PETERBOROUGH DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA
ONTARIO HOTEL AND MOTEL ASSOCIATION
PETERBOROUGH AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL
UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS, LOCALS 175/633
RETAIL, WHOLESALE AND DEPARTMENT STORE UNION
GREATER PETERBOROUGH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
FAMILY COALITION PARTY OF ONTARIO
CONTENTS
Wednesday 14 August 1991
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
Peterborough downtown business improvement area
Ontario Hotel and Motel Association
Tourism Ontario Inc
John Strano
Motels Ontario
Peterborough and District Labour Council
Georgina Board of Trade
Teddington Ltd
United Food and Commercial Workers, Locals 175/633
Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union
Greater Peterborough Chamber of Commerce
Family Coalition Party of Ontario
Testimony of Witness
Adjourned
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Chair: White, Drummond (Durham Centre NDP)
Vice-Chair: Morrow, Mark (Wentworth East 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:
Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC) for Mr Harnick
Klopp, Paul (Huron NDP) for Ms Gigantes
Kormos, Peter (Welland-Thorold NDP) for Mr Winninger
Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville NDP) for Mrs Mathyssen
Clerk: Freedman, Lisa
Staff: Campbell, Elaine, Research Officer, Legislative Research Service
1119
The committee met at 0900 at the Holiday Inn, Peterborough.
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 Chair: Before we start with our first witness, Mr Mills would like to make a point of clarification.
Mr Mills: Mr Chair, I think it is important to make this point of clarification. Since I got up this morning I have heard three newscasts on the local radio station calling this committee the Liberal Travelling Committee on Sunday Shopping. It names the three Liberal members but makes no mention of anyone else on this committee, that it is an all-party committee, or that it is the standing committee on administration of justice, and I think that should be clarified.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Mills. To clarify, this is the standing committee on administration of justice from the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.
PETERBOROUGH DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA
The Chair: Our first witness is Mrs Dorothy Mead, the co-ordinator of the Peterborough downtown business improvement area. Ms Mead, we have approximately half an hour. Please divide that time between your presentation, leaving some time for the members to pose questions, if you could.
Mrs Mead: Mr Chairman and members of this all-party committee, good morning, and welcome to Peterborough.
Mr Frank Gishman appeared in 1988 at a similar hearing on behalf of downtown Peterborough. He is now on vacation and has entrusted me with appearing before you.
My name is Dorothy Mead, and my job is to co-ordinate the program of the Peterborough downtown business improvement area. The more than 200 BIAs in Ontario are an effective self-help organization of businesses, and each is located in a designated area. We each pay a share of an additional tax, which is collected by the city and returned to us. This provides funding for our many programs to provide some services and perhaps some extra promotion or beautification of the downtown.
I am aware that repetition is to be avoided if possible; I have heard that mentioned at other meetings. However, we are here again.
In 1973 and 1974 a committee headed by the manager of Sears in Peterborough, Ken Ramsden, worked along with others in the province to successfully bring in the 1975 retail holiday store hours act. Since beginning this job in 1982, almost 10 years ago, I found the bill to be clear and effective, and very useful. Even so, the government of the day eventually did throw it out.
In 1986 a hearing was held in Peterborough, at which time the BIA stated that a survey of retail merchants indicated emphatically that they wished to have a common day of rest with their families. In 1988 we took another survey and repeated the procedure.
Mr Sorbara: Excuse me, in 1988 --
Mrs Mead: We took another survey, and that will be in the background information of our retailers and their opinions as to opening on Sundays.
In 1991, we appeared before another hearing. We have not, at this point, taken another survey. I am going to stay and listen and try to understand it a little bit better before I send out another survey.
There seem to be several areas of concern with the proposed legislation, I think. The first might be the broad criteria for tourism. Tourism provides a substantial contribution to the economy, and particularly in the Kawarthas area, and I think you will hear today how important it is.
However, forcing independents to open stores seven days a week will probably not improve the economy. It is the independents who really drive our economy; the retailer in particular, buying and selling. That is what makes our world go around, in our business anyway. They have to find time to look after their customers, to do their purchasing and buying -- which takes a considerable amount of time -- advertising, maintenance, and lately even more paperwork; and I am hearing complaints about that. As the bank manager recently said at one of our meetings, this paperwork is being done at night, from 6 to 10 at night.
As well, time must be found for helping with various activities in the community. The independents realize that whatever is good for the community is good for them, and they do have a broad viewpoint, they do help, not only in downtown, but throughout the whole community. They may sponsor a baseball team, take part in local theatre, and in many charitable organizations in our fine community. There is a great deal of participation in this community, and this would be lost if, as independents, we do not have a little bit of time to do this.
Last but not least -- this is really very important to our members -- time must be set aside for our families, and this is not to be overlooked. It is really very, very important to us. It is why, sometimes, we go into business, to have a little control. We may work long hours, we may work 14, 16 hours a day, but we still have some control over that time. I have been in business myself, and I know that is true. You make financial sacrifices; you are not making as much money as you did in Toronto, but it is worth it.
I predict that if this legislation comes into effect, as I see it -- and I may be wrong -- the number of retail entrepreneurs will noticeably decrease within two years. I know of another country where that has happened.
This appears to be a ploy to transfer market share from the independent to a few larger retailers. It should be noted that many successful larger retailers are on record as being strongly in favour of a common day off. I think that should be remembered. These are successful retailers who are managing at least to make ends meet in six days a week, and their employees are important to them.
Employees are important to a big business. I have worked in big business and I felt I was important then; and my employees when I was in business were important to me. We are not separate, we are working together. If I am good to them, then they are good to me and they help me out.
The second area of concern is the municipal option. The prediction of our mayor in 1988, that it will set community against community, may be right on; and it appears to me when I am making a few phone calls, that this may happen.
A third concern, and I do not quite understand it, is the 7500-square-foot criterion. I am going to listen to that and try and figure out how it works, and whether it is an inequity. Respectfully submitted, Dorothy Mead.
I had thought that Belleville and also the Ontario BIA might be here for a presentation; that is the reason I booked the time. Then I found that Ontario BIA were not ready to make a presentation yet, but will be doing so, probably in Hamilton.
I have not taken up very much of your time, but I have some experience and have worked for the BIA for some time, and I will be glad to try and answer any questions if you have any. I apologize for booking half an hour and not needing it.
The Chair: Mr Sorbara?
Mr Sorbara: Well, ma'am, I just want to tell you there is no need to apologize. Generally --
Mrs Mead: It is the other way around.
Mr Sorbara: Generally we do not have enough time to put all the questions we want to put to witnesses, so the fact that you have made a clear and precise presentation in a few minutes helps us out a little bit. That will give us enough time simply to probe a little bit and come to really understand your views.
First of all, do I take it that the business improvement area for Peterborough would like provincial regulation of shopping on Sunday to bring about as few store openings as possible for a Sunday, is that right?
Mrs Mead: I think that is a fair estimate, and that is borne out in my surveys in your package, yes. That question was asked of them. I believe in 1988 the chamber of commerce also asked that question, and yes, the majority by far would like provincial legislation.
Mr Sorbara: So the possibility of a provincial law that provides a municipal option is something you would not favour, is that right?
Mrs Mead: In 1988 we did not, but I have not done another survey on it since then.
0910
Mr Sorbara: What is your own personal view, though? The reason I ask is because my experience over the course of the past three and a half years, on the question of the extent to which Sunday shopping should or should not be allowed in Ontario, is that there has been a dramatic shift. Let me give you an example of what I mean: In 1988 and 1989, when we were considering the Liberal proposal for an unfettered municipal option -- in other words, to put it in the local context, giving the people of Peterborough the ability to decide for themselves the extent to which there would be Sunday shopping -- it was not met with great favour, to put it gently, although it did pass. There was a lot of concern that municipalities did not want this new responsibility.
Mrs Mead: I remember that.
Mr Sorbara: And yet last week, when we were in North Bay, the mayor of North Bay said that although North Bay had opposed the municipal option proposal in 1989, they are now very comfortable with having the ability to have an unfettered discretion to make their own rules for their own community. Has there been any change in the Peterborough area that you are aware of?
Mrs Mead: I would not know how the mayor feels about it at present. I think I know how the retailer feels: that shopping six days and six nights is probably sufficient.
I do not whether I am answering your question. You are saying, is there a change? Obviously, if Fenelon Falls and Bobcaygeon open, as they did under the 1975 law, no problem, but already I see the effect of perhaps one or two people deciding they want to open in Kingston; Belleville will feel it has to follow, etc.
Mr Sorbara: I have one final question and then my colleague, Hans Daigeler, apparently has a question.
During the period of about nine months when there was, in effect, no law in Ontario, because the Supreme Court of Ontario struck down Bill 113, the Liberal municipal option bill, and before the Ontario Court of Appeal reversed that decision, storekeepers right around the province were free to open or not open as they chose. What happened in Peterborough and what was the effect on commerce and shopping in Peterborough during that period?
Mrs Mead: I think I can answer that because I store-checked almost every week during that time. I checked the malls as well as downtown. You will see in your package an editorial from the Examiner that probably answers that question better than I can. Not very much happened.
Mr Sorbara: A few stores opened?
Mrs Mead: For a while, yes.
Mr Sorbara: Was there a sense in the Peterborough area that this situation had to be reversed, and it would not be tolerable to simply allow an unregulated market? What was the mood of the people?
Mrs Mead: I have not surveyed the people. This is a retail store owners' problem. Ask that question again.
Mr Sorbara: I am sorry if it is so confusing.
Mrs Mead: I am not confused. I am just --
Mr Sorbara: I want to know, were people opposed to the notion in Peterborough that a storekeeper could open if he or she wanted to during that period? Was there any sort of movement to bring about either a municipal bylaw or a new provincial law to ensure that their freedom to open was curtailed as soon as possible?
Mrs Mead: What happened eventually -- getting towards Christmas, there was no movement like that. I called the managers of other larger stores. I think it started with Zellers opening downtown, and when Towers was taken over by Zellers it opened. Therefore, the Woolco manager said, "Well, I must open." The Sears manager -- I do not know whether he opened or not, but I believe he did -- then K mart, etc, so there was an effect at that time, yes.
I think I am aware of the public because I have done canvassing for various things, and the general public here are not keen on it. They can live without Sunday shopping. It appeared that they could, anyway.
Mr Sorbara: Could they live with Sunday shopping, not the storekeepers, but people in general?
Mrs Mead: Sure. I think even business people would think that is fine. They may have a service business and think: "I'm busy six days a week. I'll go and shop on Sunday." I guess they feel it is not right. We go into business to have some control over our lives, and competition will require that we open. Absolutely.
Mr Daigeler: By the way, I should indicate -- perhaps the Chairman might want to repeat this from time to time, because I do not think the witnesses are that familiar with the setup of the committee -- this is the Liberal side, that is the Conservative side, and that is the government side over here.
Mrs Mead: Thank you, because the faces have changed in the last while.
Mr Daigeler: That is right.
Mrs Mead: I am lost.
Mr Daigeler: The official opposition gets the chance to ask questions first, then it goes to the Conservative party and then the government party is able to ask some questions.
My question really relates to the message we heard from the Kingston business improvement area, which is very different from what you are conveying to us. I wonder whether you object to the Kingston organization going in a totally different direction. In other words, do you have a problem with them doing what they feel is right for their area and you doing what you feel is right for your own area?
Mrs Mead: I will be telephoning around and finding out what the other business improvement areas are doing. No, that is not a problem. I think each BIA will be making its own presentation.
Mr Daigeler: This, of course, relates back to the municipal option. We as Liberals have taken the position that if a certain area wants to stay open, that is fine. If an area such as yours wants to stay closed, that is fine as well. That should be decided locally, and as Mr Sorbara said, we really have heard quite often now that this solution seems to have worked quite well.
I come from the Ottawa area. Our own regional council made representation to the committee to say that while they opposed that solution some two years ago, they now favour it. I just want to leave that thought because you answered the question already that perhaps the wisest thing is to leave the thing as it is because it seems to be working. Those areas that want to open can open and those that want to stay closed can stay closed.
Mr Carr: Thank you very much for your presentation this morning. We have been going around the province for the last few weeks and I think it has become very clear there are going to be large sections of this province that are going to be open for Sunday shopping. For example, Windsor, Thunder Bay, Kenora and Collingwood have all said that they are going to pass laws to take the tourist exemption and have their areas open. Some are not; North Bay said it will not; Sudbury, I think, said it would not. But regardless, there are going to be significant portions of this province that are going to have Sunday shopping under this law.
You seem to be saying that the people in Peterborough do not want Sunday shopping, so in light of the fact that this bill is going to give it to large sections of the province, what would you like to see done? Would you like to see the entire bill withdrawn and leave it with the province to say, "No Sunday shopping." Is that what you think might be the best solution?
Mrs Mead: I think people will shop a great deal. They did shop in grocery stores here on Sunday. I think if there are that many opening on Sunday, Peterborough would probably follow, but that would be up to the individual stores.
Mr Carr: One of the things that has come up, and I think you mentioned it a little bit in some of the material there, is that if some other communities open up, it would put pressure on them. They might not want to do it, but when they see their neighbours --
Mrs Mead: We have stores with regional draw here. They draw for maybe 100 miles, so the store owners would certainly have to look at that.
0920
Mr Carr: You are not unlike Collingwood where people come from other parts of Toronto on weekends because of the beautiful lakes and so on. Many people have come from, for example, the greater Toronto area. They were saying one of the reasons they will be open and take the tourist exemption is that people do not necessarily spend more money on a weekly basis. Because they have such an influx, particularly on the summer weekends, of people from other areas, they would like to stay open because those people will go back to Toronto and spend their money, where they would spend it in this region. They see some situations where they are going to be able to get some money pumped into their local region.
I was wondering what your thoughts were, whether you think that is the case, or will people who come up here not go shopping, even for groceries or something, until they go back to Toronto. What do you think might happen?
Mrs Mead: When the boating is not good, the business improves in Peterborough, yes. Certainly the tourism aspect is important. We also have an all-year-round -- we are sort of a small, complete city. We are a tourist area, but also much more than that.
Mr Carr: One of the big concerns is more the family-owned type of businesses. We have heard from a lot of communities that say, whether it is students or whatever, there is a long list of people to work on the weekends. That is for companies large enough to have employees. But the big problem is there are some people who appeared before us who are too small and they do not have employees. It is just the wife, the husband and maybe some of the children, and it puts pressure on them. Maybe the other people could get somebody else to do the work, but they cannot because there is no money. The store is that small. I was wondering what your feeling is in the Peterborough area where a great proportion of the stores are small, family-run situations where there would be a lot of pressure on them to have to work themselves if they were open.
Mrs Mead: I had a store with about eight to ten employees and that is still considered, I think, a small family business. We used to be able to give students enough work during the week and on Friday nights and Saturdays, in those days, almost to put them through school. They do need time to study and time for their families. But you are saying that, yes, the owners would have to work on Sundays. I saw that. I saw the managers who were required to open in the malls and they were working nearly every Sunday themselves, rather than ask employees. These employees are not distant people; they are the people you are working with and you know they have plans for a Sunday and you generally end up working yourself.
You also have to supervise. If you have a business that is specialized and maybe the cost of the goods is into several hundred dollars, if an error is made, you may have lost your profit for the day. So you need some supervision, enough control to know that your customers are being well looked after. If it is a dime store type of operation, that is fine, but even if you have students working for you, somebody must be in control to give the customers service.
Mr Carr: There was a poll done province-wide which I think shows all communities are divided 50-50. The total does not vary too much by region, but I think this region did have a little bit. In other words, across the province it is about split, but in some regions there are maybe five percentage points either way and this is one of the areas where there were more people opposed to Sunday shopping. But it is very close in all regions. Is that your guess?
Mrs Mead: I do not think so. I suspect the stores are not aware of what is happening. That is what I think at this point.
Mr Carr: Of the bill, you mean?
Mrs Mead: Yes. That is why I cannot answer because I do not have the input. They think everything is fine now and they believed the NDP, that Sunday shopping would be under control. They really believe it and I think that is where they think we are at now.
Mr Morrow: Thank you very much for appearing before us today, Mrs Mead. That was a fine presentation. You probably took just the right amount of time so a lot of questions can be asked by all three parties to bring out basically what we need to bring out. We basically have a draft piece of legislation here that we are trying to come out to the public with and fine-tune it. With your help we can fine-tune this.
We have gone around the province and found a lot of small business people, municipal representatives, labour people and church people actually in agreement with a common pause day, so I just thought I would let you know that.
Mrs Mead: I am totally aware of that, thank you.
Mr Morrow: You ask about 7,500 square feet and you wonder about that criterion. Can I just ask you what you would like.
Mrs Mead: I think that is complicated and I am just going to watch. I do not understand how that works at this point. I am sorry.
Mr Morrow: That is fine. You also made a comment about the municipal option. I just wanted to let you know we were removing that and bringing in the tourist exemption which is a whole big part of the amendments.
Mr Lessard: I want to thank you as well for making your presentation here today. Often I do not get a chance to ask all the questions I want, so I appreciate that opportunity.
Mrs Mead: You can tell I am experienced at coming to these hearings.
Mr Lessard: In your brief, you express a fear that small, independent stores might feel pressured to remain open on Sundays. I am trying to determine the reason you feel there is that fear and where that pressure would be coming from.
Mrs Mead: We are competitive and we will protect our market share, so we will either go for the seven days or get out of the retail business.
Mr Lessard: But there must be some pressure from somewhere. Does it come from larger retailers? Does it come from the shopping malls? Does it come from a few businesses within the downtown BIA? Does it come from outside the city, the pressure to open on Sunday?
Mrs Mead: I think I can explain that. A department store would say to me on Monday, "Dorothy, did you check the stores on Sunday?" I would say, "Nothing was open in your category." Fine, so they remain closed. If I had reported back, yes, there were several stores in their price point and category, their head office would have required them to open, I believe.
Mr Lessard: You said your experience in the past was that there were some grocery stores open and you mentioned Zellers and Towers.
Mrs Mead: Towers only after it was bought by Hudson's Bay Co.
Mr Lessard: Do you think small retailers in the downtown BIA would feel pressure to open if a place like Zellers or K mart were open on Sunday?
Mrs Mead: They did not at the time.
Mr Lessard: But they may feel that pressure over time, do you think?
Mrs Mead: They were watching carefully, yes.
Mr Lessard: Would you agree that tourism is important to the economy of Peterborough and should be encouraged?
Mrs Mead: I have a viewpoint that is not very popular but I think I am a little bit knowledgeable, having been personally looking after customers for 25 years in an A-one location in Peterborough, so I knew where my customers were coming from. Most of the money put into the economy by tourism in this area, in my opinion, goes to the operators and that money comes back to us in September, October and November. This is a view I do not think a lot of people share, but I know from experience, I could tell that if we had a good summer, business would be good in Peterborough in the fall in downtown. So yes, the general economy influx is like education, hospitals, everything else, vital and very important to the economy, and anything that can be done to resolve the major problems in that area will certainly help us.
Mr Lessard: You understand that one of the aspects of the proposed bill is to permit retailers serving the tourist market to have the option to be able to open on Sunday?
Mrs Mead: I did present to you 101 things you can do in Peterborough on a Sunday.
Mr Lessard: Other than shopping.
Mrs Mead: I can make that 201, if you want to mention during the week. There is Arbor Theatre, there is the Festival of Lights and all kinds of things, tourism-oriented, to spend your money on. But I think a business owner should not be required to provide entertainment. That is not our job; it is buying and selling. It is really a serious business. We are providing something for our customers and a service.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Lessard. Thank you very much, Mrs Mead, for a very interesting presentation.
Mrs Mead: I want to emphasize at this point that I was speaking mostly for myself and I will go back and try to get something else from our membership and get back. Thank you.
0930
ONTARIO HOTEL AND MOTEL ASSOCIATION
The Chair: Our next presentation is from the Ontario Hotel and Motel Association, Mr Jim Ryder, who is vice-president of the member services. Mr Ryder, we have about half an hour. Please divide that time between your presentation and allowing some time for questions from the committee members.
Mr Ryder: I would like to thank you initially for giving me this opportunity to present to you what is our position on Sunday and holiday retail shopping.
The Ontario Hotel and Motel Association represents over 1,200 owners and operators of restaurants, taverns, hotels, motels, resorts and lodges throughout the province of Ontario. This membership represents 5,100 bedrooms and over 150,000 licensed dining and tavern seats. We employ over 45,000 people. These are full-time positions. This number does increase during holiday seasons such as the summer and Christmas holidays, etc. Personally I have been involved in a small family tavern in the city of Peterborough for over 15 years. I feel I speak with some experience.
The OHMA respectfully requests that this committee recommend to the Legislature that Ontario encourage tourism visitors by having unrestricted retail shopping on Sundays and holidays in all areas of the province, as dictated by the market. We also request that there are no limitations on this whatsoever. This unrestricted shopping is vital to our economy and the tourist industry. Our economy is market-driven. Consumers will decide. They should have the freedom of choice to decide where to shop and when to do so. If they choose Sundays, that is their choice, not ours. Any restrictions on retail shopping are a form of economic blackmail, especially in a free market economy.
Ontario people deserve the right to work on a Sunday. A number of our students are part-time employees. This is a time that they can work. They should be allowed that right.
Retail shopping is very important for the tourist. They desire it, they want it. Most retail shopping, dining out, recreation activities take place on a Sunday. That is why a lot of people go across the border to shop on a Sunday. Tourism in 1990 generated direct expenditures of $15.5 billion, with an estimated total income -- this includes such things as bedrooms, etc -- of $22.5 billion. It is one of the greatest generators of income for various levels of government. For example, in 1989 the province of Ontario taxes, etc, on tourism were $1.85 billion, the federal government $2.5 billion and $300 million to various municipal governments. It is a very important aspect of revenue generation.
Closing of retail businesses on Sundays has meant a loss of jobs and the jobs are to the people who need them immensely: students -- this is the way they get their income to go to school -- our visible minorities, our indigenous people. These are the people who are employed in the tourism industry. These are the people who need the jobs.
One of the largest opponents of unrestricted retail shopping is our labour unions. They are saying it is unfair. It is unfair that people work at stadiums on Sundays, but they do. I do agree with them that it is completely unfair to take a person who is hired on a job today and is working Monday to Saturday and say, "You have to work Sundays now," but if somebody else comes along, given unrestricted shopping, I do not think it is unfair to them to say, "Part of working this job is that you may or you will have to work Sundays." I do not see any unfairness to this. Nurses know that when they go into the job. People who work in large factories such as Stelco know that when they go into the job. They accept that as part of the job.
Your recommendation to legislate protection for retail workers through the Employment Standards Act amendment is also somewhat unfair. For current employees this amendment is unnecessary, as this would, in my mind anyways, represent a substantial change in the conditions of employment which is not allowed under the current act.
Perhaps my personal situation will illustrate what I am trying to get at. Tourism is vital. The downtown core of Peterborough is terrible on a Sunday because there is no draw, there is no reason to get them into the downtown core. I do not open on Sundays, although I am currently allowed to. I can operate 365 days a year. Why? There is nobody here. There is no sense in me opening. Nobody will come in. Perhaps if shopping was brought down here I would open. I might add, I would not force current employees to work on a Sunday; I would give them that option, and if they chose not to, that is their choice.
In closing, I really hope you weigh this decision carefully. It is vital for tourism, it is vital for some of our retailers. It is very, very important and it means literally millions upon millions of dollars not only to business people but also to government.
Mr Sorbara: As a tavern owner your hours are regulated by the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario and often -- well, you will forgive the board if it is operating in the 1970s, but government works somewhat more slowly than the real world. The 1870s, did my friend from Prescott and Russell say?
Mr Kormos: You were the minister longer than I was, Mr Sorbara.
Mr Sorbara: Do not remind me.
Mr Ryder: This is not about that.
Mr Sorbara: No, it is not. So there is regulation of hours. You can stay open 365 days a day a year. You argue in your brief, I think effectively, that there should be absolutely no restriction on hours of shopping. I just want to remind you that municipalities, the city of Peterborough in this case, have the right to regulate store hours on six days a week, and they exercise that right. They can require, for example, that malls be closed by 10 o'clock, or they could say by 5 o'clock, although they would not dare do that. Do you think that the power that the city of Peterborough has to regulate store hours Monday to Saturday should extend to Sunday? In other words, do you object to the notion that Sunday be treated like each of the other days of commerce that municipalities now regulate?
0940
Mr Ryder: I question whether the municipalities should have the power to regulate hours. As I say, the market will dictate. If it is not worth while opening, people will not open. For example, I am allowed to open at 11 o'clock. I choose not to open until 12 o'clock because it is not worth it for that hour. There are other restaurants and taverns in town that do not open until four o'clock or five o'clock in the afternoon. They are allowed to open at 11 o'clock. They choose not to on their own because the market dictates that they do not.
Mr Poirier: You seem to hold a pretty high-up position as vice-president for members' services for OHMA. What do you know from your experience of the problem between management and staff pertaining to working on Sunday? I am glad that you said you do not expect your current staff to be forced arbitrarily to work on Sundays.
Mr Ryder: No, that is unfair.
Mr Poirier: What have you heard in the business globally? Have you heard any nightmare stories? Is it a common problem? Is it rare? What do you hear?
Mr Ryder: Traditionally the industry has been a seven-days-a-week industry. Someone applying for a job in the hospitality industry realizes that Sundays, holidays, etc, are big business times and they accept the fact, "I am applying for a job in this industry and I will have to work Sundays."
Mr Poirier: How about in Peterborough here when it was wide-open Sunday shopping? Did you hear of some conflicts like that?
Mr Ryder: I did not hear of any personally. In fact, six or seven of the people who come into my place are from Food City which is just up the street. They said: "Well, I've got to work Sunday. Oh, well." One out of six or whatever it works out to be.
Mr Poirier: You are not personally knowledgeable of any conflict that there could have been?
Mr Ryder: No, I did not hear any bad comments.
Mr Daigeler: Your position is obviously very different from the one that we just heard, and I think you were here. I also reread what was given to us describing the situation in Peterborough over the last few years, and certainly in the documentation it seemed quite clear there was a lot of opposition to Sunday shopping. Did you make a presentation at the time the Liberal legislation was being discussed? Did you put your viewpoint forward at that time as well in the same way you did today?
Mr Ryder: No, I did not.
Mr Daigeler: If not you, your organization?
Mr Ryder: The OHMA did make presentations at that time. Unfortunately, I was out of the country.
Mr Daigeler: The Peterborough OHMA did make --
Mr Ryder: No. I am the representative from this area and unfortunately at that time I was out of the country.
Mr Daigeler: My question is whether the hotel and motel operators made strong representation at that time -- not perhaps yourself.
Mr Ryder: I quite honestly cannot answer that. Perhaps individually somebody did, but the association did not make representation in Peterborough at that time.
Mr Carr: One of the concerns that has been voiced about this particular legislation is the fact that with it being left up to municipalities, the tourism criteria are so broad that almost any part of the province could fall under it, but politicians being what they are, they can interpret it any way they want. So it is broad enough it could be open, but if those municipal politicians do not want Sunday shopping, they can interpret it and say, "No, that didn't mean our area." Is that the problem you have with the legislation, that we have really taken the responsibility for this and given it over to the municipalities? Do you have a problem with that?
Mr Ryder: That is something of a problem, yes. What is a tourist area? Is Hamilton a tourist area? It is a big factory town, but they have excellent tourist attractions, for example, the botanical gardens, the basilica, the escarpment, all of that area attracts tourists. But if you ask somebody in Hamilton, is this a tourist area? they would say: "No, it's a factory town. It's a lunch-bucket city." I am born and raised in Hamilton, I may add, worked at Stelco.
Kingston: Again, if you asked people they would probably say it is a university town. They have some gorgeous examples of limestone architecture. It is a tourist town, is it not?
The second problem with that is the time limit. Over time, things change. Today it might not be tourist; 10 years from now, it may be.
Mr Carr: One, as a result of that, and two, by having the municipalities decide, what we are going to have is a patchwork. We are going to have some areas open, some not, and it is going to be very confusing for everyone involved. The question is how much is going to be open and how much is going to be closed, and there are going to be certain significant portions of the area. As somebody involved with your association, do you see that as a problem for people coming in, the confusion part of it, not knowing?
Mr Ryder: Very definitely. You could equate it to our Canada Elections Act, where if there is a by-election, bars, restaurants and taverns on one side of the street cannot serve alcohol while on the other side of the street they can. The same thing could happen with this. The municipality of North York decides it is a tourist area, and I am not sure what is next. Let's say Etobicoke says no and the boundary is up the middle of the street, and you are coming up here from New York going, "What? It doesn't make any sense. It's the same street."
Mr Carr: That is great. Thank you very much.
Mr Kormos: I should tell you, I share your bewilderment at the ban on selling liquor on federal election days. There is certainly no evidence that sober voters have been more successful in creating new governments than inebriated ones.
Let's talk about downtown. I tell you, I do not think there is one of us who did not take a walk into at least part of your downtown area last night. We got here a little bit late in the day, but there is barely one of us who was not interested in seeing downtown Peterborough. It is a downtown not dissimilar at all from downtown Welland or downtown Thorold or downtown small-town Ontario in a whole lot of places.
Mr Ryder: That is true.
Mr Kormos: And it is a downtown which has been impacted by the plaza development that occurs on the periphery, it is a downtown that suffered by shifts in consumer style. But it also a downtown that still, the vitality that is there, is very much owed, by and large, to smaller, personally hands-on, family-run types of businesses, without large staffs, in many cases without any staff at all.
Again, a little bit of my background: In my own family, my father worked in a factory, but we also ran a family business where there were no employees, because it was not the type of business where there was enough of a margin there. I worked there, my parents worked there, and brothers and sisters did.
Some downtown merchants say: "Look, we can handle six days a week. Our family can sustain our business six days a week. If we are forced, drawn, lured, coerced" -- any sort of language you want to use, but the reality is that if a plaza clothing store is open seven days a week, then the downtown tailor or haberdasher is going to feel some distinct pressure to open, and the history over that period of unrestricted Ontario tended to illustrate that, at least in part, over that short period of time. I have some people saying that wide-open Sunday shopping may well be the final nail in the coffin for small-town downtowns, because small business, family businesses, the types of businesses that tend to sustain small-town downtowns are going to be the ones that simply cannot carry on seven days a week, cannot provide the service and cannot afford to --
It is not simply a matter of hiring staff. The profit margins simply are not there, especially in difficult times. Often it is the hard times we are in right now that people are using to explain why they would want seven-days-a-week shopping. On the contrary, it is those same hard times and some reduced consumption that make it impossible for small business people to stay open seven days a week.
Again, you are a family-run operation that does operate seven days a week.
0950
Mr Ryder: No, we do not right now. We have chosen not to.
Mr Kormos: Fair enough. Perhaps you would choose to if circumstances were different. It is perhaps a business that can utilize staff or employees, more so than some others that have to provide a particular or peculiar type of service. Can you talk about that a little bit?
Mr Ryder: First of all, in family-run businesses, the seventh day is somewhat of a myth. I am closed on Sundays. That does not mean I do not work a Sunday.
Mr Kormos: Fair enough. I cannot dispute that.
Mr Ryder: The seventh day is a myth. Quite honestly, if Sunday shopping were allowed, I think perhaps a lot of these people would find that profit margins would increase somewhat and this would allow for the hiring of an employee, say, for a Sunday, perhaps a cousin in a family-run organization, who will work for a little bit less than maybe somebody else.
First of all, quite simply, in a place where you have a lease, you are paying rent seven days a week. Every dollar that you get in on that seventh day, apply it directly to the rent.
Mr Kormos: I have no quarrel with that, but the reality is you are paying rent 24 hours a day too, are you not?
Mr Ryder: I am not arguing with that, but you cannot realistically operate 24 hours a day. Again, it is a matter of economic viability. If it is worth while to open on a Sunday, people will open; if it is not, they will close. The people who are choosing are the general public, because they are the ones who are coming into your store, your restaurant, your tavern, your whatever. They will decide.
Perhaps in your example of the local tailor, he could say to the people: "Take the measurements and leave your clothes. You'll pick them up at Joe's Tailors on Wednesday." It works. Most times when you go in to buy a pair of pants, in a lot of stores you do not see who is hemming them. The salesman marks them up and you pick them up Wednesday. Who hems them? I do not know. Somebody does, obviously.
Mr Kormos: That is the difference between the plaza store and the chain and the family-run business that sells suits.
Mr Ryder: My example right now is the family-run business in this city.
Mr Kormos: I have never bought a pair of pants in Peterborough. Maybe today is the day.
Mr Poirier: How about some cowboy boots?
Mr Kormos: Do you sell boots here in Peterborough?
Mr Ryder: Yes, some nice boots.
Mr Morrow: Thank you very much, fellow former Hamiltonian.
Mr Ryder: Delta high school.
Mr Morrow: I went to Scott Park. I am also a former employee of Stelco, so I do understand what you are saying when you talk about the aspects of Hamilton being a lunch-bucket city.
Mr Ryder: It was not meant as an insult.
Mr Morrow: Oh, no; 10 years ago it was, but with things changing so drastically since the recession of 1981-82, Hamilton has drastically changed.
I said I am also a former person from Hamilton because now I reside in Stoney Creek, which reminds me an awful lot of Peterborough. You know what Stoney Creek is like. There is a store right beside where my office is in Stoney Creek, and I have had a lot of talks with the store owner about Sunday shopping and what effects it had on her when it was wide open. She basically said there was no new money created, it was all money just shifted around the week. She was talking about having to pay her employees on a Sunday.
This is leading into a question I was going to ask you. You said that without Sunday shopping, we would lose jobs. It has been proven by the United Food and Commercial Workers that when we had wide-open Sunday shopping between June and November 1990, A&P stores in Ontario lost 202 full-time jobs. In the same period of time, to December 1990, their hours went down by 3.14%. Would you care to make a comment on that?
Mr Ryder: I cannot say, and I do not think they can either, that this is directly a cause of Sunday shopping. As you well know, during this time our economy was also falling. Because it is a service industry, it creates less jobs. As far as Sunday shopping not creating -- there is no extra money around, that is true, but on a Sunday I may decide to go down to a ball game in Toronto rather than let my wife go out shopping. My wife wants to go out shopping, but there is nothing to shop for, so I say: "You don't need the money. I'll go down and watch a ball game."
Mr Morrow: You are giving a really interesting scenario there. We have been hearing for two weeks now how Sunday shopping is going to help the recession, how it is going to create jobs, and I have just given you something that was said during the last wide-open Sunday shopping. We have lost jobs, and yes, there was a recession. Anyway, I want to thank you for being here today.
Mr Ryder: My question is back to you. Was the reason for the loss in jobs because of Sunday shopping or was it because of the recession?
Mr Morrow: I think if you talk to somebody from the UFCW, you will find that it is directly related to Sunday shopping.
Mr Ryder: I do not think they can say that, quite honestly.
The Chair: We have different views on that. We will leave it at that. Thank you very much, Mr Ryder; a very interesting presentation.
TOURISM ONTARIO INC
The Chair: Our next witness is Mr William Morrison, who is representing Tourism Ontario Inc. As you know, you have approximately half an hour. Please feel free to use that time as you wish. The various party caucuses I am sure will have many questions for you.
Mr W. Morrison: I will try to be as brief as I can. You have, I trust, a copy of my presentation before you. Rather than take up your valuable time, I will skip pages 1 and 2, which outline what the organization Tourism Ontario comprises, and in addition to that the economic impact that tourism has in Ontario. I am sure you have heard this many times in the dissertations that have been in front of you in the last two weeks, so perhaps we can get on to some other subjects.
Thank you for the opportunity to put before you the views of 7,000 tourist businesses which Tourism Ontario represents. Of these, by far the majority are small businesses. As I mentioned before, on pages 1 and 2 of this brief I have listed the significance of the tourism component from the standpoint of job employment, tax revenues and generally tourism's contribution to the overall economic impact to Ontario. I will not read these several points. You have had these put before you before.
We are puzzled as an industry as to what the government wishes to accomplish by the introduction of the restrictive common pause legislation in the form of Bill 115. It is noted that 15 of 10,000, a mere 15/100ths of 1%, of all complaints registered with the employment standards branch of the Ministry of Labour had to do with Sunday work.
Is it the quality of life of those who work during the common pause days that is in question? It is a fact that thousands of Ontarians, both those working for municipal or provincial government as well as business, must work weekends, particularly those we employ in tourism and tourism-related jobs.
Our current standard of living is such that it is common that two breadwinners must supply the income to provide an acceptable standard of living. Our standard of living has increased dramatically over the last three decades. In a great many cases, it is to the advantage of the employee when work is available on the common pause day since the partner, for example, can be home with children.
1000
From a local perspective, as you can imagine, it is quite a discussion here also in Peterborough. I would like to draw your attention to an article taken from our local newspaper, the Examiner, and in particular the note of Father Geoff Howson. He remains ambivalent on the Sunday shopping/common day of rest issue and is quoted as saying: "I don't make a big issue out of it. If people want to go to church, they will go."
In personal experience, having spent some 20 years in the accommodation business and responding to inquiries from tourists, I and my front desk staff have provided an information service. Foremost of all inquiries is, "What are the attractions in the area?" followed closely by, "Where are the shopping areas?" In the period of time we have been in the accommodation business, several recessions have taken place but none equalling the current experience. We read of major hotels on the verge of going into bankruptcy, and the Skyline was an example of that. Speaking with my colleagues across Ontario, it is not uncommon for them to cite reductions of 20%, in some cases more, in occupancies this current year.
This is a situation that is vastly different from such centres as Watertown, New York, where shopping centres and accommodations are doing a booming business. This cross-border shopping seems to be becoming a mindset of cheaper pricing and tax savings, and oft-times citizens, should they do an exact comparison, would realize they are not saving that much when all expenses are accounted for.
It has been estimated that the average Canadian ends up with $35 of every $100 earned, the remainder going to governments. Note it is plural; it is not just the provincial government. It is little wonder that cross-border shopping is of such magnitude. A significant portion of cross-border shopping occurs on weekends, including Sundays. In view of significant lost revenues, when business opportunities on this side of the border are available, which in turn results in employment, we must take advantage of it or someone else will.
It has been our own business experience that some 15 years ago 30% of occupancy in our prime tourist season would originate from the northern tier of the United States. That percentage has shrunk to 1% to 2% currently. It is sort of a rare occurrence when you see one or two American licence plates in our parking lot.
Recently, a new merchandising gambit has come to light whereby a telephone call to a 1-800 number gives the caller the opportunity of telephone ordering, and US merchandise is delivered across the border to their homes. What legalities there are in this I do not know, but I heard that on the TV. In addition to that, another 1-800 number informs the prospective shopper where the best bargains are located across the border. These bargain-seekers do not realize the effects of lost revenues to Ontario and Canada, where tax dollars are needed to support our social programs. I personally wonder if it would be of any benefit for the government to implement a media information program outlining what effect the millions of dollars of lost taxes represent. The municipalities want no part of administering Bill 115; they see the inequities that will develop. At the last AMO convention, municipal delegates voted against administering this bill.
Although our industry represented by Tourism Ontario is, and remains, on public record as favouring unrestricted Sunday and holiday shopping as a vital and integral part of tourism as well as the unrestricted right of Ontarians to work, earn incomes and profit from the production of sales of goods and services any day of the week, we are pleased that the Ontario government is prepared, in a positive and substantial way, to recognize the value and importance of tourism in this legislation.
We commend the provincial Minister of Tourism and Recreation, the Honourable Peter North, and this staff for convincing provincial cabinet and government caucus that the diversity of factors which encourage tourism and travel to and within the province should be reflected in the proposed criteria for tourist area exemptions and permit substantial retail business activity within these areas on Sundays and holidays. Thank you for your attention.
Mr Poirier: Thank you for your presentation, Mr Morrison. Obviously you are quite involved with the tourism association. I am glad to see that you appreciate this tourist designation. You are from the Otonabee Inn in Peterborough. From your experience, sir, if the unrestricted access to Sunday shopping is proposed and happens to Peterborough the way you and your association support, would you describe to me what kind of impact that would have on those who operate tourism operations like yours, for example? If you had unrestricted shopping, would that add to your potential for business, remain the same or be less? What do you see?
Mr W. Morrison: The shopping component of any holiday is very real. I am sure that, in your own experience, after you have enjoyed the sights to be seen, the attractions, etc, if a rainy day comes you will not be golfing; your wife will probably get you to a shopping mall somewhere. It is a very real and important component.
Mr Kormos had a very valid question as to possible dilution. I believe, and my association believes, that the marketplace will sift out, as it were, those which will be of business viability. During the time there was open shopping here in Peterborough Square, for instance, initially the merchants were all encouraged to stay open. However, it was not too long before you walked through that centre and there were not many local people and not many tourists in there and there were also closed doors. The individuals elected, where there was not a viable business demand, to close their doors.
Mr Poirier: If those non-tourist retail outfits, as opposed to the obviously tourist one like yours, remained open -- and maybe with time more would remain open -- how do you think it would affect your business? Would you be better off, as well off or worse off?
Mr W. Morrison: Anything that increases the tourism component and experience in any given location as far as attractions, shopping, etc, obviously you have a better area to market.
1010
Mr Poirier: Therefore, what is perceived in this bill as non-touristic and what is perceived to be touristic, maybe they are more interrelated economically than people at first may perceive. Would you agree with that?
Mr W. Morrison: Yes, certainly.
Mr Sorbara: I note that the position of most tourist operators is that they prefer people to be able to make free choices, and they are against the municipal option. I will confess my position to you on this bill. It seems to me to provide yet another variant of municipal options for municipalities. When you get right down to the heart of the bill, it does not give any satisfaction for the tourism industry at all because it provides that a bylaw to open stores may be passed only if there is compliance with tourism criteria set out in the regulations made under this section, so you have to comply with the criteria. But then it says in subsection 4(7), "The council is not required to pass the bylaw even if the tourism criteria are met." Do you see administrative problems or legal problems if a group of stores has established it really is a tourist destination and then a council arbitrarily refuses to pass a bylaw under this section?
Mr W. Morrison: Mr Sorbara, that is one of our main concerns. Depending on the persuasiveness of the given store management, they may be able to open in one municipality, but a counterpart in an adjacent community may not. In other words, it was a political decision of the municipality, and it does not abide by the criteria or creed of, "Is it fair to all concerned?"
Mr Sorbara: That does not give you any encouragement that there is going to be fairness under this bill. It certainly does not give me any.
Mr W. Morrison: We can see some inequities developing, possibly. Once given the decision I am not that sure it could be reopened to council.
Mr Sorbara: Right. Thank you.
Mr Carr: Thank you very much for your presentation. With your organization, do you have any idea what the average size of the members would be, a ballpark guess?
Mr W. Morrison: Mr Carr, I am not here representing motels per se, today. I am here representing Tourism Ontario, which is made up of attractions, campgrounds and the whole gamut as listed on page 1. It is very difficult to say. I do not think we have calculated what the average employment per business would be. But generally speaking, it is small business.
Mr Carr: That is what I was getting at, because as you know one of the themes coming out has been that big business wants it open and that small business does not. That is not the case, and I wanted to see, because your membership is made up of small business people as well. When you look at a situation like the one Mr Kormos was indicating earlier, where small family businesses may be put out of business as a result of having to open Sunday, the potential could be that small one- or two-family types of operations could be put out of business if you do not have Sunday opening. Is that your membership's feeling?
Mr W. Morrison: That is true. There are certain circumstances where the through-the-week traffic is very light and the major amount of business is done during the weekend, both Saturday and Sunday.
Mr Carr: Just for the benefit of the people in this area, because your organization has been fairly consistent, with the situation as it is now, you would like to see this bill completely withdrawn, then, so that there is not the option for municipalities to opt in or out based on tourist exemptions.
Mr W. Morrison: That is true. The bottom line we would like to see is to revert to prior to the previous government, where it was more or less left open.
Mr Carr: I think even your organization praised the tourism minister for pushing this on the agenda. I think without the tourism minister there would not have been the exemptions, and in one of the briefs they said they thanked him for that. They were not happy with the bill, but they said at least there was one individual in there pushing. It has been said that this government listened to the people in the tourism industry when it designed this bill, but the fact is that you come before us and say you are not happy with it. I just wondered why the contradiction.
Mr W. Morrison: If you will note on page 6, again, the exemptions that were provided in this bill we are very pleased with. We realize that Minister North did go to bat for us in caucus, for which we are very grateful.
Mr Carr: But overall you still would rather see the government withdraw the bill, that it was something that you are pleased with but your best case would be to have it withdrawn.
Mr W. Morrison: Our official position is included in the last paragraph of our brief.
Mr Carr: Right. Thank you very much.
Mr Mills: Thank you, Mr Morrison, for your brief, which is very informative and has some very good ideas. I have said many times in this hearing that we are here to listen and take back the ideas that folks present to us to consider when we make the final regulations going with Bill 115. I would just like to say that and ask you a question.
Over the years in Ontario we have come a long way in days off and family life and family values. One time a day is difficult, but now we seem to recognize that there should be a time for families to get together; there should be that common pause day. I think there have been many battles fought over that for the last 100 years, that I can remember. I have read your brief. Do you think that the values of society today should be the marketplace in economics? Is that the prime concern, do you think? Is it changing?
Mr W. Morrison: Sir, I can speak from some 57 years of experience in living that the sense of morals and standards are changing dramatically, together with what people perceive as standards of living: two cars in the driveway, three colour televisions, etc. That is real; unfortunately, that has become a fact of life, and in order to do that, you have to derive income. You are asking me a question that I do not know where the end is.
Mr Mills: Just your opinion.
Mr W. Morrison: That is a very difficult question to answer on a personal note. I have worked six days and six nights for many years in order to clothe and house my own family and have been ultimately rewarded well by it and have been in a position to provide for my family quite adequately. But it came through hard work. Given the choice of, do I work Sunday and build educational funds for my family, yes. I can hopefully make time at another point during the week to compensate for Sunday.
1020
The Vice-Chair: Mr Fletcher, if you can make it really brief, please.
Mr Fletcher: I will try to make it as brief as I can. Thank you for appearing before us today. It is always nice to see you here and I am glad you do recognize the fact that this government is making tourism a very important part of this piece of legislation.
In fact, next week, since this committee is not travelling, I am going to be a tourist myself. My family and I have planned a trip throughout the province, the southern part, up around Georgian Bay and up to Tobermory along the Bruce Peninsula.
Mr W. Morrison: Sir, you have not seen anything unless you have seen the Kawarthas.
Mr Fletcher: I agree. I have seen the Kawarthas. In fact, we do this quite often, this travel around the province in different areas, and this is one of these trips.
First, we wanted to go on a canoe trip, but the kids did not want to carry the canoe around, so we said, "Okay, we'll travel around." They picked the points of interest and so did we, and at no time when we were picking it did the fact that we could shop anywhere on a Sunday enter into it.
As I say, Midland because of the Hurons; Tobermory because of the underwater park they have; the different things that are going to attract us there. I am not saying that when we get there we may not shop; we may, but definitely not on Sunday. When we were planning the trip, though, the idea of Sunday shopping did not enter into it. That is just my comment.
As far as your industries are concerned, a lot of your members sell tourist type of products -- Peterborough spoons and things. If there were unfettered Sunday openings, would there be a possibility of losing some of that business as far as the selling of some of the tourist attraction things, the Peterborough shirts or what have you?
Mr W. Morrison: Are you referring to certain tourist attractions, for instance, in my own establishment, if I had a relatively full-sized tuck shop with souvenirs, whatever?
Mr Fletcher: Yes.
Mr W. Morrison: Very definitely. There would be a loss of revenue, definitely.
Mr Fletcher: The unrestricted Sunday shopping as far as the tourism area, and they are tourist dollars that you would be picking up there, would definitely not be beneficial to your industry as far as that is concerned, the potential that you could have.
Mr W. Morrison: Having to close part of an operation certainly would be very detrimental; not as detrimental as closing a connected restaurant, mind you, but certainly it is part and parcel of revenue derivement.
Mr Fletcher: Just one more little thing. You mentioned 15 years ago, and all the cars from the States and everything. It is great to be back in this area, because I spent many of my summers in Peterborough when I was going to school. I worked here, I went to camp here as a child. You are right, there were a lot, but during the 1960s and 1970s the gas prices, the price of cigarettes and the price of alcoholic beverages were better here than it was in the States -- maybe not the alcohol but the gas prices were cheaper. We did not have the taxes heaped on it, and I know that is most of it. It was the reverse: People were coming from the States; people were coming from Quebec into Ontario. It did not really have anything to do with the availability of the shopping.
Mr W. Morrison: People will go where there is a deal and that is why Watertown is full of Canadians.
Mr Fletcher: That is right. Just a final point on the cross-border shopping: You sound very disgusted about cross-border shopping and that people should realize they are hurting their own country when they do it, but during 1990, when we had wide-open Sunday shopping and the availability -- and that is one of the factors. The cost factor is number one and selection is number two and the time of shopping is number three on any survey that has been done. Sunday shopping during that time was wide open and yet crossing the border by Ontarians increased about 22% or 23% over the previous year.
Mr W. Morrison: That is very significant to me. After it was closed, from May to May, I believe -- May was the first month in which stores were re-closed and cross-border shopping increased 25%, showing that at least we could have retained 25% of those, possibly.
Mr Fletcher: In 1989 it increased 20%; in 1990 it increased 21%; in 1991 it increased 25%. It is still going up --
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Fletcher.
Mr Fletcher: -- as the marketing of the United States gets better.
Mr W. Morrison: But it becomes a thing to do, which in turn becomes a tourist activity. They go over, they stay overnight. The accommodations over there are bursting at the seams.
Mr Fletcher: That is right, and that is because if you stay longer you can bring more back.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, sir, for your presentation. It was well worth the time. Again, I thank you very much for taking the time to come here.
JOHN STRANO
The Vice-Chair: John Strano, please. Mr Strano, have a seat. Relax. You have 15 minutes to make your presentation. You can divide that any way you like. I am assuming you have a brief to present and I am sure the fine gentlemen up here would like to ask you a question or two. You can begin when you are ready, sir.
Mr Strano: My name is John Strano. I am the owner of Farmboy Markets, a grocery store trying to do business in Ontario.
We have been in business 27 years, and out of the 27 years we have been open on Sundays for 26 of them. In the last few years I have seen the following increases, like everyone else, put a strain on our business: increased property and business taxes, an increase in unemployment insurance, energy costs, labour costs, Ontario employer health tax, and increased federal and provincial taxes.
I find it hard that the government is asking for more money to support these increased costs and on the other hand is bringing legislation to force me to close the store on Sunday, which eliminates one of the best business days in our trade.
I feel discouraged when I have to close on Sundays yet all around numerous restaurants, drugstores, convenience stores and gas stations in my immediate area are open. What gives the government the right to say some businesses can remain open and some businesses have to close? I was talking to the owners of Burger King and McDonald's, which are right around me, and they are in accordance with us opening. It would help their business, they say.
I am simply asking that my business receive the same privilege and the same rights as other businesses. I really feel that any business that feels it needs to stay open seven days a week to succeed should have that right. Our trade on Sundays was the backbone of our business week.
I took a survey of our customers and our employees. Out of 94 customers, 86 were for Farmboy to remain open; 8 were for Farmboy to remain closed. Out of 29 employees surveyed, 26 wanted Farmboy open; 3 wanted it closed.
Talking to our customers and business people, they all think that the legislation for grocery stores to be closed is ridiculous. Just within the last month, one of the major chain stores laid off 300 employees. If they could remain open, I am sure that would not have happened, plus they probably would have hired 300 employees, which is a difference of 600 working people.
1030
Farmboy employed seven people on Sundays. This was 95% part-time employees going to school who made anywhere from $30 to $65 per day, which helped them put themselves through school. They were responsible for the opening, closing and operation of the store. I do not think they could get any better training than that.
In closing, I would like to say that if the politicians who are making the legislation were in our shoes, they would want the right to operate their business they way they have to in order to make it successful. If we operated our business like the government is operating the country, the deficit, it would not be long before the banks would not honour our cheques. If the government cannot see what is happening -- businesses going bankrupt, other businesses closing and moving to the United States -- there is something wrong with it. If the government cannot see its way to change the law so we can open when we want, then it should close all businesses. I am just asking: just be fair and honest. I thank you for this time that I could express my feelings.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Strano. If you do not mind, there will be some questions from the committee members, approximately three minutes per caucus, starting with the official opposition.
Mr Poirier: Congratulations, Mr Strano. When you did your survey of your customers there was an impressive number in favour of it. Was that a Sunday survey? Was it done on a Sunday?
Mr Strano: It was done Sunday, Monday and Tuesday.
Mr Poirier: It would have been interesting if you had done it just on a Sunday and found some people who were against Sunday openings while they were in your store shopping. But then we would not have been surprised with that, being used to surveys.
I presume you are closed because you do not meet the criteria. For what reason? You are not a convenience store, I presume.
Mr Strano: No.
Mr Poirier: Okay, so you are too large a size to fit that category.
Mr Strano: We are 10,000 square feet.
Mr Poirier: Right. Are you outside a so-called tourist area also?
Mr Strano: Yes, but we are not designated a tourist area.
Mr Poirier: So it is a free-for-all for the moment. It was impressive to see the 29 employees, 26 for and 3 against, if I remember well.
Mr Strano: Right.
Mr Poirier: And while you were open on Sundays, you were open, I presume, for that period where there was a free-for-all. Did you notice any problems with the attitudes of staff or with those three, if you identified them, who were not happy with the place being open? Did you have any problems or have you heard of any of your colleagues who have had problems?
Mr Strano: There are always a few problems. We had problems with one employee and that was it.
Mr Poirier: Fair enough. How about your colleagues who may own other businesses around you? Have you heard anything?
Mr Strano: No, nothing at all. Another thing is we can open our garden centre on Sundays, where we cannot open the store. This spring, when they closed in March, at least six of our employees came and asked to work on Sunday outside in the garden centre because we are open.
Mr Poirier: I see. So if that was freedom of choice, like you propose and I support, you would feel this could come about with minimum pain?
Mr Strano: Yes, definitely.
Mr Poirier: And you would have enough customers on Sunday to justify it.
Mr Strano: Right.
Mr Poirier: Fair enough. Thank you, Mr Strano.
Mr Carr: Thank you for a fine presentation. I think you helped us take a look at some of the other issues as well and I thank you. On the first page, when you see some of the hurdles that are put in front of you, it must be very difficult to continue.
I just wanted to see in your particular case whether there is any chance for you to open under the tourism exemption criteria. Do you see that happening at all?
Mr Strano: No, I do not see it happening.
Mr Carr: Okay, and that is because of the municipality not wanting it. There cannot be any way that you could say your area is tourism?
Mr Strano: No.
Mr Carr: There has been some concern that people would be making some of the workers work on Sunday, because the government has said that this particular piece of legislation is to protect retail workers. The big fact is, though, that there are a number of other people who are working who have to work, and they singled out just the retail workers. I wonder if you could comment on your situation with the Sunday workers, how you handled that.
Mr Strano: We basically used, like I said, 95% of all part-time help. We did not use any full-time help at all. There was only one part-time help who really did not want to work on Sunday and she was not forced to work. For everybody who wanted to, we scheduled them every second weekend. We did not work them every weekend, and we worked them different shifts. There were short shifts and long shifts, so one week they would work 9 to 6 on a Sunday and two weeks they might work 10 to 2. They would have different times off, so it did not burden anybody.
Mr Carr: One of the comments that has been made by some presenters is that in this modern society, if you force people to work against their will and they are serving the public, they are going to have their face down to the floor and it is actually going to hurt them. They do not want people in there who do not want to work, because in a service industry, which many of the businesses are, it is going to actually hurt you. Has that been your experience as well, that if you try to force somebody to work against their will and if they do have their face down on the ground, it will actually cost business?
Mr Strano: We have never had that problem because we have never forced people to work. Like I say, we use all young kids going to school. They want the hours to put themselves through school. What I think is that when the younger people do work, they will make a lot better citizens and people after they get through school; they know what the real world is about before they even get there. I see so many people who go through college and they are just on a free ride, and then they get out and do not know what it is really about. We have had kids who are working who have been with us five and six years, the same ones.
Mr Carr: I just wanted to say that having experienced working for you would probably help them later on.
Mr Strano: That is right.
Mr Carr: Thank you very much for the brief. It was very well done.
Mr Klopp: Your brief at the beginning said you have been in business 27 years and you were open every Sunday.
Mr Strano: Every Sunday.
Mr Klopp: And then one year you were not. What year was that?
Mr Strano: It was a year ago March that we closed, from March until July. March 1990 we had to close.
Mr Klopp: What did you have to close for?
Mr Strano: They brought the law down.
Mr Klopp: Was there not a common pause day law before that? It just reintroduced the old law, did it not?
Mr Strano: It was restricted to 2,400 square feet.
Mr Klopp: But in 1989 that law was brought in, right? So you closed in 1989?
Mr Strano: No, no, it was not. When we first opened years back it was wide open. Then they brought a law in, I do not know what year it was, that you had to go down to 2,400 square feet; you could only use 2,400 square feet of your store, right?
Mr Klopp: That was March 1989, the previous bill.
Mr Strano: No, no, way back.
Mr Klopp: What ways back, like 1960 or what?
Mr Strano: No, I would say 1972, something around in there. I do not know the year.
Mr Klopp: So since 1972 you have been closed?
Mr Strano: No, in 1972 we blocked off our store. We closed for about six months and the business was not good, so we blocked off our store and opened with 2,400 square feet. We were open like that for years, 2,400 square feet blocked off. We would block off part of the meat counter, part of the produce counter and everything. Then after that, in March 1990, they brought down the law that closed everybody. You were not allowed to block off your store, so at that point we had to close. So we closed March, April and May and we opened up July 1.
Mr Klopp: After the law was struck down.
Mr Strano: Struck down in 1990.
Mr Klopp: So you were wide open and everything. Did you notice any increase in business then?
Mr Strano: Very much so.
Mr Klopp: You increased profit.
Mr Strano: Increased profit, increased sales. Then we were closed, and then this year we were open until March of this year again, and now we are closed.
Mr Klopp: I see. Thank you for that clarification.
The Chair: Mr Mills, you have a clarification? Mr Mills is the parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General.
1040
Mr Mills: Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you, Mr Strano. Some of your concerns seemed a little confusing about the law, when you said you were open for 26 years. I have a legal assistant here from the Solicitor General. She would just like to clarify the procedure over those years for the benefit of everybody here and the members of the committee.
Ms Scarfone: I am Janet Scarfone from the Ministry of the Solicitor General, legal branch. Perhaps I could be of some assistance with respect to the dates for the witness. The Retail Business Holidays Act came into force in 1976, and in subsection 3(1), it had the 2,400-square-foot requirement you were referring to.
With the 1989 amendments in February, there was a provision banning roping off; that is, the reduction in store size from a larger store to a smaller store size to fit the requirements of the legislation. So there was a banning on roping off in 1989, with the amendments of that time.
Mr Strano: In 1989?
Ms Scarfone: February 1989. The 1989 amendments introduced a provision which banned roping off.
Mr Strano: What date?
Ms Scarfone: In February 1989. That is the downsizing of a larger store to fit the size requirements, but you are correct in saying that it was in the 1970s, in fact in 1976, where the square footage of 2,400 square feet was introduced.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Strano. Very interesting when we get down to, as you were saying, the actual square footage and some of those issues and how they affect people. Very interesting presentation.
Mr Morrow, we had some discussion in regard to the 10:45 time slot. Are you aware of that?
Mr Morrow: Mr Chair, I have no problem with going on if that is the decision of the committee.
MOTELS ONTARIO
The Chair: If it is possible, I believe we have an 11 o'clock presentation from Motels Ontario. Are the representatives here? Please come forth, gentlemen. I apologize for the juggling of times. I was not aware myself until a few moments ago. We have approximately half an hour. Mr Bruce Gravel, and could you introduce your colleague as well, please.
Mr Gravel: This is Mr Allen Morrison from the Peterborough area. We will be introducing him further in a couple of minutes.
The Chair: Thank you. Please proceed.
Mr Gravel: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for the opportunity of making a presentation to your committee on Bill 115.
Before you today are two individuals representing Ontario's tourism industry, specifically its motel and motor hotel sector. My name is Bruce Gravel. I am the chief administrator for the motel association's non-profit trade association, Motels Ontario. Motels Ontario is headquartered here in Peterborough. Our members comprise 1,000 motels, motor inns and motor hotels located in all sectors and regions of Ontario. We currently represent 64% of Ontario's motel industry.
The mission statement of Motels Ontario is this: We exist to further the welfare of the Ontario motel, motor inn and motor hotel industry by all available means.
Ninety-five per cent of our members are independently owned and operated motels and motor hotels. These properties are most often run by a husband-and-wife team of owners and operators. These motels are not affiliated with any of the major provincial or national motel chains. As such, our members therefore are true small business enterprises. The entire financial livelihood of the owner-operator is tied up in his or her business.
With me here today is a representative of one such business.
Mr A. Morrison: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Allen Morrison. I am the general manager of the Otonabee Inn, which is located in Peterborough. This is a family-owned and family-operated business. My father and mother purchased the business over 20 years ago. My brother and I literally grew up in this business. Our property has steadily expanded over the years from a small 20-unit motel to its present size of a 78-unit motor inn complete with meeting and conference facilities and indoor recreational facilities. In addition to being the general manager of the Otonabee Inn, I am a volunteer director on the board of the Motels Ontario association.
At the Otonabee Inn, we employ 20 full- and part-time employees. Like most of the employers in Ontario's motel industry, our employees represent a politically important cross-section of Ontario's workforce, including women and students.
In addition to my volunteer duties with Motels Ontario, I am also involved locally with the Peterborough Chamber of Commerce and other organizations.
Sunday shopping is important to the tourism industry in Peterborough and the surrounding area. Particularly in smaller communities such as Lakefield and Buckhorn, there are hundreds of tourists each Sunday walking the streets, eager to shop, particularly if the weather is bad.
Mr Gravel: Three years ago when Sunday shopping was again an issue, the Solicitor General of Ontario circulated portions of a comprehensive study entitled Blue Laws: The History, Economics and Politics of Sunday Closing Laws. This was edited by two American researchers. The American researchers compared 10 blue-law states in the United States with 10 non-blue-law states. The results of this study had interesting insights on the whole Sunday shopping question. I thought it would be appropriate at this time to reiterate some of the highlights, now that Sunday shopping is once again an issue.
Experiential and economic evidence compiled in this study shows that church membership and per capita church contributions were not adversely affected in states with no Sunday closing laws. It also showed that per capita income is higher in non-blue-law states. It showed that the quality of life is enhanced in non-blue-law states, judging from a greater propensity to visit and utilize parks and recreation areas in these states than in blue-law states. Net employment increases considerably in many retail establishments that are open on Sundays. The study also found that there are many people who want to work in retail establishments on Sundays on a part-time or casual basis. You have heard evidence to that effect this morning and I am sure in the past several weeks as well. Businesses experienced 10.1% greater sales per outlet in states with no commercial restrictions on Sunday than in those states with blue laws. Opening Sundays to commercial activity had the net effect of increasing the total amount of economic activity and not just simply redistributing six days' worth of sales across seven. Those are just highlights from this study, Blue Laws: The History, Economics and Politics of Sunday Closing Laws.
On July 29, you heard a presentation from the Tourism Ontario federation in Toronto. Motels Ontario is a founding member of the Tourism Ontario federation. As I am sure you are aware, that is the umbrella association of Ontario's 23 tourism trade and travel associations. Part of their presentation included a 16-page brief. The Motels Ontario association fully supports the federation's brief and its presentation to you of July 29.
We cannot overemphasize the importance to Ontario's vital tourism industry of Sunday shopping. In addition to the comments made by Tourism Ontario on July 29, you have since heard similar comments from other Ontario motel owners, including Mr William Morrison this morning.
Last year, 1990, and again this year, Ontario's tourism industry has been devastated. Occupancies were down 20%, on average, in 1990 over 1989. Occupancies have fallen a further 20%, on average, so far this year over last year. Bluntly, tourist traffic is falling off, ladies and gentlemen. Fewer and fewer Americans are coming into Ontario for a vacation experience. You heard a statement to that effect earlier this morning. More and more Ontarians are vacationing south in the United States.
1050
Tourism needs all the help it can get. Retail shopping, including Sundays, is one way of providing some help. In countless surveys done by federal and provincial authorities shopping ranks as a key tourist activity, even ahead of dining out. I have here a statistical survey that was done by Statscan as part of what they called the Canadian Travel Survey. They were focusing on getaways. A getaway is defined as a short three- or four-day trip as opposed to a formal one- or two-week vacation. When people get away for a three- to four-day trip their favourite activity, their number one pastime, is shopping -- 41%. That is ahead of sightseeing, which is 40%, that is ahead of visiting, which is 36%, and it is ahead of dining out, which is 34%. This is specific to a getaway weekend. The comment I made earlier applies to vacations in general.
Some more examples: In 1988 retail purchases represented $2.2 billion of all tourism expenditures in Ontario. Direct jobs in that year created by the retail sector amounted to the equivalent of 29,000 full-time jobs, or 14% of total direct employment, in the tourism sector. The total impact of tourism-related retail purchases in 1988 on tax revenues generated by Ontario was $366 million, $134 million for Ontario municipalities and $602 million for the federal government. Retail shopping, ladies and gentlemen, is an integral part of the tourism experience. It represents a significant portion of all tourism expenditures in Ontario. Most retail shopping takes place on weekends. We believe the majority of Ontarians and visitors to Ontario favour unrestricted retail shopping on Sundays and holidays as part of their family activities.
Mr A. Morrison: Ontario is currently losing billions of dollars of annual tourism and retail sales to bordering American jurisdictions which are wide open for retail business on Sundays and holidays. Recent statistics from Statistics Canada, which were widely quoted in the media in July, show that cross-border shopping is up by almost 20% over last year. In May 1991, 5.2 million same-day trips were made by Canadians into the United States. That is up from 4.4 million in May of last year. The more restrictive this government makes Sunday shopping, the more this province, its tourism businesses and its employees continue to lose money to American border states.
We do commend your government for endeavouring to recognize the value and importance of tourism in Bill 115. The bill does contain some tourism exemptions. However, we are concerned that the legislation, as currently written, will result in costly and time-consuming administrative burdens and litigation. Why? Because municipalities and retail businesses will have a hard time trying to interpret, comply with and apply the proposed provincial tourism criteria in the context of a common pause day. A wide divergence of opinion over the legal significance of the criteria is already emerging in the municipalities. This divergence of opinion will lead to an unfair patchwork of exemptions which will have nothing to do with tourism.
As Bill 115 is currently written, the tourist criteria are to be contained in regulations to the act and carry the weight of law. As a result, the government will be free to amend the criteria at will without public consultation or legislative review. To avoid the potential of significant change without public review, we propose that these regulations be embodied in the legislation. Legislation requires legislative review prior to amendment.
Also, in what we believe is a recognition of the complexity of the tourist criteria, we understand that the NDP is privately developing additional guidelines. Included in these additional guidelines will be the NDP's definition of a "tourist" and "tourism." To date, the government has failed to conduct full consultation on the content of the additional guidelines. We believe that a full public review of these guidelines is vital if the public is to fully understand the impact of the government's amendments.
Tourism Ontario Inc proposed a definition of "tourism" in its brief to you, which we recommend be adopted. That definition was:
"Tourism is the direct supply of goods and services to facilitate business, pleasure and leisure activities...away from the home environment. It covers a broad range of products and services including: transportation...; accommodation; food and beverage services; live and participatory entertainment, ie festivals, events, culture and the arts, athletic competitions, conventions, meetings and symposiums; amusement activities...; and to a very significant extent, retail shopping."
Mr Gravel: We add our voice to those you have already heard from Ontario's tourism industry. We ask that this committee must seriously consider Tourism Ontario Inc's recommended changes to the proposed Retail Business Holidays Act amendments and regulations. These suggestions were detailed in the federation's brief to this committee presented on July 29. Some highlights are:
Regarding the tourism criteria regulations, subsection 1(2), tourist area characteristics, the federation believes the list of characteristics should be expanded to include (a) tourism in the area which has historically been an important part of the local economy and (b) providing goods or services necessary to tourist activities in the area.
Regarding subsections 2(1) and (2), retail business restrictions, this whole section is redundant and should be removed. The number of persons serving the public and the floor space occupied by a qualifying retail business should have no bearing on its ability to meet common tourism criteria.
With regard to paragraph 3(1)2, the tourism season qualifier, these time periods will vary within a designated tourist area, as will the length of the tourism season for various types of qualifying retail businesses, due to a wide variety of market-driven circumstances. This qualifier should therefore be removed.
Mr A. Morrison: Part I, the Retail Business Holidays Act amendments: First, with regard to the empowerment of local municipal councils, clause 1(1)(aa) should be amended to permit all local municipal councils within a district, county, metropolitan or regional municipality to enact bylaws to permit retail businesses in each local municipality to be open on holidays for the maintenance or development of tourism. It is an unnecessary duplication to burden metropolitan or regional councils with applications from local councils regarding tourist area exemptions.
Second, with regard to councils' obligations, in subsection 4(7) municipal councils should not be granted discretionary power through which they can refuse to pass a designated tourist area bylaw which would permit retail businesses which do in fact meet the provincial tourism criteria to be open on Sundays and holidays.
Third, with regard to councils' decisions, in subsection 4(8) it is undemocratic that a given municipal council's decisions would be final on whether it wished to pass a bylaw to permit retail businesses to be open on Sundays and holidays for the maintenance and development of tourism. This defeats the whole purpose of having such authority in the first place. This clause means that once a municipality has made its decision not to allow an exemption, in future years no reasons could ever be presented or no new tourism developments could ever occur that would cause it to change its mind.
Fourth, with regard to the procedures of councils, in clause 4(9)(d) municipal councils should not be granted the power to limit the number of applications from retail businesses that they will consider in a given year. Businesses should be free to apply for the exemption at least once every calendar year.
Mr Gravel: Last, in the transitional rules we recommend that subsection 6(2) of the Retail Business Holidays Amendment Act, 1989, be retained as transitional rules for the purpose of the Retail Business Establishments Statute Law Amendment Act, 1991. The provision of tourism criteria to exempt qualifying retail establishments from Sunday and holiday closing requirements in Bill 115 is laudable. However, it establishes a minefield of obstacles to the realization of these laudable objectives. It is unreasonable to require that all municipalities in Ontario must comply with the transitional rules as set out in Bill 115.
Regarding part II of the bill, the Employment Standards Act, Ontario's tourism industry is grateful that the proposed amendments to part XI-B of the Employment Standards Act do recognize the operating realities of our industry. It is important to remember that employers in our industry and all other industries must retain the absolute right to schedule work and to dictate work schedules. It is worth while repeating that of the 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.
Mr A. Morrison: In conclusion, Sunday and holiday shopping has become an economic necessity for many thousands of Ontarians as they struggle to balance working realities with their personal and family responsibilities. It is also the primary tourism activity for tourists in our province. The province of Ontario and its municipalities benefit directly and considerably from tourism expenditures. All levels of government are constantly searching for new sources of revenue to fund all manner of social services, education, better health care, improved roads and affordable housing. Government recognition and protection of tourism values and the operational realities of the tourism industry at both the provincial and municipal levels will enhance significantly the ability of government to provide said services for all citizens.
Mr Gravel: We do commend the Minister of Tourism and Recreation, the Honourable Peter North, for recognizing the value and importance of tourism in Bill 115. However, we remain very concerned that the full potential of our industry related to Sunday shopping as a major tourism activity will not be realized unless significant amendments are made to the act. We add our voice to the recommendations of the Tourism Ontario federation that this committee and the government of Ontario seriously consider all of the facts and recommendations detailed in the brief from Tourism Ontario and in our brief remarks to you today. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for your kind attention and your serious consideration of our views. In the time remaining to us, we would be pleased to try and answer any questions you may have.
1100
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Gravel and Mr Morrison. We have about three minutes per caucus after Mr Mills has made his short verification. Mr Mills is the parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General.
Mr Mills: I would just like to refer to your brief, page 6, paragraph 3, where it refers to subsection 4(8). You say that this clause means that once a municipality has made its decision not to allow an exemption, in future years no reasons could ever be presented. I can tell you, sir, that a business can reapply for another hearing, provided it meets the criteria. So the door is open. Perhaps I can give you an example that, if they made an application and it did not meet the criteria and they did something about that, then they could reapply and get another hearing. So the door is always open.
Mr Sorbara: During the course of these committee hearings, some of the government members have argued, in response to submissions by tourist operators and tourist associations, including Tourism Ontario, that retail shopping need not necessarily be integral to the experience of tourism. That surprised me, particularly when I heard it on Monday. We were in Ottawa on Sunday night, staying at the Delta Hotel. I was flipping through that booklet that is in many hotels, I think it was Key to Ottawa or something like that, and there were three kinds of ads in the book, generally speaking. There were lots of ads, but the three kinds that I noted were ads for restaurants, ads for local attractions, including, I think there was a blurb in there for the Ottawa Exhibition, and finally, there were lots of ads for retail shopping: jewellers, clothing stores, shopping malls and that sort of thing.
If it turns out that the province closes down much of the retailing sector on Sundays, what kind of impact do you think it is going to have on the viability of motels, hotels and motor hotels in the province?
Mr Gravel: It will have a significant impact. Contrary to some people's belief, shopping, and I completely agree with you, is an integral part of the vacation experience. I quoted a survey of Statistics Canada just on getaway vacations where shopping is an integral part of the total tourism experience. It is number one, actually, it is 41%, higher than sightseeing, visiting and dining. People do not necessarily plan to shop when they plan a tourist vacation, whether it is a getaway or whether it is a one- or two-week thing, but shopping invariably is one of the first things they do, if not the first thing they do, once they have reached their destination.
Mr Sorbara: I have one other brief question for you. You argue in this brief, as Tourism Ontario argued, for an expansion of the definition of tourism. Presumably you argue that so that more retailers could come within the definition of tourism so a larger number of retailers could presumably take advantage of the tourism exemption if the local council approved it -- although, as you point out, it does not necessarily have to approve it, even if you meet the criteria.
Do you really believe that is fair, simply to expand the definition of tourism? What about the retailer who is trying to compete with competitors who do come within this expanded definition? The retailer does not quite get in there and as a result has to stay closed on Sunday, while his or her competitor does come within these tourism criteria. Why is it fair simply to expand the definition of tourism?
Mr Gravel: Certainly it would be fairer to all concerned. The retailer that is forced to close because he does not meet it and yet his competitor, perhaps because of proximity to an attraction or a combination, does meet it and opens -- that is not fair to the retailer who must close. It is not fair to their employees either. People do want to work Sundays. There is a significant segment of the population that wants to work. They need the money.
Another reason behind the push for an expanded definition of tourism is that many people have the idea that a tourist is somebody from out of province, presumably, or more specifically perhaps from the United States. They have bags on the roof --
Mr Sorbara: And under their eyes.
Mr Gravel: -- and under their eyes, because of the screaming kids in the back, and they have a foreign plate so they are a tourist.
Mr Sorbara: I know. I have been there.
Mr Gravel: I think we all have. That is not really what a tourist is. One of the honourable gentlemen here mentioned that he is going to be touring southern Ontario, and presumably he lives in the southern Ontario area. He is a tourist. He does not have a foreign plate, he does not have an out-of-province plate, but he is a tourist. My family and I just got back from a week touring around the Muskoka and Haliburton area of Ontario. That is less than 100 miles from where we are today. We were tourists. We stayed in accommodation, shopped at stores -- those that were open -- and went to attractions and so forth. When you leave your home environment, you are a tourist, whether you have left it for business or for a short getaway, as we did, or whether you are leaving for a week or two. If you are not staying at home, if you have left your immediate home precinct, you are a traveller, you are a tourist.
Mr Carr: I will be brief. I was interested in page 4 where you talk about regulations, saying that you do not like to have any regulations. I was thinking back to the Police Services Act, when Ed Phillips, who is now the Industry, Trade and Technology minister, went on and on about how he did not like things put in the regulations. Of course, as you know, it was through those same regulations that this government eliminated the oath to the Queen. I think even Mr Kormos was on that police services committee and was opposed to --
Mr Kormos: No, Gary, that was not Ed, that was me. I was the critic.
Mr Carr: Both of them. They were travelling and they both said, "Don't put in regulations; we can't." Both Ed and Peter felt that way with the Liberals when we brought in the Police Services Act. Of course, when you do have the regulations, then they can be changed. Like I mentioned, when this government got in, it changed the oath to the Queen in regulations, with no public debate, and it was pushed through.
So I take it from page 4 that what you are saying is that you want it out of the regulations and into legislation so that if it does need to be changed, for whatever reason, there can be the public, open debate we are seeing here today.
Mr Gravel: Absolutely.
Mr Carr: Another question I have relates to the municipal option. As you know, it is the municipalities that will interpret the law. As a result, a lot of people have said that when you do that, it will leave it as broad as the tourist exemptions are now; it is going to be open to interpretation and we are going to have a patchwork situation where people interpret it one way or another. It will really not be based on tourism criteria, but it will be based on the politicians and the municipality and their prejudice one way or the other, so both sides will not be happy. With this piece of legislation then, you would rather see it remain in the hands of the province, that it does not hand it off to the municipalities?
1110
Mr Gravel: That is correct, yes, to avoid the very things that you just put your finger on.
Mr Carr: What I am fearful of is that what is going to happen is that then there will be a lot of litigation. Regardless of what side you are on, people will say you did not interpret it, and without having a higher authority to go to, what people will do is go to the courts, and what we are going to see a year from now, after this particular piece of legislation is introduced, is that we are going to have a patchwork situation. There are going to be significant portions of the province that will be open and the ones that are not will be in litigation saying they should not. Unfortunately, I think what we are going to be seeing down the road is that this question is not going to be settled for a significant period of time. If this bill does not change, is that what you see happening as well?
Mr Gravel: Yes, absolutely. I think you have put your finger on one of the major concerns the tourism industry has, and our legal system certainly does not need additional cases on its case load; it is already overburdened.
Mr Carr: There are 30,000 cases right now that have been kicked out because of the backlog. Thank you. Good luck.
Mr Fletcher: Thank you for your presentation. It is good to see the recommendations. As you know, this committee is going around and it is listening, and when we see the recommendations -- some of them I agree with, some of them I do not, but I am speaking for myself and not for everyone else.
I definitely agree with you that any government should conduct most, if not all, of its business in public. Something I have always agreed with and something that I think is an integral part of any government is to conduct its business in public, not behind closed doors, and with consultation. I agree with you and I will be voicing that opinion.
As for some of the things you have been saying as far as the cross-border shopping and what is going on are concerned, you perhaps heard before when I was saying that Ontario resident travel to the United States in 1990 was up 21% with wide-open Sunday shopping; in 1989 it was a 20% increase when we had the municipal option; in 1991 it is already 25%. The availability of being able to shop in Ontario on a Sunday has not lowered or even been a detriment to people going across the border and spending their money. I am not saying it does not play a part, because I think it does; I think it does a bit, but not as much a part as our dollar and the GST and free trade and everything else that is going on. I know I have heard this from the other briefs your organization has presented, that this is what is happening. It does not really pain me; it just bothers me that the Sunday shopping issue is being seen as the determining factor. I know you do not believe that is the way it is.
Mr Gravel: That is correct. I agree with your statements. It is one of a series of factors: certainly the taxes that have to be charged on our goods; since January 1 now we have the GST. People are travelling south for various reasons, and as a presenter said earlier today, one of the primary reasons is bargains. Why can they offer bargains down south that we cannot here? It is because of the taxes. A significant reason is the taxes. There are other reasons, such as the wages they pay their employees versus the wages we pay, the social programs we support versus the ones they do not, and so forth. Sunday shopping is a factor overall. It is certainly a key factor, but it is not the only factor. I agree with you there.
Mr Fletcher: One other thing: When I look at your statistics for last year, 1990, and again this year, you say occupancies were down 20% on average in 1990 over 1989. I am in a bit of a quandary, because I have some figures from the Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, and let me just read it you. For the year 1990 compared to 1989, stay with friends and relatives, the dominant accommodation used by Ontario residents, measured in person-nights, increased by 11.6%; primarily commercial accommodations stays -- hotel, motor hotel, motel, resort, lodge -- increased by 53.6%. You are saying it was down 20%.
Mr Gravel: It is amazing how different surveys can produce totally different results. The figures I am quoting come from the Canadian Tourism Research Institute, CTRI, which is a division of the Conference Board of Canada operating out of Ottawa, and they interface, if I can use that word, with the Statistics Canada gathering and computer data banks.
Just as an aside, and members of the Ontario ministry of tourism will doubtless back me up on this, there has been a long-standing conflict between the figures that the ministry of tourism puts out versus the figures that Statscan and CTRI puts out. They never agree. I can further state that relating to the Ontario motel industry, which is our specific focus at our association, in surveys of our members which are not reflected in the ministry of tourism survey or the CTRI survey from Ottawa, our own members have told us that they are down 20% last year over 1989, and they are down a further 20% this year over 1990. It is those figures that I am using.
Mr Fletcher: As you say, it may be the way that data is collected. You could be wrong; we could be wrong.
Mr Gravel: The marketplace really shows what is going on. A presenter earlier today referenced Toronto hotels going bankrupt. That is a fact. There are at least six other Toronto hotels that are on the block right now, vainly trying to find a buyer. I know my motel members -- I was in touch with a number of them in Ottawa just last week -- are down 20%. Normally they are 100% full in the summer --
Mr Fletcher: This year?
Mr Gravel: This year they are down 20% and last year they were down as well. Border state areas, Kingston, Cornwall, Gananoque -- absolute disaster areas. Americans used to come up and stay over. Now they are doing day trips. They see our high prices. Gasoline and alcohol are --
Mr Fletcher: And GST.
Mr Gravel: And GST. They do not understand that they can get it back, and when they do understand it they have to face a four-hour lineup to get it back. They are just turning around and going back at night.
Mr Fletcher: What you did not really address in your brief, which has been addressed in other briefs, is how much employment is going to increase with Sunday shopping. It is funny, because in 1990 we had wide-open Sunday shopping for that nine-month period and yet the average monthly employment was down about 5% for the accommodation area, and it was also down about 7 1/2% for food and beverage. But the pickup, as far as tourism is concerned, was in the recreation and amusement areas, and that is where the pickup in employment was. And you can see that with the attractions that are being built -- Wonderland and whatever else -- that is where it seems that the tourism dollars are starting to pick up and get spent.
Mr Gravel: No argument there with those statistics. I would suggest several factors. First of all, the nine-month period was too brief for the full impact really to start changing the public's traditions and habits, and the attractions and recreation pickup happened immediately. Perhaps the public's habits would take longer to change regarding accommodation and food. The other factor is the recession, where people would start curtailing overnight trips or dining out trips. This recession really impacted halfway through 1990 and has continued until recently. We are told it is officially over, although the tourism industry has not seen any sign of that.
Mr Fletcher: Neither have I.
Mr Gravel: Just as an aside, the tourism industry is the first industry to feel the impact of a recession, weeks and weeks before other industries, and we are the last industry to come out of it.
1120
Mr Kormos: One is hard pressed to dispute what you have said -- this has been your experience. But I do want to ask you about your correlation between a decline in tourism and occupancy in hotels/motels. In Toronto that is certainly the case. I come from Welland-Thorold where Niagara Falls -- great attraction for not just decades but longer, and it is no big secret that Niagara Falls is no longer the destination that it once was, and if it is a destination, sadly not an overnight destination.
I am told, and perhaps you would know more than I do, that places like Manhattan which have Sunday shopping -- Times Square, burned-out buildings, but let's not dwell on that -- destinations like Manhattan have also suffered serious declines in occupancy in hotels, and motels to the extent that they exist.
I appreciate what you are saying and I know that the two figures are there side by side. I am concerned about the interdependency, I am concerned about whether, in fact, one relates to the other, because you have a whole lot of jurisdictions with Sunday shopping which have suffered similar declines in occupancy that we have suffered and you have in this area here in Ontario. Can you talk about that?
Mr Daigeler: Question.
Mr Kormos: Who said "Question"?
Mr Daigeler: I did.
Mr Kormos: Mr Daigeler, if perchance you are a Chair or a Speaker some day you can question, but until then bear me out. You learn more by listening than by interrupting.
Mr Daigeler: I listened --
Mr Kormos: Please, Mr Daigeler. Did I interrupt you?
Mr Daigeler: You promised us to be brief --
Mr Kormos: Did I interrupt you?
Mr Daigeler: -- so we granted you the time, the extra time.
Mr Kormos: Give the man some novocaine. Could you comment?
Mr Daigeler: Mr Chairman, Mr Kormos relied on our indulgence to speak beyond the allotted time. I think he is really going beyond. He is straining our patience. That is my point. We are certainly flexible in providing extra time, but if Mr Kormos does not use our patience in the way that is reasonable and expected, then I think we have to enforce the rules strictly.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Daigeler. Mr Kormos, please.
Mr Kormos: Mr Daigeler sits there like an illustration from a Kurt Vonnegut novel and he embarrasses all of us. In any event, would you please --
Mr Sorbara: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: As whip for this caucus, this is absolutely not necessary. We have heard my friend from Welland-Thorold advise my friend from Nepean to take some novocaine, and now refers to him as an illustration from some magazine. This is an embarrassment for me --
Mr Kormos: A Kurt Vonnegut novel.
Mr Sorbara: From whatever. May he just proceed with the question.
The Chair: Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: It is these gentlemen's turn now.
Mr A. Morrison: Statistics have shown that shopping is a major activity when people are on vacation, whether it be a week or a getaway; more so when it is just a getaway, and the getaways happen often on weekends.
You state that in jurisdictions where there was wide-open shopping, the net occupancies were negative. It is hard to judge, but my feeling is that the occupancies could have been worse if the Sunday shopping was not there. We do not know what positive effects it had. I am stating that the negative effects of taxes and the economy versus the positive effects of the fact that those jurisdictions had open Sunday shopping still came out negative. I do not think, just because Sunday shopping was available and we see a negative occupancy rate, that Sunday shopping does not help. That is my answer to that one.
The Chair: Mr Sorbara, one question, please.
Mr Sorbara: I actually do not have any other questions for the witnesses, but I do have a request for information from the ministry of tourism, if I can put that to the committee now.
The Chair: Perhaps we could allow the witnesses to retire.
Mr Sorbara: I think there are representatives from the ministry of tourism.
The Chair: Thank you very much, gentlemen, for a very interesting presentation, and you were very patient with us.
Mr Sorbara: My request for information arises from the testimony of these witnesses. If you would prefer me to wait for legal counsel from the ministry to return, that is fine, I do not think they are far away, but it will be in Hansard and it is not as if we need the information this afternoon or tomorrow.
The Chair: Perhaps someone could record your request.
Mr Sorbara: As I listened to the questioning of the last witnesses, I heard them state that their surveys had shown a decline in occupancy rates 1990 over 1989 by some 20%. They also testified that this year as well they are seeing a 20% decline over 1990. Now, at the same time I heard Mr Fletcher quote surveys from the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation which suggest that occupancy rates had improved by some 53% 1990 over 1989.
I have not done any surveys myself, but anyone who has been just about anywhere in this province gets the sense that the hotel/motel industry is hurting very, very badly. In fact, just to give you a little anecdote --
The Chair: Your question?
Mr Sorbara: My concern is that if the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation is operating on the basis that the motel/hotel industry has experienced a 53% increase in business year over year, this would account in some measure for the way in which it has been approaching that industry. They obviously are approaching it as if it is booming.
Could I ask the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation to submit to this committee some information or some data or some explanation as to the difference between its understanding of how business is going in that industry and the understanding of representatives from that industry?
The Chair: Do we have the repesentative present from the --
Mr Sorbara: No.
The Chair: Okay, but Hansard will have a record of your --
Mr Sorbara: If we could have that information some time before these hearings complete, that would be fine.
The Chair: Could someone ensure that the representative is aware of that request and that as soon as it is available it would be forwarded to him?
Mr Mills: He is on the telephone now.
1130
PETERBOROUGH AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL
The Chair: Our next witness is from the Peterborough and District Labour Council. What is your name, sir?
Mr Shewring: Dean Shewring, president of the Peterborough and District Labour Council.
The Chair: We have about half an hour. Please divide that time as you wish between your presentation and an opportunity for the members here to pose questions.
Mr Shewring: Good. I will try to do it in five minutes.
The Peterborough and District Labour Council is pleased to have this opportunity to present its views before the standing committee on administration of justice dealing with Bill 115.
I, on behalf of the executive council and delegates to the labour council, would like to thank the members of the committee for coming to Peterborough to allow the views of its citizens to be heard.
The Peterborough and District Labour Council is a chartered affiliate of the Canadian Labour Congress and represents CLC affiliated local unions in Peterborough county plus Omemee. The labour council represents over 5,500 trade union members in 44 affiliated locals in both the public and the private sector. The goal of this labour council is to "promote the interests of its affiliates and generally to advance the economic and social welfare of workers."
The question of Sunday shopping and Sunday work has been plaguing various provincial governments for a number of years. The trade union movement has watched this issue being batted about the Legislature, the courts and the press for the past few years with mixed feelings of sometimes hope, and mainly dread.
Briefs you will receive from other organizations and trade unions will focus on the proposed changes to the Retail Business Holidays Act. We feel the proposed changes to the Employment Standards Act deserve to be examined more closely in the light of both intentions and enforcement. Therefore, this brief from the labour council will touch on those questions related to the Retail Business Holidays Act in a peripheral fashion and hopes to deal more thoroughly with the questions raised by the proposed changes to the Employment Standards Act.
The labour council and the labour movement in general recognize the difficulties inherent in dealing with a question as complex and controversial as that of Sunday shopping. We feel the need to see our fellow workers protected under any proposed legislation dealing with this matter. Our concerns are summarized as follows:
The intent of the Retail Business Holidays Act; the municipal option; drugstore openings on Sunday; enforcement of the Retail Business Holidays Act legislation, and the definition of a retail business. All of those particular concerns are dealt with in the brief on Sunday shopping work submitted to your committee by the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, plus we have added that the question of enforcement of the Employment Standards Act be examined with the goal of expanding information services, providing more offices across the province, and engaging in more active and vigorous enforcement practices.
The question of work on Sundays and holidays has been a concern to the labour movement since its inception. More recently, unions have been reacting to provincial government initiatives to deal with the question of Sunday shopping. Below, as an example, is a resolution submitted to the Ontario Federation of Labour convention in November 1986 by the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, and you can read that at your leisure.
The United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers Union, of which Local 524 at General Electric Canada is the largest union local in Peterborough, passed the following resolution at their UE convention in June of 1988, and that is given on the following page. You can read that as well.
Even such unions as the Canadian Union of Postal Workers have confronted the question of Sunday work in their resistance --
Mr Sorbara: Excuse me. I do not have a copy of this brief, so I cannot read it. Was a copy of the brief distributed?
Mr Shewring: It is right beside you.
Mr Sorbara: Thank you. Sorry to interrupt.
Mr Shewring: We are on page 5.
Even such unions as the Canadian Union of Postal Workers have confronted the question of Sunday work in their resistance to the creation of weekend part-timers, the idea that Canada Post Corp would have a staff of employees who would work only on weekends. It can easily be seen where such an idea would lead: weekend workers taking a second full-time job just to make ends meet.
To bring us to the present day, the Ontario Federation of Labour, representing over 800,000 Ontario workers, has endorsed the brief of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union concerning Sunday shopping and working. The UFCW brief deals with the weaknesses as perceived in the proposed changes to the Retail Business Holidays Act. The labour council endorses the recommendations of the UFCW Sunday shopping and working brief, and urges the standing committee on administration of justice to do likewise.
Peterborough and area had the opportunity to sample the experience of Sunday shopping during the summer of 1990, after the previous law had been rendered invalid by the Supreme Court of Ontario. The results were very interesting and instructive for those wondering if the public really wants to have general retail shopping on Sunday.
A set of clippings from the Peterborough Examiner are submitted as the last five pages of the brief, which illustrate the initial, if limited, enthusiasm in which Sunday shopping was first greeted in July 1990. Even after the first week, the novelty was starting to wear off and serious questions were being raised at Peterborough city council as to the long-term consequences.
If I can break away just for a moment from my prepared statement, I had some personal experiences observing this in Peterborough where, for example, the larger mall, which is a few minutes from my home, was counting Sunday shopping as a great opportunity. The grocery store was open. The mall was open for business. Also, one of the retail stores was open. However, when they opened, only a few of the smaller retail stores bothered to take part in the Sunday shopping. It takes volumes of people. The idea of malls is that the larger stores draw the crowd and then the smaller stores get the overflow. There were not any huge crowds coming on Sunday, so as the summer progressed, the smaller stores in the mall closed and gradually the whole thing fell apart by the end of the summer. As the summer progressed, several small stores had given up on the experiment and by the end of the summer even the large stores and malls realized there were too few customers to justify Sunday opening.
Peterborough's experience with Sunday shopping makes it very doubtful that the city will take advantage of the Retail Business Holidays Act to create tourist areas. This does not mean the issue of Sunday work is dead in Peterborough. As long as there is non-union labour to exploit, there will be a problem ensuring that workers' rights are protected, including their right to refuse to work on Sundays and holidays.
The provincial government has stated in several documents, notably in a background statement by the Ministry of the Solicitor General, that "the amendments to the ESA would give employees the absolute right to refuse Sunday and holiday work, guarantee a 36-hour rest period every seven days, and strengthen the role of employment standards officers in dealing with employee complaints." A quote from the media statement of the Honourable Bob Mackenzie, Minister of Labour, puts it even more strongly, "Under this new legislation, thousands of retail workers in this province will now have the absolute right to refuse Sunday work without fear of losing their jobs or facing disciplinary action.
We in the labour movement know from bitter experience that good intentions or well-written laws are no substitute for proper and effective enforcement of these laws. In a covering letter from Duncan J. MacDonald, programs co-ordinator for the Ontario Federation of Labour, dated July 24, 1991, he provides the following comments on why the proposed changes to the Employment Standards Act under Bill 115 were not dealt with in briefs by the United Food and Commercial Workers Union: "UFCW did not deal with this issue as they believe that the amendments cannot protect workers. The only protection that workers will have is if the government accepts labour's views on Bill 115."
In speaking with several local labour leaders, we received the following comments on information provided and enforcement under the Employment Standards Act: Unions in the construction field seemed satisfied, but not overly enthusiastic, with the most common comment being, "Not bad."
Others, who deal with non-union workers as well as members of their own unions, felt that enforcement of the Employment Standards Act was inconsistent, "Some cases, yes, some cases, no." On the information side there were some definite concerns expressed with the information service provided by the toll-free numbers in Toronto, "People get frustrated dealing with the system." The labour council receives several phone calls a week regarding employment standards matters, and there is often a feeling expressed that the constantly busy phone lines and long waits for basic information makes for an impersonal and inefficient service.
Other opinions on the Employment Standards Act included the comment that, "The ministry shouldn't wait to receive complaints from disgruntled employees, but in fact should be actively involved with ensuring that businesses are obeying the law."
The labour council recommends that offices to inform and enforce the provisions of the Employment Standards Act be established across Ontario, and that employment standards officers be actively engaged in ensuring that employment standards are being complied with. Such offices, of course, may be incorporated into existing offices under the Ministry of Labour to save costs.
The labour council feels that the right to refuse an assignment of work on a Sunday or a holiday can never be considered to be absolute until much stronger provisions for enforcement are in place.
To conclude, the labour council joins with the Ontario Federation of Labour and other unions to endorse the enshrinement of a common pause day for Ontario workers and their families. The proposed amendments by the provincial government, while well-intentioned, would not succeed in achieving this goal without serious reference to the recommendations for changes to the Retail Business Holidays Act from the brief presented by the United Food and Commercial Workers Union.
The labour council would also like the committee to seriously consider improving the enforcement of the Employment Standards Act as an important factor in enhancing the right of workers to refuse Sunday and holiday work. Such improvements have already occurred in the health and safety field.
The labour council, and organized labour in general, is always willing to work with the provincial government to try to find workable solutions to questions such as the creation of a common pause day. Solutions can always be found when people work together, and that is part of what trade unions are all about.
1140
Mr Sorbara: I was interested in your assessment of what happened in Peterborough during the nine months of freedom to --
Mr Shewring: Your word, not mine.
Mr Sorbara: Well, it is my word. Freedom in the sense that stores were free to open and shoppers were free to shop. I take it that your experience was that there was some initial enthusiasm, but that there was not much of a market and many stores did not open.
Mr Shewring: The enthusiasm was based on the freedom, the euphoria you might say, that everyone should have the right to shop on Sunday. That was the idea. But the practical matter is -- this is objective, and on my part; this is why it is not in the brief -- that Peterborough is not close to the border or other cities where they have to compete directly for business, so the actual drive, the culture you might call it, of Sunday shopping never developed here. Just putting it out there, the advertising said: "Sunday shopping. Come shop Sundays." People would come for the first weekend, the second weekend. By the third weekend it was, why bother?
Mr Sorbara: Is there anything particularly wrong with that? For example, if I am a storekeeper and I find that I do not have a hope in hell of making but two or three sales on Monday and I decide I am going to close the door on Monday and do something else with my life, read a book, visit friends, spend time with the family, there is nothing that says that is against the law. There is nothing that prohibits me from doing that.
Mr Shewring: That is right.
Mr Sorbara: Why should that be different on Sunday? Why should Peterborough not be allowed to have a free but dead Sunday market, so maybe one or two retailers bother to open their doors and the rest say: "Forget it. The good people of Peterborough are not interested in coming down here on Sunday, and I am not opening." What is wrong with that?
Mr Shewring: The only thing I was pointing out in my brief was that the people of Peterborough were not interested in coming out on Sundays.
Mr Sorbara: That is precisely the point. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with, at the same time as there not being much of a market in Peterborough, allowing the one or two storekeepers to stay open if they want to, and at the same time, as a matter of provincial law, allowing all of the storekeepers of Windsor or Sault Ste Marie or perhaps Oshawa to stay open because in those communities people really find it convenient and enjoy it. What is wrong with that?
Mr Shewring: I am not saying there is anything wrong with it. What I am saying, though, is that especially in the comments I made earlier, it is a habit people have to get into before they will say it is a right. In other words, for example, in Peterborough people did not have the experience or the pressure to shop on Sundays, and therefore they did not. It is the pressure that has caused it, the perception that cross-border shopping means you have to compete with the stores open on Sundays in the United States, or you have to compete with your neighbour city which is only 20 or 30 kilometres away in order not to lose business to that city. That is where the problem has come from, from what we have seen.
Mr Sorbara: I just want to put one more question to you.
Mr Shewring: In other words, if people get into the habit of realizing that Sunday -- or any day, but in this case Sunday -- as a common pause day is a good idea, so that people can have a guaranteed day off without having to have all this restrictive legislation, then there should not really be any need to open on Sunday and so people will not.
Mr Sorbara: When the government introduced this bill it said its main objective was to bring about a common pause day in Ontario. The great irony of these public hearings is that through almost three weeks now we have not heard one group, whether labour, business, individual or a consumer, say it agrees with the government, that if this bill is passed a common pause day will come about in Ontario. Do you believe that if Bill 115 is passed in this form, Ontarians generally, not just in Peterborough, will have the new benefit of a common pause day in the province, or do you know of anyone who does believe that if Bill 115 is passed, Ontarians will have the benefit of a common pause day in Ontario?
Mr Shewring: That is a long question. My understanding is that this is a committee for the purpose of studying the bill across the province for amendments or changes or whatever, and so anyone who might come before the committee and say, "The Legislature has come up with the perfect solution in Bill 115," is not going to show up here. Why bother? They think you have already got the solution. Anyone who is going to come before a committee to talk about something like this is always going to come up with even one change which he thinks would improve the bill.
That is what we are doing here. As part of organized labour, we look over the bill, we see where we think there may be some improvements made to get closer to the goal of the common pause day, and then hopefully we achieve that goal.
Mr Sorbara: I have just one other very brief question. Does the district labour council support the notion of the right, whether it is absolute or qualified, to refuse Sunday work, on the part of industrial workers in the Peterborough area, whether they be GE or whoever they are?
Mr Shewring: I think that would be something we are going to be working towards. This is a progressive thing. You have to get people's minds set on the idea that retail businesses should not be open on Sunday so that workers can have a common pause day and everyone can have a common pause day.
Mr Sorbara: Are you going to be lobbying? Are you going to be working towards establishing that right for other industrial workers?
Mr Shewring: Yes, in the future. That is what I am saying.
Mr Carr: Thank you very much for your presentation. I noticed Mr Strano was here earlier with a presentation from Farmboy Markets, and he said he feels discouraged when he has to close yet sees all the others open around him. He lists them, the drugstores and convenience stores, and he says, "I am simply asking that my business receive the same privilege and the same rights as other businesses." What do you say to something like that? How would you reply to Mr Strano?
Mr Shewring: That is a very good point he has made. Why should he have to lose business to stores that get away with pretending they are opening for an important public purpose, yet in actual fact they are just another retail business, and they use the loophole in the act to beat their competition? If you notice what I said in my brief, instead of repeating all the things in the United Food and Commercial Workers' brief, I simply said that we endorse it. One of the things in the brief, for example, is the reduction in size of the area of drugstores so that on Sunday they would actually be selling drugs and a very limited range of products. That is the whole point of it.
From Mr Strano's point of view, I think it is an important question that has to be dealt with by this committee and by the legislation because the perception is out there that some businesses are able to get around the common pause day laws that have been tried in the last few years, and it is not fair. He is right; it is not fair.
Mr Carr: On page 7, I notice you quoted Mr Mackenzie, the Labour minister, who of course has worked in the labour movement for many years. He said, "Under this new legislation, thousands of retail workers in this province will now have the absolute right to refuse Sunday work without fear of losing their jobs or facing disciplinary action." I take it then you feel that statement is wrong.
Mr Shewring: I feel that statement is right with regard to the written law that will be coming out, but we are asking about enforcement. We are taking the opportunity just to make a point about enforcing the Employment Standards Act in general as well as in this particular case. If you do not have the enforcement, then the law does not work. You have seen that in so many cases across the province, whether it is with regard to labour legislation, which is obviously one of our major concerns, or to any legislation.
I will give you an example. The Landlord and Tenant Act provides certain laws that have to be enforced. A clear violation of the Landlord and Tenant Act occurred in Peterborough when a landlord evicted some tenants. A landlord does not have the right to evict tenants. The landlord has to get the sheriff to evict the tenants. That is the way the law reads. So what happens? The police are called. I will not name names, but a rather high-ranking police officer in Peterborough was asked, "Do you enforce the laws of Peterborough?" He said: "Oh, yes, we enforce all the laws. We enforce every law. That's our job." Then he was asked about enforcing this law: "Oh, no, we don't enforce the Landlord and Tenant Act. Oh, no, that's a separate matter. We have to have a special paper before we're permitted to get involved with that" -- or a special thing, I forget exactly what it was, but it was some excuse.
It turns out that the police were actually enforcing the Criminal Code plus the Highway Traffic Act and rather a limited set of laws. So the question of enforcement, I think, is key to what we are presenting here as far as the Employment Standards Act is concerned.
When you talk about the absolute right to refuse, you can put it in laws in gold lettering that you have the absolute right to refuse, but if people do not know about it, do not get in the habit of using it and are not backed up when they invoke their right to refuse, then it is meaningless. That is the point.
1150
Mr Carr: So what you are saying is that it is great in theory, but in practice it is not going to work.
Mr Shewring: In practice it could work, but it is going to be a long slog to do it, and we just present a modest proposal in that direction.
Mr Carr: I was interested in some of the work the CLC is doing in some of the other provinces, where Sunday shopping is now the norm. Is the CLC, through its various unions, still fighting to have those laws changed, or has it now become accepted practice in some of those provinces, and they have gone on to other fights? Do you know? You might not know, but I just wondered.
Mr Shewring: I am afraid I do not, but it would be through the provincial and territorial federations of labour, so I would actually have to contact them to see what has been going on; but I do not have any specific knowledge of that.
Mr Morrow: Brother, thank you for that well-thought-out and well-presented brief.
Mr Shewring: Thanks.
Mr Morrow: That is a fantastic job you did.
Mr Shewring: Only till 4 this morning, brother.
Mr Morrow: I do not have a lot of questions, but I would like to know exactly how many workers in Peterborough the labour council represents.
Mr Shewring: Just over 5,500. I believe it is mentioned at the beginning of the brief. The number varies according to whether we have a recession or not, and various other things. Thanks to the federal government, I think our numbers will have to stay a little low for a while, but when it is gone perhaps they will grow a bit more.
Mr Morrow: My impression is that Sunday shopping did not actually create any jobs, but that hours and workers were really just shifted around. So instead of six, they are shifted around to seven. Can you comment on that for me?
Mr Shewring: I could not, since I do not have any direct contact with most of the people involved, other than to say that in Peterborough, given the small volumes of customers who are there, I expect that what would happen in most cases is that a full-time worker would have been part-time on, say, the Saturday and then part-time on the Sunday to cover the period. But given the small numbers involved, I do not think there could have been many or any major improvements to employment in the Peterborough area resulting from Sunday shopping. In fact, considering it only lasted two months, it certainly did not have any real long-term effect at all.
Mr Morrow: We were in Ottawa on Monday when the monsignor there made a presentation with a really good comment that Sunday is for the people. It is just a fantastic comment, and I think it rings true. This is also a quality-of-life issue, if you wish. Do you see that Sunday working would have a problem with family life as we now know it?
Mr Shewring: The way family life as we now know it has been going, I do not know if very much can save it, unfortunately, the way things have been developing in this province. But at least a strong effort should be made to try and get the message out that family life should be improved and saved if possible. Even a flawed bill such as Bill 115 is at least a gesture in that direction. I would like to see a lot of things improved in the bill, but if you do not do anything, then we are really in trouble.
Mr Morrow: Thank you very much, brother.
Mr Kormos: This has been an interesting discussion and debate: Round two, the last prolonged debate, of course, was when the Liberal government invented local optioning. There has been a whole lot of criticism of that, similar to yours today. I am impressed by that criticism. It is a sound critique.
One of the difficulties in the debate this time around, for a whole lot of participants, is that last time people knew where the respective political parties stood. What is your understanding of where the Liberals and the Conservative Party in this province stand on this issue right now?
Mr Sorbara: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I know that Mr Kormos is geared to entertain us. The witness is competent to speak on many items and he has presented a very good submission, but he is certainly not competent to speak on behalf of the Ontario Liberal Party on these matters.
Mr Kormos: Should I repeat the question --
Mr Sorbara: The question, if it were not so stupid, would just simply be, in any event, out of order and I do not think it is appropriate.
Mr Kormos: Oh, Mr Chairman, what a pathetic effort --
Mr Sorbara: It is just silly. You do not do that. Let's give him a reasonable question.
Mr Kormos: -- on the part of Mr Sorbara to short-circuit what would be a legitimate answer. I have asked this gentleman what his understanding is of the position of the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party.
Mr Sorbara: I withdraw my objection. I would be very interested in hearing the answer, sir.
The Chair: I think Mr Shewring can certainly answer the question.
Mr Shewring: Given all the fuss, all I will say, in a limited comment, is that the Liberal Party, from my understanding of the history of this province in the last few years, has tried, and has not succeeded, in doing what it intended to do, and that the Conservative Party does not know what to do.
Mr Carr: Read Mike Harris in Hansard in the debate on this topic. He spoke for half an hour. I will send you a copy.
Mr Shewring: I think it behoves all the members of the committee to try and work together on this, because I do not see that there is that big a difference in trying to deal with the question of Sunday shopping and Sunday work in the province. I do not see why the various parties cannot work together on this.
Mr Kormos: Thank you.
The Chair: You have no further questions, Mr Kormos?
Mr Kormos: I have got lots of questions, but unfortunately, Mr Sorbara would not want to answer them.
The Chair: Mr Fletcher, we have time for just one question.
Mr Fletcher: Thank you for your brief. I do realize that we are here for public hearings. We are here to listen and we are here to make a stand. People have been saying, "Will somebody please stand up and make a law that is going to work." We believe we have one.
Let me get on to what Mr Kormos was saying, because in 1986, the Conservative member for this riding, and I quote, said, "Having listened carefully to the presentations made, our caucus has concluded that the seven-day commercial workweek is not socially desirable in Ontario, and I am pleased to share the same views." Mrs Cunningham, who ran for the leadership of the Conservative Party, also ran on the issue that Sunday shopping was her stand, and that they were against it. Mr Arnott, the member for Wellington, this year in the House stood up and said, "Yes, I'm against Sunday shopping." Yet all we have heard from the Liberals is, "We want status quo," and from the Conservatives, nothing. They have not made a stand.
Mr Carr: If you would like, I could make the same speech I made in the Legislature.
Mr Fletcher: They have not been able to come out and actually say they are either in favour of it, or anything else.
Mr Sorbara: Mr Chair, I would like to be recognized on a point of order.
Mr Kormos: It is not a point of order when the man is asking a question. He has time to ask a question.
The Chair: Mr Sorbara has the opportunity to offer a point of order any time he wishes to.
Mr Sorbara: Mr Chairman, I think the line of questioning here, both from Mr Kormos and my friend Mr Fletcher is out of order on the basis that positions in respect of the bill are being attributed to members of the Legislature even before these public hearings are completed. If you want to know my position, our party has not yet concluded its position on Bill 115. We have been trying to probe as much as possible. It is out of order for members of the Legislature to attribute positions to other members of the Legislature, and it seems to me --
The Chair: That is legitimate.
Mr Sorbara: -- that Mr Fletcher and Mr Kormos are doing that, and I object to that line of questioning.
The Chair: Mr Shewring has the opportunity to come up with any hypothesis he wishes to.
Mr Fletcher: I just have to finish my question.
The Chair: We have run out of time, Mr Fletcher.
Mr Fletcher: It is my question.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr Fletcher: My question to you, sir, is, are you waiting for someone in Ontario to at least stand up and say: "This is what we think should happen. This is a law. Let's make it a law and let's get on with the business of the day"?
Mr Shewring: Yes.
Mr Fletcher: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Shewring. Mr Sorbara, can you make it fairly brief?
Mr Sorbara: I have a very brief point of information arising out of the questioning of the last witness. He suggested, I think, to this committee, and I think erroneously, that municipal or regional police forces are competent to enforce the Landlord and Tenant Act. As it is a statute dealing with civil law, police forces are not competent to do that.
Mr Shewring: I did not say that.
Mr Sorbara: There was a suggestion that the police were not doing their job in Peterborough. Far be it from me to defend any police force anywhere, but they are not, sir, competent to enforce the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act.
Mr Shewring: That actually was not related to what I stated.
Mr Carr: The only point I want to make is that anybody who would like a copy of Mr Harris's speech in the Legislature on the position of the Progressive Conservatives can come and see me.
The Chair: We have come to the end of our morning schedule.
The committee recessed at 1202.
AFTERNOON SITTING
The committee resumed at 1335.
GEORGINA BOARD OF TRADE
The Chair: Our first presenter this afternoon is Mr Joel Lipchitz from the Georgina Board of Trade. We have approximately half an hour. I would like to divide that time between your presentation and the many questions which I am sure the committee members have for you. Go ahead, sir.
Mr Lipchitz: Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Joel Lipchitz. I am a director of the Georgina Board of Trade and I am here to present the board's view of the proposed legislation.
The Georgina Board of Trade is made up of people, businesses and others who are interested in business in the town of Georgina. The board of trade is a new organization and is still in its first year of operation. We are concerned about many things, but our major concern is the quality of life within our town.
I understand you have previously heard some presentations from others connected with the town of Georgina, so I will not go into a lot of detail about the town itself, but I will tell you where it is. It is in the northern part of York region, located at the southern and eastern part of Lake Simcoe. It includes the communities of Keswick, Sutton, Jackson's Point and Pefferlaw. Since 1978, we have been a designated tourist area under the Lord's Day (Ontario) Act and the subsequent legislation.
Our experience over this time period is varied with respect to Sunday and holiday shopping. Some businesses are open Sundays and holidays, while others are not. The decision to open or close appears to be based on the owner's personal beliefs, the economics of opening the business as opposed to closing it, the type of merchandise sold, availability of staff to work and the personal needs of the owner or the manager.
Our population is made up of a very large percentage of people who actually work somewhere else. This means that they leave in the morning for Newmarket, Markham, Toronto or wherever, and they come home in the evening in time to eat supper and maybe get the kids to bed. I believe these types of residents will grow in numbers in the coming years within our community. As well, a good portion of our area has been developed as cottages. For us, this means a lot of people come for the weekend and then they leave.
In order for many of our merchants to sell to these people, they either have to stay open very late at night or do all their business on the weekend. One of the major concerns we have is getting people to shop locally.
Based on our experience, Sunday shopping has not reduced the quality of life in our community. Actually it is necessary to provide some very much needed part-time jobs and other jobs in the area.
Our understanding is that the proposed legislation would not allow blanket exemptions for businesses to stay open. Accordingly, each business or group of businesses would have to apply to the municipality for a bylaw and spend the time and money going through a public hearing.
In our case, we are not even sure which municipality we would have to apply to. Would it be the regional municipality of York or would it be the town of Georgina? Our town government is already tied up with what we consider to be much more urgent concerns. We really do not want them distracted by having to deal with this issue as well.
One of the common complaints about any government is red tape. This legislation would just increase the red tape for merchants everywhere.
We agree that no one should be forced to work seven days a week. We also agree that everybody should have the right not work on his pause day. However, we do not agree that someone should not have the right to work if he wants to. We believe people should have the right to buy goods or services at their discretion, if merchants are willing to provide them.
The object of this legislation is to provide a common pause day for all residents of the province. We believe this legislation will not accomplish that objective. There are too many people employed in industries and businesses that are not limited by this type of legislation.
In conclusion, we feel the proposed legislation will not accomplish the stated objective. It will create more bureaucracy at a time when we need to streamline how we do business in order to compete. It could result in time-consuming and expensive challenges for merchants from any self-interest group. It could also limit the number of some badly needed jobs. As proven by our own experience over the last 14 years, we think it is completely unnecessary.
The Chair: Thank you very much, sir. There is a point of clarification from the parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General.
Mr Mills: Before we get into discussion and asking questions, I think it is quite important for me to draw the committee's attention to the paragraph under the word "bureaucracy." I would ask at this time, with the permission of the Chair, the legal representative from the Solicitor General's office just to go over what you are saying by "blanket exemptions." I think there is perhaps a little bit of confusion. With your permission, Mr Chair, we will ask the legal representatives to explain.
Ms Scarfone: I am Janet Scarfone from the Ministry of the Solicitor General, legal branch.
Section 4.2 of the bill allows a municipality, once the tourism criteria have been met, to apply a bylaw to "one or more retail business establishments or to one or more classes of retail business establishments." As well, there is a provision in clause (b) of that section that a bylaw may apply to all or any part or parts of a municipality. As well, with respect to your question on regional municipalities, if there is a regional municipality, the application goes to the regional municipality.
Mr Sorbara: I just want to say welcome to a York region representative. It is encouraging that you have travelled to Peterborough. We did hear from the mayor of Georgina, and his presentation was not inconsistent with your own, but I am glad to hear from the board of trade as well.
I want to go back to the opening part of your submission and the experience in Georgina in respect of Sunday shopping. Is Georgina currently designated as a tourist area for the purposes of any legislation whatever?
Mr Lipchitz: Yes, it is.
Mr Sorbara: So under the current law, where municipalities can designate tourist areas or use the municipal option to open stores, any store that wishes to stay open on Sunday in Georgina can?
Mr Lipchitz: That is correct.
Mr Sorbara: Without distinction as to whether or not it is a tourist destination?
Mr Lipchitz: That is correct, yes.
Mr Sorbara: Say, for example, if there is a big A&P food store there, or a Miracle Food Mart, that store can stay open notwithstanding its size, notwithstanding that most of its customers just live around the corner.
Mr Lipchitz: Yes. Let me give you an example. There is an IGA store owner in Sutton who opts not to open on Sunday for his own religious beliefs, and yet there is an IGA store in Keswick which does stay open. There is also an A&P which is open. So the answer to your question is yes.
Mr Sorbara: How long has Georgina benefited from this exemption or this provision?
Mr Lipchitz: Since 1978.
Mr Sorbara: In your own experience, has friction been created in the community? Is there a sense that this broad discretion to open or close has somehow detracted from the quality of life in Georgina?
Mr Lipchitz: No, there is not.
Mr Sorbara: I appreciate that there are lots of tourists. When I say "tourist" I mean people who have come from their first homes -- say, in Mississauga -- to a cottage on the shores of Lake Simcoe, who virtually have to have these stores open because they are stocking up on food for a weekend at the cottage. Is that not the case?
Mr Lipchitz: Their other option, of course, is to buy it wherever they are before they leave for the weekend.
Mr Sorbara: What about the local residents? They are not tourists when they go to the IGA on Sunday, the IGA that is open. Are they concerned? Would they prefer that these stores be closed on Sunday? They are not tourists.
Mr Lipchitz: No, they are not tourists. My experience says that in fact they want the stores to be open. A lot of them are involved in the hospitality industry and they work odd hours or they are involved in other stores themselves, so they need the opportunity to be able to shop and do other things on Sundays.
Mr Sorbara: Does a typical storekeeper make a distinction between the tourist traffic and the non-tourist traffic?
Mr Lipchitz: No.
Mr Sorbara: Does he encourage the tourists to come into the store and try to discourage the non-tourists so that they can pause commonly for a day?
Mr Lipchitz: No, they do not.
Mr Sorbara: Has there been a deterioration in church attendance during that period?
Mr Lipchitz: There has been, but my impression is that the local church people are not concerned about it any more than any other area. It is not related to the Sunday shopping issue itself.
Mr Sorbara: Without any disrespect whatever, in the York region context, the Georgina economy is seen as somewhat more fragile than, say, the Markham economy or the economy of the city of Vaughan. Would that be a fair statement?
Mr Lipchitz: Absolutely. We are no doubt, if I can use the word, the poorest of the municipalities within York region.
Mr Sorbara: Has the ability to have the freedom to open or not open, to shop or not shop on Sunday in Georgina been a help or a hindrance in the economic development of the community?
Mr Lipchitz: I think it has been a help. Because of a large number of factors, we have not enjoyed some of the benefits of the expansion in the last economic cycle that some of the southern members of York region enjoyed. My personal belief is the next cycle of expansion is going to move up to our area and we will grow quite a bit. We have grown quite a bit over the last five years. So I think it has been a help rather than a hindrance.
There are a lot of problems that we have, but one of the problems is that we do not have a lot of industry. As a matter of fact, a couple of our larger employers have either shut down or drastically reduced their labour force, from 250 to 25, working a two-day week type of thing. So jobs for the local people are very much dependent right now on tourism, hospitality and that kind of thing. To deny them the ability to open on Sunday would in fact lose jobs which are very important to our young people. Our young people, our teenagers, want to go to college, want to go to university and need a place where they can work part-time and still go to school.
Mr Sorbara: Is it safe to say that among business generally in Georgina the most common complaint is the administrative burden that all levels of government put on them, whether through taxes or filing forms or whatever, and that for some businesses an additional administrative burden to go through a complicated application procedure in order to keep their store open on what for some would be the busiest day could be the straw that broke the camel's back?
Mr Lipchitz: In my opinion, absolutely.
Mr Carr: I noticed that on page 3 you talk about, "One of the major concerns we have is getting people to shop locally." I was wondering if you could comment on the situation which may arise where certain municipalities decide to open and others do not and what it would do to your area if, for whatever reason, you did not get the tourist exemption for yourselves and your next door neighbours in another municipality did. What would you see happening?
Mr Lipchitz: Personally I think it would be an absolute disaster for most of the stores in our area. By the way, I am a chartered accountant. It is what I do, so I see and talk to a lot of businesses and of course see a lot of financial results. I go into a store or a restaurant and I say, "How has it been this year compared to last year?" and they say, "Our sales are only down 10% or 15% from the year before and we think we are doing really well because we're still here." That is the kind of environment a lot of our stores are in. Their backs are really up against the wall. If they lost any additional revenues, it would cause even more serious problems.
Mr Carr: One of the concerns that has been voiced is the fact that with the interpretation by municipalities, the politicians will make the interpretation, and that as a result, that is where some of the differences will come, because if you ask different municipal politicians across the province to interpret something, there are going to be all sorts of different ideas come out. Is that then one of the concerns you have, that it is down at the municipal level?
Mr Lipchitz: Absolutely. York region is not headquartered in Georgina. If we want to do anything within York region, that means we have to travel out of our local municipality. For instance, Newmarket or Markham are much larger communities than ours. If Newmarket does not allow Sunday shopping and we did allow Sunday shopping, and for some reason we were able to attract a certain amount of business from Newmarket, I wonder how the region itself would react to that. I feel uncomfortable personally with York region, for instance, making the decision, for just the simple reason of the additional costs that would be involved and less control I feel we would have locally over what we want to do or not do.
Mr Carr: One of the reasons the government brought the bill in was because it said it wanted to protect the retail workers. As you know, there are other segments of the population that work on Sunday and would not be covered by this. I was wondering if your particular group could give us an indication of how it sees it working so that somebody does not get forced to work. We heard from the labour council, which said even the laws that we have with this bill would not be tough enough and that they would still be forced to. I was wondering if you could comment on how you see that working so that people are not forced to work on Sundays.
Mr Lipchitz: I think the sections of the bill that deal with that right now are a very good attempt. I am not a lawyer, so I cannot really talk in those terms. Generally speaking, I think if the legislation is there the Ministry of Labour is probably the best enforcement vehicle. If the Ontario Labour Relations Board feels it can investigate a situation and feels that it is unfair based on the legislation that has been presented, that is the best vehicle available and it is already operating. I think that would be the best way of implementing it.
1350
Mr Fletcher: Thank you for your presentation. Just a couple of things: You have said in your brief, "We agree that everybody should have the right not to work on his pause day," and then in the next sentence, "However, we do not agree that someone should not have the right to work if he wants to." The amendment to the Employment Standards Act is saying that the act would assure retail workers of a common pause day and ensure that all Sunday retail work is voluntary. In other words, it is not saying you cannot work on Sunday; it is saying that if you are asked to work, you have the right to say no, but if you want to work you have the right to say yes.
Mr Lipchitz: The problem I see is that I may want to work, but the stores are closed, so where do I go to work?
Mr Fletcher: That comes under the tourist exemption and that is something you are going to have to hit with your municipal council.
Mr Lipchitz: That is where we see the problem. For instance, the Premier has been quoted in the newspaper -- I do not know him personally -- on many occasions saying that blanket exemptions will not be available to a community, which implies to me there is going to be a process whereby a business or a type of business or a class of business is going to have to go through a lengthy procedure to obtain the right to open on these days. A lot of questions come to my mind like, what happens in the interim? How do we implement it? How much advance notice are businesses going to get? It is just the additional cost.
Businesses, especially in our area, have enough headaches right now to deal with. A lot of these guys have their houses mortgaged beyond what they are actually worth and the money has gone into their business. They stand to lose a lot. To get them to come up with additional funds to maintain a right they already have I do not think is fair, nor do I think it is desirable.
Mr Fletcher: The other point I am going to bring up is that during the election campaign we campaigned as New Democrats on the fact that we would ensure a common pause day for retail workers. It was mentioned in the throne speech and we are carrying through on an election promise. I know you do not see that very often from many governments, but we are committed to it. We have been committed to it from day one and people knew that when they voted for us. It is something we have to uphold.
Mr Lipchitz: My only comment on that is that with every political campaign and with every political party there is good and bad. I would not agree with everything you wanted to do, but hopefully I would not disagree with everything either. This is one area where we disagree.
Mr Fletcher: I think people have said we have backtracked enough already.
Mr Lipchitz: That might be true, but I think it is important, with a lot of the changes that have been brought about through international trade, formation of new trading partners, the free trade agreement, the GST and all the other things we have been subjected to. There is a restructuring going on within the economy in Ontario and I think we are going to be drastically affected, even more than we have seen today.
I think we have to ensure as a province that whatever the industry and wherever our future jobs are going to come from, we have to make it as easy as possible for entrepreneurs, for big business, for inventors to come to our province and develop those ideas. I think that every time we throw up a roadblock and make it that much more difficult, we lose and we are going to lose in the long run.
Mr Fletcher: The point about roadblocks is interesting, the roadblocks that have been put up by the federal government. There have been some; every government does it, I guess. Was there an opportunity for you as a business person to approach the federal government and say, "What are you putting up these roadblocks for?"
Mr Lipchitz: There may or may not have been, but I am here today to say exactly the same thing.
Mr Fletcher: You do not know if you did not.
Mr Lipchitz: I do not know. I was not part of the process at that time.
Mr Fletcher: Okay, that is fair. Thanks for your comments.
Mr Klopp: My question was answered.
Mr Fletcher: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Mr Sorbara was asking earlier for a clarification from legal counsel from Tourism, as far as the discrepancy in the figures is concerned. Would you like that now? He has them.
Mr Williams: My name is Frank Williams. I am counsel with the legal branch at the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation. Let me just preface my remarks by saying that I will try to get something in print for the committee as soon as I can. From what information I have from people I have spoken to this morning, part of the problem in the difference in the statistics seems to be that we are comparing apples and oranges. From my understanding, the Motels Ontario statistics are based on a revenue type of basis, whereas the statistics from the ministry are based on a per-person-night type of basis, which does not necessarily reflect revenue. We are comparing two different things. I think it is the old story. If you have statistics and surveys, you have to make sure you are on an equal playing ground and I think that is part of the problem.
The other thing I am not sure about, and this is what I would like to get back to the committee on, is just how Motels Ontario is basing its statistics, for what time period. I would like to find that out in a little more detail and I will get back to the committee on that as well; likewise, just how the statistics the member brought forth to the committee just before lunch are based and what time period those are based on as well, so that we are comparing two different things and we know exactly how the two relate.
The one other issue to take into consideration is that Motels Ontario, although it may represent a fair portion of motels and hotels in Ontario, can only speak for its membership. The statistics it is bringing forth are only statistics for its members. They do not represent some of the other types of attractions and accommodation that are referred to in the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation statistics which, for example, include resorts and lodges, which are not included in the Motels Ontario statistics. That could account for a significant difference, for example, with accommodation in the north.
At this point I will leave it at that and get back to the committee when I have some more information, unless there are some questions.
Mr Sorbara: Inasmuch as I raised the point, let me begin by thanking Frank Williams for that information. Data that is as accurate and comprehensive as possible, available to the ministry or that the ministry can aggregate during the course of these hearings, would be greatly appreciated by the committee. I would be surprised if occupancy rates at lodges would account for the discrepancy, because by and large people stay at motels often on their way to lodges. My own understanding is that the downward trend has affected all sectors.
I do take the point that the Motels Ontario association does not speak for anyone but its members and I think that is an important addition to the debate, but the ministry has the capacity to get a very good fix on the state of the industry. That is going to be very helpful to us in our deliberations and when that information is available, I ask that it be forwarded to the committee.
1400
TEDDINGTON LTD
The Chair: We now have a presentation from Teddington Ltd; Mr Brian Magee, Mr Wayne Fairbrother, Ms Rae Christie and Mr Allan Lunenfeld.
Mr Magee: Mr Chairman, could I just use that table in the corner? We have a few things we would like to set up.
The Chair: Certainly. During the course of your presentation, remember to speak into the mike and please identify yourself when you first speak for the purposes of our recording. As you know, we have approximately half an hour, which can be divided up as you wish. Please commence when you feel free.
While we are waiting for the material to be established on the podium, are there people we need to check out if you have not already? No? Please go ahead.
Mr Magee: My name is Brian Magee and I am the president of Teddington Ltd, which is proposing to construct a tourist-oriented development in the central business district of Belleville, Ontario. We have a site map there which shows Belleville having a somewhat greater influence than might otherwise be the case.
With me this afternoon are Ms Rae Christie, who is holding up the map, Mr Lunenfeld, and joining us is Mr Wayne Fairbrother of the firm of Templeman, Brady. Mr Fairbrother, in addition to his private sector practice, is legal counsel to many urban and rural municipalities in eastern Ontario. At our request, Mr Fairbrother has reviewed the proposed amendments and at the conclusion of my presentation will outline certain legal considerations that arise.
In order to fully understand the nature of the problems which the proposed legislation presents to us, I would like to describe briefly for you our proposed development in Belleville. The city of Belleville is approximately 180 kilometres east of Toronto and is on the north shore of the Bay of Quinte, which is that little blue area between the mainland and Prince Edward county. The Bay of Quinte is widely used for recreational boating and fishing. The entrance to the Trent waterway system and the Murray Canal is located 18 kilometres to the west, and the southerly entrance to the Rideau Canal system is located to the east of the city of Kingston. As such, Belleville is ideally located for boating tourism. In addition to the foregoing, the city of Belleville is in close proximity to several outstanding provincial parks, namely, Presqu'île, Sandbanks, North Beach and Lake on the Mountain.
Belleville is also easily accessible by land. The city enjoys extensive frontage along the 401 and benefits from a scenic vehicular link with Prince Edward county to the south via the Norris-Whitney bridge, which comes out of the downtown area right into Prince Edward county. In particular, our site within the city of Belleville is strategically located in terms of its visibility and accessibility by land or water and in terms of its proximity to the central business district of the city. That aerial photograph, which is the one beside it, should be able to point that out.
If you will flip that thing over, that is not, clearly, all of Belleville, but that is the point at which the Moira River empties into the Bay of Quinte. In the foreground you can see the Victoria Harbour and the Anchorage, which is a condominium building farther south from it. The first bridge crossing is Highway 2, and then strangely enough the next bridge is called Bridge Street immediately north.
Our site is this roughly four-block area right here. This little marina is now somewhat larger; this photograph is a couple of years old, and that is Morch's Marina which now extends down into Zwick Island east, which is a fairly major city park. It is right on Highway 2. We have about 700 or 800 feet of frontage along the Moira River and we overlook the Bay of Quinte, so it is really very well located relative to the city, the highway and the water. The downtown business district is on the east side of the river, basically running from Highway 2, which is the first bridge, up to the turning of the river near the top of the photograph.
This site was previously used as a manufacturing facility, which was abandoned prior to our acquisition. The site has been cleared, with the exception of a historic house which we found on the site in preparation for the development. Since acquiring the site we have had extensive discussions with a wide variety of representative groups in the city which reinforced our impression that there was a substantial tourist market available to the city that was not being served by the existing facilities within Belleville.
We have taken this considerable input into account in developing our proposal. During the time these discussions took place, the city of Belleville commissioned several studies to identify the opportunities available to the city in the tourist market.
I wish to briefly refer to three studies of relevance. The first was entitled the Bayfront Planning Study, carried out by M. M. Dillon Ltd. This report quantified for the first time the actual number and size of the tourist market for the Belleville area. The study identified a potential tourist market of approximately a million people stopping within a 20-mile radius. I might add that that number is only a land-based tourist market and does not include those arriving by water, and there are tens of thousands of those.
Shortly after that report came out the city had a second cultural master plan which was prepared by Lord Cultural Resources Planning and Management, and this report identified a need for artistic and craft sales and display areas within the city. At the moment a lot of local artists and artisans are displaying their goods for sale in the library and in the hospital corridors, and there just are not facilities available for it. It also highlighted the need for additional performance areas for the performing arts and suggested that such areas would be best located in or near the central business district.
The third study, which was more of an economic study, was an economic development strategy prepared by Stephen Chait Consultants Ltd for the city, which concluded, "Tourism is a fundamental part of the wellbeing of the Quinte area," yet the report states that, "The tourism market remains in its infancy in Belleville." As a result, the report recommended that a tourism strategy be developed for the city.
With the encouragement of various interest groups and the findings of the aforementioned studies, we proceeded to further redefine our development. In response to the requests of the Quinte Arts Council we have allocated significant space in the development for arts, crafts, antiques and one-of-a-kind items, which we hope will attract those tourists who visit the area in search of these types of items.
Let me just get you a floor plan. That is maybe a better way to do it.
Mr Sorbara: Just to interrupt for a moment, is that the artist's concept of the full development?
Mr Magee: That is correct, yes.
Mr Sorbara: The site is how large?
Mr Magee: Slightly more than seven acres. It is about four relatively normal city blocks, roughly.
In response to the needs provided by the Quinte Arts Council, we have put in both places in the centre of the project on the second floor -- on either side of the stage area there -- arts, crafts, one-of-a-kind, antiques, etc, because our research indicated that a lot of people who were tourists coming basically to the south Hastings-Prince Edward county area were coming in search of those kinds of goods. We wanted to create a critical mass that would allow for this to be a stop they would want to make in order to feel that they had covered every available opportunity while they were looking for those things.
You can see the second-floor balcony area which is over our central courtyard, which is now a covered open-air situation. We have put in an open-air performance stage in the centre of the project with a seating capacity of about 2,000; it maybe has slightly more than that. We had to do it in this arrangement to split it, because there are some venues and some performances in which if we put people into a 2,000-seat situation it would look half empty. We want the full range of things. There are some things which are only going to draw 600 or 700 people, and under those circumstances we just would not open up the balcony and we would sell everything on the ground floor.
1410
When that central square is not being used for that particular function it would be available for a wide range of displays and demonstrations. For the wintertime we have proposed an artificial ice surface in the square for recreational skating and other attractions.
In addition to the foregoing, we have retained and restored on our property a historically significant building known as the Billa Flint House. We were fortunate enough to receive Ministry of Culture and Communications funding to do the restoration on that. The Billa Flint House is that building there. What we have done is we have tried to take some of the architectural features of that and blend them into the balance of the project.
The Chair: Mr Magee, we cannot hear you when you move away from the microphone. You can either move the microphone closer to you where you are standing or --
Mr Magee: Okay, let me just sit here. It is just a small thing, but for example, the chimney pots that show up here have been incorporated all the way around in these buildings that follow around and back of the site, and again you can see evidence of those things there. It is a small point, but it in fact set the tone for the entire project.
In summary, what we started almost three years ago is a central business district urban redevelopment designed to create a revitalization and refocusing of the whole downtown area, based on expanding the existing market by tapping into this identified tourist potential of about a million people.
We are presently at the stage where we are ready to commence tenant negotiations for the project. Given the tourist-oriented nature of the proposed development, it has always been our intention to seek the appropriate exemption under the applicable legislation to permit the development to be open on holidays. However, prior to entering into any leasing arrangements, we want to ensure we are in a position to advise potential tenants and their employees of the hours of operation in order that they are aware of and satisfied with the hours before agreeing to locate within the project.
In June 1991 a bill was introduced to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act. Naturally we were interested in reviewing the draft legislation to determine its effect on our proposed development.
First, we were very pleased to note that our project falls within many of the categories set out in the proposed regulations, namely, the historical content; the provision of cultural or ethnic attractions; a concentration of hospitality services; a unified concept or theme; and fairs, festivals and other special events and attractions will be held in the area. We were also pleased to note that the proposed legislation is quite clear that retail business establishments may be permitted by municipalities "to be open on holidays for the maintenance or development of tourism."
However, the problem, from our standpoint, with Bill 115 and the regulations is that as they are presently worded, they do not allow proposed developments -- that is, which are to be built for the purposes of developing tourism -- to seek an exemption under the act. This creates a major hardship in our case since we cannot go out and attract the types of tenants we want for our project until we know whether or not we will be granted permission to be open on holidays, and yet we cannot seek an exemption under the provisions of Bill 115 unless we have an existing development with existing tenants carrying on retail businesses. Thus the proposed regulation creates a serious catch-22 situation for us. Mr Fairbrother, on my right, will address this point in further detail in a moment.
The other major area of concern with the legislation is the requirement that the applicant obtain the approval of the chamber of commerce or other similar organization. In our respectful submission, this is an inappropriate and unwarranted requirement. The chamber of commerce is a non-elected body which is not accountable to the general public. It is inappropriate to give them this veto power. Further, in the case where the project is to be built, the chamber of commerce represents competitors of new development. It is indeed inappropriate and unfair to give the competition the final say as to whether or not a new development proposal will proceed. The final decision must lie with the elected council, which is elected by the general public and is responsible to the general public.
At this point I would like to turn the floor over to Mr Fairbrother to elaborate from a legal perspective on some of the concerns I have raised and to suggest a manner in which these concerns could be addressed.
Mr Fairbrother: Just before I begin, are there any other renderings or diagrams you wanted to show? My portion of the presentation is less flashy. I do not have anything to refer to, and you brought all these along.
Mr Sorbara: You are the lawyer.
Mr Poirier: Yes, a lawyer's presentation less flashy?
Mr Fairbrother: There is no opportunity for cross-examination here. That is right.
Mr Magee: Those are just floor plans. That is the overall. This is one of the streets at the south boundary of the development and we have tried to build it at a scale and a massing which is consistent. That is the south boundary of what we are doing and, as I say, the existing downtown is typically two to four storeys high, with a few bumps of five, six, seven. In fact you get at the north end of it some 10- and 12-storey buildings, but what we try to do is to both keep in mind the existing as-built form in terms of its massing and its general architectural characters, but at the same time try and relate it somewhat more to the waterfront. Whether we have succeeded or not I think is a very subjective conclusion, but that is the intent of what we are trying to do.
The other drawing we have shows a small courtyard which is immediately north. This is a more detailed picture of the north wall of the Billa Flint House and shows a somewhat smaller and more passive courtyard which is immediately north of it and leads into the project, but again, with the turret elements and the mansard roofs and dormers, etc, we have tried to relate the architecture to the balance of the downtown area, and we have little pedestrian bridges crossing at the second floor and you can see the detail being picked up consistently with the gable ends on the buildings.
This is an artist's rendering of the covered stage. It is a little bit dated because we have changed the plan slightly. You will see that the roof covering did not come back over the stage and we have decided that it is silly to be running out canvas, which you can see elements of here, every time we wanted to do it. So what it means is it is open air and it is about 50 or 60 feet in the air, but it gives you the idea of the ground floor for smaller and then the full benefit, including the balcony, for the larger performances we hope to get in there. At other times it would be industrial-commercial, horticultural, large antiques, that sort of special programming. That is the last of the pictures.
1420
Mr Fairbrother: In the time that remains I will attempt to be brief. I have been asked by Mr Magee to look at the legal aspects of the proposed legislation as it relates to this particular project, so my comments are relatively narrow in focus and not broad-based, as I am sure some of the comments and suggestions that have been put forward to this committee have been.
I have attached at the back, although I am sure you are intimately familiar with the proposed legislation, the regulations and the explanatory notes. I highlighted in there some of the sections that I would be focusing on. I do not propose to take you back and forth and flip you through that. Everything is set out in the written submission you have and later on there will be an opportunity, I suppose, to examine it, through questions and so forth.
I wanted to begin by noting that in the explanatory notes to the proposed legislation, it is stated that part I of the bill, among other things, establishes a clear principle; that is, that municipalities should only use this exemption power "to maintain or develop tourism." So the focus has been substantially narrowed. As Mr Magee has just explained, the interest of Teddington Ltd in this matter is with the development of tourism, because we are starting with a vacant parcel of land.
This principle of developing tourism is taken from the explanatory notes and is found in the bill itself at subsection 4(1), where it specifically states that. However, it is our submission that in the sections that follow and in the regulations that are to implement the act, only existing retail businesses are given the authority to apply under the act. Unless the proposed act and regulations are amended, companies such as Teddington which seek to develop and construct tourist-oriented developments are precluded from seeking an exemption under the act until the development has been constructed and tenants are in place.
As Mr Magee mentioned, and I want to reiterate, we consider that to be a significant obstacle in our attempts to fairly negotiate with tenants. We believe it would be far better to sit down with the tenant up front and say, "We have applied for and hopefully have obtained an exemption. These are our hours. Are they or are they not acceptable to you and your employees?" as opposed to the converse where they are in, and then the next thing you know the landlord, if you will, is bringing this application, with or perhaps without the consent of the tenants.
To specifically identify the concern in the draft legislation for your future reference, I would direct your attention to subsection 4(4) of the act. Subsection 4(4) states, "Subject to the regulations," and so on, the application will be from "persons carrying on retail business" or by an "association...representing people who carry on retail business." The emphasis here is that the applicant must be carrying on the retail business. It is on that basis that I suggest to you there is no allowance for a prospective business to submit the application.
As I pointed out in the written submission, I believe this could be easily addressed by amending subsection 4(4). On page 9 of the written submission, I have set out in writing that this could simply be amended to read, "one or more persons carrying on or who propose to carry on retail business." Similarly, the "application of an association...representing persons who carry on or propose to carry on." I will leave those suggestions with you.
I would ask you to look at subsection 1(2) of the regulations. You will recall that is where the six criteria are set out, of which two have to be satisfied by the applicant. You will see there is again a slant towards existing businesses: "The area has historical or natural attractions"; "The area has cultural or ethnic attractions." Again, without going through each and every one of those, I have given you an example at the bottom of page 9 of our paper which says that in the case of paragraph 2, "The area has cultural or ethnic attractions," if it were to say, "The area has or in the case of new development or redevelopment will have as part of the redevelopment or the new development cultural or ethnic attractions," that would afford applicants such as Teddington Ltd an opportunity to meet the legislation or at least to put it to the test for the local council to decide.
There is a further, somewhat related small change, but a potentially significant one, which I make reference to at page 10 of the paper. That relates to paragraph 3(1)1 of the regulations. It may not be necessary to turn to that. That is the section of the regulations that sets out what is to be in the content of the application itself. It is clear from the wording that we have just looked at in the proposed act that an application can be filed by an individual retail business establishment or by several retail business establishments. I might add that we agree with that approach. We think ultimately it should simplify the application process for the municipality to be able to deal with hopefully a combination of applications as opposed to requiring each and every individual establishment to file a separate application.
In the regulation that I mentioned, paragraph 3(1)1, it says presently that the application is to include, "A description of the geographic area or the retail business establishment," singular. Again, since the legislation itself contemplates that there could be more than one, it should say, as I have pointed out on page 10, "establishment or establishments." I think that would be consistent with the overall intent.
Finally, I would simply like to support from my own personal legal perspective the concern that was raised by Mr Magee with respect to the proposal that the chamber of commerce or a similar organization must submit a letter of support. That is found in subsection 3(1) itself. The way I have read the regulation, it says, "An application for exemption...shall contain the following," and it sets out four things. So "shall" is mandatory; it must contain those. If you fail to submit a letter from the chamber of commerce, you fail to meet the test.
I agree with Mr Magee that this has given, in essence, a veto power to the chamber of commerce. In my respectful submission, it has always been a fundamental proposition of legislation that decision-makers must be accountable for their decisions in some fashion, but a chamber is not. It is not an elected body; it is not elected by the general public.
I personally have no difficulty with the fact that the chamber's position on a matter is a factor that could be given weight by the council that makes the final decision. Perhaps they could be encouraged to submit a position on the application, but the final decision on the matter should be left in the hands of the individual council, which is accountable for its decision. It would be my request that this section, being paragraph 3(1)4 of the regulations, be deleted as it presently stands.
Those conclude my submissions on the proposed legislation. As I indicated, I wanted to be fairly narrow in focus. We are just trying to look at this. This is a proposal, as you can see and as Mr Magee indicated, that is virtually ready to go to tenants now. Should this legislation be proclaimed, hypothetically tomorrow, we feel that as it presently stands, although we feel we meet the intent of the legislation, we would have difficulty in meeting the exact words.
I would just ask Mr Magee to briefly conclude and then hopefully there is an opportunity for some questions.
Mr Magee: As we have noted, the stated intention of the proposed amendments to the Retail Business Holidays Act is to allow municipalities to maintain and develop tourism. The fundamental concept underlying our project is the development of tourism, thereby fulfilling a documented need within the city of Belleville.
Our project has been conceived and designed in a deliberate and methodical fashion, taking into account input from and the needs of the city of Belleville itself, the central business district, local interest groups, historical interests, the Quinte Arts Council, etc. The result is a project that will be aimed directly at the tourist market. In fact, we will be able to satisfy the criteria set out in the regulations to the proposed legislation, yet as the legislation stands before us, we cannot build the project as we have proposed it. This undermines the planning and development process we have undertaken to date and seriously undermines the success of our proposal.
For all of these reasons, we respectfully request that you recommend to the Legislature the changes we have set out in our written submission. We will look forward to receiving a copy of your recommendations. If there are any questions that you have, we would be happy to answer them.
The Chair: Thank you. First, a clarification from the parliamentary assistant.
Mr Mills: Concerning page 11, the final decision on the exemption does in fact rest with the elected council. You say it must; it does.
Mr Fairbrother: If I may respond to that, my concern is that the regulations state that an application "shall contain." I agree with this gentleman's interpretation, but to analogize to the Blue Jays, faltering as they are, you do not even get up to bat if you do not have those four criteria. That is our concern.
Mr Mills: Okay, I just wanted to clear that.
Mr Sorbara: I would just move, Mr Chairman, that we extend the time for these witnesses by about seven minutes, to give each of the parties an opportunity to ask a question or two.
The Chair: Given our tight schedule, is that acceptable to the other caucuses?
Mr Kormos: I have no quarrel.
Mr Carr: Yes.
Mr Sorbara: Very quickly, let me congratulate you on your proposal. We have been hearing so much gloom and doom -- the problems in the retail industry, the problems in the tourism industry, the Jays have lost six in a row -- and you are the first optimists who have come before this committee. Let me congratulate you on the project.
I think, by the way, that the problem with the chamber is going to be resolved. I do not think the Legislature could tolerate putting a quasi-judicial decision-making capacity on a voluntary body, and frankly, I think it was just a mistake.
1430
Let me tell you right off that I think I support, and I think I can convince my Liberal colleagues to support, the proposed amendments dealing with proposed developments. I hope we can convince the government of that. If we can do nothing else in these public hearings, this submission represents a positive change that we can make, although there is, I should tell you, some mood to always leave it with the existing business so that the existing business person can have the freedom to take a common pause. But I would support your proposals.
Let me just ask a question, though, and this gets into the broader question. I am sorry to drag you into it, but you are developing in Belleville and it would be important to hear your views. There will be a number of businesses in the area which are going to be detrimentally affected because you are going to draw customers, you are going to compete with those businesses. Many of those businesses are not going to qualify as tourist locations and therefore will not be able to compete with you on Sundays. How fair do you think that is? It is good for you.
Mr Magee: Mr Chairman, could we extend the meeting by about another 30 minutes? Let me answer it in two ways, if I could. We are at the point where we have zoning. We are, frankly, ready to go. The question you have asked, if I could turn it slightly, is this: There is, by all of the studies that have been done, a huge market which the current merchants in Belleville are clearly not taking advantage of. It is our contention that by allowing us to -- let me go back one step. We are going to build it and it is going to be about 250,000 gross feet by the time we are finished, with stages and everything else. If we do not expand the market, what is going to happen is that we are going to detrimentally hurt those existing retailers who are there. That is one of the reasons we have delayed, in anticipation of being able to at least make application for tourism exemption.
We have geared it towards tourism, but if the market is not expanded, regardless of whether or not we are allowed to be open on holidays -- we are the new kids. We have the new building, the new look, the proper tenant mix, the proper parking, the special promotions and stages and skating rinks and everything under the sun and we are going to do a lot of damage to existing retailers.
Belleville has a primary market of 40,000 people. A million people is 25 times the population of Belleville. It is our hope that by going after tourism and putting our focus in that direction, the impact of our entry into that market is going to be significantly reduced and that over time, if we are successful in attracting a significant number of those people, there is going to be a significant spillover effect to the service industries: the hotels, the restaurants, the gas stations and everybody else who is going to benefit from the attraction of those people. So rather than hurting them if we get the tourism exemption, it would be my position that we are going to significantly help them. I think it will do serious damage if we do not.
Mr Carr: Thank you very much for a fine presentation. I want to say that your presentation helped in light of new proposed developments that I think will be taken into consideration.
I agree with Greg in that I think probably the chamber clause will be taken out. As I have said to the other chambers, I will be pushing for that, because quite frankly they do not want it either, if you have followed the debate. They said, "Thanks, but no thanks," and so on, so I think that will be one that will probably also come out.
I also want to say, as Mr Sorbara did, that I think you can count on my part in getting some of the amendments in there for proposed developments. So you have two out of three. Unfortunately, the last one is the one that counts because they have the numbers on there. I did want to thank you for that.
The question I had relates to what would happen if in fact your project did not get the tourist exemption, for whatever reason, because as you know this is one hurdle. If you get all this, you could go to the municipality and it would say no. I just wondered what your thoughts are on what it would do to the whole cost structure you are looking at and what you feel would happen with the tenants, whether you would have to then lower the price, what are you looking at if this does not go through.
Mr Magee: It is a good question, and it is clearly something we thought about. If we do not get it, it is not that it is not going to be built. It will be built. It would not be built, for example, in the same form or with the same tenant layout.
We have a couple of big structures which at the moment are unidentified. For example, we had Price Waterhouse do a study and it said, "Look, the 401 corridor is the place where hotels go." Most of those hotels at the moment, I think something in the order of 47% of them, are occupied by commercial travellers. You need the tourism to justify a hotel in the location on Highway 2, because the business traveller is after convenience rather than look. If we did not get it and we did not attract the tourists, an eight- or nine-storey building would suddenly become an office building or a condominium building as opposed to a hotel.
It is that tradeoff between tourist-oriented tenancies. For example, we now have arts and crafts and antiques and one of a kind. I think there is something in the order of 15,000 or 16,000 feet that is allocated towards that. If we were not able to be open to service that market on the days that we perceive the market is there, we would probably reallocate that space and put it in fashion or service or something that was more geared to the resident market as opposed to the tourist.
The project will still go ahead, but the thrust and the intent of it -- frankly, and I would not suggest you know this, but there is not another location in the greater Belleville area that is as good as that for this specific use and we would like to do it. As I mentioned to Mr Sorbara's earlier question, I really think we would do a lot of damage to the downtown. It may be wishful thinking, but I really do think that we are a better product than the existing downtown, and I would rather expand the market than compete with them and cut up an existing pie into smaller pieces.
Mr Lessard: I too want to congratulate you on your effort and wish you the best of luck. It is obvious that you have done a lot of preparation and hard work to try and make sure this development is a success.
I come from the city of Windsor, which is a city that is really hard hit by people going over the border to do their shopping. I expect that I might hear from people there saying, "Let us open on Sunday, because we need to compete with the United States and try and keep people at home to shop," but I know that argument is not really the solution. The solution is to attract people from Michigan and Ohio and New York into our communities in order to stimulate the economy. That is what you are attempting to do and I think this is what the intention of this legislation is trying to encourage.
I want to thank you for bringing to our attention the impact these proposed amendments to the act are going to have, because that is very useful information and that is the reason we are travelling around and listening. I am not going to say that I am going to fight to make sure that amendment about the proposed developments goes in, but just say to you that is something we are going to have to pay some attention to. It is an interesting problem.
With respect to the chamber of commerce, I just wanted to say that I tend to agree with your submission.
Mr Kormos: Perhaps some legal advice.
Interjections.
Mr Kormos: Which I have often needed and only rarely turned down, at the most inopportune of moments, and the consequences have always been great.
A whole lot of people have been coming here talking about it, and remarkably, people who tend to be Sunday shopping types, if you will, and other people, like God-fearing people and working people, who tend to be on the anti-Sunday shopping side -- not to imply that those who are pro Sunday shopping are necessarily lacking godliness but I am convinced that it may well reflect a predisposition.
None the less, there have been three areas of concern. The chamber of commerce, yes. The level of government, or who does the adjudicating in terms of an application? Who does the applying of the standards that are set in the legislation, regardless of whether they are the ones that are currently contained, whether they are beefed up, whether they are made a little more precise. So one, we have had some people say, "No, don't let regional governments do it when in fact there are municipal governments, because municipal governments are closer to the issues." There are all sorts of strange little parochial politics sometimes, people have told me, that go on in regional governments. Other people say, "No, the province should take the bull by at least one horn and administer its own guidelines." Quite frankly, the UFCW, or at least a whole lot of people in the UFCW, would prefer that, because they see there being less likelihood of misapplication of law. Do you have preferences or some ideas?
1440
The other thing, of course, is that the solicitor for the region of Ottawa-Carleton brought up the whole problem of judicial review and natural justice rearing its head. You can taint council very easily by having a pre-council discussion with one council member, for instance.
So one, that issue; two, an appeal process; and once again, those people who have strong feelings about common pause day, and I am one of them, have concerns that an adjudicating body can make a decision and then there is no recourse for the party of the faction that feels aggrieved. Obviously that is a double-edged sword, because that would mean similarly that people like developers, like property owners, who want to seek exemptions who feel they fall within the guidelines could well avail themselves of an appeal and review process. Have you comments on either of those two, because you have obviously spent some time with the legislation?
Mr Fairbrother: The question of which level of government should be the decision-maker, if you will, is not strictly, I suppose, a legal question. There are a lot of ramifications that go far beyond the legal aspects of it. I am not sure I have anything to say that would be terribly helpful on that, because I share the concerns you have in terms of leaving out the municipal level, and equally there are concerns if you were to just leave it on a broad-brush basis at the provincial level.
But the lack of an appeal process, as it presently stands -- we were talking about this just today at lunch -- is certainly a concern. The way I read the legislation, you can meet all of the criteria and council still has the right to turn you down. I think that in those circumstances there is certainly no indication that there is to be an appeal to a tribunal such as the Ontario Municipal Board or something to that effect. Normally your only remedy then would be an appeal to the courts and I do not think a court is going to touch it, because it is not going to interfere with the discretion of the council.
Certainly it creates the potential for hardship. I do not know what Brian's thoughts are on that, as a potential applicant. As it is proposed, it is clear enough from a legal standpoint where the decision will lie at the present time. As for a preference, I cannot really offer one.
The Chair: Thank you very much, gentlemen, for a very interesting presentation, as you can see from the interest it has sparked. I am sure your suggestions will be taken into consideration when the committee meets to discuss the bill clause by clause, word by word.
UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS, LOCALS 175/633
The Chair: Our next presentation is from Mr Jerry Clifford, representing the United Food and Commercial Workers, Locals 175/633. As you know, sir, you have approximately half an hour, to be divided between your presentation and the questions the committee members will have for you. Please go ahead.
Mr Clifford: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you. The United Food and Commercial Workers' Union, Locals 175/633, with approximately 45,000 members in Ontario, of which approximately 1,200 members are employed in the Peterborough-Lindsay area by such companies as A&P food stores, Drug City, Woodhouse and Cherneys furniture stores, Valdi food stores, and there are many others as well, would like to thank you for the opportunity of coming before you and participating in a democratic process with regard to the issue of Bill 115, Sunday shopping and working.
UFCW Locals 175/633 are the largest private sector union in the whole of North America. Our local union is solely situated in Ontario, so it should come as no surprise to this committee that Locals 175/633 take the issue of Sunday shopping and working seriously.
Our membership has said time and time again that we do not want to work on Sundays. We believe it is in the best interests of the employers and our members to have legislation in Ontario that provides for a common pause day.
On Monday, July 29, 1991, Brother Clifford Evans, the Canadian director of the UFCW Canada, made a presentation to this committee. Our members in the Peterborough and Lindsay area and the province support the recommendations made by Brother Evans to this committee on that date. I only wish to raise our five main concerns with the proposed amendments to the Retail Business Holidays Act, and those are the intent of the Retail Business Holidays Act; the municipal option; drugstores opening on Sunday; the enforcement of the legislation, and the definition of a "retail business."
The intent of the Retail Business Holidays Act: The present act fails to recognize the rights of workers to a common pause day. The proposed amendment to that is that the proposed legislation recognizes the need for and importance of a common pause day in part I of the Retail Business Holidays Act. The wording of the proposed amendment to subsection 4(2), such as "shall take into account" and "should be maintained" is, however, too general. This achieves only a watered down version of what is required.
Our recommendation to the committee is that to ensure that the intent of the Retail Business Holidays Act is consistently followed, the amendment to subsection 4(2) regarding municipal powers should read:
"The council, in passing a bylaw under subsection 1, must maintain the principle that holidays are to remain as a common pause day; that is, to ensure that they remain days on which most businesses are not open and days on which most persons do not have to work."
The municipal option: The present act, the legislation implemented by the previous Liberal government, provides that municipalities have full control over the decision to allow stores to open on Sundays or other holidays. There are no regulations, no criteria and no principles to guide municipalities in the making of the decisions. The will of the municipal councils simply predominates. The provincial government has no way of stopping wide-open Sunday shopping and working. One only has to look at the high rate of applications for exemptions that are presently in the hands of the municipalities for proof of the extent of this problem.
The proposed amendment: As proposed, the decision-making process would remain in the hands of the municipalities. In addition, the regulations and criteria of the tourist exemption as set out in sections 1 and 2 and subsection 4(1) of the new amendments are so broad as to effectively restrict no one. Under the proposed rules, decisions of the municipalities would be final and the province, including the Solicitor General, would not be able to challenge this decision.
In the view of Locals 175/633, the proposal would lead to wide-open Sunday shopping and working, and as a result would fail to enshrine the common pause day as intended.
1450
Our recommendation is that the recreational, entertainment and cultural pursuits of tourists as well as the goal of enshrining the common pause day can both be accommodated by the law. To accomplish this, Locals 175/633 recommend that the proposed amendments be changed to reflect the following.
The new subsection 4(1) should read:
"Notwithstanding section 2 and subject to the provisions of clause 4(1)(a) and (b) below, the council of a municipality may by bylaw permit retail business establishments in the municipality to be open on holidays where it is essential for the maintenance or development of a tourist industry and where it is essential to meet the education, cultural, leisure and recreational needs of the tourist; and
"(a) only retail business establishments in which the total area used for serving the public or for selling or displaying to the public in the establishment is less than 4,000 square feet; and
"(b) the number of persons engaged in the service of the public in the establishment does not at any time exceed four."
The government must establish a committee of the affected stakeholders that will prepare and recommend a new set of viable tourist criteria regulations. The stakeholders should include the representatives of the affected groups, such as retailers, unions and government.
According to the amendment, the tourist criteria as proposed would not form part of the legislation. However, we recommend that the new set of viable regulations established by the stakeholders mentioned above be integrated into the legislation.
Subsection 4(8) must be modified to state, "The council's decision may be appealed by any interested party to the tourist exemption board."
Drugstore openings on Sundays: Under the present act, drugstores with a square footage of 7,500 square feet or less may open on a holiday. Currently these drugstores must dispense drugs and the principal business must be for the sale of goods of a pharmaceutical or therapeutic nature, for hygienic or cosmetic purposes. No other goods are allowed for sale, with the exception of sundries.
Unfortunately, there is a widespread problem with these drugstores selling soft drinks, potato chips, candies and other foodstuffs which are considered sundries. In many cases, up to 80% of sales in these stores consists of products of a non-pharmaceutical nature. This occurs in spite of the ample opportunity to purchase such non-pharmaceutical products provided through the numerous convenience stores that are allowed to open on Sunday. To compound the problem, the absence of a restriction on the number of employees working on a Sunday or holiday allows some drugstores to dedicate extra help for the benefit of sales of these non-pharmaceutical products.
The proposed amendment: In its proposed legislation, the government has not addressed the problem of large drugstores opening on Sundays. The proposed legislation also fails to put a restriction on the number of employees allowed to work on a holiday. Locals 175/633 recommend that clauses 3(2)(c) and (d) of the present act be amended to read as follows:
"(c) the total area used for serving the public or for selling or displaying to the public in the establishment is less than 2,400 square feet," such as it was in 1989; and,
"(d) the number of person engaged in the service of the public in the establishment does not at any time exceed four, including the pharmacist, who must be present in the establishment during business hours."
Currently there are many drugstores with a square footage of 2,400 square feet or less in many communities in Ontario that provide ample opportunity for the population to receive the needed medication or other prescription products, particularly in cases of emergency. Additionally prescriptions and other medication can be obtained at various hospitals and clinics with onsite pharmacies open on Sundays.
The limitation of four persons, including the pharmacist, to be engaged in the service of the public would allow the prescription or other medication needs of the people of Ontario to be fully met. Our recommendation would require pharmacists to be present during business hours in the establishment in order to attend to the prescription and other medication needs of people, which addresses the real reason for drugstores remaining open on Sundays.
The enforcement of the legislation: Currently the act provides for maximum fines of $50,000 upon conviction for illegal Sunday openings. Also, municipalities or the Attorney General of Ontario can apply to the Supreme Court of Ontario for an injunction to close an establishment that is opening illegally. However, there are no minimum fines. In many cases the courts are imposing fines of $300 upon conviction. That is hardly a deterrent.
Under the present act only two parties, the Attorney General of Ontario and the municipality, are allowed to file for an injunction. Unfortunately, these two parties are in many cases not aware of the violations or are not interested in filing for an injunction.
The proposed amendment is that the government has proposed minimum fines of $500 for the first offence and $2,000 for the second offence. We fully support the principle of the minimum fine. However, the proposed fines are far too low. We believe the amount of the proposed minimum fines will not deter retailers from opening on Sundays. In fact, a retailer's profit for one day could easily surpass the amount of the fine.
Under the proposed legislation, there would be no change with regard to who can apply for an injunction. As a result, we foresee the same problems of little enforcement and no action continuing. In order to address problems related to the minimum fine being an insufficient deterrent and the lack of enforcement, Locals 175/633 are recommending the following:
The proposed amendment of the minimum penalty should be modified to include, "For first offences, the minimum fine for conviction be $10,000, and for subsequent offences, the minimum fine for conviction be $20,000."
Subsection 8(1) should be amended to read, "Upon the application to the Supreme Court by any affected or interested party, the court may order that a retail business establishment close on a holiday to ensure compliance with this act or regulation under this act."
At present, legislation similar to the proposals of Locals 175/633 exists in the Metro Toronto area, and we have no reason to believe justice is cheaper in the midnorth region, which reinforces the need for reasonable and effective deterrents.
The definition of a "retail business": Presently under the act the definition of a retail business does not include club warehouses, such as Price Clubs. This flaw allows the giant stores in the guise of membership clubs to be open on Sundays. The government has not addressed the existing problem relating to the definition of a "retail business." As a result, club warehouses will continue to operate on Sundays.
The recommendation of Locals 175/633 is that to prevent circumvention of the act by establishments such as Price Clubs, clauses 1(1)(b), (c) and (d) of the present act should be amended to reflect the following:
"1(1)(b) `retail business' means the selling of goods or services by retail to any member of the public, including a member of a club or co-operative of any other group of consumers.
"(c) `retail business establishment' means the premises where a retail business is carried on. Any space or stall in markets, particularly in covered markets and `flea markets,' shall be considered to be a retail business.
"(d) `principal business' means that portion of the business which accounts for 80% of the retail business establishment's gross sales."
Our general concerns with the Sunday shopping and working and tourism are that according to the proposed amendments to the Retail Business Holidays Act, the tourist exemption as proposed would be granted by the municipality only where it is essential for the maintenance or development of tourism. As previously stated, the proposed criteria for the tourist exemption are far too broad and too general and would provide too much leeway for municipalities to operate as the sole decision-makers. As a result, the exemption as proposed would lead to wide-open Sunday shopping, and of course the working goes with the shopping.
1500
The geography of the midnorth dictates that ease of Sunday opening for tourism purposes could lead to one centre declaring itself a tourist area in order to draw the residents of another centre three or four hours away to come on Sunday to spend dollars badly needed in the drawn-upon centre.
Clearly the government has not achieved a balance between the establishment of the principle of a common pause day and the development of tourism. However, by accepting our recommendations, Locals 175/633 believe the recreational, entertainment and cultural needs of tourists can be met without opting for wide-open Sunday shopping and working and without one centre of commerce preying upon its neighbour.
Sunday shopping and working and the family: The amendments proposed by the government would lead to wide-open shopping and working affecting a significant number of workers and their families in Ontario. Locals 175/633 believe that these workers and these families have a right to and want a common pause day.
Retail workers and their families are directly affected by Sunday shopping and working. That is more than 2 million people in Ontario. In addition, police, transportation, public workers, maintenance staff, delivery drivers and other support services for retailing, which represent another 250,000 workers and their families, would also be affected by wide-open Sunday shopping on Sundays. Ontario needs a common pause day for workers and for their families.
In conclusion, the proposed Bill 115 is not the legislation anyone wants. It does nothing to correct many of the problems with the current Retail Business Holidays Act and makes a joke out of tourism exemptions. We would be very surprised if you can find one municipality in Ontario that does not qualify for the exemption under these guidelines. We do not object to the need for tourism exemptions, but this determination is not one the municipalities wish to have thrust upon them. This is a matter of provincial jurisdiction and the province must come up with a way of regulating it.
Jobs will not be created. Profits will not increase. All this law will do is break up family unity and spread profits from six days to seven days.
We have heard a lot of talk about cross-border shopping. Cross-border shopping and Sunday openings are two different issues and I hope you know and realize that Sunday openings will not stop cross-border shopping.
I would like to take this time to thank the committee very much for its time.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Jerry. We have a really brief time. We also have a clarification from the PA first.
Mr Mills: Thank you, Mr Clifford. I would just like to clarify, for your information and for your union, on page 6, the definition of "retail business." The Attorney General has decided that the definition of a "retail business" does include club warehouses, and police forces throughout Ontario have been advised that should these premises be found open on Sunday, they are subject to prosecution.
Mr Sorbara: I would first like to thank Mr Clifford for his presentation. There have been a number of presentations from the UFCW, all of them presented, I think, with great force and conviction before the committee. I think, though, yours is the only one that says: "The proposed Bill 115 is not the legislation anyone wants." Can you just expand on that a little bit? I tend to agree with you, although I think I would have a different view of what legislation people do want.
Mr Clifford: I am in trouble if you and I are in agreement.
Mr Sorbara: No, because frankly this is municipal option with a different colour. It is municipal option based on some broad tourism criteria. Never mind the union. In your personal life, in your community life, is there anyone who thinks this bill is going to really solve the Sunday shopping dilemma? Forget about the union position; just personally.
Mr Clifford: In answer to that, I would say it is not that the bill is no good, but what is there needs changes to make it effective, to make it good. The way it is right now, no, it is not going to be any good. These changes would make it better.
Mr Carr: On page 7, just carrying on with what Mr Sorbara said, it makes a joke of the tourist exemptions and then you go on to say, "We would be very surprised if you can find one municipality...that does not qualify." I take it that what you see, if the changes do not come in that you propose, is that we are going to have wide-open Sunday shopping in Ontario.
Mr Clifford: That is right. When I first saw the legislation, what it took for the criteria, I thought, "What town does not have that?" Find me one place. You find a village that has only a couple of hundred people who live in it and it would have all those criteria.
Mr Fletcher: Thank you, Mr Clifford, for being here today. I have to lead into this question so I have two quick questions. Where do you work?
Mr Clifford: I am a business representative for UFCW.
Mr Fletcher: You did work in the stores at one time?
Mr Clifford: I spent all my life working in an A&P store.
Mr Fletcher: If I understand this right, does A&P get fresh produce delivered on Sunday, if it opens on Sunday?
Mr Clifford: No, they do not. Not yet.
Mr Fletcher: When do they get it right now?
Mr Clifford: On Saturday.
Mr Fletcher: So that means I would be buying Saturday's produce.
Mr Clifford: That is right.
Mr Fletcher: So I would not be getting the fresh stuff.
As far as the exemption is concerned, the board you have been asking for, the review board, would that be like the Ontario Municipal Board or would it be another board set up to review the decisions of a municipal council?
Mr Fletcher: It would be the board as it is spelled out in the presentation there.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Mills would like to make one more brief point of clarification.
Mr Mills: I am very sorry, Mr Clifford. When I told you about the Price Clubs, it was the decision of the Ministry of the Attorney General and not the minister per se.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Clifford, I would like to thank you for taking the time to come here to present today. It was well thought out. Thank you very much.
Mr Clifford: Thank you very much.
RETAIL, WHOLESALE AND DEPARTMENT STORE UNION
The Vice-Chair: Dan Garvey. Mr Garvey, I would like to welcome you to the standing committee on the administration of justice. You have a half-hour. You can divide that half-hour up any way you want. I am sure the fine gentlemen up here from all three parties would like to ask you some questions when you are done, though.
Mr Garvey: Good afternoon, and I thank you for your time.
I work for the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, and we are pleased to present this position on behalf of our 20,000 members in Ontario directly affected by this legislation and our 140,000 total international membership interested in the working conditions of retail workers. We represent working people in the retail food, department store, books, drug, clothing, shoes, furniture, hardware and sundry industries. These are supported further by members of the trucking industry and warehousing and production facilities which supply these retailers.
The RWDSU is affiliated with the Ontario Federation of Labour, the Canadian Labour Congress and all municipal labour councils. The OFL fully supports in consultation the position of the RWDSU and its members.
It has been the position of many other socially conscious organizations and we believe the position of the government that there should be a common pause day for retail in Ontario and that most stores should be closed. The present effort by the government to enshrine this principle is applauded by our membership and we would like to share a few concerns with the practical application of this idea.
1510
We recognize that there is a need for pharmaceutical products and emergency grocery shopping on Sunday for a few consumers. The legislation should recognize these limited exceptions as just that -- exceptions to the rule -- and deal with these loopholes existing for retailers circumventing the true intent of the act.
We further recognize the need for tourist exemptions for legitimate tourist areas, but this should not be used as a guise to promote another daily shopping day or to address the cross-border shopping issue. The legislation was not designed for, nor intended to be a promotion of, tourism or control of cross-border shopping. It is a piece of legislation enacted to provide employee rights to a common pause day.
Our concerns and proposed changes to the amendments to the Retail Business Holidays Act can be set out under the following subjects: (1) purpose of the Retail Business Holidays Act; (2) definition of a retail business; (3) drugstores; (4) tourism criteria and the municipal option, and (5) enforcement.
Number one, the purpose: While the present act fails to specifically enunciate a worker's right to a common pause day, the proposed amendment falls short of clearly establishing this right, which we believe is the intent of the government. Should there be any test in the future of the weight of exceptions to the rule, then the lawmakers should be able to refer back to this guiding right. It will provide consistency to the legislation.
Our proposal would be that we would recommend that section 4(2), regarding municipal powers, reads: "The council, in passing a bylaw under subsection (1), must maintain the principle that holidays are to remain as a common pause day; that is, to ensure that they remain: (1) days on which most businesses are not open; (2) days on which most persons do not have to work."
A retailer by any other name is a retailer. Whether they call themselves membership clubs, club warehouses, or otherwise, these are retailers, and the definition of a retail business needs to be addressed to incorporate these giant stores, like Price Club, which currently operate on the edge of the law.
Our proposal is that the present act should be amended to read to reflect the following:
1. "Retail business" means the selling of goods or services by retail to any member of the public, including a member of a club or co-operative of any other group of consumers.
2. "Retail business establishment" means the premises where a retail business is carried on. Any space or stall in markets, particularly in covered markets and flea markets, is considered to be a retail business.
3. "Principal business" means that portion of the business which accounts for 80% of the business's gross sales.
Drugstores: We accept that emergency pharmaceutical services are a necessity, but the current act provides for square footage of 7,500 square feet. This has resulted in the proliferation of large chain drugstores that devote most of their floor space, employee time and sales to non-pharmaceutical sales on Sunday. They have been transformed to large grocery, sundry and convenience stores, thereby robbing small independent druggists and legitimate convenience stores of much-needed sales.
The government should allow the drugstores to serve their purpose and the convenience stores, currently exempted, to serve theirs. There is no need for these large stores as pharmacies or for the number of employees for non-emergency services.
Our experience with membership in these stores supports this conclusion. We cannot find any municipality in Ontario without a small druggist or pharmacy attached to a hospital or medical clinic. We believe that the real reason for opening these businesses on Sunday is for emergency drug care. If so, the pharmacist should be on duty at all times, the floor space should be limited to these reasonable needs, and the number of employees likewise.
Therefore, RWDSU suggests that the act be amended to read as follows:
"3(2)(c) The total area used for serving the public or for selling or displaying to the public in the establishment is less than 2,400 square feet.
"(d) The number of persons engaged in the service of the public in the establishment does not at any time exceed four, including the pharmacist, who must be present in the establishment during business hours."
Tourism criteria and the municipal option: The RWDSU believes that the only way the municipal authority over the regulation of Sunday work can work under the tourism exemption is with clear and unambiguous criteria and an external arbitrator if a municipality oversteps these criteria.
It is clear from the current legislation that some municipalities have used the tourist exemption to declare themselves outside the legislation for the purpose of non-tourist-related shopping and competition. The proposed regulations under the new sections 1 and 2 and section 4 are too broad to be meaningful.
A number of municipal politicians are already claiming tourist status in areas not traditionally regarded as recreational or cultural tourist areas. Sunday openings should only be for the maintenance and development of tourism and tourists, not recreational shopping. If the province is not to be the final decision-making authority, then an external tourism exemption board should be established to review all exemption applications for their tourist status under a well-defined set of guidelines.
The RWDSU recommends the following amendments:
"4(1) Notwithstanding section 2 and subject to the provisions of clauses 4(1)(a) and (b) below, the council of a municipality may, by bylaw, permit retail business establishments in the municipality to be open on holidays where it is essential for the maintenance or development of a tourist industry and where it is essential to meet the educational, cultural, leisure and recreational needs of the tourist; and
"(a) only retail business establishments in which the total area used for serving the public or for selling or displaying to the public in the establishment is less than 4,000 square feet; and
"(b) the number of persons engaged in the service of the public in the establishment does not at any time exceed four."
"4(8) The council's decision may be appealed by any interested party to the tourist exemption board."
Further, the RWDSU recommends that the government establish a committee of the affected stakeholders -- for example, representatives of the retailers, unions and government -- to prepare and recommend a comprehensive set of tourist criteria that are both viable and reasonable, and that these would form regulations to be part of the legislative authority.
Enforcement: Current enforcement is weak because, while maximum fines are $50,000, penalties are small and of little deterrence. The minimum fines should be increased even beyond the current amendments proposed. Most retailers still profit from a Sunday opening.
Ontario should further follow the Quebec lead in allowing affected parties, not only the Attorney General and municipality, to apply for injunctions, reducing costly enforcement. Violators faced with stiffer penalties and more community-based threats of injunctions should be more reluctant to propose costly litigation.
The RWDSU recommends the following changes: that the minimum penalty be modified to $10,000. Upon the application to the Supreme Court by any affected or interested party, the court may order that a retail business establishment close on a holiday to ensure compliance with this act or regulation under this act.
In summary, our members are both retail workers and consumers. They know that Sunday work only means shifts of work and business shifted from one part of the week to another and a more fractured workweek. They already are exposed to one of the longest and least stable workweeks. The effect on their families and personal lives is already as difficult as any work group in society.
Few consumers who shop on Sunday would opt to work on Sunday and pay the price that retail men and women do. Some will argue that we must compete for cross-border shopping dollars, but across the border they do not enjoy or pay for many of the social programs we enjoy, such as medical care. Should we eliminate these too and let the marketplace take its toll?
Our membership believes that this government can balance the interests of business and competition with a fair and just working environment for these millions of Ontario workers. Cross-border shopping is the product of a high Canadian dollar, lower prices, lower social benefits and a free trade environment brought on by federal policies. It is not a matter of shopping convenience, and we should not design worker rights around temporary and fluctuating economic conditions. We should also not force our municipalities to fight among themselves over limited shopping dollars. The fairest approach to Sunday work and shopping is to minimize the risk to all and eliminate all but the most essential services. A caring government should exercise its mandate and fulfil its role in protecting the welfare of the Ontario worker.
1520
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Garvey. Before we go into the questions, Mr Mills would like to have a clarification.
Mr Mills: Mr Garvey, I suppose you were here and heard me talk about the clubs. I would just like to bring out a point on page 2. You go on to say, "and the legislation was not designed for, nor intended to be, a promotion of tourism." I would like to take you up on that point. Part I of Bill 115 reads, "Part I of the bill establishes the principle that retail business holidays are common pause days and that municipalities should not use their exemption power to permit retail business establishments to open on holidays except to maintain or develop tourism." I just want to make it clear that the legislation is designed to maintain and develop tourism, and not intended to do that.
Mr Garvey: If I could just comment, I was making the point that the main thrust is the common pause day. Of course there are other exceptions tied into that as far as Sunday openings are concerned.
Mr Sorbara: Have we ever had a common pause day in Ontario?
Mr Garvey: Municipalities have.
Mr Sorbara: But have we ever had a common pause day in Ontario? The government is saying: "We brought this bill in so as to bring about a common pause day in Ontario. We've chosen Sunday. We could have chosen Wednesday but we chose Sunday." I do not believe, you do not believe, and most of the people in the province do not believe this bill is going to bring about a common pause day in Ontario. What are we looking for? Have we ever had a common pause day in Ontario?
Mr Garvey: What we are looking to clear up is a very bad situation right now, to make it better. For us to say that it is not going to work -- you have not seen it and I have not seen it. We do not propose to see it in the future. We are certainly not suggesting we are going to forget about it.
Mr Sorbara: This bill is almost identical to the bill the Tories brought in a long time ago when they made everything close except businesses that promoted or developed tourism. It is not very different. A few of the words are different and the application procedure is different, but this is the Tory legislation from back in 1972 I guess; I have not got the date.
My problem is that we keep saying, and particularly the unions say, "We must have a common pause day in Ontario." Have we ever had a common pause day in Ontario? When did we have it and what factors brought it about? There was a day when you could not see movies, play baseball, go into the park, shop or drink. There were certain things you could do but they were restricted to the home. Mostly you could work in factories but you could not ride the streetcars. Was that a common pause day? Are we going to get a common pause day with this bill? Do we need to do something else to bring about a common pause day? What are we looking for?
Mr Garvey: We are looking to help out the retail workers.
Mr Sorbara: What about the rest of the workers? Are they not included in a common pause day?
Mr Garvey: You have a separate act. Right now we are saying the retail workers have a voluntary position, whether they want to work on Sunday or not work on a Sunday. Like some of the people who spoke before me, I have some difficulties with that and how we police that.
Mr Sorbara: If we made it illegal for any retail worker to work in Ontario on Sunday, on pain of prison, without a special permit acquired from the government -- no retail worker can work on Sunday in Ontario without a special exemption from the government -- a certificate that says, "Here, you can go work on Sunday," if we brought in that law, would that bring about a common pause day in Ontario?
Mr Garvey: No, sir, it would not, just as it is illegal to rob a bank.
Mr Sorbara: Let me just say if no store can open, and if it opens the government can confiscate the store and no workers can work, and if they work they go to prison. If it was that tough -- confiscation, prison for workers and confiscation for the businesses -- that is, if it were absolutely certain that every store would close on Sunday, would we have a common pause day in Ontario?
Mr Garvey: No, we would not.
Mr Sorbara: Thank you.
Mr Carr: I was interested in your thoughts on what you see happening. You have brought in some polls. If the legislation stays the same, do you think we will see Sunday shopping in Ontario?
Mr Garvey: Yes, I think we will see it and we will see the same mess we have had now for the last couple of years. You have municipalities that do not want to open on Sunday. An earlier presentation from the developers said that if they do not open and pick up some business, then somebody else is going to open and get it. You have people opening that do not want to open. They are not even making a living on some of these situations in the smaller communities, but they must stay open to hold on to their share of the business. We have a number of large companies we deal with that have told us they do not want to open either. It pulls down the others and gives us a level playing field.
The Sunday openings way back when were for the mom-and-pop stores. That is where I had the small corner store. I am from Peterborough. I was born and raised in Peterborough and I have a large family, 10 brothers and sisters, who are working in this city right now. Years and years ago the small stores on the corner opened up and if you forgot to get your quart of milk you went up and got it and maybe you spent an extra 10 or 15 cents on it. The owner of that small store said: "This is where I make my living. I can't compete against the big guy because I can't get the prices he gets." That was the idea.
Now everything is turned around. The large stores are opening, and you cannot tell me that a drugstore that sells more groceries than the small mom-and-pop stores on the corner ever thought of selling is a drugstore any more. You go in there and you have difficulties finding a druggist. There is no emergency there. We are proposing that they be downsized and that they must maintain a druggist on the premises. As far as emergency goes, you have your hospitals, and the hospitals almost all have a drugstore attached to them.
Mr Carr: I agree. I think we probably will see a significant portion of the province the way it is now. I know you say that members in Ontario directly affected by legislation and 140,000 international -- I was wondering what was happening in other provinces where there is Sunday shopping now. Is your union working to change that or has it gone on to other things?
Mr Garvey: In the provinces that do have it wide open, yes, our union is working to do what it can to reduce that. The proposal was that wide-open Sunday shopping is not bringing in extra bucks; it is spreading out the bucks. The companies I have dealt with are saying: "Look, I have the same budget. Now you're telling me I have to open another day." Then I have voluntary workers over here saying: "I don't want to have to work on a Sunday. I don't have to spend it with my family. Maybe that's the only time I can get involved in organized baseball or whatever, but that's a day I can count on and I am going to have Sunday off, no matter what." Then the company comes along and says, "These people won't work, so we're going to hire temporary part-timers and we're going to pay them whatever the rate is."
The people on the other end of the scale are not benefiting at all, except for the fact that they do not have to work. Their hours are reduced. You have people who have been around for a number of years and saying: "Based on seniority, I've helped out this company. I'm looking to contribute to the family pot by getting X amount of hours and bringing home X amount of dollars." Times are tough, and now all of a sudden we have a reduced paid workforce on a Sunday. Sure it is voluntary, but this reduced paid workforce is being told, "Well, do you want the job or don't you?" We are not creating jobs. We have lost ours over here and we have picked them up over here.
1530
Mr Carr: One final question on the tourist exemption board that you set up: As you may know, some of the boards we set up now are very backlogged. There are about 6,000 cases backlogged. You see that even in our own ridings with the Workers' Compensation Board, how they got backed up. People are saying one of the things they want from the politicians is just somebody to make a decision, whether it is municipal or provincial, just somebody to stand up. They know that people are split almost 50-50 on this issue. What do you say to somebody who says, "We shouldn't have any more boards, just politicians to stand up and make a decision and do what they were elected for"?
Mr Garvey: I am not saying I disagree with what you are saying, except that there is another part to that: the injunction. If I happen to have a problem with my membership and throw a picket line around your store because we are on a legal strike and it happens to affect the business of the person next to you, people are in an awful hurry, and it is granted pretty quickly, to get an injunction, to get me the hell out of there quickly because I am affecting somebody else's business. I am suggesting that there would be a form of injunction and I suspect that some of these problems would be handled pretty quickly. As it is right now, people do not have to pay any fines. They do not have to worry. They do not even have to close. That has been going on in Toronto for years now. I open on a Sunday and I get my fine. I am standing there and I expect my fine. All that fine is going to give me, when the police walk in, is a little bit of extra publicity. On the way down today I was thinking that I would be in pretty hot water if I happened to get nailed because I missed a speeding ticket or a parking ticket and did not happen to have the money on me. But those are not working. I expect that if you started the injunction avenue, you would clean up a lot of that.
Mr Lessard: In your presentation you said you recognized the need for some essential retail services and you further recognized the need for tourist exemptions. I think you would probably recognize that there are going to be retailers who would test this legislation by opening illegally and try to take the route of going through the courts to see whether they can challenge it that way. I also understand your opposition to wide-open Sunday shopping. I want you to give me your comments. I suggest to you that in order to provide a disincentive to merchants to try to take that route to oppose the legislation, and perhaps improve the quality of life for people who have to work on Sundays, that there may be some consideration to make it a requirement that time and a half or some premium pay be paid for Sunday work. What do you say to that suggestion?
Mr Garvey: We have already run into that and that is not helping either. In most of the unions we have time and a half or double time on the Sunday. I have been involved in a case with one of the companies in Peterborough. It has been going on now for two and a half years. The company said: "Fine, the contract calls for double time or time and a half. You'll get it. We'll see you work on Sunday but this week you're going to have Tuesday or Thursday as your day off."
That employee who does not get to meet his or her family, go to the ball game or just sit down and relax or lie down and catch up on the sleep missed all week -- whatever he wants to call it is up to him -- that common pause day he is missing, he did not get anything for it except a Tuesday off in the middle of the week. They cannot visit their friends if that is the case, and there probably is not going to be a ball game in the middle of the day or on the Thursday in the same situation. They may have made an extra half day's pay or, in the case of double time, a full day's pay. Some of the companies have taken the position that it is voluntary and that voluntary recognition supersedes a collective agreement. That is up for debate right now. I do not agree with that. I do not think that will fix the problem.
Mr Kormos: Give me just a few seconds to say a preamble to the question I am going to put to you. I have only been with this committee three weeks. Tomorrow is my last day. It is going to make a whole lot of people really happy. I tell you, it was only yesterday that a member of this committee sniffed with disdain in his voice that it seemed it was only the unions and some fundamentalist churches that were advocates of a common pause day. I say thank God for the unions and some fundamentalist churches.
The fact is I am not aware of a single faction within the Christian church movement, and quite frankly, within the non-Christian religious movements in this country and in this province, that does not advocate common pause days. Today, we see the reference again that it seems it is just the unions that seek a common pause day.
Now, you have been very specific in noting that this legislation is the Retail Business Holidays Act. It is now, and historically it has been. So to try to muddle the issue by saying, "What about the other persons who work?" is not germane to a discussion of legislation which, historically, has been written purporting to protect the rights of retail business workers.
There have been some small business people -- I have to tell you this -- who have come here and said they want a bill to open on Sunday. There have been, impressively, some big corporate interests that have come here with some good common sense, I believe, and some strong social consciousness who say: "No, we do not advocate Sunday shopping, notwithstanding that we would, perhaps, stand to make some money. We are not advocates of Sunday shopping. We believe that a common pause day is good for communities, good for the people we live with and share our lives with."
In your experience, though, what is driving this Sunday shopping movement? In your experience and in your familiarity with it, is it really an interest on the part of corporations to create more jobs for workers, or are they motivated by the potential for big plazas -- because it seems big plazas are in the forefront of the movement -- or are they talking about profits over people?
Mr Garvey: There is no doubt about it: They are talking about profits over people; but there are a couple of things that have to happen. In the last couple of years, surprisingly enough, some of the big companies have come out and said, "It is about time we got rid of the little guy. We don't need him any more." And that is where the people go down the drain. Some heads of large companies have gone on record -- and everybody knows who they are -- saying, "The little mom-and-pop stores, whatever they sell, it's about time we got rid of them, and we opened the big stores and they handled it all."
Now, what we have said is that we are not trying to kill all the little guys. I mean, we have restricted the shopping area. Years ago, they tried the route of legislating the shopping area to so many feet. You walk into the store and there is a rope there. If you are missing your bottle of ketchup, and it is not in the roped-off area, somebody says: "Go down. There's nobody down there. Go down and grab it, and grab a bottle of mustard while you're there because this guy over here wants it." That did not work.
We are not suggesting that we close down these people, but I am telling you right now that the large companies are. It is profits, and the profits are going to be made off the backs of the workers. I do not know how the hell I am going to protect our members. They do not want the double time, they do not want the time and a half. The fact is they do not want to work.
That was our big stick, when we could tell the company, "You're going to have to pay Joe or Mary double time," and the company said: "Boy, that's profits. We don't want to do that." Now they have said: "We can make a hell of lot more profit. We'll pay them the double time, but we're going to cut them off a day over here. We'll pay them, but we're going to get it back." And the little guy is going to go under. He will no longer be around.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Garvey, for your presentation.
1540
GREATER PETERBOROUGH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
The Chair: We now have, representing the Greater Peterborough Chamber of Commerce, Mr Don Frise. We have approximately half an hour to divide between your presentation and the questions, and I am sure you have noticed there are many of them, from the committee members.
Mr Frise: Thanks very much, Mr Chairman. I would like to start by telling you a little bit about the chamber of commerce, just in case there are some of you who are not familiar with it, and specifically about who we are in Peterborough.
We are entering into our 102nd year of operation in Peterborough. We have grown up with the community. Out of the 2,500 businesses in the community we have about 1,000 of them as members. Our typical member has fewer than 10 employees, although we also have General Electric and Quaker Oats and some of the larger corporations within the community as members. So we have a very diverse membership base.
Our primary objective is to work towards a strong local economy, but one of the things that our members expect and ask us to do is to try to represent them on issues that are of importance to them. That is one of the reasons we are here today.
As I say, our typical member is a small business person; and I have to say that because it gets to my first point, which is that I think you are getting a lot of diverse kinds of reaction to this situation -- probably that is mild. I am not surprised because I think what you have to do is analyse where it is coming from and look at why people are saying what they are saying.
It is like looking at coloured jelly beans through a black-and-white television set. They all look like jelly beans, but when you turn on the colour, all of a sudden you realize that there is some sense to the way the thing is put together. I think if you are drafting legislation, obviously you have to take those individual differences into account.
What I would like to do is go through a few things here that I would suggest you have to consider in your analysis. I would then like to make a couple of suggestions to you about what you might like to do in terms of drafting legislation.
To take a look at retail, unquestionably, in our mind, you have to look at small retail, the mom-and-pop kind of situation, and you also have to look at the larger retailers. The smaller retailers we have talked to over the last while have been opposed -- I would not say unanimously, but certainly with an 80% level -- to Sunday shopping. They have wanted to have a common pause day.
I am sure you have heard the rationale before: that all they are going to do is spread their market share over seven days, and therefore they are not going to be gaining market share. They are not going to be increasing their sales, but at the same time they are going to drive up their overhead. In fact, in a lot of cases it is not so much their overhead but the hours they have to give. They are working longer for the same amount of money, if you like.
In fact, if you go back and look at The State of Small Business, 1988, which was done by the Ontario government, you will find that the number two deterrent to growth in small business in Ontario is government-imposed paperwork. In fact, a lot of small business people are currently using Sunday to do their paperwork, to file their tax returns, to file their goods and services tax returns, to file their provincial sales tax returns, and all the other rules and regulations that are coming down and are a tremendous burden upon the small business person.
One of the things they are telling you is, "If you take away my seventh day, all of a sudden you are making me work some night to do the same work." It is really a hardship to a lot of them. We did a survey back in 1987, and I have given you a copy of the results of that survey, which indicated that when it comes to retailers, about 80% of those in the Peterborough area were opposed to having seven-days-a-week shopping.
However, if you look at the larger retailers, it is a little different situation. Obviously, larger retailers staying open on Sunday have the potential of increasing their market share by taking business away from those who are not open. They also have the flexibility of moving staff around so that, in fact, they do not really drive up their overheads considerably. With those two things taken into consideration, and added to that, the possibility of some tourism business in virtually every community in Ontario, it is not surprising that some of the larger retailers, on the other hand, are in favour of opening it up.
There is another thing that you have look at as well as that. The Ontario Chamber of Commerce spent a great deal of time on this in 1988 at Waterloo at our annual convention. We found across the province, almost unanimously, the kind of results that I have told you were coming forward. It was not just the religious groups, and it was not just labour; it was the small retailers who were also opposed to Sunday shopping -- with a notable exception, and that was the border communities.
I am sure you have heard -- or if you have not, you will -- from Sault Ste Marie, from Cornwall, from Windsor, from Sarnia, from Niagara Falls, and they all say, "We have to stay open to compete." Obviously, although we are taking a look at it from the small business/big business point of view, there are also regional differences; and we have regional differences here too. Tourism is important to our local economy. We have something like 11,000 or 12,000 seasonal residences here. Those people come up on the weekend, and if we do not grab them on the weekend, they are going to be gone forever.
There is obviously an opportunity, then, for business people to increase their market share by tapping into some of that business. Obviously some business people would like to do that. So there is a tourism-related and geographically related kind of difference that does come up.
In spite of that, a number of years ago the Ontario Chamber of Commerce passed a resolution, which you also have a copy of. Essentially they were asking for three things.
They said, first of all, we have to have uniform legislation across the province. We do not think it should be left to the municipalities to decide. The second thing is, they suggested that we reinforce Sunday as a common day of rest. And the third thing was that the Ontario government be consistent in its legislation on whether Sunday is a holiday in both the Retail Business Holidays Act and the Employment Standards Act. Obviously, one has to go hand in hand with the other.
There are some people in the hospitality business who are getting concerned all of a sudden, those who are running hotels, restaurants and so on. I am not quite sure whether they should be concerned because we are hearing back from our local MPP's office that they are not included in this legislation. All I would suggest is that if they are not included, that is fine; but if they are implicated, either through the Sunday retail business act or through the labour legislation that might accompany it, obviously they have a right to be concerned about it.
I am sure you have heard this before, but there are some jobs where working on Sundays or working evenings or whatever goes with the territory. If you go to work for General Motors on the line, the chances are you are not going to work days to start. If you go to work as a policeman or a fireman or whatever and you say you do not want to work Sundays, I think you will have a bit of a problem.
People in the hospitality business explain that to their employees up front. I think most of them are pretty straightforward, saying that they are going to have to be working on Saturdays and Sundays. That is a key part to the whole thing. Obviously, you have to take a look at the hospitality business separately if they are in any way implicated in the legislation.
As I suggested before, we think the labour legislation has to coincide with the business legislation. Where exemptions are going to occur, whether it be through tourism exemptions or whatever -- it might be through the type of business they are in -- obviously the two have to go hand in hand. I do not think it is as simple as paying a premium or whatever. The two have to go hand in hand. You cannot have people calling you up on Friday night to say, "I am sorry, I am not going to come in on Sunday" and essentially closing you down.
Chambers of commerce, and visitors and convention bureaus and so on were, of course, included in the proposed legislation in that we would be somehow implicated in deciding whether a tourism exemption would apply in our area.
We have a problem with that for a couple of reasons. One was that nobody came to talk to us about it first, and I think you have been made aware of that through the Ontario Chamber of Commerce. But the other part of it is that we are not set up to handle individual applications. In our community, if we have 2,500 businesses, we could essentially be going through 2,500 applications. I do not think anybody is set up to handle that.
I tried to see whether the Ontario government has been involved in anything that would be similar to this and how they handled it before. I came to think about the way business improvement areas are set up. If you are not familiar with BIAs, the way you go about setting up a BIA is you have to have a plebiscite, if you like, a vote; and I believe the way the wording goes is that if you do not have more than one third of the taxpayers in that community objecting, then you can form a BIA.
There are different ways of wording that, of course, but the one-third/two-thirds kind of majority rule makes a lot of sense to me, in that for the one third who may not be in agreement with forming a BIA, which would imply that they would have to pay extra business taxes towards that association, it is going to be imposed upon them.
1550
I think that when we come to setting up tourism exemptions, if in fact we are going to do that -- and I think you are going to have to come to do that if you are going to be dealing with cross-border shopping and if you are going to be dealing with places like Lakefield, just north of here, which has a lot of seasonal traffic. They probably only want to open on Sundays up there from May through until September, but I think you will find there would be a lot of business people who would like to do that. If you are going to do that, I would suggest you fall back to your BIA legislation, take a look at that as perhaps a model you could draw upon, and therefore you could go forth in the province with uniform legislation, but it would be voted upon by the people who are actually being affected, rather than being done by the legislators, as was proposed here a few minutes ago.
The final thing I would like to say is that one of the points that has been made relative to Sunday shopping is that it is going to create employment for a lot of part-time people, young people and so on. I am sure many of you have studied some of the things that David Foot has been saying over the last few years. For those of you who may not be aware of David Foot, he is a professor at the University of Toronto specializing in demographics. According to David, one of the biggest problems we are going to be facing in the 1990s and into the year 2000 is the fact that we do not have the young people coming along and in fact we are going to have a shortage of those kinds of people to work in McDonald's and a lot of other businesses. That being the case, I do not think we can particularly rely on them to fill that gap. That is another problem we have, something I noted that was mentioned in favour of not having that common day legislation.
In summary, I would suggest very strongly that you have to look at the geographic components; you have to look at how you are going to include a tourism exemption, if you are going to do that; the hospitality sector, I really believe, should be exempted both from the Retail Business Holidays Act and also from any labour legislation that might coincide with that, because you cannot have one without the other; and perhaps look at the BIA model as a method of setting things up. I guess those are my suggestions to you today.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Frise. On a personal note, I believe in my own family, on the Drummond side, there has been a general store in this town -- my great-uncle Duncan Drummond was the last one here -- I think over 100 years.
Mr Sorbara: The suggestions that our witness makes are I think in the main very valuable, but I just offer you one small piece of counsel. The effect of paralleling holidays under the Employment Standards Act and under the Retail Business Holidays Act would have the effect, if you adopted the Retail Business Holidays Act into the Employment Standards Act, of making every Sunday in Ontario a holiday for the purposes of the workplace and would require employers to pay a minimum of time and a half for every Sunday worked and would add huge burdens to the payrolls of many employers. It may be a good thing to do, but I just want to let you know that the reason there are differences is because, on the one hand, under the Employment Standards Act, holidays are for the purpose of providing employees, workers, with time and a half or the right to have the day off. Under the Retail Business Holidays Act, holidays are defined for the purpose of determining which stores shall and shall not stay open.
This debate has been going on for a very long time. Do you believe that there was ever a time in the province of Ontario when there was a common pause day?
Mr Frise: Yes, I do. I remember it.
Mr Sorbara: When was it?
Mr Frise: Certainly when I was young there was nothing open on Sundays at all.
Mr Sorbara: Were you young in 1950?
Mr Frise: Yes.
Mr Sorbara: I am just going to read you a quotation that perhaps argues with your view that there was a common pause day then. In March 1950 the then Premier Leslie Frost, during the debate on amendments to the Lord's Day (Ontario) Act, said as follows:
"I do not think, Mr Speaker, anything could be more flexible than that to meet the great requirements and varying conditions in this province. It is strictly democratic. The matter is placed in the hands of the people themselves and in the absolute control of their elected councils." He was talking about municipal councils. "There is nothing `wide open' about this act. It does nothing to induce any community to change its pattern of life. It enables the people to settle their own affairs in their own way."
At that time, those who were opposing the Lord's Day Act suggested that there would be wide-open something or other. It was not stores, because stores were not included. It was not movie theatres. It was not concerts. It was boat rentals, cigarette stands, hot dogs, souvenirs, rides and planes and Sunday excursions, and that was it.
Do you not think there might be a time when we could actually bring this debate to an end in Ontario and have the provincial government just recede from the business of trying to make choices for people on Sunday?
Mr Frise: Yes, I think that is exactly what I suggested you do by going to a local vote among those people who are directly affected. But what you would have to decide is what size of geographic area might qualify and just how you would go about doing that.
Mr Sorbara: What about the entire province?
Mr Frise: Getting back to your original question, I grew up in west Toronto, and if you are familiar with west Toronto, it is the only place in Ontario that is still dry.
Mr Sorbara: You are still pausing there.
Mr Frise: Yes. In 1950 my dad still worked a half-day on Saturday and the banks were still open then, so some things have changed, others have not. Yes, it would be nice if we could get on with this and we could settle some of the other issues that are perhaps more pressing, but then if I lived in Sault Ste Marie or Windsor or Sarnia, perhaps I would tell you that this is one of the most pressing issues. Yes, I think that there is a way of doing it, and I have given you one suggestion as to how I think you might go about doing that.
Mr Daigeler: If I am not mistaken, your chamber is the first one in this round of hearings that is arguing against the Sunday shopping. The other chambers said that they perhaps were opposed some two years ago when we, the Liberals, brought in our legislation, but now they have changed their mind and really think the municipal option is the way to go. Certainly my own municipality and the regional municipality in Ottawa-Carleton said so. Yesterday in Kingston they said the same thing. They acknowledged that there has been a change among their own members based on the experience they have had with Sunday shopping and in fact it has not forced everybody to stay open. Have you observed a change here in your own chamber as well?
Second, do you have any objections that these other chambers take a different stand from your own? In other words, do you think now, some two years later, that the municipal option, in your opinion, is still wrong?
Mr Frise: I still think the municipal option is an incorrect one and I think that if you got chambers of commerce together from across Ontario, they would support that with a very large majority. I think they are looking for uniform legislation. Now, there has to be some provision for geographic differences, and there also has to be provision there for matters related to tourism, but it has to be enforceable. As I understand it, the real problem under the legislation that was in place in 1950 was that it was not enforceable. Obviously, if you do not have laws that are enforceable, they are not worth the paper they are printed on.
Mr Sorbara: There was not very much open in 1950.
Mr Frise: No. Anyway, I think you would still find that.
The second thing is that, as I pointed out, I think you find that there is a dichotomy. It depends on who you talk to whether they are in favour or whether they are not in favour, and it breaks down to small business versus some members of large business -- not all, but some --
Mr Daigeler: That is not what we heard, though.
Mr Frise: Well, what happened in Ottawa just a few weeks ago, when they tried to extend the store hours? I understand they got very upset in the business community because they did not want to have them extended.
Mr Daigeler: That is right, but they still supported the right for others to stay open if they wanted to, and really, the chamber in Ottawa is made up mostly of smaller retailers.
Mr Frise: But I think you find that there is that dichotomy and it depends on who you talk to. Again, I would suggest you put it back in the hands of the people who are doing it. You do not go out and ask the consumers whether you should have Sunday shopping. It is nothing to them. They would like to shop 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and if you could stretch it to eight, they would go for that too.
Mr Carr: Thank you very much for your presentation. Some of the other chambers when they came before us brought statistics about their members, saying 80% wanted it. Some of them had it broken down into retail. They said a certain percentage of retailers do not and so on. I was just wondering how you are fixed. What are your thoughts on that, if you have had any breakdown of any formal --
Mr Frise: When all the surveying was being done back in 1987 -- remember, in the last four or five years this is probably about, what, the third or fourth go-round with this one. We could go out and survey our members again, and we may find that some of them have changed, but we do not have the feeling that they have changed significantly in Peterborough from where they were back then.
But at that time I was in Oshawa, and the survey we did was a little different there. We actually asked the type of business they were in. Essentially, what we found was exactly what I have told you, that the retailers in particular were the ones who were against the Sunday shopping. Those who were most in favour were those who were in the hospitality business, which made a lot of sense, because if I am operating a hotel or a restaurant, if I had people coming downtown to shop, the chances are I am going to get more people into my restaurant, and if I have opportunities for people to shop and do things, I am probably going to have more people staying in my hotel. So it would make sense to me that the people who would be most in favour of that would be them.
The second group that was in favour of it was those who were in manufacturing. Again, if you think about General Motors and so on, on shift work, working virtually seven days a week, although I think there is a little bit of a break in there on the weekend, it would make a lot of sense not only, again, to have seven-day-a-week shopping but also 24-hour shopping, because it would be most convenient to people working on a shift. So those were the two that were in favour and the retailers were essentially against.
1600
Mr Carr: I can see what you mean about doing it, because if every time we have a committee go round here you did a poll on it, you would be doing nothing but polls, because we have done this quite a number of times. However, I think what has happened is that there has been a major shift. I did not sit on the committee the time before, but they said there has been a bit of a shift with even the population, and of course those are some of the statistics we got from some of the polls. It is still very close, you know, 50-50, depending upon regions and areas, but there has been a big shift, and I was just wondering. You seemed to be saying that even though the province may have shifted a bit, your membership would probably be the same as in 1988.
Mr Frise: I would suggest it would be the same as in 1987 and 1988. There is another thing, of course. There are all kinds of variables you can look at here. The other variable is, look at the strength of the economy. When surveys were done in 1987 and 1988, we were riding on a crest of consumerism and it was really not a big problem getting orders. The biggest problem was trying to find staff to get the orders out the door. Things have changed considerably, and I would suggest that as you look at a community, the less the strength of the local economy, probably the more preference there would be for people to have the option to open. But remember that we do go in cycles, and if I am correct in analysing that aspect of it, when the economy starts picking up, the same people who are in favour of seven-day-a-week shopping are going to be opposed to it within a year or two.
Mr Carr: What do you see happening --
Mr Daigeler: Another round of hearings.
Mr Carr: That is right, another round of hearings. If the legislation remains the same, what do you see happening in the province of Ontario? Do you see Sunday shopping?
Mr Frise: I do not think we are going to solve any problems. I mean, you have given us in this proposed legislation some of the things we were asking for back in 1988. You have given us uniform legislation across the province. I guess you are linking some of the labour legislation to the retail hours act, but the trouble is that you are not doing it in a way that we can work with it and live with it and compete in a North American or global economy, so what you end up doing is just putting another millstone around the neck of business and another inducement to pack up your bags and move somewhere else. So you are not solving any problems at all. You would be probably just as well to leave the legislation the way it is right now as to change it to what you are going to.
Mr Carr: Thank you. Just for the record.
Mr Mills: Thank you, Mr Frise, for your presentation. We have gone around in different locations and we have heard from different chambers about their involvement in the letter of support for the tourist criteria. Apparently, it seems to be quite a sore issue with the chamber. I was just wondering if you have a position on this or not, and do you see your chamber having a role in this process of support for a particular application to a council?
Mr Frise: Most people are probably not aware that chambers of commerce are incorporated under the Boards of Trade Act. It is a very old act and we have some very strange powers. For instance, we can set grain weighers in different communities, and they still do that in Halifax. I do not know whether it is honorary or whether it is factual, but they do it. The other thing we can do is, if we are asked by two parties, we can actually do binding arbitration. I do not know what gives us the God-given right to do that, but we can do that. So on the one hand, in the past obviously chambers of commerce have done some strange things, and that probably would just be another thing that we would put in our grab-bag.
On the other hand, I do not think that at the present time we are really set up to handle it the way the legislation is proposed. If we have 2,500 applications coming forward saying, "We would like to open on Sunday," I do not know how we would handle that. In fact, we have already had a couple of telephone calls saying, "We want to be the first in line." I do not really think we are set up to handle that.
In all honesty I think what has happened here is that the chambers of commerce across the province -- and we represent something like 65,000 businesses in the provinces -- are pleased that we would be named in that. I would hope that indicates that you recognize we do serve as the voice of business. Where the error was perhaps made was that there should have been dialogue beforehand and it should have been done with consultation as opposed to by decree.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Frise, for a very interesting presentation.
FAMILY COALITION PARTY OF ONTARIO
The Chair: We now have a delegation from the Family Coalition Party of Ontario, Mr David Switzer, the president of the local riding association, and Mr Jim Terry, who is the secretary for that association. As you have observed, we have approximately half an hour. That time would be divided between your presentation and questions which the committee members may have for you. I should also mention that unfortunately there was a problem with the photocopier, so the copy of the presentation is not presently ready. It should be ready for committee members tomorrow morning.
Mr Switzer: The Family Coalition Party of Ontario, in its policy resolution 01.9 pertaining to Sunday shopping, states, "Whereas the FCP believes that it is essential that the entire family as a group spend time together, and whereas Sunday is the traditional Canadian day of rest, resolved that wide-open Sunday shopping be prohibited." We believe we must defend and promote the family unit as the fundamental building block of relationships in our society. Strong families lessen marital separation, child abuse, teenage pregnancies, runaways, school dropouts and vandalism. Strong family ties and stable relationships are economically and socially beneficial, leading to fewer cases of single parents, better job stability, more productive members of society and decreased welfare costs.
We believe the control of Sunday as a common pause day for the vast majority of workers and employers is and should remain solely a matter of provincial jurisdiction. The right to enjoy the highest quality of life for as many citizens as possible should be protected by their provincial government. We are concerned that more and more people in our communities will be under increased pressure to work on Sundays if strong legislation is not passed giving us Sunday as a common pause day. Sunday is the only day many people have to spend time with their families and friends, for leisure time and for worship.
We should all be made aware that a wide-open Sunday shopping policy in any community will have its serious ripple effects. Sunday work for police and security forces will be increased as Sunday becomes just another business day; transit systems will have to provide extra employees on the job; child care operators will face extra pressure to offer seven-day service; maintenance and delivery personnel will be called upon to serve clients whose needs will not wait until Monday.
Wide-open Sunday shopping will lead to across-the-board increases on most consumer goods. Most retailers and their trade associations estimate their increase will amount to a range of 6% to 9%. The reasons are clear: the added cost of heating, air-conditioning, lighting, security, training full- and part-time staff, etc. All this will not increase profits substantially because the average consumer will spend very little more of his hard-earned dollars in seven days than in six. Those price increases will be passed on to the consumers, and those hurt the most by wide-open Sunday shopping will be the poor and those on lower incomes.
At a time when the demands on human energy and the competition of industry and commerce have taken their toll on society, we need more than ever before a common pause day for our province. Without the common pause day the psychological, physical and spiritual life of our communities will be undermined. We have heard it said that if a person has strong religious reasons for not working on Sunday, he or she would be exempted. But if one employee is allowed an exemption from Sunday work simply on the basis of his or her religious convictions and another is not allowed an exemption because he is not religious, religion then becomes a source of resentment between employees.
Wide-open Sunday shopping would have a very serious effect upon those retail employees who hold responsibilities in religious services on Sunday. Sunday school superintendents, ushers, choir members and other holders of church offices may find it too stressful to maintain these responsibilities early Sunday morning and then rush off to work for the rest of the day.
1610
Mr Terry: As we approach Canada's problems, I am concerned about two groups of Canadians. One group is like the individual who refuses to have an examination because he suspects he has cancer. He blindly says, "Canada has no problems," or "Don't worry, Canada has always come through." The second group says: "Well, what can I do? It's just me and it's too late now anyway." If your house were burning, you would want to know about it so you could grab a bucket of water and put it out. The purpose of this paper is to tell you that your house, Canada, is burning and to give you several buckets of water so you can help douse the flames.
The fire that is burning Canada started much like you boil a bullfrog. You do not boil a bullfrog by throwing him in boiling water, because he will pop out faster than you can pop him in. You put him in cold water and turn on the heat. As the water gets warm, the bullfrog relaxes and takes a nap. You know the rest of the story: He wakes up dead. He has been boiled to death. The Sunday shopping issue, like the abortion issue, is but an insidious manifestation of a complex malignancy gently lulling us to sleep as it destroys Canada.
Until January 1988, Sunday shopping was not an issue. The province was in control with the Retail Business Holidays Act, which provided a level playing field in fairness to stores and store employees alike. Earlier, an all-party committee report supported by the Liberal government stated: "The committee supports the principle of a common pause day. Legislation should therefore be structured to support the maintenance of a day of rest." Contrarily, however, they brought in laws which abrogated provincial responsibility for one common law pause day and passed that responsibility to the municipalities, resulting in utter chaos around Ontario. A lower court ruled the Liberals' law invalid, resulting in the Supreme Court of Ontario having to rule on the law's constitutionality. In the meantime, confusion reigned supreme. Since there was no law, all stores were opened at will.
The New Testament book of Matthew 12:1-14 gives insight into why the Pharisees were offended by Jesus. First his disciples picked grain on the Sabbath, something forbidden by the Pharisees. A provocative healing on the Sabbath followed. Jesus accused the Pharisees of caring more for the letter of the law than the spirit, so much so that they showed more concern for animal life than human. The importance of this for Canadians is that to preserve the faith of our Judaeo-Christian heritage, it is imperative we maintain the spirit of the Sabbath without being legalistic. We all are aware that there are certain areas of employment where work on Sundays is necessary, such as hospitals and police stations. However, giving carte blanche to furriers and departments stores, etc, is excessive abuse of the Sabbath.
Jesus said in Mark 2:27, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." Therefore I say to you that it is a time for families to cherish and to share with each other, creating stronger community and family values, not an ever-advancing consumerism which in this case is not even good economics. When the municipalities, retailers' unions, retail workers, faith communities and business associations appeared before the committee hearings on Sunday shopping, 90% were opposed to the Liberal government's plans. Can Ontario's businesses open and run on 10% of their staff?
Premier Bob Rae promised the promotion and protection of an essential foundation stone of our heritage and our future, the family, when he said, "We will provide a common pause day to help strengthen family and community life while protecting small business and the rights of workers."
One thing all of us can do and even must do is sell the beauty and sanctity of the family as the fundamental building block of a nation. Historically, 88 civilizations have risen to dominance in world history. Some rose quickly, some rose slowly, but without exception they all fell in one generation, and each one fell after the family unit was destroyed. In every case the pattern was the same: a relaxing of moral standards which led to pornography, followed by promiscuity, adultery, abortion and finally homosexuality. Surely Canada, if properly alerted, can learn from the 88 examples which preceded us. Complacency can kill.
Mr Switzer: In conclusion, the New Democratic Party of Ontario has promised us, "We will provide a common pause day to help strengthen family and community life while protecting small business and the rights of workers." We encourage the Liberal Party of Ontario and the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario to give their total support to the New Democratic government in enacting this legislation.
We urge our government to introduce effective amendments to the Retail Business Holidays Act that will guarantee a common pause day across Ontario. Remember, government has the fundamental obligation to protect and promote the wellbeing of the family and family members through measures of political, economic, social and juridical character which aim at consolidating the unity and stability of the family so that it can exercise its specific function.
You have heard the old saying, "The family that prays together stays together." Let's encourage families to pray together, worship together and stay together by giving us a common pause day. There are surely values and traditions in every society worth holding on to. We trust that this committee's present hearings will confirm that the Sunday tradition is one of these.
Mr Daigeler: I have perhaps a response and a question. The response is that you mentioned that the Liberal legislation resulted in chaos across the province regarding the shopping issue. That is not really what we heard in this round of hearings; in fact, rather the opposite. Repeatedly, people said they opposed the legislation some two years ago, but with the experience they have now had, they have changed their minds and feel that the municipal option is the best way to go. In other words, if an area wants to stay closed, it should have that right, and if another area wants to stay open, it should have that right as well.
My question is, does your party have affiliates in Alberta and British Columbia? If so, are you aware of what their position is in these two provinces that actually have Sunday shopping?
Mr Terry: I believe, and I may be corrected, that British Columbia has just started an FCP association there. I do not know what their policies are at this time because it is fairly new, and I do not know if Alberta has an association or not. I do not think so.
1620
Mr Carr: As we have gone across the province -- in fact we even heard today from the Indians who believe there will be Sunday shopping in this province as a result of this legislation. We have heard from Windsor, which is already going to be open, Collingwood is going to be open, Thunder Bay, Kenora. It is very clear that under this present legislation there will be Sunday shopping in this province. It is just a matter of how much, whether it will be 70%, 30%, 20%. We can all debate on that, but there will be Sunday shopping.
I was curious. You say you like this bill and what the NDP has done, yet on the other hand, everybody is saying there will be Sunday shopping as a result of it. I wonder if you see Sunday shopping as a result of this bill.
Mr Terry: Dave, you might want to carry on with this, but I just want to make one comment. I do not think either one of us said -- and I do not mean this derogatorily -- that we did like what the NDP is doing. What we said was we liked the statement that was made by Premier Bob Rae where he said he wanted to bring in a common pause day.
Mr Carr: So do you see Sunday shopping in this province as a result of this bill?
Mr Switzer: I am hoping that when you draft the bill -- I have not read the bill closely enough to determine just exactly what you say there, but I am definitely opposed to Sunday shopping. I feel if business cannot make a go of it on a six-day week -- and a lot of them are open several evenings a week. I think there is something wrong, with all those hours in a week, if you cannot make a go of business.
Mr Carr: They say the reason they will be open is they will take the tourist exemptions, which are so broad that any part of the province could classify under that. That is what will be happening and it will have a snowball effect when next door is open. So just in case you have not followed the debate, that is what a lot of people are saying will be happening. Only time will tell.
I guess what you are saying then, just to clarify it, you would like to see the province not give the municipalities the option to opt out with things like tourism criteria.
Mr Switzer: I was thinking, when the gentleman from the chamber was here talking about exemptions for tourist areas -- I am not sure that allowing tourist areas to stay open Sunday is right either. I know this has been done for several years now. I know some of the tourist area people would not be very happy about what I am going to say, but I feel they should be able to make a go of their business in six days like everybody else, no matter where they are. This would probably plug one loophole that you are talking about. Maybe we should not make any exemptions for tourist areas. I would strongly lean that way.
Mr Carr: What about some of the things that are open now? One of the criticisms has been that stadiums are open, movie theatres and so on. Would you like to see them closed down as a result too?
Mr Switzer: As far as movie theatres are concerned, yes, I would like to see them closed. As far as your stadiums where you have baseball, that might be a difficult thing to close down because of the schedule that these teams are on.
Mr Kormos: I come from down in Niagara, from a small town there, where the churches and their clergy play a leadership role in the community and among the families they serve. That may be a little bit different from downtown Toronto. I suspect it is. Some polling has indicated that support for Sunday shopping might tend to be higher in bigger cities than it is in communities like Peterborough, I suppose, or Welland and Thorold where I come from. Does that ring true with you? Should we be letting big cities and the standards of big cities, most of Ontario being small-town and rural, dictate how the rest of the province lives and indeed dictating the fibre or the character of the rest of the province?
Mr Terry: My short answer to that would be no. The long answer, of course, is more complicated than that, as we have already heard from two previous submissions. I thought very highly of the two previous submissions. They were very interesting. I guess I was looking at my own and wishing I had done as much research, but then I do not have as much access to the information as they did. It was extremely interesting, and it is a more complicated issue than just a flat answer of no. But I would say no, that the big cities should not be dictating what Ontario as a whole does.
The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen, a very interesting presentation. Also, I should mention the fact our schedule has changed. The marine association is not appearing.
TESTIMONY OF WITNESS
The Chair: We now have on the floor a sort of double-barrelled resolution. Mr Sorbara, could you read it again or say it again?
Mr Morrow: Just one thing before we move on to Mr Sorbara's motion. Can we please thank the city of Peterborough for having us here?
The Chair: Yes, you are quite right. I apologize, as our discussion will not interest many of the participants here locally as much as the interesting presentations that local people have made. I think we have all found this to be a very interesting day with a range of exciting and different ideas, and we would like to thank the city of Peterborough for hosting our deliberations.
Mr Sorbara: Earlier during in camera session, I had put forward a couple of motions. I agreed at that time to withdraw them and put them forward after the hearings today and in open session. On reflection, I think probably it is preferable that we discuss these motions and these matters in open session.
With the permission of the committee, I propose to put both of the motions forward, although it may well be that the proper order is to have only one motion before the committee at a time. I will take the direction of the Chair on that matter. Copies of the motions are being forwarded and if it is the Chair's wish or the committee's wish, we could deal with them one at a time, but because both of them are intimately related, I thought I would just proceed to read both of them into the record and then we could have a discussion of the motions, and then the appropriate votes.
The first motion reads as follows:
"Whereas on Tuesday, August 13 this committee heard testimony from one Warren Kennedy of Local 175/633 of the UFCW, that is, the United Food and Commercial Workers, that the executive board of that union had considered a motion to withhold money from the NDP until the issue of Sunday shopping was settled; and "Whereas Mr Kennedy testified: `We are not going to give any more donations until this got settled. That is an indication to you, Mr Carr, of how big an issue it would be and I would sure think that the NDP would be listening as well. It's a big issue'; and "Whereas Mr Kennedy later testified: `I just said that was brought up at our executive board meeting. It was voted down, the issue about money for the NDP'; and "Whereas it may be contrary to the Criminal Code to hold out the promise of any favour or benefit or the withholding therefore to any elected representative in return for the promotion, advocacy or passage of any law in Canada;
"I move that the transcript of Mr Kennedy before this committee on August 13, 1991, be forwarded to the Attorney General of Ontario for the purpose of an investigation and determination by a crown law officer as to whether the evidence of Mr Kennedy indicates the commission of an offence under laws relating to the integrity of members of the Legislature or the inappropriate influencing thereof, arising in this case in conjunction with the Legislature's consideration of legislation relating to Sunday shopping."
That is the motion asking for reference to the Attorney General. That is the first motion.
1630
The second motion recites, on page 1 of the documents that I have distributed, the same recitals that are on page 1 of the first motion, so I will not read those into the record again. I will just note that I am quoting from the testimony of Mr Kennedy in two paragraphs.
The third clause states as follows:
"Whereas the testimony of Mr Kennedy suggests that a threat to withdraw financial support to members of the Legislature through the funding of the NDP was made or that serious consideration was given to making such a threat; and
"Whereas any such threat to give or withhold a benefit in conjunction with the members' consideration of matters before the House represents a violation of the privileges of the members of the House;
"I move that the matters arising out of the testimony of Mr Warren Kennedy on August 13, 1991, be referred to the Speaker on the basis that the privileges of members may have been violated by the threat to withhold the benefit to the NDP or the withholding of a benefit to the NDP in conjunction with the Legislature's consideration of legislation relating to Sunday shopping."
The Chair: Mr Sorbara moves that whereas on Tuesday August 13 --
Interjections: Dispense.
The Chair: Thank you. You are proposing that we debate both motions at the same time.
Mr Sorbara: With the indulgence of the committee, I am not sure if that is permitted, but with unanimous consent, we can do that.
The Chair: We can certainly permit it, but they will be voted on separately.
Mr Sorbara: I frankly was shocked yesterday when I heard the testimony that I heard, that a trade union, which was directly involved in the outcome of legislation, would even be considering that it should withhold what appears to be a regular pattern of contributing money to a political party on the basis of a particular piece of legislation.
I think that in Canada, as in Ontario, all citizens and all organizations have the right to make political contributions. But that has to be done within the context of the laws of this country and this province.
My understanding of the law is that it is against the law to do that or indeed to threaten to do that, that is, to give a benefit or withhold a benefit that would otherwise be given in conjunction with a particular piece of legislation.
I appreciate that after a brief consultation with Pearl MacKay, who has been auditing these hearings throughout our public hearings and who is also the research and education director, as I understand it, of the United Food and Commercial Workers, Mr Kennedy went on to insist that the motion to withhold money was voted down.
I would like to say that I completely accept that testimony but, to tell you the truth, I do not think I or this committee should be the judge of that. My instinct is to take Mr Kennedy at his word, although I do not know the implications of even considering such a motion at the executive board of a trade union. I do not think we, as a committee, can stand in judgement of that activity, but I want to tell my friends on this committee that from what I have heard I take it seriously, and it is a serious matter, particularly if there was a determination to stop giving them money, as was suggested in Mr Kennedy's testimony and as appears on the transcript of that testimony.
I would like to get this matter out of this committee and get it before the people and the bodies that are charged in our society with dealing with those sorts of allegations and the possibility that such conduct is against the laws of Canada.
There are two entities: the crown law officers and the Speaker. The Speaker of the House, who is in charge of the Legislative Assembly and charged with upholding the privileges of members, ought to investigate this matter. He ought to investigate the matter because if the New Democratic Party is feeling the threat of donations not being made to its coffers because it is not passing legislation that is acceptable to the trade union movement, that means that it is operating on this committee under a threat. That, I think, affects my very privileges as a member to have a full and open discussion of legislation in matters of public policy.
Second, if a threat to withhold money or the withholding of money had been made by a trade union in conjunction with a particular piece of legislation, I believe that violates the Criminal Code of Canada. The appropriate body to investigate that is obviously the Attorney General's office and a crown law officer of the province in particular. My expectation, and frankly my hope, is that there is nothing to it, that it was a friendly little chat at an executive board meeting of a trade union and it goes no further than that. I tell my friends in the New Democratic Party I mean that in all sincerity.
But I hope at this point because of the suggestion of wrongdoing that they can support this motion so we can get it off our agenda and get back to doing what we are supposed to be doing as a committee, holding public hearings on Bill 115 and later to consider that bill clause by clause. So I urge them not to simply treat this thing lightly or as a matter of politics but to consider it as a serious matter arising from testimony made before this committee. And I urge them to support the motion so the appropriate bodies can consider the real nature of what happened with that local and with that executive board and whether money was withheld, or there was a threat of withholding money in conjunction with our consideration of this bill.
Mr Carr: I will be very brief. I will be supporting both motions, or the motion if they are together. My concern is the perception out there. As I look at it now, the real part that bothered me was not the beginning part, it was where he emphatically said, "I would sure think that the NDP would be listening as well."
The trouble I have now is that if the legislation is changed in support of the ideas that are brought forward, the perception could be that the threat was there and that is why the legislation was changed. It puts, quite frankly, the government members in a very difficult position, because now if they do not change it they may have to -- how should I say? -- overcompensate and take a look at it because they do not want to be accused of buckling in to pressure because of some perceptions out there. I am concerned about what the perceptions will be.
From a legal standpoint, not being a lawyer, I would not like to comment whether it has broken any laws. Obviously, by having the Attorney General's office look at it, they will be able to tell us. The same with the Speaker, to see if any of the matters have breached privileges. I think it is a very unfortunate incident. I do not think Mr Kennedy, originally when it came out, wanted to let it be known, but now that it is out, I think in order to -- I use the term -- clear the air, I would like to see it investigated by both the Speaker and the Attorney General. I will be supporting the motion, and if this is voted down I will request both individuals to take a look at the matter anyway.
Mr Morrow: At this point I would like to call the question.
The Chair: The question is called. All in favour --
Mr Morrow: Is this motion 1 first up?
The Chair: We have to vote on the motions separately, although we are debating them together.
Mr Morrow: One at a time.
The Chair: Are we calling for the question on the first motion, then? Request for a recorded vote. All in favour of the question being put?
Mr Morrow: The question is put.
The Chair: We are all in favour of the question being put, then? Okay.
The committee divided on Mr Sorbara's motion, which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes -- 4
Carr, Daigeler, Poirier, Sorbara.
Nays -- 6
Fletcher, Klopp, Kormos, Lessard, Mills, Morrow.
The Chair: The second motion, is that to be put now?
Mr Morrow: I would call the question on motion 2.
The Chair: It is agreed. Recorded vote as well. All in favour of the motion?
The committee divided on Mr Sorbara's motion, which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes -- 4
Carr, Daigeler, Poirier, Sorbara.
Nays -- 6
Fletcher, Klopp, Kormos, Lessard, Mills, Morrow.
Mr Morrow: Seeing that both motions are through, I would now like to put a motion on the floor.
The Chair: Mr Morrow moves that:
Whereas transcripts of these proceedings are public; and,
Whereas Mr Sorbara has expressed interest in the transcripts of statements by certain persons having appeared before this committee;
Be it moved that the clerk cause to be prepared with the greatest dispatch any transcripts that Mr Sorbara may request so that he may provide them to whatever authorities he considers appropriate.
Discussion?
Mr Daigeler: I am not quite sure why a member of the government would, for Mr Sorbara, put forward a request. If Mr Sorbara wants the Hansard he can certainly ask for it. In fact, we all get it.
The Chair: I would certainly agree with you, Mr Daigeler. Perhaps Mr Morrow can amplify on that.
Mr Sorbara: Can I just speak to his motion?
The Chair: Mr Morrow should speak to his motion first.
Mr Morrow: I really think the motion speaks for itself. We are being very open. You want what you want; we do not have a problem with that. You want to put it to whoever you want to put it; by all means go ahead.
Mr Sorbara: I do not have any sort of problem supporting that motion. I do not need any additional transcripts. I am satisfied with the service we are getting from Hansard. I am disappointed that I cannot get the support of the New Democratic Party, the government members of this committee, on my motions. To simply respond by way of saying, "You can do whatever you want with it," suggests that we do not have a common cause in upholding or seeing that the laws of the province and the country are upheld. But I do not have anything further to say on Mr Morrow's motion. Let's put that question. We can vote on it. I do not think we need a recorded vote. After that I have one further motion to put.
Mr Kormos: I suggest we have no interest in your witchhunt. Sorry, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Do we have other people wishing to speak on this motion?
Mr Kormos: Yes. It it just incredible that Mr Sorbara, who clearly has aspirations beyond this committee's work, would call upon this committee to even consider the motions that he did. If Mr Sorbara thinks somebody has committed a crime, then he can do what he thinks is appropriate. He, as a man of some talents, if not many, is quite capable of reporting whatever he wishes to the Attorney General, to the Solicitor General, to the local police, to the RCMP, as he deems appropriate. If he has concerns or suspicions, so be it.
The fact is that it would appear, or could appear to some that the committee members who did not support his very upsetting and, in my view, inappropriate motions do not want to engage in the Salem-like pursuits he prefers. The fact remains that this committee is eager, clearly, for the motion put by Mr Morrow, to provide Mr Sorbara with as much assistance as he may require in pursuing avenues he may regard as appropriate. The fact is, the balance of the committee may not regard them as appropriate. That is called democracy. Mr Sorbara does not like that. That is too bad, so sad.
1640
The Chair: Mr Sorbara, then Mr Fletcher.
Mr Sorbara: Mr Chairman, I do not mind the gratuitous insults from my friend the member for Welland-Thorold. His reputation in the province is well known. Just let me say I do not hide the fact that I am seeking leadership of my party. I take offence, though, at one thing. Let me just advise my friends, the New Democratic Party members of this committee, if I could ever get their attention, that last night on a radio station in Kingston there was a report which said, "NDP members charge Sorbara using public or legislative funds to further his leadership campaign."
Mr Fletcher: Come on.
Mr Sorbara: I am quoting, my friend, and I do not know if it is the NDP members of this committee or NDP members over at the hearings. I am not accusing anyone of anything. What I am saying to the members of this committee is that if I have the correct gist of that report, those remarks are libellous, offensive and untrue.
I am trying to arrange to get a transcript, but the tone of Mr Kormos's remarks today in light of my motion suggest that somehow my conduct here and my raising of these motions has something to do other than with the procedure in this committee. I just want to assure him that is not the case. I will be aggressively pursuing high standards in this committee, in the testimony before this committee and in the province long after I lose the leadership race or, indeed, if I win it. That has nothing to do with the way I participate in this committee and I want to assure you, Mr Chairman, that I will continue to do that. I will continue to aggressively question witnesses. I will continue to raise matters. I will continue to fulfil my obligations as an elected MPP as I see fit.
During the same time, over the course of the next few months, I will continue to pursue the leadership of my party. There is nothing shameful or wrong about that. The practice of politics is not, in my view, unseemly. For any New Democratic Party member, a member in the broader sense, or a card-carrying member, without a shred of evidence to suggest I would use legislative funds to further my quest for the leadership of the party is simply offensive.
These are remarks I have been told were made. I will be trying to acquire a copy of the transcript of that radio broadcast and report further to this committee because I have raised it with this committee. If it turns out the report is accurate then obviously I have to pursue the source of that information.
But let me assure you once again that the raising of these motions and the putting of these motions before this committee has absolutely nothing to do with my own aspirations within the Ontario Liberal Party or, indeed, my own views on the legislation we are considering. I have said before and I will repeat again, my views on Bill 115 have not yet fully crystallized. We are still in the middle of public hearings. In each case, when a witness is before us, I choose to question and often I choose to question aggressively. I think, as an MPP, that is my right, sir.
The Chair: We have Mr Fletcher and Mr Daigeler in front of us. It is not my right to limit debate on issues such as this. On the other hand, I hope we can resolve this issue fairly soon. Tempers seem to be heated about it. Please, Mr Fletcher and then Mr Daigeler.
Mr Fletcher: Thank you, Mr Chair. The purpose of this committee is to examine the draft legislation and listen to the submissions from the people who come before us. It is not to send evidence given by a person to the Attorney General. I do not know if it is contrary to the Criminal Code and I cannot support that because I do not know.
Mr Sorbara: Neither do I.
Mr Fletcher: If a member who is a witness says something, I cannot dispute it or anything else. Let it go and let the person who objects the most send it there.
Mr Carr said if those motions did not pass he would do it himself. I support that and I support the right of Mr Sorbara to do that. But if a person from the Ontario Chamber of Commerce were to sit there and say, "If this legislation passes we are not going to donate to the New Democratic Party, and we passed that at one of our meetings," where am I supposed to go then? Witnesses can say what they want; we do not put words into their mouths. Just because a witness who testifies before this committee says something does not mean the members of this committee or the members of the governing party are doing anything wrong. I have a real problem with this committee, whose job it is to listen to people making representation, getting involved with a witchhunt, and basically that is the way I see it also.
I cannot support those motions but I can support the right of each individual member to do as he sees he should be doing. I can support that. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Fletcher. Mr Daigeler, then Mr Carr.
1650
Mr Daigeler: I must say I am very disappointed that the government members have not agreed to investigate what may or may not have been an inappropriate action by either individuals or a group of individuals. We are not taking a stand that anything improper has occurred. We want this investigated. I think that was very clear in the motion by Mr Sorbara.
It is being argued by the government members that this could be done by any individual member of the committee. Certainly it could be, but the testimony was given as part of a public hearing in front of a three-party legislative committee, as part of an official record recorded by Hansard, and I think we as legislators therefore have an obligation to investigate that, bring it to the attention of the appropriate authorities as a committee, because if in fact what was said occurred, it may well be, as Mr Sorbara said -- and we are not saying that it was -- a very improper act and very improper for the political process in this province. I think that is a very important point.
Mr Kormos: He can do whatever he likes.
The Chair: Gentlemen, could we allow Mr Daigeler to finish, please?
Mr Kormos: I am sorry, Mr Chairman. My apologies.
Mr Daigeler: In fact, I remember that when Mr Kormos was speaking to the car insurance bill in the Legislature he very often very gratuitously alleged from the opposition benches these kinds of things that we want to be looked into, and now he is opposed to having this matter at least looked at by the appropriate authorities. I am very surprised and very disappointed that the other members of his party would have followed his lead in voting down these particular motions.
Mr Carr: The point I wanted to make for the government members is that now it has come out and the allegations made, I think it would have been important if the committee as a whole -- there would have been more weight behind it had the government members been a part of it, because if that had happened, then it would have taken the partisan issue out of it. My feeling on the issue would have been that now it is out in the open, had the government members of the NDP caucus said, "It's an unfortunate situation, but to clear the air and to get it out and that we are not affected by it, we'll be a part of sending it over to either the Attorney General or the Speaker." What we have now is something where somebody has said something and the government members are choosing not to send it off. That is now what we are dealing with, regardless of the legal situation. It is the perception out there, the perception that somebody said something in order to influence a particular party on how it may decide and then that party goes along and does not want to have it investigated.
To try to be as non-partisan as I can with this, looking at it, I thought one of the things this new government would do when it came in was end this type of partisan bickering. It has not in fact ended. There are the same wranglings to defend the positions. I will only say to the government members that you do not defend the position by not having it looked into, that you would defend the position more clearly had it been open and looked at. If the Speaker or the Attorney General came back and said, "No privileges have been breached and there are no charges," then it would have cleared the air. But to try and vote not to have them look at it I think just perpetuates the feeling out there, which is that politicians quite often do things to protect their own special interests. Hopefully that will help the debate. Thank you very much for the birthday cake.
Mr Mills: I would like to speak a few words in an absolutely unpartisan manner, absolutely unpartisan. I sit there and I apply some degree, I hope, of common sense. To me it just seems to be an awful storm in a teacup. I really think so. After all, the fellow said, "Now that I've got everybody's attention." I take that in a different view than perhaps some people do here. Then he said, "It was just brought up at our executive board meeting and it was voted down." What are we talking about here? Commonsensewise, what are we talking about? It was voted down.
I would have a very different position here in my role as a parliamentarian if in fact it was not voted down. I try to speak as unpartisanly as I can, but since it was voted down, where are we going with this? You have caucus meetings, as we do, and there all kinds of things that are put forward and voted down. Is everything that is brought forward under such total scrutiny? I hope not.
Mr Poirier: I just want indicated for the record that I voted for this in a thoroughly non-partisan sense and I echo Mr Mills's concern. I sincerely hope it is a tempest in a teapot. I will be the most relieved person along with him. I just know that if some supporters of mine whom I knew or did not know came up to me and made that type of statement -- and when I say this, I make no parallel to what was asked to be looked into -- I would be extremely furious and I would be extremely upset and I would definitely look into it, because this is not the type of pressure that I would like to work under.
The type of statement by the Attorney General and the Speaker you asked for might be very handy for me to know in the future, should something like that happen to me personally, and I sincerely hope we will get a green light from both authorities. I will be very relieved and I think the party that is in question would also be even more relieved than I am. But I want it on the record that my support has nothing to do with who is presenting the motion and which party is involved on one side of the table or the other. I just want this looked into and get an expert's judgement on this. I am not the expert to look into this. Thank you, Mr Chair, for giving me the opportunity to put that into the record.
Mr Sorbara: I have another comment. I too, Mr Chairman, hope this is a tempest in a teapot. However, you, sir, and the government members have to at least try to appreciate what it looks like from this side of the room.
Let's just review what has happened over here over the course of the past weeks of these hearings. Pearl MacKay has been auditing these hearings up until yesterday. She was with us every single day. Now, during the course of our hearings each day, there was an ongoing relationship between Ms MacKay, who is a paid employee of the United Food and Commercial Workers, and the New Democratic Party. Periodically, Mr Morrow would consult with her. Periodically, Mr Fletcher --
Mr Morrow: What are we debating?
Mr Fletcher: You spoke with her yourself.
The Chair: Could we have order?
Mr Sorbara: Periodically, Mr Fletcher would speak with her. Periodically, Ms MacKay would pass notes to any number of the New Democratic Party members.
When Mr Kennedy made the initial statement, right after that, Ms MacKay got up from her seat in the audience, went up to him and whispered in his ear, and then we got the balance of the testimony. It may well be that she was just saying: "Look, remember that we just brought it up and it was voted down. Get that on the record." That may be, but there is clearly a relationship between the New Democratic Party, the United Food and Commercial Workers, Ms MacKay and Mr Kennedy.
All I would like is to have someone, other than politicians who are are ill-equipped to investigate this sort of thing, to make the investigations and report back to us. That is all I am asking. I think it is shameful that those members over there will not accept the motion to have the Attorney General look at it and the Speaker look at it, but I accept that and I have nothing further to say on these motions.
Mr Morrow: My motion speaks for itself. There is no question about that. The original two motions did not even need to be presented. You can just ask those things. So let's move to my motion, please. Okay?
Interjection: I want a recorded vote.
The Chair: Are we ready to vote? There has been a request for a recorded vote.
The committee divided on Mr Morrow's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes -- 10
Carr, Daigeler, Fletcher, Klopp, Kormos, Lessard, Mills, Morrow, Poirier, Sorbara.
Nays -- 0
Mr Carr: We finally agree on something.
Interjection.
Mr Sorbara: I move that the bill be withdrawn.
The Chair: You are not going to debate that one, are you, Greg?
I move that we adjourn until 9:30 tomorrow in committee room 1.
The committee adjourned at 1701.