw repealed. So I would recommend that change in the bill.

The final recommendation regarding bylaws: It seems to me there should be some appeal from an obstinate town council or township council refusing to pass an enabling bylaw for an absolutely obvious tourist-oriented business.

Finally, on the matter of protection for employees hired after passing of this legislation, employees hired specifically for Sunday work by a firm, by a tourist business, I would suggest that there simply is no way that particular employee should be able to, within 48 hours, change his mind and indicate to the owner of that business that he is no longer obliged to work on Sunday. I think the bill can do better than that.

To sum up very briefly, my recommendations, again, would be these: that several categories of business be added to the provincial legislation and that they be permitted under the Retail Business Holidays Act so that these tourist businesses can be open province-wide on Sunday regardless of whether the local council has passed enabling legislation or enabling bylaws; eliminate the repeal of bylaws passed since the act was first read; set a minimum time on local councils for repealing Sunday shopping bylaws; have some type of an appeal process; and improve that portion of the legislation dealing with the 48-hour change of heart by an employee hired specifically for Sunday work.

That is all I have to say, gentlemen. I would be glad to take any questions.

1450

Mr Sorbara: I want to congratulate you for an extremely good analysis of the bill, and I hope that if the government persists in moving forward with Bill 115, some of the matters you brought up can form part of a package of amendments.

I think the major difference of opinion that is emerging on this committee is there are those who are coming to the view that there is no fair way to chose between the winners and losers in the Sunday shopping issue and that therefore the only fair thing to do is to allow the businesses of this province to choose personally and for themselves whether or not they are going to open on Sunday. Why is it you feel the government should still be in the business of choosing winners and losers through special regulation of Sunday?

Mr Rocque: Like many of us, I guess it is a personal thing, and that is why I indicated today I was not appearing here representing the Liberal Party in any fashion. It is just my personal concept that weekends, specifically Sunday, are a leisure time to be enjoyed by families, and quite frankly, I am not at all sure wide-open Sunday shopping is a necessity or that the people of Ontario are really seeking that, but there are certainly categories of businesses they like to see open.

I think everybody, even those who are opposed to Sunday shopping, still would have his own small list of businesses that should be open on Sunday, although I have heard one gentleman say that nothing should be open on Sunday -- absolutely nothing. I do not know how you even take a trip on Sunday in that case, if the service stations and food outlets and what not are not open. I think if you polled Ontarians, there would be a wide range of opinion on how many businesses should be open. I just happen to fall into the category that feels it should be tourist-oriented and that we should not have wide-open Sunday shopping in everything, furniture stores and what not. I am also concerned that if we get to that point, I just do not know how much farther it is going to go beyond retail merchandising. The first thing we know, it is going to be manufacturing and --

Mr Sorbara: Manufacturing is already opened up, sir.

Mr Rocque: I am aware of that, much to my surprise. I found that out a week or two ago.

Mr Carr: Thank you for the presentation. One of the questions I have is what you see happening as a result of this legislation. I think probably in this area here tourist exemptions will probably be met and I suspect, for example, Collingwood will be open, will meet the requirements. What do you see happening in the rest of the province with the legislation staying as it is? Again, this would be just a bit of a guess, but what do you see happening?

Mr Rocque: With the legislation proposed, one of the scenarios I see is real problems for some of my peers up in northern Ontario in communities that have indicated they are not going to pass local bylaws permitting any category of business to be open on Sunday. I happen to represent the real estate and development community. We have resort condominium developers here in Collingwood selling resort condominiums primarily on the weekends. I have been in the business 12 years and my firm has sold 1,000 of the 3,000 units that Sheila referred to. I can tell this committee that 40% of my sales were on Saturday, 40% of my sales were on Sunday and the other 20% were during the week. I am concerned about my peers in other communities that under this legislation might not be able to open on Sundays to sell recreational properties, vacation properties and resort condominium projects. I do not know how they will survive if they cannot open on Sunday. That is just a partial answer. Other than that, I do not see major problems with this legislation.

Mr O'Connor: I want to thank you for coming today. I am glad to see that you support most of the general concepts we have in the legislation in trying to come up with the common pause day. There have been some differences of opinion, of course, with different workers being talked about, in particular, I guess, the LOF here in town. I guess they have negotiated their hours and they have a continental work shift, so it is a little bit different from what we have here.

You have spelled out quite a few different ways you would like to see this changed, and I just want to reassure you that is why the committee is on the road, to try and get some suggestions. If there are amendments, that will be worked out later on, upon listening to many submissions from many witnesses right across the province. Your support for the general thrust for the common pause day and protection for the worker's right to refuse, which will help the family values aspect of this, and of course in areas where the tourism criteria are so fundamentally important to the local economy, I think is definitely a good way of going. I want to thank you for coming.

Mr Rocque: Mr O'Connor, with respect to the protection of employees part of it, I did specifically indicate my concern with employees indicating they would work for those businesses on Sunday that will be open on Sunday and then have a flip-flop within 48 hours and tell the employer they do not intend to work on Sunday. I have real concerns with that part of the legislation.

Mr O'Connor: The 48-hour part of the legislation gives you some difficulty.

Mr Rocque: Yes. It would be a major problem for me to hire a salesperson who indicated he was prepared to work in my firm on Sunday, when I do 40% of my business, and then notify me two days later he had changed his mind and he could not work on Sunday.

Mr Daigeler: Mr Chairman, before we move on to the next presenter, would the committee be in agreement to make a request to the researcher that some figures be provided on what the actual situation is in Ontario with regard to Sunday work by other sectors of the economy? Several times we were talking about the manufacturing sector being actually open. I would like to know a little bit more specifically what in fact is happening there at the present time and what regulations there are, if that is not too difficult.

Ms Swift: Perhaps you could give me some direction as to which sectors of the economy, which industries, you want me to look at.

The Acting Chair: Auto and steel.

Mr Daigeler: Yes, and Mr Sorbara referred to the manufacturing sector generally. Is this customary? How widespread is this? I just do not know.

Mr Morrow: I understand what you are asking and it makes sense, but as Mr Sorbara knows, my God, there are an awful lot of unionized manufacturing companies out there. There are an awful lot of non-unionized manufacturing companies out there. You might be asking a great deal at that point.

The Acting Chair: We will see what legislative research can come up with and provide it for you.

Mr Daigeler: Perhaps the ministry would have done some work on that. What is the situation currently, other than the retail sector? Are there many? I am not asking for precise statistics, but somebody who can really tell me how widespread is this.

Ms Swift: I will report back to you after I see what the lay of the land is.

The Acting Chair: Thank you for bringing that up.

Mr Morrow: I was going to suggest you might want to break it down into just retail, because we are dealing with the Retail Business Holidays Act.

Mr Daigeler: Not at all. Mr Chairman, that is precisely my point.

The Acting Chair: The point is that a lot of presenters are bringing up the manufacturing sector.

Mr Daigeler: The comparison is being made, and I think it is a very important argument, why just the retail sector if the manufacturing sector and other parts of the economy are operating?

Mr O'Connor: Can I make a suggestion, a very short one, perhaps to include negotiated hours in that research too. Maybe you can break that down. It would give us some guidelines to work with. I think it is a very reasonable request.

Ms Swift: As I said, I will have to look and see what figures are available. I do not know if they break it down that way, but I will certainly look into it and report back to the committee, and perhaps then you can decide what it is you want exactly.

1500

BEV BLAIS

The Acting Chair: I will call our next presenter, Bev Blais. I would like to thank you for coming today. You will be given 15 minutes for your presentation. You can either use the whole 15 minutes or else give a shorter brief and then there will be questions and comments from each of the caucuses. Please identify yourself and then proceed.

Mrs Blais: I would like to thank the Chair for giving me the opportunity to speak today. My name is Bev Blais and I am a full-time resident of Collingwood. I am also a taxpayer, a concerned citizen, a consumer, a lifetime Ontario resident and a Canadian. I spent 20 years in the retail printing business in Toronto before we moved to Collingwood. My presentation, by the way, today is on behalf of myself and my husband.

I was encouraged to speak to you today because my husband and I were recently involved in the Sunday shopping issue here in Collingwood. We worked in support of the merchants' presentation and we submitted a letter to Collingwood council on the matter. It reads in part as follows, with some updating and additions relevant to the discussion today:

I spoke with three members of our community and I was amazed at what I heard. One person was a newcomer to the area and obviously very financially independent, while another was equally well off but had made his fortune in this area over the years, and a third person, born here, was financially capable of having air-conditioning installed in a fairly modest home. All of them spoke of how great life in Collingwood was and how they would not want to see our town change. They spoke of the good fortune which brought them here, and the amazing part is that all of them, without prompting, pinpointed the reasons for their success to factors of change and their capitalization on those changes.

Last Monday after work I watched the proceedings of the business of our town on the local channel, as I often do. It was striking to realize that here I was watching council proceedings on TV in the comfort of my home and what a marvellous example it was of change, particularly of interest to those who have watched local politics over the years. At the same time I considered how fortunate we are to have so many of our citizens willingly give of their time to manage our affairs. Most of these unsung heroes spend their evenings and many Sundays working to make our community work for all of us.

I was also impressed by the complexity and the workload that is processed by our town volunteer administrators. It occurred to me how difficult it must be for each person on the council to see far off in the future or far off in the past. In words which have become familiar, "It's impossible to see the forest when you're surrounded by all those trees." A part of the forest referred to is the need all communities have for the creation of a sound program of changes which will be compatible with the needs and aspirations of their citizens while guarding us against regressive or other factors which threaten what has already been achieved.

Changes take place all the time in response to the needs and aspirations of citizens everywhere, and these changes will affect us whether we want them to or not.

Take as an example the change which has taken place in the overall attendance at churches and synagogues in Canada, from 55% of our population in 1965 to 41% in 1975 to 32% in 1985. Some churches have succeeded in staving off this negative trend and they have achieved this by adapting to our changing society. Among other things they have extended their services to times other than Sunday morning, because they found some of their parishioners were busy doing something else at this traditional worship time. That something else might be recreation, family trips, spectator participation, volunteer duties, gainful employment or employment in the sector to provide others with rest and relaxation. These churches have learned that the traditional times no longer apply to a majority of their parishioners.

Here is a national statistic which applies directly to the subject of our discussion, yet this significant drop took place mostly before Sunday shopping became an issue. It took place, however, concurrent with major increases in the Sunday availability of activities such as spectator games, theatre, fine dining and other recreational pursuits. Sunday obviously lost its exclusivity as a Lord's day for millions of people.

Sunday shopping was introduced for a short while and millions more took it up, out of convenience or as a new recreational activity. It was again obvious that folks in general were quite willing to extend a clear-cut trend of treating Sunday as just another day.

The Sunday preservers were clearly losing the battle for a commercial-free Sunday. A new angle was called for. It seems now that the way to preserve the sanctity of Sunday is to take the leisure angle and declare Sunday a common pause day; that is, a day where everyone could take a break from the hectic pace of earning a living.

Everyone, you say? Well, not quite. A lot of folks will have to work in order to provide the many services which will be required to keep the common pausers busy on Sunday. Add to that the claim by futurists that our society will become increasingly leisure-oriented and it translates into the fact that more and more people will have to work on Sunday. The irony of having a common pause day declared on a day when there is an increasing number of people who are willing to work by need or by choice makes it a pretty ludicrous proposal.

Sunday is a Lord's day for some people, a leisure day for some people, and a work day for some people. It is clear that Sunday is a special day, but it is equally clear that what is special about it is increasingly varied and impossible to legislate. In fact, I believe it is unjustifiable and offensive that any group or our elected officials would be presumptuous enough to dictate to all of us the day of the week when we must pause from work, and at the same time make exceptions to the rule for half our neighbours; to dictate to us that we can buy a decorative clock in a craft shop, but we cannot buy a practical clock in a clock shop; to dictate to us that we can be willing workers as sellers of milk and bread in one type of store, but that we cannot work at selling milk and bread in a different store; to dictate to us that we can work at cleaning carpets on Sunday, but that we cannot work at selling those same carpets in a store. It sounds very archaic and unjust.

To some people, the prime purpose of a pause day is to protect the workers from being forced to work on Sundays. What workers would be so protected and on what factual basis is this kind of protection shown to be so necessary? Thousands upon thousands of other workers do not have this protection against Sunday work, so what makes certain workers in the retail sector so deserving of this protection? In fact, is it truly protection? Is it protection to the student who could benefit from a job on Sunday which might make the difference between a college education or not? Is it protection to the retail sector worker who moonlights by working a second job on Sundays?

You do not need to be visionaries to see that a pause day will become another one of those laws that people will hold up to ridicule as another example of the political tail wagging the dog. If there is evidence of workers requiring protection against the employer, then legislation providing this protection should be enacted under the Labour Relations Act. It should not be the main platform for enacting something as useless as pause day legislation.

I believe that events and trends of the times speak in favour of less control on Sundays, or on any day of the week for that matter. I suggest that Sunday is as good as any other day for carrying on the necessities of living, whether it be worshipping in church, playing squash or golf, participating in cultural events, working as a volunteer for political or charitable purposes, or working and earning a living.

I suggest therefore that Sunday be deregulated. I suggest that the natural forces between needs and wants be the determining factor of what businesses are opened or closed on Sundays. I suggest that demand and supply of labour be the governing factor controlling Sunday work, just as it is for Saturday or Friday or any other day.

I suggest that our legislators seek to liberate us from rules and regulations such as the pause day, which is regressive and for an unclear purpose, complex to enforce and for undetermined benefit.

1510

Mr Sorbara: I enjoyed your presentation. I thought it was an articulate statement of the problem. Would you agree with me that under the rules proposed under Bill 115 the real result, the objective result, out in the marketplace is that the stores where the middle-income people and the upper middle-income people want to shop will be available somewhere within a reasonable distance on Sunday and the stores where the man or woman who is struggling just to pay the rent will be generally closed, and that it is terribly ironic that the New Democratic Party, which professes to be the defender of the poor, is forcing them not to have the opportunity to shop on Sunday while the rich and the affluent can find a store, whether it is a boutique or a Becker's, to shop at?

Mrs Blais: I can only speak on behalf of myself and my own opinion. Yes, if you are talking about the Woolworths in comparison with --

Mr Sorbara: High-end fashion stores.

Mrs Blais: I am thinking of the one in Toronto down at Steeles and Kennedy Road, the garden centre, which is like a Simpsons. You can go there on Sunday but the prices are very high. It services the market that can afford to pay.

Mr Sorbara: But the Woolcos are going to be closed.

Mrs Blais: But Woolco is closed, yes.

Mr Carr: I think more than anything else I was impressed by the fact that you take the time to go to municipal council to watch it. That is not always easy to do, to sit and listen to politicians like us sometimes, and I appreciate that involvement. This province would be a lot better off, regardless of where you stand on the issue, if more people were involved. It was nice to see you take the time to come out.

One of the questions I have relates to what you see happening. You are obviously, by your presentation, very bright and articulate it very well. What do you see happening in the province, knowing the tourist exemptions? Do you see us, when we get through municipalities dealing with this, having wide-open Sunday shopping eventually, or do you see some communities closed down? Do you see a checkerboard of some municipalities open and some closed? I was interested in what your thoughts are, where you see this whole thing going.

Mrs Blais: If this legislation goes through?

Mr Carr: If this present legislation goes through as it is.

Mrs Blais: It is going to be nothing but a huge mess that is very costly to the taxpayers and -- I would say destructive is a very strong word -- certainly not encouraging to the economy of the province in any way, shape or form. I think we will end up with a lot of lawsuits. I think we will end up with tremendous division within the communities. I think we will end up with so much bureaucratic red tape, and people judging people. Everybody is going to be a judge.

Mr Fletcher: Thank you for appearing before us today and taking the time. I just notice that you said it is unjustifiable and offensive that our elected officials should tell us when we can work and take a day off. When you were watching television of your city council, your elected officials, did you not find it strange that they were passing an act that would tell you when you have to work? It is the same thing. One group is saying, "We want a common pause day." The other group is saying, "No, you have to work."

Mrs Blais: I am not quite sure what you are talking about. I have not seen anything on council that says when I have to work.

Mr Fletcher: When they pass their tourist legislation that allows for wide-open Sunday.

Mrs Blais: That did not tell me when I have to work.

Mr Fletcher: It did for some people, but maybe not for you.

Mrs Blais: It gave the shops the right to open and it gave --

Mr Fletcher: The people who work in those shops have to work there.

Mrs Blais: Have you ever tried to tell a child or an employee what to do? Either one, they do not --

Mr Fletcher: I have done both.

Mrs Blais: It is very clear that there is more protection for the employee than there is for the employer, a great deal more.

Mr Fletcher: I read a quote from a previous Liberal member on Bill 114, which was supposed to protect them. He is saying there is no protection for workers. This is from a previous member on the committee on Bill 114.

Mrs Blais: I do not know. I spent 20 years in management. Protection for the employee is expensive.

Mr Fletcher: I agree with what you are saying. You may have been benevolent, but not every employer is that way.

Mrs Blais: I am not saying I was a good employer; I am saying the protection for the employee was all around them, and the larger the company the bigger the department to look after the employees' rights.

ONTARIO HOTEL AND MOTEL ASSOCIATION

The Acting Chair: Now we will call on the Ontario Hotel and Motel Association. I would like to thank you for coming here today. The format is that you will be given half an hour. You can give either a half-hour presentation or a briefer summation and then allow time for questions or comments from each of the caucuses. Please identify yourself and then proceed.

Ms Whitely: My name is Lisa Whitely. I am here representing Zone 12, which is a large region of Ontario's vacation land. I am general manager of Muskoka Sands Resort in Gravenhurst. I can speak on their behalf for the tourism industry.

The Ontario Hotel and Motel Association was incorporated in 1925. The current objectives of the association are to represent the hotel, motel, food and beverage industry in government and legislative matters; to provide means for members to exchange information on problems and new ideas -- we can speak collectively for those members on this subject; to review industry trends and develop forecasts; to provide educational programs and services; to provide guidelines for accommodation and operating standards in the industry; and to act as a focal point for organizing joint efforts among members for the solution of industry problems.

We respectfully request that members of the standing committee on administration of justice consider the following:

First of all, that Ontario encourage tourists and visitors by having unrestricted retail shopping on Sundays and holidays in all areas throughout the province as the market dictates without any restrictions. The Ontario Hotel and Motel Association is in favour of unrestricted Sunday and holiday shopping. We feel that unrestricted Sunday and holiday shopping is vital to our economy and the tourism industry throughout the province.

In a market-driven economy such as ours, consumers should be allowed the freedom of choice to decide which retail businesses and establishments they wish to patronize. The open and free market should be the final arbiter as to whether or not retail businesses function on Sundays and holidays, while still respecting the employment standards. Unfair and inequitable legislated restrictions are the worst form of economic blackmail in a free market economy.

As well, Ontarians deserve the right to work, earn income and profit from the production and sale of goods or the provision of services any day of the week. Economic prosperity generated in a free and unrestricted economy would benefit all Ontarians and their quality of life.

Retail shopping is an integral part of the tourism experience and represents a significant portion of the value of all tourism expenditures in Ontario. Most retail shopping, dining out, touring, sightseeing and recreation takes place on weekends. Shopping has become a family outing and the majority of Ontarians and visitors favour retail shopping on Sundays and holidays. The popularity of cross-border shopping shows that Canadians will travel to the south not only because they perceive the products to be cheaper, but also because of the ease of access to these goods.

This industry is the largest private sector employer; the service sector accounts for 70% of all new jobs. Tourism is responsible for the creation of 32 full-time jobs for every $1 million in tourism expenditures. We employ professionals, skilled and unskilled, and are the largest employer of women, youth, indigenous peoples and visible minorities. There is no other employer capable of this range of employment opportunity for permanent or part-time employees of professional service staff whose educational achievements vary from elementary through college to university.

1520

Tourism generated direct expenditures of $15.5 billion in 1990, with an estimated total income of $22.5 billion and estimated total sales of $36.9 billion. It is one of the nation's largest generators of personal income, corporate, property, business and sales taxes to all levels of government, including $1.85 billion to the province of Ontario, $2.5 billion to the federal government and $300 million to municipal governments in 1989.

The closure of retail businesses on Sundays has meant job losses to many, especially students who rely on this income for their schooling. Our members throughout the province are reporting a large drop in business. They feel strongly that the availability of Sunday shopping will alleviate slightly the slumping economy. Of our members surveyed, 75% have said that closing the stores on Sundays has meant a decrease in revenue. We recognize that other factors have also contributed to the decrease in revenue, but feel that the freedom of choice to open and work at retail businesses on Sundays and holidays is a means to reverse this problem. This revenue, to quite a few, means survival. Unless retail shops are allowed to open on Sundays to draw tourists and visitors to their respective areas, many will have to close their businesses.

Obviously the hardest-hit areas are the border cities. Ontario will remain uncompetitive and continue to lose billions of dollars worth of annual tourism sales unless we change and allow unrestricted Sunday and holiday shopping.

The hospitality industry is faced with many obstacles and increased operating costs. In order to remain competitive and recapture some of the lost business from our neighbours to the south, we must have the ability to compete on a level playing field. Bordering American cities are wide open for retail business on Sundays and holidays.

Bill 155 does have some merit, and we appreciate the Ontario government's recognition of the value and importance of tourism in this legislation. We do, however, feel that interpretation of the tourism criteria would create a lot of confusion, not to mention an administration nightmare in time and cost. To limit the time for municipalities to declare themselves tourist areas is also too restricting, as circumstances could, and most likely would, change at a later date.

The concept of a common pause day in Ontario is outdated and discriminatory. Multicultural Ontario in the 1990s is populated with every religion and every ethnic background and to allow one faith, belief or ethnic custom to dictate the lifestyles of everyone is wrong. Our contemporary society shows that Ontarians work at all hours of the day and night throughout the week. Hotels, hospitals and transportation, to name just a few, all must work on a 24-hour, 7-day-a-week basis. While some people rest, others conduct business and provide services. Their professions are a necessity to any community, and I do not believe their quality of life is diminished by their work schedules. We must provide these products, experiences and services to our customers when they want them or risk losing them to other competing jurisdictions.

We appreciate that the proposed amendments to part XI-B of the Employment Standards Act recognize the operating realities of our industry. It is most important that all employees retain the right to schedule work and dictate work schedules. It has been reported that out of more than 10,000 inquiries and complaints registered with the employment standards branch of the Ontario Ministry of Labour in 1990, fewer than 15 were related to the right of retail workers to refuse to work on Sundays and holidays.

In closing, I ask that you bring Ontario forward and that we become once again the province to lead. We have a tendency to live in the past, remembering how mother was home to greet us when we returned home from school, but we all know times have changed and we must also change, not only to keep up with the times but to take the leadership role in this changing society.

What happened when stores were allowed to open on Sundays? Has the public been asked, both workers and shoppers? How many people already have to work Sundays? What would happen if service stations closed on Sundays? We are constantly being told we live in a free world where we have freedom of choice. The freedom of choice to open retail outlets on Sunday is not a luxury, but a necessity, because to many it will mean survival.

I appreciate having the opportunity to speak on behalf of the association.

Mr Daigeler: Thank you for coming before us. You were referring to changes obviously taking place. I am wondering whether that has also often happened with regard to your organization, in your own view. Two or three years ago there were similar hearings across the province. The message at the time seemed to be quite different. I am just wondering how you yourself view the municipal option that was put forward by the Liberal government. Also, would you know what kind of representation the group you are representing today made at the time?

Ms Whitely: I do not know what they did three years ago. I know our local municipality was against Sunday shopping and is still divided on that, which from a tourism point of view seems quite absurd in that particular region. That is where all the revenues are generated.

Mr Daigeler: Is it possible to ask you how you viewed that at the time?

Ms Whitely: I am not familiar enough with it to answer that.

Mr J. Wilson: Thank you for your presentation, Ms Whitely. Near the end you mentioned a statistic that there were 15 complaints reported to the Ministry of Labour during the unregulated period last year. I guess that is over that eight months or seven months we had. First of all, would you be aware of complaints in our area, in Zone 12? Would the OHMA and yourself normally be aware of those complaints, and if so, did we have many?

Ms Whitely: I do not know if they are aware of any further details than the information they received from the Ministry of Labour. I am not aware of any complaints regarding work scheduling or working on Sundays in my particular resort or any other fellow colleagues.

Mr J. Wilson: Okay, I appreciate that.

Mr Carr: Thank you very much for coming in. One of the statistics I was interested in was the one where you say 75% of your members say that as a result of Sunday shopping there is increased activity. What do you say to a government that says it knows better than your members and that there is not any more economic activity?

Ms Whitely: I guess we prove each other right or wrong. That is the general feeling, though, among the members who were polled.

Mr Fletcher: Just one point on what you are talking about, the surveys: When you ask people if they like to shop on Sunday, there is an overwhelming yes. That is not debatable. But when you turn it around and ask people, "Would you like to work on Sunday?" about 70% of the people say no. That is just a clarification. It is strange that two years ago, when they were going around the province, people were saying, "No, we don't want Sunday shopping," and yet the government of the day did not listen and implemented the municipal option, which opened up wide-open shopping. I am glad to see you are here because I need your views. I believe there are going to be some changes to this legislation and it is because of people like you who are interested. You come with alternatives, not just to say it is totally wrong or anything like that. I know you see some of the benefits of having some legislation. I am very happy that you are here.

Mr Mills: Ms Whitely, I am very glad to be here and to hear your submission. I would like to tell you that the regulations are draft regulations and that we are listening in this process to what everyone has to say.

Having said that, I would like to say a couple of things. You spoke of freedom of choice. In today's society we demand freedom of choice. Speaking on behalf of the government, I think Bill 115 is all about freedom of choice, the freedom of retail workers to refuse work without fear of some repercussions on that. I think you also addressed very well the need for this legislation when you say there were only 15 complaints under the present legislation. Talking to many people in the retail trade, my information on why we have had only 15 complaints is that the retail worker, under the present legislation, is very reluctant to complain, because he or she needs a job. If they complain under the present legislation, they know the chances of keeping that job are very slim. I would just like to pass those thoughts on to you about what this bill is all about. It is not about Sunday shopping; it is about Sunday working. That is the thrust of the government.

The Acting Chair: Ms Whitely, on behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you for your presentation today.

Clerk of the Committee: I will just mention that there was a request for some information from the Ministry of the Solicitor General, clarifying real estate offices. I am now in possession of that. For any member who would like to come and look at it, I will table it with the committee.

Mr Poirier: Would Reverend Wilson, if at all possible after coming here, be interested to speak for five or 10 minutes, or even less than that? I know we have to leave around 3:30.

The Acting Chair: No problem.

1530

DOUGLAS WILSON

Mr D. Wilson: I am Douglas Wilson, minister of the Christian church. I have no brief prepared, but I do have some deep feelings on this matter that is before us today, just as I did before the town council which met on July 22, passed at second and third reading, supposedly after hearing briefs from people in this community, briefs that were largely prepared and overbalanced by the business industry in this community.

Those of us who had something to say concerning one pause day -- I prefer to call it the Lord's day; you may call it what you wish. I prefer to call it that, but those of us who did were heckled at that meeting. I suggested that we are in a moral decay in our society today. Someone talked today about the dinosaurs. Certainly, they have disappeared. Someone has also spoken about the decay of Rome. We all know what happened to that great empire.

There have been many illogical arguments presented here today, some of them from silence, but the biggest argument I see here today is the argument of freedom of choice, freedom of choice used by those who presented prepared briefs. They forget that there is a large segment of our society that would like to have a common pause day. There is a large group of people who would like to have time with their families, whether it be on Saturday, Sunday or Monday.

I spoke to you a few moments ago about the decay of morals in our society. At the town council, I spoke about the report just released that evening concerning 52 murders in the city of Toronto in the present year. The report said almost double. There were 29 a year ago. We all, I am sure, deplore the rising incidence of crime in our community -- robberies and theft, rape, murder, those things that are happening here in the little community of 12,500 people, even in the first year when I came here, which was 15 years ago, the murder of a police officer.

What is the reason for this decay? Are you, the members of the Legislature, interested in finding out the true source of it or are you willing to give in to the greed and the avarice of business, a term I used two weeks ago and continue to use, greed on the part of merchants in this community who are not satisfied with their portion of living but want a greater increase in it?

Freedom of choice? I would like to have freedom of choice, but am I allowed to go out from this building today, take my car and drive on the left side of the road, regardless of all other motorists who are driving in this community? Freedom of choice? Why are two men who are recording artists here today forced to depart from this building to go outside to smoke? They do not have freedom of choice.

We are being legislated on all avenues. Laws are necessary, and I feel that the sooner our government, whatever the political party, begins to legislate and take the responsibility that is placed upon it by the constituent members of the communities in which you serve, the quicker our community will begin to improve and the better will be the way of life that we have cherished in the past, in the times of our fathers and our forefathers, times when there were laws, and these laws have not changed. All of us are going to have to answer to them one day -- perhaps too soon.

Mr Carr: One of the questions I have is from the standpoint of, are you more concerned about the workers having the time off, or is it also the people who would be doing the shopping? Presumably, if you follow it by the Bible, it is also even people who are shopping. Is that your big concern, or is it more for the workers that you want to have the pause day? In other words, do you see it as wrong even for the people who go out and shop, who may see it as a leisure activity?

Mr D. Wilson: There are certain works that are necessary every day of the week, works of mercy, works of necessity, certain things that must be done, but I also believe there is a need for the worker to have time for common pause. I believe it both physically and spiritually and I feel that one of the reasons our civilization is rapidly decaying today is because we do not take that time to pause, to rest. As the native of Africa would tell you, he sits down periodically to allow his soul to catch up to his body. I believe that is vital and important in our society, in your life and in my life today.

Mr Carr: Would that mean also then that you are in favour of not having theatres open and going to bars and being able to drink beer at baseball games? Would you like to see those closed down as well?

Mr D. Wilson: I would prefer that we limit business as much as possible.

Mr Mills: I was very glad to hear what you had to say this afternoon. I would just like to preface with something I said in the Legislature on June 17 and then invite a quick response from you. In the Legislature on June 17 I said, "The times are laced with a fair dose of broken marriages, broken homes, tension and stress, and a common pause day will go far to relieve some of those things I have touched on." I realize, sir, that in your capacity as a minister you probably counsel people in troubled times. I just ask you briefly to say in your experience how you feel the times we live in, with the pressing for two jobs, is affecting some of the parishioners you see on a consultative basis.

Mr D. Wilson: Mr Mills, I would support anything that would allow our people, all peoples, to have that common pause day. I feel it is necessary that we have that. In my role as a professional minister I counsel many people, and the first thing I discover is that these people generally have little or no basis in the finer things of life. One day is the same as another to them.

The Acting Chair: On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you for your submission today. I would like to thank the town of Collingwood for hosting the standing committee on administration of justice, for having us here today. Seeing no further business, I will move adjournment until Tuesday, August 6, in Thunder Bay, at 9 am.

The committee adjourned at 1540.