CONTENTS
Tuesday 8 October 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
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Chair: Cooper, Mike (Kitchener-Wilmot NDP)
Vice-Chair: Morrow, Mark (Wentworth East NDP)
Carr, Gary (Oakville South PC)
Carter, Jenny (Peterborough NDP)
Chiarelli, Robert (Ottawa West L)
Fletcher, Derek (Guelph 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)
Substitution: Callahan, Robert V. (Brampton South L) for Mr Poirier
Also taking part: Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North L)
Clerk: Freedman, Lisa
Staff: Beecroft, Doug, Research Officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1540 in room 228.
RETAIL BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES ÉTABLISSEMENTS DE COMMERCE DE DÉTAIL
Resuming consideration of Bill 115, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act and the Employment Standards Act in respect of the opening of retail business establishments and employment in them.
Reprise de l'étude du projet de loi 115, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les jours fériés dans le commerce de détail et la Loi sur les normes d'emploi en ce qui concerne l'ouverture des établissements de commerce de détail et l'emploi dans ces établissements.
The Chair: We are continuing debate on Mr Chiarelli's amendment to Mr Morrow's motion. Is there any further debate? Mr Harnick.
Mr Harnick: It is interesting to note --
Interjections.
Mr Harnick: Mr Chairman, could you call the room to order, particularly the minister, who I notice is here to suffer with us through this unbearable piece of legislation, made more unbearable by the amendments that were provided on a Friday afternoon in typical socialist-government style.
Of interest before us now is a motion that was brought by Mr Morrow and it states that clause-by-clause consideration -- well, let me go back. We now have a motion in front of us to bring back the Sunday shopping legislation that was adjourned a few weeks ago. When that was adjourned a few weeks ago, it was by way of a motion from Mr Morrow, who moved that clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 115 be postponed to a future date as agreed to by the committee. Of course, in typical NDP style, the wording of that motion was without any thought. Now they have brought a motion to bring it back.
The Chair: Mr Harnick, may I remind you we are speaking to the amendments.
Mr Harnick: I am getting to the amendments. No, we are not speaking to the amendments; we are speaking to a motion.
The Chair: Mr Chiarelli's amendment to Mr Morrow's motion.
Mr Harnick: That is right. Mr Chiarelli's amendment was to see if we defer this until January. If we go back and look at this whole transaction from the beginning, it is interesting to note that because of the wording of Mr Morrow's original motion, which says that it will be postponed to a future date, as agreed to, that means we have to have agreement to bring this matter back.
That is the wording of the motion that Mr Morrow put before us, and prior to getting into this any further -- and I do not wish to give up my opportunity to speak -- I think the chairman should, by way of a preliminary matter, determine whether any of this is in order at all.
The fact of the matter is that Mr Morrow's precise motion was that this would be postponed to a future date as agreed to by the committee. I am submitting to you, Mr Chair, that we cannot sit in this committee and do this by way of speeches and motions and interim motions for amending the motion on the floor. We have to look at the wording of Mr Morrow's motion. It says that we must agree to the date that this is coming back, and it is very precise.
By way of a point of order, I think that before we go any further, you must determine whether we are going through the motions here, because I submit that this is a waste of time. We all have to sit down and agree to a date to bring this back, and unless we can agree, this particular piece of legislation, as of now, is dead in the water because we cannot agree.
Mr Winninger: In your humble opinion.
Mr Harnick: In my humble opinion it is. The date submitted by the Liberals would obviously be the starting point that we have to be at, and we have to sit down as a subcommittee, because that is why we have a subcommittee, to agree to the date to bring this back. I think you were premature in continuing any discussion about this matter. You have a subcommittee, you have rules, you have standing orders. I would like the clerk to hear this, if Mr Morrow can --
Mr Morrow: I am asking a question, if you do not mind.
Mr Harnick: Maybe you should wait to ask your question. You have already brought the fatal motion. It seems to me that we have a subcommittee made up of representatives of each of the parties. Prior to this motion appearing here -- and I think what is going on here is totally out of order -- we must take this to the subcommittee and the future date must be agreed to, according to Mr Morrow's motion. I do not know what attempts there have been to agree to a date, but that is what the motion says. Pursuant to the standing orders, I think you were premature in proceeding with this matter and we should be adjourned today. We should be adjourned until the subcommittee, which is a group of three people, so that there is a way to break a deadlock --
Mr Morrow: On a point of order, Mr Chairman.
Mr Harnick: No, you cannot interrupt my point of order.
The Chair: If I may make my ruling right now --
Mr Harnick: Well, let me finish. Let me finish.
The Chair: I do not think we need any further debate.
Mr Harnick: Then your partisanship has prevented you from being objective in making a ruling from the chair, if you are prepared to make the ruling without even hearing me finish. I can see that you are biased and you should remove yourself from the chair. You cannot contain order in this room as a Chairman and now you --
The Chair: My ruling is that the motion is in order, because what we are trying to find here is agreement within the committee. Agreement means the majority of the committee, not unanimous consent.
Mr Harnick: With all due respect, we have subcommittees. We have subcommittees where this should have been agreed to. I am telling you that pursuant to the standing orders, you are out of order bringing this to the committee prior to its going to the subcommittee.
Mr Fletcher: Are you challenging the Chair?
Mr Morrow: Are you challenging the Chair?
Mr Harnick: No, I am finishing my submission.
The Chair: Mr Harnick, I have already made my ruling. Mr Morrow on a point of order.
Mr Morrow: The point of order is, are we dealing with my original motion to defer this to a later date?
Mr Harnick: Your original motion told us how to do --
The Chair: We are dealing with Mr Chiarelli's amendment to your original motion.
Mr Morrow: That is what I thought we were dealing with. Thank you very much.
Mr Sorbara: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I think there is a little bit of confusion now with the committee. My impression was that, as you correctly stated, we were debating the amendment moved by Mr Chiarelli to the main motion moved by Mr Morrow. My friend Mr Harnick was speaking to that amendment, not on a point of order. He was speaking on the amendment and therefore a ruling as to the content of his speech was technically, sir, inappropriate.
I did note, however, that in his remarks he seemed to move from being the first speaker today on the motion to sort of coming in the back door with a point of order without advising the committee that he was terminating his remarks for the moment to raise a point of order. So I just put it to you, where are we in these proceedings? Does Mr Harnick have the floor and is he speaking to the amendment moved by Mr Chiarelli to the motion moved by Mr Morrow? If he is, do not interrupt him.
The Chair: If Mr Harnick chooses to speak to the amendment, he does have the floor.
Mr Sorbara: Yes, good. Why do we not just get on with that?
Mr Harnick: Now that my point of order has been ruled upon, I am prepared to discuss Mr Chiarelli's very sound amendment to the motion that is on the floor. His amendment, as I understand it, is to defer the Sunday shopping legislation until January. The essence of the amendment indicates that the government should go back to the drawing board. They should reconsider this matter and they should take the necessary time to do it properly, either to scrap this legislation altogether or to bring in proper amendments that will accomplish something. These amendments will not accomplish anything except continuing a regime of Sunday shopping legislation that is imprecise, that breeds confusion and that causes a lot of hardship to a lot of people.
1550
I go back to May 16, 1990, when the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force recommended two options. They recommended that the bylaw should be written clearly, without exemptions, and allow retail establishments the choice of legally remaining open on Sunday during prescribed hours; very simple, very straightforward, and something that we could all live with. Their other option was that all retail businesses, with the exception of restaurants, cinemas, theatres, etc, must close on Sunday. You have two very precise options, not the muddle that you have now made worse by the amendments that have been proposed.
If you want a common pause day and you want that common pause day to reflect your particular interests in society -- because Sunday does not represent my interests; it may represent your interests -- then go ahead and pick option 2, because option 2 says that all retail businesses close and we have a level playing field. We do not have a myriad of exemptions. It is understandable by all and it represents the NDP common pause day. It certainly does not represent my common pause day or the common pause day of numerous people in Ontario. But if that represents the NDP common pause day, then that is what you should do.
Let me move on to discuss the amendments. The amendments do nothing to follow either option 1 or option 2, as set out by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force. The amendments merely attempt to rid the exemptions that the government wrote into the original piece of legislation. The government decided that it wanted to have Sunday shopping, but it had second thoughts because it also wanted to have a pause day. Like everything else this government does, the left hand cannot agree on what the right hand is doing. They decided to make things even more confused, and they came up with a whole pile of amendments, the gist of which would be to eliminate the exemptions, the tourist exemptions and whatever other exemptions there are, by permitting people access to the Ontario Municipal Board. I point out in the amendment of subsection 1(3.1), which is subsection 8(1) of the act, that any interested person can apply to the Ontario court to obtain an order that a retail establishment close. So anybody can come along and close up a business.
The other method of doing that is the amendment by way of subsection 1(1) of the bill, subsection 4(6) of the act. That basically says that a municipality shall hold a public meeting in respect of a proposed bylaw for a tourist exemption. They will publish a notice of the public meeting and they will permit anybody who wants to do so to come and make representations. Then the next step would be that they will go ahead and any person who objects, after they have gone through the charade of the public meeting, can go to the Ontario Municipal Board by filing a copy of a notice of appeal, setting out the nature of the objection to the bylaw and the reasons that support the objection. This notice of appeal must be filed not later than 30 days after the bylaw is passed by the council.
Anybody, no matter where he lives, can go to the Ontario Municipal Board. They might live in Toronto and not like the fact that Hamilton might have a Sunday shopping bylaw, a tourist exemption, that permits Sunday shopping in Hamilton. That person from Toronto will wander on down the Queen Elizabeth Way and file his objection with the municipal board because he does not like Sunday shopping in Hamilton even though he lives in Toronto. They can do that by filing an objection.
Mr Morrow: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I would just like to point out that we have the honourable minister sitting here. The Honourable Allan Pilkey being very busy, if we are going to deal with the amendments to my original motion, is it agreeable that the minister can now leave?
The Chair: As in our discussion at the last meeting, Mr Morrow, it is up to the minister whether he wishes to stay or leave.
Mr Morrow: He has been here every day. Thank you very much.
Mr Harnick: I think it is a rather wonderful thing that the minister is coming here to listen to this and I think, if anything, the minister should be credited for being here so he can hear the opinions of people on this committee. The minister does us all proud because he shows he is listening. He is here and he understands the problems. I find it hard to believe that members of his own party want him to leave and not listen to what is going on here because a light may go on and the minister may say, "I really can make this legislation better than it is." I think the minister is to be credited for being here.
Interjections.
Mr Sorbara: On a point of order, Mr Chair: My good friend the member for Guelph used a term that I do not think ought to be used in this committee, so if he will just retract, we will get on with the debate and expeditiously move through discussion of the amendment to the motion that Mr Morrow moved. I invite him to do that on behalf of my party.
The Chair: I did not hear what he said.
Mr Sorbara: I will put it on the record again. He said, "The member is slime." The member is not slime. The member is a good and faithful representative of his constituents. If my friend Mr Fletcher just withdraws that, we can get on expeditiously with the debate.
The Chair: I am sure if that is what the member said, he would be more than happy to withdraw.
Mr Fletcher: Are you asking me to withdraw, Mr Chair?
Mr Sorbara: It is not a difficult thing to do, Derek. Just say, "I withdraw the remark."
The Chair: If that is what you said.
Mr Fletcher: Mr Chair, I have no problem withdrawing the statement as long as the member at least has the courtesy not to twist someone else's words around.
The Chair: Are you withdrawing, Mr Fletcher?
Mr Fletcher: Of course, I said I would.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Harnick, you have the floor on the amendment.
Mr Harnick: Just carrying on, the essence of what I am saying is that these amendments are a total contradiction of the act as it first arrived. It shows that time has not been taken to deliver amendments that make any logical sense out of what people said when they came to this committee. I think to offer a tourist exemption and then take it away shows that the government does not know what it wants to do with this legislation.
They offer a tourist exemption so there can be Sunday shopping. They then realize that the tourist exemption can be implemented by every single municipality in this province, and virtually every municipality in this province has indicated that it will implement the tourist exemption. So what does the government do? It hastily goes back and provides amendments that will surely defeat the whole intent of the legislation on its face.
These amendments are so contradictory to the original parts of the act that still exist, they cannot rest side by side and have anybody walk away and say, "We now have good Sunday shopping legislation." What I believe should happen is that Mr Chiarelli's amendment to the motion will permit the minister to take this legislation back and decide whether he wants the options that the Metropolitan Toronto Police indicated, the options they said were available, that either it should be written clearly without exemptions and allow the retail establishments the choice of legally remaining open on Sunday during prescribed hours, or all retail businesses, with the exception of restaurants, cinemas, theatres, etc, must close on Sunday.
1600
The minister now has a choice. He cannot leave these sections in the bill without their contradicting the sections as originally brought down. You cannot ask the police to enforce a piece of legislation that is so contradictory within its own body. I think you are asking the impossible of law enforcement officers. These proposed amendments are totally contradictory to the act as presented. You cannot have it every which way; you have to make a decision. If you cannot make a decision, then hoist the whole thing and start over. That is what Mr Chiarelli's motion will give you the opportunity to do. Nobody is going to hold it against you; they are going to applaud you. But if this legislation remains as it is, they are going to make a mockery of it. It is a joke and people are going to use this legislation to embarrass the Solicitor General.
If the Solicitor General takes it, reviews it and tries again and takes it back to the drawing board -- and he can do that. He was not the minister who delivered this bill to start with, so he has that option. He is not contradicting himself, he is going back and starting again. He is starting again and he is going to bring back a bill that is not contradictory within the same act. He is not going to have sections that say, "You can shop on Sunday because you have a tourist exemption," and other sections that say, "There will be no tourist exemption if anybody objects."
I have not even started to get into the idea of the Ontario Municipal Board hearing objections. There can be thousands and thousands of objections across this province. How is the Ontario Municipal Board going to handle these objections? Surely this idea is ill-conceived. I know Mr Winninger is familiar with the Ontario Municipal Board and he will be the first person to tell you that it cannot handle the volume of cases it has now. If thousands of people object, and I suspect it will happen, how is that board going to be able to handle it? They cannot possibly handle this amendment.
Mr Winninger: Not so. They say they can.
Mr Harnick: Not without tripling the size of the operation, and I have not seen anything in these amendments that indicates the Ontario Municipal Board will be receiving more money from the province; that it will have more court space available to hear these cases; that it will have more members on the tribunal; that the staff to process the objections will be increased; that the operation will be computerized so people will know the date their hearing is going on. I do not see any of that. I cannot see how you can bring this piece of legislation in such haste.
It is interesting, because when you look at what people have said about this legislation, they are opposed to it, with very few exceptions. I can even point to members of trade unions -- not the union leaders but the trade union people, the people who do the work. What do they say? In families with at least one member who is a member of a trade union, over 70% of them are in favour of some kind of Sunday shopping. But what does this legislation do? Does it answer for those approximately 70% who want Sunday shopping? Does it answer whether we are going to have Sunday shopping or not? It does not answer those questions. It just says, "We're going to give you Sunday shopping with a tourist exemption and we're going to take it away with an objection by anybody from anywhere."
Mr Winninger: You are losing your audience, Charles.
Mr Harnick: I have never spoken to such a big audience in this committee. This is the biggest audience I have ever had and I am just amazed at the interest this bill is provoking. It is interesting. We sat through the support and custody orders enforcement bill, the SCOE bill, earlier and I do not think we had an audience of one or two people, and that was a very important bill. But here we have more people than I have ever seen come to this committee, and we are not even in the middle of hearings, so the interest is there.
I know that all these people sitting here watching are wondering, "How come they told us we were going to have Sunday shopping with a tourist exemption?" and now they are saying, "How come they have brought all these amendments that say the tourist exemption is being eliminated?" -- because everybody wants to know.
Everybody wants the government to go back and take this piece of legislation and start again and declare a position. Either it is for Sunday shopping, or it is against Sunday shopping. If you are for it, then bring us legislation that says you are for it, and if you are against it, bring us legislation that says you are against it. But to bring us this hybrid is really not answering the question the public wants to hear.
The other thing that disturbs me -- and I think it deserves the minister's attention and it deserves some thought and time -- is the fact that not only by these proposed amendments are you taking the tourist exemption away, but you also have the rules that provide the means to obtain the tourist exemption -- the criteria, if you will, contained in the regulations, and the regulations can be changed by the cabinet without bringing amendments before the Legislature. So you really do not need all these amendments if you want that tourist exemption. If you find the tourist exemption does not work, sit around the cabinet and make the order in council, because you can amend the regulations without bringing it back to the Legislature.
I do not think that is right, because that is the pith and substance of this legislation. It is the tourist exemption. But surely, if the legislation says you can change the regulations by order in council, why do you have to confuse things with these amendments? If, after you try to work this legislation for a while and we see whether it is working, if it is not working, then by order in council change the regulations, because that is what the act says you can do. Why burden the Ontario Municipal Board? Why come up with an amendment such as subsection 1(1) of the bill, proposed, section 4.3 of the act, when you do not even have to do that? If you are going to bring amendments, bring ones that are sensible, that are not contradictory to the intent of the act, and then after you try the act for a while and see whether it is working, decide whether you are going to go back to the cabinet table and change it.
We lived with wide-open Sunday shopping for nine months and, with all due respect to the government, this legislation is not necessary, because after that nine-month trial period we learned that Sunday shopping was not the demon people made it out to be. Sunday shopping was accepted by the public almost universally.
In my constituency there was a period when the majority of my constituents were opposed to Sunday shopping, and they told me that. In my most recent newsletter I sent out a questionnaire and asked my constituents whether they were in favour of Sunday shopping. By a majority of about three to one, they indicated to me: "Boy, after the nine months of Sunday shopping, it was pretty good. We like it, we are in favour of it."
So I do not see why the government is not prepared to try out its legislation, to try out its tourist exemption, and see if it works or not. If it does not work, then you can go by way of order in council and amend the regulations to change the criteria for the tourist exemption. But surely to bring these amendments that contradict the substance of the act you originally proposed, that has had second reading, is a backward step.
1610
The other option you have, and the other reason the Liberal motion makes a great deal of sense, is that you are now having municipal elections. If ever there was a time to canvass every community in this province to see how people really feel about Sunday shopping, why not do it in conjunction with the municipal elections? Why not put it on the ballot -- "Are you for it or are you against it?" -- and let the public tell you what it wants to do?
The minister has the opportunity to do that. He can do that and he can look like a hero. He can look like a person who really consults the people -- not bringing in the odd group to see him in his office, where all the bureaucrats are surrounding him. He could really take note of what the people say. This is an opportunity for the public to go ahead and tell the minister, "We don't like Sunday shopping," or "We do like Sunday shopping." Then the minister would know how to propose legislation.
If we defer this until January, we can avoid that. We can avoid the difficulties we are having. We can have a bill that reflects what the public of Ontario really wants, not a bill that tells us on one hand, "You can shop," and on the other hand, "If somebody objects, the whole system closes down."
There are a great many other issues that have to be canvassed as well. I think the minister would be, with great respect, well advised to canvass some of these issues, and I refer to cross-border shopping. How does this legislation we now have impact on Sunday shopping? Surely that is something the minister would want to know. Surely that is something that should be reflected in the piece of legislation that is proposed.
I know in this committee, because I was here when the fateful day came when we decided where we were going to have the hearings, that the members of the NDP government voted against going to the most obvious communities that were being hurt by cross-border shopping. They would not go to Sault Ste Marie. They would not go to Cornwall. That is very regrettable because those individuals from those communities had a message and that message had something to do with Sunday shopping. It was not going to cure all their problems but it certainly was going to help.
The fact they you did not go there is more reason to defer this legislation until January, so the minister himself and maybe members of this committee -- maybe Mr Fletcher, so he could hear first hand -- could go to some of the communities that the committee -- and I am talking about the NDP members of the committee -- chose deliberately to avoid because they did not want to hear the message of people.
The minister has the opportunity to listen to people now. He has only been the minister for a very short time. He has the opportunity to bring us his legislation, not the legislation of his predecessor that he has tried to patch up, and I admit with great effort and with great sincerity, by these amendments, but it cannot be done. The minister deserves to listen to people and hear people who might want to work on Sunday, because it gives them the opportunity for extra work, or perhaps for the only work they can get now during a recession.
I keep hearing Mr Laughren tell us in question period that the revenues for the next projected year are flat, yet he thinks he can reduce the deficit without raising taxes, in spite of the fact that revenues are going to be flat. I put it to the Solicitor General -- and I really do appreciate that he is here today and I appreciate that he stayed -- that if people are working on Sundays they are earning income, and when they are earning income, they are paying taxes. If more people were working and paying taxes, the revenues in this province might not be flat in 1992. In fact, maybe we can avoid tax increases in 1992.
If we have more people shopping on Sundays, which they enjoyed doing during the nine-month period, they would be adding revenue to the government coffers because they would be paying sales tax. Therefore the revenues of this province might not be flat in 1992.
I urge the Solicitor General to convey to the NDP members on this committee to take a hard look at deferring this legislation until January 1992, because the minister can make this act better. He can make it better because he can have the opportunity to start again.
It is interesting to note that the NDP caucus has been deeply divided on the issue of Sunday shopping. We have heard the comments of people on this committee. We have seen Mr Kormos come and we have seen Mr Kormos go. What Mr Kormos says reflects what many members in the NDP caucus believe. I think Mr Morrow is a prime example, and he is now sitting in the Chairman's spot.
This package of amendments has essentially tried to satisfy everyone in the caucus. By trying to do that, it is trying to appeal to people who are very divided on the issue. It says on the one hand, "Shop," and it says on the other hand, "Don't shop."
You cannot leave the public with this legislation, minister. I ask you to please ask the NDP members on this committee to vote to defer this matter so that you can give us your piece of legislation, not your predecessor's piece of legislation which you have valiantly tried to save. You would be doing a great service to the people in Ontario if you did that.
The Liberal amendment is sensible. It is worth considering and it will have the effect of providing Ontario with decent Sunday shopping, be it option 1, which is the option of full Sunday shopping, or option 2, which is the option of no Sunday shopping. At least we would have a level playing field. I ask the NDP members to give their minister an opportunity to provide us with his piece of legislation that will be a better piece of legislation than what we have now.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Harnick, for those thoughtful insights.
1620
Mr Callahan: I am just visiting here and this is like déjà vu. I chaired this committee and we went all around the province with that delightful man, Mel Swart, and heard all the presentations that I am sure you have heard.
The issue Mr. Harnick was dealing with was the question of deferring this until January 1992. I would like in this brief opportunity to say a few things about one item in the bill that concerns me gravely. We are almost going back to déjà vu of 1980 or so, or 1975, where the government of the day could designate whatever it wanted as a tourist establishment.
The public has to be aware that an order in council, as highfalutin as it sounds, is nothing more than cabinet making up its mind as to how something will be defined. The government can change it at any time without its ever coming before the Legislature or ever being reviewed by any body that is elected and accountable. I found that out because I chaired the standing committee on regulations and private bills. My predecessor in that chair, David Fleet, and his committee, did an excellent report on regulations. I urge every member of the government to read it.
Regulations are called the silent laws of the province. It is ruling by edict. They are not seen by anybody. An order in council can be made in the back room of any place, in here or the back seat of a car or in an airplane, and it is called regulation, order in council, Lieutenant-Governor-approved. We have a marvellous Lieutenant Governor, but I think you would be the first one to agree he does not have anything to do with the definition of tourism.
Furthermore, an order in council is so available to be changed by anybody. If Mr Harnick is right that this bill represents the fingerprints or the footprints of many members of your caucus, each one trying to establish the belief his riding has in this legislation, then though everything in here may be fine and comprise a distillation of those various viewpoints, what in fact you have done is place in the hands of perhaps four people in the back office, two of whom are probably unelected, to decide by regulation at any time what a tourist establishment is. There is nothing in the legislation to define it. It can change with the wind.
If the four people in the back room decide, as they take a poll with one of the various polling groups, that the use of the tourist definition as it applied at one time is not popular, they can turn around and change the tourist definition. What do you do? You go back to your riding and you have egg all over your face. You have told them: "Here is what the definition is and it is going to work, I assure you. I have put my input into it." When next you get back to your riding, you find out that the four guys in the back room, two of whom are not elected, have made a decision to change that definition of tourism. What are you going to look like? You are going to look like a fool. This is one thing I find totally outrageous.
I can remember in my riding there was a fruit market that was very popular with the citizens. It kept getting charged because it stayed open on Sundays. So what did they do? They applied to the government of the day which, by the way, Mr Carr, was the Conservative government, and lo and behold it was declared a tourist attraction. It was no more a tourist attraction than the local BP station would be or the BF Goodrich tire company. I mean, it was absolute, ludicrous fiction.
I suggest you give that some very serious thought. You have gone around the province and spent thousands and thousands of dollars of taxpayers money to hear from the public on this bill. I was not on the committee, but I would be willing to bet that there is not one amendment in this bill, either this one or the proposed amendments, that reflects one word that you heard from your public hearings. If that is the case, what you have done is taken taxpayers' money at a time when it is very tough to come by and you have wasted it. You have thrown it away.
I remember that the former Solicitor General used to sit here with his duck during the Sunday shopping hearings and accuse us exactly of that.
Interjections.
Mr Callahan: That's right, it was a chicken.
Interjection: It looked like a duck.
Mr Callahan: In the final analysis, if you people want to really make a change around here --
Interjections.
Mr Callahan: This is like Hamlet. It is like a soliloquy, and none of the elected representatives is listening to me. I am trying to talk to you.
Mr Mills: I am listening. I am looking at you.
Mr Callahan: Thanks, Gord.
If you really want to make a change around here, make certain that a bill is referred after first reading, not second reading. When it is referred to the committee after second reading, in fact the principle is in place and we could all stay home. The public could stay home, we could stay home, because the decisions have all been made by the four or five people in the back room, and they will make them on the basis of what it politically expedient, not on the basis of what is going to work.
I am glad I did not have to go around the province on this committee this time because I do not think I could look the people in the face who came before us on the previous committee. I could not go back and justify to my constituents the amount of money -- I do not know what the budget was. It must have been a big budget to travel this province and visit the major areas and have people come out panting and thinking, "Well, here are my elected representatives coming to hear from me," making them feel very important, and then as soon as they are gone, walking away and doing nothing about it. That is precisely what will happen.
I would be willing to bet that nobody can show me any amendments that have been suggested that came out of the public hearings. Would anybody dare do that? They are just façade.
Mr Mills: Let's get to it.
Mr Callahan: I would be interested in knowing what kind of money was spent on these public hearings and whether any of the people who came before this committee were actually listened to in terms of changing the legislation. That would be rather interesting. I think it would be something that could be sent back to all our constituents in our ridings. Are committees an anachronism? Do they in fact serve any purpose, or in fact are we just here to rubber-stamp what the government of the day decides will be the way we go? That, to me, is absolutely outrageous.
I think you had better check who the four people down in the back office are. Make sure at all times that they are well and up to snuff, because if you get people down there who get a little too egocentric or a little too powerful, pretty soon you may find the tourist definition will cover everything under the sun.
If you want to set up horse racing -- well, I guess that is legitimate anyway on Sunday -- but if you want to set up something, think of the most outrageous thing, and it is popular or it happens to be someone that catches the eye of the four major horsemen in this province, it will become the definition and you will never know about it, believe it or not. You will not know about it. You will not see the regulation. You will have no idea that it was passed, but suddenly it will appear in the Gazette, which is something everybody subscribes to; it is such an interesting magazine. Obviously, you will be aware of what it is in the Gazette and you will know that.
The other thing I really like is the fact that you allow councils to make a decision that is final. Now, just think about this. Maybe this is unfair, and I am certainly not going to accuse any council of doing it, but let's say you are the local barber or the local real estate guy in town and the people in the council do not happen to like you and they decide that you are not going to --
Interjections.
The Chair: Could I call this meeting to order? The constant banter between the two parties is making it very difficult for the Chair to hear what is going on. I am sure the other people who are participating who would like to hear what is going on also are having a tough time following the conversation. Mr Callahan, you have the floor.
Mr Callahan: As I was saying, if some local merchant in your community, for some reason -- maybe he put the wrong sign on his lawn during an election -- finds the council does not like him, they can say no to a legitimate tourist operation, if that is the situation here, and that person has no appeal whatsoever. That to me smacks of what we just got rid of in Moscow. That smacks to me of a totally non-democratic approach. There is no accountability. It is simply a matter of whom I like and whom I do not like.
I will tell you something. One of the reasons for the Magna Carta was that the king of the day got just a little too uppity and made rules on the basis I guess of the length of the chancellor's foot. If there is one principle of law, it is that it has to be clear, definitive, and there should be accountability behind it. I am suggesting to you that in this piece of legislation that is one item that scares the daylights out of me. It leaves itself open to a number of other things, too. It leaves itself open to manipulation. It leaves itself open to pandering, cronyism, the whole bit. If that is what you guys are buying, then I find that really difficult.
1630
I know a lot of you and I have heard you speak in the House. It does not seem to me that is the type of principle that you want to buy, but you are buying it and you are buying it probably because you have been given your marching orders. I would love to be a fly on the wall in caucus. It is probably: "Well, you've got to support this bill because this bill is a major issue and it's got to be supported whether you like it or not. You go out there and smile and say nice things about it and don't object to it, because if you object to it you'll lose some of the benefits by not being a good boy, or a good man or woman."
I always thought the New Democratic Party stood for principles that were higher than that, but I guess I am wrong. Please prove me wrong by taking an independent stand. Be a maverick. Look at Peter Kormos. Peter Kormos is standing up for his principles. At least the guy has got the guts to fight his own party on the basis of things that it has rejected. Are you going to go through the next four years, or the next eight years if you are lucky, and walk away from this place having said: "I did my job. I followed orders throughout"? If you do that, I will tell you something, it will be eight vacant years and you will have collected your salary, yes, but I think you are going to have to examine your conscience as to whether or not you collected it properly.
I suggest you look at these things. Do not just pass them willy-nilly. This is going to be a very significant piece of legislation if it is passed, and as for the impact it will have on this province and has already had -- just think about it -- you will be the creators of that. So you had better be able to hold your head up high, that you made independent decisions and you were not dragged around by the nose by the four people down in the corner on the second floor here. As I say, two of them are elected, two of them are not. Thank you very much.
Mr Fletcher: It is a pleasure to be here today. I agree with the member opposite when he said this is an important piece of legislation. It is an important piece of legislation that I think we should start moving on. We have already heard the ramblings of both opposition parties and we are wasting more taxpayers' money just sitting here flapping off about nothing instead of getting on with the piece of legislation.
This government has come in with a piece of legislation. We went around the province to hear what people had to say. Now we are bringing in amendments according to what the people said and according to our own conscience also. It is a good piece of legislation with good amendments. If we do not start moving on it, there is going to be uncertainty in the business sector. That is because of what is being held up here right now. The people in the business sector are not sure which way to go and what to do. If we can just get off this high horse and start moving with the legislation, instead of trying to block every piece of legislation that comes through, I think the province would be a lot better.
What are the opposition parties afraid of when we as the government of the day bring in a piece of legislation that greatly improves what has been there in the past? As far as I am concerned, it not only appeases people who have to work in this sector, it also appeases the people who are in the tourist area. I place a lot of confidence in the regulations that are going to be coming out because there has been a committee of the stakeholders set up, something the people were saying when we were on the road: "Set up a committee of stakeholders." That is what is being done.
I think it is time to stop meandering, stop blocking what we are trying to do in this committee and stop wasting taxpayers' money right now. Let's get on with this legislation.
Mr Sorbara: Let me thank the Chair for the opportunity to speak on the amendment that Mr Chiarelli moved to the motion originally put by Mr Morrow, who I guess is not with us now. Let me welcome once again members of the studio audience to this show.
It is good to see the Solicitor General here in particular. I know he is following the debate. Just to interject this one thought, we were not privileged to have the solicitors general, any of them, with us during our public hearings. Certainly the parliamentary assistant did a very commendable job representing the government during our public hearings, but notwithstanding his competence it is always good to have the minister around to hear the views of members of the committee directly, and even the views of the members of the public when we are holding public hearings.
I know the Solicitor General is very anxious to conclude consideration of this project. I can understand that. I had an opportunity during the previous Parliament to carry bills through clause-by-clause consideration, so I can understand the urgency that he feels in getting on with this and getting on after this with legislation that is perhaps urgent and pressing as well.
It was interesting today in the House that matters of policing were raised with the Solicitor General. I am not sure his answer to that question satisfied the questioner, but at least we had an opportunity to make the point during question period that the Solicitor General's responsibilities extend beyond trying to mould and warp some sort of bill to deal with the age-old question of what you can and cannot buy on Sunday in Ontario.
My remarks on this amendment moved by Mr Chiarelli will deal with certain concerns that I have about proceeding with the amendments of the government at this time. As you recall, Mr Chiarelli suggested in his amendment that we put off clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 115 until such time after January that this committee has had an opportunity to hear from, among others, the chair of the Ontario Municipal Board, the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General and a number of others.
By way of preface, and dealing for a moment with the amendments moved by the government, I for one would like to have an opportunity to hear from the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General because I have a grave concern about the substantive amendments put forward by the government in respect of this bill. In fact, I think an argument can be made -- and I would want to question the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General directly on this; I know my friend Mr Callahan would be interested in this -- that the amendments put forward by the government are indeed unconstitutional.
Let me just explain the basis of the arguments that I would make in that regard. I draw your attention to the substantive amendment providing for an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board. This appeal, which is going to be moved one day by the government members, unless they change their minds -- and I hope they do -- provides that any person who objects to a bylaw made by the council of a municipality under section 4 may appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board by filing a notice of appeal with the board setting out the objection to the bylaw and the reasons in support of the objection. Now, understand what that section means.
Mr Callahan: Section 93 judgement?
Mr Sorbara: It is not a section 93 judgement.
Understand what that section says. It says that if a person, any person, within or without the municipality objects to the passage of a bylaw, that person may appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board. That is, that person has a right to go before another quasi-judicial body -- because in this case a municipal council acts as a quasi-judicial body -- may go to a higher quasi-judicial body to appeal the making of that bylaw.
I tell the Solicitor General that the making of a bylaw under his own bill grants a right to a shopkeeper to open his or her store -- or its store, in the case of a corporation -- on Sunday. So let's follow it right from the beginning. A store is not allowed to open on Sunday. The storekeeper thinks he comes within the four corners of Bill 115 and is able to bring an application under the so-called exemption before municipal council for an empowering bylaw to open a store on Sunday. A shopkeeper, can make his arguments before the council and the council can decide in its own discretion whether or not to pass a bylaw and therefore grant the right, in the retail sector, to sell out of his store on Sunday.
1640
Once that bylaw has been made empowering the storekeeper to open his store on Sunday, any person can appeal, and on any basis really. It is not a tourist facility; it is a tourist facility but we do not need another of that kind open on Sunday; it is a tourist facility and we might need one of those but it violates the principle -- in your bill, sir -- of a common pause day and therefore ought not to be made, and on and on. There are a number of reasons and legal bases for appealing the making of the bylaw. That is okay. You can put that in if you want to, the legal right to appeal the making of a bylaw granting or empowering a storekeeper to open on Sunday.
The reason I believe this provision is unconstitutional is that it does not grant to the storekeeper the right to appeal to the same quasi-judicial body, the Ontario Municipal Board, if the storekeeper is not granted the right to open on Sunday by the failure or refusal of the council to make the bylaw. Does the committee see what I mean? Does the Solicitor General see what I mean? It is a contest before the municipal council as to whether or not the storekeeper can open on Sunday.
By your bill, I tell the Solicitor General, the municipal council has to hold a public hearing and hear all points of view. If it grants to the storekeeper the right to open on Sunday, anyone who is aggrieved, whether or not that person lives in the municipality, whether or not that person is a competitor, whether or not that person is simply aggrieved by the fact that another store is going to be open, any person can appeal, but the opposite is not the case.
If, after the public hearing and the decision by the council, the council says, "Sorry, we do not think we need another of those trinket shops open in our quiet community on Sunday," the shopkeeper does not have the right to appeal. The shopkeeper cannot take his case to the OMB to argue that he comes within the four corners of the act, that he is a tourist facility, that there are no other tourist facilities of the kind and that this does not violate the principle of a common pause day. How can you do that? How can you vest in one party the right to appeal and not vest in the other party the right to appeal? Surely the balance is wrong. Surely our Charter of Rights and Freedoms says that we give all people involved in a judicial process the same set of rights.
You have made a mistake. If you have not made a mistake, let's get the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General here to answer the questions about the fairness and the legality. My friend Mr Fletcher agrees, and therefore he agrees with the motion of Mr Chiarelli that we hear from the Deputy Attorney General and the Attorney General. You cannot do this, I tell the Solicitor General. You have to balance the rights.
A storekeeper denied the opportunity to make his case fairly in front of the OMB does not have the same rights as someone who might simply be a competitor who does not want a competing business to open on Sunday. Does that seem fair? Does it seem right? Does it appear to you that only one side should have recourse to the courts?
I remind the Solicitor General that the OMB, as a quasi-judicial body, is susceptible to judicial review. If the appealing party is not satisfied with the question of law upon which the OMB makes its decision, it can go to the courts, the Ontario Court and then the Court of Appeal and then the Supreme Court of Canada. The poor storekeeper, five years later, is going to find out whether or not the bylaw is valid.
But if the city council says: "Sorry, we don't like your kind, you're going to screw up the common pause day. No right of appeal."
Mr Callahan: "You are an outsider."
Mr Sorbara: "You're an outsider. Your drugstore is too big."
Mr Callahan: "The sign on your lawn is the wrong one."
Mr Sorbara: "The sign on your lawn is the wrong one." I quote my friend the member for Brampton South. I see legal counsel is here from the ministry and I will want an answer to that question, because the balance here is wrong. Our charter says everyone shall have equal access under the law.
Surely in the competition for the Sunday retailing business, you would not want to deny the shopkeeper the right of appeal that the Family Coalition Party or the Lord's Day Alliance will have to close the store down. Look at what is going to happen. The opponents of any Sunday shopping are going to raise money to launch appeals and they are going to do very well. They are going to finance this thing on the basis that they alone have been charged with the responsibility to end this terrible family-destroying practice of buying toaster ovens on Sunday.
All I can tell the Solicitor General is to give the same right to the storekeeper, to think about that. We are going to get on with clause-by-clause consideration of this bill, but we are not going to get on to it until the Solicitor General has had that final opportunity to go over the material once again and bring a package of amendments that shows just some small ability to listen.
I want to get on to another amendment proposed by the government. This is a matter that I think is completely out of order for consideration by this committee. I speak of the amendment proposed which allows an interested person to make an application to the Ontario Court (General Division) seeking an order "that a retail business establishment close on a holiday to ensure compliance with this act or a bylaw or regulation under this act." I am quoting there from a draft of the proposed government amendment.
Separate and apart from the substance of this, and I will speak to that in a moment, I look to the clerk, I look to the Chair, I look to the committee to confirm with me that this little baby is out of order. It is inappropriate. Why in the world is the government bringing amendments that are out of order? Why is it out of order, Mr Chairman? It is out of order because it amends a section of the act which is not before us in Bill 115.
Now, I realize that sometimes a committee, always with unanimous consent, can consider an amendment which otherwise would be out of order. But surely to goodness in the interests of camaraderie and fellowship and the fair working of this committee, my friend Mr Morrow, the member for --
Mr Morrow: Wentworth East, my friend.
Mr Sorbara: -- Wentworth East, in the great regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth, would have picked up the phone and said to me, as the whip for the official opposition, or perhaps to Mr Carr, the member for Oakville South, as the whip for the third party: "We are proposing an amendment that is illegal and out of order. Do you mind at least if we put it on the table?" No phone calls. They do not fax, they do not write, they do not phone, they do not visit us during question period. Nothing. We do not hear from them. I would like to hear that they are interested in putting forward amendments that are entirely out of order, given the four corners, the parameters of Bill 115.
1650
We are not going to allow this to go forward, and do you know why? Because once again, I tell my friend Mrs Mathyssen, the member for Middlesex, this amendment takes sides because it invites the squawkers who can raise the money to hassle storekeepers who are open on Sunday simply for the purpose of trying to stay alive. These businesses are not open on Sunday or any other day to gouge the public. It is life and death out there. It is tough to survive. It is not as if profits are diminishing; there are no profits. People are trying to minimize losses and sometimes they realize they might be able to do that by opening up their stores to willing customers anxious to buy toaster ovens and other things on Sunday.
So what does the government do after weeks of public hearings? It does nothing to respond to the hours and hours of testimony we heard that this bill is no good. It brings forward two substantive amendments -- three actually. I will speak to the third one in a moment. Of the first two amendments, one violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I believe, because it grants judicial process to one party and not the other in order to hassle storekeepers who have successfully convinced the council to pass a bylaw, while the other is completely outside the four corners of the bill and once again invites people to hassle storekeepers.
Let me just tell my friends on the committee how bad this bill is. I show them a copy of page A19 of the Toronto Star dated today. I show them what amounts to, if you paste and cut, a half-page ad. This is very expensive material. It costs a lot of money to advertise in the Toronto Star. "Now that's a newspaper." People do not advertise in the Toronto Star with advocacy advertising simply to take up space that otherwise would be filled with editorial comments. They advertise because there are important issues at stake.
I beg the committee's indulgence simply to read the ad. It is an open letter to -- guess who? -- Premier Bob Rae, who was not in the House today, by the way, not in the House all last week, is rarely seen around Queen's Park.
Mr Morrow: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: What does that have to do with this amendment, whether the Premier was in the House? Or whether the opposition leader was there or not, because he was not there either.
Mr Sorbara: I can answer that, sir, if you give me a moment.
The Chair: Order, please. Mr Sorbara has the floor on the amendment.
Mr Sorbara: This is an open letter to Premier Bob Rae and the title over the letter says, "Committed to creating jobs for Ontario?" It is on the letterhead of the Ontario Discount Drug Association, representing 3,000 Ontario workers.
"Dear Premier Rae:
"You keep saying that you and your government are committed to creating jobs or Ontario, which will provide the foundation for this province's economic renewal. As recently as September 23, you stated, `Job creation is the key priority for this government.'
"Why then are you prepared to throw away 3,000 jobs?
"Our member stores will be unable to compete and 3,000 more jobs will be lost in Ontario, if the arbitrary size restriction for drugstores in the Retail Business and Holidays Act is not removed. This is not a bluff. It is a fact. The financial data to support this claim has been provided to the government's standing committee on administration of justice" -- that is us -- "which is now considering amendments to this act."
I remember that testimony, I tell you parenthetically.
"We don't dispute your government's intention to have a common pause day. However, the current size limit restricting the public's access to drugstores under 7,500 square feet on Sundays is unrealistic in today's competitive discount environment:
"It denies the public access to discount drugstores whose average prices for all goods and services are 20% to 40% less than those of conventional drugstores.
"It denies our student employees, and others needing this income, the right to work on Sunday. These are people performing the identical tasks to the employees of conventional drugstores smaller than 7,500 square feet.
"It forces all those who normally shop at discount drugstores to use large multinational corporations like Shoppers Drug Mart and Pharma Plus on Sunday.
"Your government says it believes our claims, yet no one is prepared to act." I say parenthetically, sir, that we on this committee, or some members of this committee, would be prepared to act.
"Why should a drugstore of less than 7,500 square feet be allowed to operate on Sunday when larger drugstores, selling the same products, are restricted from operating?
"Why is the common pause day being applied to what amounts to only 3% of Ontario drugstores in Ontario?
"Our workers are no less important than others employed in Ontario. We appeal to you to remove this arbitrary and unfair restriction being imposed on large discount drugstores. If not, we will be forced to close our doors, permanently."
It is signed by three members of the Ontario Discount Drug Association. Those members came and spoke to this committee.
I read this into the record simply because I think it is very serious. I believe these drugstores are operating right at the brink of bankruptcy. The reason is that under our laws, and, I confess, one passed by the government I was a part of, there is a requirement that certain drugstores larger than 7,500 square feet have to operate notionally 10 months a year and compete with other drugstores that notionally operate 12 months a year. No, I correct myself, not notionally.
Mr Harnick: In fact.
Mr Sorbara: In fact 12 months a year. There are 57 days out of a 365-day year in which these larger drugstores are prohibited from competing. They are selling the same products. They are competing in the same marketplace. It is not fair. They are going to go under. If the members of this committee want to close down all the drugstores, so be it. I do not think it is what the public wants, but surely to God we want to be fair. Fairness is the hallmark of not just the New Democratic Party --
Mr Morrow: We always claimed you were fair.
Mr Sorbara: -- but of every party. We all stand up on the hustings and talk about a fairer society and a society where justice characterizes what we do. We are talking about a little amendment. We are talking about a little bit of time for the government to have just a little bit more opportunity in order that we pass laws in this committee that we are proud of.
I confess to you that we got it wrong in respect of drugstores. We passed it. You guys could correct it. You would not even have to backtrack on where you were. You could just put out a press release saying, "We're correcting one more of the mistakes that the old Liberal government made."
Mrs Mathyssen: It is going to take years.
Mr Curling: That is all right.
Mr Sorbara: The good news, Mrs Mathyssen, is that you guys will not have years to do it.
Mr Callahan: You had better work nights, work all day and night.
1700
Mr Sorbara: I expect that these proceedings could go a number of ways. I might go back to my office right now and the Solicitor General would phone and say, "I think we are just coming to see that certain amendments to this bill that do not damage the common pause day -- now don't deal with that, we won't damage that -- are possible and we would like to discuss them with you" -- the royal "we"; ministers are allowed to use the royal "we." I would say, "We will be over to see you presently," and then we would go over to see them. I use the royal "them."
We would enter a real debate, not the debate that is going on here. With the debate that is going on here, we are simply serving the government and allowing it more time to take into consideration the wishes of the people and those who are really affected by its decisions. The darned thing about life in this building is that sometimes we do not realize that what we do affects the lives of real people.
I just mentioned, in reading this open letter into the record, a number of business people who are attempting to survive in a very competitive market. There is nothing more competitive than the drugstore market in Ontario. That is good for us. That competition keeps prices down and has the best interests of the consumer right at the centre of the experience. But for God's sake let's be fair.
Let's think about another piece of fairness. Let's think about the possibility, I say to the now absent Solicitor General, but I know he reads Hansard every night before he goes to bed --
Mr Morrow: That is unfair.
Mr Sorbara: I just point out, I say to my friend from Wentworth East, that the Solicitor General was kind enough to stay for the eloquent remarks of my friend the member for Willowdale and my friend the member for Brampton South, but I guess he had heard mine before so it was time to go. I do not mind, because I am just trying to serve him as best I can.
Interjections.
Mr Sorbara: I was saying that the Solicitor General has left. I do recall, though, that he was sitting here to hear my substantive concerns about the amendments that were passed.
I do have one more comment to make about the third substantive amendment. I think it supports Mr Chiarelli's motion to adjourn this thing until January. That gives the minister time to consider. He is new to his job, so he should have that additional time.
The other amendment simply makes it more costly to violate the act. You will notice that the fines have been changed from what they were in the original proposal, that is, $500 for a first offence and $2,000 for every subsequent offence. The amendments the government is going to propose keep that same arrangement but add a third level of fine, that is, $5,000 for third and subsequent offences.
Boy, oh boy, you want to put it to them. You want to put it to the small shopkeeper.
Mr Winninger: There are too many of them.
Mr Sorbara: My friend Mr Winninger puts on the record "too many of them." Too many small shopkeepers, I ask him?
Mr Curling: No, lawyers. They will make a lot of money out of this bill.
Interjections.
Mr Sorbara: My friend the member for Willowdale points out that lawyers do work Sundays. That, of course, is true. I do not want to get into the argument as to whether or not there are too many lawyers. That is for another day and another time. But I could say something about the failure of the chief lawyer in the province, the Attorney General, to make an announcement in the Legislature today about building new courtrooms. I could talk at length about the fact that there is a new course of conduct by the government to simply make all of its announcements outside the Legislature. For what purpose? To avoid the five minutes that we have to comment. What a cowardly act of a government that lost courage the day after it was sworn in.
Mr Morrow: Mr Chairman --
Mr Sorbara: I just say to Mr Morrow, for goodness' sake. Are you prepared to move a motion to adjourn?
Mr Morrow: Yes.
Mr Sorbara: We have agreement.
Mr Fletcher: We are ready to do the work on this bill that has to be done.
Mr Sorbara: I will defer to anyone who wants to make a motion to adjourn.
The Chair: Mr Sorbara, to the amendment.
Mr Fletcher: You can waste all the time you want to.
Mr Curling: He is a properly elected individual speaking on behalf of his people.
Mr Callahan: We have another hour or two. You do not want to waste taxpayers' money by adjourning now, do you?
Mr Fletcher: Let's go.
The Chair: Order please, Mr Callahan. Mr Sorbara, you have the floor.
Mr Sorbara: I am going to keep the rest of my comments very brief because I will have more to say on this amendment of Mr Chiarelli to the motion of Mr Morrow when we meet again. Those remarks could be long or they could be short, depending on whether or not the phone rings and it is the Solicitor General.
Mrs Mathyssen: Or your campaign manager.
The Chair: Are you finished?
Mr Sorbara: No, I am not finished yet. I want to advise the committee that when we return next week, when the studio audience joins us again for the continuing saga of Bill 115 and the anti-Sunday shopping-forces, I will be talking about Mr Martin Herzog, who has thus far paid $10,000 in fines for keeping his little music store open. The guy is going broke, and you want to raise the fine to $5,000, so that every time he goes into court on the third and subsequent offences, he can put another $5,000 into the coffers of the consolidated revenue fund.
Do you want to know something? We let the bookstores stay open. You can read on Sunday. Good, literacy is important. We let the video stores stay open. Good, you can get pornographic movies to your heart's content.
But the people in this government, fairmindedly -- I hope they change their minds -- will not yet allow someone who wants to sell a recording of Beethoven or Bach, or Bachman Turner Overdrive, depending on your taste --
Mr Curling: Or Bob Marley.
Mr Sorbara: What about Bob Marley, I say to my friend from Scarborough North? You can read, you can watch, but you cannot listen. Is it fair? This guy has paid $10,000 in fines.
Mr Harnick: He is from Willowdale.
Mr Sorbara: He is from Willowdale. He came from Willowdale to my constituency office in Maple a few weeks ago to say: "Please help me. I am going under with fines. I cannot afford to close." Do you know why he cannot afford to close? Because the video store three stores down, which is renting videos, is also selling CDs and audiotapes. He can do that legally, that is okay. You have your selection of pornographic movies, so that gives you the right to stay open, but you cannot sell a little Beethoven.
Mr Fletcher: Do you have an amendment on that?
Mr Sorbara: I have an amendment on that. It is in your package. My God, if the government, in considering a number of amendments not yet tabled by them, does that, that would be great. That would be just wonderful.
Mr Fletcher: Let's try it.
Mr Sorbara: The next time we get together after the phone has rung and it is the Solicitor General and he is prepared to do a few things --
Mr Fletcher: We can do it.
Mr Sorbara: I am going to conclude my remarks by saying that I will be talking on that next time we get together. I will be talking about the possibility of perhaps allowing the stores to stay open indiscriminately during the months of November and December. That would be a good idea.
I am not going to argue any more that the government simply abandon its determination to have this common pause day because it is not a common pause day at all. It affects maybe 40,000 workers. I am not going to go on at length when we get back to that, but I will be talking about Mr Herzog. I will be talking about the charter, because this is very serious, I say to the parliamentary assistant. Think about that please. We have from now until next Monday to deal with that.
That problem with the appeal is very serious. You are going to have to abandon, because you are not going to get unanimous consent on the Ontario Court thing. Forget that.
Think about just a few other things. We are close here. I want to say that there will be no press releases saying we have willed you down if you come forward with different amendments. We will just say this debate is going to rapidly come to a conclusion, and it will, it really will. We just need a few changes. We just need a little bit of fairness. We just need a little bit of reason. We need to say to you that you are going to eliminate the old injustice, perpetrated by the Liberal government to the larger drugstore owners. We just want that. If we can get that from you, we will be out of here through clause-by-clause faster than you can say, "Let's adjourn." Those are my remarks for right now, sir.
1710
Mr Callahan: Very briefly, because I am leaving with people and will not be back -- I do not hear any applause -- the thing that really concerns me about this bill is the fact that my recollection was that when we went around the province on the Liberal bill, Mr Farnan was dead set against it. He would say, "We want a common pause day."
As my colleague Mr Sorbara said, this is not a common pause day; this is an attempt to ride two horses. It is an attempt to placate the people whom you promised should have a common pause day, and to do it by very artificial means. It is also a combination of what Mr Farnan ranted against, which was giving municipalities, duly elected people, the right to determine whether or not a store should open on valid grounds, not on this airy-fairy tourism kick that is made by the four guys in the back room and changed any time they want to change it. Really, what you are doing is deceiving those people to whom you promised a common pause day. You are not accomplishing that at all.
On the other side of the coin, you are speaking out of the other side of your mouths. You were not here, and I cannot blame you people for it, but Mr Farnan sat here and complained about us giving it to the municipalities to make the decision. In fact, as the natives of this country would say, "You are speaking with forked tongue," you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You are trying to create an illusion that there will be a common pause day, and there may very well be a common pause day in some areas of this province where municipalities decide, "We will just reject every one of these applications as they come forward," or, "We will allow all of them."
The interesting thing is, if they allow all of them, who is going to bring the application to the Ontario Municipal Board? Will it be the NDP government? Will it be the minister, the Solicitor General, who will file an application to the OMB against this improper allocation of a tourist exemption? Do you really think that is going to happen? I suppose it will take public pressure to get the Solicitor General to do it. If he does not do it, who is going to do it?
Even looking at some of the amendments, they use words in one of the motions about how, "The board may, if it is of the opinion that the objection to the bylaw set out in the notice of appeal is insufficient, dismiss the appeal." That is "may"; it does not even use "shall." "Is insufficient," and what does "insufficient" mean?
The government has sent us a directive. We will probably get some of these policy directives that are becoming more and more popular. In the Conservative days, they had this policy thing they could send down to the OMB, and the OMB clammed up. It did not say any more about a particular issue. Your government is doing the same thing through policy statements to Ontario Hydro. They can, in fact, have Hydro do something, or allocate moneys for a particular thing. I am suggesting to you that if it is "insufficient," what does "insufficient" mean? The wording itself is so loosey-goosey that you are going to create a field day for lawyers or paralegals. They are going to make a fortune.
Finally, before I go, and I am probably repeating what I wanted to say, I think it is a sham when you tell people -- you have good people coming here, and I have seen people here today whom I saw at the committee hearings when I chaired the committee, who come here truly believing there should be a common pause day. That is a question that you are not addressing.
Those people believe that Sunday is a day for family, even though today I would find it difficult to believe that children staying at home and trying to get their father's attention while he is watching football or one of the other sports is really a family get-together. I do not really think it is. I find people in my community who go out to the flea markets, which were in place even before legislation, and find that more of a family outing.
In any event, these people believe that we are fracturing the family unit. Unfortunately, we let the family be fractured many years ago without any complaint. It is a little late for us to be able to do that as long as the hours are geared in such a way that people can attend the church or religious ceremony of their choice.
You have in fact misled these people. They have travelled around the province, they have come to these hearings, and they think: "Here is the NDP. They are going to be our saviours. They are going to give us a common pause day," and you have given them nothing of the kind. To me that is a sham, because I think if there is one thing that people expect of their elected officials -- and we learned it in the last election -- people do not like to hear things being said that are not necessarily straight up front. I think you people have to understand that. You may think you are fooling the people, but you are not.
On the other side of the coin, you are going to create such chaos in terms of the business community. You are going to give such power to municipal councils, which can just stay silent in terms of whether they want it or they do not. You are getting, as Mr Sorbara said, the right of appeal for the people who object but nothing for the person who has applied. If that is the way you want to have your government remembered in terms of a matter of fairness, then Godspeed. I feel sorry for you, because in fact what you are doing is creating a sham.
That is really all I have to say. It has been nice being here with you.
Mr Morrow: Before I move a motion, there are a few things I would like to say.
I would like to thank the people who have been sitting here for days while we debate my original motion and the amendment to my original motion.
Gary Carr could not be here this afternoon. Gary Carr had another important engagement and could not be here to hear the rest of this, so at this time, with Mr Sorbara's indulgence -- and hopefully Tuesday we can move on to clause-by-clause -- by mutual agreement of all three parties I move that we adjourn.
The Chair: Mr Morrow moves the adjournment of the committee. The motion to adjourn is not debatable. All those in favour? Those opposed?
Motion agreed to.
The committee adjourned at 1717.