CANADIAN RETAIL HARDWARE ASSOCIATION
RETAIL, WHOLESALE AND DEPARTMENT STORE UNION
ONTARIO HOTEL AND MOTEL ASSOCIATION TOURISM ONTARIO INC
MOTELS ONTARIO
ST THOMAS/ELGIN TOURISM ASSOCIATION
UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS, LOCAL 1000
CONTENTS
Tuesday 27 August 1991
Retail Business Establishments Statute Law Amendment Act, 1991, Bill 115 / Loi de 1991 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne les établissements de commerce de détail, projet de loi 115
City of London
Canadian Retail Hardware Association
Mike Bradley
Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union
Robert Sage
Freedom Party of Ontario
Ontario Hotel and Motel Association; Tourism Ontario Inc
Jack Bronson
Motels Ontario; St Thomas/Elgin Tourism Association
Marc Emery
London Chamber of Commerce
Mogual Group of Companies
United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1000
Anglican Diocese of Huron
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:
Cunningham, Dianne E. (London North PC) for Mr Harnick
Daigeler, Hans (Nepean L) for Mr Chiarelli
Kormos, Peter (Welland-Thorold NDP) for Mr Gigantes
Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville NDP) for Mrs Mathyssen
O'Connor, Larry (Durham-York NDP) for Mr Winninger
Clerk pro tem: Manikel, Tannis
Staff: Swift, Susan, Research Officer, Legislative Research Service
1271
The committee met at 0934 in the Sheraton Armouries Hotel, London.
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.
CITY OF LONDON
The Chair: I call this meeting to order. Identify yourselves when you first speak and proceed when you are comfortable. We have approximately half an hour.
Mr Gosnell: I am Mayor Tom Gosnell and joining me is Deputy Mayor Jack Burghardt. Members of the committee, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for visiting our city today to receive input on this very important issue.
Holiday shopping and the designation of tourist areas have the potential to make a major impact on family and business life as we know it today. I trust that the perspective you receive today from local government and the private sector will be of great assistance in formulating the province's development of future legislation.
The issue of Sunday shopping has been on the agenda for well over a decade, with greater prominence in the last four years. From a historical perspective, I should point out that in August 1988 I led a delegation that appeared before the standing committee on administration of justice. Our position at that time is unchanged: the city of London considers that the responsibility of enacting municipal bylaws governing retail stores opening on Sundays and holidays should remain with the provincial government rather than the municipalities.
London city council is also on record as not endorsing this issue being the subject of a referendum on the municipal ballot in this or any subsequent November election. Because council unanimously supported the motion that the Sunday shopping legislation be a provincial matter, council believes that holding a referendum would be contrary to that motion.
The Association of Municipalities of Ontario told the standing committee on administration of justice in 1987 that we have witnessed the transfer of a complex and socially divisive issue by an indecisive provincial government under the guise of municipal autonomy. That has not changed under this new proposed legislation and still leaves municipalities shouldering the load.
Mr Burghardt: Since the presentation to which the mayor referred, the province and each municipality have experienced wide-open Sunday shopping. We have no hard data to support our observations, but for the most part it appeared that consumer demand dictated whether retailers chose to open or close their doors. Perhaps one of the better observations about opening on Sunday was made by the manager of one of London's largest shopping centres, Mr Bob Usher from White Oaks Mall, which opened on Sundays to hold its market share. Mr Usher says the day someone can convince him that by opening one extra day each week consumers will miraculously have more money to spend, he will be an advocate of Sunday shopping.
During the period of wide-open Sunday shopping over several months in 1990 and 1991, the majority of traditional Monday to Saturday retailers did not open their doors. In fact, in many suburban shopping centres the large anchors discovered that the consumer traffic did not warrant the extra operational overhead. That was also the case for many smaller retailers. In the core, the majority of independents did not open, and in the city's major downtown shopping mall, Galleria, you found more locked doors and dark stores than retailers who were open for business.
The same could not be said for supermarkets and specialty retailers like Canadian Tire stores. In those instances it is our observation that consumers did avail themselves of Sunday openings. But the big question remains: Did it mean increased business or simply a spreading of dollars spent over seven rather than six days? Those answers can only come from the retailers.
As part of our lengthy debates at council regarding Sunday openings, the city has also expressed great concern about the human factor. Many individuals employed in the service and retail sector who would be most affected by Sunday openings will be in need of increased levels of public transit and day care support. The availability of public transit on Sunday is greatly diminished as the publicly funded bus system works on a reduced schedule. Many traditional day care facilities that receive municipal subsidies are not open on Sunday. The ripple effect on the community as a whole could be devastating from a personal and a financial standpoint. The human factor must not be ignored.
It is our clear understanding that the proposed legislation will amend the Retail Business Holidays Act and the Employment Standards Act.
In a statement made to the Legislature by former Solicitor General, Mike Farnan, it was indicated that the rights of workers who refused to work on Sundays would be protected. Let me suggest to you in all sincerity that employers who choose to open on Sundays would simply skirt this legislation through hiring practices for new employees that included a stipulation of understanding that Sunday was a regular day of work. And let me also suggest with all due respect that the province, through the courts or intervention by employment standards officers, would spend hundreds, if not thousands, of hours arbitrating cases of abuse or misunderstandings launched by both employees and employers.
0940
Mr Gosnell: Without firm direction from Queen's Park, the city of London is also concerned about the city-to-city, municipality-by-municipality ad hoc decision-making regarding Sunday openings with respect to so-called tourist areas.
The Minister of Tourism and Recreation, Peter North, told the Legislature in June of this year that "the legislation strikes a balance in recognizing the need for a common pause day for Ontario while acknowledging the impact of tourism in many communities throughout the province, as well as the role tourism and the leisure industries play in helping Ontarians enjoy a common day of rest." The minister went on to say that "the proposed legislation would enable local tourism industries to grow and work productively with their municipalities." In its purest state, the proposed legislation may have that impact but, as a municipal councillor, the practicality of designating one as a tourism venue while ignoring others skews the free market system and strikes an unfair balance in an already fragile retail industry.
To our west and southwest we have already seen the cities of Windsor and Sarnia declare themselves wide-open for Sunday shopping under the guise of tourist areas. While our neighbours face the unique challenges of being border cities, it demonstrates that under the present vacuum of provincial leadership municipalities must devise creative methods of working around a cumbersome situation. With this type of activity, municipalities that may not support the concept of Sunday openings may be forced to follow suit to protect retailers who see their market share eroded by neighbouring communities that are using Sunday openings as an economic development marketing tool.
It is the city of London's position that Sunday shopping is not a panacea for cross-border shopping. It has been demonstrated in several consumer surveys that consumers are looking for bottom-line prices for quality goods. Simply opening doors of retail outlets in Ontario will not solve that challenge.
In conclusion, London city council believes this issue should be resolved with all due expediency. The debate has raged for almost five years. The government of the day, through this proposed legislation, and your predecessors both proposed laws that would see civic governments faced with being the final arbitrators. London city council is on record as supporting a common pause day but one that is administered by strong province-wide legislation, not open to vague or wildly diverse applications by over 700 municipalities in Ontario.
Mr Poirier: Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentation. How would you feel about a description of London as a tourist destination?
Mr Gosnell: I think tourism and convention business is about a $250-million to $300-million-a-year investment in this community, so it is important, as it is with all communities.
Mr Poirier: Right.
Mr Gosnell: It is important to all communities, but it would be very difficult for us to say that Richmond Road in London or parts of our downtown or parts of Centretown in the east end would be the designated area. That is the problem Windsor and Sarnia found themselves in and why they went wide-open across the city with the designation of tourist centre.
Mr Poirier: How have you resolved the issue of merchants that see themselves as a tourism type of business for Sundays? Has that been a pressure?
Mr Gosnell: Well, some stores are open now. I am not sure that Canadian Tire, for example, or A&P and Loblaws would put themselves down as a tourist industry. The dilemma we find as municipal councillors is that many of the large local industries are clearly not tourist industries, but you cannot say that the tourists might not come into Canadian Tire or A&P.
Mr Poirier: Depending on the season.
Mr Gosnell: There is enough discretion in many of the retail outlets now that do allow for some Sunday shopping in a very minor way, as you know, with the legislation that is now in place.
Mr Poirier: Obviously you do not feel that London should designate itself entirely as a tourist section, but how will you resolve that issue for your tourism sector? What do you see with the present law? Will that cause you a headache?
Mr Gosnell: It causes a great headache, not so much as it relates to what we do but what the neighbouring municipalities around us do. As you heard in the debate back a few years ago, our concern is that if Sarnia, Windsor, St Thomas, Chatham, Woodstock and Kitchener-Waterloo decided to go for wide-open Sunday shopping under the guise of tourist areas, it will put incredible pressure on the retailers of our city, forcing us to protect our retail base by doing the same. We would in fact be a Sunday shopping area whether we wanted to be or not because we would be forced into it to protect that retail base.
Mr Poirier: Last question. How would you think the provincial government's capability of helping you in that department would be? I know you said you would like to see provincial designation, but how do you want the provincial government to help make sure other communities around you do not have wide-open Sunday shopping so that you do not feel the pressure of it?
Mr Burghardt: The province has to be strong in whatever legislation it passes. It is our feeling you cannot leave it up to the individual municipality. That is the problem.
We have not had pressure put on us as a council from individual retailers to say, "Look, we feel that we are a tourist business and we should be open." We have not felt that pressure. In fact, it has been quite the contrary. The chamber of commerce, which represents small and large businesses, as you are well aware, presented a brief to us. They took a survey a couple of years ago and that survey and their brief to us said they are opposed to wide-open Sunday shopping. We followed that. We have heard from labour groups the same way and we have responded to that type of pressure. That is the type of pressure we have had put on us.
Mr Daigeler: Thank you for appearing before us. We are obviously aware that the Sunday shopping question is a major concern in the London area since our friendly colleague here, Dianne Cunningham, owes at least the beginnings of her political career to the Sunday shopping debate. I am looking foward to hearing her reaction later on and how she harmonized that with the current position of the Progressive Conservative Party.
In any case, I have a couple of comments with regard to your brief. First of all, I presume the parliamentary assistant will be clarifying whether in fact it would be possible, as you state, for employers to skirt the legislation through hiring practices that included a stipulation to work on Sunday. It would be my understanding that would not be possible. I would expect the parliamentary assistant to clarify that.
Second, you are making reference in your brief to the possibility that hundreds, even thousands, of hours could be spent arbitrating cases in trying to figure out who is allowed or who is not allowed to work on Sundays. The reality, however, is quite different. We have had, in response to our request from the Ministry of Labour, information that there have been up to now only 16 complaints filed with the employment standards branch of the Ministry of Labour under the current bill. Really, I do not think there is a stampede in that regard. In fact, of those, there are only two cases pending, so I do not think one could really talk in any way, shape or form of thousands of hours possibly being spent on arbitrating cases on this matter.
My main question though is, you are describing what happened when the Sunday shopping legislation was in limbo and you said that most of the stores, in fact, stayed closed. Would you not agree that the reality of what happened lends weight to those who say, "Let business decide"? If they find it is profitable, they will stay open. If they find it is not profitable, as obviously happened in London, they will stay closed. Is that not the best way to do it, and it will really work itself out?
0950
Mr Burghardt: I would disagree with that premise, with all due respect, because many of the smaller retailers found that eventually they probably would have to open.
Mr Daigeler: But they did not.
Mr Burghardt: They did not, but eventually they would.
Mr Daigeler: It is speculation. You would agree on that.
Mr Burghardt: No, but they did not open. One retailer in particular, whose head office is here in London and who operates about 40 jewellery stores in the province and elsewhere across the country, but mainly in Ontario, said he could not afford to open on Sunday because most of his stores are staffed by two or three people at the most.
Mr Daigeler: So he stayed closed?
Mr Burghardt: He stayed closed, but he said that if this continues and the large anchors in the major shopping malls decide to stay open, then he is going to be forced to open, and at what cost? He was totally against Sunday shopping.
Mr Daigeler: My point is, and we heard this in many parts of the province, that people expressed the fear you just expressed, but the reality is that it did not happen. We have had that experience, and many retailers told us that really the initial fear has waned and they no longer have that. At least that is what we have heard in other parts of the province. While I can certainly sympathize with that fear, it is speculation. It is not what was corroborated by the experience we have had.
Mr Gosnell: If I can just jump in there, I think part of the problem is that the period of limbo did not last long enough for a true assessment to be done by anybody. You pointed out that only 16 cases have gone through under the Employment Standards Act to make sure that people were not unfairly treated. It does not take an employer too long to know that half his staff is more prepared to work on Sunday than the other. If you are going to be cutting back on workforce, you know who gets cut first. We have heard many of those complaints. The employer knows that if he has to have trained staff, he wants as much flexibility as possible, and he or she knows who the flexible employees will be.
Mr Carr: Just so you know, in our travels it is very clear that there are going to be large parts of this province that are going to be open. Collingwood has already said it is going to take the tourism exemption, the Sault, Thunder Bay, Kenora, and you know about Windsor and Sarnia. In fairness, there are some that are not -- North Bay and Sudbury said they will not. What they are going to be doing is taking the tourism exemption and, as a result, opening up the entire town.
Some of the unions that have come through have said that the Premier, in spite of the fact that he said this legislation would give a common pause day, has called those tourism exemptions a joke. In fact, yesterday we heard that they were big enough to drive a Mack truck through.
With regard to the commitment that was made a year ago during the campaign, the Premier said there will be a common pause day. Very clearly, there will not. A year from now, from what we heard from the municipalities, they are going to take this tourism exemption, and I suspect there will be at least 60%, probably 70%. What a lot of people who are opposed to Sunday shopping are saying is that the Premier broke his commitment. I was just wondering if you could comment, based on what was promised in the election campaign, whether in fact you believe the Premier broke his commitment to the people of this province.
Mr Gosnell: I think you are asking us to get a little partisan there.
Mr Carr: As a politician you would never do that.
Mr Gosnell: That is the wonderful part of being on municipal council -- we get to talk to all three parties the same way.
Mr Burghardt: Different parties too.
Mr Gosnell: If I can go back to what you said earlier, I think it is important to recognize that the Legislature should be offended that entire cities say they are designated tourist areas. Can you imagine that every part of Windsor, every part of Sarnia, is a designated tourist area? That is a joke, and it makes a joke of the legislation.
That is why, if it is going to be flouted to the extent it is, we are saying that the province, with great respect, has to show some leadership, has to set up criteria that clearly define what a tourist area is, if it is going to be part of the legislation. You cannot just say to our friends in Windsor and Sarnia, "Go ahead and declare your entire area as a tourist designation." That is nonsense. The Legislature knows that, the public knows that, and the impacts are going to be very profound and they are going to affect surrounding municipalities.
If every car dealership, every appliance store is open on Sundays, it is going to impact our ability to compete in our area. One thing that members of the Legislature should keep in mind, as our deputy mayor pointed out, is that the cost of doing business on Sunday is not just to the person who is doing the shopping or to the local government; you have to pay a great number of bills that are going to be incurred because of Sunday shopping. When we run our public transit authorities, when we run our police departments, our fire departments, when we have more activity in terms of government services, the province, through its transfer payments, pays a great deal of that money, especially for public transit, day care and other issues.
So Sunday shopping is very expensive to the Legislature, it is expensive to local government and, as we have pointed out, there is nothing we have seen yet that says shoppers will spend more in Ontario because it is open seven days rather than six. So you are in fact increasing your overhead, you are increasing government expenditures and you are already putting even more of a burden on an already pressed retail industry.
Mrs Cunningham: It is interesting for me to be here today and to listen to my colleague. About two or three summers ago when we sat on this committee around the province we had one of the Liberal members from London, Joan Smith. When she was on the same council she was very much opposed to the municipal option, so the citizens of London certainly elected somebody who was opposed to the municipal option, who then became in favour of it.
Mr Daigeler: What is your party standing now?
Mrs Cunningham: Party standing? My understanding is you do not have a stand, and neither do we. Not one of us should have a stand. That is why we have these public hearings, to hear from the public, to change the legislation that is proposed. I have been told by the Liberals that they do not have a stand, that they are out to listen, and certainly that is our party's position --
Mr Daigeler: We certainly do have a stand: municipal option.
Mrs Cunningham: -- and that is on the record right now. Individuals may have a stand; even our leader may have a stand. My colleague to my right has a stand. Mine happens to be different because I happen to represent this municipality and I will always take my position from the electorate in London as long as I can find one. We do not have a lot of clear positions; on this one we do. It is my job and my responsibility, to listen to the people who have elected me through the municipal council, and that is why I did take a very strong stand against Sunday shopping. Personally, as a family person, I am against Sunday shopping.
I would like the mayor or the deputy mayor to respond to this. I think there is a good model for Ontario in the province of New Brunswick, where at least they have taken a stand. I think a government should say "wide-open Sunday shopping or no Sunday shopping," and take a clear stand. This law as presented now does not take a clear stand. New Brunswick, in fact, has a law that says that tourist areas shall be designated by the province. Municipalities have to present to the province.
It was a position that both the NDP and the Conservatives took during the last round of hearings. We asked the public how it felt about that. But at least there was a clear position and clearly the responsibility for legislating store hours is either none at all or take a stand and say "Yes, we will have tourist areas."
I have never asked this question of my municipality before, but would that be a clear stand for the municipalities if at least the tourist exemption became something that was a responsibility of a board and the municipalities had to apply to it and it therefore became legislation controlled by the province?
Mr Burghardt: As his worship the mayor has said, we feel the tourist exemption right now is a joke. I think you are right on when you cite the situation in New Brunswick. Either the province says, "Look, we're going to have wide-open Sunday shopping," or "We're not," but you cannot leave it up to the individual municipality. We may be forced to go into Sunday shopping. There is no question about it and we are not hiding our heads in the sand. We realize that. If we are, then we will have to say, "Okay, everything is open," and if the retailers want to open, so be it. If they want to stay closed, so be it.
But at this point here, you have different situations right across the province. This is where the Legislature, the government of the day, has to be strong. Either there is wide-open shopping or there is not, but you cannot leave it up to the individual municipalities. This is what is creating the chaos, really, from one municipality to another. All we have done as a council, as you have stated, Mrs Cunningham, is that we have represented the people of the city of London, the majority, who have said to us, "We do not want wide-open Sunday shopping." If the province comes along and says, "So be it," then so be it.
1000
Mr Gosnell: If I could just add one thing, the whole idea of municipal option is no option, it is just a back-door approach to vote Sunday shopping, because over time there will be no option for municipalities other than to be wide open, compete with the surrounding jurisdictions.
Mr Daigeler: That is not what we have seen, though.
Mr Gosnell: That is exactly what is going to happen.
Mrs Cunningham: Mr Chairman, just as a point of courtesy, could I welcome everybody to London? I should have done that in the beginning. I am proud, as I am sure the mayor and deputy mayor are, to have this committee here and proud of my colleagues from all parties of the Legislative Assembly. I welcome you to London.
The Chair: Indeed. Thank you, Mrs Cunningham.
Mr Fletcher: Thank you for being here this morning. Let me start on a personal level. I agree with what you are saying about the municipal option. I disagree with municipal options. I disagreed with it when the Liberals brought it in and I disagree with it now. As far as what we have been hearing throughout the province, the business community is coming up and saying, "We have to open; we have to compete; we have to compete with the United States cross-border shopping." I agree, even though we say it does not make any difference with cross-border shopping.
You are saying you do not want the responsibility of designating areas that are open. It is a patchwork across the province. Sault Ste Marie, Windsor, the border communities are calling for it and then we get into Collingwood and that area. How can the province come up with criteria to designate tourist areas when it is such a patchwork across the province? I think this is what we are getting at in the municipal part of it -- in your own community you know better which are the tourist areas.
Mr Gosnell: I think that is a good question. I wish the government of the day had asked us that about four or five years ago.
Mr Fletcher: Yes. They did not ask much.
Mr Gosnell: But the point is, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario is prepared, as you know, to work with the government to help define things such as "tourist," "shopping," "designated tourist areas" and the essential services that have over time been allowed to grow in Ontario. We understand it is complex and we understand it is very difficult. We are not saying it is going to be a very easy task. We are prepared to work with you on it, but we cannot understand how we can have legislation that would allow Metro Toronto to vote that it is a tourist area. In fact, they are in many areas, but not the entire area of Metro. So either it is Sunday shopping or not, and if the government and the Legislature are interested in: "How can we define it better? How can we put in a test to make sure that in fact the city that is coming forward can show that it truly is a designated tourist area or should be?" then we are prepared to work with the government to do that.
Mr Morrow: I was really interested in coming to London to hear what was going to be said about Sunday shopping, because I watched Dianne Cunningham's by-election win in 1988 and her stand on Sunday shopping, so I was really thrilled to be here this morning.
Mrs Cunningham: I did not let you down, did I, Mark?
Mr Morrow: No, you did not let me down at all, Dianne.
Mr Kormos: You have never let us down, Dianne.
Mr Morrow: I want to clear something up that Mr Daigeler said about the Employment Standards Act, there being only 16 cases reported. We all know that for each case reported there have to be thousands that go unreported. That is the bottom line. The upper echelon of the Ministry of Labour does not hear every case. I just wanted Mr Daigeler to realize that.
Now to my question. We have been hearing from a few places that the Ontario Municipal Board or some sort of regional board or something should have the appeal process so that the municipalities, the chamber of commerce or whoever can go there. Do you think that is basically a good idea?
Mr Gosnell: I think the concept of having some discussions with a government committee as to how we can establish a review that would allow for the designation of tourist areas and a review of Sunday shopping is something that could perhaps get into that in more detail. I believe there is something along those lines that could be put in place that would be guidelines for truly understandable tourist areas. We are prepared to work with government on that. I am not saying we have all the answers. We understand it is difficult, but you cannot leave over 800 municipalities, I think it is, in Ontario to determine in their own way what that will be, or you will end up with Sunday shopping all the way across Ontario.
Mr Morrow: I also have to ask you a favour, if you do not mind. I read your brief and listened attentively to what you were saying. There are a couple of quotes in this brief that I would not mind using, if there is no problem with that at all.
Mr Gosnell: Sure.
Mrs Cunningham: We'll get you on our side yet, Mark.
Mr Morrow: Do you agree that employees should have the absolute right to refuse work on a Sunday?
Mr Burghardt: Certainly they should have the option to refuse and that is what we refer to in our brief. Despite what the Liberal member said here, who disagreed with what we said, we feel an employee should have the right to say, "No, I don't want to work on Sunday." But we also feel there is a potential for that employee to be damaged in future.
Mr Lessard: I take it from your presentation that you have support for the services to be provided for tourists on Sundays. That is part of your presentation. You recognize that.
Being from Windsor, I can tell you that the situation there did not really have a lot to do with confusion about the existing legislation. I think they bowed to strong business pressures and the threat of cross-border shopping and the fact that we had wide-open Sunday shopping for nine months before they finally passed the bylaw that they did.
One of the things that has been strongly pointed out to me is that in Windsor they do not want any provincial intervention; they want to make that decision on their own. We have heard that from other municipalities as well. That is a problem we have when I try to reconcile these different viewpoints. Mrs Cunningham has said she wants to reflect the views of the people in London, but if I take the same approach and try to reflect the views of the people in Windsor who do not want provincial intervention, somehow we have to try to deal with those two different approaches.
You have said you would see a lot of government hours being spent to try to enforce this law. But if we have a situation where the provincial government intervenes, do you not think we might have to set up a board or some sort of bureaucracy to try to deal with establishing tourism exemptions at the provincial level?
Mr Gosnell: Perhaps, but I think the test should be that we do not really have a problem with what Windsor wants to do as long as it does not impact us negatively. We hope what we do does not negatively impact Windsor. If London were to declare itself an international tax-free and duty-free area, I am sure that would be a tremendous economic boon for the city of London, but it might not help anybody else. Clearly we do not have the authority to do that, nor are we asking to do it.
I think we can accommodate Windsor and London by making sure that the leadership from the provincial government has shown that it has taken the time to properly designate tourist-designated areas. That can be a benefit to the ratepayers and retailers of Windsor and London and, over time, as the cross-border shopping issue is resolved some time down the road with hopefully more competitive prices and opportunities to bring more citizens south of the border up to buy something in Canada, I think that will work itself out. But to have Windsor declare itself unilaterally and entirely a tourist-designated area has very negative impacts on places as far away as London and Sarnia and Chatham and has a ripple or domino effect that will mean their decisions impact us. I do not think that would be fair for other communities and we would not want to be in a position where we negatively impact a place like Windsor either.
Mr Daigeler: Before the witness leaves, Mr Chairman, on a point of order, legal counsel clarified --
The Chair: Mr Mills will be making that clarification. I do not think it relates specifically to the city of London's deputation, but rather to your question, so perhaps we could do that and not inconvenience these gentlemen.
Mr Daigeler: The statement was made by the delegation.
The Chair: Thank you very much, gentlemen, and on behalf of the committee I want to make note of how pleasurable our evening was yesterday and how much we have enjoyed the city of London and your hospitality.
Mr Gosnell: I would be remiss if I did not say that the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police are in town for the next three days, so I am sure all of you will be on your best behaviour.
The Chair: Even the parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General.
Mr Mills, on a point of clarification.
Mr Mills: Mr Daigeler asked what the protection is for the employee's possible recriminations about this bill. We have confidence in and respect for the business community and we think the law in place will be respected by all those concerned. Also I think it very clear that Bill 115 sends a message to all the retail employees regarding their rights in this bill. It is a question of working together, and I think they will.
1010
Mr Daigeler: Quite frankly I am still confused if the question really can be answered in a yes or no fashion, possibly by legal counsel here.
The witness has just stated that it will be possible to skirt this legislation through hiring practices for new employees that include a stipulation or understanding that Sunday is a regular day of work. Is that possible under the proposed legislation? This is an important legal question that I think we have a right to see clarified.
Mr Mills: Unfortunately, at the moment there is no one here from the Ministry of Labour to answer that, but Janet is in the process of contacting the ministry to get that answer.
The Chair: So you will be getting a further response for Mr Daigeler.
Mr Mills: Yes.
CANADIAN RETAIL HARDWARE ASSOCIATION
The Chair: We now have a presentation from the Canadian Retail Hardware Association. Mr Finlay, please have a seat and feel comfortable. We have approximately half an hour to divide between your presentation and questions from the committee. As you probably have noticed, those questions tend to be more raucous towards each other than towards our witnesses. Please feel free to start as soon as you are ready, sir.
Mr Finlay: I am John Finlay, the executive vice-president of the Canadian Retail Hardware Association. I would like to thank the committee for inviting us to make this presentation today. We have been involved in discussions on this issue, it seems, for years. I have been involved with the association for over 10 years, and Sunday shopping has arisen in various provinces off and on all during that period of time.
Just as an aside, before presenting the formal part of the brief, I would add that I was a resident in British Columbia when it introduced its municipal option. From my recollection, the municipal option there was somewhat different than was being proposed in Ontario and they held referenda in the various municipalities. As an example, in Vancouver I believe it was the municipality of Surrey which took the referendum first and voted for closed on Sundays. Within about a week after that, Burnaby voted for open Sundays. Almost within two weeks after that, Surrey came back again and took another referendum and said it was reversing its position as such. So we have had some experience with the municipal option and it has tended to be negative.
If you will allow me to present the formal part of our brief, we have given out copies of this brief. I am sorry it did not come to you in advance. I am one of the 8 of 10 Canadians suffering from back problems so I have been out of commission for a period of time and consequently we did not get this to you ahead of time. We have prepared this submission to make you aware of the views of our members on the Sunday shopping issue in Ontario and on Bill 115 and its proposed amendments.
The Canadian Retail Hardware Association is a national trade association representing the independent hardware, housewares and home improvement retailers. CRHA has operated successfully for 85 years and has almost 800 members in Ontario. Our membership includes stores from groups such as Canadian Tire, Castle Building Supply, Lansing Building Supply, Home Hardware, Pro Hardware and Do-It Centres. There are also a number of our members who buy from a variety of wholesaling sources.
The Canadian Retail Hardware Association's Ontario membership is overwhelmingly opposed to Sunday shopping. The typical CRHA member in Ontario is a franchised owner-operator who works a total of over 57 hours a week -- in fact, every minute the store is open. Since our members work six days a week, the current Sunday closing law guarantees them one day a week to spend with their families. However, if the competition opens on Sunday, our members are forced to do the same, of course.
We believe the Sunday shopping issue played a major role in the last provincial election, even though that was not perhaps apparent in the press coverage. Our membership, supported by the association, worked hard to elect individuals who committed themselves to the concept of a common pause day. We participated in "Say No to Sunday Shopping" rallies throughout the province and we provided our members with posters and information to help them fight the issue.
We commend the government for the initiative it has shown on the Sunday shopping legislation and in general terms we support Bill 115. However, to make the law consistent, equitable and enforceable across the province, some additional amendments or changes to the proposed amendments must take place. We share the views expressed to this committee on August 15, 1991 by the Solicitor General of Ontario concerning both tourism and the labour-related aspects of Sunday shopping. However, we were disappointed that no specific mention was made of the impact of the issue on small businesses or their owners. In our industry, the owners are also usually retail workers. While they have no manager to tell them to work on Sundays, their competition can effectively force them to do so. We feel that by not acknowledging and identifying the needs of small business, the Solicitor General is encouraging an us-and-them philosophy between workers and owners in the province.
In the past, the major problems which have occurred surrounding the Sunday shopping issue have been mainly brought about by large and powerful corporate interests, primarily in the retail grocery and pharmaceutical sectors. Large corporations have a significantly easier task in dealing with Sunday shopping, having a much larger pool of managers and staff than the small, independent retailer. As stated earlier in this brief, the major problem concerning Sunday shopping which faces us all, whether in tourism, labour or small business, is how to ensure that any legislation to control the issue is consistent, equitable and enforceable.
The Canadian Retail Hardware Association is concerned that, as presently drafted, the amendments being proposed to the Retail Business Holidays Act will not accomplish the desired results. To achieve the objective of a common pause day throughout the province, we would suggest the following:
(1) The statement of principle concerning municipal councils and the common pause day should be changed to read "must maintain the principle that holidays are to remain as a common pause day" instead of "take into account" the principle of a common pause day;
(2) The tourism criteria should be narrowed and more clearly defined, otherwise the result will ultimately be wide-open Sunday shopping;
(3) Subsection 4(1) concerning promotion of tourism in the province should be superseded by subsection 4(2), which states that a common pause day is the guiding principle of the Retail Business Holidays Act.
The members of our association have specific concerns about the sections of the act covering definitions, exemptions, pharmacies, Sunday exceptions, municipal powers, licensing proposals, penalty provisions and, last, court orders. However, rather than spelling out all our concerns in the body of this brief, we have attached an addendum which details our concerns and outlines possible specific solutions. The addendum is identical to the one which will be presented to the committee on August 29, 1991, in Toronto by the Fairness for Families groups, of which the Canadian Retail Hardware Association is an active member. As Fairness for Families prepared the proposals on behalf of a number of associations and interested parties, we suggest that the committee allow it the opportunity to discuss the content in detail.
In conclusion, the committee should be in no doubt about the feelings of retailers in our business sector concerning Sunday shopping. In a ballot conducted by our association in June of this year, 78% of our Ontario membership was totally opposed to open Sunday shopping and 12% was partially opposed. In fact, even in British Columbia, where Sunday shopping has been a fact of life for over 10 years, almost 45% of our dealers totally opposed the concept and 28% were partially opposed.
We would like to take this opportunity to thank the committee for inviting us to appear before it to express our members' views on the proposed amendments to Bill 115. We know how difficult and complex an issue Sunday shopping is. We have been involved in battles over this issue in Ontario and other provinces for many years. We would like to thank the committee for the time and effort it has committed to the process of public consultation on this topic, and we would like to assure it that our association and its members are willing to assist it to arrive at a consistent, equitable and enforceable Sunday shopping law for the province. Thank you.
1020
Mr Daigeler: I certainly can agree with you when you say on page 4 that you know how difficult and complex an issue Sunday shopping is, because we have heard many somewhat contradictory views on this question, and it makes it awfully difficult for a provincial politician to come up with a uniform solution.
There are of course some who argue, and I guess we have some committee members here who would take that position, and say the province should simply force its view on everybody else. I think the Liberal position has been different on that, as you know, and not everybody agrees with it.
In any case, I would like to hear from you. We had a Canadian Tire retailer in Thunder Bay come to us. He was from Kenora and he argued very strongly that he wanted to stay open and he needed to stay open to attract all the tourism business, all the travellers who are otherwise bypassing Kenora, to come to his store. He says he has been doing a great business while Sundays were open. On the other hand, we had a Canadian Tire retailer in Toronto saying he wanted to stay closed. What would you say to the one who appeared before us in Thunder Bay?
Mr Finlay: I think all that you are highlighting is how complex the problem really is, and also how emotional a problem it is. The difficulty, I am sure, that has been expressed by many of the previous presenters to you is that whenever you are asking individuals about staying open or closing, the crux of the matter really is having a level playing field.
First of all I would say that very possibly Kenora is a tourist region, truly geographically a tourist region, as opposed to the Eaton Centre in Toronto. But second, I think we come back to the fact that if all stores have to close, then the Canadian Tire dealer in Kenora is working on an even playing field with everybody else.
We, as an association, have to go on the basis of the majority of our dealers. Even the Canadian Tire dealers in Ontario -- if you were to talk with their association I think you would find the majority of their dealers in fact are saying they want to stay closed.
We are back into the problem that immediately one stays open, then everybody has an argument to stay open, just as in the same argument used with municipalities, that if one stays open, everybody stays open. We do not have an answer. All we can say is that the majority of our dealers, including the Canadian Tire dealers, feel they should remain closed, and if that in fact was achieved, that we were able to keep those dealers closed, then one store cannot argue with another that it has any particular benefit. I do not know if that is really giving you an answer.
Mr Daigeler: What has been the experience among the members of your association during the time Sunday shopping legislation was in limbo? Did most of them stay open? Did most of them stay closed? What was the percentage, do you know?
Mr Finlay: I do not know the percentage, but it was very mixed. The majority who stayed open stayed open because their competition forced them to stay open. There was somebody who opened in an area and consequently that meant others opened in response to that. The general information we got back was that for most of our dealers it was not economic. Now, that varied, depending on region. There were some areas I think you would find in the province where there was a fair amount of activity, but I would have to say that in general the information we got back was that in most areas it was not an economic proposition. They in fact were staying open and getting very little business. That argument can be extended even beyond our part of the industry and into the department stores and so forth, which in a number of areas found that they also were not generating a large volume of business.
The problem again -- somebody else, I think, raised it earlier -- is that in the earlier stages of this Sunday shopping issue in the province, nothing has gone on long enough in the changes that occurred to really make a very good judgement of what would happen. For instance, when we had the open Sunday shopping, some of the figures we saw from border communities were interesting. We found that there was an increase in cross-border traffic in places like Sault Ste Marie when there was open Sunday shopping here, which would not seem to make sense. I am not suggesting that we should necessarily use those statistics and say they mean this or they mean that, but certainly that situation did occur and we do not really know why you would have an increase in cross-border activity.
Mr Carr: Thank you very much for your presentation this morning. I was very interested that on page 2 you said, "We commend the government for the initiative it has shown," and yet on page 3 you say the tourism criteria should be narrowed, otherwise it will result in wide-open Sunday shopping. The vast majority of people who have come before us have said the tourism exemptions are so broad that a lot of municipalities have said, "Thank you very much, we are going to interpret it the way we want. There is no recourse other than the courts," which both sides have said, incidentally, they will use. So regardless of what happens in a community, the other side is immediately going to be able to challenge it because of the broad tourism exemptions.
You say on the one hand you like the legislation, but you are opposed to Sunday shopping, and as a result of this we will have Sunday shopping in a large portion of the province. I was just wondering if you could comment. If there are no changes to this bill, what do you see happening a year from now? Will there be Sunday shopping in Ontario, in your opinion?
Mr Finlay: I am not sure if you could say a year from now, although that is probably a good time frame, because of other factors, economic conditions, cross-border, and so on. It could take a bit longer than that, but, yes, ultimately we really believe it will be open Sunday shopping. Unless the legislation is extremely clear, well spelled out, unless the province keeps control of it, we think that ultimately you are going to end up with open Sundays once it gets into the municipalities. Again, there are all sorts of arguments, because you get into this argument about a group that wants open Sunday shopping, that has every bit as much right as the group that does not want it.
The problem, of course, you come into is that the group that does not want it is basically forced into it. Most people say, "If the hardware store doesn't want to open, then just don't open." It would be nice if it was that simple. But the fact of the matter is he knows he has to stay in business. He stands a chance of losing permanently every customer of his hardware store who goes to another store when he is closed on that Sunday. So he has all sorts of pressures that basically say if other stores open, he must open.
As we see it at the present time, if the act is not tightened up, if control is not kept by the province and some form of licensing done and the province establishes whether an area is in fact a tourist area or has that ability to open, we think you are going to end up with open Sunday shopping indirectly.
Mrs Cunningham: Mr Finlay, I would like to thank you for what I think is an excellent brief. You have obviously put a lot of work into it. In fact, you have put so much work into it that we are going to have to take a very close look at it to put all of the acts you are referring to together.
I would like to ask you about the amendments you propose on page 2, the Sunday exceptions. One of the frustrations, of course, for the business people in Ontario is that again we are changing the rules. I am now referring specifically to the size of the store, which is 7,500 square feet, and if we take your advice we will be reducing it. This is one of the great costs of running a business in Ontario, the inconsistencies and the lack, I think, of strong leadership in governments. As a result, we will see people who have made those renovations in the last couple of years have to undo them. I am not saying I would not be prepared to do that if it made good sense, but it is one of the great problems we have. This is a good example of legislation where people have to flow with the campaign speeches, which is why we are in this mess in the first place.
I would like you to respond to two things. First of all, what do you really mean on page 2 with regard to Sunday exception? If you could explain it carefully. Second, coming from Mississauga, if you could pass comment on what I feel the reason for this legislation is in the first place. The municipality of Toronto would not take a stand and designate the Eaton Centre one way or another and therefore the Liberals in their campaign tried to respond with a provincial law. The rest of us were prepared to close on Sundays across this province, but once that tourist area would not be designated, in my view, we found ourselves with a provincial government promising laws for a common pause day, which of course was the exact opposite.
At the beginning, all of this trouble began with a lack of the political fortitude to talk to people in the Eaton Centre in the municipality of Toronto, and the rest of us around this province who do not live in the city of Toronto do not feel that way. So two things: Sunday exception and perhaps a little bit of history since you have been around for a while.
1030
Mr Finlay: The Sunday exception: I guess our view on it again comes down to trying to tighten the act up. We believe the size of stores being allowed to open, the 7,500 square feet, is too large. We would like to see that reduced to truly represent small stores, which is the 5,000 square feet. There are a number of problems even there because you can get into situations -- Harbourfront would be a good example -- where you have a lot of small stores. You could get into situations where a major corporation can set itself up with what in effect are small stores but are truly not small stores. They are really part of a department store, if you like. We would like to see that tightened up.
Again, I refer you back to the addendum that is attached because it clearly can specify what we are saying. We just think the wording of the act is not strong enough or precise enough as far as the Sunday exceptions are concerned. We would like to see it tightened up so that there are not the loopholes in it to let people get through.
If you have that addendum and refer to the Sunday exceptions on there, I think what we had said, and I say, is that we are sharing with Fairness for Families. I do not want to take their thunder away from them. You will have had a chance to look at what they are going to be saying, but they will have some additional material. Basically, we have just tried to more clearly specify under that section 2 things concerning the square footage and the number of persons engaged in the operation of that store to keep it small.
Mrs Cunningham: Do you think the number of persons would be difficult to enforce? That was one of the criticisms the Liberals brought forth. They said you just could not enforce the numbers of persons. I think that would be one of the easier things to do.
Mr Finlay: No, it is difficult. There is no question that anything to do with Sunday shopping is difficult. Again, whoever is involved, we would not want to suggest that it is an easy issue by any means, and there has to be compromise. We said in our presentation that we support Fairness for Families, as an example, which is a group of many associations. I would be incorrect to say we agree 100% with everything they are suggesting. We had to compromise to come up with an agreement with other groups that were involved, so there are areas that I know some of our members might say, "We don't really think that is correct," and so on. The tourism area part in particular is a real problem in our industry.
We know there are areas that we do not necessarily agree on 100%, but we have had to compromise. What we are really saying, and I guess what we would like to say to you as a committee and in having parties represented is, from our industry standpoint it is a very vital and important issue and it is going to have tremendous impact on the people within our industry, whether workers or owners of stores. We would like to see a lot less politicking and a lot more constructive work to try to solve the problem because we really do think there has to be a major effort made to solve it. It would be nice if we could get the parties to agree on a general consensus of how to approach it, but we have not been able to do that within our own industry so I do not think we would realistically suggest we could expect the various parties to agree.
I would, though, if I could just make one comment, say that we would have great support for your own comment about the law in New Brunswick and these provinces. We believe that kind of tough line has to be taken.
I do not think I answered the second part of your question.
Mrs Cunningham: That is all right. It was rather political and you were urging us to work together, and I hope that is what we will do.
Mr Lessard: It is always great to hear from a representative of a large number of what we would call small, independent retailers. Sometimes we hear from individual retailers and in this case it is an organization that obviously has a lot of clout and influence.
I want to say that I agree with you with respect to tightening up the tourist criteria, and I would take it from your brief that you do recognize the value of ensuring that there are services available for tourism on Sundays. One of the proposals that you have made in your addendum is to have licensing to permit people to open up on Sundays, but the provisions in there are very general. In fact, you just say that a person should obtain a licence, but there are no other further details. Can you explain to me what you might have in mind for a system like that?
Mr Finlay: What we are really suggesting is that the province, in its legislation, spell out what is necessary to obtain a licence, that the specific requirements to control Sunday shopping are tied in to the presentation from the provincial government.
Mr Lessard: So this would be a licence that would be granted by the province, not by municipalities.
Mr Finlay: We would rather see that. However, in the case of the municipalities, if there are very clear guidelines as to what constitutes the ability to open on a Sunday, if there are very clear specifications on that, and if all of the other criteria are met -- in other words, that the penalties are very clearly spelled out, that what really truly constitutes a tourist area is really spelled out and so on -- we would still like to see the power remain with the province.
At the municipal level, we feel if the licence were applied for at that point, unless you were able to really tie down the legislation, you are going to have a tremendously difficult time in controlling it. You are going to find different municipalities will tend to administer it differently. We would be much more comfortable with the province granting those licences, along with controlling it. One of the suggestions that has been made, and I think you will hear it again, is controlling perhaps tied in with the group that administers the retail sales tax and so forth, but with a group that can in fact administer a licensing process.
Mr Lessard: I guess something that we think people always have some apprehension about is the government establishing some additional board or tribunal or something of that nature.
Mr Morrow: I want to thank you for this fine brief that you presented to us, because it helps in a lot of ways. Actually, what we have here are some draft amendments or draft legislation to basically try to clean up a real wishy-washy previous government's Bill 113.
Mrs Cunningham: And Bill 114, which was worse.
Mr Morrow: Bill 114 was worse -- you are right. So this really does help us an awful lot.
There is one thing that I would like to bring out that you have on the last page of your ballot, and it is something that I feel very strongly about. You have a ballot about Sunday shopping. One line that you might want to put in there is, "Do you want to work on Sunday?" because that seems to be a constant theme. A lot of people say: "Well, yes, I wouldn't mind shopping on a Sunday, but, Jesus, no, I don't want to work on a Sunday. No, not a chance."
Going to the tourism option, do you feel that the province should have total control over the tourism criteria?
Mr Finlay: Yes.
1040
The Chair: Before you leave, Mr Finlay, I had one small question from one of my colleagues in regard to your symbol, the arrow and circle. This is totally aside from your testimony.
Mr Finlay: We have had a number of comments made about that, some kind of interesting ones in this particular day of being politically correct -- I think that is the term used. We produce some educational material which we ask some of the educational facilities to distribute for us or to keep in their libraries and so on. We had a video about our industry which we sent with a letter to a number of the universities to ask them if they would keep it in the libraries. One of them went to Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, a fairly radical university, or with a reputation as being fairly radical. We got a letter back -- I cannot remember the title of the person whose letter it was, but it was basically to do with women's issues within the university -- in which they said that under no circumstances would they carry this material, because we were obviously a totally sexist organization, as shown by our symbol, which was actually the male symbol and so on. We wrote back to explain to them that the symbol is actually an international symbol used to denote our industry in Europe, as well as Australia and Canada and so on. The arrow is actually the alchemist's symbol for iron and is not the same way as the male symbol. But in answer to your question, that is what it actually is.
Mr Poirier: I thought it was because of the reference to hardware.
Mr Finlay: In Europe they are called ironmongers and they were people who worked with iron, if you go way back. That is where the symbol came from and that is why we use it. Thanks for the opportunity of enlightening you on it.
MIKE BRADLEY
The Chair: We now have a presentation from the city of Sarnia, Mayor Bradley. We have approximately half an hour. You can divide that time between your presentation and allow some time for the committee members to pose questions, of which I am sure there will be plenty. Please feel free to start.
Mr Bradley: My brief is brief. First of all, I thank you as a committee for visiting the region. It is refreshing for us to have MPPs in the area instead of travelling to Queen's Park and we certainly appreciate that. I appear in front of you as the mayor of the city of Sarnia-Clearwater, and also, for the last two years I have served as chairman of the association of large urban cities of Ontario, which represents the 34 largest cities in Ontario, and just this past week became a vice-president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.
For the past four years the communities throughout Ontario have been put through a period of chaos and turmoil dividing labour and business within our respective communities because of the actions of the proposed legislation of this government and also the previous government. In the last provincial election there was a very clear commitment to eliminate the municipal option and to move back towards a provincial, uniform standard of laws across this province as it relates to Sunday shopping. The legislation that is now in front of you I do not believe keeps that commitment.
The previous Peterson government created the problem by bringing forward the municipal option, then appearing unable to deal with the issue in a quick and simplified manner. We went through two or three years as municipal councils trying to get a clear grasp on their direction and live within all the different court challenges.
I speak to you as the mayor of a border city which is going through a period of destabilization of its retail industry, and from that vantage point I can tell you that the Sunday shopping and cross-border issues are two separate issues. Border communities have a seven-day-a-week problem.
Just this morning, before I came here, I met with some retailers in our community, and we just received the survey the province did, a telephone survey to the Sarnia-Clearwater area in April of this year. Their estimated job loss in retail, in an area of 126,000 people, is 2,072 jobs and over $150 million out of the economy. In London itself they estimate $135 million is being lost annually on cross-border. But it is a seven-day-a-week issue, and the busiest days at the bridge points are Saturday and Friday, respectively.
We all know why the cross-border issue is occurring. It is taxation at all three levels of government; it is the GST, it is retail markup, it is all those issues. I am sure you are very familiar with that. The best estimate I can get from anyone who is even very pro on Sunday openings is that it might make a 10% to 15% impact on the business he might be able to retain in the United States on a Sunday.
The example I can give to you that I think sort of destroys the myth that Sunday shopping and cross-border shopping are entwined together is Sault Ste Marie, which I understand has had wide-open Sunday shopping for the last four years and last year lost $140 million in retail business and an estimated 1,000 jobs in its economy.
The city of Sarnia-Clearwater has not had Sunday openings except for the eight-month period when the law was struck down. Even in the last two months a survey of our business community indicated that 66% were still opposed to Sunday openings. However, if Sunday openings were allowed, they obviously would have to follow the market forces.
I personally am opposed to Sunday shopping and voted against it when it was raised at our council meeting just a few weeks ago. However, I was overruled by the majority and I accept that verdict. Our council responded to a request by a major drugstore, and I use that word loosely, of 25,000 square feet. That is quite a drugstore, and I think that points to some of the problems we have had with the previous law, that there does not seem to be fairness in how it is applied, and is it equitable?
My own message to my own council was, "Wait for the provincial legislation, wait to see what this committee recommends, and then work under those guidelines," because to me it is simply going to be a process of we bring the public in, we go through the process, then two months later we are going to have to go through the process again.
There has been a great deal of talk about a new partnership among government, business and labour, which I think we all support. A few months ago, when I had the opportunity to meet with Premier Rae, we discussed it at length. We are trying to do that in the Sarnia area.
I greatly fear that this can impact negatively on that partnership, because it does divide business, it does divide labour, and it is all unnecessary. If the legislation is accepted as currently presented, municipal councils will be tied up with literally hundreds of individual applications and working with criteria which are as tight or as wide-open as they wish. I also believe it is a denial of natural justice to say you can meet the criteria but municipal councils still have the right to turn down your request.
I spoke to the Solicitor General last week about this and I expressed to him, from my point of view in border communities, that with this changing public mood and with the will of council and the public to have Sunday openings in places like Sarnia and Windsor, what is going to occur is that there is going to be defiance of this law. I presume the process that these councils will take is simply to instruct staff to approve all applications and then let the province react to that decision. I do not think that is a correct way to approach things and I do not believe it is an appropriate way for council to govern, but they certainly are giving those signals now.
I would also suggest to you, even though I have total opposition to Sunday openings, that from my point of view it would be better to have an and/or situation in our respective communities. I believe that it would be a lot better for us simply to make the decision to be open as a total community or to be closed as a total community and not to tie us up in this prolonged debate on individual applications.
The Association of Municipalities of Ontario has made representations suggesting that if this law is to unfold, we would prefer a provincial board making decisions. I think many of you have served in municipal politics. You know the pressures municipal councils face and you also know they are very susceptible to those pressures. I think if there is going to be a uniform standard, there should be one that applies to Sarnia, to Cornwall, to Sault Ste Marie, to every city in Ontario with some fairness and equity.
In what has been proposed, you have given us the worst of both worlds. We are now placed in a position of a local option with provincial criteria, and I believe that is going to lead to the very wide-open Sunday shopping which I think many people in this room do not want.
In summary, I make two recommendations to you. If you intend to proceed with the present legislation, with only amendments to the criteria, the enforcement and the regulation should be on a provincial basis with a provincial board, which is the position of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. If you are willing to move beyond the confines of the proposed legislation, I would suggest to you again that you allow municipalities to make the decision on a total basis for a community to open or close. Otherwise, you are simply setting in place a system of planned chaos that will divide labour, business and municipal councils without any tangible benefits to our communities.
1050
I will continue my opposition on this issue because I feel it will not enhance our quality of life or bring about a better Ontario. Also, from a financial point of view, communities the size of Sarnia will have to look at demands for Sunday busing and day care, which do not exist today. That in turn leads to additional costs to the local ratepayer. However, I am also trying to be realistic in recognizing that the public and political mood has changed greatly in the last year.
Tonight my council will be having its public meeting on this issue. It is my belief that it will go ahead and designate the city as a tourist area. I think it is regrettable that we have to go back and revisit the process in a few months. But I also stand by my convictions and I will vote against that on the basis that it will not enhance our quality of life. But I would suggest to you, and I know that you fully understand this, that you have the responsibility to move beyond just looking at amendments and bring forward the best legislation possible, so that some future mayor of Sarnia is not sitting in front of another committee a year from now telling you that the legislation is not workable.
I would like to see the issue resolved. I have spent four years as mayor dealing with this issue. I am sure that you are tired of it. I think the public is. We need to set a clear direction and live with the verdict of the people who are elected to make decisions.
Mr Daigeler: Thank you, Mr Mayor, for making the presentation, although quite frankly I am not quite clear how to interpret your brief. On the one hand you are putting forward what I guess is a personal opinion and on the other hand you are speaking as the mayor of the city. It makes it a little bit difficult for me. The city of Sarnia obviously is not reflected in your brief because according to the vote it went 11 to 4 against the opinion that you are presenting here. On the other hand, you are the mayor. So I am a little bit confused which way I should take your presentation, whether I could say the people of Sarnia want this, or just the mayor of Sarnia wants this. You may be able to clarify that.
Mr Bradley: That is a fair question. I debated the wisdom of appearing in front of the committee. However, since council does not have the public meeting till tonight, our position up to this point in time has been opposed to Sunday shopping. It gave a clear signal a few weeks ago that it would be looking at perhaps changing that position. That is why I clarified that. I do not speak directly for the council. I am telling you its position. But I also can tell you that no matter how you feel about the issue in a border city, we are totally confused about the direction that this new legislation is headed in. It is going to cause us a lot of problems trying to decide who should open and who should not open.
Mr Daigeler: There is no question there are problems. Quite frankly, I find it a bit unfair of you to say in your opening paragraph that this is all the fault of the provincial government. You are blaming both the current one, the previous one, and probably even the Tories, because they had the tourism exemption and it did not solve too many things either.
Mr Bradley: I was just a child when they were in power.
Mr Daigeler: I think the problem really is that the issue is complex and that people have different opinions on that. I do not think it is fair to say it is all the fault of the provincial government, as you have done quite clearly in your brief. I think the problem is that we have different opinions. We have mayors who have different opinions than the majority of their councils. We have different cities that have different opinions, and we have different retailers that have different opinions. We have the Canadian Tire stores where one says yes, the other one says no. So I do not think we should blame any particular government for that situation. It is a complex issue and we are trying to do as best we can in respect to those different opinions.
Mr Bradley: I would say to you with respect to that, I stand by those comments. The fact is, until three or four years ago this was not the issue that it has become. Fracturing has occurred across the province between municipalities. You are seeing that tug of war right now between Windsor, Sarnia and London. We did not have that situation until three or four years ago, when the government of the day brought forward changes to the legislation. I think it is a great waste of time and energy by politicians at all levels. It is regrettable that we have forced through this three- or four-year time period. When all is said and done, this has been a provincial responsibility for 100 years. In the last three or four years, it has been tossed back to the municipalities, and it has created a lot of division.
Mr Daigeler: That is not quite correct either. The tourism exemption had been there. I remember my own city of Ottawa. There would be big fights, before the Liberals ever were in power, as to which area should be designated tourism or not. Again, I think this has been there for quite a while.
Mr Bradley: And the Solicitor General of the day, again with respect, was told back in 1987 or 1986, that you have legislation. It has some faults, but that legislation could be corrected. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the municipal councils of Ontario were ignored at that point, and they proceeded with the legislation, which has led us to where we are today.
It is really not important right now perhaps to point the finger at the past; it is where can we take this. How can we make sure that we do not divide business and labour in our respective communities? How can we have a law that will be at least one that will be in place and give some guidance so that business people and councils and communities can plan their future properly? Right now we cannot because we are under this cloud of uncertainty.
Mrs Cunningham: It is a pleasure to have you here this morning. I would certainly say, as a colleague of the previous mayor in Sarnia, it has been noted for electing people who stand up for what they believe in. I think you were very clear on your personal position and on the position of your council, and I commend you for that. Actually, when you read your brief today, I thought we may have collaborated, because I think I gave the same kind of speech at the beginning of the day. I agree with you.
Mr Bradley: This could severely damage your reputation.
Mrs Cunningham: I think it could damage yours, and I think yours is more important in the next few weeks than mine. I think your comment about getting on with it is very important. We have learned a lot from the public hearings across the province. What is missing is somebody to stand up with clear leadership and say, "This is it."
My suggestion, after being through two rounds of public hearings in the past, was that the province follow the New Brunswick model. It in fact does have a board. I think you might smile when I tell you it is the liquor control board that administers Sunday shopping. So we may have one of our colleagues in on it yet. The reason they did that is they did not want to duplicate bureaucracy, which I think is fair. One of the problems I see with that -- although I would still go with it; if I had the power I would do it that way -- would be simply that for me the province should set the rules for tourist areas and that is it.
The municipal part of it is interesting. This is talking to the people in New Brunswick about two weeks ago. In the beginning they had a lot of concern in the municipalities, because if you do not go to your municipality for permission, if you are a large shopping centre or a big food store, your chances of getting past the provincial board are not great. So there was a lot of municipal involvement by individuals. But after a while, it sort of set its own tone. It did work, but it took about two years, or almost three they told me, to get it to work. Right now there is some pressure to change, but I am not sure what will happen. I wondered how you would feel about that, because you were concerned about the numbers of applications you might have. It appears to me that may, in an informal way, still happen.
One other point I would like you to respond to: As provincial politicians, we in Queen's Park hear that border towns want Sunday shopping and that it does directly relate to the cross-border shopping, yet the statistics that you gave us today would not make that realistic.
Mr Bradley: Just to answer the last question first, they are two separate issues. Even the most vocal opponents in my community -- and I met with some of them this morning; Canadian Tire, the manager there for example -- admit that it would not have a profound impact, except that some of them are at the point of desperation. I guess they are looking at any option.
I am concerned that when people mix the two issues together they forget the real problem we are facing with cross-border shopping, which is just a mess. Even as I speak today another major business in Sarnia is announcing it is going out of business.
My first preference is a provincial board with provincial criteria. Failing that, if the government is not willing to respond in that area, then I would prefer the and/or situation, where we simply get it over with in our respective communities and live with the consequences of that decision. But AMO has looked at the New Brunswick model and it thinks it could work. I think it would have a lot of merit, because it does have some latitude and gives us a chance to respond to unique situations. But that goes back to what I said earlier about the previous legislation. We felt the tourist exemption could be cleaned up to the point where it would have worked too.
1100
Mr Fletcher: The important thing that I am going to ask you is on the Sault Ste Marie issue, because Sault Ste Marie came to us in Sudbury with a very impassioned plea: "Please let us open on Sunday. We are dying." And they are. Algoma Steel is closing down. They are in dire straits. But the point I am getting at is that, at best, you could retain 10% to 15% of businesses now going to the United States. Is that 10% to 15% of the businesses you can retain with Sunday shopping going to have a big impact on retaining jobs that are being lost?
Mr Bradley: I have sort of become somewhat of a mini-expert on this issue. That survey I referred to before, which was done by the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology in April this year in a number of communities, identified why people were going to the US, and 84% in Sarnia were going because of gasoline. I have used this example so many times. The gasoline they are buying in Port Huron is made in Sarnia; taxation on that gasoline is the problem. But when you look at the items they are buying, it is gasoline, paper goods, household cleaning products, in that order. Poultry is the next one, and shoes, at 39%. I am not sure that opening the retail industry is going to have an impact. What is driving them over there seems to be things that they are determined to get, which is gasoline, cigarettes, alcohol, those items. I take no issue with what Sault Ste Marie is doing. Cornwall is different too; it is more like Sarnia, or was more like Sarnia. Communities change. I guess they have to respond to their own individual circumstances. But I just get very concerned when people entwine the issues, because I think it does a disservice to what is happening to our retail industry in our border communities.
Mr Fletcher: Yes, I think you are absolutely right. They should not be mixed up. They are two separate issues. Thank you for your response.
Mr O'Connor: Just a couple of minutes ago, when the mayor of London was presenting to us, he said that he would like to have the opportunity for some more input into this legislation before we go forward with it. You are asking for us to resolve it as quickly as possible. Now I think before we rush into anything, maybe we should perhaps dialogue a little bit here. Do you feel that we should try to include the municipalities in coming up with the tourist criteria, as was recommended by the mayor of London?
Mr Bradley: As part of my presentation I tabled a letter from February 20 that was written to the then Solicitor General, Mike Farnan, in response to a letter he wrote to the border city mayors. We responded at that time in detail with what we thought would be best, which was the provincial board with very tight, standardized, objective criteria; individual applications adjudicated by a provincial panel; a requirement for local input from the municipality; and a requirement for public hearings held by the provincial panel within the local area.
I think the issues are well understood. I think that most municipal leaders understand what the impact is. I can understand the mayor of London's concern though, because if Sarnia decides to open on Sunday, then its options are going to be very limited on what it can do in response to that. And if Sarnia and Windsor both open, which it looks like the case, then London is going to be forced into a position which it really has no control over. But the issues have been pretty well studied and I think we all understand them. It is a question of, does the committee want to move beyond just making amendments to perhaps trying to resolve the issue for some time to come?
Mr O'Connor: In the decision by the council there, did you hold some public hearings and was the general populace of your community supportive? We hear from a strong lobby group of retailers saying that they want, of course, wide-open Sunday shopping, but from the community itself, from the broad spectrum, it seems to be very mixed and more the other way. So did you have public hearings, and which way do you feel the broadest representation went?
Mr Bradley: Actually, our public hearing is tonight, which is 30 days after they took the vote to do it, which to my mind is a disservice to the public.
Mr O'Connor: Backwards.
Mr Bradley: We should have a real and tangible public hearing and listen to them. But my assessment of the community is the business community is split, and if you look at the results of a survey which I attached there, 66% did not want to be open on Sundays. However, other factors may force them into that. The labour community is split, there is no question there. And you have to be careful of who is in front of you when you have the landlords of the malls. It is in their self-interest. Canadian Tire is a good example. I think of any business, they can probably make the best case that Sunday would make a difference to their business because of the nature of what they present.
But the community is very much divided. I expect tonight to have a long evening with that division. My personal experience -- it is more anecdotal -- is that the people opposed are much stronger and more vehement in that opposition than the people for it, who I find are much more ambivalent: "If it's there, it's there." But there are some impacts they should be aware of, especially from a municipal point of view, providing all these new services, the additional policing, the daycare, the bus and all that type of thing. I just do not like to see division in my community and I think there are ways of resolving it and at least resolving it so that we are not dealing with this issue a year from now or three years from now etc.
RETAIL, WHOLESALE AND DEPARTMENT STORE UNION
The Chair: We now have a presentation from the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union with Mr Ab Player, who is an international representative with that union. Mr Player, you have approximately half an hour. Please feel free to use that time as you wish but typically divide it between your presentation and some time for the committee members to ask questions.
Mr Player: First, I would like to do a little background on our membership. The Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union is pleased to present this position on behalf of our 20,000 members in Ontario directly affected by this legislation and our 140,000 total international membership interested in the working conditions of retail workers.
We represent working men and women in the retail food, department store, drug, books, clothing, shoe, furniture, hardware and sundry industries. These are supported further by members in the trucking, warehousing and production facilities supplying these retailers. The RWDSU is affiliated with the Ontario Federation of Labour, Canadian Labour Congress and all municipal labour councils. The OFL fully supports, in consultation, the position of the RWDSU and its members.
What we feel is the real issue: It has been the position of RWDSU, the position of many other socially-conscious organizations and, we believe, the position of the government, that there should be a common pause day for retail in the province of Ontario and that most stores should be closed. The present effort by the government to enshrine this principle is applauded by our membership and we would like to share our few concerns with the practical application of this idea. We recognize a need for pharmaceutical products and emergency grocery shopping on Sunday for a few consumers. The legislation should recognize these limited exceptions as just that, exceptions to the rule, and deal with these loopholes existing for retailers circumventing the true intent of the act.
We further recognize the need for tourist exemptions for legitimate tourism areas but this should not be used as a guise to promote another daily shopping day or to address the cross-border shopping issue. The legislation was not designed for, nor intended to be, a promotion of tourism or control of cross-border shopping. It is a piece of legislation enacted to provide employee rights to a common pause day. Our concerns and proposed changes to the amendments to the Retail Business Holidays Act can be set out under the following subjects: (1) the purpose of the Retail Business Holidays Act; (2) the definition of a retail business; (3) drug stores; (4) tourism criteria and the municipal option, and (5) the enforcement.
First, the purpose of the Retail Business Holidays Act: While the present act fails to enunciate specifically a worker right to a common pause day, the proposed amendments fall short of clearly establishing this right, which we believe is the intent of the government. Should there be any test in the future of the weight of the exceptions to the rule, then the lawmakers should be able to refer back to this guiding right. It will provide consistency to the legislation.
1110
The RWDSU would recommend that subsection 4(2) regarding municipal powers read:
"The council, in passing a bylaw under subsection (1), must maintain the principle that holidays are to remain as a common pause day; that is, to ensure that they remain: days in which most businesses are not open; days in which most persons do not have to work."
Second, the definition of a retail business: A retailer by any other name is still a retailer. Whether they call themselves membership clubs, club warehouses or otherwise, these are retailers and the definition of a retail business needs to be addressed to incorporate these giant stores like Price Club which currently operate on the edge of the law.
Our proposal is that clauses 1(1)(b) and (c) of the present act should be amended to reflect the following:
"l(1)(b) `Retail business' means the selling of goods or services by retail to any member of the public, including a member of a club or co-operative or any other group of consumers.
"1(1)(c) `Retail business establishment' means the premises where a retail business is carried on. Any space or stall in markets, particularly in covered markets and flea markets, is considered to be a retail business.
"1(1)(d) `Principal business' means that portion of the business which accounts for 80% of the business gross sales."
Third, drug stores: We accept that emergency pharmaceutical services are a necessity, but the current act provides for square footage of 7,500 square feet. This has resulted in the proliferation of large chain drug stores which devote most of their floor space, employee time and sales to non-pharmaceutical sales on Sunday. They have been transformed into large grocery, sundry and convenience stores, thereby robbing small independent druggists and legitimate convenience stores of much-needed sales.
The government should allow the drug stores to serve their purpose, and the convenience stores, currently exempted, to serve theirs. There is no need for these large stores as pharmacies, nor the number of employees for non-emergency services. Our experience with the membership in these stores supports this conclusion.
We cannot find any municipality in Ontario without a small druggist or pharmacy attached to a hospital or a medical clinic. We believe that the real reason for opening these businesses on Sunday is for emergency drug care. If so, the pharmacist should be on duty at all times, the floor space should be limited to these reasonable needs, and the number of employees likewise.
Therefore, RWDSU suggests that clauses 3(2)(c) and (d) of the present act be amended to read as follows:
"3(2)(c) The total area used for serving the public or for selling or displaying to the public in the establishment is less than 2,400 square feet.
"3(2)(d) The number of persons engaged in the service of the public in the establishment does not at any time exceed four, including the pharmacist, who must be present in the establishment during business hours."
Fourth, tourism criteria and the municipal option: The RWDSU believes that the only way municipal authority over the regulation of Sunday work can work under the tourism exemption is with a clear and unambiguous criteria and an external arbitrator if a municipality oversteps these criteria.
It is clear from the current legislation that some municipalities have used the tourism exemption to declare themselves outside the legislation for the purpose of non-tourist-related shopping and competition. The proposed regulations under the new sections 1 and 2 and subsection 4(1) are too broad to be meaningful. A number of municipal politicians are already claiming tourist status in areas not traditionally regarded as recreational or cultural tourist areas.
Sunday shopping should only be for the maintenance and development of tourism and tourists, not recreational shopping. If the province is not to be the final decision-making authority, then an external tourism exemption board should be established to review all exemption applications for their tourist status under a well-defined set of guidelines.
The RWDSU recommends the following amendments and the new subsection should read:
"4(1) Notwithstanding section 2 and subject to the provisions of sections 4(1)(a) and (b) below, the council of a municipality may, by bylaw, permit retail business establishments in the municipality to be open on holidays where it is essential for the maintenance or development of a tourist industry and where it is essential to meet the educational, cultural, leisure and recreational needs of the tourist; and
"(a) only retail business establishments in which the total area used for serving the public or for selling or displaying to the public in the establishment is less than 4,000 square feet; and
"(b) the number of persons engaged in the service of the public in the establishment does not at any time exceed four.
"4(8) The council's decision may be appealed by any interested party to the tourist exemption board."
Further, the RWDSU recommends that the government establish a committee of affected stakeholders -- representatives of retailers, unions and government -- to prepare and recommend a comprehensive set of tourist criteria that are both viable and reasonable and that these would form regulations to be part of the legislative authority.
Fifth, enforcement. Current enforcement is weak because while maximum fines are $50,000, penalties are small and little deterrent. The minimum fine should be increased even beyond the current amendments proposed. Most retailers still profit from a Sunday opening. Ontario should further follow the Quebec lead in allowing affected parties, not only the Attorney General and the municipality, to apply for injunctions, reducing costly enforcement. Violators faced with stiffer penalties and more community-based threats of injunctions should be more reluctant to pursue costly litigation.
The RWDSU recommends the following changes:
"3(1) The minimum penalty should be modified to $10,000."
"8(1) Upon the application to the Supreme Court by any affected or interested party, the court may order that a retail business establishment close on a holiday to ensure compliance with this act or regulation under this act."
In summary, our members are both retail workers and consumers. They know that Sunday work only means shifts of work and business shifted from one part of the week to another and a more fractured work week. They already are exposed to one of the longest and least stable work weeks. The effect on their families and personal lives is already as difficult as any group in society. Few consumers who shop on Sunday would opt to work on Sunday and pay the price that retail men and women do.
Some will argue that we must compete with cross-border shopping dollars, but across the border they do not enjoy or pay for many of the social programs we enjoy, such as medical care. Should we eliminate those too and let the marketplace take its toll? Our membership believes that this government can balance the interests of business and competition with a fair and just working environment for these millions of Ontario workers.
Cross-border shopping is the product of a high Canadian dollar, lower prices, lower social benefits and a free trade environment brought on by federal policies. It is not a matter of shopping convenience and we should not design worker rights around temporary and fluctuating economic conditions. We should also not force our municipalities to fight among themselves over limited shopping dollars.
The fairest approach to Sunday work and shopping is to minimize the risk to all and eliminate all but the most essential services. A caring government would exercise its mandate and fulfil its role in protecting the welfare of the Ontario worker.
Mr Mills: I would just like to inform the witness that it is the view of the Ministry of the Attorney General that the Price Club is caught up in the intent of the legislation, the provisions of the legislation. So you do not have to worry about that.
Mr Daigeler: I will not have too many questions because we have of course heard this particular presentation quite a few times already, so it is not really that surprising.
I do have one question though that moves away from this particular brief. In your role as a union representative you must meet workers from other economic sectors, in particular the industrial sector. What are you hearing from the workers there who are presently working on Sundays? Is there any movement at all to reduce working hours on weekends?
Mr Player: For the people who already are working?
Mr Daigeler: Yes.
Mr Player: I have not heard that. People working them are saying basically, "We are stuck working them but we do not feel that everybody should." It does not do any great deal to broaden the scope.
Mr Daigeler: But for them it is no problem.
Mr Player: They went into the business they were in knowing what they were getting into. Most of our working people went into the industries we are in feeling they did not have to work on Sundays. It is the same, I guess, if you are a policeman or a fireman. You know that some Sundays you are going to be working, but you do that when you go into the job. Our people went into the retail industries and it was not a problem of working at that time and, all of a sudden, now it is.
Mr Daigeler: I just feel that the argument of the labour movement, which has been quite strong, would be a lot stronger if it was arguing not just for one particular sector of the movement but for all the workers together and how possibly we might improve the leisure time and the rest time and the common pause time for all the workers and not just the retail workers. It is just a comment I am leaving with you.
Mr Player: I understand what you are saying.
Mr Daigeler: In fact, in some countries, that is what the labour movement is trying to achieve or has in fact achieved.
Mr Player: That would be Utopia, that is true.
1120
Mr Carr: I readily admit that your mandate is to represent your workers and it has to be your number one concern, so I appreciate that. I was interested in the last page. I think the mayor of Sarnia hit the nail on the head when he said the cross-border shopping issue is really all three levels. It was interesting that he said municipal, provincial and federal. I happen to agree with him. It is the taxation levels at all three that are creating the problem.
On page 1 you say, "The present effort to enshrine this principle is applauded." I was wondering, if there are no changes to Bill 115, what do you see happening in the province? Will there be Sunday shopping in this province?
Mr Player: What I see would happen is that the confusion would reign on. What we have now is a confused workforce, a confused shopping force and confused business people. We have confused everybody because nobody really knows if he is going to be open or not going to be open. I think if we do not put some teeth into this thing, this confusion will continue.
Mr Carr: Quite frankly, even as recently as yesterday when we were in Windsor, some of the labour groups that were in said that if we do not change it, there will be Sunday shopping. Since your workers are the ones who are most directly affected by it -- because the other group that was presenting which said it feels there will be Sunday shopping is not in the retail sector -- if in fact the bill does not get changed and we do have Sunday shopping, will you feel that the Premier has let you and your workers down?
Mr Player: I do not know if he has let us down. I might say we did not get what we suspected we would from the Premier.
Mr Carr: When he promised. You are very polite.
As you know, the situation with regard to the protection of workers is another factor. Quite frankly, when the Labour minister brought it in, he said that protecting workers was his number one concern, and Mr Mackenzie has fought all his life for that. The protection the retail workers will have is stronger than in any other sector, but many groups, including those in the retail sector, still feel there will be enough pressure put on them that it will not work, that all the protections in the world will not work. I think even the Labour minister said they were not worth the powder to blow it to you know where. With this legislation then, as tough as these guidelines are, do you still not think they would work in order to protect your workers from having to work on Sunday?
Mr Player: No, it would not work in entirety, because there are always ways that people can be pressured.
Mrs Cunningham: First of all, I appreciate your brief and I certainly hope the committee will take your advice seriously. On page 8, though, there is one part there -- I think that in order to find solutions to some of the problems we face in Ontario, we have to put all of our cards on the table.
I have been sitting on the standing committee on finance and economic affairs travelling about the province. Basically, we would add another criterion to your list of reasons. I think we have to recognize that where you talk about the high Canadian dollar, lower prices, lower social benefits and free trade -- and by the way, this is an excellent brief -- the other one that should be in there is wage rates.
It actually is at the top of the list by presenters to the finance committee. I do not think that would be true in the retail sector, I am not sure, but I wondered if you would respond to that in some way, because it is right up there on the list in that we have higher wage rates in Ontario, maybe not in retail but certainly, I suppose, in manufacturing or something. I just wondered if from your position, because you are the international representative, you might respond to that, because that has been the position from the economists in almost every city. It has been added to the list as a variable.
Mr Player: Some of the wages in the retail are higher and some are lower. Of course, everything we are buying is higher, so putting it all together, I think the balance is there.
Mrs Cunningham: The other one, as my colleague reminds me, that is missing there, and the second one on the list for the finance committee -- and I am just giving you some information here and asking you to respond, perhaps -- is the taxes, which are not there on your list.
Mr Player: That is true, yes, taxes.
Mrs Cunningham: So wage rates and taxes happen to be one and two, in that order, on behalf of the economists who talk about our competitiveness. I think it goes down into the cost of a product in the end.
Mr Player: There is no doubt that taxes are a big thing.
Mr Kormos: Listen, I suppose the question might be, when you are looking at this legislation, "Where's the beef?" I was part of that small group of 19 opposition members who really laid into the Liberal government for its proposal of local option. I did not think too much of local optioning back then as a member of opposition. Nothing has happened to change my mind.
I appreciate that perhaps you have been somewhat generous, at least in spirit, to us, and I am sure the Premier and the government appreciate that, but can I read between the lines? If you had your druthers, because we want a common pause day and we want one that is going to work and one that is going to benefit workers and families, would you have a provincial regulatory body that would do the determining as to who is open and who is not, rather than leaving it up to local option?
Mr Player: I certainly would.
Mr Kormos: God bless.
Mrs Cunningham: The only thing that was missing was his colleague with the chicken. Mike Farnan used to bring a chicken and put it out on the end of the table and say, "You're taking the chicken way out."
Mr Morrow: There has been a comment made by my colleague Mr Kormos, and made today by Mr Carr, that you could drive a truck through this legislation.
Mr Kormos: A Mack truck, a Caterpillar tractor.
Mr Morrow: I will tell you right now, I would rather drive a Mack truck through this legislation than go through the previous bills, 113 and 114, because you could put an airplane through those. So my obvious question is that I want to talk to you about the employment standards that we basically have done. Not a lot has been said here about it. We understand that there was a study done and that most people in Ontario really do not want to work on Sunday. As a matter of fact, over 75% of the people in Ontario do not want to work on Sunday. Does that concur with your membership?
Mr Player: Oh yes, I would say so.
Mr Morrow: That is the answer I wanted, thanks.
Mr Fletcher: The one thing I am looking at is the 7,500 square feet. I had this fellow come to me who owns some of the big drugstores and he was lobbying me. He said, "You know, if you cut it down to 2,400 square feet, 3,000 people are going to be out of work." He had the manager from my riding sitting there, and 45 people are going to be out of work because he is going to shut right down. Is the 2,400 square feet, as far as the pharmacies are concerned, realistic, in your opinion? Do you represent any people who work in pharmacies?
Mr Player: Yes, we have pharmacists and, sure, it is realistic.
Mr Fletcher: They are completely in favour of this?
Mr Player: They have no problem with it.
Mr Fletcher: Would you like to see the legislation tightened up so that you cannot get that Mack truck through any more?
Mr Player: That would be great.
1130
The Chair: Our next presenters have not arrived and we are at the time for their presentation. I would like to make a couple of announcements before we recess. One is that as well as our next presenters not being here, our 1:15 witness is not going to be with us either, so we will be recessing until 1:30. For anyone who feels like smoking, those ashtrays are the property of the hotel. You can use them outside of this room but not in here, unfortunately.
The up-to-date summary of presentations has been handed out to members. This replaces the summary that was received two weeks ago and brings us up to last Thursday.
Mr Kormos: I just wonder, in view of the fact that we have a little gap in time here in presentations, if you might canvass the audience or if there are any people here who had come with the intention of making a presentation and may not have been scheduled. Is that possible?
The Chair: We can certainly do that. We would have a 15-minute slot available to us this morning. It is an unusual situation. Is there anyone here who is already on the list this afternoon?
Following Mr Kormos's suggestion, we do have the possibility of having a 15-minute presentation now from a gentleman who would be here this afternoon. That would allow more freedom this afternoon to be more flexible and possibly leave earlier. Is it the consensus of the committee that we go ahead with that? Thank you.
ROBERT SAGE
The Chair: Mr Sage, the clerk informs me that the committee members have already received a copy of your presentation in Toronto. Please go ahead, sir.
Mr Sage: I live in Sarnia and I have driven down with the intent of spending the day here, not just for my own presentation but also for what other people are saying. This morning I asked the clerk or the lady in charge if she would hand out a supplement to my original submission. I beg for the privilege of referring not only to my original submission which was sent in earlier -- I received acknowledgement of that -- but I would like to have the opportunity of cross-referencing and referring to what I asked to be handed out this morning.
I want to limit my presentation to seven minutes and I hope perhaps, in the time that is left, you will question me or grill me or whatever the word is that perhaps would be appropriate in this case. I appreciated also notification that I would be limited to 15 minutes and the suggestion that perhaps half that time should be spent, as I said, in the seven minutes.
Also, I appreciate the suggestions which are outlined in the guide, that I should deal specifically with the subject matter, which I will try to do. It may be of interest to know that it was mentioned this morning that our mayor Bradley is holding a public meeting tonight and that is part of this morning's publication. There is a meeting tonight in Sarnia and I question whether or not the date of the 27th was by design or just coincidence that it ties in with today's meeting here in London. By the way, if I may diverge just a moment, this location has certainly changed since I was here in the early 1940s as a sergeant in the army.
Mr Kormos: For the better.
Mr Sage: For sure; you want to believe it, all the footwork I have done up and down these hallowed halls. I just want to make one more comment, without being derogatory or libellous. It could be considered that our mayor in Sarnia does perhaps have a conflict of interest. There should be a possible awareness that his father is a top union boss in one of the unions in Sarnia. I think perhaps that would explain his presentation this morning in regard to personal and business feelings in the matter.
This other important matter here I think is absurd. I think it is ridiculous. I may suggest it is ridiculous that I cannot buy my food on Sunday but I can go down on Sunday and fill my belly with beer and watch some naked female gambolling on a table. I should just suggest that we either have Sunday openings entirely or close it down altogether, particularly when we have such as this now being permitted in Sarnia seven days a week. I do not know whether to cry or laugh in regard to that.
I did make a presentation -- the clerk took that away from your material that I handed out this morning -- I believe in February of 1989 to the city of Sarnia. My intended presentation stated, "It will be to promote, as a private citizen of this community, full Sunday shopping." I might add that the city council in Sarnia allowed me the 10 minutes, cut me off and proceeded then to make a bylaw or a ruling that no one else would be heard from there on in and perhaps it would set up a committee a year from now for anyone else who wants to make a presentation for or against Sunday shopping in Sarnia. That was in 1989.
I have not lost interest in this Sunday shopping. I am person who is free-minded. I fully believe in free enterprise. I have studied Adam Smith, the Scottish professor back in the 1700s, his Wealth of Nations, free enterprise, free trade and fair play. He was a professor of political economics and moral philosophy and I submit to the committee here today that it should take into every consideration the potential for this society of ours, which is capitalistic.
Money: The whole system evolves and revolves around money, and I am a proponent or a supporter of the idea that we have free enterprise. There should be freedom of choice. Individuals, businesses and corporations should have the free choice to decide what and how they wish to conduct their business. I hear legislations and changes to your points, items, and have become quite frightened that we have lost enough of our freedom now. I feel that with the current legislation, and particularly if suggested changes are made, we will become strapped and strangled with overbearing government control.
I am quite familiar, quite cognizant, quite aware of the so-called holy day, the blue laws. They go back to 1905, I guess it is, the various dates. This is in the mid-1930s: I was helping my father paint a fence on our own property when two pious-looking gentlemen came up and threatened my father with a lawsuit because he was painting his own fence on Sunday. I was born in 1926; I was seven or eight or nine years old. That has never left my mind, and I have always investigated and attempted to understand why some people have the control or the power or influence on others on such a thing as what they do on a Sunday.
1140
I might mention also this common pause day. I worked 35 years for an organization, the postal service. I was quite willing to run your mail out of here, leave my family at 8 o'clock in the morning on a Sunday and on a holiday, Christmas Day, to run your mail, perform a service. I also did not hesitate to accept Sunday work to sort your mail. I can understand perhaps married women who have left their children at home and they want to get home to the family on Sunday, but I will give you an example of my next-door neighbour, at least close to next door. He was very filled with anguish with me because I was suggesting we have Sunday shopping. I asked him, "What do you do on Sunday?" As soon as they leave church, they hike right over that border and spend their Sundays together over in Port Huron.
I am not sure whether I am promoting the idea or at least getting the idea across that I believe there should be wide-open freedom on Sundays. If not that, maybe we should investigate New Zealand, which I understand was quite imbued with the idea and practice of Saturday and Sunday, two days of so-called common pause.
I was heavily involved with the unions as the president and secretary of the Sarnia labour council 1968, 1969 and 1970 and there on, and I was also heavily involved in the executive for numerous years in an organization which maybe you are familiar with called the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. I am suggesting that the unions should, first of all, attempt to promote employment, be it part-time or full-time. I think the union's duty is to promote employment. This idea of a person being forced to work overtime is wrong, I would say. It is not the right tack to take. In my organization, CUPW, we had equal opportunity for work lists. If you wanted to work, you were approached. If you did not want to work, fine, it went down to the next person on the list. We were given equal opportunity to work overtime.
The churches: I am very disturbed with the churches attempting to force us into the various factions, the numerous types of churches and beliefs, and force their beliefs on to people such as myself who, as I said earlier, are free thinkers. I will act as I morally feel I should act in regard to maintaining one designated day for religion and what not. The chamber of commerce in Sarnia has changed its mind just as the city councillors have changed. They came out a year or two years ago claiming they did not want to have their stores open on Sunday. If you go by the newspaper reports, you will find that the chamber of commerce now has reversed itself in Sarnia. In fact, they have already publicly stated that they are in favour of free enterprise and that those businesses that wish to stay open should be permitted to stay open.
I do not know what else I should cover here. I feel I am an ordinary rank-and-file member of the unwashed; that is, I am just an ordinary citizen. I had a shower this morning; I do not mean it that way. I am expressing myself today as a common, ordinary citizen, not representing any body and not representing any particular group. In fact, I was very upset when I made my presentation in 1989 to the city council. A top-ranking union man came down before I went before the stage and said he just came down to see if this was the same Bob Sage with whom he associated in the labour movement. He was quite upset. He wanted to know what business I was representing. I said I was representing no one but myself. He said this Retail-Wholesale Department Store Union had made comments like, "That Sage had better not go through my cashier's checkout." That was a threat made to me because I was making a presentation as an ordinary citizen interested in Sunday shopping, and particularly interested in trying to protect my right to shop on Sunday if I so wish. Have I left time for questions?
The Chair: No, you have not. If you would like to pose a question, Mr Daigeler, please feel free.
Mr Daigeler: Well, as always, we are allowing one question per caucus. Do we have consensus on this? I do not think it is up to you to decide this, Mr Chairman.
Interjection: There is no consensus.
The Chair: Time is up. Thank you very much. We are recessed until 1:30.
The committee recessed at 1147.
AFTERNOON SITTING
The committee resumed at 1331.
FREEDOM PARTY OF ONTARIO
The Chair: I would like to call on Robert Metz of the Freedom Party of Ontario. After you have finished with your presentation, if you could leave some time for the committee members to pose questions to you.
Mr Metz: I would like to thank everyone here for yet another opportunity to expound our views on another issue that is of public concern.
I am Ontario president and official leader of the officially registered Freedom Party of Ontario. We have been campaigning on the issue of Sunday shopping rather intensively since late 1986 when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that it was a justifiable infringement on religious freedoms to continue with the Retail Business Holidays Act as it was in effect at that time.
So here we are again today on yet another bill that will affect this legislation, and once again Ontarians are confronted with dramatic evidence of this government's hostility to their fundamental freedoms and of this government's continued movement in a political direction that has proven socially and economically destructive to every political jurisdiction that has tried it. This time the evidence is presented as Bill 115, which contains amendments to the Retail Business Holidays Act and the Employment Standards Act presented under the guise of employee protection.
From the outset Bill 115 is tragically flawed even by its own terms of reference and more important, like the Retail Business Holidays Act and many of the provisions of the Employment Standards Act, the bill is unsupportable in matters of principle, equity, fairness and justice. It is an utterly destructive piece of legislation in terms of its contribution to a healthier economy and to the prosperity of Ontarians everywhere.
In the explanatory notes accompanying Bill 115, it is stated that "part I of the bill establishes the principle that retail business holidays are common pause days" when in fact Bill 115 actually does the very opposite.
By definition, a principle is a fundamental truth, a law, a doctrine or motivating force upon which all others are based. When a bill enacts into law forced Sunday closing on the retail business sector but chooses to exempt retail business establishments which (1) "sell prepared meals," (2) "rent living accommodations" or (3) are "open to the public for educational, recreational or amusement purposes," which could include almost any kind of shopping and which gives a host of discretionary powers to politicians, it is clear that there is no principle of a common pause day involved behind the legislation since the law is applied arbitrarily and inconsistently and since it does not apply its so-called principle equitably.
However, Bill 115 does establish or rather re-establish another negative principle, perhaps most familiarly expressed as the divine right of kings. Only in this case, in the absence of a ruling monarchy, it has now been updated to mean the divine right of politicians.
Consider that the subjective nature of Bill 115 is absolute. The bill grants to the province the exclusive privilege of "prescribing tourism criteria," the establishment of "procedures" and the setting of "fees for processing applications." Arbitrarily, the bill even allows the government to prescribe different tourism criteria for different classes of retail and even "may permit the opening of retail business establishments on some holidays and not on others."
On the municipal level, Bill 115 grants to municipal councils the right to establish yet another set of procedures and the right to set even more "fees for processing of applications." Then, as if to emphasize the dictatorial nature of the bill, the municipality "is not required to pass the bylaw even if the tourism criteria are met," and is granted absolute power in the matter since "the council's decision is final."
In the event an employer should be ordered to compensate an employee as a result of contravening the proposal set out in Bill 115, an "employment standards officer shall determine the amount of the compensation," though no specific process is actually mentioned as to how the officer might determine such an amount. With minimum fines of $500 for a first offence against the act and a $2,000 minimum fine for any subsequent offences, it appears our socialist government has discovered yet another clever means of redistributing other people's hard-earned money.
How subjective and undemocratic can you possibly get? One is forced to ask what could possibly be considered so threatening about Sunday sales to warrant such draconian responses on the part of our government.
To illustrate my point, consider my own personal experience. About five or six years ago I was the victim of a violent assault. My assailant, who attacked me without provocation, was fined $50 upon conviction of his offence. It seems disgraceful, to say the least, that a criminal offence involving an act of violence would merit a $50 fine while the perfectly honest, peaceful and voluntary activity of Sunday shopping merits minimum fines of $500 and $2,000. Whose perverted and obscene sense of justice is this?
The worst possible consequences of retail sales on a Sunday include the creation of jobs, the spending of more dollars in Canada to support our local economy and a healthier business environment. Is this a crime?
No, Bill 115 does not even represent a feeble attempt at justice. It has been so designed as to discriminate against and persecute a select class of retailers for blatant political gain.
In reality, arbitrarily restrictive government legislation, like Sunday closing laws themselves, exist to put power into the hands of politicians by removing the right to freedom of choice from the citizens they claim to represent. Sunday closing laws deny freedom of choice to consumers, to those willing to work on Sundays and to retailers wishing to serve their customers on a Sunday.
There is no supportable justification for Sunday closing laws to exist in a free country. Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms supposedly guarantees everyone the following fundamental freedoms: "freedom of conscience and religion" and "freedom of association."
Additionally, the right to open on Sundays is further reinforced by the legal rights and equality rights sections of the charter, to wit:
"7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."
"15.(1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination...."
Sunday closing legislation also violates fundamental principles of private property rights. Retail business and property owners have been told that every Sunday they will not be permitted to exercise the right to the peaceful use of their own property, and regardless of how they may feel about it and without their consent they must relinquish the normal use of their property or face legal consequences that very few real criminals would ever have to face.
On the operational level, Bill 115 is a potential management nightmare even for retailers who, having somehow magically met the whimsical criteria set by two different levels of government, still manage to be operating on a Sunday. Under notice of refusal, the bill grants an employee the right to refuse an assignment to work on a Sunday as long as he gives the employer 48 hours notice, even if that employee had previously accepted the assignment.
It would be impossible to adequately condemn or further comment on the nature of such an absurd law. Consider that most retail managers plan their staff scheduling far more than 48 hours in advance. With the general understaffing that the retail sector is already experiencing, the confusion and uncertainty caused by such a provision will only cause even more unnecessary conflict and tension between employers and their employees. The only possible purpose of such a provision is to further persecute retailers who manage to get around Sunday shopping laws.
1340
Bill 115 refers to an employee's refusal to work on a Sunday as "the right to refuse work." It is no such thing. What it really does is take away the employers' right to refuse employment. Why should an employee who refuses to work -- and I mean refuse, not who is unable to work, but who refuses to work for whatever reason -- be granted the right to continued employment when that right should justly belong to those who are willing to work? Where is the moral, ethical or even plain common sense justification in forcing an employer to retain an obviously unwilling employee when there are more than enough willing individuals in need of Sunday employment? What about the rights of those who are unemployed or underemployed as a result of Sunday closing laws?
Bill 115, like the legislation it is attempting to enforce, is a complete travesty of justice. As is typical with virtually all social legislation, Bill 115 does not deal with any real issue. The real issue, that is, what is at stake in the Sunday shopping controversy is our individual freedom of choice and the rights and responsibilities that go along with that freedom. Sunday shopping is merely a political event and is one of the many similar events that have been created by continued state infringements on our freedom of choice. Political issues and events are entirely different things and one of the first things we must learn is how to distinguish one from the other before we can ever hope to be able to focus our energies on the issue. After all, if we cannot even identify an issue, how can we ever hope to do anything about it?
Sunday shopping is not the issue. Freedom is. The principle at stake in any political debate essentially boils down to this choice. Do we want to live in a society based on the principles of consent, or do we want to live in a society based on the principles of force? Is it morally acceptable for some of us to be allowed to force our choices upon others or should all individuals be free within the context of a non-coercive, voluntary framework to make their own choices for themselves? This is not a choice open to compromise. Force and consent are opposite principles. They cannot be mixed.
The real tragedy behind Bill 115 and the legislation it attempts to force upon a select minority in this province is that it once again attests to the shameful and blatant disregard our elected officials continually exhibit towards our fundamental freedom and rights. We never thought we would see the day when earning one's livelihood through gainful employment would be considered a crime, but that is exactly what Sunday closing legislation attempts to do. What has happened to our once free, competitive and prosperous province? It used to be that we rewarded those in our community who worked overtime and extra days to get ahead. We had the right and the incentive to work harder and make a better life for ourselves and for our families. Regrettably, political interests have decided that the only competition they have any interest in is that between various left-wing and right-wing lobby groups and parties who all want to claim credit for the privilege of robbing us of our freedom of choice on a Sunday.
On the political left, organized labour groups protest against the freedom to trade on Sundays because they fear the prospect of having consumers dictate to labour as they do to business, and not the reverse, which is what they want. On the political right, some businesses who think they deserve government protection also do not like being dictated to by the consumer so they support legislation against other business people who see the profit to be made by doing so. What both sides have in common is the belief that someone else's freedom of choice somehow imposes an obligation on them. But what really motivates them is a greed for the unearned. They both want the market to be put on hold until they are willing to participate. Because they have chosen to stay home and rest, they would deny the economic benefits created by working on Sundays to the very people who create those benefits, all in the name of claiming their fair share.
Yes to freedom of choice in Sunday shopping. Freedom Party strongly opposes all Sunday closing legislation because Freedom Party believes that the purpose of government is to protect our individual freedom of choice and not to restrict it. Governments and politicians of supposedly free nations have no right to impose the values and choices of others on any of us.
Whether an individual chooses to remain home, to work, to shop or to attend the church of his or her choice, we believe that choice belongs only to those individuals, even on a Sunday. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Metz. We have about four minutes per caucus.
Mr Daigeler: I am wondering how you feel about the freedom not to work.
Mr Metz: Everyone has that freedom. No one can force a person to work.
Mr Daigeler: The retail workers, the unions that have appeared before us, have been arguing quite forcefully that there would be pressure. In fact, according to them, there already is undue pressure on them to work on Sundays. How do you feel about that?
Mr Metz: There is no pressure on them to work. They can stay home and let other people work. What the unions' interest is in is maintaining a labour monopoly and excluding those who are willing to work from the labour force. We have seen this in evidence today at the postal station. We see people, I heard, standing there with clubs with nails in the clubs, threatening to blow people's tires out, which I regard as a complete and blatant act of violence and force, and this is what basically motivates them. So when we look at the opinions that are behind a union, we have to understand the nature of a union. It is not in the interests of unions to see to it that there is competition in labour, at least not with any evidence I have at my disposal, though you are certainly more than invited to present such evidence.
Mr Daigeler: Could you tell me a little bit about your party? I am not familiar with it. How many chapters do you have in the province?
Mr Metz: We are provincially registered in Ontario and we have currently 13 registered constituencies. Our platform was already read. Basically, we are a party that applies the issue of freedom of choice to every political issue. In fact, if there is one thing I learned in observing politics before I founded and helped start this party, it was that unless an issue has to do with freedom of choice, it just is not in the political realm. That is what we are always arguing about. We are always arguing about each other's right to make choices. I have yet to hear an argument from any person in this room, from any person from any lobby group, to suggest to me why there is any moral right or any legal right, or why there should be, for some people to tell other people how to live their lives. We certainly have a right to protection from each other, but we do not have the right to impose ourselves on others. That is fundamentally what the Freedom Party is all about.
Mr Poirier: At the bottom of page 5, under your "Tragic Legislation" heading, it says, "It once again attests to the shameful and blatant disregard our elected officials continually exhibit towards our fundamental freedoms and rights." Are you of the opinion that only those who support the Freedom Party respect freedoms and rights?
Mr Metz: No, I am of the opinion that only those who respect individual freedoms and rights respect them. Any number of groups -- lobby groups, political parties -- could easily stand for these principles. I do not claim a monopoly on them, nor did I invent them. I had to spend a great deal of time discovering them and learning them. In my work and in my studies I have learned that much of what our governments are based on is completely upside down and not the way government should work at all, and that the nature of every conflict we see politically is because some people are infringing their choices upon others. I think that is the proper job of government, to establish where these lines should be drawn, but clearly, if we are going to believe in a free society, individual freedom of choice must be paramount. We have seen what its absence does in countries around the world and we see what is happening in Canada today.
Mr Carr: I was wondering if you could tell us what you see happening, because you talked about some of the reasons for wanting the freedom of choice, but if that happened in this province, how would you see it working? Would you see a lot of the province open? Would you still see some parts of the province closed? Maybe you could just let us know if it came about what would happen.
1350
Mr Metz: The entire beauty of freedom of choice is that all possibilities are possible. Some people who find that staying open on Sunday is not profitable will choose not to remain open; those who find it very profitable will open. There is no conflict here. There is no reason for one person to be on someone else's neck. We have progressed far enough -- I mean, come on, folks, we are almost in the 21st century, and we are still arguing about Sunday shopping? On a scale of important issues, this is probably at the bottom of the barrel.
But look at what it really says about how our government is operating. The fact that I see this many people sitting here before me, and the salaries you must all be receiving and the time that is being expended on an issue that is not even an issue -- this is a tragedy. I do not know how you can regard it as anything else. This is really what has to change in this country.
Mrs Cunningham: We have heard each other's views before. I happen to think there is too much legislation as well. I think the most important thing about the process is that we are talking about it publicly. This justice committee would be looking at legislation, and this government feels this is something it wants to be able to deal with before December, because the province has been left up in the air with regard to any law on this issue for the last four years.
I would like your opinion on something. Somebody asked me this question and I could not answer it. I thought you could, so I will ask you. About 15 years ago in this province, the argument at that point in time was, "How many more stores will we allow to open on Sundays?" In fact, this province has been shut down for decades. I thought that was an interesting twist to what we are talking about. Without public hearings, stores closed on Sundays as a result of our heritage, I suppose, in the province, and the arguments now are who can be open, actually.
The other part of the consultation I was having, and I thought it was an interesting one, had to do with the fact that right across North America this is an issue, but it basically is not an issue in Europe; you just simply would not be open. You say the 21st century. I suppose you could take the time to comment on the difference between basically the American way of life -- I am now talking about the US -- what they have chosen to do as opposed to what they have basically chosen to do in Europe.
Mr Metz: Certainly if it were a choice, and a true, free choice, I have no contest with that. If a retailer realizes that no one is going to shop between certain hours of such and such a day, it is not in his interest to open, I would not think. But the idea of imposing that choice on them by the means of law is another matter entirely.
You began your comments by saying you agree that there are too many regulations, yet am I not correct in assuming, Dianne, that you have supported Sunday closing legislation? How do you reconcile those two points of view?
Mrs Cunningham: I suppose what I am doing is supporting Sunday opening legislation because all stores were closed in the province of Ontario during the 1950s and 1960s. It was not until the late 1950s that people were allowed to open. All we are trying to do is revisit -- I would not have revisited the old law myself. The old piece of legislation that worked for probably three decades in the province was only changed because somebody could not make up his mind as to whether the Eaton Centre was a tourist area or not. There was not a lot of controversy over Sunday openings until the Liberals, quite frankly, made that their issue, and that was to take a look at a common pause day.
Mr Metz: In the first part, I think you are making a mistake to say there was no controversy. There may not have been a political one, but there definitely was an economic one and there was a personal one to the people who were directly affected. The fact that at a certain time in history they may have felt that there was no recourse whatever to government to change it or to do anything about it does not mean it was being openly accepted.
Mrs Cunningham: I would like to debate it, but personally, this legislation is on the bottom of my list too, so we agree on that. How you can say that this is an economic issue as opposed to a quality of life issue?
Mr Metz: I did not say that, so I do not know how I could say it.
Mrs Cunningham: You did say it was an economic issue.
Mr Metz: I stated that there were economic repercussions to the issue. The issue is basically a moral issue. It is a matter of choice.
Mrs Cunningham: Okay, that is fine, then we agree. I just thought I heard you say it was an economic issue.
Mr Metz: But the thing is, moral issues need freedom of choice. You cannot say, "I agree, but I agree that I'm going to force my choice on someone else," because then you do not believe in their freedom of choice.
Mrs Cunningham: Unless you think that the freedom of choice is for a person to work or not work. From the bottom of my heart, the reason that I do not like Sunday shopping is that I have not met anybody who wants to work on Sundays in retail stores, with the exception of a few students going through school.
Mr Metz: I will tell you that, depending on how you word the question, you could get that same response to, "Do you want to work on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday or Saturday," given the choice of a law being there that would stop you from having to work on that day.
Mrs Cunningham: Unfortunately, in our society I think there are few who would answer that way right now; they do not want to work at all.
Mr Metz: They would, but that does not make it right. I think that is where we have to address this issue at its fundamental nature.
Mrs Cunningham: We both agree that it is at the bottom of our list.
Mr Fletcher: I have a couple of questions. If your political party were to become the governing party in Ontario, what would you do with the Retail Business Holidays Act?
Mr Metz: We would toss it out. We would repeal it immediately.
Mr Fletcher: But then you would become like any other political party.
Mr Metz: How so? All the parties here support Sunday shopping legislation.
Mr Fletcher: Yes, but you would be throwing out a piece of legislation, and that is your party's stand, and yet you are telling me that governments and politicians --
Mr Metz: No, our party stand is freedom of choice.
Mr Fletcher: -- of supposedly free nations have no right to impose the values and choices of others on any of us.
Mr Metz: That is right.
Mr Fletcher: And yet if I disagree with what your party is doing, you are imposing what you believe on me.
Mr Metz: Not at all, because the fundamental nature of my belief is that you do have a right to your beliefs. If you want to live in a communist society, you can set up a commune apart from everyone else within a free society and run it on those principles, as long as the people within those borders are there voluntarily.
Mr Fletcher: As far as the Supreme Court of Canada is concerned, would you also get rid of that?
Mr Metz: Get rid of the Supreme Court? Absolutely not. However, I would strongly lobby for the inclusion of private property rights into the Constitution so that we would have some way to enable us to use the other rights that are listed there.
Mr Fletcher: And if the Supreme Court of Canada made a ruling on certain issues, you would abide by those rulings?
Mr Metz: We have to. It does not mean I agree with them. I mean, I am forced to abide by Sunday shopping laws. When I go to that grocery on Sunday morning, I cannot break in, even though he might want to let me in.
Mr Fletcher: In 1986 the Supreme Court of Canada decided six to one that the Retail Business Holidays Act, even if in violation of some people's freedoms, is valid legislation by virtue of section 1 of the charter.
Mr Metz: That is right.
Mr Fletcher: And you would repeal that piece of legislation?
Mr Metz: Absolutely. The "notwithstanding" clauses in the charter are devastating to this country. You have to ask yourself, when the Supreme Court of Canada openly admits that it is justifying legislation that violates our individual rights, then what is it there for? Is it not the purpose of a court in a free society to protect our rights?
Mr Fletcher: When the Supreme Court makes a decision, you said you were willing to abide by it.
Mr Metz: I have to abide by it.
Mr Fletcher: Right, so when the Supreme Court did say that this law was valid, you would abide by the law.
Mr Metz: I have been abiding by it, but I am working to change that law.
Mr Fletcher: But you would throw it out if you became the government of the day.
Mr Metz: Definitely.
Mr Fletcher: When you talk about politicians -- and we are here to listen to some of the things -- do you not become the exact same thing that you are arguing against? You are a politician.
Mr Metz: No, I am not arguing to be given the political power to make other people's choices for them. If I were to be elected, I would want to go to Parliament based on the idea that people voted for me not to represent their interests, but their rights, and that is a big difference.
Mr Fletcher: That is where people's freedom of choice comes, at the ballot box. Is that not correct?
Mr Metz: That is one place to get a choice.
Mr Fletcher: I hope it stays that way.
Mr Metz: I do too. Free elections are essential to a free society.
Mr O'Connor: You have really piqued my interest in your party and some of its philosophy. I was just wondering, in a party like that, how could you possibly have any leadership? If you have 13 constituencies represented, there must be a riding association with a leadership role to it of some sort?
Mr Metz: You have to be aware that we are starting at the grass-roots level. We are not a reaction to any particular issue or movement.
Mr O'Connor: To my question, how then can you possibly make sure you protect everybody's rights to freedom if you have somebody in the leadership role when everyone has the right to that leadership, and then you are denying somebody's rights if there is one leader?
Mr Metz: That gets back to the very basic thing that you were talking about initially, the philosophy of the party. We have a stated statement of principles on which the party is founded. Anyone who represents our party either in a leadership capacity, or as a candidate or as a member of the provincial executive, must abide by those principles or otherwise he can be kicked out. It is as simple as that.
Mr O'Connor: Very interesting. Thank you.
1400
ONTARIO HOTEL AND MOTEL ASSOCIATION TOURISM ONTARIO INC
The Chair: We now have a presentation from the Ontario Hotel and Motel Association, Mr Ted Zientara. You have been here for the past half-hour so you are aware that you have half an hour, and if you could divide that and allow members some time to ask questions.
Mr Zientara: Thank you for giving me this opportunity to restate the position of the Ontario Hotel and Motel Association of which I am past president, and Tourism Ontario Inc, of which I am chairman of the board. Tourism Ontario is a non-profit private federation of hospitality and travel associations throughout the province representing more than 7,000 businesses and enterprises.
We strongly support the clear majority of Ontarians who favour unrestricted Sunday and holiday shopping, and we believe unrestricted retail shopping should be permitted throughout Ontario where and when retail business establishments perceive the need to provide it. Sunday shopping has become an economic necessity for many thousands of Ontarians as they struggle to balance their job and career circumstances with personal and family responsibilities. Sunday and holiday shopping is also a primary tourism activity for families and individuals who travel to and within our province and who combine shopping with entertainment, sightseeing, touring, dining, culture and the arts, recreational activities, festivals and events.
In virtually all research of resident and foreign visitors' travel in Ontario, retail shopping constitutes one of the top three tourism-related activities. In 1988, for example, retail purchases represented $2.2 billion of all tourism expenditures in Ontario. Direct jobs in that year created by the retail sector amounted to the equivalent of 29,000 full-time jobs, or 14% of total direct employment in the tourism sector. The total impact of tourism-related retail purchases in 1988 on tax revenues generated by the province was $366 million; $134 million for Ontario municipalities and $602 million for the federal government. The majority of all tourism-related activities, including retail shopping, takes place on weekends.
We know there are thousands of Ontarians who are available to work, want to work, and should have the right to work in a retail business, or retail business establishment, on Sundays and holidays. Currently, these persons are virtually the only class of workers who are restricted from, or altogether denied, the right to work and earn incomes in most of this province on Sundays and holidays due to existing provincial legislation and municipal bylaws. We are of the firm opinion that unless and until the government of Ontario is prepared to recognize these fundamental rights, freedoms, and marketplace realities by abolishing the Retail Business Holidays Act, Ontario tourism and retail businesses will continue to lose billions of dollars worth of taxable annual tourism and retail sales to bordering American jurisdictions which are wide open for retail business on Sundays and holidays.
Our largest market by far, for non-resident visitors to Ontario, is the United States, accounting for 23.1 million person-visits in 1990, with the bordering states of Michigan, Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota accounting for the vast majorities of said visitors. Conversely, all of these states aggressively promote their tourism and hospitality products and services in Ontario.
These states are all non-blue law states, with Sunday shopping acting as a magnet to lure Ontarians by the hundreds of thousands across the border every weekend to purchase all manner of retail merchandise. We estimate that every Ontarian who visits the United States for 24 hours or less spends a minimum of $100 on retail purchases, fuel, meals and entertainment.
According to Statistics Canada, between January and May 1991, 9.89 million Ontarians made same-day trips to the United States. Of these trips, 70% were on weekends and 40% took place on Sundays and holidays. Similar weekend percentages apply to another 2.2 million Ontarians who travel to the United States for one or more nights during the same period. From a recent study of cross-border shoppers in Kingston, Ontario, conducted by Ernst and Young, there is clear evidence that for every dollar which Canadians spend on cross-border shopping, they spend an equivalent amount on services such as food, fuel, and entertainment.
We in the Ontario tourism industry wish to publicly commend the Honourable Peter North, Minister of Tourism and Recreation, and his ministry staff for their sincere efforts to establish province-wide standards and criteria for tourist area exemptions, and exemptions for associated retail business establishments on Sundays and holidays. It has been an arduous task for them to endeavour to find a balance between the provincial government's commitment to a common pause day for Ontario, while recognizing the value and vital importance of tourism to hundreds of communities throughout Ontario.
Both the public and private sector in Ontario tourism have made enormous investments in the planning, development and promotion of a broad and diverse range of tourism and hospitality products, services, and experiences to service ever-changing contemporary consumer tastes and demands. A good number of Ontario's tourism and hospitality enterprises are fully integrated retail business establishments which cater to their patrons' requirements by providing various retail services, in addition to food service, lodging, entertainment, recreation, auto and/or boat fuelling, parking and storage and servicing facilities seven days per week. Said retail services include stores, shops and boutiques which supply all manner of sundries, groceries and outdoor provisions, clothing and travel services, vehicle and boat rentals, specialty gift items, antiques, crafts and souvenirs. The provision of these retail services on Sundays and holidays represents upwards of 20% of gross weekly sales for numerous tourism and hospitality enterprises, most of which are taxed by the province.
Regrettably, from our perspective, this forced marriage of incompatible circumstances, one being philosophical and social, ie the common pause day, and the other being an economic reality, ie retail shopping as an integral part of tourism throughout Ontario, will result in costly and time-consuming administrative burdens and litigation.
The concept of a common pause day in Ontario is outdated, outmoded, unnatural and misplaced. In our contemporary and pluralistic society, tens of thousands of Ontarians must work at all hours of the day and night, throughout the week, in resource industries, in the processing, manufacturing, packaging and distribution of all manner of products, and in the provision of a broad range of goods and services to our citizens and others. While some people rest, others conduct business and provide services.
The Ontario tourism and hospitality industry must provide value-for-dollar quality and experiences and good service on an uninterrupted basis to patrons from domestic and foreign markets seven days per week and 365 days per year, with some seasonal and geographical limitations. The market appeal of our industry is driven by the demand created for its products, experiences, and services in an extremely competitive international market, and the supply of them by willing entrepreneurs, professional management and staff and, to a very substantial extent, by various Ontario government ministries and agencies. We must provide these products, experiences and services to our patrons when they want them or risk losing them to other competing jurisdictions. Thus the concept of a common pause day is totally alien to our industry and to many other segments and sectors in our economy.
1410
Whereas Bill 115, the Retail Business Establishments Statute Law Amendment Act, 1991, makes an honest attempt to support and protect Ontario's tourism industry through the provision of province-wide tourism criteria to exempt qualifying retail business establishments from Sunday and holiday closing requirements, it also establishes a minefield of obstacles and potential obstacles to the realization of these objectives.
For example, it openly discriminates between large and small retail business establishments on the basis of floor space and number of persons serving the public. It also allows municipal councils to refuse to pass a tourist area bylaw, even if an area within the municipality meets the provincial tourism criteria and qualifying retail business establishments apply to council for Sunday and holiday closing exemptions.
Further, all decisions in this regard by municipal councils are firm and final and non-appealable, and must be made within one year of the proclamation of Bill 115. Not only that, but municipal councils are granted the continuing right to discriminate openly against different classes, types, sizes and locations of retail business establishments, and to limit the number and the time frames within which councils will receive applications for Sunday and holiday closing exemptions from retail businesses.
We in tourism have never attempted to quantify or qualify what constitutes tourism-related retail business activities any day of the week. We believe that the free market will respond as required. Tourism per se is the direct supply of goods and services to facilitate business, pleasure and leisure activities 40 kilometres or more away from the home environment -- that is by provincial definition. It covers a broad range of products and services, including transportation, accommodation, food and beverage services, live and participatory entertainment, festivals, events, culture and the arts, athletic competitions, business and social gatherings, conventions, meetings and symposiums, amusement activities and, to a significant extent, retail shopping in all of its dimensions.
We must all strive to build a better, more prosperous Ontario, but we can only do so with the assistance of responsible and responsive public policy.
In conclusion, Sunday and holiday shopping has become an economic necessity for many thousands of Ontarians as they struggle to balance working realities with personal and family responsibilities. It is also the primary tourism activity for families and individuals who travel to and within our province, and who combine shopping with entertainment, sight-seeing, touring, dining, recreational activities, festivals and events.
The province of Ontario and all municipalities in the province benefit directly and considerably from tourism expenditures. Both levels of government are constantly searching for new and incremental sources of revenue to fund all manner of social services, enhanced and enriched education for our citizens, better heath care, improved roads and affordable housing.
Government recognition and protection of tourism values and the operational realities of our industry, at both the provincial and municipal level, will enhance significantly the ability of government to provide said services for our citizens.
While we commend the efforts of the Minister and the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation to recognize the value and importance of tourism in Bill 115, we are very concerned that the full potential of our industry, as it relates to Sunday shopping as a major tourism activity, will not be realized until significant amendments are made to the Retail Business Establishments Statute Law Amendment Act. We respectfully recommend, therefore, that the standing committee on administration of justice and the government of Ontario seriously consider all the facts and recommendations which we have rendered in our submission.
Mr Daigeler: The tourism industry has certainly been arguing very strongly in this round of hearings that Sunday shopping is, in their opinion, even vital for the industry, not just for the growth but for the survival of the hotels, motels, and everybody else associated with this particular industry. Did you make the same point during the last round of hearings when the Liberals -- us, that is -- were making these changes?
Mr Zientara: I am not familiar with whether we did or not, since I was not a part of that process. However, our position on this particular issue, I assume, has not changed.
Mr Daigeler: You were not involved yourself, then?
Mr Zientara: No, I was not.
Mr Daigeler: I am asking that question because, quite frankly, I find the argument -- and I got the same response from the other representatives of the tourism industry -- a little bit weakened by your absence in the last round of the hearings. The same argument ought to have been made then and I am just wondering why the tourism industry is all of a sudden so concerned about this issue?
Mr Zientara: I would speculate that we were probably a part of the hearing process and that our position at that time is the same as it is today.
With respect to the impact of economic circumstances on our industry, recent statistics provided to us by the Canadian Tourism Research Institute indicates that tourism to Ontario between January and May of 1991, as far as hotel occupancy, is down by some 15%, and a survey conducted by the Canadian Travel Survey published in February of 1991 by Statistics Canada clearly identifies shopping as being the primary activity of those individuals who come to Ontario: 41% percent of respondents named shopping the activity in which they most frequently engaged, followed by sightseeing at 40%. Dining only accounted for 34%; attendance at festivals and events and sporting events each accounted for 10%. Of course, those figures will add up to more than 100% because tourists will often engage in more than one singular activity, but shopping is clearly the one activity which most visitors to this province engage in when they come to Ontario, or wish to.
We are faced with the complexity of that our largest source of American visitors to this province come from states which have wide-open Sunday shopping. When I say wide open, they operate between the hours of noon and 5 pm, and those Americans whom we attempt to lure at great expense to this province come with the vision that those similar opportunities will be available to them as if they had visited one of their bordering states.
We live in a global economy; we live in a North American environment which is transient and in which we try to appeal to a diverse number of people from a diverse number of places. Shopping on Sunday is simply an activity most people expect to be able to engage in when they visit here, and go away very disappointed when they cannot.
Mr Daigeler: I think really what has happened, and you point to that, of course -- we have seen the downturn in the economy, we have seen a dramatic decline in the number of American visitors, and I guess your industry realized that this particular legislation could further affect hotels, motels and so on. Perhaps it is more a comment than a question. We, as Liberals, sure would have liked that kind of support about two years ago. Anyway, that is passé, so I do not want to blame you for that.
Mr Zientara: I am not here to engage in party politics.
Mr Daigeler: But I am sure Mrs Cunningham would agree with that.
1420
Mr Carr: One of the concerns that has been voiced is that the tourism exemptions are put in the regulations and as you may know they are a lot easier to change. In fact, when we discussed it last week with Mr Kormos when we were doing the Police Services Act, it was argued not to have it put into regulations because they can be changed very easily. In fact, that is how the oath to the Queen was changed when this government came in. Under the Police Services Act, it was done through the regulations.
I was wondering, first, if you have concerns about it being in the regulations. Second, you may be aware that people are arguing to get rid of those tourism exemptions because they are so broad you can drive a truck through them. What would happen to your members if, in fact --
Mr Zientara: To answer the second question first, if that were to take place you might as well put up a sign at all the border crossings that say Ontario is not open for business. The tourist exemptions create a lot of confusion in the minds of the buying public. When a visitor to the province comes here, if he finds an area in which retail shopping is permitted because it falls under the criterion of a tourist exemption, he is rather elated, but he is confused because when he goes along to his next destination retail shopping may not be permitted. You cannot try to entice someone into this province and hand them a map as he crosses the border and say: "Okay now, if you intend to shop in this province here are the places you can go to and here are their hours of operation. And if you intend to visit this particular area, remember that you won't be able to do any shopping on Sunday, but if you drive 40 miles down the road you might be able to do so." You either have to have one policy or no policy. Tourist exemptions work in that they allow some degree of shopping to take place, but if I were a visitor to the state of Texas and went for a four-day visit and had to spend time and effort seeking out places where I could go to spend my hard-earned dollars on Sunday, I would probably not do so and I would probably curtail future visits to the state, or to wherever I was going.
You have to make things as easy as possible for visitors to a province or to a country. If you create confusion, and that is what these exemptions do create, then you are almost disinviting them to come back. I think you would agree. I remember the days when most gas stations were closed in the city of Toronto on Sundays and you had to drive around the city for hours to find a gas station to fill up your car to come back to London. That was a tremendous inconvenience to me as a resident of this province. Imagine the inconvenience that is created to somebody who is coming here to visit and does not know where he is or what he is doing, per se. Tourist exemptions are wonderful for our industry as a last resort, but the ability to open all retail shopping, if an enterprise so chooses, is far more appealing and welcoming to people who come to our province.
Mrs Cunningham: First of all, I am certainly not surprised with your presentation. In fact, a similar presentation was made three summers ago and four summers ago and five summers ago, but you have always lived with a tourist exemption in this province and this request to have wide-open Sunday shopping has never really been a position of your organization, I do not think, in the past. I think it was to clarify the tourist exemption, to extend it.
But I was curious, because in the travelling I have done out either to a state or a certain part of Europe, one finds what their rules are by virtue of either their laws or their habits. We have heard other witnesses say that the marketplace will take care of itself. I suppose, really, that would be the position you are going for, if you would just like to speak to that a little bit. Maybe anything I have said you would like to respond to. But you usually find out when you are travelling just what the standards of that particular municipality or country are. I always found it interesting when I was in Europe or even England, other than the centre of London and even not very much there, that basically things are closed down.
Mr Zientara: Yes. Unfortunately, in Ontario -- I am trying to recall if I am right from memory -- about 80% of the visitors to this province come from the States, bordering US states that have wide-open Sunday shopping. That is what our customer or clientele base is accustomed to and that is what they expect when they come to Canada because Canada is a part of the North American economic community. We expect different things when we go to Europe because there are tremendous societal differences between us and the Europeans, as there are tremendous societal differences if you went to Taiwan. We would not expect they conduct their way of life or their businesses as we do here.
If it was a position of our industry five years ago that we only wanted to maintain tourist exemptions and not have wide-open shopping, so be it. But times have changed and a great deal has happened in the last five years; a great deal has happened in the last five days, as we are all aware. So if our position has changed it is because the rest of society has changed and societal expectations have changed as well.
Mrs Cunningham: I suppose that is the challenge of this committee. How much do we want our society to change and do we want to be different? This province has chosen to be different from the American states in the past. It is a quality of life issue for many of us; as we represent the public, what we are trying to do is not easy.
Mr Zientara: But, Mrs Cunningham, perhaps it is not the committee's decision to decide how society will change, but society will dictate that laws are changed to reflect the wishes of the people. That is why I think it is a marvellous thing that the city of Toronto is putting this issue to a referendum because then the people will speak.
Mr Fletcher: I have a couple of questions. One is this statement: Sunday shopping lures people across the border.
Mr Zientara: No, it does not necessarily lure people across the border.
Mr Fletcher: No, I know, but you said that.
Mr Zientara: However, it is another amenity which makes Ontario more attractive as a destination vis-à-vis other potential visitation sites.
Mr Fletcher: When I am a tourist, when I travel around the province, are you telling me I go to Collingwood because I can shop at Canadian Tire on a Sunday?
Mr Zientara: No. What we are saying is that 41% of all tourists, whether Ontarians visiting other locations in Ontario or people visiting this province, engage in shopping activities.
Mr Fletcher: Once they get to their destination.
Mr Zientara: That is correct.
Mr Fletcher: Right, so really it is not the Canadian Tire store that is open that gets them there.
Mr Zientara: No.
Mr Fletcher: It is the beauty of the country.
Mr Zientara: However, given the option today and the perplexing problem of cross-border shopping, a few months ago when we saw our retail sector close down in this province, we saw cross-border visitations from Ontario to the United States jump by 41%.
Mr Fletcher: Also in 1990, when we had wide-open shopping, we saw it jump 22%.
Mr Zientara: That is correct, but once we closed the door on Sunday it went from 22% to 41%.
Mr Fletcher: What I was told this morning by the mayor of Sarnia-Clearwater is that 10% to 15% of business that goes to the US is what we will reclaim.
Mr Zientara: By opening?
Mr Fletcher: With Sunday opening, 10% to 15%.
Mr Zientara: That is a very positive note for the people who employ people in this province and who are employed in this province and pay taxes.
Mr O'Connor: I want to thank you for your presentation today, and I am delighted to hear your support for our Minister of Tourism and Recreation, Peter North.
One thing that has been pointed out to us through different presentations is the need to tighten up some of the tourist criteria, so we are here trying to get a little bit of feedback to see how we could possibly do some of that. One thing that was pointed out to us when we were in Windsor was that they were within a comfortable day's drive of 50 million people, American citizens. Would you think those possible tourists, which is a tremendous draw and could be a boon for the Ontario economy, would leave their own communities that are full of K marts and Sears stores? Do they come up here to go to our Sears and K mart stores, or do you think perhaps they go to those unique little boutiques? Maybe we should be developing a tighter tourist criteria to attract those people or to allow more chain stores to be open to attract them to come and shop.
Mr Zientara: It has been about a decade since anybody in the United States took advantage of what was then a positive exchange rate of 35% to come to Ontario to shop. Since the diminishing difference between the value of our dollars and the increase in retail prices, the Americans are no longer lured to Ontario to shop. However, when we attempt to attract families or individuals to Ontario to spend a stay of three days or more, one of the activities they expect to be able to engage in, because most leisure travel takes place on the weekends, is shopping. Whether it be a craft boutique or something which is indigenous to a particular area or whether it be a K mart is insignificant in the realm of things.
Mr O'Connor: Given, then, that we do get maybe a way of attracting these people up, and within that three days they would have two days to shop if Sunday was one of those days, do they come up to see our unique Ontario culture or should we try to Americanize our culture a little bit more and maybe look a little more like them so that when they come up here they are not going to feel like they are going into something different, or should we try to enhance the real, true tourist aspects of Ontario? If so, how can we really do that, a true tourist aspect? How can we prove that?
Mr Zientara: That is kind of like trying to say that people are drawn to Scotland because they like to eat haggis. You might eat haggis on one occasion while you are visiting Scotland for a week, but you might not necessarily eat it again. We do not attempt to lure visitors to this province for the sole purpose of shopping. However, we should make it as convenient for them as possible when they are here to experience the quality of life that they enjoy when they are back home.
I am not trying to promote American values over Canadian values, but what I am saying is that when you are selling a product to an individual, whatever that product might be, you try and make it as attractive to them as possible before you can sell it to them. Part of making the Ontario travel product more appealing to our potential visitors is having consistency in shopping policies which permit them to enjoy those things or activities as easily as they would if they were at home.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Zientara, for a very interesting presentation.
1430
JACK BRONSON
The Chair: We have a small change in our agenda. While the brief from the St Thomas/Elgin Tourist Association is being collated, Mr Jack Bronson of B&R Textiles will be presenting and then we will have the presentation from the St Thomas/Elgin Tourist Association.
Mr Bronson, we have about a quarter of an hour. As you can see, there will probably be many questions from the committee members, so please allow us some time for that.
Mr Bronson: B&R Textiles has been in existence for just under seven years. We are a retailer of all types of fabrics. The company is owned by a partnership and we purchased an existing business that had been operating for about 24 years. We are a 15,000-square-feet store, but the employees range from 14 to 6; we are currently employing six. It is a first business venture for both partners, but both of us had been in industry as professional managers for many years in a variety of businesses. Previous to this, I was president of a public corporation employing 800 people, so this has been a new experience for me.
My brief, by its nature, will appear to be acting as the devil's advocate in many respects, but I am very serious about what I am saying. The first part of my brief is the question, why should tourism be considered a special case? Basically I am concerned about the current environment in which the country is in disarray. Maybe one of the contributing factors is that in different parts of the country you can be doing something that is legal in one part and illegal in another part, the same thing. It would seem to me it would be advantageous for government of each province to get together to standardize the approach to Sunday shopping. Let everybody in the country be treated the same.
Second, why should it be illegal to open your store in one part of Ontario on Sunday and in another part it is legal because of the so-called tourism classification? I am not going to read my brief word for word, but basically what I am saying is that the tourism aspect is really, truly aimed to get American dollars, which means that what we are saying is, a Canadian can be a second-class citizen in Ontario because he is not allowed to shop in some parts of Ontario, but an American can be a first-class citizen because that is what we want him to do, to shop. I do not think that is reasonable. I think that we all ought to be treated the same. Whatever rights and privileges we give to tourists, let Canadians have the same rights and privileges.
Second, why should a storekeeper who is not in a tourist area and is well off the tourist track be considered a second-class citizen? If he cannot earn dollars, we say, "To hell with you, you can't open on Sunday." That is wrong too. I feel very strongly about that.
I move on to the common pause day. I would think that if there is a need for a common pause day it should be based upon an overwhelming public outcry and demand for it. This has never been demonstrated to the Ontario public. Nobody has ever said, "We want a common pause day." In fact, quite the reverse. There is so much confusion about Sunday closing that each day in my store I get people who ask me, "Are you open on Sundays?" and I am astonished. Can they not read the paper? But then if you read the Toronto Star and look at the ads in the Toronto Star, you will see stores that advertise every week that they are open on Sundays -- ordinary stores, not in tourist areas. I will give you chapter and verse if you wish.
Nobody is administering the law in this regard. Either we are open on Sundays or we are closed on Sundays, and if we are closed, everybody should be closed. Even if there is public demand for a common pause day, who decided that it should be Sunday? Let the public pick the day. In Europe, for instance, Wednesday afternoon is a closing day in many parts of England. In other European countries they have a common pause, if you like. Let the public decide what they want to do in terms of a common pause, because even if you do not wish it to be so, the selection of Sunday is discriminatory on religious grounds. There are many more religions now than there used to be and the Sunday closing is pro the narrow spectrum of Protestant religions that do not believe there should be Sunday shopping. That is not right in this current pluralistic society that we have in Ontario.
One of the reasons that is given is that workers need protection about being forced to work on Sunday, and believe me, I am very much aware of that and I sympathize with that approach, because there are subtle forms of coercion in large corporations. You can say to your boss, "I don't want to work on Sunday," and he says, "Okay, it's the law," and then you get passed over for a promotion. But you are reacting to union pressure who represent those retail establishments that have unions -- chain stores, department stores and supermarkets -- but they are not the majority of workers in the retail industry in Ontario, not by any means.
One thing that would certainly help your cause for protecting workers is to pay double time on Sunday, irrespective of any other hours worked. You will find that most of the corporations could not absorb that extra cost. In my establishment, when we were opening on Sundays I said: "I don't want to work on Sundays. Six days a week is enough for me. Any volunteers? No discrimination. Everybody gets paid double pay, and the person who runs it all gets a commission as well." We had people fighting to work on Sundays because they could earn from $100 to $150 for that day when they normally earned $50. That is the way to get voluntary work, not hidden coercion and not legislation.
I think you have to recognize that not all establishments are Eaton's, Simpsons and the Bay and people like that. There are many small businesses in Ontario that employ a few people, that create employment for people who need it: students who cannot work in the week but would like to work on Sunday to earn some extra money and housewives who want to pick up some pin money and who enjoy getting away from their husband and children on that day. They are volunteers. There is no coercion and they want to work. You are ignoring that large group of society.
Then I want to talk about exceptions. We have talked about exceptions in other respects. Who says that a mini-mart should be allowed to open on Sunday, or a gas station? Why are they considered exceptions? Because they are convenience stores? If somebody wants to buy in my store on a Sunday and I open it for him, I become a convenience store for that person. If you are going to close on Sunday, close everybody. Do not have any exceptions.
There are flea markets operating in Ontario, say one like at Pickering, where there is no second-hand merchandise in there. It is 100% new merchandise. Those are people who are operating normal businesses but they only have to open the establishment on Sunday for five or six hours. This is discriminating against traditional retail business owners and it is not fair. Let's be consistent. Close everybody down. Let a drug store stay open for emergency prescriptions and let's all learn to live with Sunday closing if we are going to have it. No exceptions at all.
The previous speaker mentioned the fact that at one time it was very difficult to buy gas on Sunday, but there were not very many abandoned vehicles in Toronto. Everybody learned to find out which gas station was open, there was a kind of rotation, and we survived.
So I am suggesting, cut out the discrimination, cut out the number of second-class citizens you are creating. This is a government that is supposed to be bringing equality to Ontario. You are creating the exact opposite, and if you continue to do that you will not have a province, you will not have an economy. We need to have freedom, which is what there was a major revolution this week about; because the way you are imposing rules and regulations on us, it bears great similarity to the fascist and communist states' approach to imposing rules and regulations.
1440
Mr Poirier: Thank you, sir, for your presentation. I think parliamentarians also enjoy being devil's advocates. Maybe we are devils, period, but then that is another story.
You brought up a point that would make it very difficult to see in reality: "Let the people decide what is a common pause day."
Mr Bronson: Obviously I said that because they would not decide on one.
Mr Poirier: That is right, because what is common? How do you make it common? To whom do you make it common? Which day do you make it common? The whole principle becomes impossible.
Mr Bronson: The very point I am making.
Mr Poirier: Exactly. So you are actually saying that in a reverse way. We were trying to listen to different positions today and for the last few weeks; it is impossible to come up to consensus, never mind unanimity on the principle.
Mr Bronson: I would like somebody to tell the public who invented the common pause day, the term, the concept. We do not know about that. It just appeared.
Mrs Cunningham: The common pause day when I grew up in Toronto was Sunday, and I never referred to it or ever heard of the common pause day until I got involved in politics. But basically the rule was that most institutions were closed on Sundays. I suppose what we are involved in here is a change in that premise, and as I tried to say to someone else --
Mr Bronson: When you grew up there was not consistency either. There were many small stores open. Nowadays with people having a greater understanding and desire for equality and fairness and justice, those exceptions are no longer valid.
Mrs Cunningham: I very much appreciate your coming here today. Mr Metz and I often have ongoing conversations, sometimes on a stage, which is not the most comfortable place. But this is all part of the democratic process, and I would say that because of the kinds of things that you are saying and what we are hearing, there will be changes in this existing law and that is why you are here.
But I am just saying, we have caught ourselves up in an evolution of what is happening in Ontario. When I was a young girl, I was allowed to work on Friday nights for the first time when the stores opened on Friday nights, in Eaton's in Toronto, as a schoolgirl, and I was happy about that. But I think we have a terrific responsibility when probably half of the population in Ontario right now feels very strongly about not having to work on Sundays.
What you are saying I really appreciate, but you have to understand where we are coming from. It is a great responsibility to take away either a tradition or a belief or however anybody wants to paint it. It is not simple, and I think all of us are trying to listen in a non-partisan way, although we have our fun back and forth up here. In our breaks we will talk very seriously about what all of you are saying because there is a significant change in the presentations in the last three years. I have to say that.
Mr Bronson: You said probably half the people in Ontario are opposed to Sunday shopping. I would like to see some more substantial statement than "probably."
Mrs Cunningham: Perhaps what we could do is send copies of the different referenda and the different work that has been presented to our committee to you and we can show you how that has been proven over the years. In fact, it is even more than that actually, but it varies from place to place in Ontario. There has been very substantial work done in the last four or five years to prove my "probably" statement, but it has fluctuated more recently.
Mr O'Connor: Thank you for coming. As Mrs Cunningham has been saying, we do have an onerous task before us. As for the people having a choice in deciding whether they should support a common pause day, last September 6 there was an election, a provincial election, and a choice was made.
Mr Bronson: You did not ask that question at the election.
Mr O'Connor: Excuse me.
Mr Bronson: I refuse to hear that from you.
The Chair: Please go on, Mr O'Connor.
Mr O'Connor: Thank you. I have heard your words and I will just share mine. In the course of the summer election, yes, it was an issue and it was talked about. When people did choose New Democrats, that was one of the things that was part of that choice as well.
We do have a very difficult chore ahead of us, and it is something that has been ongoing for some time. It has been pointed out that tourism is important to the economy of Ontario, so we have to recognize that and see how we can work together with different interest groups in trying to develop that and protect the interest of the worker. When it comes to the choice, we have been given that mandate, that responsibility, and it is a true burden but it is something we have accepted and something we are going to have to work on.
So I thank you for your presentation. All the presentations that have come do present a very wide range of views. Yours has presented us with a different one and I appreciate that.
1450
MOTELS ONTARIO
ST THOMAS/ELGIN TOURISM ASSOCIATION
The Chair: We now have a presentation from the St Thomas/Elgin Tourism Association, Mr Ted Henderson. The written brief has been circulated, I believe. Mr Henderson, we have about half an hour. Please use that time as you wish. I note your presentation would take perhaps a little less than half of that time. The committee members, I am sure, have many questions for you. Please proceed when you are comfortable, sir.
Mr Henderson: Thank you very much, sir. I have written my presentation out in longhand so that perhaps as I read through it you could take notes and you will then be able to ask whatever questions you like. Dianne tells me that my writing is quite legible, so you have another handwritten copy because we cannot afford secretaries.
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for the opportunity of making a presentation to your committee concerning Bill 115. I am speaking to you today on behalf of two different organizations: (1) Motels Ontario, which currently represents 64% of all motels, motor inns and motor hotels in Ontario; and (2) St Thomas/Elgin Tourism Association, which currently numbers approximately 100 retail food and accommodation operations. For Motels Ontario I speak as a volunteer director and for St Thomas/Elgin Tourism Association I speak as a volunteer president. Both positions pay exactly the same, so there is no conflict.
I am sure many submissions have been made to you showing the value of tourism in Ontario and I do not propose to dwell too much on that area. In terms of revenue, direct expenditures equalled $15.5 billion in the year 1990, the province's third-largest industry; in terms of employment, 160,000 people were employed in 1989, the province's largest private sector employer. I believe there is probably a general agreement as to tourism's importance to Ontario and Ontarians around the table and indeed in this room.
Ladies and gentlemen, next I believe we need to define tourism. I have struggled personally for many hours trying to come up with a comprehensive statement which defines tourism. The best I have ever seen to date is one used by Tourism Ontario. It states: "Tourism is the direct supply of goods and services to facilitate business, pleasure and leisure activities away from the home environment. It covers a broad range of products and services including transportation, accommodation, food and beverage services, live and participatory entertainment, conventions, meetings, symposia, amusement activities and retail shopping."
To address retail shopping specifically, retail shopping consists of one of the three top tourist-related activities. In 1988, $2.2 billion of all our tourism expenditures were on retail shopping. The majority of all tourist-related activities, including shopping, take place on weekends.
Next I would like to show the makeup of the tourists who indeed frequent Ontario. The information directly from the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation tells us that our tourist population comes 75% from Ontario, 12% from the United States, 7% from other countries and 5% from other provinces; 75.3% of all tourists are in fact Ontarians spending money in Ontario.
I am sure everyone here today is fully aware of the exodus that occurs each weekend at our local border crossings. To quantify this I have put some numbers down for you that come directly from Statistics Canada and that cover the period January, February, March, April and May for the years 1990 and 1991. If you flip through them briefly, the first column, same-day shopping, has increased by 23.7% over that time period. One-night stays have increased by 10.9%. Two-night stays have increased by 27.4%. Then I go into the absolute number of days shopping and the nights spent away. That is the first five months of this year.
If we annualize those numbers just in a simple straight-line method, it comes to the fact that Ontarians spent 16,134,867 days shopping in the United States, an increase of 24.2% versus 1990. I think the numbers are so big that we lose perspective on them. We hang handy handles on them like "24% increase;" 24 is not very big.
What I have tried to do next is show you the dollar impact of exactly what that 24% comes to. Tourism Ontario estimates that the average tourist spends $100 per day to cover food, fuel and retail shopping, retail purchases. If we apply that $100 to the nine million shopping days, we finish up with $900 million. That, gentlemen and ladies, is only the increase. That is not the total; that is merely the increase we have seen reflected this year.
Over on page 4, I take the same basic logic and use the same numbers and apply it to hotel nights. Here the increase is 25.6%. I have used a figure of $50 as an average room and I have used two people going into each room, which totals an additional $61,824,100. If I add those two together, the projection is that this year Ontarians will increase US spending by $962 million, a very big number.
Finally, we come to the crux of this presentation. Why is that? Why are Ontarians deciding to spend in the US at an increased rate, equal to almost $1 billion, in 1991? Why is our prime market -- remember, 75% of all tourism in Ontario is in fact Ontarians -- leaving us at such a rate? We have one of the most beautiful countries in the world. Our streets are safe to walk. Our accessible wilderness is second to none. All this is peopled by nice, friendly people. Even our water is drinkable. I stuck in the last two, ladies and gentlemen, primarily because that is a comment I receive from so many visitors. I personally get to speak to approximately 200 to 300 a week, and the comment that keeps coming back is, "Everyone is so nice and friendly." Occasionally we also get, "You can drink the water."
The answer I believe, is very simple. We are being taxed and legislated to death. As I drove into this meeting today I noticed that Second City has a new show on. It is called Born Free, Taxed to Death. I would strongly recommend that you spend the night and go there. It is a wonderful show.
Bill 115 is just one more straw being piled on the back of Ontario business. It attempts to exempt the tourist industry from its Sunday shopping ban and employment standards. However, I believe one of its more serious failings is in the fact that it does not define "tourism" or "tourist." I would ask how can we be expected to comment on a bill that lacks the definition of those to whom it is addressed?
The final question I would like to pose for all of you is, how can I operate a successful business in a high-customer-contact area with employees who were dragged to work against their will? I do not believe it is possible.
Thank you very much for your time, your attention and, I hope, serious consideration of some of the points I have raised.
The Acting Chair (Mr Kormos): Thank you. Committee members want to discuss your presentation with you.
Mr Daigeler: Could you explain that last comment a little bit? I do not quite understand what you mean by that, you cannot serve your customers if you have to drag in employees against their will. What do you mean by that? What is behind this?
Mr Henderson: That came directly from a news release I was given. Unfortunately, I do not have a note on where it came from. It says that amendments to the Employment Standards Act will allow retail workers to refuse Sunday or holiday work. I take it this came apparently from Mr Farnan. Through choosing to put the words "refuse Sunday work" in there, I take it as a very confrontational statement. It assumes that a confrontation has gone in advance of it. What I am saying with my little bit of a flip remark, I guess, is for 25 years in business I have been a firm believer in the strongest asset I have, the goodwill of my employees. If I am forcing them to work against their will, whether it be Friday night, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday, I do not think I have their goodwill and therefore I cannot operate a strong, viable business.
Mr Daigeler: So at least up to now and subject to the clarification which I think we are going to get soon by the parliamentary assistant, the government has been very proud of saying this legislation gives the absolute right of refusal to work on Sunday. I guess you do support the concept of people not having to work on Sunday, that they should have the freedom to come to other arrangements, but what you are saying is, in consultation and agreement with the employers. Is that what you are saying?
Mr Henderson: Absolutely, yes. We always strive to accommodate the employees because that makes better employees, happier employees and a happier business, and a more successful business. People quite willingly volunteer to work night shifts or weekends or whatever because it suits their individual lifestyles. For an employer to hire someone who claims he would like to work these shifts, so the person is hired, and then the person has a right to turn around the following day and say: "Now I've changed my mind. I don't want to work Sundays. In fact, I will not work Sundays" --
Mr Daigeler: If I could ask you one other question -- I think you are the only presenter from the St Thomas-Elgin area -- is your viewpoint shared by other business people in the St Thomas area? How do the retailers feel about that question in your area?
Mr Henderson: I believe I am the only physical presenter. I do know you have received letters as a committee from individual businesses in St Thomas expressing much the same viewpoint. We want the right to be able to operate our businesses with our staff in an amenable way without these threats of legislation ruling us out. Just before I came I read a letter from one individual retailer in St Thomas -- it was a letter to you people; you will have it in your committee file -- and currently he does not operate on Sundays, but he resents very much your taking away his right to operate on Sunday.
1500
Mr Daigeler: Would you say there is a change in opinion or is this a view that has been there for a while?
Mr Henderson: I think it has been there ever since Bill 115 surfaced. I do not quite know if that answers your question.
Mr Daigeler: When I see my colleague in front of me I am always reminded of how she arrived at Queen's Park. I find it a little curious that there was so much opposition in this area to the Liberal plans and now people are arguing for what we actually brought in, but I should not make that partisan comment, I guess.
Mr Henderson: I think you should.
The Acting Chair: We will all try to presume that you did not.
Mrs Cunningham: I did not realize I would get so much attention today.
Mr Poirier: This is London.
Mrs Cunningham: I think what we are hearing, certainly this afternoon, is a trend I certainly witnessed in the last election, that people who were opposed to Sunday shopping were very much opposed, and people who wanted to shop on Sundays did not feel as strongly about it either way, but I think there were more of them in the last two or three years. Would you agree with me on that one?
Mr Henderson: I would say the numbers I quoted on people who are going across the border refute exactly what you are saying. Ontario is going over the border by droves every weekend.
Mrs Cunningham: I think I asked you whether you agreed with me that there were more people who want Sunday shopping.
Mr Henderson: Okay, yes.
Mrs Cunningham: So you were not refuting me; you were agreeing.
Mr Henderson: Yes. I think the numbers agree with what you are saying.
Mrs Cunningham: Just because of your numbers. The people who have come to this committee representing border communities have asked us very much to delineate and separate the issue of Sunday shopping and cross-border shopping and you do not do that in your brief, and I am wondering whether you are aware of the submissions, or whether you have been able to see the submissions on behalf of the border town mayors.
Mr Henderson: No, I have not and no, I am not. I have seen three different submissions from Motels Ontario and I have seen the submission from Tourism Ontario.
Mrs Cunningham: We will get it to you. I had not seen it presented this morning either, although I was aware of it. Living in London, I have been watching very carefully what Windsor and Sarnia have been doing, so perhaps we will take it upon ourselves to make certain you get that. Do we have your address? If you can leave your address we will make sure we get it to you.
The other point that I find curious is a very strong change in position on behalf of Tourism Ontario. During the last public hearings in the summer of 1989 we had relied greatly on Tourism Ontario, which was very much in favour of assisting the Liberal government with a definition of tourism so that we could broaden -- I say that collectively because I look at myself as just one of 130 people who represent voters or constituents in Ontario, and I would say that Tourism Ontario realized the situation of the time and wanted to work with the government on its definition. I see that it is here in your brief, and certainly we have read it before. But I think the reality with this government is exactly the same, that it will be looking for the definition or a broad definition of tourism. I am just wondering whether you really think that this government, given its stand during the election campaign, would go for wide-open Sunday shopping. I am wondering why you did not take a position more to work with them in specific clause changes. Many people have come before the committee with specific changes to the legislation, Bill 115.
Mr Henderson: I must say that Motels Ontario and the St Thomas/Elgin Tourism Association are far more interested in working with government than trying to be against government, because being against it proves nothing. Our local MPP is the Minister of Tourism and Recreation and I speak with him reasonably frequently. My serious concern and greatest fear are that this legislation will go through without a definition of tourism and tourists attached to it and part of it.
Mrs Cunningham: I think you should be very concerned if that happens. You are absolutely right in mentioning your own member, but most of us are not sitting on this committee -- and I think I can speak for all of us -- without a view to making significant changes based on what we hear from the public. Certainly that is my view and I wanted that definition in the last legislation. I was not successful, but I will do our part to get it in this time.
Mr O'Connor: I just want to agree with you on a couple of points you touched on to some extent. You mentioned the fact that just as Ms Cunningham had the lack of that tourism definition and you provided us with something we can work with, gathering information is part of this committee process, something for us to work with so we can build up something that is workable and come up with a consensus. I think that is what the whole committee process is about.
We agree with you that taxes are high, but we also have to recognize where some of our tax dollars are going. I was talking to a young American citizen around the same age as myself, with two young children. Their health care costs them $100 a week, $5,000 a year, and he was making $7 an hour. We do have a lot different standards and we have something to show for it which makes us unique.
Mr Henderson: Could I comment on the sense of that, Mr O'Connor? Then you can go on to your next point. In my last position I was responsible for organizing a worldwide service network for Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. As such, I finished up hiring 197 United States nationals in the United States. Because Atomic Energy was a crown corporation, I was required to provide our employees in the United States with a health care system comparable to what we experience in Canada. The total cost for that package was 14.6% of the gross salary. In Canada the business cost we showed came up closer to 29%, so I am afraid I do not buy the fact that --
Mr O'Connor: All I know is talking to that young person of 34 years of age making $7 an hour and paying $100 a week.
The mayor of North Bay agrees with you that Canada is a wonderful, beautiful country. When we were up there he stated that he wants the tourism to come up and experience just how beautiful northern Ontario really is and have true tourism, walk those trails and cross-country ski and fish in Lake Nipissing and ice fish in the wintertime. In trying to come up with tourism criteria and stuff, are the chain stores a unique part of the Canadian culture we want to try to show everybody, that we are the very same right across North America and that we have the same chain stores, so that when you go back to Cincinnati you can remember, "Yes, I was in northern Ontario and I went to K mart and I ate at the Red Grill" -- I am not sure whether that is the name of the little snack bar there -- or do you think perhaps that tourists would like to go back with a truly unique thing about Canada and say that they ice fished for the first time in their lives? Would that be more in the tourism line of thinking? Is shopping the main focus or do you think we should try to bring them up there to experience something that is really special about Canada? I would just like your thoughts on that.
Mr Henderson: I heard you ask a similar question two ago so I am fairly well prepared. Tourism is what tourism is. You are implying a definition that says tourism is an annual vacation where one goes and does something totally unique, and we can certainly fill that bill in northern Ontario. Today's society takes many breaks and weekend getaways. Today's society has more money and more free time than ever before in the history of humanity. They spend that in whatever way they choose. I know many ladies particularly for whom the highlight of their trip is to go downtown to the Eaton Centre in Toronto, and you could not pay me to go to Toronto. Other people love it.
1510
Mr O'Connor: We do it regularly.
Mr Henderson: I guess what I am trying to put into a nutshell is that tourists come in all shapes and sizes with all amounts of money, time variables and requirement variables. You talk about the wilderness and fishing. How many people know that within five miles of downtown Toronto is the best salmon fishing in the world? It is true, but how many people know it?
Mr O'Connor: Should we be selling that, then, or should be selling the chain stores? That is what I am trying to get at. What are we really trying to sell when we sell Canada to our tourists and ourselves?
Mr Henderson: What we sell is a total experience that suits the requirements of each individual. The fact of the matter is that fully one third of the tourists in Canada in 1988 expressed shopping as being a major attraction. If that is shopping at Eaton's or K mart or whatever, I do not know.
Mr O'Connor: I thank you for your input so far. If I could just get a little more from you, because I think you are giving us some very good information -- in your opinion, in an area of seasonal residents, cottage country, would you consider those people tourists or are they residents? I am really trying to put the whole thing together. It is something we have to work on. Perhaps a hardware store would have to be open for that person, but is that person a resident or a tourist?
Mr Henderson: It goes both ways. In some functions I would say tourist and in some functions I would say semi-permanent resident. I do not think tourism is a state you have to be in for X hours in order to qualify as a tourist. Perhaps you are up in cottage country but you decide to take the family on down to Canada's Wonderland. That is a tourism activity but you are living in the cottage. It is very complex.
Mr Lessard: I was just wondering why you think it is so important to have a definition of "tourism" and "tourist" in the legislation.
Mr Henderson: I think it is important because we are putting together legislation that is going to seriously affect tourism activity. If some backroom committee is going to decide to whom that applies, I think that is very wrong. The way to make it very clear to whom these conditions apply is to put it right out on the front. I think setting it up through local chambers of commerce and local councils to administer this has given them a burdensome headache that is totally unnecessary.
The Acting Chair: Mr Henderson, thank you very much. We all appreciate your taking the time to come and speak your piece. I tell you it is all to a good end. I appreciate it. Take care, sir.
A question was put by a member of the committee, and the parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General will now have an opportunity to put the question and the response on the record. We will then proceed to hear from the next presenter, one Marc Emery on behalf of City Lights. Perhaps Marc Emery and anybody with him could come and seat themselves and get themselves ready.
Mr Mills: A question was posed this morning by Mr Daigeler, and I am pleased to report we have a written answer from the Ministry of Labour which will now be filed with the clerk for distribution.
Mr Daigeler: Could you indicate roughly what it is?
Mr Mills: It is self-explanatory. I will leave you to read it.
Mr Daigeler: You do not want to put it on the record, do you?
Mr Mills: I can read it if you so desire.
Mr Daigeler: I will read it and if I have any questions I will come back to it.
MARC EMERY
The Chair: Mr Emery, you have about a quarter of an hour. Please proceed.
Mr Emery: As you can see, I have this neat little T-shirt I made up. It reads "I'm a criminal browser at City Lights bookshop." Actually, this commemorates those fine days in our legal history when I was opening on Sunday repeatedly and this was against the law.
This particular one was an example where we did not even sell anything that day. As a rule, we would open every Sunday and break a different aspect of the law to show how absurd it was, and on this day we opened up and gave $10 worth of books to everybody who came by. So we gave $2,000 worth of books free, on the day before Christmas I might add, and got charged for opening on Sunday. I found out in Ontario you cannot even give away books free on the day before Christmas -- not alone among many absurd laws. I remember I went to jail too because I refused --
Mr Kormos: You got scrooged, Mr Emery.
Mr Emery: I remember I got convicted a number of times on this and I would not pay the fine so I went to jail. I remember one time I went to jail because, although by then we were legally allowed to open on Sundays -- an amendment was made to allow small bookshops to open -- I became a criminal when I became the fourth person to enter my own premises. I had three employees on that day and I entered and became the fourth person, which is also illegal to do even though I was legally sanctioned to open. I remember I refused to pay that fine because, although the crown may have found me guilty, I have never since felt guilty about such things. I did not pay the fine and I went to jail.
Jail is a hardening thing when you are sent to a maximum security provincial prison --
Mr Poirier: Maximum security?
Mr Emery: That is what it is. It is maximum security. If you go to Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre, they let you outside once every two days for 20 minutes and there is barbed wire around everything and armed guards with you every step of the way. I do not believe I was ever alone in the time I was there. It is interesting too when you spend several days in pure concrete surround by people who have glassy eyes and tattoos and a very dubious outlook on life, and all for opening my business on Sundays and being the fourth person there, among many other times we broke the law too.
It occurs to me you guys have a lot of nerve coming here and telling me what I can do with my own business considering all the things I do for you. I do not think you guys have ever done anything for me. But here are some of the things I do for you. I collect the employer health tax. Now, why I do that, I do not know, but you have imposed that upon me --
Mrs Cunningham: Don't look at me, Marc.
Mr Emery: No. You are not that attractive, in any case.
Mr Poirier: Politically speaking.
Mr Emery: Will you shut up? Thank you. If I was entertaining I would charge you money. Now, if you would be quiet and listen, I will tell you some of the things that I do for you.
I collect your employer health tax, arbitrarily imposed upon me, for whatever reason, I do not know. Why I should be responsible for my employees' health care when I am responsible for their livelihood in the first place is beyond me. I collect your Canada pension for your so-called working class and I also pay a contribution to their pension. Why, I do not know. I pay their unemployment insurance. I know if I am unemployed I am out on my own, but for some reason I have to pay theirs. I collect their income taxes for you. I collect your provincial sales tax, that 8% everybody has here. I collect the government's GST.
My local council has imposed smoking bylaws now restricting what my own customers can do in my store. I have to have a secondhand licence, which means I have to record all the things -- will you shut up, Dianne. I think it is very rude for you to speak during my presentation.
Mr Carr: I asked her a question.
Mr Emery: Well, you can wait.
Interjections
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Carr and Mr Emery --
Mr Carr: Do not be so abusive.
The Chair: Excuse me, gentlemen.
Mr. Carr: I will not be told what to do by a witness.
Mr Emery: I am not a witness. I am your employer.
Mr. Carr: I will do what I want.
Emery: How come I am not entitled to the same right with my own store?
Mr Carr: I asked her a question. I will ask anybody I want a question.
Mr Emery: Then you will interrupt me and say, "Excuse me, sir, I would like to ask a question."
The Chair: It is my job as Chair to assure that these proceedings go reasonably smoothly. It is also my job to ensure that witnesses are treated with respect, and I would expect that the same be accorded to committee members from witnesses.
Mr Emery: I will give them respect if they will just be quiet and listen to my presentation. It is not a long one. It will not take up much time. I, like everybody else, have waited here. You are paid to listen to the taxpayer, not the reverse, so bear in mind your responsibility and please be quiet.
Mr Poirier: That is a better way to ask it.
Mr Emery: I asked it bluntly but none the less the same way before, and I expect some degree of respect for the taxpayer.
The Chair: Please proceed, Mr Emery.
Mr Emery: I have to obey your secondhand licence, which requires me to record every transaction that transpires in my store. The city council is passing sign bylaws restricting whether I can have overhanging neon signs or sandwich boards in front of my store. I have got adult magazine bylaws that keep magazines five feet off the ground and out of the eyes of -- the Attorney General actually recently charged me. The good old NDP Attorney General charged me for selling a music audiotape recently. I was convicted in court. It cost me thousands of dollars.
I pay an extra tax downtown called the improvement tax, which is equivalent to the city taxes, to go to some other nonentities who spend it on good projects that they think are worthwhile, supposedly in my interest too.
After all these things, among many other tribulations I have had to deal with in 16 years in business -- I have three shops in this downtown area -- it occurs to me you guys have a lot of nerve coming here and telling me whether I can or cannot open my store on Sunday. After all the things I do for this province, whether employing people, collecting all these outrageous taxes, paying them, all the laws I am subject to and regulations and restrictions, I think you guys have an awful lot of nerve even coming to this town and trying to say that you have any right to determine whether I can open my store or not, and I reject that entirely.
I really do not have anything to say other than that I think you people are the problem and that the only real benefit to any of us would be if you were all exterminated. I cannot see any possible benefit in the existence of you people. Every problem you look at in today's society was created by the very people I see before me. So in conclusion, I do not care how they do it, but I hope they take a gun, knife, bomb or bottle to you people and do you in, because until that happens, nothing is really going to change in this province. Thanks a lot.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Emery. No questions? No questions.
Our next presentation: Do we have any representatives here of the Mogual Group? I believe the presenters from the United Food and Commercial Workers group are here. Is that correct?
Clerk of the Committee: They are still waiting for one party.
The Chair: I appreciate that. It is just that we have a change in schedule. I would suggest that we recess until 3:45.
The committee recessed at 1522.
1550
The Chair: Our next presentation will be from the London Chamber of Commerce. We do have a short discussion in the committee before you start your presentation. Mr Poirier?
Mr Poirier: Thank you, Mr Chair. I think all of us are still reeling from the verbal attack of the last presenter, a Mr Marc Emery from a firm called City Lights.
I have been a member, Mr Chair, for close to seven years, and I have never been on the receiving end, nor on the sending end as a matter of fact, of such verbal violence from a presenter, whether in the House or here on the road with public hearings, where that person made some horrible suggestions as to the elimination and termination of life of the members sitting here, regardless of party. I want to condemn that, especially having chaired the House and the committees. I find that type of violence of language extremely objectionable, and on behalf of at least our Liberal caucus here, I want to put on record that we were appalled by the violence of the words that Mr Emery used against the members of Parliament here, and I strongly condemn that type of language. Obviously, if he had been a member he would have been asked to leave the House because that language would have been deemed unparliamentary and unworthy of a human being, to wish the death of another human being.
So I have been tempted to ask for unanimous consent to withdraw his remarks so that they would not appear in the record, but I think they were so horrible we will let them stay. But they must not be allowed to stay without our condemning such violence, where we are all trying together, all three parties, to eliminate violence and to eliminate this kind of threat against other human beings.
I am still very upset about that, and I hope my colleagues from the other two caucuses will also address that particular situation. Thank you, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Poirier. Mr Carr.
Mr Carr: I could not have said it better than you did, Jean. You said it all. Since I have been a member there have been times when we all get upset over things because we, as politicians, believe passionately in the reason we are here, but at the end of the day we can still all shake hands and hopefully get along. So I think you said it best and I would just leave it at that.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Carr. Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I should acknowledge that I was reluctant -- and indicated to Mr Poirier during the brief recess -- to consent to having comments stricken from the record. That is an exercise which I believe should be utilized only in the most extreme circumstances -- and I cannot even begin to think of any in which that should be utilized.
I am pleased, then, that our suggestion that we address this briefly is acceptable to all the people here, and I know I speak on behalf of all our caucus when I indicate that was certainly a bizarre and more than even unfortunate outburst on the part of this person identifying himself as Mr Emery. The commentary made by him was shocking, and it has to be said that it put Mrs Cunningham and Mr Carr in a very difficult and unenviable and, as Mr Poirier indicated, unprecedented position. They conducted themselves in a manner which cannot be criticized in response to that barrage. The record should show that, and I say that so this can be clear to those who might read this in the future or down the road.
In any event, it remains that we have to rely on the good faith, the common sense and the goodwill of people who want to engage in discourse in this most democratic of forums. We should treasure that freedom all of us have and the participants who appear before us have and we should do all that has to be done to protect that.
I once again commend Mrs Cunningham and Mr Carr for their restraint in the face of that verbal assault and express our regret this should ever occur within the context of one of these meetings or, quite frankly, in any other situation, public or private. People have to feel free to express their opinions and represent their constituents without ever fearing any threat, however bizarre that threat might be. That is a bottom line; that is an imperative.
LONDON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
The Chair: Moving on to our presentation, Mr Etherington, Mr Berry and Mr Ansley, we have approximately half an hour for your presentation and for committee members to pose questions to you.
Mr Etherington: My name is Jim Etherington. I am chairman of the London Chamber of Commerce. Mr Frank Berry, who is vice-chairman of the policy area of our chamber, will be doing the actual presentation. Mr Ansley is a merchant in town who has had some experience on Sunday shopping and would be pleased to remark upon that if it pleases the committee.
May I first apologize on behalf of the London business community to the committee for what I understood, although I was not here, of the comments of the previous speaker. We are well aware of his views and have seen them in print and have heard them. He is not a member of our chamber, but I feel that someone should apologize to your committee and I will do that on behalf of the London business community.
The Chair: On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you for that, sir.
Mr Etherington: Mr Berry will now make our presentation.
Mr Berry: I believe you have copies of our brief. The clerk just distributed it to you. We make in this brief six points which we believe should be considered when the legislation is before you. First and foremost, we strongly believe that government should stay out of this issue of Sunday shopping. The government should not have a role as policeman and protector in the marketplace. The marketplace, we believe, should be allowed to function according to its own rules and according to its own economic circumstances. We believe that if a store owner wishes to open on Sundays, the arrangements he makes with his staff, with his customers, are his to make.
The marketplace is a powerful arbitrator and the most effective controller of business operations, and unless business people are prepared to work within the context of the marketplace they should not, as we said earlier, be protected by artificial legislation and regulations.
The second point we wish to make refers to the so-called common day of pause. We found it rather interesting that the common day of pause is used as a powerful argument against Sunday shopping and the retail industry, yet we hear no mention of it when we are discussing the jobs of bus drivers, taxi drivers or people in the entertainment and service industries. Either we must be consistent, where all of us in the service industries take a common day of pause -- we should not single out individual segments of our society for application.
Our third point refers to the tourist exemption. We were quite taken aback -- I think as was every other chamber of commerce in Ontario -- to read in the proposed draft regulations that for a community to have a tourist exemption, it had to have a letter of approval from the local chamber of commerce. We, as well as every other chamber of commerce, I believe, were not consulted, were not asked for our views on this inclusion and certainly we have no intention of accepting that role.
1600
Quite apart from anything else, the legal implications of withholding or advancing approval in any given situation would be quite horrendous. We, as a chamber of commerce which is not a regulated body by any act of provincial legislation, simply do not have that type of responsibility.
The right to refuse work on Sunday is, we believe, adequately covered by existing legislation. I would draw to your attention the recent case in London of which you may or may not be aware, when an employee of an industrial company refused work, was dismissed, and successfully appealed. In our view, the rights of individuals to refuse work are adequately protected under existing legislation.
The proposed regulations which would allow, as we understand it, people to first of all agree to work on Sunday and then withdraw that agreement up to 48 hours prior to the working day, in our view is simply an open invitation to abuse and would make it very difficult for employers to properly organize their workforce for Sunday opening.
The issue, of course, which now has changed much of the complexion of this issue from last year, is cross-border shopping. Many of our merchants, even in London but particularly in the border communities, find themselves trying to compete with one hand strapped behind their backs. They simply cannot offer the services that people, a few miles away, just because they happen to be on the other side of the river, can offer. It is not surprising that they are losing much of their business to other communities when they simply are not allowed to compete when they want to compete.
Finally, the cold question: Is in fact Sunday business new business or, as some people have said, is it simply a matter of spreading the business over seven days instead of over six days? We had evidence to indicate last year, when stores were open on Sundays, that in fact new business is being generated. I think we can suggest various places that business is coming from, not the least of which is the alternative, as I said earlier, to cross-border shopping. If we can attract those dollars back into Ontario, then we should be doing that, not handicapping the local merchants.
In conclusion, we are urging this committee to drop any plans to regulate the hours of operation of retail business establishments on Sunday and allow full freedom of choice for business owners, shoppers and workers to avoid an unworkable, bureaucratic, confusing and inequitable law. We have a situation in Ontario right now where we have people, retailers willing and able to open Sundays, willing and able to offer employment to people looking for jobs, yet we are proposing, through this legislation, to deny people that opportunity. That, we think, is bad legislation.
May I ask if Mr Etherington or Mr Ansley have additional comments to make?
Mr Ansley: I am a merchant and I have evidence now, through my computer in the front end of our store measuring data; customer accounts before we were allowed to open a year ago, during the period of time that we were open and the time since then, July and now the month of August, when we have comparative data when we are closed.
All of the evidence leads to the fact that the large majority of our Sunday sales are incremental sales. We did 10% of our business on Sundays. We had steady increases during the period when we were allowed to be open on Sundays. We increased our employment at our store. Since we have been closed and have comparative data against the time when we were open, our sales in fact have dropped very close to the number of the increase that we had, based on Sundays, and that is what we have lost not being able to open on Sundays.
We have now gone ahead, and I think one of the main issues that this committee is going to have to deal with is the unemployment issue. We would have in our store approximately 20 to 25 people on each Sunday. We hired five additional people and one additional manager. We have now laid off five people on our staff.
There are lots of data and lots of comments from a variety of people. Quoting from the Toronto Globe and Mail, the Grafton Group said it has cost it $7.6 million in sales and it has lost a number of employees, 100 jobs in Ontario alone because of Sunday shopping, since it has been closed. The president, I think, of the Bay group of companies has said that it has cost it 1,000 jobs and $100 million in sales by closing. All of these data are important and I think should be considered by this committee.
We have to stop making this issue an emotional and a political issue. This is a business issue. Cross-border shopping is also a significant factor; how much I really do not know. However, the comments from my customers have been clearly that they will go across the border, and whether it represents 1% of cross-border shopping or 10% of cross-border shopping, we should have the opportunity to compete on Sundays.
The Chair: Thank you. We have approximately six minutes per caucus.
Mr Daigeler: Thank you for making your views known to the committee. Are the views you are putting forward today the same as two years ago, three years ago? Has there been a change or has that always been the position that you are putting forward today?
Mr Berry: If I may reply, Mr Chairman, even a year ago the chamber of commerce was quite widely split, and I make no bones about that, with quite a number of our members who were opposed to Sunday shopping, quite a number who were firmly in support of it. I think in the past year we have seen a decided shift towards the majority or the consensus, if you will, of our membership being in favour of open Sunday shopping.
Mr Daigeler: Actually, that is what we are hearing somewhat in other parts of the province as well. There are many chambers, quite frankly, acknowledging quite a significant shift because of the recession, because of the impact of people going to the United States, and I guess the experience of no Sunday shopping regulation. So many chambers do say that they have changed their mind.
This morning your mayor and deputy mayor came and they, speaking on behalf of the city, I think, were taking a different view than you are putting forward. Do you feel that the politicians in London will eventually also change their minds, or are there people still strongly behind the position that the mayor was putting forward and the deputy mayor?
Mr Etherington: If I may speak to that, we are convinced that the city does not really know the position of the majority of its citizens. They are talking about putting a question on the ballot this fall in an effort to gather some information. I think they are treating it more as a political issue than a business issue, and that is why we differ with them.
Mr Daigeler: I must say I disagree with you to make it just a business issue. I think the lives of workers are at issue here and the unions have certainly forcefully argued that a pause day is needed. I do think there are other considerations than strictly business ones.
One point that comes to my mind is that the municipal option we brought in is being seen now by several chambers and by several municipal councils, including my own in the Ottawa area, as the one that is most respectful of the different views across the province. I guess you would not agree with that? You do feel we just simply drop the whole thing?
Mr Berry: That is right.
1610
Mr Ansley: Can I just make a comment to your question? I think things have changed since we had the opportunity to open. From my understanding, from the various polls that were taken among the population, it was almost a 50-50 split before we were allowed to open, and probably leaning towards people not wanting to have stores open on Sundays. Since we have been open, I think you would find that has changed dramatically. The information I have from a well-known retail consultant is that if the question were asked on a poll, perhaps 67% to 70% of the people across the province would favour merchants having the option to stay open on Sundays. If the question were asked, "Should merchants have the option to stay open?" it would be dramatically higher than 70%.
Mr Poirier: How about London? How would the people in London think?
Mr Ansley: I asked him that very question, as a matter of fact, and he suspects that it would hold true in London.
Mr Poirier: The same percentage?
Mr Ansley: Yes.
Mr Daigeler: What did actually happen when the legislation was struck down? Did most stores open, did most stores stay closed, or what was the situation in the London area?
Mr Ansley: There was the initial thrust of stores that strongly endorsed it and supported it and opened immediately, and others did follow. As time went on, some of the smaller stores, I believe, that were not doing sufficient business to justify being open on Sundays closed.
Mr Daigeler: What about the malls?
Mr Ansley: Stores inside the malls?
Mr Daigeler: Did they stay closed?
Mr Ansley: Some did and some stayed open. I think, if anything, as people became accustomed to shopping on Sundays, sales in fact strengthened over the period of time and more and more people accepted it.
Mr Etherington: That was the experience of one of our large furniture stores in town. He spoke to me about it and said he stayed closed on the first Sunday. On the second Sunday he opened and did about $40,000 worth of business. On the third Sunday he did $110,000 worth of business. He said, "Sunday shopping for me."
Mr Ansley: From an employment point of view, I think you have to understand most retail employees are part-time people. In our store, if a person did not want to work, just indicated that he did not want to work, he did not have to work, because many of the people are part-time and students, university students in this particular case in this community, who wanted the hours to help support their education. As a result of Sundays being closed, some of the students we had during the summer, we had to reduce the number of hours they had. I know in one particular case one of the students has to go out and get a student loan now.
Mr Carr: What type of store is it that you run?
Mr Ansley: I have a Canadian Tire store.
Mr Carr: One of the overwhelming concerns of the chambers was the part of the draft legislation where the chamber would have to do a letter of support to the municipal council, and I think that is one of the areas that we may see changed in this piece of legislation. I just wanted to start off with saying that I will be pushing for that and be introducing some amendments along those lines. I suspect the government may do that on its own.
I was interested in following up a little bit along the lines of the last questioner. We have heard a lot of people saying that as a result of some stores being open, there will be pressure for other stores to open to remain competitive. There are others in the chambers who have said, "I want people to have the choice to open, but I personally won't." So short term I think you might not see too much, or it might even be the reverse. Long term, though, do you see it becoming a situation where if one person gets a chance to open there will be those competitive pressures to open up? Maybe you could look down the road a little bit and see.
Mr Berry: Just to follow on with what Mr Ansley has said, I think it was rather interesting to watch the pattern change. Initially, with the novelty of Sunday opening in good old Ontario, as was pointed out, many stores felt pressure to open, to have to do it. As time went on, it became more accepted. Exactly as we say in our brief here, the marketplace took over and the marketplace organized itself and those merchants who felt it was in their interest to stay open did so. Even many of those in the malls who were subject to leases and conditions by mall owners opted to stay closed. The end result, I think, prior to the reimposition of the closing, was a situation where the marketplace had pretty well adjusted itself to the conditions, people had accepted it and we were well on our way to developing a new status quo.
Mr Carr: One of the other concerns of a lot of people is the fact that with the tourism exemptions being so broad, they are going to be able to be interpreted by the municipalities and, as a result, what may happen is that one store might get classified as a tourism area and the other one will not. That other store that does not, or vice versa, will say that it is not fair and then go to the courts, and I think you said it; the lawyers would love a few years to define the criteria. What do you see happening if the law remains the same in terms of a lot of court challenges? What are we going to see in that area, do you think?
Mr Berry: I do not think there is any question in our minds, and we refer to it in the brief, that it would be a confused and very tangled legal situation for many, many years.
I have read the regulations. In a sense, they are broad enough to permit almost anything under the tourist exemption. I could put my kilt on and go sell bagpipes -- I am Scottish -- and get the ethnic exemption, but is that the intent? I do not think it is. I think it just opens a whole can of worms.
Mr Poirier: But we would like to hear you play.
Mr Berry: I do not think you want to say that.
Mr Ansley: Actually, in the London area there are some bizarre cases. For example, the village of Hyde Park, which is on the outskirts of London, has declared itself a tourist area, so the stores in Hyde Park can stay open when the stores in London, which are a quarter of a mile away, are not allowed to stay open. Things like that will just continue.
Mrs Cunningham: It is always interesting in representing London to try and get a consensus, but in the past we have had one and I am now seeing a divergence from it. The two groups that I would respond to in the work I do are the municipality and the chamber. They basically had the greatest amount of influence as I have represented London North at Queen's Park. So it is an interesting brief.
I am interested in the economics, so I will ask three questions. The first one is, when you say it is an economic issue, I do not think it was just a matter of an employment issue. I do not think it is just a matter of customer accounts, Mr Ansley, so maybe you can respond to that.
The other question is, just to update all of us, the lease thing was a great concern in the last round of discussions. You had to open on Sunday because it was in your lease. If you can update me on that, I would like that.
Then the third one is the reality of what we face here. First of all, I think we probably are looking at a government that has campaigned on this common day of pause, not that my colleagues on this committee seem to think that is very important, but certainly the government -- whoever they are -- does, and therefore we are probably looking at either this municipal option or perhaps a tourist exemption written in the law that would apply to everybody.
If you could respond to those three issues, the first one is the economics, this customer account, just elaborate on that; the lease, which was mentioned also; and this reality, which is probably either the municipal option staying in place or a province-wide tourist exemption.
Mr Ansley: When I refer to customer accounts in our store, the average sale per customer does not vary from one week to the next or one year to the next, and if it does, it varies as a matter of pennies. Those are the statistics, so by determining customer accounts, I can relate those in terms of dollars. My sales would have increased as a result of being open on Sundays approximately 10% over the previous year. If you understand what happened with the FST and the GST, that also included taking the federal sales tax out. In fact, we reduced our prices in our store by 5.1%. I am not even counting that as a factor. We still had, year over year, more than a 10% increase on the months that we were allowed to stay open.
1620
Mrs Cunningham: You reduced prices?
Mr Ansley: Yes. When the FST came out, we reduced our prices by over 5%. After we were closed, and we had comparative analysis -- for example, July is when we were allowed to open in 1990 and we were closed in 1991 in July. If you took the number of customers who represented Sunday sales in 1990 and took that out, that was the exact amount that our sales were decreased year over year. It came out to 11%, but close enough to 10%. Those numbers came off our day-to-day sales sheets, right off our cash registers.
Mr Lessard: You mentioned that you felt this should not be a political issue but should be strictly a business issue, and I just wanted to say to you that we are kind of all in this together. In addition to that, it is also a quality of life issue, which is something that we have to consider very seriously.
You are representing the government relations committee from the chamber, I take it, and you are speaking on behalf of the chamber when you say that you have noticed a decided shift and you say that you think things have changed as far as people's perceptions and acceptance of shopping on Sunday are concerned. The mayor and the deputy mayor were here this morning, and they felt that their understanding was that the chamber was more inclined to support a common pause day. He based that on polls that had been done by the chamber over the past couple of years. In making the statements you have made about the changes, have you polled your members with respect to trying to determine whether that is in fact the case?
Mr Etherington: That is a very legitimate question. We did polls of our members on a telephone basis two years ago. The retail committee of the chamber did a poll to find out what people thought. At that time we were probably, as has been remarked, sitting about 50-50. We discussed having more polls this time, and we reviewed the literature available, the newspaper coverage, comments of others, and the discussions of our committees and of our board.
This is very interesting. About three months ago now, I guess, we had a regular board meeting and Frank said, "Let's have a straw vote among our board members here," of the 21 members of the board present. Two members of the board said they would probably not be in favour of Sunday shopping. One owns a 100-year-old jewellery store in downtown London and the other is a vice-president of a firm that owns a very large mall. For differing reasons, they felt that perhaps some kind of rules about Sunday shopping would be acceptable to them.
We came back with our proposal and circulated it to our board meeting of last Friday, and we had unanimous support of the board, and both these gentlemen in particular said, "You know, now that we've thought about it, why are we involving ourselves in all this mess?" The mall guy said, "I guess I was hoping that we'd have some kind of rules that would make it easier for me to run my mall," and the other guy said, "I never intended to open Sunday anyway, so let the marketplace rule."
This is legitimate from our point of view. I have not fully answered your question. We have not done recent polling, but we are confident that we do represent the majority of our membership's views.
Mr O'Connor: You mentioned on the last page Sunday shopping and new business and there is new money evident. Where did that money come from?
Mr Ansley: That is a very interesting question, and I have been asked that by the newspaper and other people. I think that some of it is incremental sales that came from the fact that we were opened on Sundays, and it was a convenience factor. The pattern of shopping on Sunday is clearly different than it is during the rest of the week. There are no time constraints on people to shop on Sundays. Families come in on Sundays. In the area that I am in, we found people coming in and browsing and doing things like that, so probably there were some incremental sales as a result.
During the times when we were open in our seasonal centre only on Sundays, after the closing took place we had several customers and they said in front of city officials that if they could not shop here, then they would be happy to go -- we are an hour and a quarter away from a million-square-foot shopping mall in Port Huron, Michigan. It is kind of a pleasant drive down there. There are many communities in this province that are equally located, Welland, for example. It is kind of a pleasant day. Time constraints are not a matter of priority on Sunday for some people. Some people, believe it or not, enjoy shopping.
Mr O'Connor: So you are saying the cross-border shopping issue was where the new money came from? I am trying to figure out where the new money came from.
Mr Ansley: The new money, they are saying: "We spent money here. If we didn't spend the money here we would have gone across the border to pick up some of these products."
Mr O'Connor: It has been well publicized that we are in a recession. How has that had an impact on the retail business within your chamber?
Mr Ansley: It has obviously had a dramatic effect on retailing right across the board.
Mr O'Connor: Exacerbated by the cross-border shopping issue?
Mr Ansley: My point was that during a recession in the last year, when we were open on Sundays, we had in excess of a 10% increase in sales. Properly translated, it was really a 15% increase in sales during that period. Now that we have comparative numbers against the Sundays of last year, we are actually showing serious decreases in sales.
Mr O'Connor: In the polling you took two years ago, did you do any polling of the employees? As retailers did you do any polling of the employees working in the retail sector for you?
Mr Berry: The members of the chamber represent corporations, companies and individual businesses. We surveyed those members. We did not survey their employees per se.
Mr O'Connor: The retailers were not asked to survey their employees.
Mr Berry: We were not asked, but I am sure in many cases some of them, the old family businesses, which are many in London, took their employees into account.
Mr Ansley: For example, I had a general meeting of my staff before we opened on Sundays and I posed that question to them, because the ones who did not want to work did not have to work. There were no full-time people to be employed except that one person was promoted to a Sunday manager. The rest were part-time people. They were all voluntary. Every single person was voluntary. If I put an ad in the paper tomorrow for employees to work part-time in retail only on Sundays, I would be inundated with applications.
Mr O'Connor: How many new employees did you hire?
Mr Ansley: We hired five additional employees. It may not seem like many to you, but if you take a look right across the board at all retailing it is significant.
Mr O'Connor: I agree with you.
The Chair: Thank you Mr Ansley, Mr Berry and Mr Etherington. A very interesting presentation.
Mr Etherington: Good luck. I do not want to solve this one.
1630
MOGUAL GROUP OF COMPANIES
The Chair: Mr Kamran Khan from the Mogual Group, you have approximately a quarter of an hour for your presentation and questions.
Mr Khan: Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the standing committee, my name is Kamran Khan and I am vice-president of the Mogual Group, based in Stoney Creek, Ontario. I would like to thank the clerk's department for allowing the Mogual Group the opportunity to speak today with respect to Bill 115.
The Mogual Group has publicly announced on April 10, 1991, to the city of Niagara Falls its intentions to develop a 227,000-square-foot manufacturers' outlet mall on 18.2 acres of land that we own at the southeast quadrant of the QEW and McLeod Road in Niagara Falls. The Mogual Group has held these lands in its portfolios for the past eight years. This development will be combating against a similar development on the American side of the border and providing Ontario consumers with a similar value-oriented, factory-direct shopping experience on the Canadian side of the border. This development will create 500 to 650 needed jobs for the region of Niagara and provide much-needed quality shopping avenues for the city of Niagara Falls. It will also provide for a partial answer to the cross-border shopping issue. I am sure you have heard a lot of that in the past half-hour.
On June 6, 1991, we approached the region of Niagara requesting an exemption under the existing Retail Business Holidays Act. A public meeting was scheduled for July 18, and on August 1 the regional Niagara council overwhelmingly passed a bylaw permitting Sunday shopping for our proposed development. We were thrilled but, along with the region, were equally aware of the fact that this bylaw was to be repealed upon royal assent of Bill 115. It is very important for the standing committee to realize why the Mogual Group pursued such a bylaw. That is the reason I am here. I am also going to discuss Bill 115 and what I think the problems of Bill 115 are.
Referring to the proposed amendments to Bill 115 or to the holidays act, proposed subsection 4(1) states, "Despite section 2, the council of a municipality may by bylaw permit retail business establishments in the municipality to be open" on Sundays or "on holidays for the maintenance or development of tourism." The key words that I stress here are "maintenance or development of tourism."
Proposed subsection 4(4) states that "Subject to the regulations made under this section, the council shall consider a bylaw under subsection (1) only on the application of one or more persons carrying on retail business in the municipality or on the application of an association, whether or not incorporated, representing persons carrying on retail business in the municipality." Here again the words are "carrying on retail business."
Under proposed subsection 4(11) it is mentioned that a regulation under proposed clause 4(10)(a) or (d) "may classify retail business establishments and may prescribe different tourism criteria for the different classes of retail business establishments."
You must be wondering why I am talking about this. The bill is unclear with respect to how developers of malls in tourist destinations such as Niagara Falls are able to make applications for exemptions prior to their developments' proceeding. Unfortunately the legislation is silent in so far as developers are concerned. This is illustrated quite clearly in proposed subsection 4(4) with the wording "carrying on retail business."
Currently no provision exists under proposed subsection 4(4) for the Mogual Group to be able to apply for such an exemption after our recently received bylaw is repealed. This situation does not place the Mogual Group or the tenants we have or proposed in any comfort. In fact, it honestly concerns us deeply because Sunday shopping is pivotal to our development. It is pivotal to any factory outlet mall development in North America. We cannot entertain leasing contracts without this concern being dealt with. We are seeking to create a smooth transition between the approval we just recently were granted and the new act to be passed.
I ask the committee to consider the following. In order for the Mogual Group to successfully develop a manufacturers' outlet mall on the Canadian side of the border, maintaining and developing tourism and keeping the dollars in Ontario, we must be able to assure the tenants who are going to be involved in this development that Sunday shopping is in place, and not "can be" in place. This is extremely critical. The Mogual Group has canvassed many manufacturers both in Canada and the United States and received phenomenal interest -- it is quite surprising, excellent interest -- but this interest is plagued with the central assumption of Sunday shopping being in place. Sunday shopping is mandatory for outlet developments.
The outlet development industry is extremely prominent in the United States, and anyone who has travelled in the US can appreciate this statement. For those who have not, I would refer them to the Benderson development on Military Road in Niagara Falls, which is currently attracting more than half of the mall's business from southern Ontario. Outlet developing is just beginning in Canada, because the industry and the Ontario consumers are finally poised to such a new concept. They tried to do one up in Bramalea and everybody heard about what happened there, but it has finally begun to go on in Canada.
According to the Value Retail News of St Petersburg, Florida, 98.9% of all factory outlet malls in the US are open on Sundays. Michel Cimon is president of Estridev, a land development company that owns the mall Les Versants de Bromont in Bromont, Quebec. This mall is open on Sundays under a Québec Récréotouristique designation. He stated in an article in the Value Retail News, July 1991, that 30% to 40% of all of Bromont sales are transacted on Sunday. Considering the fact that Niagara Falls is a tourist destination itself, it is not surprising that our demographics and feasibility studies completed by DI Research of Toronto indicate that 40% of first-year sales, estimated at $93 million, will be from the tourist components, that is, 40% of first-year sales will be from the tourists.
Niagara Falls currently entertains approximately 12 million tourists annually. If Sunday openings are restricted for such a development, it only forces tourists to shop across the border at the American Factory Outlet Mall. As a result, the province of Ontario loses an estimated $7.44 million in provincial sales tax, New York state gains $7.44 million in New York state tax and Canada loses out, and leases will not be entertained.
Outlet developments in the US are specifically located in tourist areas, far enough away from major retail bases so as not to disturb them, and thrive on weekends, especially Sundays. Without Sunday shopping, this development and others planned for Ontario -- and there are four others planned for Ontario, by the way -- will not get off the ground.
Both the region of Niagara and the city of Niagara Falls have acknowledged that our development is a bona fide tourist destination, and I have provided Lisa with a bunch of supporting documents in that regard. They also have recognized that without a Sunday shopping bylaw being approved for this proposed development, the Mogual Group does not stand a chance in leasing this development to the manufacturers when the prospective tenants know full well that the Factory Outlet Mall, located 20 minutes from this site across the border, is open seven days a week. We must be able to compete on a level playing field, and in these circumstances the government of Ontario's assistance is crucial in facilitating these types of developments and succeeding and competing fairly.
We respect the fact that this is a people-working-on-Sunday issue as well. Talking with some of the prospective tenants -- at this time I can name Oneida, Benetton, Esprit, Corning and Bali -- have indicated to me that they are not concerned with finding labour on Sundays. In this regard, the Mogual Group supports the tabled amendments to the Employment Standards Act. But you must understand that there is a definite need for employment in the region of Niagara due to the businesses closing down because of the recession and cross-border shopping. I assure you that there is a ready force of workers for our development. We appreciate the reinforcement of family values in the new legislation and we feel the proposed Employment Standards Act provides such protection for workers. The Mogual Group is obviously trying to eliminate, quite honestly, as many grey areas as possible for our tenants. We are trying to provide reasonable assurances to our tenants that Sunday shopping is obtainable, and under the existing act we obtained it.
The amendments to the act were announced on June 3 or 4 by the Ontario government and on June 6 we had our deputation in front of the regional council, so we were caught off guard. Now we must be able to assure the manufacturers that a bylaw can be obtained in the amended act. The wording of proposed subsection 4(4) suggests that we will not be able to obtain such approval until the individual stores are operational and functional. These stores will never be operational with just an assurance of Sunday shopping. They only will be operational with Sunday shopping in place. Actions speak louder than words and that is the exact reason, knowing that the bylaw was to be repealed, we still went ahead with our deputation in front of the region of Niagara, because we had to show these manufacturers that the region understood our concerns.
Bill 115 constantly illustrates the government's position of maintaining and promoting tourism development. Our land is zoned tourist-commercial and has been zoned as such since 1965. Our demographic studies prove that this development will be a tourist destination and the cross-border shopping phenomenon proves that these types of developments can be tourist destinations, not to mention the tour buses parked at the outlet mall across the border. That proves it as well.
If the maintenance and promoting of tourism is truly the government's stand, all the developers of proposed outlet developments in Ontario would be pleased to see provisions for their proposed tourism developments being able to apply for exemptions or, even better, being exempted from the process altogether.
Our development will not be able to obtain financing or leasing interest from manufacturers without Sunday shopping -- so it's just key. Therefore, on behalf of the Mogual Group and on behalf of the other developers in Ontario developing factory outlet malls, I ask that the standing committee review these unique circumstances and amend the proposed subsection 4(4) to give tourism developments of this calibre the opportunity, and an opportunity to apply for such exemptions. Thank you very much.
1640
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Khan. We unfortunately have time only for a very brief question from each caucus.
Mr Daigeler: I have a very quick one. Do you have a specific amendment that you feel would look after your concerns? If you do not, it probably would be useful to formulate it and submit it to the clerk, because this will then end up in the résumé we receive from research.
Mr Khan: I would love to do that. Actually, I do have a suggestion on that.
Mr Carr: Thank you very much for a fine presentation and for pointing out something that sometimes gets forgotten, although I think we had, when we were in Peterborough, a group from Belleville who came through and did an excellent presentation showing their development and the tourism aspect of it, and for the first time highlighted some of the problems. So I appreciate your being able to come forth and shed light like this.
The particular circumstances that you are looking at, you are saying that without the Sunday shopping you will not be able to get tenants in there. That would obviously lead me to believe that the retail groups are saying that they need Sunday shopping. What are they saying to you the reason is? Is it that they feel they will get more sales out of it? Is it to combat the cross-border shopping? What is the big reason that they feel they need the Sunday shopping to make ends meet?
Mr Khan: The comments back from them are very simple, actually. The outlet development on the American side of the border is located 20 minutes from this property. Our mall is going to be open six days a week, and all those tourists who come on Sundays and find it closed will just simply hop across the border and go on to the American side.
But that is not the pivotal reason. The pivotal reason is the fact that the outlet industry itself, which started some 10, 15 years ago in the United States, has always been open on Sundays. These things always open on Sundays. That is why they were always located by tourist areas, because they always attracted the tourist traffic. Taking Niagara Falls into consideration, which has such a large amount of people coming through it -- tourists coming year-round really, with a lot of Japanese tourists now coming in the wintertime -- it is not surprising for them to ask for such a bylaw to be allowed on the property.
It was accepted by the region that the land was zoned tourist-commercial, and it has been zoned tourist-commercial since 1965. I feel it should be granted on that basis. It is the largest piece of tourist-commercially zoned land in the region of Niagara. So they have always looked at our property as somewhat like, "What are these guys going to do with it?" When we announced our project back in 1990 -- I will be honest with you -- we had a hell of a time, because then it was like going to a manufacturer and saying, "Come on in." It was like: "What are you, crazy? The thing across the border, how are we going to compete?" Now we are poised ready to come in, the whole attitude has changed. I think the success of this development is pivotal on Sunday shopping, and that is why they want it.
Mr Fletcher: As Mr Carr alluded to, we heard something in Peterborough about a development. You are right. That is not there, and is something we have to look at. As for the level playing field and the cross-border shopping issue, right now people who live in Windsor, and probably Niagara Falls, can sit in the privacy of their own homes, make a phone call across the border and have items delivered free of charge across the border right to their homes. The Americans are very aggressive when it comes to getting after new markets. Pretty soon they may even be offering other things, such as paying your GST and delivering, and they can do that. I know that a lot of the manufacturers who are going into your factory outlet are American-owned. And what the heck, why would Americans come and buy things in Canada that cost more, and then have to pay the duty when going back across? And as a Canadian, I can buy them in the United States without even leaving the country now. So whenever the cross-border shopping issue is coming into it, I always have a problem with that, because I do not think we want to --
Mr Khan: I understand that. I think one point that you have to understand is, this development is geared to be a tourism development. It is not really geared to attract too much of a local market. And the Americans will have an excellent price advantage when they shop at this development, because not only do these manufacturers have to be competitive for Canadians, but they also have to be competitive for Americans. Right off the bat, the American has a 15% price advantage with the currency. He gets his GST back if he bothers to stop at the Revenue Canada post there and apply for it. So what is he paying? The sales tax, which he is paying anyway. But he has got that added discount when he comes across, so it is really advantageous.
That logic works for example at Oneida, which has a factory outlet store -- Peter might know about it -- in Niagara Falls, by Marineland. It is out in the boondocks. You can hardly find it -- poor visibility. And 40% of its sales are done by Americans. It is a 1,000-square-foot store that does $1 million a year. Pete Sanderson would love to talk to each and every one of you and tell you that. That store does $1,000 a foot per year. And it does it successfully. He is probably one of the first tenants we are going to get signed up for this development. So you see everybody talks about this cross-border shopping issue and asks "How you are going to compete?" It is probably one of the first questions I am always asked. Why don't we just look at Mr Sanderson's store there at Oneida Silverware and see how we examine this thing? What is the rationale? It has to do with the dollar. It has to do with quality in the service and everything else.
Mr Fletcher: I would love to hear more, because I have some more to say about that, but I will not.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Khan, for a very interesting presentation.
1650
UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS, LOCAL 1000
The Chair: We now have a presentation from the United Food and Commercial Workers, Patricia MacFarlane, Kevin Corporon and Andrew Faas. As you have been attending for a while, you know we have approximately a half an hour.
Mr Corporon: My name is Kevin Corporon. I am the executive vice-president of the United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1000. We represent approximately 10,000 members in Ontario, 80% of those in the retailing industry and food retailing. Many of those represented are employed by National Grocers. With me are Patricia MacFarlane, who is the staff representative of our local union and services members in the London area as part of her responsibilities, and Mr Andrew Faas, who is the executive vice-president of National Grocers Canada, which employs a large majority of our members.
I will be brief today. We have presented, at an earlier date, a written submission. I will not go over that once again. What we want to do today is make a few statements, and we have invited Mr Faas to present first hand his views, which support ours in many areas on the impact of the legislation. There is no doubt this is a very controversial issue and has been for many years. The position of this government is clearly that it is supporting the common pause day and will not negotiate on that principle. They will, however, as has been stated, review Bill 115 if there are recommendations to be made to enforce or support their commitment to the common pause day.
Many submissions have been made with respect to the question of whether there should or should not be wide-open Sunday shopping. Certainly everybody has the right to air those views, and we respect that. Bill 115 as it is currently presented will not, in our view, in our respectful submission, meet what the government has set out to do. It will not provide that common pause day.
When it is a foregone conclusion that there will be a common pause day, should everybody be shut or should there be exemptions? With very few exceptions, the majority of those who support Sunday shopping and who oppose it will tell you that if it has to be closed, then close it all, with the few limited exceptions for essential services and so on, and this falls squarely on the issue that is before us now, Bill 115. The exemptions -- the intent to allow the tourism industry to flourish, to provide the services required through the pharmacies and so on, is an intention we support.
We feel that the legislation being proposed will go far beyond that. It will create a patchwork of wide-open Sunday shopping which will be a detriment to our members, who will not only in some cases be required to work but also have their job security threatened, as will the security of the businesses forced to be closed in some communities where their competitors can be open in others. It is a very serious issue, I am sure you understand, to our membership, and we wanted to make ourselves available today for questions and, again, to ask Mr Faas to join us in a short presentation.
Mr Faas: I will keep my presentation fairly short. National Grocers, through an official, will be making a formal presentation to the committee. We are pleased to be here today with the United Food and Commercial Workers, supporting their position. First, I should outline who we are and what we do. National Grocers is the Ontario arm of Loblaw Companies Ltd and the parent company of Loblaw Supermarkets Zehrmart Ltd. We are the franchiser of Hasty Market, Mr Grocer, Your Independent Grocer, Valu-mart, Freshmart, No Frills and Fortino's. Our corporate and franchise stores are located throughout the province, in cities and towns and villages. In the London area we operate in 11 locations.
Collectively we employ in excess of 25,000 employees. We are the largest private sector employer of unionized employees in Ontario. All of our corporate stores and distribution centres, and over 60% of our franchise operations, are covered by collective agreements.
As you may appreciate, being a federation of companies, both corporate and franchise, there are varying and different viewpoints with respect to this issue. There is consensus, however, relative to one major aspect -- that there be a level playing field. To ensure level playing fields, stores should not be given a competitive advantage by being allowed to open, either through loopholes in the legislation which do not reflect its intent, or through the municipal option where trading areas overlap, or through an improper designation of a store under tourist exemption.
In the event that there is a proliferation of competitive advantages, we would have no choice but to request wide-open Sundays. This extreme position does not however undermine our overall support for a notion of a common pause day. We are fundamentally committed to the principle that Sundays should be days on which most businesses are not open and most persons do not have to work. National Grocers and its related companies appreciate the government's efforts in introducing legislation aimed at enshrining a common pause day in Ontario and detailing restrictions on both Sunday shopping and Sunday work. While we recognize that the legislation marks positive progress in this regard, our group of companies has five main concerns with respect to the proposed amendments to the act.
They are: (1) the intent of the Retail Business Holidays Act; (2) the municipal option; (3) drugstores opening on Sundays; (4) enforcement of the legislation; and (5) the definition of a retail business. We should point out again that our concerns with respect to the legislation almost exactly mirror the position and recommendations made by the United Food and Commercial Workers Union. National Grocers and its related companies have had a long history of open discourse and interaction, not only with the United Food and Commercial Workers but other bargaining agents, such as the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union and the Teamsters. Based on these long-standing relationships, we at National Grocers feel confident that the position put forward by us represents the best position for both retailers and the 25,000 employees we employ.
I indicated that our position almost mirrors the position and recommendations made by the United Food and Commercial Workers. Where we differ is in terms of the size limitation that was recommended under subsection 3(2) relative to size of drugstores and convenience stores that are allowed to open. We would recommend 3,500 square feet versus the recommendation of 2,400 by the UFCW. It is our belief that in the event a tourist area is designated there should be no limitations. It should be either wide open or completely shut down.
I would be happy to discuss and answer questions with respect to some aspects of the recommendations made. There may be some question relative to the history of National Grocers and our affiliated companies' involvement with respect to this issue. It is a long history. We have been putting our positions forward through the People for Sunday Association of Canada. We have been members of the People for Sunday Association of Canada for many, many years. We have made a number of submissions to the standing committees and the all-party committee on Sunday shopping. We must admit that we have been and we still are frustrated by the legislation and the potential loopholes in interpretation and the enforcement.
Our frustrations led us to join a group called Committee for Fair Shopping out of concern as to whether or not the legislation would be there for Sunday opening, and the loopholes plugged, and the law enforced.
There were some questions raised, I know, at other hearings and I caught the tail-end of a question relative to sales increases. A lot of organizations, I am sure, asserted that they saw significant sales increases when they opened on Sundays. I must admit that initially we saw significant sales increases, but it did level off. We experienced the same type of thing when we extended hours from day shopping to evening shopping. There are only so many food dollars to go around. I would attribute any sales increase experienced during that period to the fact that a level playing field was created. So those who are indicating that they saw sales increases should look at why the sales increased. Perhaps it was not so much that they were open seven days, but because there was a level playing field during that period of time.
The whole issue of cross-border shopping you may want to ask us about. The previous presenter gave some viewpoints relative to that. Our position is that it should be considered a separate issue. Certainly in those areas where we operate in border towns Sunday shopping would help, but it would not resolve the situation and we do not believe that province-wide Sunday shopping is the answer to that specific issue.
As I indicated earlier, we will be making a formal presentation to this group tomorrow detailing the specific recommendations that are being made. So I would be happy to respond to any other questions you may have.
1700
Mr Daigeler: I must say, I find it very refreshing to see the union representatives and the employer making more or less a joint presentation. I personally think that we should strive for this kind of co-operation in other areas. I think as Canadians it is a goal that we must work for. I just do not believe in this confrontational approach that we have witnessed even at these committee hearings.
I congratulate you on doing that and obviously having worked on that co-operative relationship over many years. I think that is great and I am very pleased to see that. I was not aware we have experiences of that nature, and so close by.
I am very struck also by the position you are putting forward on behalf of National Grocers because it is so different from what we have been hearing from other large chains and retailers.
Who owns National Grocers? Is that Canadian owned?
Mr Faas: National Grocers is owned by Loblaw Companies Ltd and is the Ontario arm of Loblaw Companies.
Mr Daigeler: Are you Canadian owned? I do not even know who owns Loblaws.
Mr Faas: Loblaw Companies is owned by George Weston. It is a wholly owned Canadian organization.
Mr Daigeler: That is a very interesting presentation because, obviously, National Grocers has its own identity, very much so.
I do not know whether you were here when the chamber of commerce made its presentation, obviously very different.
Mr Faas: I caught the tail-end of that.
Mr Daigeler: It was obviously very different. Did you have any comments in that regard?
Mr Faas: I can only comment on the last question where they were talking about the sales increase.
Mr Daigeler: If I may just summarize their position, essentially they want the freedom to either stay open or closed. They are not necessarily saying everybody should stay open, but they now feel -- and they acknowledge it is a change of opinion -- that the retailer should have that option.
Mr Faas: Our position, obviously, is different than that. It is a historical position we have taken. Our preference is to have a common pause day. The only area that I would agree with them on is the level playing field argument.
Mr Carr: I just wanted to say it is nice to see the two groups working together on this issue. Like my colleague before, I hope that is a good sign.
One of the questions I have relates to your change in position because, as I understand, as part of the committee you were in favour. What really changed your mind? You said you were always in favour of it, but the committee was putting statistics forward saying it was better for them and also that the people did not lose their quality of life. Was there anything that really changed it for you?
Mr Faas: The position relative to our involvement with the committee?
Mr Carr: Yes, with the committee.
Mr Faas: It really stemmed from our level of frustration with the law at that time -- the ambiguities, the loopholes, people taking unfair advantage of those loopholes and creating a position where they had competitive advantages. It was a level of frustration and, quite frankly, a lack of confidence in government's ability to put in proper legislation that would not be ambiguous and would also be enforceable. It was really a question mark at that time.
We have defended this position since 1972. In 1972 Loblaws was just about ready to open all of its stores out of that same frustration and by notifying, I believe it was the Conservative government at that time, they put in legislation to close it and things went well for a period of time and it deteriorated again to a point where we lost confidence as to whether proper legislation could be implemented and, very importantly, whether it could be enforced.
Mr Carr: As you know, the United Food and Commercial Workers have been very critical of this bill. They have said right along that if there are no changes they see there will be Sunday shopping in this province and, unless there are changes to the tourism exemptions and they are beefed up, what will happen is they will open. I was just wondering, do you feel the same way too? If the bill stays the same, will we have Sunday shopping in this province?
Mr Faas: Absolutely. It has gone a long way to address the concerns but there are still far too many loopholes open which would be subject to an awful lot of interpretation. Quite frankly, I question whether the legislation, the way it is being proposed, can be properly enforced, and I think the police authorities have stated some of the question marks.
Mr Carr: The Committee for Fair Shopping, of course, had the big press conference the day our committee started, and that is actually what brought in a lot of the media. One of the things that came out was that they see there will be litigation regardless of what happens, because if they do not get what they want in a particular area and the person in a municipality next door does, they will say: "Look, they got it. We didn't. It's not fair. We're going to the courts." Most of those stores, I believe, would be covered by the 7,500-square-foot provision, so they are going to go to court over that.
Mr Faas: Yes.
Mr Carr: Do you see, with this bill, a lot of court battles coming up?
Mr Faas: I would suspect that it is going to be subject to the challenge.
Mr Fletcher: Thank you for your presentation. It is good to see a united front. I agree with what you are saying as far as the legislation is concerned right now, and that is why we are here, to possibly find out what kind of changes we can make to the legislation.
The one thing you did get at was the municipal responsibility. This morning we had the mayor from London say, when I asked the question about the municipal responsibility: "Why don't you come to each municipality and ask the municipalities to get involved as far as tourist areas are concerned, and not just leave it up to each municipality? We'd have a blanket thing across the province."
Is that something that -- it would take some work, it would not happen overnight -- is that something that we can possibly look at as far as tying up some of the loopholes?
Mr Faas: We have some specific recommendations to that which --
Mr Fletcher: And we will be hearing them tomorrow?
Mr Faas: You will be hearing those tomorrow, yes.
Mr Fletcher: Okay, that is great. I will wait until tomorrow. Just one other question --
Mr Faas: On that though, I do not know what the governing body is for the municipalities, the --
Mr Fletcher: The Association of Municipalities of Ontario.
Mr Faas: I believe they made a presentation to the all-party committee which gave some recommendations as well which you may find useful. I do not know whether they made a presentation to this group, but you may want to refer to the --
Mr Kormos: I have to do this fast because Mr Lessard wants to talk to you too.
Mr Lessard: Take your time.
Mr Kormos: But I still have to go fast, because there are a couple of things we have to talk about. And one is I want you to know I am a New Democrat. I am only a backbencher, but I am awful proud of my government's commitment to the common pause day. Unlike a whole lot of my colleagues, I had the pleasure of serving in opposition for some two years prior to the last election when, my God, there were only 19 of us. As a member of that opposition, I sat on the justice committee and I opposed the last government's Sunday shopping legislation. I opposed it because, among other things, it provided for municipal control over who opens and who closes. Back then I believed and my party believed that had to be under provincial control, otherwise you would have checkerboarding all over the province and there would be no consistency in standards.
I tell you, my friends, over the course of my participation in these hearings I have, on occasion, mentioned my concern that the legislation does not provide for provincial regulation of what areas are appropriately open. I have concerns about that part of the bill. I have concerns about the guidelines that designate tourist areas.
You may or may not know that before Queen's Park I used to practise a little bit of law, and it seems to me I recall winning perhaps more than my share of cases, not because my clients were necessarily not guilty but because regulations like these in this legislation, by God, you could -- people can talk about a Mack truck; have you ever heard of a Euclid? Those are the big ones they use in the mines where you can walk underneath and change the oil just by reaching up with your hand.
But I have some real concerns about the guidelines and some real concerns about the municipal option. I might be in a little bit of hot water for expressing those concerns, but I ask you this because I really believe in a common pause day. I am from Welland-Thorold and I promised the people down there that was something I believed in: I believed that was the only way we could protect workers, and I believed that was important if we were going to recognize the importance of families in communities like the one I come from.
Am I wrong when I am critical of the municipal optioning and of the vague and general guidelines that are contained in the legislation as it is now?
Mr Faas: I would say that our position is closer to yours, yes. You are not alone.
Mr Kormos: If I get in trouble will you back me up?
Mr Faas: If that will help.
Mr Lessard: One very brief question: Yesterday we heard from a lawyer in the city of Windsor who is the vice-president of a grocery store that is down there. He said, "At first we were opposed to Sunday shopping, but since we've seen this flood of cars going to the United States," and now he sees these cars coming back on Sundays just loaded with groceries. They may not have originally gone over because of groceries, but that is the pattern established in Windsor in his perception now, and he feels the future of the grocery business in cross-border areas is seriously threatened as a result of that. You seem to distinguish between those two issues, and we try to do that too. But he is saying there are lots of people who go and buy their groceries over in the US now.
Mr Faas: Certainly a retailer in Windsor or Niagara Falls would -- it would help their specific situation, but if you opened it up wide it would not answer their problem. There are more significant issues surrounding cross-border shopping than the Sunday opening issue. There is no argument that in border towns it would help. But the question is, do you resolve a limited problem with a wide-open situation? We do not see that as being the appropriate answer, and we operate at a number of locations in border communities.
Mr Lessard: You do not feel there should be any distinction between the border communities, and other communities then?
Mr Faas: If we had the preference of proper legislation that is enforced, we would agree that legislation should be universal.
The Chair: Thank you very much for a very interesting presentation, and we will look forward to the other one that you mentioned.
1710
ANGLICAN DIOCESE OF HURON
The Chair: We now have a presentation from the Anglican Diocese of Huron. Rev Morley Pinkney, Campbell Dockstader, Bill Young and Bishop Robert Townsend. We have approximately half an hour.
Canon Pinkney: I am Morley Pinkney. I am a member of the clergy of the Diocese of Huron and I am going to indicate the two people that are with me. Unfortunately, neither of the bishops that are local could be here today. Bishop Percy O'Driscoll had a very urgent matter taking him away; Rev Robert Townsend was going to take his place, but unfortunately his wife underwent surgery this afternoon, so he is not able to be here either. I have with us Mr Bill Young, who has been sort of unofficially seconded to us by the United Church this afternoon. He is an active member of the United Church in London, he is the president of Young's Jewellers, which is a chain of about 35 to 40 retail stores across Canada, and he will speak briefly in support of a common pause day as a merchant employer. And then we have Mr Cam Dockstader, who is an active Anglican layperson, who, as a lawyer, will comment specifically on one or two of the provisions of Bill 115.
I would like, before I ask Mr Young to speak, to state briefly the reasons we in our diocese support a common pause day. I might say that we speak in the name of the diocese of Huron, representing 85,000 Anglicans in the 14 counties of southwestern Ontario. We have been established since the pioneer days of our region, going back nearly 200 years, and have consistently been concerned about the quality of life of our society. Several times in recent years the annual diocesan synod of our diocese has passed resolutions on humanitarian grounds in support of a common pause day, and this is the fourth time, I believe, within a decade that we have had the privilege of coming before an all-party committee on this matter.
With regard to the reasons why we support a common pause day, and I will put this very briefly: On humanitarian grounds we desire the maintenance of Sunday as a common pause day in Ontario as something which we regard as vital for families and communities; that there be a common day each week for purposes of rest, socializing, and recreation. It is beneficial for society as a whole to be delivered once a week on a simultaneously shared basis from the demands of commercialism. A Sunday free from unnecessary work is a precious ingredient in the heritage and lifestyle of Ontario residents. We would like to see that preserved, and we feel that the government of our province has a duty to aim and succeed in that direction.
I will have a few comments to make later, but they will be, to a large extent, supportive of the legislation or, at least, the intent and spirit of it. I think that it is important, since within any church we have a lot of business people and workers within businesses, to hear from the standpoint of a merchant employer, so I would like now to have Mr Bill Young say a few words.
Mr Young: I apologize, first, that I am no public speaker, but I was asked today because we have been very vehement about not opening on Sundays. I think you all know, or should know, that the retail trade has been hit very hard during the recession. You only need to look at bankruptcies and so on to prove that. And one of the reasons we are still in business, and expect to be, is the fact that we have reduced every expense, and the major one always in retail is the expense of wages. Incidentally, we are celebrating this year our 98th birthday in business. So we have been around, we have been through other recessions. We expect to be through this one as well, but the shopping hour issue is one that has our employees very, very concerned. We have roughly 250 employees. We are in business in Ontario and the west.
There are some things you must understand that are aside from some of these points. One of them is that retail business in Canada is mainly done in malls. People think of tourist areas, of little fellows who have food places along the shores of Grand Bend or something. But the basic retail business is done in malls. The basic malls are controlled by three or four people in the whole of Canada. If you are going to be in a chain business of any kind, you have to do what they tell you, period. The main stores are controlled by Cambridge Leasehold and Cadillac Fairview, and they are tough landlords. Sunday shopping leases are written; if you want to be in there, then you have to sign that you will be open the hours that the mall decides you will be open.
1720
Now, the mall has no problem with this, simply because -- perhaps you do not know, but all the services, all the advertising, all the utilities, all the security is paid for by the small merchants, and that excludes most departmental stores. So it is the small people who pay it. Why not stay open Sunday? They have nothing to lose. They do not pay any expenses. We have to support the expenses. Incidentally, for this service they charge us 15% on top of everything else to run it. Most rents are minimum rents, of which you pay a percentage. The more business that you do, you pay more rent. They have nothing to lose. I know that we have tried to legislate against this pushing merchants and so on to open. But by innuendo, if you do not open Sundays when the rest of them open, I would hate to see you try to get a lease again, I would hate to see you try to go to one of their other malls in one of the other cities, because you have not got a hope. And that is reality.
I would like to go to our staff and tell you that every poll that we have made of our staff, some 250 people, are all opposed to Sunday shopping. I think you do a lot of talking about Sunday shopping, but I hope that you get down to the people who actually work Sundays. They do not want to. They would like to be home with their families instead of at the facility of the consumer, who has other time to shop. When we have refused to open consistently, I have more mail from our employees than I ever had before, commenting on the stand we took, even though our opposition was open. Incidentally, when we were not open, they took the business on Sunday, and Monday and Tuesday were a flop for them and ourselves. So you cannot divide seven days' business by six and expect to come out properly.
The cost will increase for our staff, there is no question about it. We are in a unique business, a service business. We are now open 72 hours. We have to employ very highly trained people, in some cases gemmologists who have studied five years. We cannot have them on duty all the time. We have a security problem when our malls are open and would have to hire extra people. We cannot hire part-timers; they do not suit our business. So the staff in our stores are dead against it.
My conclusion is that if we are to give service to customers' demands, our educated, reliable staff in 72 hours should be able to do this. Our staff morale and quality of life will definitely be eroded. It is not profitable for us to stay open seven days, for the reasons that I have given, and I think you will find the landlords will see to it that the small merchandisers and the free enterprisers of this world are going to become fewer, because they cannot compete with the big landlords and the rents they charge.
Incidentally, cross-border shopping is a bit of a problem for us. We are in places like Sarnia. We are doing good business in those areas. The recession is hurting us far more, in that particular case. I think the one question that I can get from most of our staff when they have written in to me is "Why do we have to open when the libraries, the licence bureaus, and all the other places the government runs are not open on Sunday?"
Mr Dockstader: Just a couple of comments: I heard Mr Kormos express his concern about the tourism criteria and the way that was going to operate, and I suppose, as a lawyer, I feel the same way as Mr Kormos. I also have acted for a few people in the past to do with statutes and the regulations and so forth. There is always difficulty with definitions, but it seems to me if you look at the proposed regulation and the criteria under it, it appears to be broad enough to cover most geographical areas which have any concentration at all of hotels and restaurants and malls and stores and so forth. The type of business that is covered there, if you look at it, really look at it, surely it is broad enough to cover almost any type of retail business which is in there. It could be expanded, certainly, to do that. With a little imagination, a little argument, I think it would be very difficult to pin down in the broad way in which it is now.
Really, how are you going to prevent whole cities from in effect declaring themselves tourist areas? Every business in the area is a tourist area, and what are you going to do as a government at that stage about that? When these people, and I am not saying that it is going to be Windsor or Sarnia, but these are cross-border -- where there is cross-border shopping and economic bad times, how are you going to prevent that from being done with the broad definition and the criteria you have here?
One of the ways it can be helped is to get the tourist exemption concept out of the municipalities and back in the province where it belongs.
It is the provincial government's business. It is their area of expertise. It should be their area of expertise. They should be the arbiter and final decision-maker of what it is that should be a tourist area, if what we are trying to protect is tourism in here.
You should not have it the broad way in which it is, and it should not be in the municipality's area of power to decide what is or is not a tourist area. The type of business it is, it is going to be set upon by all the individuals and the companies within its area to perhaps open. You are going to end up with checkerboarding all over, which is the last thing we need. There should be some criteria which are set out and dealt with by the provincial government itself.
The second area that bothers me a little bit is the fines. The minimum fines, as I understand them to be, are relatively low in the bill, a copy of which I have been provided with. It might well be that you consider raising those minimum limits, because the reality of it is that for a large store, in the minimums that they have down there, it is just going to be another tax to open up. You have to make it prohibitive enough. You might say, "Well, that's just the minimum amount," but that is not the way the courts look at it. In provincial offences court, if it is the first time it has happened, they are good corporate citizens, they are going to get nearer the minimum amount a lot more often before a justice of the peace than they ever are going to be hit near any maximum they have. I think you should well consider raising those minimum amounts so in fact it is a true penalty to breach the law; it is not just another licence fee to be able to practise in that regard.
Those are the two main areas. I was going to actually say a few more things, but Mr Kormos was so articulate before I sat down here. There is no point in repeating Mr Kormos's arguments.
The Chair: You might have an opportunity later on. We have about four minutes per caucus.
Mr Daigeler: Just very quickly, thank you for coming before us and presenting a rather broad-based description of how you feel, from religious to business to legal considerations. That is certainly to be appreciated, and we welcome that. I do not know whether you were here earlier when the London Chamber of Commerce made its presentation. I am just wondering how you would be reacting to that.
Mr Young: I would suggest to you that I am going to speak to the chamber of commerce, because I was not aware that was its position. I do not know where they would get that position from. I am sorry, I just cannot understand it, because they were certainly opposed to it the last I knew. I did not know that they would come forth with that.
Mr Daigeler: They did indicate, to be fair, that there was a change of opinion, but they felt, and I questioned them on that, that there has been a quite significant shift of opinion that not just a majority but a significant majority would be in favour of giving the retailers the option. They are not saying that everybody should be open. They are saying that, with everything taken into account, it should be the retailer and the business person who should make the decision and not anyone else.
1730
Mr Young: Perhaps in my speech I missed the point that most of us do not have the option. If you are in a mall, if the mall decides you are opening, you are opening, period.
Mr Daigeler: I even asked them on that as well. They said that even in malls some stayed open and some did not here in the London area.
Mr Young: That was in the past, yes, because there was no clear-cut -- the malls stayed back. But you must realize that we are in a competitive business; it makes it impossible to stay closed if your competitor is open. This is tough business, and it is tough times. I cannot understand why we all cannot get seven days' business in six and be just as happy with far less expense and a better bottom line. I would like to question the chamber of commerce on who put this forth, because I was never surveyed, and I am a member of the London Chamber of Commerce.
Mr Dockstader: Can I just respond to Mr Daigeler? I have a piece out of the chamber of commerce newspaper from 1988 by Mr Jack Mann, who was the executive vice-president and the chief executive officer of the London Chamber of Commerce. The heading is "Keep up the Fight on Sunday Shopping."
Mr Daigeler: Oh, yes, I acknowledge that, and they acknowledged it. They said there was, as by the way in other areas of the province, a significant shift of opinion among the members of the chamber. What you are saying is quite correct, and they would acknowledge that as well. All they are saying is that, "We changed our mind."
Mrs Cunningham: Welcome, all three of you. Good to see you again. I wondered, in speaking to my colleague Mr Carr, if the churches were going to be making presentations, and he has advised me that some of them have. Right now we had at least three or four groups talk to us about the common pause day, and they just did not think there was a reason for it at all, which is a very big difference in the presentations as we heard them just two summers ago, when over 9 out of 10 of the deputations that we heard clearly were in favour of a common pause day in Ontario.
I do not know whether it is society as a whole or whether people have given up on government's or politicians' ability to listen -- and that is a non-partisan comment. There seems to be a disrespect for, I think, the democratic process in my period of time in serving not only London as a school board trustee but certainly as a member of provincial Parliament. But many of us carry on in the things we believe in, and I know that is why you are here today.
I would like you to respond to two questions that I did not get answered by the chamber. One is this thing about leases, because they certainly left us with the impression that it had been taken care of, and we are hearing, I think, the opposite from you today, Bill.
The other question I had was with regard to this whole issue of the tourist exemption, because that is what we have been living with in Ontario, where stores did open in areas of our province where they relied on the tourist business for their livelihood. Maybe we are seeing a bigger need for that or maybe we are seeing an excuse for that; I do not know. If the tourist exemption is important to this government, and I think it probably is, it would surprise me if we saw them go totally one way or the other: wide-open Sunday shopping or none at all, so to speak.
I say to the chamber, let's be realistic; you are not going to see a government that is going to do one or the other. They talked about the common day of pause during their campaign; I expect they are going to stay with it. The only way they are going to be able to do that is with the tourist exemption, I feel. If you could talk a little bit about the lease, which I am confused about, and about this whole tourist exemption and how you see it working -- if you see it working -- I would appreciate it.
Mr Young: I can answer the one on leases. I am not specific on what you want to know, but there is very little I do not know about them, because they are 54 pages long. Fifty-three and a half are in favour of the landlord. The other little bit happens to come in there and says we are allowed to do business. The lease simply states that you have to be open the hours designated by the mall management.
Mrs Cunningham: By the what?
Mr Young: By mall management or by the landlord, I am not sure of the term. That is it. Now, in the last little bit, I think they saw that the bad publicity would be there, so they did not push it but allowed you to do what you wanted, and of course that is not what a shopping centre wants. A shopping centre is a destination point, and unless everybody is either open or shut you do not have that destination point. I do not know what other part of the lease you do not understand; I am certainly willing to answer anything. But they specifically have the power to make us open if they please. I do not think publicity-wise it would be good for them.
Mrs Cunningham: You have leases in a number of malls, do you not?
Mr Young: We have leases in all the malls, some 35 of them.
Mrs Cunningham: Thirty-five leases?
Mr Young: Yes.
Mrs Cunningham: Now, current.
Mr Young: Yes, now, current, and they were all signed long before the recession, long before any of the problems. But they are in for 5, 8, 10, -- whatever years they want to be involved.
Mrs Cunningham: Maybe we can have a clarification, because it seems to me there is a feeling that that is not a problem now, and you are telling me as a practitioner it is.
The Chair: Mr Mills does want to clarify that point. Perhaps we could do that after the other questions have been posed.
Mrs Cunningham: That is fine, as long as the deputation hears it. What about the tourist exemption, in your view? Can it work? Is it something we should be trying to tighten up? Should we be looking for a very clear definition?
Mr Young: I think it is very difficult. I think it will put things wide open eventually, because I suppose we sell some items that people consider tourist items. I do not know. I think it would be very difficult for you, I just do not know how you are going to do it. I am not a lawyer, but I know that there would be loopholes of all kinds, and they would take advantage of the loopholes. In this very competitive market and with cross-border shopping, we have to be as sharp as possible, so we would take advantage of it, probably, in some way. I am not saying we would, but I think some people would.
Mrs Cunningham: So your view, then, would be, if we go for that, we are probably looking at the provincial responsibility for any exemption, because without it, we have got the patchwork.
Mr Young: I do think you have to go on a provincial level. I really think the municipality will just throw it wide open.
Mr Kormos: Very quickly, because I know Mr Lessard wants to speak with you, maybe it is just me sensing the disdain for the fact that somehow it is just the trade unions and just the churches that are looking for a common pause day. I have no quarrel with either of them.
One of the things that has been pointed out very frequently is that -- and let's not kid ourselves -- the reason why Sunday is a common pause day is because of the Christian tradition that has existed in this province, in this country; similarly, that Christian tradition now coexists with a lot of other traditions, be they newer traditions, some ancient in history: Saturday as a Sabbath, Friday as a Sabbath. But I ask you, because that has been used as an argument to reject the concept of any common pause day, are you gentlemen aware of any religious or any secular philosophy which rejects the concept of a common pause day, which would not embrace the need for a day to engage in either spiritual renewal and/or the renewal of social relationships, family relationships, or the renewal, perhaps, just of your own kindred spirit with nature and the world about you? Is there anybody who is going to be offended, that you are aware of, by the concept of a common pause day and the creation and the sustenance of one?
1740
Canon Pinkney: No, I think you are absolutely right. You are sort of, by implication, answering your own question. I think it is rather interesting to note that even though the historical aegis of Sunday in particular is because of the Christian tradition in a country like Russia -- now, I know that Russia is going through enormous upheavals, and now they are having clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church once again coming on the stage, blessing political leaders and so forth. But for many years Russia was officially an atheist state, a communist state, dedicated to a secular philosophy, and yet Sunday has been the traditional day of rest continuously in Russia. So I think that rather says something about the force of tradition.
I think there has to be a day. Hopefully there will be a day. I cannot imagine there are very strong arguments in our country for turning it into Friday because we have a Muslim minority or making it Saturday because we have a Hebrew minority. I think that overwhelmingly, in a democracy, you have to take into account the fact that for the majority of people probably Sunday would be the most congenial and appropriate day. Therefore, why not stick with it? And you can do so on strictly humanitarian grounds, without bringing in religion.
Interestingly enough, in the 10 Commandments, the one that deals with the whole idea of the keeping of the Sabbath is divided into two parts: One is the day of rest principle and the other is the aspect of worship. They can be differentiated and distinguished, and I think it is the day of rest, it is the humanitarian common pause day that help to unite a society by having it function in these family and recreational ways that are ones a church can wholeheartedly support, with a religious rootage in terms of humanitarian principle, but not bringing in dogma or doctrines or any coercion with regard to worship or any of those considerations.
Mr Lessard: This has been a fascinating afternoon here in London. We have seen some interesting partnerships. We have seen the United Food and Commercial Workers make a presentation along with National Grocers, and now we are hearing from representatives together from the legal community, the business community and the religious community.
I just wanted to point out to Mr Young that I had asked the chamber this afternoon as well whether it had taken any polling of its membership in order to determine their presentation here. They were members of the government relations committee of the chamber and said they had drafted their presentation and brought it up with the board -- I guess there were 21 members of the board -- and that was how they decided that was going to be the presentation of the chamber. I can provide you with a copy of that if you would like to see it.
Mr Young: I hope some of them were members of the retail community who are affected.
Mr Lessard: Yes. One may have been a jeweller.
Mr Carr: I thought it might have been you.
Mr Young: No, it was not, but I hoped -- because you are talking about retailers when you are talking Sunday shopping, and that is who should have been polled, not 21 members of a board.
Mr Lessard: Right. I do not know if you mentioned the business that you were in, but you mentioned the impact that it would have on your own business and the fact that you did not feel that part-time, casual workers who, we have heard, would make up the bulk of the people who would work on Sundays -- and we have been told as well that would create additional employment -- but you did not think that those those types of employees would be able to adequately service the clientele in your own business. So what business are you in and why do you not think they would be able to do that?
Mr Young: Would you buy a $5,000 diamond from somebody who just came out of the sociology course at Western university?
Mr Lessard: I guess not, no.
Mr Daigeler: You could if you could afford it.
Mr Lessard: Yes.
Mr Young: I did not mean you personally. I am sorry.
Mr Lessard: Part of that answer is due to financial considerations, I suppose.
Mr Carr: I will talk to his wife.
Mr Young: Please do. I will give you my card. No, we cannot hire staff, not only for the knowledge and so on that is necessary for our products, but also for security. We have a major security problem. It is getting worse, and we have to have knowledgeable people on staff all the time. If Sunday shopping comes, that means that our management senior personnel will have to work longer hours. There is no question about it. We just cannot open up a jewellery store that may carry anywhere from $500 to $1 million worth of merchandise and have college or high school students looking after it. It just does not work.
The Chair: Mr Mills, with a clarification.
Mr Mills: I would just like to speak to the legislation as it applies to the provisions requiring holiday openings. Section 5 says, "A provision in a lease or other agreement that has the effect of requiring a retail business to remain open on the holiday is of no effect even if the lease or agreement was made before the coming into force of this section." This section came into force in February 1989, just for your information, sir.
Mr Young: Yes.
Mr Mills: I know you are going to say there are ways of skirting that, but that is the legislation.
Mr Young: That is correct.
The Chair: Thank you very much, gentlemen, Rev Pinkney, Mr Young and Campbell Dockstader.
Canon Pinkney: Thank you for having us.
The Chair: Before we depart, I would like to thank all the people who have presented and the city of London for its excellent hospitality today, and to say simply that we are adjourned until nine o'clock tomorrow morning.
Mr Poirier: Thirty seconds, Mr Chair, to note that after all the weeks of travel we have done, I think there would be unanimous decision that by far this has been the best lodging of all our tour. I am not from London; nobody votes for me here. But to be honest, this was great accommodation at a great price and we had our best meal on the road in London last night.
The committee adjourned at 1746.