Legislative Assembly of Ontario

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

PENNY DICKENSON

PEOPLE FOR SUNDAY ASSOCIATION OF CANADA

DYLEX LTD

METROPOLITAN TORONTO CONVENTION AND VISITORS ASSOCIATION

BEACHES BUSINESS ASSOCIATION

STONEWORKS

AFTERNOON SITTING

TOWN OF GEORGINA

PAUL MAGDER

GRAFTON GROUP LTD

ONTARIO HOTEL AND MOTEL ASSOCIATION

SUSAN MATTHEWS

BI-WAY STORES LTD

ONTARIO COMMITTEE FOR ENFORCEMENT OF HOLIDAY CLOSING LAWS

CONTENTS

Tuesday 30 July 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

Penny Dickenson

People for Sunday Association of Canada

Dylex Ltd

Metropolitan Toronto Convention and Visitors Association

Beaches Business Association

Stoneworks

Afternoon Sitting

Town of Georgina

Paul Magder

Grafton Group Ltd

Ontario Hotel and Motel Association

Susan Matthews

Bi-Way Stores Ltd

Ontario Committee for Enforcement of Holiday Closing Laws

Adjournment

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:

Daigeler, Hans (Nepean L) for Mr Chiarelli

Haslam, Karen (Perth NDP) for Ms Gigantes

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

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

Owens, Stephen (Scarborough Centre NDP) for Mr Morrow

Villeneuve, Noble (S-D-G & East Grenville PC) for Mr Harnick

Clerk: Freedman, Lisa

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

The committee met at 0948 in committee room 1.

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

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.

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: We are having hearings into Bill 115, the Retail Business Establishments Statute Law Amendment Act, and this morning our first witness is Ms Penny Dickenson.

Mr Mills: Before you get to the first witness, I would like to place a motion on the floor.

The Chair: My apologies, Ms Dickenson.

Mr Sorbara: Are you going to withdraw the bill?

Mr Mills: No. The motion concerns the order of speaking and the procedure for speaking. I think that yesterday we all experienced some degree of difficulty with follow-up questions. The questioning became disjointed, disorganized, and it did not really make much sense.

My motion this morning is that after the presentation by the presenters we have at any given time an amount of time left, and I am moving that this time be equally shared by all three parties, that this time be monitored and that the time allocated to each party will be used at one thrust. In other words, the official opposition talk, finish, and then we finish, because I find that it is very frustrating to try and get some intelligent rapport or dialogue going when I can only ask one question and logically I am expected to follow up and I cannot. So I would move that.

The Chair: I can certainly understand your viewpoint, Mr Mills. That is a change from what the subcommittee had originally suggested. I wish we had discussed that with the other folks before the proceedings this morning.

Mr Sorbara: That is a reasonable approach to it. I thought that was what we were going to do anyway, but if we put that in the form of a motion, all the better. Let's do that. If it is different from what the subcommittee decided, let's reject what the subcommittee decided and get on with it. I just would add, not to vary the motion -- I think we are going to support the motion, Mr Chairman, if you want a recorded vote -- to encourage flexibility on the matter.

For example, if Mr Mills is asking a series of questions and there is one little item that occurs to me or a colleague of mine or a member of the third party, the Chair would, with the indulgence of the person who is leading the question, allow that question to be asked. We are not here to go to war with the government or the governing party or the government members over the Sunday shopping bill. We think this bill is defective in a number of places and we hope to bring that out through the testimony, but I think we have a degree of co-operation here that can allow us to abide by the motion as presented by Mr Mills, and I think we should vote on that and then get to our witness.

The Chair: I do not think we need a vote if that is substantially the consensus. So that will be our procedure. Mr Carr, are you in agreement?

Mr Carr: Yes. I was just going to say, as Gordon said, that it was a little bit frustrating because you would look at the person and want a follow-up and you had to be quiet and let him go on and then wait for him to come around again. I have no problem.

Mr Sorbara: Mrs Haslam is going to announce that she is going to have to leave for a cabinet appointment.

Mrs Haslam: Mr Sorbara, I am so surprised that the Chairman lets you get away with this.

My comment was on this particular idea. I would like to know if we are going to say, "Well, there is a follow-up that is coming." The usual preamble is getting to be a little frustrating. If we are going to say, yes, that somebody else has one little point to ask, I would ask the Chair that he watch very carefully for the long preambles --

Mr Sorbara: You may be Solicitor General this afternoon.

Mrs Haslam: -- and does he recognize people or not.

The Chair: Excuse me. I think we have achieved substantive agreement on that point.

PENNY DICKENSON

The Chair: Ms Dickenson, first off, my apologies that there was this delay at the outset of your time. You have approximately a quarter of an hour. Please use that time as you wish. As you have guessed, no doubt, from the discussion, the members of the committee are very eager to pose questions to you, to seek more information than is in your written or probably in your verbal submission, so whatever time you have, typically half of that time for questions would be appreciated.

Ms Dickenson: All right.

The Chair: Please go ahead when you are comfortable.

Ms Dickenson: I have a really loud voice, so if I start blowing your ears off, it is because I am not used to speaking into a microphone.

Mr Poirier: Go into politics.

Ms Dickenson: I do not know. We have company meetings like this.

I really appreciate the opportunity to address this committee. I am really intimidated. I have been in Toronto 21 years. I have never been to this building and it is absolutely beautiful so I am a little bit nervous. However, I have a very personal perspective to present to the committee plus I have a bit of a business perspective because of the business I tend to be in, so it kind of crosses over.

To keep things simple for the record, I will advise this committee that I am very much in favour of Sunday shopping in Ontario. From both a business and personal perspective, I would like to share with you my beliefs relative to Bill 115.

I am a strong believer in the freedom of choice in all venues of life. I am very frustrated by the legislation placed on our nation, which is seemingly in place to override our individual choices relative to our individual needs. If I want to shop on Sunday, that is my choice. It is not the government's choice. If the store owners feel there is opportunity for prosperity on Sunday and wish to open, that is their individual call. It is not mine. It is not the government's. If the store employee does not want to work on Sunday, that is his choice, not the management's, not mine, not the government's.

This really is about the freedom to choose, to live our lives seven days a week as we wish and as fully as we wish.

The government talks of establishing a common day. I say, what nonsense. I wrote to Peter North on this issue and was told about this common day, which totally confused me. The province is made up of diversified industries which operate seven days a week and ethnic groups that choose to worship on different days, which makes such a day, a common day, impossible.

So why are we bothering? Let us choose. What right does the government have, other than to encourage fair employment practices whereby counsel can be given to companies as to how employees can be given attractive incentives to work on a Sunday, as long as the choice remains with the employee?

I have not written this down, but I had a chance to talk to a gentleman who worked in one of the retail stores when we had Sunday shopping for a short period of time. The company had come up with a very creative package for this individual. He was free to work on Sundays. He liked to work on Sundays. The store was open from 12 till 5. Retailers generally have just Sunday off. If you are working in a retail store, that is all you get. You get one day. You do not get two-day weekends. What they had done with this gentleman is, if he worked from 12 noon till 5 o'clock, he was able to have two consecutive days off during the week that were agreed on between him and his manager, plus he was paid a whole day's wage. It was a hell of a deal and he was happy with it.

There are ways, if we all sit down and start talking to each other, that this can be worked out without the government's intervention.

Times have changed. We live in a province where living costs can only be met by two people working in a household. Women are no longer home and Saturday is just not enough time any more. Sunday gives us breathing time. Saturday need not be so frenzied.

I am a single working girl. I travel in my job. I am very busy. I find that Saturdays are just crazy with my trying to pack everything into one day. I really want Sunday shopping as an option in my particular life. That is my very personal, emotional plea about Sunday shopping.

Moving on to the business part of my piece, for the past 17 years I have had the pleasure of promoting tourism to Canada. Primarily my job is to lure our American neighbours into our country, to enjoy our facilities, to take advantage of what we have to offer. Yes, there is a lot of press about what we have to offer being very expensive, but everything they offer in New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco is also expensive. There is still a tremendous opportunity here for Ontario as far as tourism is concerned, if they would just start marketing us on a more positive basis.

The tourists experience our wonderful resources and the country reaps the economic benefits of their spending. I think you would have to be pretty naïve to discount the revenue that tourism brings into the country. It is reported as the second largest industry in Ontario. We cannot stop the growth of tourism into this province.

Sunday shopping is an added incentive for US travellers to visit Ontario in the summer, and an absolute necessity for drawing visitors here in the colder months when things to do in urban centres are very limited. Yes, you can bring them for the theatres. They are coming in for the weekend package. They are coming in for Saturday night to see the Phantom of the Opera or whatever program happens to be here, and they wake up Sunday morning and, "Let's go home because there's nothing to do in Ontario."

Weekend-package business is a primary source of income for our hotels and resorts, and on Sundays our tourists find themselves with noses flat against store windows and doors shut up tight for the day. Families travel together. Families shop together. What can we offer our downtown visitors on Sundays?

The economic impact on our province, just by offering an additional day's shopping, is very significant. Hotels, restaurants and attractions all benefit, as does the province.

Ontario must take advantage of every opportunity to reap its share of these tourism dollars. Once a $15.5 billion industry, tourism to Ontario is decreasing. Now is not the time to close the doors on our visitors. We must recognize and fulfil their needs, open up all our doors every day. Otherwise potential visitors will continue shutting their wallets and minds on travel to Ontario.

1000

In conclusion, rescinding the Sunday shopping privilege paralleled the Ayatollah Khomaini. I feel he moved his country back into the Dark Ages, and I feel that is exactly -- somewhat, maybe I am exaggerating -- what Sunday shopping, the rescinding of that law did. I almost drove off the road the day I heard the radio announcement that they took away something I really liked.

Again I was made to feel victimized and helpless by lessened legislated choices in and about how I live and enjoy my life, and that is why I am here today. I am fighting back. I am mad as hell and I am not going to take it any more, and I am not going to take it quietly. I am going to continue the push to have Sunday shopping in Ontario.

Further procrastination and discussion on store openings on Sunday are paralysing us economically, and the found dollars being used on lawyers and in courtrooms debating this issue can surely be better spent. Why not spend those dollars promoting Ontario as the place to stop, shop and stay?

Sunday opening decisions should be left to the people. Unless our government has walked in our shoes, worked at our jobs and sat at our dinner tables, it cannot possibly make decisions on our behalf. I want to shop on Sundays. I want the government to allow me this privilege. I appeal to this government to stop wasting further dollars on this issue. It makes absolutely no economic sense. Ontario needs to move ahead. We need to march with a new drummer in step with today's times.

Mr Sorbara: I want to welcome you, Ms Dickenson, to Queen's Park and suggest to you that you should come to see us more often in this building.

You said you have spent a good deal of your life encouraging tourists to come to Ontario. If the only stores that are open on Sunday are stores that cater and are recognized as tourist establishments, people catering to tourists, would it be fair to say that, in your mind, those in the province who are more affluent would have an opportunity to shop as they wished on Sunday, and those who are less affluent among us would find severe restrictions on their ability to shop on Sunday?

Ms Dickenson: Shopping on Sunday for me is not a measure of being affluent or not affluent; it is a measure of convenience. That is a personal perspective.

Mr Sorbara: But if I am a tourist --

Ms Dickenson: Perhaps in a tourism situation. The affluence of the shopper is the affluence of the person's ability to travel to the destination. It is a further incentive. If they are coming here, they have the net disposable income to travel. They have some net disposable income to spend some sort of money on spending, maybe buying something in the stores, or what brings them into town to go to the restaurant that might be open because they are in the retail store. Affluence is definitely a factor when it comes to travel. There is no question there must be net disposable income. But from a personal sense, it is not that. It is a convenience issue for myself, being an Ontario resident.

Mr Sorbara: For about nine months the courts prohibited the provincial government from regulating in the area of Sunday shopping. The incumbent government had suggested that would bring about a substantial deterioration in family life in the province. During that period, did you notice the quality of family life in Ontario deteriorated a little bit, a lot, none at all, or do you have no opinion on that?

Ms Dickenson: Again I can only speak in the first person. It changed the quality of my life considerably. That is so subjective. It is exactly what my presentation is about. I cannot speak on behalf of the other families in Ontario. I noticed there was less traffic out on the streets on Sunday. I have made comments about that. That would simply be a personal thing on my part, and I really cannot answer on behalf of all the other people out there.

Mr Sorbara: Do you think that if people shopped on Sunday, family life would deteriorate in the province?

Ms Dickenson: Oh, heaven's sakes, no. We have designated areas that are open because they have been designated as a tourist area, like the Unionvilles, and I guess Queen's Quay, and those particular shops are designated tourism areas. Again, that designation is subjective. If I think my store is a tourist store. I can designate it as such. Nobody should be able to do that unless he has worked with me for 365 days, I guess.

I go up a lot of times on a Sunday -- because I have the freedom, I am more relaxed on Sunday to shop -- to Unionville. I go down to Queen's Quay, and it is jammed with families, kids running around in strollers, people having a good time. Yes, if they have gone to church in the morning, they still have a lot of time to do what they want. I think things that are done together as a family are more important, as long as you are doing things together.

Then that gets watered down. What about the families whose husband or wife has to work Saturday and Sunday? Let's get real. This province is open seven days a week. Somebody drives the buses and the planes and everything. I travel on Sundays sometimes if I have sales meetings early on Monday morning. Somebody gets me there. Somebody in the hotel books me in. We have to grow in this province and recognize that this country does not just stop on Sunday.

We have to let people choose. On a number of issues, I am very much a freedom of choice person, and shopping is no different. I want the freedom to do what I want to do on Sunday. I am not saying we have to force people to work, because that is not what freedom of choice even means. Let us sit down and let us give employers and employees the chance to work together so that everybody wins. That is the way it has to be right now.

I am frustrated from a personal sense. From a business sense, I cannot help but think that this would help my business of bringing Americans into Canada to spend their money, if we could offer them Sunday shopping. We are losing out in so many areas.

Back to tourism again. It is decreasing and we have got to give them something extra to come for. It may not turn it around, but let's not put any more roadblocks in front of these people. Let's open it up. We have nothing to lose and we have a chance to gain. Why would we stop ourselves or close our minds to that opportunity? That is not the way business works. Business succeeds because they open up and go after new opportunities and new horizons. You cannot stay the same. If your profit runs on a loss like this, you cannot do that. It will eventually foul up. You cannot stay the same.

It is time Ontario moved ahead on this particular legislation. Obviously, I feel quite strongly about it.

Mr Mills: Do we have time for questions?

The Chair: No, we do not. We just used the time.

Ms Dickenson: Am I done?

Mr Mills: Mr Chairman, this is absolutely unthinkable if you say that we have no time left.

The Chair: I do not believe we do.

Mr Mills: What is the point of being here?

Ms Dickenson: I probably talked too long.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Dickenson.

Ms Dickenson: Thank you everybody. Have a nice day.

Mr Fletcher: You did a marvellous job. Do not worry about it.

The Chair: We have a number of witnesses to follow. All in favour of a 10-minute recess? Opposed? Carried.

The committee recessed at 1008.

1019

PEOPLE FOR SUNDAY ASSOCIATION OF CANADA

The Chair: We have a deputation from the People for Sunday Association of Canada. Is it Mr Kingdon? Despite the lateness, Mr Kingdon, you still have half an hour, give or take, and you can use the time however you wish, but typically there will be time allotted for the various caucuses. I would suggest that perhaps this time we could start with the Conservative caucus and rotate from there.

Mr Kingdon: My name is Les Kingdon. I represent the People for Sunday Association of Canada. The People for Sunday Association was formerly known as the Lord's Day Alliance and is in its 103rd year of seeking to preserve Sunday as a common pause day.

While the government is addressing this subject, nevertheless we are of the opinion that the proposed legislation does not address several important issues.

First, we would draw your attention to price clubs. There are a substantial number of these now operating and announcements have been made of expansion. These are retail outlets which operate under a membership theory and are very large outlets. We believe they should be included in the legislation to curtail their Sunday and holiday activities.

The legislation proposes allowing drugstores up to 7,500 square feet the right to operate on Sundays. It is a ridiculous situation to argue that drugstores require anything such as the square footage which is proposed. The legislation seeks to provide an opportunity to acquire health care needs. Certainly this can be accomplished in a much smaller store, and we would urge you to consider limiting drugstore size to 2,400 square feet. This is the footage similar to convenience stores and provides more than sufficient space for providing health care needs.

There are other areas which are not covered by the legislation, and we know from our experience that obtaining enforcement is virtually an impossibility.

One of the areas with which we are concerned is that of flea markets. There is no attempt to legislate their activities. There are many which operate seven days a week. There is a preponderance of outlets which operate on Saturday and Sunday. Our understanding of a flea market is one where inexpensive and/or secondhand items are sold. Many of these markets are supported by merchants who on Sunday simply move their stocks to a flea market, thus enabling them to sell on a Sunday. One can purchase, apart from legitimate items, such articles as sporting goods, bedroom suites, organs, new wearing apparel and a host of things too numerous to define.

Another area which we feel the legislation should address is that of alternative Sunday entrances. How can a manufacturer condone that he is obeying the law when on Sundays he uses another entrance? Once you are inside the premises, it is exactly the same as is used on the other six days of the week.

In the past year we have had sales of fur coats and clothing being offered to the public on Sundays in locations such as hotels and on the grounds of the Canadian National Exhibition. In many cases, this is a sale of goods by out-of-town wholesalers who defeat the legislation with this practice.

The legislation places upon the municipality the responsibility of ensuring that an exemption is warranted and guidelines have been provided. The unfortunate part of this situation is that once a municipality grants an exemption there is no recourse other than an individual or organization to take the case to court for a decision. Under the present arrangements we can assure you that many exemptions should be challenged, but where will the funds come from for these challenges? We would suggest to you that municipalities are not infallible and that there should be a provision for a provincial board to examine and give or withhold the right to the exemption. I recognize this is a difficult area, but I would suggest to you that a provincial board of some description, other than the Ontario Municipal Board, would be the place for this to take place.

We do not believe the proposed legislation in any way can be deemed to be what the public is seeking. Many of the suggestions which we are making have been made on many occasions at meetings with various ministers.

Whatever your decision may be, we would draw your attention to the enforcement of the act. For many years we have run into situations where a police department may not agree with the legislation and therefore simply states that manpower is unavailable for enforcement. We cannot accept this argument for, as an example, police forces are always available to enforce the law against the Magders of the province. It is essential that the Solicitor General instruct the police authorities that he demands they enforce this important legislation.

To enact the legislation in its present form will invite controversy, and we will have a similar situation that will become so intolerable that the government will be forced into introducing new and more meaningful legislation.

Mr Carr: First, thank you very much for your presentation. When your association originally started was the reason for having Sunday off based on religious reasons?

Mr Kingdon: Originally it was started by the Presbyterian Church in Ottawa and was recognized as a religious organization. Over the years that has changed to the point where we recognize the human values that are involved, and today we are interested in human values as well as the religious aspects.

Mr Carr: So one of the reasons for having Sunday off is because of the Bible taking the seventh day off and so on.

Mr Kingdon: Originally, but not today.

Mr Carr: One of the things many people see happening is that there will be a snowball effect with the tourism exemptions being so broad that municipalities will start to allow certain areas to be open -- for example, Windsor will allow the entire town to be open -- and the neighbouring municipalities and suddenly it will all open. Is that your perception of what will happen? How do you see that unfolding if the legislation stays the way it is now?

Mr Kingdon: I think the case of Windsor is an outrageous exception of the law. The law requires that there be historical or architectural references, and there is nothing in Windsor that would enable you to open the entire city for it. If this is allowed to stand as a tourist exemption, then it is going to spread all over the country. We had the same thing existing in the Sault, and in other centres around the province there has been a move towards this.

Mr Carr: If the legislation stays the same, you foresee, based on your best judgement, that there will be wide-open Sunday shopping in most areas.

Mr Kingdon: There is an alternative to this. They can be challenged. That is the point I made earlier, that the challenge must be made by an individual. We challenged the first bylaw that was passed and spent $30,000, only to lose the case. If you get the situation developing over the province of cities opening up, then there are going to be challenges, but I question who is going to have the money to follow up on these challenges. We can do a certain amount, but we certainly could not think of taking on entire municipalities all over the country.

Mr Carr: One of the other things that many people fear will happen is that there will be some municipalities open and some that are not, and that is going to be very confusing for people. How would you see that, in light of your presentation? Obviously you would not be pleased with a situation like that.

Mr Kingdon: The domino effect is going to take place, there is no question about that. It is the old story that I have something you do not, and you want what I have. You are going to have municipalities side by side. In some perhaps there will be strong convictions, but in most cases I think they will bow to the political pressure and give in and have open Sundays.

1030

Mr Carr: I know. One last question. You touched on the resources of the police department and I was thinking of a place like Toronto, where we have double the murder rate in one year and violent crimes are up something like 30%. What the police are saying is, "We're having a tough time catching the sexual assaults, the break-ins." I went out with the people in 31 Division and on a Saturday night they were about 41 calls behind, so if you call at 1 in the morning you probably will not get somebody to arrive until 7 o'clock, even if you say, "There's somebody breaking into my apartment now." How can you justify to the public, with these violent crimes going on, saying that we are now going to have police going up and down Spadina checking to see who is or is not open? With our limited resources, what would you say to the public on that?

Mr Kingdon: I agree with your comments completely that crime must be sorted out in the order of importance. I would certainly not argue for police charging somebody for being open on a Sunday as opposed to a murder or a break-in or anything of that nature.

Let me give you an example, which is perhaps the best thing. There is a drugstore in the west end of Toronto. This was when the drugstores were not included at the 7,500-square-foot level. I noticed that parked beside the drugstore was a police cruiser. I went up to the officer and asked him if he had checked the drugstore for being in violation of the Retail Business Holidays Act. He said, "No, I'm doing some work here on some exams I've got coming up." That is an example, and I grant you it is an exception. Nevertheless, there are police officers available in most cases on a Sunday.

Mr Villeneuve: Just a short question: You touched on flea markets. I gather you would close those down completely on Sunday.

Mr Kingdon: By no means. We have no objection to flea markets if they stay to the one day a week and if the goods being sold are inexpensive or secondhand goods. But flea markets today, as you know, are simply a matter of merchants finding another way of selling on Sundays.

Mr Mills: Before we get into questioning by our members, I would like to ask, Mr Chair, that we call forward Mr David Spring, legal adviser to the Solicitor General, to clarify a point that Mr Kingdon made about price clubs. I think it is important for all committee members to have that clarified at this point. Mr Spring, I understand the ministry has or is in the process of taking steps to clarify the so-called price clubs. I wonder if you could tell the members of the committee exactly what is contemplated.

Mr Spring: Certainly. My name is David Spring. I am director of legal services for the Ministry of the Solicitor General.

Price clubs as we understand them operate on the basis that memberships are sold. The argument is thereby made that you are not a member of the public; you are a special person, if you will. You are removed from the guise of being a member of the public and are thereby entitled to shop in a store, in this price club, on Sunday. It is the view of the Ministry of the Attorney General, of which I am a part, that this is simply a retail sale in another guise, a retail sale being a sale to the ultimate consumer or the end user and that a member of the public who purchases a membership entitling him or her to shop on that day is none the less a member of the public.

The proscriptions in the Retail Business Holidays Act simply say that a retailer cannot sell or offer for sale any goods or services therein by retail or admit members of the public thereto. It is our view that in fact those persons who are being admitted to price clubs on Sunday where goods or services are sold or offered for sale which do not fit the prescribed inventories are in fact members of the public and that the price club premises in fact constitute retail business establishments in so far as goods or services are sold therein by retail. I repeat that retail is a sale to the end user or to the ultimate consumer.

It is our view therefore that price clubs are caught by the legislation. We have in fact advised a number of police forces to this effect. Given the more widespread concern about the issue that has been evinced here before the committee and in other areas, I think the ministry could very well consider, in concert with the Ministry of the Attorney General, issuing some form of generic advice to police forces across the province advising them of our view. If we should be proved wrong through prosecutions, then we would look at it again, but our opinion is fairly firm that price clubs are in fact caught by the legislation.

The Chair: With your indulgence, Mr Mills, I believe Mr Sorbara has a question of Mr Spring on this point.

Mr Sorbara: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I am glad you allowed that because this is a new and unexpected line of testimony. I would like to ask the witness precisely what studies the ministry has done to come to this conclusion. The reason I ask that is I have done some investigations myself into the operation of the price club. While it certainly is the case that some of the so-called members of the price club are members of the so-called general public who are looking to buy in large volume to get the lowest possible price, generally because they are large families who cannot afford more expensive items -- again, these are the poor in our society -- a good number of the customers of the price club, from my investigations, are operators of small convenience stores and operators of, say, small nursing homes who buy ketchup in big jars, a big case of toilet paper, big cases of paper towels and all sorts of things. They are small business operators themselves. In fact, I would suggest to you that if you went to a price club on Sunday and you saw the thousands and thousands of people who go there and you did a survey, a good number of those customers would be people who are operating small businesses.

The reason I ask you what studies you have done is that if the Ministry of the Solicitor General is proposing to do court battle with the price club phenomenon, I suggest to you that you are on your way once again to the Supreme Court of Canada to define a terribly narrow point of law which is going to close off yet again an avenue for people, including very small businesses, getting the economic opportunity they need to get, and I would strongly advise against it.

Mr Spring: In fact, we are aware there are different varieties of clientele in these price clubs. Some have wholesalers' certificates. I would suggest that a number of those types of clients you have mentioned, even though they are small businesses, still qualify as members of the public in so far as sales to them constitute retail sales.

Mr Sorbara: Nothing prohibits a wholesaler from delivering to, say, a small convenience store on a Sunday. The difference here is that those small convenience stores are saving the cost of delivery by going out and purchasing themselves and generally at a lower price.

I have done investigations that establish that no one is allowed into the price club on Sunday without a membership card, establishing that they qualify and are excepted from the general public.

Mr Spring: I would just elaborate briefly on the point that there are a number of varieties of clientele. Some of them are undoubtedly, shall I say, members of the public who engage in buying by retail, and to that extent price clubs fall within the ambit of the legislation. Some of their operations probably do not fall within the ambit of this legislation.

Mr Sorbara: I guess what I am saying to you is that if in this environment --

The Chair: Could we leave that at this point, Mr Sorbara?

Mr Mills: Some of my caucus members would like to speak.

1040

Mrs Haslam: I had a question in a couple of areas. On page 3 of your presentation you said, "We would suggest to you that municipalities are not infallible and that there should be provision for a provincial board to examine and give or withhold the right of the exemption."

Should the tourism criteria be adhered to by municipalities and they decide to have a particular area open or they decide conversely to turn down a particular store or a particular area, it is your contention that an appeal process be put in place, and if so you are suggesting it go to the provincial rather than the municipal level.

Mr Kingdon: The municipalities are left in the position of being the final voice in this matter, and they can either pass a bylaw or not. Either way, there can be an objection to it, and the only procedure open to any individual is through the courts. It would be my suggestion that it would be a much more feasible way to have them apply to some sort of appeal board; not necessarily the Ontario Municipal Board, but a board set up specifically to handle challenges under the Retail Business Holidays Act.

Mrs Haslam: Okay. That was one of the options I was interested in. The other question I had was that I did not know if you were aware that over 60% of drugstores are over 2,400 square feet. I have many small communities; I have a village of 1,200 in my riding. So if we bring down that square footage, we are looking at closing 60% of the drugstores in communities, and I would be left with a community without a drugstore. I just wondered if you were aware of that and why you wanted it brought down.

Mr Kingdon: There is no question that it is an evolutionary process that has taken place over the years where the common pharmacy a few years ago was around 2,400 square feet. Then it went to 5,000 square feet and then in the last legislation to 7,500 square feet. To sell drugs or to fill prescriptions there is no need for that amount of space. So what have they done? They have added grocery items. There is a store, as a matter of fact, that even goes so far as to have a freezer department in it. I ask you, is this what the government is looking for in a drugstore? Or are they looking for --

Mrs Haslam: But I asked you, can I have a community without a drugstore if we bring that --

Mr Kingdon: The drugstore, in my opinion, if it is a drugstore, is to fill pharmaceutical and health needs, and 2,400 square feet should be sufficient for that. It is unfortunate, if there are 60% as you say -- and I am not going to quarrel with your figures -- that are over 2,400 square feet, but in my opinion they should not be allowed to open.

Mrs Haslam: That was what I wanted to know. Thank you.

Mr Fletcher: Thank you for appearing today and taking an interest in this piece of legislation. One thing you did mention was law enforcement. I know that the member opposite, Mr Carr, also mentioned it. When we talk about law enforcement it always seems that we focus on Toronto as being the centre of the province, when it is not. In fact, if you come to my community, Guelph, and you see a police officer walking the streets or on his or her beat, they will investigate. This law is not made specifically for Toronto. I know you know that. I know you are cognizant of that fact, but it just gets to me when I hear members of the opposition and also some other people talking about Toronto as being the barometer. I do not know what law enforcement agencies are like in Toronto, but I do know that in other parts of the province they will investigate, and I know you did not mean to just pinpoint Toronto as being the centre.

On another point, getting back to the drugstores, if we have so many drugstores that are within the limit, are you suggesting something like roping off areas, which did not work that well in the past?

Interjection: How do you do it?

Mr Fletcher: Yes, how do you cut them down to 2,400?

Mr Kingdon: The roping off situation was used by many stores a few years ago, and the government in its wisdom decided that this was not a suitable way to handle things. We had a complaint recently from a store which has been roping off for many years and still is. The police have told them this was acceptable. We drew the attention of the police to the section of the act that prohibits roping off.

I do not think that roping off is the answer because if you have seen roping off as it has been done, you know you line up a few Coke crates along the front and you can go around them or over them or whatever you want and get what you want and make a purchase.

Getting back to your question of enforcement, let me use a couple of examples, one being a police force which examined a store, and I called them the day following and asked them what they had found out. I was presented with an advertisement showing that these people had a bylaw granting them the right to stay open. What had been presented to the police was actually a copy of the advertisement calling for a public meeting. The police accepted it as being evidence that they were qualified by bylaw. This is the sort of thing that concerns me, that the police are not knowledgeable and, second, that they do not enforce where there are violations.

Mr Fletcher: Is that province-wide or is that just in the city of Toronto?

Mr Kingdon: I think it is province-wide, yes.

Mr Fletcher: As I said, I know that in my community people were charged and the police were doing their job. But let me get back to the square footage. As far as the square footage is concerned, there are buildings already built for drugstores. We cannot expect drugstores to go out and rebuild smaller stores. I agree the roping off does not work. Do you have a suggestion? That is what I was asking, do you have any ideas of how you would like to see it handled. If so, maybe we can implement them.

Mr Kingdon: The Pay Less Drug Emporium in Brampton made a presentation to the region of Peel council where they had prepared some sort of device. I have not seen it, so I am not thoroughly familiar with it, but it was some method of closing off the store completely. I presume it was something like a folding curtain that could be put in place and close off a part of the store. Something of that nature is going beyond roping off and gives a permanency to it that roping off does not give. I think that would be a way in which they might be able to confine the 2,400 square feet.

The Chair: You only have a couple of minutes, Mr Sorbara.

Mr Sorbara: I take it you find the government's proposed bill better than no legislation at all regulating Sunday shopping?

Mr Kingdon: A qualified yes.

Mr Sorbara: But you would like to see them do a number of things, including deal with price clubs and flea markets. We have been talking about drugstores, and that is where I would like to concentrate. If the government really wanted a common pause day, would it not be just as simple to say a drugstore of any size can remain open except that they can just sell prescription drugs? Is that not the purpose for allowing the drugstore exemption?

Mr Kingdon: I think it is, but I think it is impractical to think that you can open a drugstore and have an area available to the public where they can walk around and pick up whatever they want, whether it be outside the prescription or health needs or not.

Mr Sorbara: But one could say, "We're available to fill emergency drug prescriptions." That is the only basis for the drugstore exemption, is it not? All the other stuff that Shoppers Drug Mart sells on Sunday, including hair dryers, chocolate bars, Christmas cards and birthday cards, all that stuff really does not come within a necessary exemption, does it?

Mr Kingdon: Can I ask you the question, do you think a drugstore would be willing to accept regulation of that type?

Mr Sorbara: No, I do not. On the other hand, I asked you do you think it is fair to tell a drugstore that is 8,000 square feet that it is not allowed to stay open and yet its competitor which is some 501 square feet smaller can stay open? Would you consider that fair?

Mr Kingdon: I think the argument is a false one, that drugstores have brought this on themselves.

Mr Sorbara: Is it not true that the drugstores simply want to stay open not so much to sell drugs but to capture some of the Sunday market?

Mr Kingdon: That is right.

1050

Mr Sorbara: Do you disagree with the existence of a Sunday market?

Mr Kingdon: It depends on, I suppose, what your opinion is. As far as we are concerned, Sunday should be a day of rest, and a day of rest means that everything should be closed down except those stores which are essential.

Mr Sorbara: Sports facilities?

Mr Kingdon: No, I think this is a part of recreation and should be accepted.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Kingdon, for your very informative presentation.

Mr Kingdon: Thank you.

DYLEX LTD

The Chair: We now have from Dylex, Sharad Mistry and Carol Cox. I apologize for our tardiness, Mr Mistry and Ms Cox, but I am sure you have also seen how the proceedings go. You may spend whatever amount of time you wish of the half hour for your presentation and then there will be questions, starting with the official opposition.

Ms Cox: Terrific. Thank you very much. What Sharad and I are going to do, if you would not mind, is that we will both give our presentations and then open up for questions to both of us.

My name is Carol Cox and I am vice-president of human resources for Dylex Ltd. Dylex, as many of you may know, has close to 1,600 stores throughout Canada and North America, employing 21,000 people in both retailing and manufacturing.

Among our divisions are Bi-Way, Suzy Shier, Thriftys, Big Steel, Tip Top Tailors and Fairweather. For the record, we support Sunday shopping.

The mission of the human resources function at Dylex is to attract, retain and grow effective employees. In this regard, retailing is unique by offering a variety of opportunities and work schedules, which include full-time, part-time, flex-time, evenings and weekends. We attract people of all ages, especially those entering the workforce for the very first time.

Retailing serves, really, as an incubator for those just getting started, sometimes without prior experience or developed skills, and frequently with only limited education. Many a future entrepreneur has started a successful career which began as a part-time employee in a retail store.

We offer employment throughout the province, indeed throughout the country, from small rural towns to major metropolitan centres and shopping malls. In effect, we reach out to the grass-roots levels of communities to attract employees and customers alike.

It is important to remember when debating the very critical issues in question which are often raised about Sunday shopping, for example, the desire of people to shop on Sunday and the willingness of retail employees to work on Sunday, that these questions are not limited to theoretical answers. Dylex has long and extensive experience right here in Canada in those provinces which resolved these matters long ago. Further, the experience in virtually all of North America also tells us, without doubt, it works and it works well.

In Vancouver, for example, people are not forced to work on Sunday, any more than they are asked to work on Saturday or Tuesday or any evening. It is an established matter of free choice for employees to choose among the wide variety of schedules that we offer. As a matter of record, it is not a problem for us to find employees to work on Sunday. Many times people are more than willing to volunteer to work. Again, I want to refer to our knowledge and experience gained as a national company and years of experience with Sunday openings in other progressive provinces of Canada.

In Ontario, when Sunday shopping first became permissible last year, a number of our employees working in various stores requested a Sunday schedule because another day of the week, perhaps a Tuesday or a Wednesday or even a Thursday, was better suited to a day off for them for their personal and family needs. It is evident that in a diverse society, growing more diverse every day, there is no one single day of the week that everyone favours to have off. In fact, we detect no consensus whatsoever among our employees to favour a particular day off, including Sunday.

It is of interest that a number of college and university students applied for Sunday work in the brief days when stores were legally open in Ontario. The Sunday schedule was ideal for young people trying to balance the demands of getting an education with the need to earn money through selected part-time employment, employment which helped to pay for their education. That convenient avenue of opportunity of course is now denied to Ontario students.

Employees in virtually every other field of endeavour have the freedom of choice, as responsible adults, to work or not to work on Sundays, as their jobs and personal plans permit. Manufacturing plants, to be productive and healthy, provide employment on Sunday. People are able to work on Sunday in the hospitality industry, the mining industry, transportation, health care and communications. The list is as endless as the geographic locations where no 19th-century restrictions exist. As workers, as family members, as consumers, the citizens of Ontario are entitled to choose for themselves whether they want to work on Sunday or not, and our employees have that choice and have always had that choice and have the same selection of options available to them as the vast majority of other Canadians.

Dylex favours Sunday shopping. We also believe very strongly in the fair treatment of workers. That is very much a priority for us. We support the proposed amendments to the Employment Standards Act which are allowing workers to refuse work on Sundays or holidays. We also support guaranteeing 36 continuous hours of rest time in any seven-day work period. We also support strengthening the role of the employment standards officers in dealing with employee grievances.

Mr Mistry: My name is Sharad Mistry. I am vice-president of financial services for Dylex. Carol talked about some of the human resource issues regarding Sunday shopping and Dylex. I would like to give you just some brief background on the financial side of Dylex.

Dylex has 799 locations throughout the province and that represents 55% of the Canadian locations. It is fair to say that Dylex operates in virtually every mall in Ontario. Our sales in 1990 totalled approximately $800 million in Ontario alone. We are a major employer, employing something like 18,000 people across Canada and approximately 10,000 in Ontario. In 1990, $37 million was expended by Dylex and approximately 70% was in Ontario.

How does Sunday shopping affect Dylex? Sunday shopping is not a new issue in Ontario. It has been around for some time. However, there are three factors which have now come on the scene which have really made the retailers' section of the market difficult.

Introduction of the GST: The manufacturers sales tax did not apply to the clothing industry. Therefore, we had a full 7% increase in our products. We have estimated that we have lost something like $47 million in sales in Ontario just attributable to the GST.

Cross-border shopping: This is becoming a very hot topic now. We have estimated that we have lost something like $110 million, based on something like $2 billion that goes across to the United States. We have estimated something like $110 million in sales.

Increased US competition in Ontario: The Gap and Price Club are American-based, very well financed, having the strength of the US market coming into Canada.

1100

How will Bill 115 affect Dylex?

Potential job losses: While the government has a duty to protect workers, it has also an obligation to promote economic growth and remove barriers that prevent people who want to work from doing so. This is particularly true in the post-free-trade era and it has become more evident during the recession. The passage of Bill 115 will weaken our ability to preserve our market share and return to a profitable position, which will affect the employment levels.

Decreasing competitiveness: Bill 115 worsens our ability to respond to challenges posed by the introduction of the GST, the aggressive marketing practices of the US retailers in Canada and the increasing levels of cross-border shopping. Just as an example, I would like to read a letter that Carol received from a subsidiary of K Mart corporation from Buffalo called Pace Membership Warehouse. Pace Membership wrote to Carol.

"I am writing to you in response to an overwhelming influx of your employees at our warehouse in recent months. I would like to have the opportunity to discuss the select employee group program with you. I will be calling you soon to discuss the details further."

This is a US-based warehouse membership club which is asking a retailer to send its employees over there to shop.

Ms Cox: On Sunday.

Mr Mistry: It is very aggressive. It is on Sunday.

Mr Sorbara: You don't have to send them; they're going.

Ms Cox: It's frightening.

Mr Mistry: Planned capital investments in this province have decreased, primarily as a result of the recession. But if Bill 115 goes through, getting financing to expand our operation in Canada is going to be more difficult. If we are not profitable, the banks are going to be finding it difficult to lend us money on that basis, and in the fashion trade we are constantly looking at our stores and renovating our stores to keep up with the trend that the consumer wants. It is an expensive proposition and it makes it a little bit more difficult.

Our major concerns: Carol already went through all the information on Dylex's position as far as the employees are concerned. Just to summarize, we had no difficulty in getting employees to work on Sundays. A lot of our employees are students, and working on Sundays means they can devote more time to studies during the week. It does not disrupt their week's schedule.

Fairness and consistency: Again, other sectors of the economy -- manufacturing, hospitality and mining -- are permitted to open on Sunday. For us to remain competitive, I think we should have the same opportunity. Another example is that Drug World, which is one of our subsidiaries, is appreciably the same as Shoppers Drug Mart, and yet we have difficulty in getting that to open on Sunday.

The future of Canadian retailing: If Ontario is to preserve a Canadian-owned and a distinctively Canadian retail sector, the government must enable Dylex and others to respond to the challenges posed by the large American-backed chains. We would like to feel that the provincial government is with us and not against us in this effort.

Mr Sorbara: I have a question or two, for Ms Cox first. As I understood your testimony, you said you were supportive of the provisions in Bill 115 dealing with worker protection.

Ms Cox: That is correct.

Mr Sorbara: I am surprised actually that a director of human resources would say that. I do not want to try to convince you to change your mind. I have a special interest in this: I was the author of the predecessor. How many people work in a typical Dylex store on a Sunday, or any other day? How many employees?

Ms Cox: We have a variety of sizes -- 10 people. We have a Thriftys store that might have one or two.

Mr Sorbara: Let's take a store that has 10 employees regularly, including Sunday, and the store, under whatever law, is allowed to stay open on Sunday. If on Friday at 11 o'clock those 10 employees phoned you and advised that they were not coming in on Sunday, what would your response be?

Ms Cox: I guess I, as the store manager, would be alone in the department. I would call my district manager in and I would call some other store managers to see if they could give me some help.

Mr Sorbara: And if they could not?

Ms Cox: If they could not, I would open up the store by myself.

Mr Sorbara: With one person. Would you take any retaliatory action or would you discipline those employees or would you feel that you should have a right to discipline them?

Ms Cox: Sure I do.

Mr Sorbara: Are you aware that under Bill 115 you would be prohibited from taking any action whatever, even a reprimand?

Ms Cox: What we read in the bill that goes with the extended powers was nothing like that. If employees actually call up with no reason --

Mr Sorbara: If you read the bill, the bill provides that the employee has an absolute right to refuse so long as notice in excess of 48 hours is given to the employer -- I say Friday at 11 because I am assuming the store opens at noon on Sunday -- and that any attempt to coerce or reprimand or to discuss the refusal would be a violation of the laws of the province of Ontario. Are you aware of that?

Ms Cox: No, I am not. That is not how the research that has been given to us on the act -- also, we do our schedules a month in advance and people agree to the schedules in advance.

Mr Sorbara: Notwithstanding the agreement to work on Sunday, the employee is given an absolute right to refuse, subject to the 48-hour requirement. That is two days' notice.

Ms Cox: Whether it is a Monday or a Tuesday also? Just a Sunday?

Mr Sorbara: Only on Sunday. An employee has an absolute right to refuse to work on Sunday. As a human resources officer, do you think that is the basis for sound human resources management in an organization like Dylex?

Ms Cox: If you have schedules people are hired on -- they agree they are more than willing; they want Sunday work -- and then they turn around and say, "I refuse, and you have to give me a different schedule," then we have to make some serious decisions about whether we can afford to carry them on the payroll and have them in that, if we do not have enough time. We will have to hire people who are willing to work on Sunday.

Mr Sorbara: Except that the people you hire to work on Sunday continue to have an absolute right to advise you 48 hours before the shift starts that they are refusing to work, and the bill prohibits you from taking any action whatsoever in response to that.

Ms Cox: In other words, you are saying that if somebody is hired for Sunday work -- let's say their schedule is Thursday, Saturday, Sunday -- he can state on Thursday that he is going to refuse to come in on Sunday forevermore and there is nothing I can do about it?

Mr Sorbara: That is right.

Ms Cox: There is no way I can support something like that, but that is not how I read the --

Mr Sorbara: That is what the bill provides. The current act, the act in force right now, would not allow them if they were hired to work on Sunday to then refuse, as the assignment would be deemed to be reasonable because they agreed to work on Sunday and that is what they were hired for. But the proposed act gives an absolute right for the employee to refuse to work on Sunday, notwithstanding that the employee was hired to work on Sunday.

Ms Cox: Would we not have cause to say the employee was misrepresenting himself and came to us under false pretences?

Mr Sorbara: Not under the bill as it stands. I have no other questions.

1110

Mr Carr: First, I want to thank you for making the presentation. It is very helpful.

As I understand it, you have about 10 people in each store who would be working on any given Sunday, and all 800 would be open on a Sunday, so we are looking at approximately 8,000 people who, if stores do not open, will not be able to earn an income on a Sunday. How many of those people will lose their job completely? I assume you would not be able to earn money on Sunday, but you would still keep them from Saturday. With the numbers being what they are, you now would not need those 8,000. I will ask you, Mr Mistry, with the financial background, how many people do you see losing their jobs if in fact you have to stay closed right across the province on Sunday?

Mr Mistry: First, you have to understand that a lot of the employees we have who work Sundays are part-time employees and they either work in the evenings or they could work on the weekends. The schedule for store operations, as Carol mentioned, would be done in advance to see what our needs are, and with the current recession it is difficult to isolate exactly how many of the job losses we have had or where we have not taken on people relate to Sunday as opposed to the current recession we are experiencing.

Also, the part-time employees go through their cycles; if somebody leaves, we will just not hire someone else to take his place.

Mr Carr: But it would be safe to say that 8,000 people will not be able to earn income just in your stores alone if stores are not allowed --

Mr Mistry: If we were allowed to open on Sundays, I would say that 8,000 people have the potential to earn an income.

Ms Cox: What is happening in Ontario to retail in general and Dylex in particular is that we are having a tremendous struggle. The recession has gone on much longer than when we thought we would start coming out of it. We have continued to have devastating returns. I have humungous competition from the States. Pace was just one example. If you travel along the QEW on a Sunday, the lines going into Buffalo are horrific. We are hit with the GST, which has been a real problem for us. We are hit with the lack of our prices being as competitive as in the States.

We have put in salary freezes across the entire country with all our Dylex employees, and we are doing everything we can to hold on to jobs and not to lay off people. We are taking a very hard look at our expenses. We have been cutting down on store hours in the malls. In addition, we have been working with the developers in the malls. We have been working on trying to get some help on rent and rent subsidy and things like that -- everything we possibly can do to stay in business.

Dylex has 10% of the Canadian market in retailing, and if we cannot make it, it really bodes very badly for what the future of this province, this country, is going to be. What we are asking you to do is to take a look very seriously at this Sunday shopping issue and stop holding us back from being competitive in the 1990s.

Mr Carr: What you are saying is that the problems are different hurdles. There is one here, and then you go on to the next one, and cumulatively you are unable to compete. What you are saying is, "Please don't put up another hurdle."

Ms Cox: Exactly.

Mr Carr: One of the chaps at Hudson Bay Co yesterday gave some definite figures on how much it will lose if Sunday shopping is not allowed. Have you, Mr Mistry, as a financial person, been able to piece together what the losses will be for your company if all of the 800 stores have to remain closed on Sunday?

Mr Mistry: No, I do not have those numbers.

Mr Carr: It is just too difficult to be able to piece together with all the factors, I guess.

Mr Mistry: We tried to do some comparison with what happened over the period that Sunday shopping was open, but with the current recession it is difficult to isolate the numbers for that.

Mr Carr: You cannot take your figures from Quebec and say they are down 10%, too. You cannot say to this committee, "If we don't open on Sunday, it's going to cost Dylex X amount of money." That is just too difficult to do, is it?

Mr Mistry: It is too difficult at this point.

Mr Carr: But you are saying your best guesstimate is that it is going to hurt. The figures are already in the red, the $3.2 million and the $16 million and so on, all the figures. There probably will be more losses as a result.

Mr Mistry: Are you saying there will be losses just due to Sunday shopping? It is one of the factors that will come into play.

Mr Carr: If stores remain closed Sunday, do you see it hurting your bottom line?

Mr Mistry: It will hurt our bottom line.

Mr Carr: You just do not know by how much?

Mr Mistry: I cannot even estimate.

Mr Carr: I have one final question, as it relates to the protection of the workers. When this legislation was brought in, the Solicitor General said the big reason was to protect the workers from having to work on Sunday if they chose not to. As one of the largest employers, what you have been able to see is that the number of people who are saying, "I don't want to work and I'm being forced to" -- in your case, there is not anybody in that situation, being forced to work on Sunday. I think you said you would even like to see strengthened the penalties for any company that does say, "You will work, otherwise you'll get fired."

One of the concerns has been how to enforce that. Do you have any suggestions to this committee about how to enforce that? I sense from your presentation that you are good corporate citizens and that you do not want to force anybody. I think one of the persons at the press conference said that if you force somebody to work on Sunday and a customer comes in and sees him with a long face because he does not want to be there, you are not going to get that customer back. What about some other companies that might not be as good with their employees in good employee relations? How do you see us helping to protect those workers that might be forced by an employer?

The Chair: If you could answer briefly, Mr Mistry.

Ms Cox: Maybe I should. First, we would be happy to hire those people from the other companies. I think the normal process of going through the Human Rights Commission or employee standards group ought to be sufficient, where employees know they can openly complain and get something done about it. Government has set up the processes to do that without anything additional needing to be done. I think the employees are pretty well educated. Certainly in our experience people are very well educated and they know due right of process.

Mr Fletcher: Thank you for your presentation. I am pleased to see you do support the employment standards regulation no matter in how convoluted a way Mr Sorbara tried to explain it. As far as the legislation is concerned, if a person does refuse to work on Sundays and you do discipline him, he has the option of going to the employment standards officer. It does not mean you cannot discipline, it just means they do have that option.

Mr Sorbara: On a point of order, Mr Chairman.

The Chair: Mr Sorbara, please. We are not --

Mr Fletcher: There is a grievance procedure and that is for all retail workers, so you probably understood that a lot better before.

When you talk about job creation, let me just read to you something from Loblaws Supermarkets when it did a presentation to this committee on Bill 113. These are not my words; these are from Loblaws.

"The proponents of Sunday openings expound at great length hypothetical forecasts for increased sales, tourist dollars and job creation. Our experience with extended hours and opening additional evenings has proven that jobs are not created as a result, and we can categorically state that we do not anticipate any additional staff requirements in the event of Sunday openings. Rather, work schedules will simply be adjusted for existing employees to compensate for the extra day."

I think you were saying something like that, that it is not going to create a lot of jobs. What it will do is prevent people from working Sundays. Your work schedules will change so that people will not have to work Sundays. If there are Sunday openings you will change your work periods to allow for that extra shift and perhaps hire some additional staff but not a great number of additional staff. Is that right?

Mr Mistry: Well, if we have this --

Mr Fletcher: I heard your answer to Mr Carr. I know what you said.

Interjection: Let him answer.

Mr Fletcher: I did not ask a question.

Interjection: If you are just going to give speeches, you can do that in the house.

Mr Mistry: I was just going to say that if we have this 36-hour rest period, our work schedule may not allow us to work with the people there already; we may need to hire additional people. The probability of a student wanting to work on a Sunday is probably a lot higher than one of our full-time staff who has a family and does not want to work on a Sunday.

Mr Fletcher: This could be a part-time student already working who may want to work on a Sunday.

Mr Mistry: It could be a part-time student working, but if they have the opportunity to work on a Sunday and leave their week clear for their studies, it is an option they can have.

Mr Fletcher: Let me give you one more piece of information given to us yesterday by the Canadian Shoe Retailers Association. From western Canada, Sunday shopping, they reported that only between 15% and 20% of their sales occur on Sunday, and that sales on Monday and Tuesday are virtually non-existent. That is with the experience in western Canada, where they have had Sunday shopping for 10 years or so.

1120

Mr Mistry: Okay, yes, but now you have Buffalo 90 minutes down the road --

Mr Fletcher: We have always had Buffalo.

Mr Mistry: -- on a Sunday. You are giving people an option on a Sunday to go down to Buffalo to shop. If they are going to spend their dollars, if they had the opportunity to spend in Ontario, why not?

Mr Fletcher: As far as the cross-border towns are concerned, let's look at British Columbia. They had wide-open shopping, and trans-border shopping increased in British Columbia with wide-open Sunday shopping. It is not so much the fact of when you can shop, it is the cost. You have already addressed that; I know you did. Thank you, I do not have any more questions.

Mr Mills: I will be brief. There are other members of my caucus here who want to talk.

I must say that when this Sunday shopping business came up, I took it upon myself to go into the malls in my riding where your stores are in fact situated and I asked the people in there pointedly, "Do you want to work?" "No, I don't want to work. I want to shop but I don't want to work."

There are a lot of people who cherish Sunday or a common pause day as a family day, and that is a very real thing in the province of Ontario.

I know your companies represent 55% in malls. If you were to open on Sunday in that mall, do you not sense some sort of pressure on the other stores in that mall to open and the other workers there who really do not want to work? I know that in most of your stores, Bi-Ways in particular, it just seems to be all students, but the other stores have mature people working. But the pressure on that mall would be such that those people would lose their family day together. Do you have any thoughts on that effect, what it would do?

Ms Cox: It is hard to comment on what other companies are doing. There is no question, though, that certainly if you have 55% of the mall open, you do feel some pressure to open yourself because of the traffic and the chance. The experience we have seen in the short period of time that malls were open was that many stores were closed, oftentimes smaller stores, where the chains were not. So I think to say every single one feels it needs to be open would not be accurate, and not every one of our stores was open. It depended on the section or area they were in. Conceivably there were some that, if there were several stores nearby, maybe only one in an area was open.

Mr Mills: Would there not be some pressure from the mallholders to put some pressure on leaseholders that, "If you open, this store will open and this store will open," because I believe some of the malls are on gross. That bothers me about the family day that a lot of people cherish, that whiplash effect.

Ms Cox: I cannot comment on the mall developers' and the mall managers' position.

Mr O'Connor: I want to thank you for coming today. I believe that a lot of what you are talking about relates more to some of the other problems and ills that face the economy today: the recession, the GST. Of course, you have a friendly government here that did not tax that tax with its first bill in the House, which we are quite proud of.

Interjection.

Mr O'Connor: Yes, we left a little bit more money in there for the consumers out there. In any case, we are in very difficult times and we admit that as well.

You talked about support for the employee. Do you feel you speak for all retailers in that aspect? We did have a presentation here yesterday by the shoe retailers that of course did not support the Sunday shopping issue. They were more concerned about the common pause day, and realizing the fact that there is not any extra money in the economy whether you are open that extra day of the week.

Ms Cox: I do not know how the shoe people can say there is not extra money in the economy when we think we are losing $100 million to Buffalo.

Mr O'Connor: Cross-border shopping is the issue you are trying to spell out for us, not necessarily the Sunday shopping issue.

Ms Cox: At an awful lot of our stores, like Thriftys and Bi-Way, people will shop on Sunday in those stores instead of going across to Buffalo. It is not worth the gas money to do so. These are not expensive stores for people to shop in, so we do think we would keep people here in Ontario.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Cox.

Before we have our next presenter, I would like to make mention of the fact that on our schedule this afternoon we have at 2 pm a presenter called "to be confirmed." "To be confirmed" has changed its name to Paul Magder Furs.

We have, I believe, a presentation from the Metropolitan Toronto Convention and Visitors Association.

Mr Sorbara: Mr Chairman, just before we go to our next presenter, if I might raise a point of order with you, it arises out of the discussions that took place during the presentation of the last witness. I believe that we as a committee must agree on what is actually in the bill. We can have different views about that, but surely we must not allow ourselves to misrepresent the legislation to the witnesses who come before us. My submissions during the presentation of the last witness --

The Chair: Mr Sorbara, I appreciate your concern. I understand what you are wanting to make --

Mr Sorbara: If you will allow me just to --

The Chair: On the other hand, I cannot arbitrate upon what is and what is not in the bill, and to some degree there is always going to be interpretation on that.

Mr Sorbara: But, Mr Chairman, if I might just finish my point.

The Chair: I would suggest that, while we are going to have slightly different questions and preambles to those questions, I think that is certainly in order and I think we should spend our focus here with the witnesses who are before us.

Mr Sorbara: If you might let me complete my point, sir.

The Chair: We have already had witnesses waiting an undue amount of time, one of whom is in front of us at the moment.

Mr Daigeler: Mr Chairman, on a point of order --

The Chair: On that same point of order?

Mr Daigeler: Yes. I have not heard the point of order. Have you heard the point of order?

The Chair: I have not heard the entire point of order, Mr Daigeler. However, it is also my right to cut discussion. I think we have an obligation when we have witnesses in front of us. I believe that after the witnesses have finished we can raise points of order, but it is only polite, when we have people waiting for us, when we are substantively behind schedule, to pay attention to the fact that we have people waiting for us, and wherever we have issues such as Mr Sorbara's, we could deal with them at the end of the morning's proceedings.

Mr Sorbara: Mr Daigeler is absolutely right. Once again you have not allowed me to even put the point of order before you.

The Chair: I had heard enough that I was wishing to rule negative.

Mr Sorbara: You have the right to rule here, but certainly you do not further the ability of this committee to deal appropriately with this bill. I could make the point to you in about two minutes, sir.

The Chair: I have ruled, Mr Sorbara. We have Mr Innes in front of us. If you wish to discuss the issue further, we can do that at the end of the morning's proceedings, please.

Mr Sorbara: Can you just tell me on what point of order you ruled? What was the point I was making to you, sir?

The Chair: Can we discuss this further, later?

Mr Sorbara: I am at your disposition. I am just asking you what you ruled on. What point of order did I make and what did you rule on that point of order? What was your decision on it? I have not even had an opportunity to present the point before you. That is my problem, and that is the problem Mr Daigeler raised.

The Chair: Mr Sorbara, you were bringing up an issue about an interpretation of the bill on which there was a difference from the government caucus. I believe those kinds of points should be discussed in detail in a clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

Mr Sorbara: No, sir, indeed that was not my point of order.

The Chair: Given the extent of the bill and the time we will have to discuss that, I am sure that will be a lively and interesting discussion, but I am also sure it is one that the witnesses do not need to be directly involved in the heat of. Can we proceed with the witness in front of us?

Mr Sorbara: I acknowledge your right to rule on a point of order. I just can advise you that was not the point of order I was about to make, but I accept your ruling, for what it is worth, which is not very much, sir.

The Chair: If it is not, sir, then could we discuss that at the end of the morning's proceedings? Mr Innes, please.

1130

METROPOLITAN TORONTO CONVENTION AND VISITORS ASSOCIATION

Mr Innes: Thank you, Mr Chairman. My name is Richard Innes. I am the vice-president of marketing for the Metropolitan Toronto Convention and Visitors Association. The association is a non-profit marketing and sales organization representing some 800 companies comprising Metro Toronto's tourism industry, an industry which accounts for more than 103,000 person-years of employment and generated some $2.5 billion in tourism expenditures in 1990.

Our mandate is very simple. It is to create business by attracting visitors to Metro Toronto. Our goal of generating increased revenues for the community, maintaining jobs and remaining competitive is the foundation of our position on the Retail Business Holidays Act.

The MTCVA has gone on record many times in the past as being supportive of Sunday openings. We feel the current legislation is both inadequate and inequitable and that only shops in certain tourist-designated areas can open Sunday, while, for example, the country's number one tourist attraction, the Eaton Centre, is excluded.

Based on the tourism impact model that was developed by the firm Laventhol and Horwath, shopping accounted for $514 million in tourism revenue in Metro in 1990. In another study we commissioned, Goldfarb Consultants measured travel behaviour and motivation. Shopping ranked as the highest top-of-mind association with Metro Toronto among residents of our prime US and Ontario markets and second as the reason to visit our city.

Cities such as Vancouver, Calgary, Buffalo, Boston, Chicago, Detroit and New York all offer visitors Sunday shopping. In order for us to compete against these markets, we must offer a similar position.

The association, as part of our 1991 marketing plan, is placing increased emphasis on promotion of retail shopping as a lure to out-of-town visitors. Queen's Quay Terminal, for example, is one of our members and has aggressively pursued the out-of-town market. With the ability to sell on Sundays, Queen's Quay Terminal credits shoppers from outside Metro with more than 26% of its retail business. Similar opportunities would be available to other retailers in Metro to attract out-of-town revenues through Sunday openings.

This forces us to conclude that should shopping on Sunday become a reality in Metro Toronto, our visitors would take advantage of it and leave additional visitor dollars in Metro during a weekend stay, thus maintaining and creating jobs. Saturday and Sunday are key days for visitors who travel to Toronto. Hotels offer weekend packages to stimulate business and convention delegates, enabling them to either arrive prior to the start of a convention or remain after to enjoy the city. Sunday becomes a prime day for these visitors to exercise their desire to participate in the single most significant activity they enjoy, that being shopping.

The MTCVA believes Sunday shopping is good for Metro Toronto and its $2.5-billion tourism industry. It would provide added revenue to the community, stimulate employment and, more important, allow us to be competitive in the tourism marketplace.

The key point to consider is that shopping draws tourists. In order to remain competitive, we must have it. Without it, the tourist industry suffers directly through loss of share of market. This affects employment not just in the retail sector but more importantly in the hospitality industry, an industry that is made up of unskilled and semi-skilled labour in hotels, restaurants and attractions, placing added pressure on the welfare roles.

My organization, ladies and gentlemen, representing the tourism industry in Metro, urges you to consider the policy that is before you, the act that is before you, to remember the tourism industry and realize that it has added impact, not just on the retailers but on the balance of the tourism industry, not only in Metro but also in the province.

Mr Sorbara: I am looking at the third page of your submission, and I am looking at the first set of statistics, which show the number of visitors in Metropolitan Toronto over the past four years, beginning with 1988. You show a steady decline and a stabilization for 1990 and 1991 at 16.7 million. Could you explain what these figures mean for the retailing sector and for your sector generally, the hotel, hospitality, tourism and retailing industry for Metropolitan Toronto?

Mr Innes: The decline is indicative not only of this city but also of the industry. There has been a decline in the number of visitors travelling in general. We have experienced the decline in past years, more so last year, and we hope to hold the line this year. But it has an impact directly on the hospitality industry in terms of loss of jobs. The rule of thumb is that every 5% drop in hotel occupancy accounts for 3,000 jobs lost in the hospitality industry or hotel industry directly. I could not comment on what effect it would have on the attractions, restaurant or retail, but we would assume that it would have an effect.

Mr Sorbara: Recently the Hotel Triumph in Toronto closed with a loss of several hundred jobs. Is that an indication of the state of the industry?

Mr Innes: Yes, sir.

Mr Sorbara: You said that Queen's Quay is allowed to open but the Eaton Centre is not allowed to open. Can you explain why the distinction is made between the tourist attractiveness of Queen's Quay and the tourist attractiveness of the Eaton Centre?

Mr Innes: I can comment that the location has a lot to do with it. On the lake, Queen's Quay Terminal is a popular spot for tourists. There are a number of other activities they can do and enjoy on the waterfront, whereas the Eaton Centre is located in the downtown core, located in closer proximity to the majority of hotels in this city. I guess, because it is constituted as a retail section or a retail area, it does not warrant the designation of a tourist area.

Mr Sorbara: The Eaton Centre is every bit as much a tourist attraction or a tourist destination as is Queen's Quay, and they are both retailers, are they not?

Mr Innes: Correct. I would go so far as to say that in terms of the number of out-of-town visitors who walk through the doors, at the Eaton Centre they would be significantly greater than at Queen's Quay.

Mr Sorbara: Would you agree with me that the retailing at Queen's Quay is on average at the higher end than the Eaton Centre, which has the Dylex stores and the lower-priced stores as well?

Mr Innes: I could not comment on that. I think there is a greater selection of specialty stores at Queen's Quay that could be more expensive, and a more mainline array of products available in the Eaton Centre.

Mr Sorbara: If there was greater freedom in Metropolitan Toronto to decide what hours, if any, it wanted to allow Sunday shopping, would you expect that every retailer in the Metropolitan Toronto area would want to open on Sunday?

Mr Innes: Under the classification of a tourist designation?

Mr Sorbara: No, just open. Let's assume, for example, that Metro said any store that wants to could open between 10 and 6. Would you expect that every retailer would open?

Mr Innes: If you are asking my opinion, I would say no.

Mr Sorbara: Would you expect that a great part of the retail workforce would be coerced into working on Sunday against its will?

Mr Innes: No. The hospitality industry, as you know, is an industry that is one where when you decide you want a career in the hospitality industry, Sunday is a day of work. The hotels do not close on Sunday. Attractions do not close. They are part of our leisure activity, and so on entering the hospitality industry, it is a given that it is a day of work. Scheduling is done so that you have a day off or days off, but Sunday may be a day that you work.

Mr Sorbara: Mr Daigeler has some questions, sir.

Mr Daigeler: I really just wanted to know how you feel about the proposed tourism exemptions and the process that is being set up. When we were talking to the minister yesterday, I thought he was extremely flexible with regard to the possible definition of tourism. He went so far to say that whatever promotes tourism can also fall under this exemption. I think he really was inviting the tourism industry to be creative and use that exemption as widely as possible. Do you have any comments on that? Are you prepared to do that? What do you say with regard to the definition of tourism that is being put forward?

1140

Mr Innes: From a marketing standpoint, we know tourists. We know that their activities vary. We know that when they shop they are not just looking for souvenirs. Shopping is an activity. It is almost like strolling about, which is a category that Tourism Canada defines in its marketing plan.

In terms of where the tourist wants to stop and exercise that right, it could be any number of things. In terms of where the minister's position is -- we are appreciative of his ability and his willingness to be open with our industry -- where we find it difficult is that it will ultimately be up to a municipality, which could in fact enforce or veto any kind of proposal that is put forward. How long is a piece of string? I think that will be where the minister may be open, encouraging us to be creative in how we designate tourist areas. The local municipalities may not be.

I think what designates a tourist area and what does not is a very subjective issue. Our position is that open shopping for tourists will increase our share of the market, will increase our ability to draw visitors, and will therefore enhance the number of people who come to visit Metro Toronto.

Mr Daigeler: Are you therefore, like many other groups, arguing for some provincial appeal board that may have the ability to overrule municipal decisions?

Mr Innes: I am not arguing for that. I think that may be an option that would allow a local area, a business development area or an attraction area that has a shopping complex in it the opportunity to appeal and to provide its case, to deliver numbers -- how many out-of-town visitors come through its doors on a Sunday -- and to justify its ability to open or be closed on a Sunday.

Mr Carr: Thank you for taking the time to come here this morning. One of the questions that arose yesterday with one of the groups that came in -- I think it was the retail shoe group -- was that it said the reason we will not hear very many presentations from some of the retail groups is that they are divided. Their organization cannot get a clear mandate to come before this committee and present because they are divided, whether it be 50-50, or it does not have a clear mandate.

You represent some 800 companies. How have you been able to ascertain that what you are putting forward here in the brief reflects the vast majority? What is the process you use to ensure that all 800 companies are represented and that you get a mandate to do this?

Mr Innes: We represent the industry. This industry has come before our board. We have representation on our board of directors from every sector of the organization. As representatives, whether it be with the convention service company or the attractions council, they have all talked at length with their constituents. This is the feedback that we have got and that we have been directed, approved at the board level of our organization, to come forward with. For many years now, that has been the position.

Mr Carr: So you believe you have a mandate to represent the 800 companies, as you have done.

Mr Innes: Yes.

Mr Carr: I noticed the words that you use, "The current legislation is inadequate and inequitable." What do you say to a Solicitor General who says that this piece of legislation is going to be good and that this is the way we are going to proceed, and yet you have people representing 800 companies in the industry saying it is not? To use your words, it is "inadequate and inequitable." What do you say to the Solicitor General about that?

Mr Innes: Although the Minister of Tourism and Recreation has tried to do his best to make that a major part of the bill, it has been limited to the retail sector. I do not think the issue of the loss of employment or the loss of market share as it relates to the visitor market has been weighed in terms of the significance it plays in the total economic wellbeing of our province. That is how we can come to this hearing and represent our industry with those facts.

Our industry is very much an invisible industry. It is more than just the person who checks you in at a hotel, takes your bags and cleans your room. The ripple effect of the tourism industry is significant. We now have made major steps with the federal government in realizing the importance of our industry. We are making major steps with the provincial government. The Metro government recognizes and invests significantly in our industry because it realizes the payback. I think our point would be that tourism is important, that tourism suffers.

Mr Carr: What you are saying is that the government does not understand your industry essentially, right?

Mr Innes: I think so; fully understand it.

Mr Carr: I just happen to agree too, quite frankly, for a lot of industries, as a matter of fact, not just your own, but I will save that for a speech for the House.

One of the concerns people have is that with different municipalities doing different things you are going to have some municipalities open and others closed. How do you see that affecting some of your members? Some of your members will be happy with that. Do you see that happening, or do you see all opening as the domino effect happens? Where do you think we are headed, and how will it affect you?

Mr Innes: I am here representing Metro Toronto, and if Metro government approved openings then it would not be an issue.

Mr Carr: But if, for example, Peel opens, do you think there will be pressure on Metro to open? Do you see that happening, or do you see it being in isolation and the people of Metro just saying, "No, we're going to decide"?

Mr Innes: Again, I come at it from a competitive standpoint. We have members in Peel. We have members in all the regions of southern Ontario, in fact -- out-of-town resorts and what have you. If, for example, a competitive destination allows it and our destination does not, that puts us at a disadvantage.

Mr Carr: Even worse than you are now? If everybody is closed it is bad enough, but if Peel opens and Metro closes, then I suspect it would really hurt you.

Mr Innes: I could not go as far as to say Peel, because I look at the tourism product. I have to look at what is there.

Mr Carr: They would be here anyway.

Mr Innes: And there is not a lot in particular in that region.

Mr Frankford: In your list of cities on the front page, you do not have Montreal. Can you tell us about the situation there?

Mr Innes: I cannot. I do not know the situation in Montreal. In terms of a city destination, when we do extensive research with our visitors, both in the Ontario market and in our US border cities, Montreal, as a city trip, does not enter as a major competitor for us.

Mr Frankford: But in its Sunday policy, is it wide open or is it not?

Mr Innes: I do not know the situation in Montreal.

Mr Frankford: It surely is a very competitive market for us and if they were open it would, by the arguments you state, have a competitive edge.

Mr Innes: Yes. Again, I go back to our research and look at the number of visitors who, when asked, "When you would like to go on a city trip, where would you go?" say that Montreal falls very far down on the list. So we would not categorize Montreal as a prime competitor to us. I cannot comment on --

Mr Frankford: But in terms of Sunday shopping, if they had it, by the arguments we hear, they would have a competitive edge.

Mr Innes: I would think so, yes, they would.

Mr Frankford: But you are not sure if they do. You are not sure of any pressures in Quebec to change or how this legislation compares with --

Mr Innes: No.

Mr Frankford: No. So this would suggest that it is not that simple and, in fact, what one is talking about is more competition in terms of prices and the level of the dollar.

Mr Innes: I do not understand that.

Mr Frankford: What makes us competitive as a shopping destination, I would suggest, is certainly to a considerable degree, which we cannot ascertain, dependent on the level of the dollar, not dependent on Sunday shopping?

Mr Innes: No, sir. Visitors come here from the US to experience the city. We are the number one city of choice when they want to go on a city trip in all our border US markets. People would rather come to Toronto before Chicago, New York, Boston. They rank us and we have quantitative research to substantiate those figures.

1150

Mr Frankford: Despite our lack of Sunday shopping, they still feel that way.

Mr Innes: You look at the numbers in terms of the decline of visitors and that is where we have an issue. As we lose those visitors, we lose our share. We need every competitive advantage we can as we go against our competitors.

Mr Frankford: And clearly it is coinciding with the high value of the Canadian dollar. These figures can also be well correlated with the value of the Canadian dollar.

Mr Innes: They have some, yes.

Mrs Haslam: I am going to take umbrage at one of your comments, because you said the Eaton Centre is the country's number one tourist attraction. You must know that I come from Stratford, and that has the Stratford Shakespearean Festival, and I know how much we gain from the tourist trade and how many visitors we have. So I am going to ask you for proof of that, because I personally think we are.

Mr Innes: The Stratford festival is a good standing member of our organization.

Mrs Haslam: Very true. That I would like to go into. You do not feel we understand tourism, and I would like to take umbrage at that too, because I believe the minister has shown by bringing forward these criteria how concerned he is, how interested he is and how much he understands because of those criteria. Have you seen the criteria that are in place in this proposal for tourism?

Mr Innes: Yes.

Mrs Haslam: You have. Would you add anything to it? Would you delete anything from them?

Mr Innes: I think the whole issue is in "designated." What is a designated tourist area and what is not? That, very simply, is what we need to determine. If we can come up with an agreement that designates a tourist area, that is our secondary position. That is not the ultimate position this industry would like to be in. I think wide-open shopping is where we --

Mrs Haslam: No, I am not talking about wide-open shopping. I am talking about designation of a tourist area if the area has historical or natural attractions, the area has cultural or ethnic attractions, the area provides a concentration of hospitality services; four, five, six, I could go on. I do not like to waste time.

Mr Innes: It is very broad and very open.

Mrs Haslam: You would like it tightened?

Mr Innes: No, ma'am.

Mrs Haslam: You would not like to see it tightened. You would like to see it broadened more? Because we have already had representation here saying it is too broad. So when I mark down, "He thinks it's too broad," now I am saying you do not like it this broad, you want it tightened up.

Mr Innes: No.

Interjection: He wants it broader.

Mrs Haslam: You want it broader? You want the tourism criteria --

Interjection.

Mrs Haslam: Mr Sorbara, I can ask my own questions. Boy, you are beginning to bug me. You want these a little broader in tourism criteria.

Mr Innes: Ultimately, yes. Wide-open would be great. That is not on the table.

Mrs Haslam: No, no. You want wide-open tourism criteria.

Mr Innes: Ultimately we do not need it. Opening on Sunday would give us what we want.

Mrs Haslam: But you represent a convention and visitors association and you are saying you do not want to have a tourism criterion in this legislation?

Mr Innes: We need a tourism criterion. That is the best-case scenario. Correct?

Mrs Haslam: Okay, because I like that. I am going to ask you a couple more questions. How much time do I have, Mr Chair?

The Chair: Two minutes.

Mrs Haslam: Are you in favour of allowing workers to refuse Sunday or holiday work?

Mr Innes: I cannot comment on that. I have explained that the tourism industry is an industry in which everybody works on Sunday. That is part of the deal.

Mrs Haslam: Are you in favour of guaranteeing 36 continuous hours of rest time in any seven-day work period?

Mr Innes: In the tourism industry?

Mrs Haslam: No. Are you in favour of guaranteeing 36 continuous hours of rest time for employees in any seven-day work period?

Mr Innes: Again, I cannot comment on that.

Mr Fletcher: You are an employee. How do you feel?

Mrs Haslam: Are you in favour of strengthening the role of employment standards officers in dealing with employee grievances?

Mr Innes: Again, that is not why I am here. I am here to promote --

Mrs Haslam: But that is part of this legislation and I just wondered if you had looked at that and had an opinion.

Mr Innes: I do not have a comment on that.

Mr Sorbara: Mr Chairman, I wonder if I might ask the indulgence of this committee to ask the witness one more question?

Interjection: No.

Mr Mills: The question I have to ask is not to the gentleman who has made the presentation, but about how we are going to deal with legal staff. Throughout this hearing we have legal representatives from --

The Chair: I am sorry, sir. Are you suggesting that you do not have a question for the witness?

Mr Mills: No. I am going to use my time up to ask this question but I do not want to ask --

The Chair: With the forbearance of Mr Mills, thank you very much, Mr Innes. It is very generous of you to come and join us.

Mr Innes: Thank you.

Mr Mills: I am unfortunately forced to use our time up to ask a question, which I do not think is right. I think that we, during the deliberations as we go on tour, should have the opportunity to call legal staff forward from the tourism ministry, from Labour and from the Solicitor General, and their explanation to clarify some particular item should not be my time because I have asked. Previously, I asked the director of legal services to come forward and that came off our time. I do not think that is fair because everybody has benefited from that.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Mills. I will consult with the clerk on this issue and, depending on that consultation, I will also, I am sure, consult possibly with you and you can discuss that with the other subcommittee members.

1200

BEACHES BUSINESS ASSOCIATION

The Chair: We have in front of us a representative from the Beaches Business Association, Ms Suzanne Beard. Ms Beard, thank you for joining us, and our apologies for the delay in our deliberations. You have a quarter of an hour. Please feel free to use that time as you wish. Typically, the members of the committee would like to ask questions of you as well. Go ahead.

Ms Beard: I want to thank you first of all for giving us the opportunity to present our presentation. My name is Suzanne Beard. I am chairman of the business association down on Queen Street. It is a contingent of 288 businesses that are overwhelmingly in favour of Sunday shopping.

We encompass a variety of commercial and non-retail businesses intent on surviving and thriving during a highly volatile economic period. At a time when small business is being engulfed in recession and collapse, we hope the government will reinforce the voice of the people.

Since the opportunity for Sunday shopping has been denied us, the Beaches Business Association has been left with no option but to make an application for tourist designation. We pursued this avenue of action for the sole purpose of securing Sunday shopping. That is the mandate of the Beaches Business Association. It is not our wish to promote the Beach any further, to increase any traffic that is not already there. We wish only to capitalize on the traffic that is currently there.

Over the past seven years, the business association has been denied three separate applications for tourist designation under the old criteria when other municipalities have granted exemptions to places like Unionville, Woodbridge and Cullen Country Barns, none of which have the cultural, historic or geographic beauty of the Beach area. A survey prepared by Decima Research in 1989 listed the Beach as one of the top 10 tourist destinations in Toronto, and none of the other three I have just mentioned are included in that list.

During the trial period of legal Sunday shopping, we had overwhelming support from businesses, residents and the tourist trade, and the 15% to 25% increase in sales during a seven-day week was not experienced when the trial period was revoked and we were forced to maintain sales averaging on a seven-day work week. The increase was not recovered during six days. This equates to a loss in revenue of approximately $15,000 for a small business and a revenue of $7,500 in taxes to the government.

We think common sense and common knowledge would suggest that business is here seven days a week and that we only want to take the opportunity to serve the existing business that is there.

Since over 15% of our businesses are operating in a food service capacity, we have a natural flow of traffic and we want to capitalize on this. The variety of industry that supports the Beach ranges from long-established restaurants and services to unique gift and clothing. Many businesses support handcrafts from areas like India, South America, things that are outlined in the current legislation, while other businesses encourage unique and unusual merchandise that can be purchased closer to home.

Specialized shopping activities catering to visitors and residents alike abound in the Beach. Independent merchants would like the opportunity to serve these people.

We are situated in a prime real estate market and an aesthetically beautiful area of the city constantly being used in advertising as an idyllic spot. The value of our location is recognized by residents, visitors and businessmen alike. An article in the Sunday New York Times, March 31, 1991 issue designates the Beach as a world-class destination for visitors. We are obviously recognized outside of Toronto as a being destination for visitors.

Annual festivals surrounding the Easter parade, the Beach craft show, the Midnight Madness and the Beach Jazz Festival, which was just last week, offer continuous appeal for the area and are anticipated by tourists and residents wanting a unique experience.

Of the 288 businesses within the boundary of the BIA, we are, in the majority, owner-operated businesses. We represent the crux of retail life on Queen Street East between Woodbine and Victoria Park. Our annual budget includes support for local community and recreational events. We encourage maintenance of buildings and street presence and we employ a vast number of local full- and part-time help. An informal poll of employees showed 51% of full-time workers and 63% of part-time workers lived in the Beach area they worked in. Closure on Sundays has resulted in a high number of staff layoffs.

In conclusion, we want to acknowledge that we are aware of public sentiment on our application for a tourist designation in the Beach. However, the mandate of the Beach BIA in making the application is to re-establish Sunday shopping, period. It is very clear from public response at a general meeting we had that the residents are also supportive of this mandate.

Mr Poirier: You have explained to us the difficulty of being asked to be designated as touristic because somebody else in a subjective position decides that you do not deserve or that you do not qualify to be touristic. What do you feel if the current Bill 115 comes forward? Do you feel this is going to maintain or change what you have perceived already with this difficulty of being designated touristic?

Ms Beard: Basically, we can meet the criteria that are laid out with the exception of one point, and since there are several you can choose from, we are well within the boundary of the criteria that are being proposed.

Mr Poirier: Yet you have been refused.

Ms Beard: Not the proposed criteria, the old criteria.

Mr Poirier: Yes. So you understand that you are subjected to the decision of where one municipality may say you do not qualify whereas somebody else may qualify.

Ms Beard: That is quite correct.

Mr Poirier: So how do you feel about that?

Ms Beard: It is not fair. We qualify as well as any of the places that I suggested. I think I pointed out that in the Beach we have a geographic location that far surpasses Harbourfront in terms of natural beauty. We have at least four annual activities that happen in the Beach that are anticipated by people both from around Toronto and around the world. The jazz festival is a perfect example. There are people who come from all over Canada to see it.

Mr Poirier: If I understand what you are saying, you would prefer not having to go through these hoops and circles to demonstrate that you are touristic.

Ms Beard: Yes.

Mr Poirier: You would want to have the free choice of saying: "Hey, we know what is good for the Beaches. We know what we want. We would like to be able to decide without outside intervention when we want to open and how we want to open." Is that correct? Is that a fair assumption of what you want?

Ms Beard: I think that is a fair assumption. Yes.

Mr Sorbara: Mr Chairman, I have one final --

The Chair: We have only 15-minute presentations. Mr Carr.

Mr Carr: Thank you very much and thank you for your presentation. I was interested in how this new legislation will change -- the last time you did not get the designation, did you think it was because the people making the decisions were opposed to Sunday shopping? What was the reason you feel you did not get it the last time?

Ms Beard: There was one element of the criteria which established the definition of "tourist" which has always been a stumbling block for our application. They had insisted that 25% of the people who are visiting our area, and the sales that are generated from that 25%, be from outside an area of 40 kilometres. We do not believe that the tourist has to come 40 kilometres to visit another area to be considered a tourist.

Mr Carr: So with that being removed, you feel you probably will get it this time, do you?

Ms Beard: I cannot see that there is any major obstacle in this application. I think we basically meet the criteria that the new proposed law is suggesting.

Mr Carr: I guess my feeling was that if that criteria are removed, it might be a little bit of extra work, because you now presume you are going to have to go and present your case. But if that was removed, which this legislation will do, there will probably be a pretty good chance that you will get it next time?

Ms Beard: I would hope so.

Mr Carr: With the situation now, you are going to have to go to the council. Is that going to take a lot of time, or how do you see that working? Is that something that would be fairly easy to do, to present your case, and presumably then get the designation? Or does it take a great deal of time to go before Metro council? Are they backed up for months? Have you any feelings on that?

Ms Beard: We have in the works right now an application for a temporary tourist designation, which we requested be for a year. It was denied us. That decision came through fairly quickly. I would assume if criteria are laid down which allow us to qualify, there should not be a lot of dancing around.

Mr Carr: What I am worried about is that there are so many different areas and communities, and agendas being what they are, that councils are going to spend more time on this issue than they will -- it will be interesting to see, and I guess nobody knows right now, how far it will be before they get a chance to hear. Is it going to be a backlog of six months before you get a hearing? Is it going to be very quick or what? I guess that is something we do not know.

Ms Beard: I hope they would understand that we have not made the application frivolously. It has been done in earnest. We basically have done as much research as we possibly can to substantiate that business in the Beaches does need Sunday shopping.

Mr Carr: When you dealt with council in the past, they did not go in order but took it on a first come, first served basis? They did not say, "Well, here is one that looks legit, so we deal?" Is it a first come, first served basis?

Ms Beard: I believe that is the way it is done -- first come, first served.

Mr O'Connor: Thank you for coming here today. One area in this legislation, of course, is the level where the exemption is being looked at in the municipal option. Do you feel the municipal option you have to meet is being handled by the right tier of government? Do you think it should be left with the local municipality or do you think it should be put to the upper tier, which is Metro Toronto?

Ms Beard: I really cannot answer that. I do not know.

Mr O'Connor: Do you feel that from Metro Toronto you would get a representation, from your presentation, giving you a tourist designation?

Ms Beard: I do not think they can ignore the facts. I think we are recognized as a tourist area. The thing missing from the Beaches is the actual designation.

Mr O'Connor: So the tourist exemption option there is fine the way it is in the legislation?

Ms Beard: We certainly appreciated it and it has allowed us to present our case in a very favourable light, yes.

Mr O'Connor: Do you think there needs to be an appeal? The way it is stated now is that council has the final decision. Do you feel that is appropriate?

Ms Beard: Yes.

Mrs Haslam: Believe it or not, Mr O'Connor has asked the question I was interested in. I am always asking about the appeal process.

1210

Mr Frankford: I declare an interest because I live in the area and I have daughters who have worked in some catering establishments.

Mr Poirier: So if you shop, you are not a tourist.

Interjection: On Sunday?

Mr Frankford: In accordance with whatever laws.

The questions I would ask have mostly been asked, but I gather you are really quite happy with the tourist criteria in the legislation.

Ms Beard: The proposed criteria, yes.

Mr Frankford: It would seem to fit quite well with what is happening there, although as you say, possibly the 40-kilometre --

Ms Beard: My interpretation of the way you have defined the 40 kilometres is that you have to meet the first part of the criteria before the 7,500-square-foot criteria, which extends to no business in the Beaches; that is, within the Beaches business improvement area. It is a criterion that has to this point been a crux in our application, but it is really --

Mr Poirier: It is a non-issue.

Ms Beard: It is a non-issue. That is exactly right, yes.

Mr Frankford: You heard the previous presenter, from the Metro convention association, talking about the Eaton Centre?

Ms Beard: Yes, I did.

Mr Frankford: Do you feel you would be in trouble compared with big, well-financed interests downtown?

Ms Beard: You mean if everybody was allowed wide-open Sunday shopping or everybody was designated?

Mr Frankford: Or even using the tourist criteria.

Ms Beard: No, I do not. I think the Beaches offers a much more unique shopping and cultural atmosphere than you will get at the Eaton Centre. The Eaton Centre is promoted all over the world, so it is going to be a place people will want to visit. However, I think we offer something entirely different from that, something over and above the good shopping that we have. We have good restaurants. We have a beautiful locale. It far surpasses what people could expect at the Eaton Centre.

Mrs Haslam: I would like to go down there. Will you take me tomorrow?

Mr Frankford: Yes.

Mrs Haslam: Bob is going to take me there tomorrow. I have never been there.

Ms Beard: Good.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Beard.

STONEWORKS

The Chair: Our next presentation is by Ms Susan Day from Stoneworks.

Ms Day: I am from the Beaches too.

The Chair: As you have seen, we have about a quarter of an hour and you can divide the time as you wish.

Mr Poirier: There is something about the Beaches people.

Ms Day: Yes, we are mouthy.

Interjection: You said it.

Mrs Haslam: You fit in well here.

Ms Day: I am Susan Day. With my sister Sandy, sitting over there, I own a retail shop in the Beaches called Stoneworks. I am only one small retailer. I have owned my business for five years. I am not an expert on the ins and outs of the law, either the old law or the proposed one, but I have become enmeshed in the issue by the mere fact that I bought a business in the Beaches, and I have numerous opinions on the subject.

A little background about my store: We employ between six and eight people at any time, including our mother. We have recruited her. We are currently closing on Sundays, much to the dismay of our customers who have gotten used to shopping in our store on Sunday over the years. We used to be open illegally. Then there was no law, so we were cool. We have always been open, but the hassles by police now are not worth it. They are coming around every week. We did not like going to court the few times we were charged in the past and feeling like common criminals. Being in there with all the people who trespassed and beat their wives and everything else was no fun, so we have decided to close. It is hurting our sales, especially this summer when we rely on an increase in tourist traffic to boost lagging summer sales from regular customers.

During all the time we opened Sundays, our staff understood that they could refuse to work that day. In fact, they can refuse to work any day. As modern and sensitive employers, we realize our employees must have control over and input into many aspects of their jobs or they will not feel good about working with us. We let them determine the kinds of hours they want. We are not rigid about shifts. On Sunday we opened for shorter hours, usually noon until 5. This seemed to suit everyone, employees and customers alike.

The sole reason we ever opened on Sundays, legally or illegally, was to serve our customers. They wanted the convenience of Sunday shopping. We gave it to them. Most of our customers are Beaches area residents. However, on weekends we do see an influx of visitors, or tourists if you want to call them that, to our area. But at Stoneworks we believe totally in customer service, which to us means giving the customer what she wants. Without this philosophy, our business will wither and die.

On Sundays we had three main types of customers. We had the singles, either two women out for a day of brunching and browsing or a sole young person out shopping on her own for a new dress for a party or whatever. We had couples, young or old couples sharing a leisurely day out in the Beaches. We had families, usually young, with kids, finally enjoying some shared time off and taking a look in the stores for items they needed, whether they be gifts for their friends or just items they needed to choose together, to make decisions on.

None of these people seemed too concerned with a common pause day. They were doing what they wanted to do on any given Sunday -- shop. They chose to come into our store. Neither were my employees too concerned with a common pause day. Only those who wanted to work that day did so, and if there was a shortfall, Sandy or myself filled in. It is our own business. We work hard for it and we are very concerned about what goes on in our store at any given time. We are always there.

I feel the proposed legislation, just like its predecessor, will discriminate against retail business. No other industry has such restrictions imposed on it, except perhaps the serving of alcohol in licensed establishments, and they are allowed to do it seven days a week. If retail workers needed a legislated common pause day, why not the workers in the food industry too? Do retail workers qualify for special consideration? Are their customers more a hassle to serve than drunks in bars so that they need a special day off all at the same time?

I submit that labour standards already protect workers, all the workers in this province, regarding the maximum hours they work and the provisions for bonus pay if they exceed those hours.

I suggest you legislate bonus pay for retail workers who work on Sundays if you are that concerned about it, but do not legislate their day off. To be fair about this, better to close all the restaurants and bars on Sundays, as well as the racetrack. I find it ludicrous that someone can get drunk in a bar and go to the track and lose all his money, but cannot buy a birthday card in my store, or that he can go home and use the shopping network on TV.

I feel the new law, like its predecessor, restricts commerce and the free market system. Many retail businesses like my own need to be able to serve their customers when their customers are there to be served. By being closed on Sunday they often miss the biggest opportunity of the week to serve their customers. Sunday was often our best day of the week. It is now Saturday. That is when people are off work. That is when they are out trying to shop. We and many retailers are losing sales opportunities and the government is losing retail sales tax revenue.

I feel the government is interfering in the personal lives of Ontarians. By legislating a common pause day, albeit only for retail workers, people are being told what to do, or rather what not to do, in their leisure time. Government is assuming everyone has family and friends nearby with whom to spend time on Sunday. Life today just is not like that. Only 16% of families today fit the traditional nuclear family scenario, with dad working and mom at home with the kids. Today shopping is a leisure activity for many people, both singles and families. Today Sunday shopping is a necessity for many busy people. Single mothers especially complain in my store about the inconvenience of our being closed that day.

Under the proposed legislation, tourists are singled out for special recognition over citizens of the community. It is okay for tourists to shop on Sundays, but not the people who live there. If you are lucky, like the Beaches, and you might fit into a tourist designation, then your residents will be able to shop in their community. But it seems to be discriminating against the citizens by granting special recognition for tourists. I know the industry is suffering and I support the tourist designation aspect of this law if it is the only way to get around this.

Going back to what Suzanne was being asked about, who will grant the designations, I am concerned that Metro council will deny our application because our councilman worries that we do not have the infrastructure in our community to support an extra influx of people. When it is left in the hands of any legislative body, there is always a chance it will find other reasons why something can be denied. I just think the tourist thing is discriminatory. How will we even know they are really tourists?

There is no need for a law regulating hours of business for the retail industry. That is my opinion. We always get caught up in the tradition, the old "it's always been that way" thinking. Scrap the law altogether. We do not need it. To guarantee a common pause day for retail workers, a small segment of employees in the province, will inconvenience the consumer, imperil the health of many small and large retail businesses, restrict job growth, turn off the tourist who probably does not like being told where he can or cannot shop, and alienate workers in other sectors who are not protected by common pause day legislation.

On May 22 we held a community meeting in the Beaches to discuss a tourist designation for our area. Residents and business people attended, as did the police, our alderman, our councilman and our MPP, who is Frances Lankin. The residents made it very clear they do not favour a tourist designation simply to allow stores to open Sundays. The words "tourist designation" strike fear in their hearts -- more people visiting our already crowded area on weekends. Conversely, the residents overwhelmingly supported wide-open Sunday shopping. They like to browse in the stores in their community on Sundays and they like the jobs provided for their sons and daughters.

1220

Frances Lankin heard these articulate, intelligent constituents, people who have voted for NDP candidates both federally and provincially for many years. These are NDP supporters and they do not like the proposed legislation any more than the retailers do. At that meeting I asked Frances for a fresh approach to this issue. The people are obviously unhappy with the current trend to common pause day legislation that will discriminate against so many and favour so few.

I am just one small retailer. However, I see my business and businesses like mine are the future of retail in Canada. We are growing and we are taking strides to educate and train both ourselves and our employees. All the courses we take, the seminars we attend and the books we read stress customer service, catering in all ways to customers as the only path to success in the 1990s, and we know that the demise of the department store is a good example: no service, no customers. Everything about this proposed legislation defeats the purpose of that. This legislation merely protects people who do not want to work one day of the week, while penalizing all the people who do.

Mr Sorbara: I just want to tell you, Ms Day, that this probably will be the most refreshing submission this committee will hear. It is certainly to date the most refreshing submission the committee has heard, at least in my view. One of the most refreshing points in it is that one can have voted for the New Democratic Party, continue to support the New Democratic government, and believe that the people of the province are mature enough to look after what they do and what they do not do on Sunday on their own without the interference of government. I thank you for that because I think the points were made clearly and eloquently and with a kind of conviction that we do not often hear before committees of the legislature.

I particularly want to say that you are a business person who probably, under this law, will get a designation and will be able to open, and it was refreshing to hear a plea on behalf of the store just two blocks to the north or two blocks to the west which will be put in a terribly uncompetitive position by being forced not to be able to participate in that market. Is the emerging sense within the people you do business with, and that is not just the Beaches, but the various associations you belong to -- I take it you sell retail clothing.

Ms Day: Yes.

Mr Sorbara: What else?

Ms Day: Gifts, stationery and toys.

Mr Sorbara: In your professional association, I take it there is a rapid shift in the ground towards the position that we can look after this business of competing in the marketplace ourselves without the interference of the government trying to determine the winners and losers in the Sunday shopping debate. Is that the case?

Ms Day: Yes, I think the retailers are not being listened to. It is my opinion, for what it is worth, that the government has the ear of certain unionized retail workers at the expense of everybody else. There are some workers who do not want to work on Sundays and their concerns seem to have been blown out of all proportion.

Mr Sorbara: You have, for a small store, a pretty big workforce. Have any of your workers ever been put in a position where, against their will and over their objections, they have been forced to come in and work in your store on Sunday?

Ms Day: No.

Mr Sorbara: Would you ever think you would be in that sort of position?

Ms Day: No. It is not the way I run my business. I would not have employees very long if I tried to operate that way.

Mr Villeneuve: Ms Day, thank you for an excellent presentation by a real person running a real store. We have a lot of theory -- people come here with great theories -- but you have hit the nail right on the head.

Discrimination I have found most interesting because you are a taxpayer and live in the area, and yet if you do not happen to be catering to the tourist industry, you will not be allowed to open. I think you raise a very good point, that you are being overlooked and you may become part of the cog in that wheel that says you are allowed to stay open, but not because of what you do; it is almost in spite of where you are. Maybe you could comment a little more on that, and also on the fact that the community is a strong community, that you are contributing to that community and yet outside people come and dictate a great deal, and in so doing discriminate.

Ms Day: I just think we need a whole fresh approach to the issue. I do not know why we are all so worried about telling retail when it can and cannot operate. We were talking about Montreal -- someone was asking -- they do not have Sunday shopping in Montreal. They cannot open after 5 o'clock on Saturday in Montreal, and they cannot open Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday evenings past 6 o'clock in Montreal. It is crazy, laws in this land that have been on the books for ever and we think: "We just cannot throw them out. We will have to just rearrange them a little bit and try to make them a little bit looser. We do not need to say, "This area can be open and this can't," on one day of the week when it is legal to be open any time you want on the other six.

What other crime is there in this country? You cannot murder anyone any time. That is wrong. You are not supposed to steal any time. But one day of the week it is illegal to go shopping, or illegal actually to open your doors because the customers do not get charged; the retailer does. If you made it illegal to shop -- it is like drinking in the park.

Mr Villeneuve: We very much have the Big Brother syndrome here. I think the more we go on with that, the more alienation there will be from the business community. I think we are seeing it now. How would you feel if eight of your employees decided to unionize? Do you feel that would create a split between management, yourself, owners and --

Ms Day: No, because I do not operate my business in that way. We are all together in the decision-making. We share our information with our employees. We are small, so we are able to do that. If the employees do not want to work, they do not have to. I have people who want to work two days a week. I have people who want to work every other week full-time. I have people who only want to work on weekends. I had a student I had to lay off. Saturday and Sunday was when she worked and I did not have enough hours any more. It is a give and take thing. There are times when you are stuck and you need someone to come in. They did not really want to, but they will. Then you owe them the favour or something else that they want the next time. That is how I run my business.

Mr Villeneuve: Would most of the retail stores in your area be non-unionized?

Ms Day: Oh, yes. They are all independents or franchises.

Mrs Haslam: I have a couple of things. Do you think Sears is as understanding in running its business as you are as a small family business?

Ms Day: They are larger so it is harder. I used to work for Simpsons. I worked for Simpsons for 17 years and I know what it is like to work for a large retailer. I would probably feel like the retail employees in a large store if I was sitting on that side of the fence right now, "Don't make me work on Sunday."

Mrs Haslam: Do you agree with allowing workers to refuse Sunday or holiday work? Obviously you do, because you allow them to do that.

Ms Day: Oh, yes.

Mrs Haslam: Do you agree with guaranteeing 36 continuous hours of rest time in any seven-day period?

Ms Day: I think that is reasonable.

Mrs Haslam: Do you agree with strengthening the role of the employment standards officer in dealing with employee grievances?

Ms Day: Yes.

Mrs Haslam: When you mentioned that your busiest day now is Saturday, because that is when people are off, to me that was an opposite view to take. You are saying your busiest day is when people are off work and yet you want wide-open shopping so they do not have that busiest day, so they do not have that opportunity for the whole family to go shopping.

Ms Day: It is like the hospitality industry, as the gentleman from the Metro convention board said. If it is a real-world scenario and retail is open seven days a week, when you choose a career in retail -- it might just be a part-time career and it might be just temporary -- you know those are the rules of the game in retail. Most people do not work in retail. Retail serves people. It is a service industry, so just like a restaurant that is open seven days a week, because people eat seven days a week, it has become that shopping is an activity that people do and we are trying to tell them when they can do it.

Mrs Haslam: I find it very interesting that the impression is given that certain people believe it should be open seven days a week. Mr Sorbara, do you believe it should be open seven days a week?

The Chair: Mrs Haslam, Mr Sorbara is not one of our witnesses.

Mrs Haslam: I am sorry, Mr Chair.

The Chair: Do you have a question for Ms Day?

Mrs Haslam: I do have one more. Under the previous legislation you found it even more difficult. Are you in agreement, then, with having this type of tourist criteria opened up a little bit or would you like to tighten it up a bit?

Ms Day: I like the way the legislation is right now. To tell you the truth, I am one of the authors of the submission that went to the Solicitor General by the Beaches business improvement area, and the criteria that are laid out now are very close to what we suggested. I am quite pleased. I feel like I had a hand in this.

Mrs Haslam: I am sure you did.

Mr Mills: I would just like to make a couple of comments if we have any time left. How much time have we got?

The Chair: Are they comments to the witness?

Mr Mills: They are. I would just like to thank you for being here. In my employment years I have worked for some real oddballs, and I would have loved to have worked for you because you seem such an ideal employer. If everybody was like you, the need for the legislation we are trying to introduce would be lessened a great deal.

I would just like to say to you that contrary to what your belief may be, this legislation is draft legislation. We are here to listen and I am listening. Apart from the ideology of it, that we are committed to a common pause day, there are lots of areas I am prepared to listen to and take forward at a future date. I thank you for coming.

Ms Day: Can you tell me why you are committed to a common pause day for retail workers only?

Mr Mills: We are committed to a common pause day for retail workers because traditionally the retail worker is the one who suffers most in Ontario. Traditionally, and I do not say this condescendingly, they are less educated. They are more vulnerable to tactics by employers -- not like you, I might say. We have identified them as the most vulnerable of workers in Ontario, so our legislation is designed to protect those we see as the most vulnerable. I must go on to say that we have not sprung this on people. It was part of our election mandate and we are really following up on what we said in the election.

Ms Day: Small business is vulnerable too.

Mr Mills: I would imagine that since we won the election, some people support us.

The Chair: We will be resuming at 1:30.

The committee recessed at 12:32.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The committee resumed at 1332.

TOWN OF GEORGINA

The Chair: Our first witness this afternoon is Mayor Robert Johnston from the town of Georgina. I apologize, Mr Johnston. I think some people are a little late coming back from their lunch hour.

Mrs Haslam: Those who are here are very interested and are worth much more than those who are not.

The Chair: We have approximately half an hour. I am sure your colleague probably briefed you a little bit about what has been happening. Take that time in whichever way you wish, but typically it is half of that time for your presentation and the other half for questions from committee members. Please feel free to start when you are ready.

Mr Johnston: My name is Bob Johnston. I am the mayor of the town of Georgina. I have held that position since December 1, 1988. For the 13 years prior to that, I was the editor of the local weekly newspaper in Georgina.

The town of Georgina is a regional community at the north end of York region, roughly 40 miles north of the eastern side of Metropolitan Toronto. Our municipality has a population of 32,000 people, who are spread over some 200 square miles and three communities, Keswick, Sutton and Pefferlaw. The northern and western municipal boundary is Lake Simcoe, giving us 30-plus miles of shoreline. From the early 1890s, much of that shoreline has been developed with summer cottages and a variety of tourist businesses spread along the lengthy shorefront community and in the town's major communities.

We are a municipality within the riding of MPP Larry O'Connor. We had to get that in.

Our municipality has a long and well-recorded history of being a tourist area. Champlain, one of the early European visitors, decided in 1615 to spend the fall and winter in the area of our community. In his journals, he referred to Lake Simcoe as the Lake of Stakes, a direct reference to the winter activity of ice fishing. Our municipality is the ice fishing capital of Canada and some 60,000-plus fisherpersons enjoy the sport during the months of late December through mid-March each winter. Georgina has won the right to host the 1992 world ice fishing championships, which will occur next February at Jacksons Point.

Tourism has played a large and valued part in our enjoyment of the lake and the economic prosperity of the communities that front on Lake Simcoe. In 1870, a railway ran to Jacksons Point to haul ice to Toronto. In the 1880s, the Metropolitan and Toronto Electric Railway was pushed north of Newmarket and then on to Jersey, Medina, Roches Point, Island Grove, Willow Beach, Jacksons Point and finally into Sutton, Sutton being the northern terminus of this line. Both the railway and electric railway also opened the shoreline to the development of high-class summer havens, typical for much of the earlier part of this century. Today, the Briar's Resort and Convention Centre and the Georgina Inn remain as world-class resorts dealing with people from across the country and throughout the world.

In the middle of the 1970s, a local clothing store merchant, Angelo, who runs a store in Keswick, began working towards having his store and others in Georgina opened on Sunday. This was granted in 1978. Since then, we have been a designated tourist area under the Lord's Day Act and the subsequent legislation, and our stores have had the right to be open. Merchants have been the only ones who decide whether they wish to open or close. With nearly 14 years of continuous Sunday openings, I can honestly report several facts to this committee.

There is no common response among stores as to who is open or who is closed.

Our biggest food store, Verdoold's IGA in Sutton, remains closed despite direct competition from a smaller chain store and numerous convenience stores being open. The store remains closed because of religious decision. This store not only has expanded its operations but five years ago moved to a new location and opened one of the largest independent IGA stores in Canada.

We have one of the largest fireplace stores, the Mason Place, which does major advertising across southern Ontario promoting the variety of products it sells and installs. This store is also closed because the owner has a religious conviction.

This independent decision of merchants is not unique or only based on religious grounds. The hardware store in Sutton remains closes on Sundays, even on long weekends, while another opens. The Canadian Tire store did open for several Sundays but decided to be closed despite the fact that the hardware store some 300 feet north remains open from 10 am to 4 pm on Sundays. There are a number of stores that opened to serve customers on Sunday and then after varying periods of time have closed because their owners felt there was no additional service or business being created.

In Sutton and Jacksons Point, we have had for most of this time two drugstores, Eustace's and Luke's, one in each community. These are your traditional drugstores with in excess of 2,400 square feet serving a variety of drug, medical and beauty aids, cards and wrapping paper. The two fathers, and then the two sons, have competed for years. These two stores for years had agreed among themselves to have one open and the other closed. In fact, the store that was closed had a sign in its window directing shoppers to the other store some three miles away.

We have major tourist businesses, including Dawson's Marina and Crate Marina in Keswick. These are large cruiser and boat sellers, both with international reputations for the sale of costly and outstanding performance boats. As well, we have Quinn's Marina in Pefferlaw, which sells and manufactures large boats. Dawson's and Crates's sales rooms are open, while Quinn's are closed most Sundays of the year.

In Pefferlaw, we have a well-known and respected furniture and appliance store, Bodley's. This store, now in its fourth generation, is a high volume store that remains closed on Sunday, despite the fact it sells products to people living throughout the entire greater Toronto area.

As well as the normal commercial stores, we have a number of talented residents who provide unique manufactured products. Again, we have some who have their sales offices open and some closed. Robshaw in Baldwin and Baker's Furniture in Pefferlaw are local cabinet and carpentry shops which make handmade cabinets, curio pieces and other wood furniture. Robshaw is open and Bakers is closed. They are some 10 miles apart on or just off Highway 48. They compete with the regular furniture stores both within and beyond our municipal boundaries.

We also have an unusual combination of businesses. In Keswick we have a Sears store warehouse. This is open Sunday afternoon, but the Sears catalogue stores in both Sutton and Pefferlaw are closed. The Sears store shares space with a travel agency and the Pefferlaw store is in a convenience/junior department store.

What stores open, or do not, do so for a variety of reasons, some religious and some financial. I must indicate that in some of the final months before Christmas we did find that some merchants who are normally closed did open on Sunday afternoons. That could have been because of the huge amount of advertising being done by some of the larger malls in municipalities to the south of us, which were open due to the existing legislation. This year, under the new legislation, these malls will not be open on Sunday.

One statement about our commercial business is that few are open beyond normal working hours. The majority of the stores are open Monday to Saturday from 9 am to 6 pm and are only open late on Thursday and Friday nights to 9 pm. Sunday hours are divided, with some open 10 am to 4 pm and others open noon until 4 pm. Our municipality is not a place that runs lengthy open hours seven days a week. The only businesses that are open late are the convenience stores.

The time of year has not been a noticeable factor in which stores are open. During the late spring, summer and early fall, the highest tourist business seasons, we find a few more stores open, but that may be 10 or 15 at most across our entire municipality. Several stores are open during this period only -- ice cream stores, hamburger restaurants and vegetable or fruit markets.

As part of the previous council decision under the old legislation, the only days our businesses are closed are Christmas Day and New Year's Day. All other holidays have been removed from the restrictions. These stores are open on summer holidays, May 24, July 1 Canada Day weekend, August 1 Civic Day weekend and September 1 Labour Day, but on other holidays are closed or on reduced hours. Thanksgiving, Easter Friday and Boxing Day do not have as many stores open.

I guess one of the things that remains an anomaly is that several of the stores still close Wednesday afternoon. This is a hold-over and fewer stores are taking that, but there may be as many as 20 which still close on Wednesday afternoon. Our business people are quite independent-minded.

1340

In the proposed legislation, our municipality falls within most of the definitions of what you may consider as a tourist area. There are several areas that would cause our municipality considerable problems if they were introduced.

My first concern is if the legislation tries to impose limits on what type of store may open. Should the furniture store be closed if it sells on commission local water colours, pastels and paintings or other pieces of art, while next door a clothing store that sells swimwear is open? Should the grocery store that sells food items and also a variety of summer picnic material be closed because the local person decides to do his usual shopping on Sunday? How can we allow a Becker's, Mac's or other local convenience stores to be open, selling a variety of food products, and not allow the supermarket chain to be open? There should be a municipal or area-wide shopping designation allowed by the local municipality, and I stress that it should be the decision of the local municipality, not the regional municipality.

I believe, as do our business associations, and we have four of them -- the Georgina Board of Trade, Sutton and Jacksons Point business improvement areas, and one business group, the Uptown Keswick Business Association -- that a community-wide designation should be possible.

To discriminate from having a business open would be arbitrary and therefore extremely controversial or require such massive legislation that it will be almost impossible for comprehension. To try to define what business many of the stores are in is often difficult, as merchants have a variety of merchandise and services available.

One other factor that appears true across our municipality is that in Keswick, our largest community of 12,000 people, there are the largest number of businesses open on Sunday. In Sutton we have a number that are open on Sunday, and in Pefferlaw almost all are closed.

The majority of Sunday workers in our municipality are students under the direction of store owners or senior managers.

This question of who works depends on who owns the store and the size of the store. Many of our businesses are family operations, and while we find the second generation running them, in other cases part-time staff are brought in. The Keswick IGA and A & P and Sutton Foodland bring in part-time staff under a few senior manager-owners. In the case of some drugstores, the shifts of pharmacists are just expanded to have some working Sunday shifts.

The majority of the Sunday workers are high school students or college and university students who get their hours on Friday night, Saturday and Sunday. Many of these employees find this is an excellent opportunity to return to their parents' home for the weekend, earn some money and then return to their colleges or universities Sunday night or Monday. There are as well a number of merchants who provide the sales force every day they are open. This means that one or other of the partners is at work on Sunday. Wages in our municipality are low. We have no major industrial manufacturing plants and even regular salaries at stores are below those of the municipalities to the south of our municipality.

Our municipality has social problems. I would not be able to think that these, in any way, can be directed to the effects of Sunday store openings. There is stress on business people who have to be open, but that market and your personal beliefs are major factors which weigh on the decision, not that you have to be open because your competitors within the community are. There are no precise figures of family problems of business people.

Our community is still small enough that I know personally many owners of the businesses throughout our municipality. Many of the larger businesses that still serve our municipality have been around for generations and have been living with Sunday shopping for the past 14 years. We have a number of small boutique businesses that have opened and closed for a wide number of reasons. There is, to my knowledge, no great social breakdown by business people or the families that are and have been open for Sunday shopping during the past 14 years. The greatest complaint that I have from these business people is the amount of taxes they must pay and charge their customers, whether those are the taxes of the municipality or levied by the province or the federal government.

In our community, we have those who claim that the family is falling apart. Some of them urge council to provide more youth facilities. A place for youth to hang out is the number one request by both young people and their parents. You will notice this request is for a place for the young people, not their parents, to hang out, a place for young people to go to associate with others in their own age group.

During the past two years I have participated in the opening of three new church congregations in Georgina. The church attendance is lower than in previous generations, but we do not have any churches closed or even contemplating closing. As I have pointed out elsewhere, some business people are very involved and strong believers in their own churches and refuse to be open on Sunday.

We are a working example of what does happen over a period of time when Sunday shopping is in place. The community does not break down, social ills are not greatly compounded and businesses do not all have to be open to retain their share of the local business.

Our business community is fragile in that a great amount of residents' shopping occurs outside our municipality. A great number of residents work elsewhere and do some of their shopping there. The second major impact is the major malls which exist in Newmarket, some 10 to 15 minutes away from the majority of our residents. Our business people do successfully compete in service, price and quality; they have to. We have an 800,000-square-foot mall, with three major chains, in Newmarket, not to mention the variety of other stores in that community.

The existing legislation can be improved. I must admit that I have not attempted to review the entire piece of legislation being proposed. I am more interested in the general concepts of the legislation that business and tourist areas should be open. This has my full support.

The legislation can be modified to ensure that employers have limited ability to demand that employees at any level work on a common pause day. The legislation can be made to ensure that any employee working on a common pause day, be it Sunday or whatever, should be paid double time.

There should be no discrimination. It should be allowed in tourist areas such as ours that one be open or another closed. That should not be by type of store or size of store. The communities of store owners must be recognized, not the individual store. In today's economy we need to leave the decision to those who pay the bills. The merchants themselves can and will make the decision because they must make a profit.

We have found no single line of reasoning that can describe what has occurred in our municipality to explain why some businesses are open and some are closed on Sunday, except that of the choice of the particular business person. We want that to be left to the business person to decide, and we want the decision to have tourist shopping left to the local municipality to decide.

I thank you for your time and interest in our true Sunday shopping experience.

Mr Sorbara: I want to say a word of welcome to Bob, the mayor of Georgina, one of the municipalities in York region.

I just want to say to my colleagues on this committee, while York region is generally seen by the public to be an area of dramatic growth, with thousands and thousands of new homes and new factories and new businesses and new shopping malls, the municipality of Georgina is one of those areas where the economy is far more fragile and where development has not occurred at the pace that it has occurred in other parts of York region and other parts of the GTA. The economy is one that really requires that provincial governments pay attention to the reality of what the people there are saying. I am delighted to hear the mayor make the submissions that he has.

I take it that you are not asking the provincial government and this committee to recommend that we take steps to make sure that the mall in Newmarket is closed on Sunday so that your businesses can have a bigger chunk of the market on Sunday. Is that the case?

Mr Johnston: Right. I want the local municipality to decide. Let Georgina decide what it wants within its boundaries, Newmarket decide, Aurora decide, Whitchurch, Stouffville. Let the community -- because it is the local councils that are elected by the people within that community -- decide.

Mr Sorbara: You already have the responsibility to set store hours under the Municipal Act. Is that not the case?

Mr Johnston: Yes, sir.

Mr Sorbara: Your one quarrel then with the existing legislation is that the upper-tier municipality has the authority to set Sunday hours and you think that should be at the local level.

Mr Johnston: My concern is that because of some of the pressures being put on some other municipalities that do not wish to open, they may feel that there can be no community that has a tourist-wide. We are within that thing saying, please leave it at the local municipality level.

Mr Sorbara: By the way, this example of Georgina is yet another example of what I mean when I say that Ontario becomes the playground of the rich on Sunday. Lots of stores can open in Georgina on Sunday because of the tourist designation, and those who have cottages up there or those who can afford to travel up there for the day get to shop in those stores. Of course, the local people as well get to do that, but if you are living in downtown Toronto or downtown Kitchener or downtown Ontario and you do not have the ability to travel freely, then you are, in a sense, a second-class citizen.

Mr Chairman, that is the only question I have. I would like to put you on notice that when we finish with this witness I will be raising a point of order for consideration of the Chair and it should just take me about two or three minutes after this witness.

Mr Daigeler: Actually my question was similar to that. Has the regional municipality at the present time hindered you in your store openings?

Mr Johnston: No, it has not. Fortunately, the region's other mayors and regional councillors who sit have been very supportive of Georgina's position, but should it be put to them where they have to decide yes or no, that is what I am very concerned about: that eight other municipalities will decide what is going to happen in our municipality.

1350

Mr Carr: I want to welcome you here and thank you for the presentation and for the fine brochure. You certainly have a gorgeous area highlighted very nicely by this and we wish you all the best.

I take it then with the present legislation -- and you have spoken obviously with some of the owners in your area as well as other councillors -- you will be moving very quickly to designate your area "tourist" and you feel that probably you will get support for that.

Mr Johnston: Yes. Within the terms I have seen, we qualify under five of the six and we will be making that subsequent move. Our council had voted previously to reaffirm that position, and certainly once your legislation is ready we will be moving forward.

Mr Carr: Was there a great deal of debate? Was it a close vote or was it something overwhelming?

Mr Johnston: It was 9-0.

Mr Carr: Nine-nothing. I used to play a lot of hockey games 9-0. Unfortunately I was the guy who let in nine. Otherwise I would not be here. So with the situation as it is then, you obviously feel you have overwhelming support from the community.

Mr Johnston: Yes.

Mr Carr: Essentially this new legislation will make it such that your area will be open, so you really do not have too many problems with the legislation then.

Mr Johnston: No, I do not, sir.

Mr O'Connor: It is a pleasure to have one of my mayors here before me today. Welcome, Bob. It is a wonderful brochure showing everybody all the fine things that we do have up in the north part of my riding, which is terrific.

Just a couple of different questions, perhaps, to try to draw out some points. That tourist designation that has been set aside, I know I had met with one of the BIAs and the question came up at that point in time about the tourist designation. Do you feel that the criteria highlight all the necessary points, or do you think there should be anything added or deleted from them?

Mr Johnston: I think it covers a wide variety of the things that probably would look to tourism. We meet five out of six, so that leaves me some comfort.

Mr O'Connor: One other area of the legislation refers to an application asking for support by the chambers. When you have talked to the BIAs and the downtown business association, were they aware of that and are they comfortable with that?

Mr Johnston: Yes. Every time I have appeared before either the BIAs, the Georgina Board of Trade or the Keswick uptown businessmen, they have all spoken in support of it and the continuing on, basically because very few of the merchants feel they are pressured into being open. Most have made their decision one way or another already and do not see it that we need to have it totally closed or totally open.

Mr O'Connor: In those discussions, were there any problems relating to the employment standards aspect of this legislation in the protection for the workers? Did they highlight any problems with that at all?

Mr Johnston: There was no discussion in my presence about employees, basically because the legislation is not forward enough yet for them to be looking at it and considering it.

Mr O'Connor: I think, because of the area, the employees probably realize --

Mr Johnston: A lot of our employees -- I guess to make the point even more succinct -- are university and college kids who come home to their parents for the weekend and they get to work 16 hours in two days as opposed to working Monday to Thursday night. One of the things I wanted to make sure you knew is that a number of them find it much better to come home and work on Saturday and Sunday so they do not have to work Monday to Thursday night while trying to go to college and university.

Mr O'Connor: On the bill's aspect of upper-tier government, do you feel that could have a negative impact in Georgina or do you feel that York region realizes the importance of the tourism aspect of your municipality?

Mr Johnston: I am sure that York region as a whole understands the position of Georgina as a tourism commodity. My concern so much is that there are only two members out of Georgina on a 19-person council. That does not give us much towards a vote should we get into some hard knocks, and already our region has had some very long and difficult discussions of municipalities which do not want to be open, and we have neither the political might nor the right as the region.

Mr O'Connor: In that aspect then, because in the legislation the municipality has the final decision, do you think there should be an appeal process and could you perhaps give us a suggestion?

Mr Johnston: I think if you leave it with the local municipality, those are the people who are elected locally and they can make the decision.

Mr O'Connor: Good. Thanks, Bob. I appreciate that.

Mr Frankford: I think it is a very interesting presentation, and it is very nice to get a perspective that is not as Torontocentric as the ones we had this morning.

I was interested about the drugstores where I understand there are two that have a co-operative arrangement.

Mr Johnston: They have had it for years. One is in Jacksons Point; one is in Sutton. One would be open one Sunday and the other would be closed, and they would switch back and forth, despite the fact they represented two different chains and were for all other purposes very competitive, but they had this arrangement so that both would not be open.

Mr Frankford: So it really shows that they feel they need to provide a service, but they are not staying open to get every last buck.

Mr Johnston: Right, and I think that is the case of a lot of businesses. After the legislation was passed, there were a number that opened because they felt they had to be open because everybody else was open, but after three months, even with that legislation, a lot of them went back to the way they had been before.

Mr Frankford: Is it just these two pharmacies we are talking about, or are you aware of any broader arrangements?

Mr Johnston: Those are the two pharmacies I am most aware of.

Mr Frankford: It would be interesting to know how widespread that sort of thing is in the province.

The Chair: Mr Sorbara, does your question involve the witness?

Mr Sorbara: No, it does not. I was just waiting until Mayor Johnston was finished.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mayor Johnston for a very interesting presentation.

Mr Sorbara: I just bring up this point of order because I think as we begin these public hearings we are taking an unusual course, if not a course that is without precedent in the province of Ontario. We are hearing submissions on a bill that is under the auspices of the Solicitor General and the Ministry of the Solicitor General. My understanding is that it is at least parliamentary tradition in Ontario that the committee be attended by either a minister or a parliamentary assistant from one or more of the ministries that are involved. Here we have a bill --

The Chair: Mr Mills is here.

Mr Sorbara: I will just complete my remarks here. We have a bill involving three ministries: the Ministry of the Solicitor General, the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation and the Ministry of Labour. Generally the custom in these sorts of things is that if a parliamentary assistant is going to participate in the hearings and in the committee consideration, he absents himself as a member of the committee and joins you, sir, at your left hand, and someone else substitutes for that committee member.

As I look around the room, I do not see any of the three ministers. I am surprised that they are not interested in the bill. I do not see any of the parliamentary assistants, save and except for Mr Mills, who is not sitting here as the parliamentary assistant defending the bill and answering specific questions.

I do see some officials from the ministry, and that is in keeping with tradition, but I would expect that we would have, for a bill that is so controversial, some political representation here in the room monitoring these hearings and participating in the hearings in a way that has become the custom in the province. I would ask you, sir, if you would inquire of the ministers or their parliamentary assistants whether they are going to continue to make themselves scarce during these public hearings.

Mr Mills: I wonder if I might --

The Chair: On that point of order?

Mr Mills: Yes, on a point of order, Mr Chairman, if I might respond. As you probably are aware, many committees sit at this time. We are very stretched out in numbers and it is not possible to have a parliamentary assistant from Tourism and Recreation and from Labour here, together with me. It is not possible at the present time to get a replacement even for me, and that is why I am sitting here and not there. I realize that on Bill 17 Mr Wessenger sat there, but we just do not have the luxury of personnel. Some people are still away on holiday.

1400

Mr Sorbara: If I could just comment further, it is the government which organized the committee schedule for this week. The government, and certainly the government House leader, certainly knows the tradition that these bills are carried before committees with the assistance and presence of either the minister or the parliamentary assistant. We have people taking time out of their holidays and coming here and making presentations before this committee. We have asked people to make submissions; we have advertised all over the province. The fact that some NDP members are still on holidays should not be the excuse. We should have at least one parliamentary assistant participating as the political spokesperson of the government for these committees, and if that has to be Mr Mills and if the government members on the committee have to be reduced by one, so be it.

I see six members over there. The tradition of parliamentary assistant or minister carrying the bill on behalf of the government is well established here in this place in our committee work and should not be abandoned now simply because some people are on holidays.

Interjection: Mr Chair, I do not --

Mr Sorbara: Just let me finish. This is the final time I am going to make the point.

The Chair: Mr Sorbara.

Mr Sorbara: I do not want to interrupt the hearings. People have taken their time -- I see Mr Magder in the room, and I want to get on with the hearings, but I also would like the Chair to send an urgent message to the three ministers that they should be here for their bill or their parliamentary assistants should be here to represent the government on the bill. In the absence of that, the message to the province is that the government, notwithstanding that it is having these hearings, does not give a whit about what the public has to say about the Sunday shopping bill.

Mr Fletcher: On the same point of order, Mr Chair: Mr Sorbara has made a few comments that the ministers do not care. That is not true; they do care.

Mr Sorbara: Well, where are they?

Mr Fletcher: They were here yesterday, and I know Mr Sorbara had to leave early yesterday, even though there were other witnesses here he did not hear, so obviously you do not have much faith in this and you do not care that much about it yourself.

Mr Sorbara: If you want to make a political point out of this, go ahead. I am just bringing up a point of order.

Mr Fletcher: As far as the New Democrats being on holiday, that is not a fact either, Mr Chair. We are strapped for people, but that is not because people are on holidays.

As far as the parliamentary assistant being here is concerned, the parliamentary assistant is sitting at the table participating in this. It does not matter where the people sit, they are here, they are listening and they are participating and they can carry back any message. A person sitting up front cannot hear any better than a person sitting here.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Fletcher. Mr Sorbara?

Mr Sorbara: I would just say to Mr Fletcher that when a parliamentary assistant --

The Chair: Mr Sorbara, please.

Mr Sorbara: -- he does not question the witnesses.

Interjection.

Mr Sorbara: I am just explaining a tradition to you, my friend.

The Chair: We have had the experience in the past while we were hearing on Bill 17 that Mr Wessenger, I believe, at that point sat with the other government members until such time as we got into clause-by-clause. Where Mr Mills sits is entirely his prerogative, but the issue you bring up is several-fold. There is the question of where Mr Mills sits and the question of participation of parliamentary assistants or political participation from the other two ministries involved. If you would like to put that request in the form of a motion, we could certainly debate that and decide upon it.

Mr Sorbara: I move that the Chair of the committee urgently request of the Minister of Tourism and Recreation, the Minister of Labour and the Solicitor General to either attend at the hearings or direct that one or more of their parliamentary assistants attend at the hearings --

The Chair: Thank you. Discussion on that motion?

Mrs Haslam: Mr Chair, on a point of order.

Mr Sorbara: Let me just finish the motion -- on behalf of the government. I just point out that Mr Mills, sitting on the committee, is not here as a parliamentary assistant on behalf of the government.

Mrs Haslam: Is that part of the motion?

The Chair: Mr Carr, I am sorry. You were trying to raise a point of order, Mr Mills. Were you wanting to pursue that or can Mr Carr speak?

Mr Mills: I would just like to point out that although the Minister of Tourism and Recreation and the Minister of Labour are involved, as is the Solicitor General, I think it is a fair statement that the bill belongs to the Solicitor General.

Mr Sorbara: Sure; that is right.

Mr Mills: I do not really see that the presence of a parliamentary assistant from those two ministries is necessary.

The Chair: Mr Mills, that is not a point of order, that is a question of debate about the motion. Mr Carr?

Mr Carr: I just want to say very briefly that it may be a bit of an oversight that some of the parliamentary assistants were not there. There are short numbers and maybe it was not thought of, so I do not think there was any intent. Because it was the Solicitor General's bill, obviously the government probably knew he should be there.

I do not think it was anything where it was intentional, but in light of the fact that it does have so much of an impact on tourism and so many of the representatives who have come before us are from tourism, I think it would be worth while just asking to see if the parliamentary assistants of Tourism and Recreation and Labour can make it. It may be the case that they are preoccupied with other bills. There may be Labour bills going on in the standing committee on resources development where they are shepherding them through and I am not aware of that.

The other thing I would suggest is that somehow, and I am sure the members of the government in the committee will impress it upon them, hopefully there would be some type of mechanism so that we can impress upon the parliamentary assistants who may be tied up on other bills exactly what has happened. It may be just a case of this committee informing them when a particular group does come in. Maybe it is possible for parliamentary assistants to come in when we are in Toronto when there is a group that might be affecting them.

I will support the motion. Hopefully there will be an opportunity to come and sit in, and if not, if they are in for other reasons, at least we will know that.

The Chair: Mr Sorbara and Mr Carr have already spoken to the motion. Mr Mills did as well on a point of order. I recognize Mr O'Connor and Mrs Haslam. I am wondering if it is possible for us to limit this discussion to some degree, because we do have witnesses waiting for us. Mr O'Connor first.

Mr O'Connor: I would just add that I find that this committee, because we do not have a parliamentary assistant here sitting to your left and in fact he is a member of the committee, is refreshing, because we have a committee that is open to changes. They are not defending the legislation but are therefore open to changes. For the witnesses who do come here to find that this government is open to change and not necessarily defending what we are trying to say I find very refreshing. I am glad Mr Sorbara brought that to light. And for the members who were here and continue to stay here for the majority of the day, I think these witnesses appreciate that as well.

The Chair: Mrs Haslam and then Mr Sorbara, and hopefully we can wrap us this discussion.

Mrs Haslam: I agree with Mr Carr, but for the same reasons Mr Carr has given, I will not be supporting the motion. I think the wording is not what I would like to see in this particular motion. I have no problem with making our ideas or our suggestions known to the ministry, but I will not do it in this manner and in this wording.

Mr Sorbara: I would have hoped that the members of the committee would have joined me in supporting the motion so we could get the matter dealt with. The great irony is that we do have the parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General here and he could participate in another context, and I do not see why the government -- I see the presence of the chief government whip in the room. I do not know why you or anyone would find that offensive.

We are beginning a province-wide tour and the tradition has been that a parliamentary assistant represents the government, with all due respect to my friend the member for Durham-York, because it is a government bill before the committee. That is not a bad tradition. It is a good, healthy tradition. The parliamentary assistant is then able to speak to issues that arise about the bill on behalf of the government and help the committee in its deliberations. So I would once again ask for your support. We can get this matter dealt with quickly and then we can get on with our business.

The Chair: All in favour of Mr Sorbara's motion? Opposed? The motion is defeated.

1410

PAUL MAGDER

The Chair: I would like now to call up Mr Magder of Paul Magder Furs. Mr Magder, I believe we have half an hour, and you can please sit down wherever you wish, sir. You can use that time however you wish. Typically, people divide it in half, half of the time for your presentation and half for questions from all of the committee members. Please feel free to start when you are comfortable, sir.

Mr Magder: Thank you for having me on such short notice. I appreciate that. Believe it or not, I have been involved with this particular issue for probably 12 years.

Mr Poirier: I believe it.

Mr Magder: I mean, some of these people may have been teenagers at that point; I do not know. The only nice thing is that everybody keeps getting younger as time goes on.

However, my personal position on this law is that it is wrong. There is so much wrong about it, and unfortunately I believe the present government is taking a bad law and making it worse.

I believe Sunday is special to a lot of people, whether on religious grounds or not religious grounds. However, I do not feel the government has a right to tell you when to work and not to work.

I think there is need for a law. I think government should make a law. I will give you an example, Dufferin Mall. I was discussing this issue years ago with this small businessman. He said: "I don't want to work Sunday. I have to be open till 10 o'clock every night, including Saturday, because my landlord" -- I think one of the big stores is in the mall, I forget which, K Mart or whatever -- "says those are the rules. The big store wanted it that way, so all the little stores have to go along." I think this is despicable, because just as much as I feel you have a right to work Sunday -- I feel I have that right and everybody has a right -- you should have the right not to work.

It is funny. All governments, including this present government, seem to be overlooking this issue. I think one of the most serious problems is the malls, where storekeepers are forced to stay open who do not want to be open Sunday. I think if they want to regulate hours, 9 to 6 five days a week or six days a week or whatever, they have some kind of semblance of being open, but I think this is where the government's direction should be.

Their direction is correct as far as protecting people from being forced to work is concerned. Of course you should not be forced to work, but I cannot see why they cannot do -- I believe in the restaurant industry they have a choice of picking any day and I think this might be the approach.

I think there should be a law. In Massachusetts, with the blessing of the churches and the unions, they have made a law which most people seem to be happy with. No law is going to make everybody happy, but imagine when you have the church and the unions agreeing with it. I cannot see why we cannot take this approach. In Massachusetts, you must pay time and a half wages on Sunday, which I do in my particular case. I think everybody should be paid time and a half, because Sunday is special. If you want to make it a little more costly to do business, that is fine. If the business is there, everybody is happy in the end anyway. Also, merchants I believe are protected from being forced to open on Sunday, and of course workers are protected from being forced to work.

We would probably wind up with the same result in Ontario if we had a similar law. Not everybody is open. We seem to have a funny idea in Canada. If you allow stores to open, everybody has to be open. This is nonsense. There is no way in the world I will work Saturday evening, and yet in the United States a lot of stores do open in the evening. I do not want to work Saturday evening. I choose not to. I enjoy working Sunday, because my customers seem to be happy on Sunday, especially tourists.

In fact, I was in Rochester last week, and it was interesting. I was shopping, and I could begin to see the problem. It is nice when you are on a holiday to go shopping and spend a little time, because today shopping is difficult. There is so much to choose from and you are trying to make the right decision. When you are on a vacation is a good time. To go shopping at night I think is absurd.

Two years ago, when I had the injunction placed against me by the city council -- which I won, but of course then they got the Attorney General after me and of course I could not fight that; I was ordered to close or else -- personally, I suggested, "Well, close Chinatown." I happen to be in Chinatown, in case anybody is not aware. Howard Moscoe did not know I was in Chinatown, but I am in Chinatown geographically and in court evidence and everything else. I am in Chinatown, but in my particular store I sell clothing.

It is funny. This law says I can sell tobacco products that kill people, that is fine, but do not sell clothing. For the life of me, I cannot see why the government has not done something about -- we all know tobacco kills, whether you smoke or not. I know it nearly killed me years ago. I do not think I would be around if I had not quit, because I could not breathe so well. Fortunately, I quit. However, it just shows you how absurd this law is.

I ramble and ramble. I think we need a law that protects workers and protects merchants from being forced to open, but we do not need a law that stops people from working or businessmen who are trying to make a living. I have a family also. My children work for me. I am in a tourist area. You know, I am trying to make a living just like anybody else. The present law is wrong.

There is one point here. There are maybe 50 people in this room. The irony is that the government calls it a common day of rest. It is funny, common law and everything else. This particular law probably does not affect any more people than maybe me and one or two other people here, because any parliamentarians -- you are allowed to work Sunday, and you do. You electioneer on Sunday. In fact, I had a writer who says how many times he works Sundays preparing speeches for parliamentarians. He thought how ridiculous this thing is.

In case you people are interested, I have many people who work for the present government, the previous government, who buy coats from me because they feel I am right. They do not like the government telling them when to shop or work. In fact, even in the NDP office, believe it or not, people come down and buy coats from me --

Mr Poirier: Not on Sunday.

Mr Magder: On a Sunday or during the week, because it is a like a free choice issue. Now this is my position. We need a law, but at least bring a fair law. Do not bring a law that picks out only retailers. For instance, why are people in the duty-free shops forced to work Sunday? I have checked this out by the way, and they do not get time and a half. People say, "Well, the airports are federal property." Nonsense. It is in Ontario. I mean, you charge provincial taxes there. You do not relieve them of provincial taxes. So I think this is a bunch of garbage.

So I could go on and on and on about this. I think the government should stop charging anybody under this law now. The law is a mess. You have got a law that is created on behalf of special interest groups. You do not outlaw drunk driving because of special interest groups. You outlaw it because it is wrong. The law picks and chooses. It says you can be on one side of the street or you cannot be on the other. You are a tourist area. You are not. People come to Toronto. They do not come to Chinatown or Harbourfront. They come to Toronto, and then they do whatever they want to do. Why not let the marketplace decide?

Ten years ago, I approached Larry Grossman on this issue as pertaining to the tourist problem. I pointed out that we are suffering. The tourists would like to come to Toronto and do their shopping. He said, "Well, you know, we really sympathize with you, but we have the NDP pulling the strings here," and this and that. "Wait till we get in and we'll do what we can."

Mr Sorbara: You think it was bad then?

Mr Magder: Yes. Well, I thought it was bad, but it is worse now. It seems, instead of getting better, the Liberals took a law and made it a little worse, and the NDP are making it even worser, pardon my English, but worse anyway.

Mr Poirier: Worsest.

Mr Magder: The worsest, yes, unless something happens. The thing is, sure, ideally it would be nice to take off Sunday, but the thing is, we are living in the real world today with automation and computers and everything else. There is so much free time around. People love to travel, and a lot of Americans do like Canada, in spite of our high prices, and our prices are not high on everything. Of course, a lot of the blame is on the other level of government, why we have a tourist problem. But why not -- you know, when we had Sunday shopping for a while, I started to see a lot more Americans coming into my store, and then all of a sudden -- you come down Spadina Avenue. It is frightening. Saturday and Sunday, it is almost dead now. They have scared away most of the tourists, because between the GST and not being able to shop on Sunday -- if we allowed Sunday shopping, there would be a little more competition. It helps keep prices down.

You know, you cannot protect everybody. This is the way the real world is. If a businessman gives good service, good attention -- in fact, this is one reason people are also running to Buffalo. They say they get more courteous treatment. That has nothing to do with this particular meeting, but this is interesting, because on Sunday, you know, people have more time, they are more relaxed. I would say that the government's position, I feel they should stop charging anybody or everybody, and allow businesses to do business to survive, because we are in a terrible economic situation now. I mean, if you do not see it --

I was talking to the tax man the other day. He is fining me for being late with my taxes. I told him there is a recession on. You know, he does not know what is going on? You read every day, more business people going broke, and we employ people. Now we are not employing people. We are laying off everybody. That is sad. If you want to make a law, make a law, but make a sensible law, make a fair law. Do not make a stupid law. This law, as I said before, is a bad law being made worse. Now, if anybody would like to ask me any questions or make some comments, please do.

1420

Mr Sorbara: Mr Magder, this is not confession period, but I should probably say to you that our government hassled you just as much as any government in your attempts to maintain a Sunday marketplace. Do you mind telling the committee approximately how much money you have spent on lawyers and studies and court challenges and fines and your dance with the police on the issue of whether or not you could sell a fur coat on Sunday?

Mr Magder: That is a good point because this is another terrible thing about this law, how it harasses people. I have paid out $400,000. I presently owe my lawyer $150,000. I have not been making any payments to him for the last year. He continues to take the case and will work for me. In fact, he tells me to buy lottery tickets because hopefully that is the only way he will ever get paid.

What hurts me is I am just trying to make a living. I am a Canadian. I was born in this country and we were brainwashed with this Protestant ethic. You work hard, you will succeed. It was an honour to work. Now you say work is a four-letter dirty word. It is unbelievable. It does not make sense. No wonder our kids are all mixed up. You teach them to compete, you teach them to do this, you teach them to do that, then as soon as they grow up the whole world changes, everything changes. It is absurd. I possibly will be going all the way back to the Supreme Court of Canada again. The Supreme Court of Canada already ruled that the law discriminates.

There is another interesting point. How much, not only Paul Magder's legal costs -- do you know how much it has cost the government? Probably millions of dollars, let alone thousands.

Mr Sorbara: In that $550,000 that you are liable for all together, I know, because I have followed the cases, that you have undertaken, you have financed a number of studies about Sunday shopping, polling and social research, etc. Have you come up with any research that indicates that the quality of family life or the quality of life in a society deteriorates significantly when people are allowed to shop and storekeepers are allowed to open their stores on Sunday in any jurisdiction in the world?

Mr Magder: Not that I know of. In fact, it is funny, the New Democratic Party points out that Sweden is a good socialist example. They happen to have Sunday shopping in Sweden. Of course, they do not seem to see that. It does not seem to have ruined the world there. In Alberta they have Sunday shopping. They did not come out with new laws to close up everything after the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Lord's Day Act was unconstitutional.

I think this is a myth. It is almost like religion. You go back and in every religion they had ideals. In the Jewish religion, for instance, you are not supposed to eat pork so it was incorporated into the religion. I do not know, I am not that up on it, but maybe 2,000 years ago it made a lot of sense. When Sunday laws came out 100 years ago, it probably made a lot of sense because kids were working seven days a week and everything else, but the world has changed -- and maybe even back in the 1950s, at least you did not have a problem of unemployment. Everybody was working, Ontario was the greatest place in the world to be and they were bringing in 200,000 immigrants a year in those days.

But things have changed. Look at our unemployment rate now. People are dying to work. They want to work. I have a girl working for me and she used to work steady, she works Sunday now. She never used to want to work Sunday, but boy, she is broke and she needs the money and she wants to pay her bills.

Mr Poirier: So do you.

Mr Magder: So what is wrong?

Mr Sorbara: If you were allowed to open up your own store at will on Sunday, how much more employment would Paul Magder produce? Is it one or two or three jobs? How many people do you employ on Sunday?

Mr Magder: I think, if we had Sunday shopping in general -- it is not just Paul Magder because I am open regardless, whether it is legal or not -- you would create many thousands and thousands of jobs, part-time and full-time. It is a crime how the government -- why pay people to go on welfare when they really want to work, because most people really like to work? Why not allow people to work? It does not make sense. This business of a common day, fine, you have made legislation better than the Conservatives and better than the past Liberal government to protect workers. Fine, but the trouble is, the Sunday laws punish the innocent, not the guilty.

I have always said this. If a driver is drunk and kills a pedestrian or has an accident, you do not outlaw driving cars. You punish that particular person. The trouble with the Retail Business Holidays Act is it punishes so many innocent people. I can show you where, believe it or not, the way it stands now, for instance, would they allow the municipalities to declare tourist areas? This is absurd. When Toronto declared Harbourfront a tourist area, the boss said the next day, "Okay, Mary, you've got to work Sunday." "I don't want to work Sunday." "You have to work Sunday because we're a tourist area." They did not make provisions to protect her from being forced to work. She said, "Will I get time and a half?" "No, you're going to take off a different day. You're going to take off Tuesday."

This is so absurd, a law that is supposed to protect people actually causes the exact effect that it is supposed to prevent. It does not make sense. I just wish this new government -- I was hoping if we had a new government, maybe there would be a breath of fresh air.

Mr Sorbara: Stale air.

Mr Magder: The people voted against David Peterson. They voted against the Liberal government because they were fed up -- federal politics too -- with politicians who do not see the real world. Here the government said we were doing great, the boom province. In the meantime, we are going to hell fast. But the thing is, that was not a mandate to close up the stores on Sunday. In fact, you were talking about polls. All the latest polls say people want Sunday shopping, whether you agree with it or not. The people want it. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the government is bringing out a law that is against the will of the people, especially a people's party. The New Democratic Party is supposed to be more of a people's party, to the best of my knowledge, than any party. I wish they would act it.

Mr Carr: Thank you very much for taking the time. It seems you have been doing this for 12 years, so I guess you have taken a lot of time to do this, but I certainly appreciate hearing from you. I have heard a lot about you and seen you on TV.

Mr Magder: I wish it were all over, believe me.

Mr Carr: Yes, you are famous. One of the questions I have got is with this new legislation. There are some people saying that with the tourism exemption -- I know your particular area was excluded the last time around. When I spoke to a couple of people they said the municipality, for whatever reason, found something that just did not click so they did not give the tourism exemption.

This one is much broader, where basically your area would be included and you could say virtually any part of the province could with the guidelines that are outlined. As a result of that, do you see your area being open when it goes before the municipalities? With it being as broad as it is, do you foresee your area getting an okay to open as a tourist exemption area?

Mr Magder: I see it for other strange reasons. Because of the oriental people there, they seem to do whatever they want. It is a very powerful group of people. But whether they will allow me to be open or not -- in fact, when they wrote the Toronto bylaw for Chinatown West, in effect they wrote it for most of the Chinese merchants who were there at the time. Possibly, if there had been some furriers or clothing stores, maybe I would not be here, would not have this problem.

But I think this whole thing is nonsense. Toronto is a tourist area. Canada is a tourist area. We want tourists and picking and choosing -- let the merchants work things out. If you force people to pay time and a half wages, make it a little more costly to do business, reward the people who wish to work on Sunday, I think the thing would work itself out pretty well, because where there are a lot of tourists, people are making money, they are going to open. But people are not going to open their businesses -- I think in the suburbs, I cannot see why all these stores should be open. I think they would be losing money in most cases. But then again, I do not know. I know my business and I really have no right to tell them how to run their businesses.

Mr Carr: With these new guidelines, your neighbours and so on, do you feel your area will be pushing for tourism? It will not just be yourself? Now will you have a lot of support?

1430

Mr Magder: We have a funny situation. We have so many different -- we talk about this multiculturalism. I think it is a wonderful thing to keep everybody divided, really great, because it works perfectly. We have so many different nationalities and types in our area and besides, most businessmen are always jealous of each other and we do not work together. Seldom work together and some do not want to be open, some do want to be open. As I said before, I think you have taken a bad law and made it worse.

One thing I would like to say: This law, if it continues the way it is, will be thrown out eventually by the courts. Why waste all this money and time and bother? You have the opportunity to come out with a sensible law at least, because if you do not come out with a sensible law there will be no law, and that is worse. I think we all agree, it is not right to force people to work on Sunday. I feel they should be paid time and a half. You make it a little special, especially people who are getting $4 an hour or so, you pay them $6 an hour. I pay a lot higher than that, but so what? You are not talking about people who are making $20, $30 an hour or something getting time and a half, so everybody will win in the end anyway. But if you do not come out with a sensible law, you will eventually have it thrown out of court.

I will just show you how absurd this is. It probably violates the British North America Act. I will tell you why. There are supposed to be no tariffs or duties between provinces. Here you have Alberta Sunday shopping, British Columbia Sunday shopping, no Sunday shopping in Ontario. In Quebec, they handle it a little differently; now I think four people can work in a store or something like that.

The law is not a common law; it is nonsense. I drive by the domed stadium every Sunday to work. Why can you go to the domed stadium and work? You could play baseball or do anything you want but you cannot work in your own store. It does not make sense. It is not fair law.

Mr Mills: It is my privilege to thank you for coming, Mr Magder. I represent that breath of fresh air -- well, one of the rays of fresh air that you spoke about in the new government -- and we are certainly here to listen to everyone like yourself who has something to say. I remind you again, as I like to remind most of the people here, that this legislation is draft legislation and we are here to listen. However, we are committed to the common pause day. I happen to feel very strongly about family life and about letting families spend one day together. I have some grave apprehensions that if we did not have this in place, family life to me is so important and it would suffer.

Mr Magder: Well --

Mr Mills: Just one moment.

Mr Magder: Okay.

Mr Mills: I heard you make an interesting comment. You said, "Saturday night to me is a special night and I won't work on Saturday night." I wonder if you could tell me why Saturday night is special to you and why you will not work.

Mr Magder: Okay. I will not work because I am tired. It is the end of the week. I have had enough of business and fighting the creditors and the government and everybody else. I do not want to work Saturday night, I want to go out and enjoy myself or relax or whatever. It is funny -- I would like to elaborate. My lawyer, when I lost -- I have won and lost, you know. I actually won every time but then lost eventually -- suggested I open up every night. Funnily enough, my staff do not want to work in the evenings, I do not want to work in the evenings and my customers do not like coming downtown at night. But Sunday I have no problem getting people to work; short day, everybody is happy.

Talking about family life, I wish you would come in my store when it is a little busier, maybe when the recession is over, and see. I feel so good on a Sunday. People go to church. Funnily enough, more people will go to church if you have Sunday shopping because they would go to church then go shopping and do whatever they want to do. But now they have not got time. They are driving to Buffalo and they are waiting at the bridge for the customs and they have no time to go to church. That is what I was trying to say.

But it is so nice. You get the younger middle-age or younger couple in and they are with their mother and their grandmother and a lot of elderly people. The only time the children can take them out is on a Sunday because they have busy lives, they are trying to make a living and working, and it is so nice. Funny enough, Sunday shopping will even help the family; it could help the family. If you want by law to protect them from being forced to work, fine. I have nothing against that, I think that is proper. But do not punish the innocent. That is the trouble with this particular approach. It is punishing. I have to make a living. I like my business; I like my work. At 55 years old, what am I going to do, start a new one? I have got computers but I do not use them. I was born the wrong time I guess. My kids are great at it.

Mr Mills: You never did tell me why you do not like working on Saturday night.

Mr Magder: No, because I am just dead beat by Saturday.

Mr Mills: There are a lot of folks who are dead beat on Sunday who do not want to work either.

Mr Magder: Fine, so do not work. If they do not want to work, fine.

Mr Mills: But we have to have some legislation to protect them because all the folks out there are not like you.

Mr Magder: I would agree with you 100% if you closed everybody and everything up. Be honest and be fair, but do not pick and choose certain stores, tobacco stores. Can you tell me why tobacco stores are allowed to open on Sunday, specified under the law? Does it make sense to you? Because, my friend, it does not make any sense to me. We all know tobacco kills. Not only does it kill, probably half the cost of our medicare system is because of tobacco products. Does it make sense to you, my friend?

Interjections.

Mr Magder: I guess they are worried about the tobacco companies or something. I do not understand it, it does not make sense to me.

Mr Mills: The difference is that we are looking --

The Chair: Mr Mills, we have run out of time.

Mr Mills: Oh, I am sorry. I beg your pardon.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Magder.

Interjection.

The Chair: It is not fair at all, is it? Mr Daigeler.

Mr Daigeler: Just before the next person comes, are we finished with Mr Magder?

The Chair: Yes, we are. Thank you very much, Mr Magder.

Mr Magder: Is that it? Okay. Thank you for having me.

Mr Daigeler: I have a question, Mr Chairman, about how you wish to structure the presentations. We normally have half an hour. I have noticed you are extensively going over the half-hour and that way we are ending up rather late. Are you planning to do that and therefore we are extending the meetings?

The Chair: In fact, the last presentation was somewhat less than half an hour, and I beg people's indulgence because I ended up having to cut short the time for questions because of that. We started that last presentation some 10 or 12 minutes late because of the discussion about PAs, and this morning every presentation was within half an hour. They did not go over by more than a minute or so. The reason we were late was because, again, of other discussions. It is certainly not my intent for us to go past time.

1440

GRAFTON GROUP LTD

The Chair: We now have a presentation from the Grafton Group, I believe Ms Bonnie Shore. You were here for part of the last presentation. Typically, presenters divide their time, the half-hour, between their presentation and also the opportunity of committee members to ask some questions, which I am sure people will be eager to do. Please proceed when you are comfortable.

Ms Shore: I cannot promise I will entertain you to the same level as the last speaker. However, I hope I will at least keep your attention.

My name is Bonnie Shore. I am the director of marketing of Grafton-Fraser. I am here today to represent Grafton Group. I would like to start the presentation by giving you some what I will call business information.

Grafton Group Ltd is a public holding company. We are listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange. Grafton Group Ltd has been active in the retail industry since 1853. Today, Grafton Group's principal business is retailing both apparel and footwear in Canada.

Grafton Group carries on its retailing business through two main operating divisions in Canada: the Canadian apparel through Grafton-Fraser Inc, and the Canadian footwear through Maher Inc.

Grafton Group Ltd has a total of 4,750 employees of which 2,167 employees are in Ontario. Grafton Group has 686 stores across Canada. We are located in every major city, and in Ontario we have 447 stores. The sales of Grafton Group in our Canadian stores in 1990 was $413 million; $200 million of that total was generated in Ontario.

Recent capital investment in Grafton Group companies over the past two years was in excess of $10 million in stores and an additional $5 million for a new head office that we built for our Maher division, so our total investment far surpasses $15 million over the last few years.

If you will make reference to page 2, I have tried to summarize and simplify all the elements of our business, so you will see all the chains, what our position is, the customer income and the target age. In essence, we could say we cover a very wide scope of the market and we are a very dominant retailer in the Canadian marketplace.

Now let's talk about the impact of this legislation on Grafton Group and, I will say, to some extent almost all other retailers in this province. Grafton Group's loss of revenue attributed to the restriction on Sunday shopping is as follows: In apparel it would be $4.5 million and in footwear $2.6 million, so the total is $7.6 million of lost revenue because we cannot open on Sundays.

I would like to preface the statistics by saying the figures are basically derived from our annual reports coupled with data we have collected over the period that Sunday shopping was permitted. We have pulled that out to give you a per-annum figure so that it is more effective for us to discuss it as it will affect our organization.

We think, with GST and consumer anxiety over the mounting deficit, sales are expected to be down between 10% and 15% in 1991.

Let's talk about lost tax dollars. In Ontario, per annum, from Grafton Group retail stores, we will not be able to collect a provincial tax, the 8% tax, which will give you a loss of $608,000, and in terms of the GST, the 7%, $532,000, giving us a total of $1.14 million not collected because we cannot be open on Sunday.

Grafton Group's lost wages to employees in Ontario per annum would be $1.25 million. The decreased number of employees at Grafton Group due to the Sunday shopping restrictions would actually equate 100 people. We are saying there will be 100 less jobs and there will be over $1 million less received by employees because we cannot open on Sunday. These extra jobs would definitely be filled if Sunday shopping went into effect, as statistically shown by the period we were open during Sunday shopping. We had to hire more; our wages went up.

Due to tourism and the convenience of Sunday shopping, the above losses are not recoverable during the rest of the week.

Sunday shopping restrictions in conjunction with other significant factors detrimental to the Canadian retailer, such as GST, increasing cross-border shopping and high levels of anxiety due to lack of confidence, are resulting in the rapid demise of the Canadian retailer.

Not only are Canadian retailers unable to compete due to higher taxes and wages than our US counterparts, but Canadian retailers are also hampered by the inability to offer the convenience of a seven-day shopping period. Hence, we see the constant and growing migration of customers to retailers based in the US.

Significant retail business is flowing out of our border towns. Our statistics are showing that our border towns are suffering to the tune of 20% decrease in sales as compared to only a 10% decrease in the rest of our markets.

While this amended legislation is intended to protect employees and their families, the consequences of this legislation will be detrimental to those same employees as it will increase unemployment in the retail sector and decrease the likelihood of any retail capital expenditures. We will not be building new stores; therefore, no new jobs. Not only no new jobs in retail, but no jobs in construction to build our stores, no jobs in the supplies necessary to carry on business or the merchandise manufacturing to stock our stores and the administration to carry on our business.

The fact is, we will be forced to focus on what we already own, and we will have to try to cut expenses, mostly wages, as much as possible. If we cannot make money, then the reality is we will not be able to invest any money.

We know that the objective of this legislation is to protect employees and their families. However, the summary of the results from a retailer perspective, if I can recap, are as follows:

There will be fewer jobs available, especially for part-time workers. Those are most often working women and students.

There will be increased layoffs. There will be no need for extra staff as we will not be open on Sunday. There will be less overall revenue and business; therefore, less staff will be needed.

We look at wages. There will be less wages paid. The overall wages earned will decrease because we are not going to be open on Sunday. Business has decreased, we are less competitive to the US and therefore retailers look first to tighten the wage dollar budget.

Taxes: less taxes collected. For GST and provincial taxes, there will not be any collection on Sunday. There will be a lower income tax due to less employment and a dramatic reduction of corporate tax, if any. At one point we may have said that would have been wonderful, but the implications are that we are not making any money.

There will be less flexibility available for workers and employees. In many instances, employees could better manage their family life and gain a new level of flexibility including Sundays, therefore having seven days to juggle the needed work hours to make a living.

As well, retailers are not flexible in offering what I will call a multi-day rest day, or two days off back to back, that is often needed in a stressful industry like retail.

There will be an increased overall number of bankruptcies in the retail sectors, as well as, I think you will see, more and more store closings.

It is not one of the above factors that will devastate the retail industry and severely hurt the province, but it is the snowballing effect that will catch the province off guard. We recommend that the factors and subfactors listed in the above will have a crippling effect on the province and will make it impossible for the survival of retailers.

We support the proposition that all employees have a reasonable rest period in the work week, that no employee should be forced to work on holidays or Sundays, and that the sanctions should exist to help ensure that no employee is forced to work Sundays or holidays.

However, we believe that these objectives can be met without forcing both retailers and employees to shut down on Sundays. We recommend that employees and employers be permitted to agree to any work schedule that is to their mutual advantage, providing no coercion is involved. Legislation, therefore, should provide safeguards to protect employees and yet also provide sufficient flexibility to permit those same employees the freedom to work on Sunday if they wish -- I would like to really focus on that one line: the freedom to work on Sundays if they wish -- and allow retailers to maintain a level of competitiveness that is absolutely necessary for survival.

The final page is a quick summation of the figures, so we will see exactly what is going to happen in this province as it relates to our organization: loss in revenues, $7.6 million; loss in taxes, $1.1 million; loss in wages, $1.25 million, and most important, a decreased level of employment to the tune of 100 employees.

Please feel free to ask any questions.

Mr Sorbara: Ms Shore, let me begin by congratulating you on your presentation. I think it was an articulate statement of the kind of competitive pressures that your organization, and virtually everyone else in the retailing business, is facing. Indeed, the world out there is changing dramatically as far as retailing is concerned, and the competitive pressures that retailers are facing are coming from very far away, given electronic shopping, given greater mobility, and given the competition that areas like Buffalo, Detroit, and Sault Ste Marie, Michigan, as well as other places, are launching towards the Ontario consumer.

I just want to tell you that we agree with that part of your submission where you express your support for reasonable protection for workers in respect of Sunday work. In fact, we believe the law that is currently in place provides workers exactly the right level of protection -- that is, they can refuse unreasonable assignments of Sunday work. The law provides a mechanism to arbitrate when there is a difference of opinion and encourages the workers and their employers to work out an acceptable regime.

The bill that these folks over here are proposing would allow the workers in, let's say a George Richards store, who had agreed to work on Sunday -- let's say the store has 10 employees including the manager -- if the store opens at 12 noon on Sunday, to advise the owner, the employer at 11 o'clock on Friday that they had all decided not to come into work because they wanted to go and have a picnic and it was going to be a nice day and they did not want to work. If I were to tell you that under those circumstances you, as the employer, could take no measures in respect of that refusal to work on Sunday, what would you say about that law?

Ms Shore: In essence it would make a retail business very difficult. However, I will stress --

Mr Sorbara: Or impossible?

Ms Shore: Relatively impossible, I will say. However, when we were put into the position that Sunday shopping was allowable in this province, we kicked it in immediately and we found just that: Some of our employees were not comfortable, made the requisition. I myself and many senior managers at the very last minute pinch-hit, went in and opened the store. We will not be in a position of forcing employees to do something beyond their will. You cannot gain people's respect by forcing them to do something they do not want to.

Mr Sorbara: I am talking about the employees who have agreed to work on Sunday, who have said to you: "You can rely on me. I'm coming in on Sunday." Should the law give them the right to phone up on Friday and say: "Forget it. I'm not coming in"?

Ms Shore: If one understands the nature of the retail industry, one will understand that that is a given every day of the week, so we are kind of used to it and we usually have an awful lot of backup. What we did find when we were open Sundays was that we had a lot of part-timers, students coming in saying: "I would be most comfortable working weekends. Can you give me Friday night, Saturday and Sunday? I have to do homework during the week." I have absolutely no problem in finding enough staff who will not only choose to say yes, they will be available, but will want to work on Sundays. Those are the only kind of employees I want working on Sundays -- people who want to be there. Otherwise, they are going to be completely unproductive to me.

Mr Sorbara: Good.

Mr Carr: Thank you very much for the presentation and thank you for laying it out very well, including the figures and so on. That was very well done.

The question I have is this. One of the concerns that has been voiced -- and I think you touched on it just at the very end -- is not so much the smaller retailers, but the larger retailers, the big, bad businesses out there forcing people to work, that would say, "You've got to work and that's it." One of the ladies yesterday spoke about it and said, "We don't want somebody in the store who doesn't want to be there because they're going to scare our customers away." How do you manage that in a company as large as that? How do you dictate that so you do not get a manager saying, "That might be corporate policy, what somebody said before the committee, but the reality is, I'm going to make this person work"? How do you get around that in a large company like yours?

Ms Shore: I think the most effective tool that retailers are finding in general is a strong sense of scheduling. What one has to make sure of is that you have balanced off your budget, you know how many people you can have and make sure that you have, like I said, the students who back you up part-time.

As well, we found there were educational institutions calling us and saying: "We'd like to do a co-op program. We'll work with you on the weekends." So I believe that if you have a strong corporate commitment to treating your people fairly, you present the argument to them fairly.

I was very surprised and pleased to see that a better part of our employees were prepared to assist us and actually quite enjoyed having Tuesday off to take a child to the dentist or, if their husband is on shift work or their wife is a nurse on shift work, that we can provide that level of flexibility, coupled with the fact that now I am in a position to give somebody a Monday, Tuesday off if they will work with me on a Saturday, Sunday. Although that is not considered a benefit or a direct incentive, it is a reality. We have seven days to juggle their 36-hour work week, which makes us much more functional. So I have no concerns that we can fill those positions very easily.

Mr Carr: So when the Solicitor General says, "This legislation is going to protect workers," in your opinion that is wrong.

Ms Shore: No. I can vouch for my organization, that we will build it into our corporate policy that nobody will be forced to do anything at Grafton Group that they do not want to do. However, the point I am making is that I think there should be a protection for the bad guy. It will not be us. We will make darn sure of it. We are too big, we are too effective with our people. However, for retailers in general, safeguards will always allow employees to feel a little bit more secure, a little bit more protected. We have never had problems with our staff. My guess is we never will.

Mr Carr: I see. You have given some of the figures here. The company is traded, so it is obviously public knowledge, but where are you at now? Are you in a loss position as a company in the last quarter, last year?

Ms Shore: Yes. Things have not been good in retail. I am sure I am not the only one standing up here and saying that things are quite bleak.

Mr Carr: So you are already in the red? You have reported losses over the last --

Ms Shore: Yes.

Mr Carr: Were they substantial -- $3 million, $6 million --

Ms Shore: Yes, they are substantial. It is public knowledge as per our annual report, but things are not looking too sharp. I will tell you one thing, all these added factors are not making it easy on us.

Mr Carr: So these figures that you have would be on top of that, so if you are reporting a loss of whatever amount, these figures would be added to that?

Ms Shore: Yes. As I recommended before, we have very clear statistics. We had a feeling that something may go funny with Sunday shopping, so we kept statistics that really did detail how much we made, how much --

Mr Carr: Something went funny with the province. September 6 --

Ms Shore: Those funny things, you have to protect yourself against them. So we did keep statistics for that reason, so we can literally open up the books and prove where we had to hire staff, how many hours they took, the kind of wages. As I recommended, we pulled them out to a per annum basis, so we could all get a better feeling of what that meant for a year.

Mr Carr: What would it mean to you if we end up with a situation where certain municipalities open and other ones do not? How would that affect the company in terms of scheduling of employees? Would you be able to shift employees if one is open and somebody wants to work? Could they shift stores and go to Peel if they are open and Toronto is not, or whatever? Could that be done?

Ms Shore: Let me suggest that "freedom" or "choice" to me sounds like a global word, as opposed to a municipality-type word. So my recommendation would be, either we are choosing to have choice or we are not going to have choice. How can you offer some municipalities some choices and others not? So I would suggest, as being sort of a national company, that basically "choice" is a big word that we would like to take in as a big company and see effective across. However, in view of the fact that business is tough and we need to make a buck, yes, we will do what we have to do to make money, but I think we recognize that if we are going to give choice, let's give choice. If we are going to allow people to make decisions, let's make it a province-wide appeal, as opposed to this region, this region, that region. How do I turn to my employees and say, "I'm sorry, for some reason this region doesn't want you to have freedom, but if you and your family move there, then I can provide you work on Sundays"? A bit of a crazy approach to dealing with business. We try to do things globally or at least across the country, as opposed to little bits and pieces and factions.

Mrs Haslam: I am glad to see that you are in support of protection for the workers. Do you pay your students time and a half on Sundays?

Ms Shore: Generally we are not open on Sundays, obviously.

Mrs Haslam: When you were open.

Ms Shore: No, we did not. We are a company, we set our policies. We believe that Sunday is part of the work week.

Mrs Haslam: And that is how they are hired?

Ms Shore: Absolutely, and I will tell you one thing, the students were thrilled to have the opportunity to be hired.

Mrs Haslam: Do you support the changes to the Employment Standards Act which allow workers to refuse Sunday or holiday work?

Ms Shore: What I will recommend is our corporate policy. We will instate a corporate policy, but basically we will always go along with the law and never force anybody to do anything he chooses not to do.

Mrs Haslam: So if a worker wanted to refuse the Sunday or holiday work, that would be fine with your company?

Ms Shore: It would be fine with my company. However, I think what one has to think of is when one is hiring people one would want to implicate: "How many hours do you want? You've got seven days to juggle it. How do you think it's effective to juggle it?" I am not going to fight with my employees. They will not be productive and they are going to mope around the floor and not bring me any sales. So sure, we are going to make them as happy as we feasibly can.

Mrs Haslam: You are in favour, then, if something comes up, of them being able to say no to the Sunday work with 48 hours notice.

Ms Shore: I cannot help but come back to the very fact that retail is such a tenuous business when it comes to employees that often something seems to pop up when you have that many employees. So it happens now and we cope. If it will happen then, we will cope. However, again, I would like to suggest that we will try to hire some people who choose, who want and who are excited to work on Sundays as opposed to Thursdays, because it works better for their personal schedule.

Ms Shore: You pay the same pay, then, no matter when they work?

Ms Shore: Absolutely. My feeling is, most people who work for us are happy to be paid and happy that we are in business and that is about the extent of things right now in the province.

1500

Mrs Haslam: You are a large corporation. Do you agree with guaranteeing 36 continuous hours of rest time in your seven-day work period?

Ms Shore: I think rest time is vital for all of us, as we know, otherwise you collapse. The way people choose to take their rest time to some extent should be up to them. Often at Christmas time, we will have students who will beg us to keep them on as many waking hours as they can stand in our store because they need the funds to support themselves. That is the reality of retail.

Ms Haslam: But you have no problem with someone who wishes to take that 36 continuous hours of rest?

Ms Shore: We will work to the very best we can to guarantee whatever it is that our employees need. However, I will recommend to you that if you were a retailer and you were standing in a store, you would have people signing up for more hours than probably are even healthy for them.

Mrs Haslam: But what I am asking is that you have no problem guaranteeing 36 hours of continuous rest.

Ms Shore: We will work within the law, absolutely.

Mrs Haslam: How much time do I have, Mr Chair? About a minute and a half? I will talk fast.

You have no problem with strengthening the role of employment standards officers in dealing with employee grievances?

Ms Shore: Not a problem with that at all.

Mrs Haslam: Have you looked at the tourism criteria?

Ms Shore: Yes, we have.

Mrs Haslam: Do you feel it is broad enough or too broad?

Ms Shore: It does not really make sense to us in the sense that tourists come in, and if they want to shop on Sundays --

Mrs Haslam: No, the tourist criteria for opening of a store.

Ms Shore: No, it does not work for us. It is a matter of handicrafts. There are just a lot of stipulations and restrictions that --

Mrs Haslam: So you feel it might be too limiting for you?

Ms Shore: Yes. It does not work within the confines of the business we are in. I guess again we come back to the issue of choice and freedom. If you are open, then you are open.

Mr Fletcher: A very good presentation. Thanks for being so candid. You tie in the Sunday shopping issue with cross-border sales. When I listen to what British Columbia is saying, British Columbia has wide-open Sunday shopping, but cross-border sales have increased even with wide-open Sunday shopping. It is not really the availability of a place to go shop; it is the price that comes into it. So the other factors are there, not just opening on Sundays in order to keep people from travelling across the border.

Ms Shore: I try to make clear that there are other issues, and one would be naïve to present Sunday shopping as the only reason. However, what I would like to put forward is that we are already up against taxes they do not have in the States. We are up against higher wages they do not have in the States. I can go on and on about the other things that are happening in this province. If we do not allow ourselves at least to be competitive in terms of the level of convenience of being open on Sunday, then I think we are really causing a very big problem in our province. You may choose to shop, you may decide that Buffalo is a little bit cheaper than here, but the reality is you cannot shop here. That is the way it is right now.

Mr Mills: I would like to thank you for your presentation. I thought it very interesting. What I would really like to get to grips with is how you came up with the figure for lost sales due to Sunday shopping, which is $7.6 million -- and I do not have my calculator with me -- shared among 447 stores.

Ms Shore: Basically, we drew on statistics from each of our divisions that was open during the period that Sunday shopping was available. It basically worked out to be somewhere between 3% or 4% of our sales extra, on top of normal business practices. We went back over a three-year period and checked the statistics to make sure we made sense. Obviously, I would not provide you with statistics that I could not fairly well back up. If you want a written summation on exactly how the information came about, I could provide that to you at a later date. I thought we might not have enough time to go through the mathematics.

Mr Mills: One quick final question. Do you or do you not agree that a certain amount of Sunday shopping is slippage from other days? How did you discern that the loss was specifically on a Sunday and not slippage from other days?

Ms Shore: We looked at the business we did on Sundays. Then we looked at the business we did regularly. We took more than a significant portion of that off because of slippage and gave the very least of what would be feasible. These are superconservative figures, because I did not want to come here blowing my horn if I could not back it up. In fact, just this morning, I got data from Maher that claimed that when they were open on Sunday, they did 20% of their business. Presenting you with that figure is unrealistic. Presenting you with potentially 3% is very realistic and very conservative.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Shore.

ONTARIO HOTEL AND MOTEL ASSOCIATION

The Chair: We now have a presentation from the Ontario Hotel and Motel Association. Is it Ms Karabinos?

Ms Karabinos: I thought you were going to be afraid to pronounce it.

The Chair: You have approximately half an hour. Typically, people divide it in half, half for your presentation and half for questions from committee members, but you are free to use that time in whatever way you wish and to start when you feel comfortable in doing so. If you would like a glass of water, please feel free.

Ms Karabinos: I might just take a glass right now before I start.

First of all, I would like to thank you very much for this opportunity of appearing before you. As stated, my name is Diane Karabinos and I am the executive director of the Ontario Hotel and Motel Association.

If I could take a minute just to tell you briefly about who we are, we represent over 1,200 members who own and operate large and small businesses in the hospitality industry. These businesses are hotels, motels, taverns, restaurants, resorts and lodges throughout the province. The association members employ well over 45,000 people and this number grows during special holiday seasons.

We respectfully request that the members of the standing committee on administration of justice consider the following: that Ontario encourage tourists and visitors by having unrestricted retail shopping on Sundays and holidays in all areas throughout the province and as the market dictates, without any restrictions. OHMA is in favour of unrestricted Sunday and holiday shopping. We feel that unrestricted Sunday and holiday shopping is vital to our economy and the tourism industry throughout the province.

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

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

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

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

Tourism generated in 1990 direct expenditures of $15.5 billion, with estimated total income of $22.5 billion and estimated total sales of $36.9 billion. It is one of the nation's largest generators of personal income, corporate, property, business and sales taxes to all levels of government.

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

1510

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

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

Bill 115 does have some merit and we appreciate the Ontario government's recognition of the value and importance of tourism in this legislation. We do, however, feel that the interpretation of the tourism criteria would create a lot of confusion, not to mention an administration nightmare in time and cost. To limit the timing for municipalities to declare themselves as tourist areas is also too restricting, as circumstances could, and most likely would, change at a much later date.

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

We appreciate that the proposed amendments to part XI-B of the Employment Standards Act recognize the operating realities of our industry. It is most important that all employers retain the right to schedule work and dictate work schedules.

In closing, I ask that you bring Ontario forward and that we become once again the province to lead. We have a tendency to live in the past, remembering how our mother was home in the kitchen and the smell of fresh baked goods greeted us as we returned home from school. But we all know how times have changed and we must also change, not only to keep up with the times, but to take a leadership role in this changing society. We will always remember the good things in the past, but we also remember that change is good and change is what keeps us alive.

I have often asked -- and I still have not had an answer -- what happened when the stores were open? Was the public ever surveyed as to what they felt? Were the workers asked? Were the shoppers asked? I feel we have to grow up. We always will want what our memories think is best, but does that mean we hold back progress? We are constantly being told that we live in a free world where we have the freedom of choice. The freedom of choice to open retail outlets on Sunday is not a luxury but a necessity, because to many it will mean survival.

I thank you very much for having this opportunity and I would welcome any questions you may have.

The Acting Chair (Mrs Haslam): Thank you. There are about 20 minutes left and that is about six minutes per caucus.

Mr Poirier: Could you describe to us briefly how what is proposed in Bill 115 pertaining to the tourist exemptions, as you know of it, would impact upon your association members? What do you foresee happening?

Ms Karabinos: You mean the impact of the municipalities having the --

Mr Poirier: Deciding this thing and from one variation to another and who gets what.

Ms Karabinos: What it will mean is that one area will be different. Say one community has designated itself as a tourist area in falling within the guidelines. Neighbouring residents will go into that area and will leave another area that will be destitute again because the municipality chose not to. People will travel 10, 15 minutes away, so as soon as you start putting a section -- one pocket here is allowed to open; the next pocket will not. Residents of our province are now travelling to the United States. You can be sure they are going to travel to the next community if they need something.

Mr Poirier: Do you think some of your members, if not all of your members, wherever, may challenge local decisions made one way or the other?

Ms Karabinos: I would hope they would all appear, and I know they are appearing throughout the province on this issue. Quite frankly, as the lady who was before me mentioned, we agree it is not just the Sunday shopping that is affecting us, but it is very bad out there for our members. A lot of them are closing shop, so anything that will help them increase their business is a necessity.

Mr Poirier: Assuming that Bill 115 passes, and assuming you had this tourism designation mechanism as per what is proposed, would you see your members challenging in court, for example, if they got a refusal for a designation? Could you see that happening?

Ms Karabinos: I think it would really depend on the area and the members and the impact it would have on them.

Mr Poirier: Have you discussed that among your members?

Ms Karabinos: Ontario is a large province, and unfortunately what will affect us here in a jurisdiction in southern Ontario might be a little different in northern Ontario. When it happens, we have to look at each situation on its own merits.

Mr Sorbara: I think it is safe to say that the vast majority of your members are hurting very badly during the current recession. Is that not the case?

Ms Karabinos: That is correct, yes.

Mr Sorbara: And that in the greater Toronto area, convention business, large groups coming for one reason or other, is down very, very significantly over previous years?

Ms Karabinos: Yes.

Mr Sorbara: And in rural areas, given the increase in the cost of beverage alcohol, the GST, and the lack of high levels of employment that allows people to do a significant degree of travelling, your members throughout the province are suffering, perhaps, some of the worst economic times they have suffered in memory?

Ms Karabinos: Very much so, yes.

Mr Sorbara: I know there are a number of things that your association would like the government to come to grips with, including, my goodness, under the Liquor Licence Act, taxes, and under a variety of other things.

The interesting part of your submission is that you assert that your members, who operate restaurants and taverns and hotels and motels, would benefit if business entities that are not members of your association were allowed to remain open on Sunday if they wish. Why is that? Why do your members believe they will benefit by virtue of the fact that other stores, not members of your association, are allowed to remain open?

Ms Karabinos: We feel strongly that by stores being open, it will draw tourists out; it will bring people out of their homes; it will have people experience the outdoors, even. Somebody will come out and will go and stay overnight in a hotel, where they may not have if the stores were closed. I, say, in Toronto, would not say, "Well, I think I will take a drive up to Barrie and stay overnight till Sunday because they have the shops open." This way it encourages people to get out. It encourages people to go out into the province, because where they now have only one day to do it, they would have two days to travel.

Mr Sorbara: Can I give you an example of that? The Ramada Inn in Buffalo was advertising in Toronto a weekend package for a family of four to stay in their hotel at $55 a night for the weekend. For a family of four, that is two rooms. As soon as you got to the hotel, you as a Canadian were provided with a long list of stores that would take the Canadian dollar at par. Is that the kind of thing you are talking about?

1520

Ms Karabinos: A little bit. That definitely is the border towns. We do have a member who has said his business has dropped to almost nothing and his competitor across the border is getting it all. Where we used to have American visitors come up for the weekend, they do not come any more. Yes, Sunday shopping is really only one of the issues. The cost of gas, the GST -- there are many things that do affect it. But, yes, that is just one incident.

If you want to go to southern Ontario, if you want to go to eastern Ontario, it is the same. They have the border situation. If you want to go to northern Ontario, it is just as much a factor. In northern Ontario sometimes it is even more because the dollar is harder to come by, and to have that extra day that they can actually have their places open to draw more visitors there will of course help our members.

Mr Carr: Thank you very much for your presentation. On page 5 you were talking about the interpretation of the tourism criteria and how it would create a lot of confusion. Even in this committee it has created some confusion when we have all these municipalities. Is that what you meant, that now, even though they are fairly broad, municipalities are going to be interpreting them and there are so many municipalities that they are going to interpret them differently for whatever reasons, because they may have a bias or whatever? Is that what you are saying by confusion?

Ms Karabinos: Two ways. One is definitely that. I think we can all read a sentence and everybody will take it a different way. That is exactly what is going to happen. And who is to say why one municipality will qualify and maybe its neighbour will not? I think that is the other part. Somebody who is living on one side of the street in one municipality is going to question, "Why can they shop over there?" The average public does not understand a lot of the things, and in layman's terms they have to be told.

Then you are discriminating. It is just as easy to say it is either open for everybody or, as Mr Magder suggested, just close everything down. It is not fair to have it one way or the other.

Mr Carr: What did you mean by the administration nightmare in time and costs? Does that mean your association, your groups are going to have to have to go and lobby on this matter?

Ms Karabinos: No, I am thinking even more within the government, to monitor it. Again, who has the right to judge, to say, "Yes, you are correct"? My interpretation will be different from yours. Does that mean my interpretation is the right one and yours is not? Then you are going to be caught up in all sorts of legal battles, because maybe a municipality has strong feelings one way and somebody else has strong feelings the other way. So I see an awful lot of time being wasted in that respect.

Mr Carr: Unfortunately, I think this is just the beginning of that battle. Poor Mr Magder has been doing it for 12 years and 12 years from now we might still be battling the municipalities.

On page 4 it said that of your members surveyed, 75% have said that closing stores has meant a decrease in revenue. How was that done? Was that just an open-ended question?

Ms Karabinos: No. I did a survey a few months back where I went to my membership. I must say, if anyone knows surveys, that this had to be one of the most responsive ones. I believe I had about an 11% response to this survey. It was on all tax matters. It was, "Has the recession hit you?" This was one of the specific questions I asked. "Has Sunday closing affected you? Has it meant an increase in business or a decrease in business? Have you had to lay off employees because of this situation?"

Again, I gave them the option that they could say it was just because of taxes. And everything was listed. There really was not one area that was the result. It was a combination of everything that created this loss of business and revenue that in turn had made them lay off employees.

Mr Carr: Time still? Quickly?

The Acting Chair: You have about two minutes, Mr Carr.

Mr Carr: I just have one last question. A lot has been mentioned about how to protect the workers. Coming from an industry where people do work on Sunday, how do you see that working? Would there be any suggestions you would have to ensure that workers are protected? This whole legislation was to protect the one group, the retail workers, from having to work on Sunday. You are an organization that does work. How do you see that working and can we maybe pick up some tips?

Ms Karabinos: It all varies, but I think the biggest thing is that when an employee comes into our industry -- I keep repeating the word "choice" -- they have the choice. They know this is what the industry is all about and they still want to do it.

I think this is where the difficulty is right now, because we are in a transition where people maybe were hired not thinking they ever had to work on Sunday. I hope the day will come that when they go into a job, that will be one of the conditions, and they will have that choice and will say, "Yes, I will want to work." If they do not want to work, it is not to say they will not get the job. You know, you adjust your schedules accordingly and you suit it. Our industry is service-related. We want people to be happy and to service our customers and they have to be happy with what they are doing.

Mr Fletcher: Thank you for your presentation. I have just a couple of things. You said that with Sunday opening, tourists are going to flock in. So in my jurisdiction, Guelph, where I am from, if we open up the whole city for Sunday shopping we are going to be flooded by tourists?

Ms Karabinos: Would that not be nice?

Mr Fletcher: That is the assumption you made.

Ms Karabinos: I think it is an exaggeration when you are saying "flooded by tourists." I think it will increase the traffic into your city and into your area. There are other things that will contribute. The operating costs for our members or for any employer in this province are so exorbitant that they also contribute to the cost of goods. Sunday shopping is one thing; it is not a real solution to the whole problem. But we could lower our taxes, lower prices --

Mr Fletcher: Just lower prices could be more of an incentive for people to travel around, rather than opening on Sunday.

Ms Karabinos: I think if you had lower prices and they did not have the opportunity to take advantage of the lower prices -- one hand washes the other. I do not really think there is one more important.

Mr Fletcher: Also, you were talking about the United States and its wide-open shopping. I have a little report here from a survey that was conducted by the Wilson Center in Washington, DC. When they asked questions of retail workers in the United States -- "What do you value about your job? What do you really want?" -- the highest priority from these workers was that they wanted their leisure time, their holidays and their vacations. That was the highest response. That received more priority than wage increases. I have heard a lot of people come in and say, "Oh, people love to work on Sundays and holidays." I am not sure about that, especially after I read the results of this survey.

Ms Karabinos: If you will excuse me, I believe you said their vacation and leisure time. I do not think whether they work on Sunday or not would --

Mr Fletcher: Their vacation and holiday time, and Sunday is a holiday.

Ms Karabinos: To me that is not Sunday. To me, vacation and holiday time is time off work, be it Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday or Friday.

Mr Fletcher: Right, and if Sunday were made a holiday, that would be holiday time. As of right now, Sunday is really a holiday. That is what it is booked under, but I am not here to argue that one with you.

The other thing, when you talk about choice -- I come to you for a job and you ask me, "Are you willing to work Sundays?" I say, "Well, no, I don't want to work Sundays; I really think Sundays are my time." Would you hire me?

Ms Karabinos: I think if you were qualified and you were the person I needed to perform that job, I probably would. I am talking on a personal level now. I cannot talk on behalf of my members on this.

Mr Fletcher: But you would not try to talk me into working Sundays or coerce me in any way to work on a Sunday?

Ms Karabinos: No, but I would like to think that any employee and employer work out a good working relationship and at some point in time they come to an agreement.

Mr Fletcher: Yes, it is nice to think that things work that way, but we know they do not always.

Ms Karabinos: I believe in fairy tales.

1530

Mr Mills: Thank you, madam, for being here. I listened. The legislation is draft. We are listening and taking into account everything that everybody says, contrary to any perception or misperception you may have.

I would just like to draw your attention to page 5 of your presentation, as Mr Carr did, when you say that "`interpretation' of the tourism criteria will create a lot of confusion." I just wonder if you know, or have been apprised, that the criteria really came from the tourist industry. Are you aware of that?

Ms Karabinos: I am not fully aware. I would probably -- and I hate using the word -- assume you had input from the tourist area, although I do not know if it was exactly as the final outcome was.

Mr Mills: In developing the criteria, the government focused on the importance of community tourism and on the factors that have been demonstrated over time and in a wide variety of countries. We really looked in depth at that; this is not some wild stab in the dark about the criteria. I really wonder, when you say it could create confusion, when in fact the concept of the criteria came from the industry. I just wanted to make that perfectly clear to you, that the concept of the criteria is not a government idea of tourism but one directed from the industry.

Ms Karabinos: I think you may have misunderstood when I said "confusion." It was not just confusion for the resident there. I felt it would also create confusion at municipal and provincial levels of government as well.

Mr Mills: It is the intention of the government later on down the road -- and we cannot do this now, obviously, because we have not listened to the people -- but when everything is set in place, to provide municipalities and regional municipalities with guidelines to help them come to grips with this. I think the confusion perhaps is a little bit of a misconception in your mind, because we fully intend, once we have heard all the presentations and we have drafted the final legislation and the regulations, to make that information available to everybody and, in addition, it will make the universality of the criteria, whether it be in a little village or in Metropolitan Toronto. I would just like to leave you with that.

The Acting Chair: Thank you for your presentation.

Ms Karabinos: Thank you very much.

Mr Sorbara: On a point of order, Madam Chair: On the last submission the witness was right. Sunday in the province of Ontario is not a holiday under the statutes of the province.

The Acting Chair: Thank you for your information. I do not believe it is a point of order, but thank you for that information. You are so good at sharing information with us, Mr Sorbara.

Mr Fletcher: On a point of order, Madam Chair.

The Acting Chair: This had better be a point of order.

Mr Fletcher: Sunday will be a holiday after this bill is passed.

Mr Sorbara: No, that is not the case.

The Acting Chair: Thank you. Again, that is not a point of order.

Mr Sorbara: No, it is nonsense.

The Acting Chair: Thank you for sharing that with us, Mr Fletcher.

SUSAN MATTHEWS

The Acting Chair: I would now call on Susan Matthews. Ms Matthews, I would ask that you understand we are in some sort of time constraints, as usual.

Ms Matthews: I am an independent. I am not representing any --

The Acting Chair: Yes, I am just reminding you that we have about 15 minutes available for you and within that 15 minutes, your presentation and/or questions, if there is time.

Ms Matthews: Thank you. I think I can cover it in about two to three.

Madam Chair and committee members, my name is Susan Matthews and I reside in the east end of Toronto. I am here as a resident and a taxpayer to say that I am in favour of retail businesses being open on Sunday.

I have worked in the retail business for almost 30 years in one form or another and, as a resident of the Beach area, I am saddened to see the staggering number of business closures over the last year, to say nothing of other area businesses throughout the city and the province.

Toronto is no longer Hogtown nor Toronto the Good of yesterday. We are a magnificent, first-class city, playing at being cosmopolitan and losing millions of dollars a year in the process.

Employees who work in hospitals, hotels, security, entertainment, sports, food services and transportation, to name just a few, are expected to work on Sundays to provide service to the many consumers who choose to use the service when they want to or need to.

Retail is a natural progression to expand this service. People are willing to work hard, including weekends. Students are in desperate need of work to continue their education and the extra hours of Sunday openings would be a welcome addition to their financial needs.

As a city and a country, we have bent over backwards to welcome and assist people of all ethnic and religious backgrounds to settle comfortably in Canada. We should be equally concerned and accommodating of our existing residents by realizing that our modern lifestyle includes Sunday as day of doing for everyone. Should it not be an independent business choice and an independent resident's choice as to how we spend our Sundays?

People are desperately trying to hang on to family businesses, their homes or simply pay the rent and get by. Our high standard of living is extremely expensive in Toronto and we must be competitive with service hours, as well as our prices, if we are going to be successful in implementing free trade with our US neighbours.

Like a television with an on and off switch, we may choose to watch or not. We may choose to shop or not. Allow the residents and the taxpayers to choose for themselves whether their family will spend Sunday at play, work, shopping or the place of worship, or maybe a combination.

In our modern society, time is a valuable commodity and Sunday has become a day of positive activity, particularly when both husband and wife work full-time and Sundays often include shopping excursions. Retail is part and parcel of our modern lifestyle and an integral part of community life.

We have not lost our family values, we are simply moving with the times. Sunday shopping is a benefit. It is not a penalty. It is a positive change and it can be labelled as progress. I believe that we the taxpayers deserve the choice and I thank you.

The Acting Chair: Thank you. About three minutes each.

Mr Sorbara: Thank you, Ms Matthews. That is, I think, as succinct a statement about where we should be going as anyone has made before this committee. You said in your statement that you have been involved in the retail sector for almost 30 years.

Ms Matthews: Yes, I am unusually well-preserved.

Mr Sorbara: That is not where my question was going, although we could talk about that later. What kind of business, running your own business or working within a business? Can you tell us a little bit about that?

Ms Matthews: I have been a retail employee. Presently, I am involved in part-time employment, but for the most part I have been with major department stores and with two of the largest design groups, furniture sales, in Canada.

Mr Sorbara: We will not get into your comments about being well-preserved, but I guess you would remember a few years ago when virtually no major stores were open on Sunday. Is that not the case?

Ms Matthews: Ten years ago I would have fought tooth and nail not to work on a Sunday, I believe.

Mr Sorbara: Timothy Eaton would have --

Ms Matthews: Turned in his grave.

Mr Sorbara: -- turned in his grave had his stores opened on Sunday. But the world has changed, has it not?

Ms Matthews: Yes, and he was a very, very astute businessman and I think he would recognize that you do not change and grow by thinking 30 or 40 years past.

Mr Sorbara: I tend to agree that we are a very different place now and life as we know it will not come to an end in Ontario if we have a great deal more freedom to make personal choices than we have right now, and certainly than we might have under this bill. But although you have attached a list of stores in the Beaches that are opened or out of business --

Ms Matthews: Yes, in fairness to the committee, you should know that was not compiled by me. That was compiled by, I believe, two university students who live in the area. They circulated it throughout the E2 real estate area generally because they were having difficulty getting jobs. It was in stores; it was in doors; it was in a variety of places.

Mr Sorbara: So obviously one of your reasons for coming before this committee is your concern about the terrible state of affairs with businesses in your own communities, with going out of business and bankruptcies and stores for rent.

Ms Matthews: I have lived in Toronto my whole life, Mr Sorbara, and I think it is very sad to see what is happening to family businesses, whether they have been around for a year or 75 years on Bloor Street.

Mr Sorbara: In a very personal way --

The Acting Chair: Mr Sorbara, I believe Mr Daigeler had a question. I do not even have time for Mr Daigeler's question because your time limit was three minutes, as I said. I am sorry.

Mr Sorbara: The government members are not participating in the committee, so maybe we could have their time.

The Acting Chair: Oh, Mr Sorbara, there you go again. Mr Carr, you have your three minutes now and we will go from there.

Mr Carr: Thank you. I will be very quick, and if there is a little bit of time maybe Greg could take it afterwards. You worked in the retail business and said that you changed your mind. One of the concerns that the government has expressed is not so much for the small stores but with the large stores that would force employees to work, and that people would be working against their will. I do not know if you worked in some of the large stores during that period of time, but what is your perception about that? Do you think that it is a valid concern?

Ms Matthews: Yes, I do. Somebody can look you squarely in the eye and say, "Certainly I would not hold it against my employee," but in the grand scheme of ladder-climbing in a very large corporate sense, I think we all realize that sometimes, with personality conflicts or someone who says, "No, I simply have the courage of my convictions; no, I will not work," maybe somebody will say, "They really do not co-operate; we will just hold them back." Yes, that is very valid. But I also think that it is part of the change that is necessary and yes, there will probably be some bumps and bruises, but it is no different from when the stores started to open at night.

Mr Carr: What about, then, the protection that we talk about for the workers that is part of this legislation? Do you think that it is good? Did you have any comments on that, the protection for the --

Ms Matthews: Protection for the employees is paramount, but more than the protection, I think, people desperately need and want extra income. They want to weigh the protection aspect, and the dollar aspect. I know a lot of people who are in that position.

Mr Carr: I do not know if I have used up all my time.

The Acting Chair: That is just about time, Mr Carr.

Mr Frankford: I have been a Beach resident and I earned my living there for a while until I got into this racket.

Mr Poirier: Now you work on Sundays.

Mr Frankford: I gather there are two objectives you would have. One would be preserving the character of the Beach, of Queen Street --

Ms Matthews: I live in the Beach but I am a Torontonian. To Beach people, I am not a Beacher. You have to be there 75 years-plus to be a Beacher. I love Toronto, I live in Toronto, and I am as concerned about Bloor West Village as I am about the Beach area. In my particular area, it does not matter whether it is Tuesday or Sunday, you cannot park there anyway.

Mr Frankford: So you do not like the idea of a tourist area?

Ms Matthews: I think it is brilliant. You live there, you have seen the T-shirts. If this is not a tourist area, who are all these people?

Mr Frankford: Yes, but you are uncomfortable with the tourist area approach in this legislation?

Ms Matthews: I do not care whether it is tourist or what it is. I just think it should happen.

Mr Frankford: Now, look at this list of businesses. Would you not agree that with many of these businesses it is a reflection more of real estate practices on Queen Street?

Ms Matthews: Oh, yes. The rents are exorbitant. But people have been there many, many years and are unable to survive because of the drop in business; they have not been able to keep their noses above water. One in particular that I know of -- and I cannot speak for all because I do not own a business there -- just said they got tired of sitting in the store when they could be sitting at home. They have simply closed their business, they are taking a six-month holiday, and they are going to reopen someplace else.

The Acting Chair: Mr Frankford, I am going to cut in here, if you do not mind, because I am looking at the time, and Mr Mills still has a question.

Mr Mills: Just a comment: On page 2 of your presentation -- and I thank you for being here -- you say that modern lifestyles include Sunday as a day of doing for everyone. I would really question that it is for everyone, because I am particularly concerned about preserving a common pause day as a family day, a day to get together, and perhaps a day to rest and not do anything. I do not really see that it is a day of doing for everyone. Another point you make is "independent business choice and an independent resident's choice as to how we spend our Sundays," that is, shopping. That would be a very nice philosophy, but when we want to engage in shopping, then it entails other folks to be of service to us and to work. I have a little difficulty with your choice of words there, that we want to be free to choose how we spend our Sundays. If you want to spend your Sunday hiking, I have no great qualms with that.

Ms Matthews: I work every third weekend. That is my choice, Saturday and Sunday.

The Acting Chair: Could you make it a question, please.

Mr Mills: I prefaced my comments that it was a comment.

The Acting Chair: I am just worried about you. I always worry about you, Mr Mills.

Mr Mills: I know you are worried about me, and you are not alone. Thank you very much.

The Acting Chair: No, I do not worry about you.

Mr Mills: I am here today really to put a point of view across about this legislation that I feel dearly about.

The Acting Chair: Is there a Mr John Winter in the audience? Then I am going to call a five-minute break, and I would like to start no later than 3:55. That certainly will allow enough time for the next presenter to be here.

The committee recessed at 1546.

1555

BI-WAY STORES LTD

The Acting Chair: I would like to start now. We now have a presentation from Bi-Way. We have Mr Eric Paul and Mr Michael Sherman. Mr Sherman, do I understand that you will be starting?

Mr Sherman: No, Mr Paul.

The Acting Chair: Mr Paul, the way we have been organizing our time is that you have a half-hour for your presentation. You can use that entire half-hour or you can use any part of it. Whatever time is left over after your presentation is equally divided for questions or some comments from the parties here.

Mr Poirier: Within the half-hour.

The Acting Chair: Yes, within the half-hour. I was very clear on that, was I not?

Mr Paul: Within the half-hour. Thank you and good afternoon. I am not sure when you started this morning, but I am sure you have had a long day and I will try to be as brief as possible. As the chairman mentioned, I am Eric Paul, the chairman and chief executive officer of Bi-Way Stores Ltd and I have elected to appear today to voice my concerns about the proposed passage of Bill 115.

Bi-Way, as I am sure most of you are aware, has a long history of providing basic family apparel and household consumables at the lowest possible prices. In Ontario, Bi-Way operates 210 locations in large and small communities. Our sales revenues for last year in Ontario alone were nearly one-half billion dollars. Our customer base consists primarily of low-income families. These are the very people our government wishes to assist by providing better social services and economic programs. We employ approximately 35,000 -- that is, 3,500 Ontarians; maybe that was wishful thinking on my part -- 60% of whom are women. Well over half of these 3,500 people are under the age of 25. For many of these young people, mostly students and recent graduates, a job at Bi-Way represents a first employment opportunity.

Despite our history, quality people and our recent investment in technology of over $10 million, we have serious doubts about our long-term viability if government legislation prevents us from being competitive. The proposed legislation which forbids the people of Ontario from choosing whether or not to shop on Sunday and forbids businesses from serving their customers in the best way they see fit does nothing but make worse the already difficult retail realities of the 1990s. This unfair legislation, like any regulation or restriction in a market economy, ultimately results in higher costs of doing business, proportionately higher retail prices to consumers and reduced capital reinvestment in the economy of this province.

We estimate that Bi-Way will lose 5% in annual sales due to Sunday shopping restrictions, representing $25 million in lost revenues from Ontario alone. We plan no direct reinvestment as a result of these lost revenues and this real decrease in capital investment will directly result in our inability to create new job opportunities. I want to expand my business in this province. I want to create more job opportunities for Ontario workers. Yet I am hindered by legislation such as this. We cannot go on blaming the recession. We have to recognize the realities of the Canadian retail business and work together to help solve these problems, not make them worse.

It is true that Sunday shopping restrictions are not the only problem. Cost structures in Canada remain high as a result of the makeup of our social fabric, the lack of competition and in many instances the predatory pricing practices of multinational enterprises. To insure that Canada will be able to compete in the world economy, our costs of goods on a global and a free-trade basis must be competitive. I must add at this point that I think what we have seen in the marketplace is that we can buy our goods on a cost-competitive basis with competitors south of the border who are on average 10 times our size, business for business. But business must be encouraged to invest in people productivity and technology. We cannot be handcuffed by legislation that further exacerbates an already worsening problem.

Ultimately what I am saying there is that while we may be able to buy our goods on a competitive basis with those direct competitors, if in fact we cannot get the productivity out of our other assets, which is our physical environment and our people, we will not win. I believe we can get it out of our people. The challenge is, how do we get it out of those physical assets?

In Ontario, our tax base is not rising as fast as our need for social services and health care, particularly in light of our aging population. We are just as concerned as you are about reducing health care costs while maintaining adequate quality services. It troubles me that the higher prices to consumers which result from Sunday closures run counter to the stated goals of the provincial government. As a graduate pharmacist, I can appreciate the need for essential services. Essential services such as prescriptions can be provided by hospitals, prescription-only outlets or perhaps full drugstores on a rotation basis.

We currently operate a number of Drug World stores that are larger than the 7,500-square-foot limit imposed by this legislation. Drug World stores strive to provide low-cost prescription drugs to the people of Ontario. Durg World does this by keeping profit margins low and by selling prescription drugs in higher volumes. However, because of the arbitrary size restriction imposed by the Retail Business Holidays Act, Drug World stores are not permitted to open on Sundays.

Shoppers Drug Mart, which, I might add, is not 100% Canadian-owned and is one of Canada's largest sellers of tobacco products, is allowed to remain open on Sundays under the guise of providing emergency prescription services. Regrettably, Shoppers and other stores like it are not as focused on providing low-cost prescription drugs to Ontarians who need them. I ask you, whose interest does this legislation, the 7,500-square-foot limitation, really serve?

I emphasize again that Drug World competes on the basis of low costs. However, we could lower the costs of prescription services even further if we were allowed to compete on a level playing field with our competitors. If this government wants to provide low-cost prescription drugs to Ontarians, I submit that this arbitrary 7,500-square-foot limit be removed from the act.

Our own research indicates the people of Ontario want freedom of choice as to how they spend their free time. In fact, our customer base contains many dual-income households where Sunday becomes the only day the family can shop together. We strongly urge you to consider the opinion of all people of this province and respect the democratic process.

In conclusion, Sunday shopping has been a reality in the United States and parts of Canada for a long period. I have found no information that indicates that Sunday shopping, or the lack thereof, has a beneficial or a negative impact on the family unit. Does the government of Ontario really believe that the fabric of our society is so frail that it can only be safeguarded by enforcing a mandatory common pause day? I think not. On the contrary, a healthy economic environment with full employment will be the challenge of the 1990s in order to prevent further deterioration in our social structures.

Mr Daigeler: I just want to know who the owners of Bi-Way are.

Mr Paul: Bi-Way is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Dylex Ltd.

Mr Sorbara: I am concerned about the submissions you make on the question of the drugstore issue, the 7,500-square-foot limitation. Is it correct to say that generally, overall and given all your product lines, Drug World is a lower-cost facility than Shoppers Drug Mart?

Mr Paul: Yes.

Mr Sorbara: By what, 1% or 2% if you look at all the products?

Mr Paul: No, by a significant percentage. I would be happy to provide the members of the committee with the specifics, but I am not sure what part of the business you are referring to. Are you talking about the prescription part of the business, or overall?

Mr Sorbara: I am talking about overall. The point I am trying to make is that people with smaller incomes get a better deal at Drug World than they do at Shoppers Drug Mart.

Mr Paul: Let me give you some numbers. For those of you who appreciate the retailing industry, the gross margin per cent in a typical drugstore like a Shoppers Drug Mart is around 33%. Drug World is around 20%. That is a 40% reduction.

Mr Sorbara: If I were to do an analysis of your customer base compared with the customer base of Shoppers Drug Mart, I think it would be safe to say that your customers have more modest incomes than the customers of Shoppers Drug Mart.

Mr Paul: Yes, our research indicates that certainly we are heavily skewed to a lower-income demographic.

Mr Sorbara: The fact is that under this legislation, those with higher income will be able to continue to shop at their local Shoppers Drug Mart and the more modest income part of Ontario that shops at Drug World will not be able to shop on Sunday. Is that fair?

Mr Paul: I think that is a fair assumption.

Mr Sorbara: Do you think that is a fair law?

Mr Paul: No, I certainly do not.

Mr Sorbara: Have you made any submissions to the government or to the minister about why the arbitrary restriction of 7,500 square feet is in the act?

Mr Paul: Yes, my presentation today is a summary basically of a number of letters that have been written to the Premier and the minister regarding these issues.

Mr Sorbara: Have you received responses from the Premier or the minister?

Mr Paul: Yes, I have.

Mr Sorbara: And what have they said?

Mr Paul: Basically that they were considering all my suggestions and that they were going to committee.

Mr Sorbara: Would you like to hear today from the government members that they will remain open to changing the 7,500-square-foot arbitrary provision?

Mr Paul: I think it would be an insult to my efforts if I did not hear some kind of consideration from the government of the efforts of the people.

Mr Sorbara: I would like to hear from the government members as well, specifically in reference to the 7,500-square-foot provision, which is a clear example of where this bill is a preference for the rich and a burden on the poor. The rich get to shop in the stores they want to shop in and continue to have Ontario as their playland on Sunday, and poorer people with more modest incomes have the stores in their neighbourhood closed to them.

Mr Poirier: I look at the top of the last page that you have. It says, "It troubles me that the higher prices to consumers which result from Sunday closures run counter to the stated goals...." Could you expand on that? I find that interesting. You seem to say that if you are open seven days a week, including Sundays, you would be able to provide lower prices.

Mr Paul: In the retailing industry, for anybody who is a student of it, they call it the productivity loop, and certainly anybody who is up to date on survival in the 1990s will understand this. Basically it says that the higher the productivity of all your assets, the lower your prices can be, because it is a self-fulfilling situation. It is that kind of a process. In fact, if you eliminate one seventh of our productivity by allowing us not to be open on Sunday, which turned out on a per-hour basis to be the most productive day of the week in our environment, we are at a distinct disadvantage compared to somebody else who is allowed to be open for that period of time. In addition, somebody who is a loyal customer of ours who may need emergency prescription services cannot get them from the company he is supporting every day. They have to go somewhere else. I think that is patently unfair.

Mr Poirier: Fair enough. Sometimes you hear about the higher cost of doing business on a Sunday and that there is not an economic advantage to being open on a Sunday. What you are saying is contrary to what we hear sometimes. That is why I am interested to hear from you.

Mr Paul: I can appreciate there are issues about the right of the individual to work on Sunday, and I think this government has done some good things, in my opinion, with regard to labour practices, in protection of the worker, health and safety and many other areas, and I support all that. I think the good legislation --

Interjections.

Mr Paul: Whomever's it is. I think there is good value in that. I must tell you today -- and I represent big business to this committee perhaps -- that big business is more susceptible to the will of their employees than little business, because I cannot run 280 stores by myself. The only way we can run those stores is with good, effective employee relations and practices. Therefore, I think there are ways to buffer that issue, which has been one of the main issues of this government, and still provide the kind of open environment that will allow all of us to have freedom of choice. I guess that is my issue at the end of the day.

1610

Mr Carr: Thank you for taking the time to do that presentation. It was well thought out. I was looking at the first page, with regard to the 5% loss in sales, and I was wondering if you could tell us, if it is public knowledge, where your particular company stands now. Are you in a loss position, if that is public knowledge, and if so is it bad?

Mr Paul: Our company is not in a loss position for a number of reasons. The first reason is that we really are offering value to the consumer and in these difficult times many consumers are coming to us because they have no choice. We define our customers as two types of customers, apropos Mr O'Connor's remark which I just caught the edge of. We have them defined as no-choice and choice customers. We have an awful lot of no-choice customers at Bi-Way. If they do not shop with us, they go to welfare. That is their next opportunity. On the other hand, we do have some choice consumers, so I guess the economic times and perhaps some of the things we are doing are contributing to our success in the near term.

I am going to give this committee a retail lesson, if I may be so candid, and give you some numbers because these are real numbers, not on our business, but on survival. The number one competitors in this business, who are all coming from the US, have operating overheads as a percentage of their total business of 20% or less. There is not one Canadian retail operation, exclusive of food -- I am not talking about food operators -- that comes within 50% of that. If you had all your money invested in this province in a viable retailing entity and through legislation you are going bankrupt -- a US competitor is allowed to move into your marketplace, open up a business here, run it however it sees fit, not worry about the six or seven days, have a 10 to 1 economic advantage on top of it all, and can be predatory-pricing just south of the border. What are you doing to us today? You are not allowing us to compete.

I think this government has to listen to industry. I will be happy to sit and open my books to you on a private basis and let you understand retailing. When we talk about the word "survival," sometimes at this committee and in what appears in the press, I get the feeling you think we are just using that as cannon fodder. I assure you that the malls are running today with a 20% -- not quite a 20%, but almost a 20% -- vacancy rate. The reason we do not really know what the vacancy rate is is that some people are sitting in the malls not paying rent, because the landlords would rather have a store that is filled than a store that is empty. We believe that is going to go up, and if that goes up, the tax base erodes, and that is the issue.

Mr Carr: It seems you have thought this out very well and you are a very intelligent individual. Why do you believe the government is proceeding if so much of this legislation is hurting you? What is your feeling of why they are proceeding in this manner that will hurt companies like yours?

Mr Paul: That is a difficult question for me to answer. Certainly I think there is an issue about the quality of life and the family structure, and certainly in difficult economic times we see it breaking down all over the place. We are a company that probably sees it as quickly as anybody. We see it in our stores. I see it in shoplifting. I just see it in the nature and the number of people we are catching every day in our stores, and there are some pretty sad cases. They are not shoplifting because it is a frivolous thing. In many cases they are shoplifting necessities, and that is sad. So I appreciate the issues of social fabric in family life. Without a decent economic base there will never be a common pause day. That day will be used for the things you read about in the paper every day, which are not pleasant, because when the economic stress becomes so great people react in ways they never thought possible.

Mr Carr: One of the concerns the government has put forward is for large organizations like yours. It feels it has to protect the workers of large organizations, and we have heard from some of the other groups, your parent corporation, that talked a little bit about how they tried to address that. The perception from the government is that it does not have to worry about the smaller companies, that it is the big, bad large businesses. I was wondering if you could enlighten us as to how you see protecting your employees. You seem like a reasonable person who is genuinely concerned about employees.

Mr Paul: I do not know who claims credit for the bill, but despite that, there is good labour legislation with regard to safety, etc, and things of that nature can certainly be implemented to make sure that the rights of the workers are protected as far as Sunday is concerned. I have no issue with that because I believe we will not have a problem getting people who are industrious, who need a second income or a third income, or are students, or whatever it is, and will want to work. If we cannot get people because of that, then I will tell you what will happen ultimately: We will pay more.

Mr Carr: You would never force anybody to work on Sunday.

Mr Paul: It is a market economy.

Mr Carr: You would never force anybody to work on Sunday against his wishes.

Mr Paul: We believe our employees are five-day-a-week employees, whoever they are, our managers, assistant managers, whatever, and we just do not do that. We have not done it and we did not have any trouble finding people while we were allowed to remain open.

Mr Fletcher: Thank you for coming today. I am just looking at a couple of items. One is that you believe in freedom of choice. My choice is not to work on Sunday. You do not have a problem with that?

Mr Paul: Not at all.

Mr Fletcher: If I were your employee and you asked me to work Sunday and I said I would not work Sunday --

Mr Paul: Absolutely not; I would respect that.

Mr Fletcher: I am glad to hear that. Another thing is on the next paragraph, that you found no information that indicates Sunday shopping or the lack thereof has a beneficial or a negative impact on the family unit. Let me just quote from Loblaws, the food chain:

"The store business" -- this is their quote, not mine -- "is not a nine-to-five, Monday-to-Friday job. Converting it to a round-the-clock, seven-days-a-week environment will no doubt negatively impact our employees' obligation to family and religious beliefs and ultimately strain the employer-employee relationship. The traditional family is being buried and I would suggest that Sunday opening will be the shovel that digs the grave."

Perhaps I can quote once more from Lynne Arling, president of the Consumers' Association of Canada -- Alberta Branch:

"The biggest argument against Sunday shopping is the social cost. One working parent on Sunday means families cannot be together for meals or activities. Surveys found senior citizens in nursing homes get fewer visits and fewer outings with their families in areas where Sunday shopping is allowed."

I am getting this information from people -- as I said, Loblaws and also in Alberta where they have wide-open Sunday shopping -- that there is a detrimental effect on the family unit. As you said, you see it all the time. You will see it in your business. There is an effect.

If I can carry it a little further, when we have a lot of students working, surveys have already shown that for students who are working, either after school or during the week, their marks are not as good and their performance level is down.

Mr Paul: You are a little younger than I am, but --

Mr Fletcher: Not that much, I will bet.

Mr Paul: -- let me just make two comments to you.

In this society there are all kinds of people and I guess we can take them from the cradle to the grave. The reality is that the student who is financing his education is going to be concerned about his job and his marks and everything else, and the student who does not want to study and wants to do drugs or whatever else, or steal or shoplift -- I cannot prevent that. I think good parental guidance and the right kind of upbringing can do that.

My issue in making the remark was that I have seen no statistical basis. I have looked at the research in the US, and everywhere I can find it, and I could not find anything substantive that showed the social fabric of the area, the country or whatever was changed dramatically as a result one way or the other. I am just saying to you that I could not see something substantive in a piece of research that is well documented anywhere.

Mr Fletcher: I was just looking at surveys, not statistical research that was done.

There was one other thing you alluded to when you talked about shoplifting. We open up Sundays. Does that mean we will have to increase the number of police on duty to handle the increase in shoplifting, which could occur because now you have seven days to shoplift instead of six? Public transportation: In the city I come from we do not have Sunday bus service. If we have to put in Sunday bus service to allow people to travel to the stores --

Mr Paul: Let me ask you the question: How is it that so many people without cars, transportation or any other means, can shop in the US? The stats that just came out today or yesterday -- do you know how many million visits there were to the US last year?

Mr Fletcher: From Canada.

Mr Paul: Yes.

Mr Fletcher: These are people who are driving down.

Mr Paul: It was 52 million.

Mr Fletcher: I understand.

Mr Paul: Up 30%. I cannot remember the exact stat. I cannot remember if that was a first six months or a first nine months number. It is mind-boggling.

Mr Fletcher: My point is if there is wide-open Sunday shopping in my city and we have to increase bus service, my taxes go up.

Mr Paul: If you do not have the income there and you have the income in the US, you are not going to have a tax base. Which would you prefer to have, a tax base or no tax base? Because if they are south of the border, you have no tax base. I would rather have them and have a tax base. At least I could support my bus drivers, my workers and my society for all the other reasons. That is my concern, Mr Fletcher.

1620

Mr Fletcher: Yes, but what I am saying is that throughout Ontario municipalities are going to have to pick up the costs of increased bus service, of increased policing, and day care facilities are going to be needed.

Mr Paul: Who do you think the municipalities have had their largest tax increases on? Who do you think the municipalities are taxing?

Mr Fletcher: Me.

Mr Paul: No.

Mr Fletcher: Yes.

Mr Paul: No.

Mr Fletcher: You are darned right.

Mr Paul: Absolutely not, sir. I beg to differ.

Mr Fletcher: Check my tax books.

Mr Paul: I would suggest to you that the retail industry and the landlords and the property owners have had the highest tax increases to support the services you are talking about.

Mr Fletcher: I am a property owner.

Mr Paul: In fact, I can give you a stat. Can I give you one stat?

Mr Fletcher: I will come back with a stat.

Mr Paul: Okay.

Mr Fletcher: Go ahead.

Mr Paul: We have communities in Ontario where the tax base went up 186% last year. They might have been unusually low before that; I do not know.

Mr Fletcher: The cost to the city of Mississauga to provide services to satisfy Sunday shopping is going to be $700,000 per year.

Mr Mills: Thank you, Mr Paul, for being here this afternoon. I just want to take up on what my friend and colleague said earlier, that we are here to listen. I have made a point at every presentation to say how we are listening here and I represent one member of the government caucus. I say it again, we are here to listen. However, there are some common principles that are not negotiable. One is the common pause day. That is not negotiable. The rights of the retail worker to refuse work is not negotiable and the tourism exemption is not negotiable.

On the regulations, whatever they may be, and whatever we may decide about sizes of stores, I would say we are listening. That is what we are here for, because if we were not here to listen, it would be a mockery of this exercise. I remember that when this Sunday shopping group travelled the province last time, one of our members had a duck or a chicken or something, and he said we were not listening, that we were here but not listening. Sir, we are listening.

I have to make that statement, because Mr Sorbara asked it on behalf of Mr Paul.

You do not know me, but I am very cagey on spending a dollar.

Mr Paul: We all are these days.

Mr Mills: I listen here to the cost of prescription services, and that is always a sore point in my mind. Maybe you can help me. Is there some sort of rule set in place among pharmacists that the dispensing fee is universal, be it Shoppers Drug Mart, Drug World or wherever, and that the flexibility is in the price of the drugs? I think that is important, because we are trying to reduce health costs, as you probably know.

Mr Paul: I guess you are dealing with a subject that is near and dear to my own heart.

Mr Mills: Yes, I presumed.

Mr Paul: Let me just tell you how I feel about it. There are no regulations governing pricing per se. There is a pharmaceutical association in the province and that governs the practice of the individual pharmacist. Therefore, whatever you establish as your prescription fee is what you can charge. That is what you charge the public, and that is the same fee the government will pay you on supported fees.

What I am saying to you is that because the Ontario College of Pharmacists is a self-serving body, and the people on that body are very self-serving to a number of the major retailers, Shoppers Drug Mart being one of them, it is obviously in their best interest to make sure the prescription fee, which is a very insignificant part of their profit equation, is pushed to as high a level as they possibly can.

On the other hand, in my particular business, I sell a different assortment. I sell prescription fees. I have health and beauty aids and things. I also sell apparel in my stores. It is a combination store. Therefore, I believe that in a free market economy not governed by that regulation I could reduce the cost of prescription fees 50%.

Today the government is paying because Shoppers Drug Mart sets the precedent. I do not know what the exact rate is today, $9.95, I believe, or something like that.

Mr Mills: It is $9.65.

Mr Paul: Okay, $9.65 for every prescription filled in this province. I tell you, sir, that is patently ridiculous. I do not know how many prescriptions you pay for annually, but multiply that by $5 and that is what you could save, in my opinion. That is a significant number.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Paul. I am sure your presentation has been most enlivening. It certainly seems to have got a lot of response.

Mr Sorbara: I have a brief point of order arising, Mr Chairman, from the questioning of my friend Mr Fletcher of the witness. Mr Fletcher, for the second time, has read a quote which he attributes to Loblaws. Since his second reading of that quote, I have checked with representatives of Loblaws. I want to advise you, sir, that Loblaws is currently a member of the Committee for Fair Shopping and is currently taking a case to the Supreme Court of Canada which challenges the constitutionality of the Retail Business Holidays Act. The position Mr Fletcher is purporting to attribute to Loblaws is a quote from some five or six years ago and is no longer the position of Loblaws. I think it is inappropriate for him to continue to use that quote with the intention of suggesting to the general public or to this committee that the position of Loblaws in Ontario is as reflected in that quote.

Mr Fletcher: Mr Chair, on that point of order: I have a presentation from the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union. It was given to the Scarborough-Agincourt Provincial Liberal Riding Association in 1990. That is where I am getting it from.

The Chair: Our next presentation is from the Ontario Committee for Enforcement of Holiday Closing Laws. We have no presenter? I would suggest that we recess for five minutes, and if the delegation does not appear that we adjourn until tomorrow morning.

The committee recessed at 1628.

1636

ONTARIO COMMITTEE FOR ENFORCEMENT OF HOLIDAY CLOSING LAWS

The Chair: I would like to call our committee hearings back to order. Do we have a presenter? Mr Adams, from the Ontario Committee for Enforcement of Holiday Closing Laws? Mr Kingdon would like to make a short note for that committee. My understanding is that it is not a presentation, though.

Mr Kingdon: Thank you, Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. I am a member of the Ontario committee and Bud Adams was to have been here. Whether he is hung up in traffic or what I cannot tell you. I have tried to reach him by phone, and of course it is 4:30 and like all hardworking people he has gone. At least, the office is closed. So I am in the position of apologizing for the fact that Bud is not here, and perhaps there will be a time later on in the proceedings when he might address this committee.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Kingdon. Any further business?

Mr Sorbara: It is regrettable we are not going to be able to hear at this point from Mr Adams, but we have heard from the Premier and he has announced that there is going to be a cabinet shuffle tomorrow at 9, so I want to say how nice it was to work with Mrs Haslam on this committee and wish her good luck in her new responsibilities as the Solicitor General, and Gord, sorry, and I want to say to Mr Fletcher, sorry you did not get considered this time around.

Mrs Haslam: We want to extend our condolences to you for not having a post either.

Mr Mills: I would just like to say, Mr Chairman, that quote about my colleague Karen is in the Toronto Sun, and you, as a baseball man, should realize that all the trades that happen are never mentioned in the press. Borders is supposed to be going to the Expos tomorrow, but that will not happen.

Mr Lessard: I wonder if we can get the agreement of all the parties that in the event that Bud Adams from the Committee for Enforcement of Holiday Closing Laws is available, the committee does agree to hear him at a time when it is appropriate to schedule him.

The Chair: Providing there is time available.

Mr Lessard: Yes.

The Chair: The clerk asked me a very simple question, which is, should he then jump ahead of other people who are presently on the waiting list?

Mr Sorbara: I would have thought not, Mr Chairman.

Clerk of the Committee: I have not been back to my office yet today, but my understanding from my office is that there is now a waiting list. There are more messages sitting in my office of people who want to get on to this schedule. At this point this schedule is jammed.

Mr Sorbara: I would just say on behalf of our caucus that while we really would enjoy hearing from Mr Adams, we think he should be considered along with anyone else, in that it would be inappropriate to bump someone from the agenda or rearrange the waiting list to accommodate Mr Adams.

Mrs Haslam: If he does show up, what about asking him for his written --

Mr Sorbara: Anyone can submit written documents.

Mrs Haslam: Yes, we have written submissions but we do not have his. What I am saying is, please be sure we ask for his written material.

The Chair: We resume at 9:30 tomorrow.

The committee adjourned at 1640.