Committee Transcript 1991-Aug-28 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

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

Niagara Falls Canada Visitor and Convention Bureau

Ontario Federation of Labour

Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth

United Steelworkers of America, Local 1005; Marvin Caplan

Ontario Hotel and Motel Association

Hamilton and District Chamber of Commerce

National Grocers Co Ltd; United Food and Commercial Workers

Graham Scott

Hamilton and District Labour Council

Canadian Lord's Day Association; Brantford and Hamilton Auxiliaries

Drummond Home Hardware

Council of Christian Reformed Churches in Canada

Downtown Hamilton Business Improvement Area

St Catharines Chamber of Commerce

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)

1991Harnick, 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

The committee met at 0903 in the Sheraton Hotel, Hamilton.

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.

NIAGARA FALLS CANADA VISITOR AND CONVENTION BUREAU

The Chair: Before we start today, I should bring people's attention to the presence and availability for the audience of translation devices.

Our first delegation today is Mr Gordon Paul from the Niagara Falls Canada Visitor and Convention Bureau. We have approximately half an hour. Please use that time as you wish, but typically the delegations divide that time between their presentation and an opportunity for the committee members to pose questions to them.

Mr Paul: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman, and members of the standing committee. We appreciate the opportunity for the Niagara Falls Canada Visitor and Convention Bureau to address the issue of Sunday shopping re Bill 115.

We would like to make very clear that we feel that the freedom of Sunday opening should prevail throughout the country. However, having noted this government's insistence on a common pause day, we acknowledge the effort taken in recognizing the importance of Sunday opening to the tourist industry and the economic impact it has on the province and our city, Niagara Falls. Therefore, it is to the area of market development for the tourist industry that I wish to draw to your attention.

A recent market research study done jointly by the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation and the Region Niagara Tourist Council released statistics which related to the consumer interest in regional activities. It is indeed worthy to note that shopping takes the lead, with 47% of all visitors stating their prime activity is shopping. The survey reinforces the bureau's role to respond to the challenges of attempting to position itself as an international preferred travel destination by offering diversified experiences. To this end, the bureau recognizes the importance of this new proposed legislation.

By formally agreeing to Sunday opening for the tourist areas, you will be providing Niagara Falls, Canada, the opportunity to promote activities which will have immeasurable impact on visitor visitation and retention. It is our considered opinion that visitor retention is exceedingly important. We therefore want to ensure that, because of the sensitivity of this issue to local communities, you consider the following recommendation: that the decision regarding the bylaws for Sunday opening so stipulated by the province be delegated to the local communities.

Mr Chairman, that is the formal presentation from the Niagara Falls Canada Visitor and Convention Bureau. If there are questions, I would be pleased to attempt to answer them.

Mr Daigeler: Thank you very much and good morning. As a little aside -- although perhaps it is not too welcome news for Hamilton, the city we are in right now, but of course it is welcome news for the area I represent -- the OMB decided in favour of the application by the Ottawa 1enators to build the Palladium in Kanata. Certainly that will be related to tourism and hopefully it will help not just Ottawa-area tourism.

Mr Paul: If they are allowed to play on Sunday.

Mr Daigeler: Presumably. What is happening at the present time in the Niagara Falls area? Are all the stores open? Even under the previous legislations, even the Tory ones, what happened? Was it just in the specifically defined tourism areas that the stores opened, or was it that pretty well everybody stayed open?

Mr Paul: No, it is not widespread. It was more particularly confined to those establishments within the designated tourist area. It is very broad in Niagara Falls, I grant you, but not all retail operations are open.

Mr Daigeler: What about the malls? Is it the same picture there?

Mr Paul: We have just the one major mall in Niagara Falls, Niagara Square, and it was allowed to open. I do not know if it enjoyed any measure of success by being open.

Mr Daigeler: All of the retailers in that mall were open, as far as you know?

Mr Paul: I believe that is part of the terms of the contract with their leases, yes.

Mr Daigeler: Are you familiar at all with the profitability of the Sunday enterprise in the Niagara Falls area?

Mr Paul: I am indeed. The properties I represent in our sector are extensive, and without Sundays we would have a very difficult time. Profitability is great, with the exception of this particular year we are in. I do not want to discuss that.

Mr Poirier: How would you describe the economic relationship between what we know as the traditional tourist attractions of your area and what I may describe as the ordinary, maybe necessarily non-tourist, business openings on Sunday? Do you feel there is a link? Is there a symbiotic relationship between both of these sectors, or what? What if we close, for example, the furniture stores on a Sunday? How would that affect things? What is the relationship?

Mr Paul: There is certainly no feeling of animosity. The sectors are very distinct, there is no question about that. It is the visitor who will really dictate what is wanted and what is not wanted. That makes the distinction very clear.

Mr Poirier: Do you have any surveys to indicate what visitors would like to do in your area?

Mr Paul: Yes, we have had a considerable number of surveys. I referred to one this morning, which is probably the most recent and indeed very significant.

0910

Mr Poirier: If you closed non-traditional-tourist types of stores or businesses in Niagara Falls, would that have an impact on the other tourist volume potential?

Mr Paul: No, I cannot see that it would.

Mr Carr: Thank you for your presentation. As I understood it when you made your presentation, you said you would like the municipalities to have the option.

Mr Paul: That is correct. Is there a further question or may I elaborate on why I said what I said?

Mr Carr: No, you can elaborate. Go ahead.

Mr Paul: Because Niagara Falls is unique compared to other jurisdictions even within the tourist community, we believe we know best what it is that the visitor wants or does not want. It is for that reason that we make that statement. Someone in Timmins has no feeling for what goes on in Niagara Falls, just by way of example. That is the reason.

Mr Carr: There are other large portions of the province that do want to take the tourism exemption. Collingwood has said it already has. Thunder Bay, Kenora, Sault Ste Marie and parts of Kingston said they will take it. Some of them will not; North Bay says it will not. But very clearly there are a lot of parts of this province that believe their area is in tourism and, as you may know, some of them have taken the whole city or town and said it is an entire tourist area. Very clearly tourism is a big industry in this province. In fact, last night in an interview with Havard Gould, I noticed the Premier even said how big tourism is.

One of the concerns we have is that there are some people -- for example, on the government side -- who have said that people do not come here to shop, notwithstanding that people in the industry come in with a lot of statistics saying that 47% of the visitors like shopping. What do you say to those people who say, "No, that isn't one of the reasons they come here"? We have heard some of the people say, "No, they come for our great beauty and all the other wonderful things we have." Statistically, the people in that industry say shopping is a big reason. What do you say to those people who believe it is not a big part of the reason to come here?

Mr Paul: I would invite them to come and work for me for a summer, and indeed a winter, to find out. This is exactly what I do. I am very much involved in the accommodations sector, food and beverage retail. Very quickly they will understand what it is that a tourist really looks for. Retail shopping is a very large portion of our total sales in the course of 12 months.

Further to that, we are fighting a terrific battle as it applies -- and I do not want to go too deeply into the subject -- to cross-border shopping. If Sunday opening is called to a halt, our American friends will just clap their hands with glee. That is not the only reason. Do not misunderstand me.

Mr Carr: As you know, one of the concerns voiced by some of the groups is that the tourism exemptions are so broad that virtually the entire province could open if it wanted and there is not anything the province can do. They could say, "We're going to take the tourism exemption, and we meet the criteria listed that you, the province, have given." Notwithstanding the fact the Premier said there would be a common pause day, a lot of the municipalities have said: "Thank you very much. You've given us the ball and we're going to open." But now a lot of groups are saying as a result of that, with this bill being looked at right now, we should tighten the tourism restrictions and define them and have a provincial board to oversee the decisions. I was wondering what your thoughts were on the tourism criteria. Do you like them? Not broad enough? Too broad? What would you do with the criteria?

Mr Paul: Once again, I would leave it to the local municipalities to make that determination, for reasons stated. In so far as Niagara Falls is concerned, and I can only speak for that, really, from experience, we are reasonably well satisfied with conditions as they are. What happens in other areas of the province as it applies to the industry, as one involved in the industry, I would listen to them and see what their concerns and cares are.

Mrs Cunningham: In Ontario right now the government's position seems to be that it is wanting to install some legislation that supports a common pause day. The criticism of this particular piece of legislation is that it does not do that because there is no provincial standard; for instance, a tourism exemption. The last time we were down here, I think I am right in saying, your bureau wanted a tourism standard for the province. I think it was you who worked very hard with your regional municipality to put forth one of the best definitions we saw during those hearings on what tourism was. Perhaps you are saying that has been successful for you and, in order to preserve a common pause day in some respect across the province, we could still look to you for that definition. I am wondering whether you still have your definition and if you are prepared to share that with us.

Mr Paul: I could tell you a lie and say I know exactly what you are referring to, but I am afraid you have caught me a little unprepared.

Mrs Cunningham: No, it is fine; it has been two years as opposed to one year.

Mr Paul: If that is an agreeable standard we would be more than happy to participate. May I ask you a question?

Mrs Cunningham: Sure.

Mr Paul: Would you tell me a good definition for common pause day? I do not truly understand that term.

Mrs Cunningham: I will refer that one to the government representatives.

Mr Fletcher: Thank you for being here this morning, sir. Just a few questions. You were talking about what tourists like to do and you gave some statistics. It always gets to me about the statistics, because it always makes it sound as if you are saying people go to Niagara Falls because Canadian Tire is open and we know that is not a fact.

When I am a tourist in Collingwood or the Muskokas I am not going because the retail stores are open, but when I get there and they are open on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday or Saturday I may do some shopping. The attraction is not so much to Sunday shopping as much as what is there to attract people. The secondary reason is that you are able to shop at certain times.

Mr Paul: I am sorry, I missed that last bit.

Mr Fletcher: You are able to shop at certain times. I have heard this from the tourist industry and it seems to agree that shopping is not the main attraction. The attraction is what is at the place, such as Niagara Falls, where it could be the falls itself or the wax museum. Then, when they get to the place, shopping is an activity but not the main draw. Is that a correct assumption?

Mr Paul: The statistics I reported to you, from one of your own ministries, I might add, said shopping is a prime activity when they are there.

Mr Fletcher: That is right.

Mr Paul: And as it happens, Saturdays, Sundays and Tuesdays are probably three of the largest retail spending days of the week.

Mr Fletcher: That is up for debate, because we have heard from other people that it is not the case.

Mr Paul: I can only relate to you what our experience is in Niagara Falls.

Mr Fletcher: That is right, and other people relate other things. Another thing that is interesting from the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation is that it is not so much the industries that are increasing employment. During the time of wide-open Sunday shopping, the number of employees in the hotel business and some of the other areas decreased. The number of employees in the entertainment sector, such as Canada's Wonderland or things like that, increased. That is where we are finding the increase in employment. It is not in the retail sector or anything else; it is in the entertainment sector, such as the water slides and the parks. The attractions are attracting the people, not the shopping. That is the point I wanted to get at.

Mr Paul: And attractions, for your information, are low-labour operations; therefore they will not increase except by the numbers of attractions.

Mr Fletcher: But as I said, the stats from the Ministry of Tourism indicate they are increasing.

0920

Mr Paul: Maybe if there were no opportunity for us to be available to the consumer on a Sunday, it would make scheduling a devil of a lot easier. I might add too that in our operations we are presently employing almost 300 persons and we have never had a difficulty with Sunday being a day of work.

Mr Fletcher: As far as the tourist exemption laws are concerned, for the first time the regulations are also being presented to the public. No other government has done that before, and that is an interesting fact. Usually regulations are made in the back room and then presented, but this time they are out there wide open for people to see and debate.

Mr Paul: And hopefully to understand.

Mr Fletcher: That is why I was asking you, do you understand them and do you agree or disagree with this?

Mr Paul: I have not had the opportunity to read them all so therefore I do not understand them.

Mr Fletcher: Okay, fine. Thank you very much, sir.

Mr Paul: Thank you. I did not get an answer to my question.

The Chair: What was the question?

Mr Paul: What is the definition of a common pause day?

Mr Fletcher: Gord will answer that one.

Mrs Cunningham: From your heart, Gord.

Mr Mills: From my heart, without going through all the --

Mr Daigeler: We have covered that several times already.

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr Mills.

Mr Mills: Subsection 4(2): "The council in passing a bylaw...shall take into account the principle that holidays should be maintained as common pause days." Then you go to clause 1(1)(a) of the act and the definition of a holiday is Sunday as a recurring day, New Year's Day, Good Friday, Victoria Day, Canada Day, Labour Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day, December 26 and "any other public holiday declared by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor."

Having said all of that, traditionally in Ontario Sunday is the day most recognized as a common pause day: schools are closed, buses are shut down, everything is at a sort of traditional slowdown and Sundays give families time to share and grow together, traditionally. That is the common pause day.

Mr Paul: Thank you, sir.

ONTARIO FEDERATION OF LABOUR

The Chair: Our next presenter is Gordon Wilson, president of the Ontario Federation of Labour, and Duncan MacDonald, the program co-ordinator from the Ontario federation.

Mrs Cunningham: Mr Chair, may I just ask a question while they are sitting down?

The Chair: Could I introduce the delegation first?

Mrs Cunningham: All right.

The Chair: You have approximately half an hour to divide between your presentation and the many questions from the committee members. After Mrs Cunningham's question please feel free to proceed.

Mrs Cunningham: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Given the last question for all of us, I just think that perhaps during the clause-by-clause we should be thinking about an amendment for subsection 4(2). I am now responding to Mr Mills. He added his editorial comment that traditionally Sunday has been a common day of pause. Right now the proposed legislation does not refer to that at all. I think he was quite right when he said the principle that holidays should be maintained as common pause days is very different from his response. I think it is something he should take with your support to the government, Mr Chairman, and find out just what it does want in there. I think that is something the government should bring forth in an amendment. It is not fair for me to answer that question in the way Mr Mills did because I do not think that is the intent of the legislation. I thought the question put by the public today and on other days has been fair and it should be defined in some way. I leave that challenge with you, Mr Mills.

Mr Lessard: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Seeing as we are starting five minutes earlier, I wonder whether we could add five minutes to the time and go right until 10 o'clock? Is that agreeable?

The Chair: It seems to be more or less agreed. We will see how it goes.

Mr Wilson: I understood the terms of the agreement were 30 minutes, but obviously I am in the hands of the committee.

Mrs Cunningham: Are you always this agreeable?

Mr Wilson: I am most definitely, and as the member for London North, a fellow Londoner, you should be aware of that.

Mrs Cunningham: I knew there was a reason for it.

Mr Wilson: If I can, Mr Chairperson, you have already introduced our delegation, so let me make the presentation we have. It is a written presentation. I understand members of the committee have copies. We are prepared to respond to any questions that come our way.

On behalf of the Ontario Federation of Labour, we would like to thank you for the opportunity of appearing before the standing committee on administration of justice to discuss the Retail Business Establishment Statute Law Amendment Act, 1991, Bill 115. As you are aware the OFL, with a membership of 800,000 in approximately 60 to 70 different unions across the province, is the largest provincial federation of labour in Canada. Our members work in virtually every sector of the economy and live across Ontario from Kenora to Cornwall and from Moosonee to Windsor.

In preparing this brief we reviewed the involvement of the OFL with the important issue of Sunday shopping or, conversely, working. As early as 1961, delegates to our convention debated and endorsed a resolution calling for the provincial government to regulate the hours of retail outlets. Resolutions on this issue were dealt with at many conventions, the latest of course being in 1989.

Back in 1969, we were involved with the ad hoc committee on Sunday retail selling, a broadly based coalition of organizations which met with then Premier John Robarts. During this period we have been active with a number of coalitions around this issue. We have put forward the views of our members on numerous occasions to the provincial government, cabinet ministers, a variety of legislative committees and of course to the Ontario Law Reform Commission.

Member organizations of various coalitions have made their views known. Our affiliated unions in the retail sector, the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union and the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, have made their views known. Individual citizens have come forth as well to make their views known. The issue has been dealt with in the courts. Needless to say, there has been public discussion on this issue over the years. The issue is known and understood by members of this committee.

Inside the labour movement there is broad support for action on the issue of Sunday shopping or Sunday working. This came about because of a number of factors, including workers' personal aspirations and experiences, length of the public discussion on the issue, the internal educational activities carried on within the labour movement by retail workers and their unions and the educational activities in their community carried on by a wide variety of organizations and individuals.

The labour movement accepts the fact that in our society there is a need for a certain range of services which must be available at all times, which includes Sunday. There is also the acceptance that the nature of some production activities necessitates work on Sunday. Workers involved in these sectors accept this as a fact of their employment and through their unions deal with any issue which may arise from this situation.

The labour movement is supportive of Sunday as a common pause day. We are not suggesting that this is a panacea for every socioeconomic problem in Ontario in 1991. However, as a society we acknowledge the importance to workers of time away from their workplace, which is often a stressful situation, time which may be spent with their families, their friends and in personal pursuits. We believe that workers, their families, their friends, their employers and society will all benefit. We are not convinced either by the arguments put forward in support of Sunday shopping or the idea that forcing tens of thousands of fellow citizens within the province to work on Sundays will somehow improve the quality of life of our members and make Ontario a better place to live for all of us.

In dealing with the Retail Business Establishments Statute Law Amendment Act of 1991, the labour movement has attempted to evolve and put forward a common position in the course of these hearings. On this issue the federation has worked closely with, among others, the United Food and Commercial Workers. Bill 115 is a positive step forward. However, there are a number of areas of concern where we believe Bill 115 could be improved.

In its brief, the UFCW puts forward five areas of concern: (1) The intent of the Retail Business Holidays Act; (2) the municipal option; (3) drugstore openings on Sunday; (4) enforcement of the legislation; and (5) the definition of "retail business." Each of these points has been discussed in some detail during these hearings. While these points are most often put forward by UFCW in its presentations, it should be understood that the position is also supported by the wider labour movement within the province. The recommendations are based on the desire to have legislation which is understandable, enforceable, inclusive and fair for the people of Ontario.

The intent of the Retail Business Holidays Act would be strengthened with the following amendment to subsection 4(2): "4(2) The council, in passing a bylaw under subsection (1), must maintain the principle that holidays are to remain as a common pause day; that is to ensure that they remain days on which most businesses are not open and days on which most persons do not have to work."

It is important that the intent of the legislation is known and followed across the province.

0930

The question of municipal option is strengthened with the following amendments. We would suggest first the new subsection 4(1) to 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."

The government must establish a committee of the affected stakeholders that will prepare and recommend a new set of viable tourist criteria or regulations. The stakeholders should include the representatives of the affected groups, such as retailers, unions, and the government itself.

According to the amendment, the tourist criteria would not form part of the legislation. However, we recommend that a new set of viable regulations, established by the stakeholders mentioned above, be integrated in some form into the legislation.

Section 4(8) must be modified to state, "The council's decision may be appealed by any interested party to the tourist exemption board."

The municipal option and the development of tourist criteria are both strengthened by these recommendations. It is a positive development to recommend that the development of tourist criteria be made more inclusive and that interested parties have the right to appeal a council's decision.

The issue of drugstore openings on Sunday would be dealt with by the following amendments:

"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; and

"(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."

This recommendation provides that the people of Ontario will have access to drugstores to deal with their medicinal needs on Sunday.

The enforcement of the legislation would be dealt with by the following amendments:

1. The proposed amendment of minimum penalty (3.1) be modified to include, "For first offences, the minimum fine for conviction be $10,000, and for subsequent offences, the minimum fine for conviction be $20,000."

2. Section 8(1) be amended to read:

"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."

These recommendations we believe would enhance the enforcement and effectiveness of the legislation.

The definition of a retail business would be clarified with the following amendments:

"1(1)(b) `Retail business' means the selling of goods or services by retail to any member of the public, including a member of a club or co-operative of any other group of consumers.

"(c) `Retail business establishment' means the premises where retail business is carried on. Any space or stall in markets, particularly in covered markets and `flea markets,' shall be considered to be a retail business.

"(d) `Principal business' means that portion of the business which accounts for 80% of the retail business establishment's gross sales."

We understand that the committee has already received a legal opinion on the definition of "retail business" with regard to Price Clubs. We also understand that the enforcement of the present legislation will cover such businesses. This situation should be clarified for both the retail businesses in question and the general public by including these amendments in Bill 115.

These amendments put forward by the labour movement will improve, we believe, the intent and effectiveness of Bill 115. This is the proper way to deal with the issue of Sunday shopping/working. An important component of this issue is the rights of retail workers, which will be dealt with effectively by these proposed amendments to Bill 115. We do not believe that the rights of retail workers will be protected effectively if our proposed amendments are not accepted and those workers must rely only upon the Employment Standards Act.

The purpose of the Employment Standards Act is to provide a minimum level of protection in the area of wages and conditions of work for most Ontario workers. This federation has always taken the position that an effective Employment Standards Act is needed in Ontario. The present act is too flawed, both in coverage, which is scope, and of course content, to offer the kind of protection needed by workers. Over the years we have presented to the Ontario governments our suggestions for needed reforms to the Employment Standards Act. The latest presentation of proposed changes was in June 1990, and it was quite lengthy. The need for change in this legislation is obvious to us. Workers, through their unions and their collective bargaining processes, build on the foundation established, which is effectively a floor under the ESA.

We are concerned with the effectiveness of the proposed amendments to the Employment Standards Act found in Bill 115. We accept the positive intent of those proposed amendments. However, we believe that, if passed, they will offer little real protection for a retail worker faced with an employer who, by nature, proclaims his right to be open, or necessity -- "I have to be open because of my competition" -- wants the employee to work on Sunday.

In this situation, if workers are members of unions, they know they have the needed backup support from their collective agreement and their union when standing up for their rights. If workers are not unionized, as is the case of a majority of retail workers, then they will know that their only real protection relies on the employer's goodwill. If they do not wish to work on Sunday and are faced with the request or demand from their employer, they have a number of options. The first is obvious: to quit and seek employment elsewhere. The second is to refuse and to involve the employment standards branch, which is a long, complicated process. The third is simply to work but to resent it.

Current economic conditions limit employment opportunities. Therefore, workers are reluctant to leave existing jobs, for obvious reasons. The first option is not viable for the vast majority of workers. Workers could refuse and involve the employment standards branch if there are sufficient resources allocated and no backlog. The employment standards branch could give a favourable ruling for workers within a reasonable period of time.

In spite of the proposed amendments under 39eb, ec, and f in Bill 115 and other existing provisions in the Employment Standards Act, non-unionized retail workers know that they are in an unbalanced power relationship with their employer. Workers may win favourable decisions at the employment standards branch, but the next day they have to come back to the same workplace with the same employer. If employers are so inclined, there is an opportunity that they can win eventually by making life miserable for workers through a wide variety of means and techniques. The onus is on workers to continue to make the case that employer's actions are related to their position on Sunday working, and not a reverse onus on employers to make the case that their actions are not related to the workers' position on Sunday working.

How long this process lasts will vary from worker to worker. The most likely conclusion is that workers give up and/or move on somewhere else. The message to other workers, and this is important, is that refusing to work on Sunday and involving the ESA branch will likely cause you problems with your employer. To avoid a hassle with employers, the natural response for many workers is to agree to work on Sunday when confronted with a request or a demand from their employer.

If workers do not use these proposed amendments, then this situation will be pointed to by some as proof that there was never any need for such amendments since few retail workers felt the need to use the Employment Standards Act. On the other hand, it may also be used as proof that retail workers like to work on Sunday since few complained when asked to work on that day. As stated earlier, there is an obvious need for significant reform of the scope, application, administration, practice and procedures of the ESA. Such reforms will be in the interests of the working people of Ontario, some of whom -- a great many of whom -- work in the retail sector. We realize that this suggestion is beyond the mandate of this committee at this present time.

The labour movement views the Retail Business Establishments Statute Law Amendment Act, 1991, Bill 115, as a positive development, a piece of legislation which we believe will be improved if the committee includes the amendments which we have suggested.

That concludes our formal presentation. We would of course be prepared to respond as best we can to any questions the committee members may have.

0940

Mr Daigeler: Thank you, Mr Wilson, for your presentation, for coming before us to make your views known. I have in front of me a research report that was given to us by our very efficient and useful staff support. This report includes the results of a survey that was taken on June 17, 1991, to be precise, so it is a very recent one. This survey asked people, "Should Sunday shopping be allowed in Ontario?" The results were 58% yes, and 33% no.

That was further broken down among very many factors, male, female, ethnicity and so on -- also, union household. Those who were union households, while the proportion was not as pronounced as I just indicated, the opinion was still basically split between those for and those against; 48% said they agreed with the intention of the Ontario NDP government to prohibit, as much as possible, Sunday shopping and 47% said they disagreed with that. Now, these are union households. How would you react to these results, which seem to go against the view that you are putting forward, or at least modify it?

Mr Wilson: I think the first observation I have is that union households are as much a part of general society and the general public and hold much the same opinions on issues as do others. I think the weakness in that is that where you ask people a question which would lead to a conclusion of added convenience -- like, "Would you like to have the ability to shop on Sunday, to run down to buy whatever you think is a good idea at that time?" -- you are likely to get a favourable response. If, however, the second question were to ask, "And would you be prepared to work on Sunday?" I would suggest to you those numbers would be reversed at least. Most people would say they would want further opportunity to do that, but if you said to them, "Do you want to be trapped in the workplace on Sunday?" you are going to get a different response.

It is a little bit like taxes. If you say to people, "Are you paying enough taxes?" they say yes. If you say, "Is the other person paying enough taxes?" they say no. The definition of taxes is, "I think everybody who makes more than me should pay more."

Mr Daigeler: I think you are quite right in your answer. Obviously union households are part of the general population, and everybody likes a convenience. On the other hand, we have had many people appear before the committee who said, "Listen, nobody is being forced to work on Sunday. We have a lot of people who want to work on Sunday and who insist on working on Sunday." In fact, in that regard -- I am referring to your brief on page 4 where you say that the idea of forcing tens of thousands of fellow citizens to work on Sundays will not improve the quality of life -- is the use of the word "force" deliberate, or do you think it is just an exaggeration, perhaps, in order to make a point?

Mr Wilson: It would be an exaggeration in some cases, but it would not be in others. Like any other legislative initiative, I think it is the objective of a government, and indeed this committee, to try to find as universal and as equal an application as one could find. The difficulty we have there is -- I can speak from experience -- under our collective agreements we have dealt with the question of working on Sunday in a lot of manufacturing processes where it is necessary. For example, here in Stelco you cannot shut down the blast furnaces. You have to keep them going on Sunday where there are continuous operations in some production processes.

I think our difficulty, however, and I had this argument with Mr Sorbara when he introduced legislation while he was the Minister of Labour, is that there is no way really to protect people, excepting the employer's goodwill. I am talking about a non-union sector, where most of the retail workers reside. That can only happen through a legislative initiative which is clear, where the party's responsibilities are clear.

It is also true to say that a number of people are quite content to work on Sunday. I make no bones about that. But I think the issue here is that if a decision is made by a worker, which is generally the decision of the family that he or she does not want to work on Sunday for whatever reason, then they should have the right not to have to do that. It is very difficult if the onus is on the worker to enforce that right. If you go through the long process in the employment standards branch there is too much room for those that want to take advantage of it to intimidate workers.

Mr Daigeler, if I could just make this one point, I think what could happen, if I could give you this illustration, the employer comes to me and says, "We work on Sunday." I am a retail clerk in a chain somewhere and I say, "No, I do not want to." I am subtly advised down the road that my attitude is not conducive to my advancement within the enterprise. Or maybe three weeks later, when I show up and park in the wrong parking spot, I could be discharged. It is very similar to the argument we had on reverse onus, with workers being fired during organizing drives some years ago when the Conservative government brought in the protection that was required.

Mr Daigeler: Would you agree with me that it is really at least an exaggeration, if not a little bit misleading, for the current government to say there is this absolute right of refusal to work on Sunday, and that they are really trying to make a lot of hay about these provisions they are claiming are so much better in this particular law than in the previous one.

Mr Wilson: As we have argued in our brief, we would like to see it clearer and strengthened and we would indulge your support on that question.

Mr MacDonald: If I could just make a point clearer, we mentioned that we have been passing resolutions since 1961 on this issue. I think it is important to tell you what that means. It is not a few people at our headquarters on Gervais Drive passing them. At our last convention we had over 1,700 delegates from across Ontario who were elected by their locals and sent to the convention. I would say well over 80% of them are rank-and-file activists not holding full-time positions with their unions, and probably about 40% are first-time delegates to the convention.

We can see that this policy has been touched over the last 30 years in a very democratic manner, so this is not something the labour movement just came to suddenly and said, "Wouldn't it be a good idea if we had this kind of position on the issue." It has been there, it has been discussed openly and this has been going on for about 30 years. I just wanted to get that on the record as well.

Mr Carr: Thank you very much, Mr Wilson, for a fine presentation. I noticed on page 14 you called this bill a positive development, but you may have been here earlier when I spoke about what we have heard across the province. There is no doubt that significant portions of this province will be open and I used Collingwood as an example, Thunder Bay, Kenora, the Sault, Windsor, where they said they are going to take the tourist exemptions and be open.

The Premier said he is committed to a common pause day. The Solicitor General said that, but the fact remains that if this law is not changed there will be Sunday shopping in this province. I noticed on page 10 you said that the workers' rights will not be protected unless you get these proposals brought in. If nothing changes in the law, do you believe the Premier of this province has broken his commitment to labour?

Mr Wilson: He did not just make it to us, he made it to everybody, including you.

Mr Carr: So he broke it to everybody. Okay.

Mr Wilson: You probably have more influence on him than I have.

Mr Carr: I doubt that. I only wish.

Mr Wilson: If I had my druthers I would opt for a tourist exemption board of stakeholders as proposed and supported by the UFCW where certain criteria should be laid down centrally, and the tourist exemption board would make those decisions.

0950

Mr Carr: What I am getting at is that some of the other members of the group and the United Food and Commercial Workers, as we have gone around the province, have been fairly aggressive. They have called the tourism exemptions a joke and said what we really have is wide-open Sunday shopping. Read the Hansard; they called it a joke. What we have, though, is a situation where the Premier -- and the Solicitor General, as recently as last Thursday -- has said, "We are still going to have a common pause day." Quite frankly, it will not be up to you and me to make that judgement of him. People are going to be able to say two years from now, "You made the commitment on a common pause day and I know I can go out and shop in downtown Windsor, Niagara Falls or whatever." I was just wondering what your feelings are because as you know, if there are no changes, significant portions will be open. How do you feel you can impress upon the government to change their opinion so they make the changes, because if they do not, clearly there will be Sunday shopping. What else do you think you can do to convince the government?

Mr Wilson: I think that is what we are doing here today. As I understand the legislative process, the purpose of public hearings is for any government to receive input from a variety of people affected by the issue. And as I understand the process in my experience with the previous Liberal government, and before that the Conservative government, it is not uncommon for a government to introduce a bill, go through the public hearing processes and then make amendments based on the public hearing and the report of this committee.

So I guess the simplest answer to your question and the most straightforward approach is that I am here today to make our views known, which I have done, and I would hope this committee, as every other presenter would hope, will take our position seriously, and eventually this committee and the government's report will find its way into legislation. I guess what I am really saying, Mr Carr, is I do not see that this process I am engaged in here today is effectively any different than it has been with previous governments.

Mr Carr: You know what the other side is saying. The tourism people are coming through and saying, "You're making us go through all these hoops," and there might be some areas that will be legitimate tourist areas that will now be up to the designation or the whim of municipalities. A lot of people are coming in and saying, "As broad as these are, you're making us go through a lot of hoops and you're hurting our tourism industry."

I think you might have been here when I mentioned that the Premier last night said in his interview from Whistler that tourism is a big factor in Ontario. The tourism people are saying they should have the ability to open up without having to cater to the whims of the municipality. As you know, both sides of the issue are not happy with this legislation. I appreciate the fact that you are saying we should tighten them. But people, on the other hand, are saying, "No, you're making us go through all these hoops. It's going to be a long process." Both sides -- and I guess that is where the ultimate decision of the government is -- are saying it is not working.

I appreciate your recommendation about the tourism exemption board and that you need to lay down the criteria, but is that not going to be just as difficult when you get all these groups together? How is it going to change when they come out with --

Mr Wilson: My experience has been when stakeholders of varying views get into the room, there is consistently an opportunity which is achieved, and that is some sort of an agreement around the issue. I think we have to take what we are doing today in context, as Duncan pointed out earlier. We have been debating it for 30 years; it has been in the public realm for 20 years, so this is not an aberration. It has almost become part of the tradition. And to seek unanimity is very difficult. For example, in this area there are probably only two things people are unanimous upon: that the Blue Jays win the pennant and Mulroney gets defeated in the next election.

Mr Fletcher: You might be right on both counts.

Mr Carr: Two majorities -- a lot of people have thought that for a lot of years. I do not know.

Mr Wilson: Do you agree?

Mr Carr: I do not know who we should be betting on. He seems to keep surviving. Go ahead, Dianne.

The Chair: Unfortunately we are out of time.

Mrs Cunningham: Sorry, I cannot ask you any questions, we have run out of time.

Mr Wilson: When I am in London next I would be pleased to drop in on you.

Mrs Cunningham: That would be great.

Mr Kormos: Very quickly, because there are other people who want to talk to you, let me lay a little bit of background to what I am going to ask you. Obviously I am a New Democrat and I am proud as I ever could be about the Premier's commitment to a common pause day. Unlike a lot of my colleagues I had the pleasure of serving in the opposition, albeit for two brief years, and the pleasure of participating in the debate on the last government's Sunday shopping legislation.

I am only a backbencher, but I have concerns about the fact that local optioning was a great concern to us then. I have listened carefully to every presentation to this committee and I am not aware of a single labour organization that has not said, when asked to indicate what it really feels is going to carry this common pause day issue to fruition, "No, what we need is...," as you, I believe, indicated, "What we need is a provincial body doing the determination of what is exempt and what isn't exempt, otherwise you get checkerboarding." I still have those concerns and I appreciate your amendments and I acknowledge that your amendments strengthen the legislation as it is presented in the bill.

Am I wrong in pressing, as I anticipate I will, for tougher tourism regulations and for a provincial level of determination of exemptions in view of all. I was on city council for three years and I know the types of pressures city councillors can find themselves under. Am I wrong in pressing for that?

Mr Wilson: First, let me respond at the municipal level. I think most mayors and municipalities quite frankly do not want to have to make the decision. In border cities it gets clouded up with the cross-border shopping issue and becomes skewered in different ways.

My personal view, and I think the view of the majority of those people I speak for, would be that we believe, if all those people involved in this issue which has been debated for 20-odd years in the public ground, if all the stakeholders were assembled in a room, they could come to a set of criteria which all could agree and we could all operate under. That would, by extension, in my view, lead me to the conclusion that this matter is far better dealt with by a tourist exemption board at the provincial level.

Mr Morrow: Thank you very much, Brother Wilson, for coming to Hamilton today. I really appreciate that, being the local member. I cannot think of anybody else to pose this question to, being the expert you are in the labour movement. Under the previous flawed Liberal legislation that we all know you could fly a 747 through --

Mrs Cunningham: It used to be a Mack truck.

Mr Wilson: He is concerned about the erosion of the manufacturing base in the province under the trade agreement.

Mr Morrow: We obviously understand that, according to Mr Sorbara, the Ministry of Labour had only 15 complaints. Can you please explain to the fine people up here what it takes to actually get a complaint to the Ministry of Labour and actually how serious that is at that point?

Mr Wilson: I think it would suffice to say, Mr Morrow, that it is a very arduous process. The members of the committee should put their minds inside that of workers in the retail sector, who most commonly are women, often are immigrant workers or from visible minority groups, who are now confronted with the situation of challenging the authority in the workplace administered by whoever from the employer's side, the employer directly as a manager, or the employer as an owner. It takes quite a bit of courage for an individual, I would think, in that situation -- remembering the discussion usually takes place on the employer's turf which is the workplace -- to rise to that occasion, to want to follow through, and then having gone through, to approach the employment standards branch.

I am not sure what the backlog is now, but I know we have constantly been complaining about the time it takes from the initiation to the conclusion of complaints that workers raise. There is a whole process where, first of all, it has to be determined if there is a legitimate basis for the complaint. So you have an investigator or a field worker go out in the field and investigate that, then the processes of the parties being interviewed, and then -- it gets long and harried.

The problem I have with that whole process is -- it is much clearer and fairer, to the employers as well as ourselves, if there is a clear set of rules which say these are your rights and these are your responsibilities. Then there is no question as to whether one has to adhere to that. Does that answer your question?

Mr Morrow: That basically answers my question. I just want to thank you for the amendments you have given us, they are very precise. Now I will let Mr Fletcher have his turn.

1000

Mr Fletcher: Mr Wilson, thank you for being here today. A lot of people talk about the domino effect when we speak of the municipal responsibility: If this municipality opens, this one will open, and this one. But they do not talk about the domino effect when it comes to people who are working. For example, when the retail sector opens, someone has to supply the retail sector. I know that debate has gone on in the labour movement for a long time, and that always seems to be the missing factor. Everyone talks about the business. What about the employees --

Mr Wilson: Mr Fletcher, I can recall a conversation I had about two years ago with what I would call a mid-management person in the banking industry. For obvious reasons I will not identify the person; please accept my word that this discussion took place as it did. This individual was in support of Sunday working. I said, "You should look seriously at the issue because it has the potential to snowball." One of the arguments I had with the previous government was, what requirements will then be set in place, for example, to extend public transportation service, because workers have to get there; what are the provisions going to be for child care, because a number of people involved will require that service on Sunday in the same fashion as they would on Monday or Wednesday or Saturday. I said, "By the way, what we are really arguing here is for the ability of the larger retailers -- and I think that has come out in these hearings -- to extend their market."

There are only so many dollars to be spent out there by consumers whether it is six days or seven days. This is all, in my view at least, a marketing ploy to capture a greater percentage of the market because, if the larger retailers stay open, it forces the mid range Canadian Tire types, the Idomos, and then it eventually gets to the Home Hardware store in a strip mall. But the Home Hardware operators, I would argue, do not want anything to do with Sunday shopping because they will wind up losing business if they do not open. They know they will lose to Canadian Tire and Canadian Tire knows, if they do not stay open, they are going to lose it to the Bay or to Simpson's or whomever.

I told this person -- this is the point I want to make -- once we begin to extend those support mechanisms that you have touched upon, if I were a CEO of a bank I would look at my unused capacity within that banking operation, and ask myself why those large buildings downtown, by and large, remain idle on Saturday and Sunday. This person looked at me and said, "I hadn't quite thought about it that way." I do not know whether, in the end, the person's opinion changed or not.

Mrs Cunningham: It is the same issue as the door when they say they want everything open but they do not want to --

Mr Fletcher: Whose question is this?

Mr Wilson: It is a point well taken. I think I will shut up. You guys are helping each other out; you do not need me.

Mr Fletcher: Thank you, Mr Wilson.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HAMILTON-WENTWORTH

The Chair: We now have a presentation from the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth: Mr Dave Beck and Ms Helen Bell. We have approximately half an hour which will be divided up between the presentation, which has been distributed, and questions from the committee members.

Mr Beck: My name is Dave Beck. I am a solicitor in the legal services department of the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth. I have presented the committee with a brief written submission this morning. I am sorry it could not have been delivered to you earlier. What I would like to do this morning is very quickly make some explanatory comments about the submission to guide you to some of the key concerns which are expressed there.

The comments which I will be offering to the committee are from a very narrow perspective. They will not address the political or social or economic or cultural aspects of the entire subject of the regulation of shopping on Sundays and other holidays, nor will these comments address the merits of the proposed legislation and, in particular, the proposal in the current bill to recognize the principle that holidays should be maintained as common pause days. The reason I will not be addressing those aspects of the issue is not that they are unimportant, but because they are primarily not issues of a legal nature and that is the only role I can play on behalf of the municipality here this morning.

With me is councillor Helen Bell, the chairman of the regional municipality's legislation and reception committee. Councillor Bell will be addressing a wider range of concerns.

As is noted in the submission, our regional council in July passed a resolution stating that it was opposed to the municipal option contained in Bill 115 whereby the regional municipality would be given the responsibility and the authority to pass bylaws to exempt certain businesses in certain geographic areas from the prohibitions in the act. In light of the position our regional council has taken, I will not be suggesting alternative forms of regulation to this committee; I am sure you have heard that from other quarters. Instead, what I will be doing is focusing upon two specific shortcomings of a legal nature which I believe exist in Bill 115.

It is obvious that the entire thrust of Bill 115 is to recognize the principle of the common pause day and to restrict the municipal power to allow Sunday shopping only for the purpose of developing or maintaining tourism. Therefore, the province has presented us with the draft tourist criteria that will be elaborated in a future regulation.

In my personal opinion, this represents a fairly good attempt to try to create some form of standardized, objective criteria which must be satisfied before a municipality can exercise the power the province would delegate to it. I think this addresses one of the key problems with the legislation which existed before 1989 when there were absolutely no tourist criteria. It has been commented that there were abuses of the pre-1989 legislation to allow Sunday opening of businesses that had no real tourist connection.

Nevertheless, in spite of the benefits afforded by the draft criteria, in my opinion, in order to foster a consistent approach around the province among municipalities, something else is needed. I believe it is essential that a working definition of the terms "tourism" and "tourist" be incorporated in the new legislation. From talking to people in various parts of the province in the municipal sector, I am aware there is a general concern that even with the new draft criteria there is a risk that these could be abused or stretched to unrealistic lengths by municipalities which for whatever reason might wish to exempt businesses that really have no substantial connection with tourism, whatever "tourism" means.

That concern seems to focus on the fear that if one municipality plays fast and loose, so to speak, with the draft criteria, there will be fairly intense pressure on adjoining municipalities to react accordingly. I guess it is what is commonly referred to as the domino effect: that the whole proposed regulatory scheme will begin to collapse if there is some abuse. I think the need for a definition of the terms "tourism" and "tourist" is all the more acute because in subsection 4(8) of the proposed act there is a statement that the decision of the council to pass an exempting bylaw would be final. In a legal sense, to use the word "final" effectively excludes the reviewing authority of the courts in almost all but the most flagrant cases where there was total non-compliance with anything. But using the word "final" is a privative sort of clause that protects the decision of a municipality, which may be based very loosely upon the application of those criteria.

1010

I guess the objection might be made that tourism is a very difficult concept to define but, on the other hand, when we are dealing with hundreds of municipalities across the province, each of which might have its own idea of what "tourism" means, or segments of its community that believe that different types of activities constitute tourism, in my opinion an attempt has to be made to define that term. A lot of concepts are difficult to define, but I think this is one that cries out for definition.

The second problem which I perceive in the draft legislation relates to the nature of the consultative process by which municipalities would proceed to enact bylaws permitting Sunday shopping, upon the application of interested businesses. My concern here turns upon one word in the proposed subsection 4(6). That is the word "hearing." As you may be aware, the use of the word "hearing" in all likelihood will attract all the legal rights and safeguards that are contained in the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, which applies to all other statutory decision-making bodies. That would mean there would in all likelihood be a right for every person who appears before a municipal council to call witnesses, to examine them, to cross-examine other witnesses, to call sworn evidence, to get into points of legal procedure which in my view are unnecessary and which would destroy the process of exercising the municipal option.

In essence, what the province is attempting to do, I believe, is to delegate a limited amount of legislative authority to municipal councils. I do not think the province really intended to turn the process of passing a bylaw to say that this geographic area has tourist characteristics, into a long, complicated, expensive, quasi-judicial hearing. I think that is unnecessary and it is unrealistic to place that burden on municipal councils which have such a wide range of other functions.

Therefore, my closing suggestion to this committee is that the goals of the legislation, if it is eventually enacted with the municipal option, could better be accomplished by reverting to the requirement that a public meeting be held before the passage of any municipal bylaw. That is the current procedure. Our council has exercised the procedure of the public meeting very recently. It has provided an opportunity for people to appear if they choose without getting into all the legal technicalities.

In conclusion, from a narrow legal perspective, those are two issues which I would ask the standing committee to consider. Thank you.

Mrs Bell: Mr Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Helen Bell. I am mayor of one of the local townships, the township of Glanbrook, which also makes me a member of the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth council. As Dave has already indicated, I am chairman of that council's legislation and reception committee, the committee that would be dealing with any applications for exemption if the municipal option remains intact in the legislation, the committee that would be chairing the quasi-judicial hearing that Dave has already referred to. Initially I just want to reinforce Dave's comments with respect to that. I very firmly believe that the intent was to provide for a public meeting, not a hearing, so I hope that recommendation will be taken back and an appropriate amendment to the amendment will be introduced.

My comments mainly will come from a more political perspective. I do apologize for not having an opportunity to prepare a document to be circulated beforehand. Furthermore, I have to admit at the outset that we did not have time to go through the process in order to get council endorsement of the comments I am going to make, so that while I hope I reflect a position that is valid within this municipality and is validated by my own experience and credentials, I do have to acknowledge that the opinions expressed here are my own.

The history of this particular piece of legislation goes way back to 1845 and it has been discriminatory from the outset. We accepted that sort of thing back then. We promoted Sunday religious activities; Sunday excursions were prohibited. I have the chronology here and I am sure you are all familiar with it. Eventually, in this day and age, we now have a Charter of Rights. We have rights guaranteed in the Constitution, and this kind of thing is totally unacceptable in this day and age.

That being the case, I think the question is, where do we go from here? I think an attempt has been made to try to create the same provisions, the same regulations, the same control within the framework of new phraseology, new words: "common pause day," this sort of thing. We do not refer to the religion any more. It is a common pause day. I have yet to see a sociological study that supports the merits of a common pause day as opposed to other social needs, so I think that is something that needs to be taken into consideration.

The position of subsection 4(6), which provides for the hearing, is also discriminatory the way it stands, I feel, because it provides an opportunity for opponents to an application to appeal a council decision if it ends up being favourable, but does not provide the applicant with an opportunity to appeal a negative decision. I think that is discriminatory, I think it is unfair and I think it should be changed.

Mr Beck has already pointed out the perils of trying to define "tourism" and "tourist." From a political point of view -- and I am sure you are all realizing it as you go across the province -- I think the local perceptions are as diverse as the communities, and in fact as the people. I think to try to encapsulate it in a definition is going to be an exercise that is very frustrating for you and for the writers of this legislation and one that is fraught with peril, particularly if we are going to come up with a definition that can be administered equally and fairly across this entire province. You as the standing committee on the administration of justice have got to be very much concerned with these kinds of impacts that are found within your legislation.

To recognize tourism only in traditional terms is to do an extreme disservice, in my opinion, to the economic realities of the 1990s and to the social realities of the 1990s. Tourism has changed. On the way down here, I heard an Ontario ad promoting a couple of days' getaway -- two, three days. "You can't get away for a week or two weeks -- your boss won't let you go -- so come on to the tourist areas for a couple of days."

This whole concept of "tourism" is changing, and in fact has changed. Day trips, weekend -- leisure activities are no longer squished into a one- or two-week marathon. They are infinitely more varied, and tourists respond to many things beyond the traditional attractions. We know what Canada's Wonderland and CNE and some of these attractions are, and we have many fine attractions right in this municipality. And there are people looking for other things, things that relate to their own personal hobbies such as model airplane flying. They have clubs and they have meets. This is all tourism. How are you going to get that into a definition?

Furthermore, off-peak travel is becoming more and more attractive to those who can arrange and organize their own time. They want to avoid traffic, they want to avoid the crowds, so consequently they go at offbeat, odd times and enjoy a beach when it is frozen in the middle of winter, for instance. This is erasing the seasonality aspect of tourism and is changing many, many tourist activities.

Whether we like it or not, one of those tourist activities that is taking a bigger and bigger niche in the tourism industry is shopping. We are aware of it here in Ontario, particularly in this area, because of the cross-border shopping. The phenomenon has been attributed to all sorts of factors. Personally, I think people simply like to go shopping. Sociologically, shopping is a whole different activity these days. People go all together. They take the whole day. They go at their leisure. They shop for this and that. Perhaps they combine it with a meal out, a movie or some other special kind of attraction.

We all experienced it to some extent during the nine-month hiatus between the time when the Ontario courts struck down the Liberal legislation and a subsequent court reinstated it. During that time, chaos did not develop, the world did not come apart, and I think some of us began to think that maybe we liked what was happening out there. I sense a very, very strong change of public opinion and I think it is reflected in these changing sociological impacts.

1020

We will have an opportunity to see whether cross-border shopping declines. For instance, there has been a new study -- perhaps you read about it -- indicating that the savings are not as great as thought. There is also a move to collect provincial sales tax and GST at the border, so that will further decrease the savings. It will be interesting to see, when all those things come into place, whether cross-border shopping declines or whether it has become something that people just simply like to do.

Adding to the problems of defining tourism, there is the other phrase, "development of tourism," which can have even greater ramifications. Overall, I have a great concern that the Retail Business Holidays Act, as amended, may not encourage objective decision-making, fair practice and justice. In other words, it may encourage more specific kinds of discrimination and abuse. As proposed, the interpretation of the tourism criteria is too loose, open to subjective and arbitrary ruling. This abuse could tend to very broad interpretations or to very restrictive ones, certainly not leading to a provincial standard.

Council decisions are final. That worries me very much because it leaves councils vulnerable to the kinds of pressures that I think have been alluded to and that we all refer to as "lobbying." I think there is a possibility for that kind of pressure to go even further. When there is no recourse to appeal, I think other, more serious kinds of abuse may be developed. There will be a pressure for that sort of thing to happen.

Third, if council is not obliged to grant an exemption even if the tourism criteria are met, and the applicant has no recourse, I have to ask: Is this just? Is this the administration of justice across the province of Ontario?

There is a feeling about some of these provisions that really serious abuses of power could occur. As a combined result of the looseness of language and the looseness of definitions, and the authority that is vested in councils without customary checks and balances, I think we are open to some undesirable things.

I just want to refer to the same kind of lack of checks and balances that exists, in my opinion, in section 39f, which is one of the amendments to the Employment Standards Act: the provision that the powers to arbitrate are given to an employment standards officer, and that if there is a problem with that, it then is appealed to a referee. It is my understanding that these are individuals, not a judicial body, and I am very suspecious of that kind of arbitration.

Philosophically, however, I strongly agree and I strongly support the legislation that is designed to protect the rights of the employees, as the amendments to the Employment Standards Act do. However, on that subject, regardless of all other considerations, I believe those amendments should be strengthened. I believe they should be revised and reworded so that they stand alone, so that whatever happens to the Retail Business Holidays Act, these provisions are still protected.

The amendments refer to definitions that are found in the Retail Business Holidays Act. If future Supreme Courts create more of a roller-coaster history for this particular piece of legislation, then I think these provisions are in danger of being knocked down as well. I think they should be revised so that the appropriate definitions and all of the considerations are found right in the Employment Standards Act.

I strongly believe in a pause day. Whether or not it can realistically become a common pause day, I have some very serious questions. However, these are issues you have heard about from other speakers and ones I am sure you will be debating at great length.

In summary, I do hope this committee will recommend to the Solicitor General that this legislation be proceeded with using extreme caution. By all means protect the employees. I think that is necessary. I think the speaker who was here previous to Dave and myself made that point abundantly clear, and I wholeheartedly agree with much of what was said in that context. But I think some attention has to be given through this and any other piece of legislation to protect the rights of the other side as well; in this case, the rights of the employers. It is important that an economic situation be created in this province that will encourage initiatives, that will get the machine and the engines rolling again. I suspect that this kind of legislation -- restrictive, as I read it -- is not the means to do so.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I believe that completes my comments. I have tried to keep away from lobbying and subjective points of view as much as possible. I wish you luck in your deliberations.

The Chair: Thank you, Mayor Bell. We have only time for one question per caucus.

Mr Daigeler: Thank you for presenting the viewpoint of either yourself or the region; I am not quite clear. If I understand right, Mrs Bell, your own view is that businesses should basically be able to decide on their own whether they should stay open or closed. If that is your view, has that been the view of regional council of Hamilton-Wentworth in the past?

Mrs Bell: To answer your second part first, no, I do not believe it has. In conjunction with our own hours-control bylaws, there has been a great deal of debate, and Sunday shopping has always been brought into it. I believe until a year ago, let's say, the consensus would have been to continue the kinds of regulations that were contained in the old Retail Business Holidays Act.

I believe that is changing, and I believe the proof of that may be forthcoming. You may be aware that this municipality has asked area municipalities to put the question, "Do you want or do you not want Sunday shopping?" on their local ballot. Two municipalities so far have agreed to do so. One has declined to do so, and the other three will be making decisions early in December.

Mr Daigeler: And in answer to my first question, you yourself are in favour of business making the decision?

Mrs Bell: I believe, yes, that was experienced during the nine months.

Mr Carr: Thank you very much for the presentation. I was wondering what you see happening if the law remains the same, what your best guess is, knowing the council and its feelings and the feelings of the public. If this law remains as it is, what do you see happening a year, two years down the road? Will there be Sunday shopping in Hamilton-Wentworth?

Mrs Bell: That is a loaded question politically.

Mr Carr: That is why I asked a politician.

Mrs Bell: The formal position at the moment is that the municipality opposes the municipal option. That being the case, the municipality may well decline to act on any applications. I believe that in the area, the trend is toward permitting Sunday shopping. Whether it will happen within a year or two years may be doubtful. It may take a little longer than that, but I think it will happen, yes.

Mr Morrow: Your worship, thank you for presenting. What a fine leader you are, and you do the people of Glanbrook real proud.

Mrs Bell: Thank you.

Interjections.

Mr Morrow: Well, she is one of my mayors.

Mrs Bell: He has to say that.

Mr Morrow: I am going to talk about a study, and then I want to ask you about the plebiscite that Hamilton is having. We know from a study that 57% of the people in Ontario want to shop on Sunday, but if you flip that study, we also know that over 75% of the people in Ontario do not want to work on Sunday.

In saying that, I want to move to the plebiscite. Hamilton is having a plebiscite, to my understanding, and the question is, "Do you want to shop on Sunday?" Keeping in mind the study that I just have given you, would it not make sense to put on that plebiscite, "Do you want to work on Sunday?"

Mrs Bell: I think the decision was to keep the question as simple as possible. The issue is whether one wishes to shop or not shop on a Sunday. In terms of whether you want to work on a Sunday, given the chance, quite plainly we would all say no to working any time, would we not? I think an important question, and I do not know whether your study addressed it, is a look at the overall population. How many people already do work on a Sunday? You know, the transportation, the essential services. There are so many facilities that do operate. Industry of course has always had shift work, in my memory. There is a very large percentage of people -- union members, I might say -- who already do work on a Sunday. I am just wondering how objective and how fair that study is. I would have to see it in order to answer.

1030

UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 1005 MARVIN CAPLAN

The Chair: We now have a presentation from the United Steelworkers of America, Local 1005, Bob Sutton and Marvin Caplan.

Mr Sutton: I am Bob Sutton. I am chairman of Local 1005's political action committee. With me is a friend, Marvin Caplan from Caplan's Men's Clothes.

The Chair: We have approximately half an hour, part of that time of course for your presentation. Please leave some time for the committee members who I am sure will have many questions for you.

Mr Sutton: My intention is to give a short brief. I will not be reading this; I will just be highlighting it. Mr Caplan is going to be giving a view from the retail industry in Hamilton. Then we are going to have the questions jointly.

We would like to start by saying Local 1005, which represents almost 7,000 workers at Stelco's Hilton works in Hamilton, is pleased to have this opportunity. We would like to address the following points: Sunday working, higher prices caused by longer store hours, employment levels, cross-border shopping, protection for workers who refuse to work Sunday and a couple of things on the proposed legislation.

I would like to point out that at Local 1005, being in the steel industry, there are a great number of people who have to work Sundays. I would estimate somewhere probably around 35% of the plant is working Sundays, not on a continual basis but most Sundays. None of these people, or very few, want to work Sundays. As a matter of fact, in a lot of areas people take a lower-paying job to get themselves on a weekend-off schedule.

In the department I am in, electrical, we have just, in the last set of negotiations last November, negotiated preferred schedules and preferred days off for senior employees. We have about 40 grievances in by senior men saying they are being forced to work weekends while junior men have weekends off. This is partially because some of the senior men have greater skills and the company says, "We need your skills on Sunday." This is the sort of thing that is happening. Guys who are senior want those Sundays off with their families. In other cases, as I said, guys are applying for lower-paying jobs in order to get off shifts and especially off weekends. A lot of people want to work three shifts with weekends off. That is one of the more popular schedules.

The other thing I would like to point out is, there is no doubt that if the stores open Sundays they are going to have more overhead. The way I see it, people who work at Stelco have a certain amount of money they spend; we will say $100 a week. If that is spread over seven days rather than six, they are still only going to spend the $100. It is kind of hard to spend $120 when you only have $100 indefinitely. So the longer hours are not going to increase the retail sales. The sales are going to average out eventually and we are going to end up paying higher prices because of the higher overhead for that Sunday opening.

It is not going to increase employment levels, in our opinion, because it did not during the few months that stores were opened on Sundays in Hamilton. All it does is average out the number of employees. Employees find themselves with Tuesday and Wednesday off instead of Sunday and Monday. It is just going to average the level of employees. You are going to find that if you walk into the stores, they are going to be like a ghost town on the weekdays and there will be a salesperson here or there to help you on Sunday. I do not think there will be any increase in employment. If it does, it is going to result in higher prices.

The other point we wanted to bring up was cross-border shopping. I feel this is more of a problem than Sunday shopping. If you sit at a lunch table anywhere in the steel company, there will be one or two people talking about the bargains they got shopping in Buffalo. The reason people are shopping in Buffalo is because of the lower prices. It has nothing to do with whether the stores are open Sunday, Saturday or 24 hours a day. People leave Hamilton, drive to Buffalo and shop because it is cheaper. The first thing they do as they get across the border is they fill their gas tank up with gas. That pays for the entire trip. They get to Hamilton and they have still got more gas than when they started. They are going over there and their trip is paid for on the gasoline savings. They are taking their family out for dinner. They are paying for the dinner with the savings they have got.

There are a lot of reasons for it. I have listed them here in the brief: lower prices by economy of scale, higher volumes, lower profit margins etc, lower taxes, the gasoline, the high value of the Canadian dollar, the reduced duties they are paying on US-made goods. I think part of the trade deal allows people to bring back these American goods. I think the customs people, with the crowds, are enforcing the act less. They are ignoring collection of duties and taxes. One of the biggest reasons now is that people are going over there and not paying the goods and services tax. People are taking advantage of this because they are going to have to watch their dollars more. If they can go over there and buy stuff cheaper, they are going to be doing it. As I said, it is not an argument for Sunday shopping. Cross-border shopping is a totally different issue. People are going there strictly to save money, not because the stores are opened Sundays.

In the legislation there is a piece about protection for workers who are refusing to work Sundays. That is a joke. The labour standards people are having trouble enforcing the acts they have got now. We had a case in the plant where guys were working 80- and 90-hour weeks a few years ago. We contacted the employment standards people. I was down there weekly trying to get them to monitor Stelco's hours. It does not work. It took three or four warnings to the company. They monitored hours in certain departments. They had charged five workers and they had 27 charges against Stelco. It was all thrown out of court two years afterwards. It took years to get through and the only thing that resolved the excessive hours that were being worked -- and I add as well that people were on layoff -- was the fact that there is a bit of a recession and the need is not there any more.

If things start to boom again, we are going to have the same fight with excessive hours of overtime, and if the ministry cannot legislate the hours and enforce the hours in Stelco, it is sure not going to be able to protect some person working in the retail industry who is being told, "You either work Sundays or we are going to reduce your hours and let you go." That is what is going to happen. It is not going to work.

1040

The other thing our members really recognize is that it is nice to have a Sunday off with their families. As I said, the most popular days off are Saturday and Sunday; if not Saturday and Sunday, Sunday and Monday. Sunday is the important day off with your family. Saturday is a busy day. For people who are home on Saturday that is when they run and do their shopping. That is when they go to the show and do all of the active things. Sunday is the day they spend at home, go and visit relatives; that is the time with their family. That is why people at Stelco want Sundays off, and they are no different from people in the retail industry. It is a big push. As I said, guys are taking jobs paying less -- and I am talking $1,000 to $2,000 a year -- in order to have these days off. It is going to be rather ironic when an employee who works at Stelco for 25 or 30 years and finally gets enough seniority to get himself on a schedule that gives him Sunday off, comes home and finds his wife all of a sudden is being told she has to work Sunday, or his teenage kids all of a sudden find themselves having to work Sundays at their jobs.

People who were up ahead of us talked about the domino effect. This is what happened in Hamilton a few years ago, with store openings on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays. In Hamilton stores were opened Thursday and Friday until 9. In Burlington, the stores started opening Monday to Friday until nine, I think Saturdays as well. The first thing that happened was there were ads in the Hamilton Spectator, there were ads on the radio station: "Come on out to beautiful Burlington and do your shopping. We are open Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday until 9." Whether there was any amount of people travelling to Burlington to do their shopping or not did not matter.

The stores in Hamilton then looked at the situation and realized there was a potential to lose sales. I will put this back to where everybody has $100 a week to spend in stores. They were afraid that some of that $100 a week was going to be spent elsewhere. The fear of losing that money to the competition caused the stores in Hamilton to open Monday to Friday until 9. If you went into Canadian Tire at the Centre Mall, it was like a ghost town on the early weekdays. There was nobody there. However, they remained open. I am sure we paid for it with higher prices.

The same thing is going to happen on Sunday. If Burlington chooses to be an area that, because of tourism, should be open Sunday, then the stores in Hamilton, under that fear, are going to start pushing this city council to allow them to open Sundays as well, not because they want to but because they will feel they have to because they will lose the business to Burlington or other neighbouring communities. It is the domino effect and we are not going to be able to beat that. That is what is going to happen. It happened already with the Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday openings. All it is going to do is put the prices up higher and there will be more people going to shop in Buffalo.

As I said, I would like to conclude this by pointing out again that our members are not going to be very pleased when they finally get their weekends off, go to spend them with their families and find that their wife and kids have to work Sundays in the retail industry.

Mr Caplan: My name is Marvin Caplan. I am the proprietor of two clothing stores. One, for most purposes, should be considered a street store. That shop is located in Hamilton. The other store is located in Mapleview Shopping Centre in Burlington, which is a major regional mall. I was formerly operations manager for the Harry Rosen division of Dylex. I am a founding member of Hamilton's first business improvement area. I was a member of its executive. I am currently the president of the Social Planning and Research Council of Hamilton and District. I will tell you, however, that I am speaking for myself.

I hope you do not consider me boastful if I suggest to you that if you had an expert in here on the issue of Sunday shopping, he is in front of you, both on the economics of retailing and the social fabric of our communities. Let me sympathize with you first of all. I do not envy you your difficult task because I understand this issue is not black and white, and I think any reasonable person, after examining all of the arguments, would choose to severely limit Sunday shopping. Unfortunately, the electorate will not have the time or the desire to dispassionately examine all of the arguments.

My personal finances would be improved if Sunday shopping were to be reinstituted. You see, in Burlington I, like most shopping centre store owners, would be open and my competition on the streets of Burlington would be closed. My downtown Hamilton store would be closed as would my downtown Hamilton competition. One of the most illuminating ways, and for me the most critical way, of examining this issue of Sunday shopping is who wins and who loses. Before I discuss winners and losers, I want to make reference to the people who pay our bills -- our customers. The time allowed precludes my discussing the relative advantages and disadvantages to the consumer, but there are some obvious advantages of convenience and availability. However, the disadvantages are more subtle and less easy to clearly enunciate. They include lower levels of service and, ultimately, less choice.

I believe that with wide-open Sunday shopping the winners are the powerful and rich, the losers are the small and weak. The strong need justice too, but they can afford it. You as legislators are charged with protecting those who need protection. It was interesting. Helen Bell just spoke to you and said that during the period when Sunday shopping was permitted there were no problems, and that the consumer was better served and society progressed as it should.

What you were not told is no one I know was open, no one I know as a competitor, no one I know who sat on the board of the BIA of Hamilton, no one who helped me with fund-raising for Ronald McDonald House, no one who is involved with the social planning and research council, no one who leads a club or a scout pack, nobody from a church group, nobody from a social agency. The only stores that chose to be open were those that were chain stores and located in shopping centres.

You see, the people who win financially with Sunday shopping, by and large, are not from here. They are from Toronto. Not only do the people who run the chains and department stores live and have their head offices in Toronto, they hire their lawyers and their accountants there. They buy their supplies there. They give their money to charity there, as well as donating their leadership and volunteer work there. I oppose Sunday shopping because it hurts my fellow retailers in Hamilton who line the streets of my town. To a large extent, we retailers add to the flavour and texture of a community. Faceless shopping centres filled with the same chain stores from Halifax to Vancouver take people off the streets of our communities and that effect is compounded by Sunday shopping.

As an independent retailer, let me say that extended hours are difficult in our over-stored world. We all exist as retailers to satisfy the desires of our customers. In the bad old days before shopping centres, we somehow managed to satisfy all of our customers' needs for clothing, appliances and food in six days. If wide-open Sunday shopping is allowed, the winners will be shopping centres, department stores and chain stores. The losers will be the independent storekeepers who serve our communities as volunteers, aldermen, board members of community organizations and, yes, political organizers. They are the ones who suffer.

For me the issue is simple. A major purpose of government is to protect those who need protection. The small storekeeper needs your help and protection, not for advantage, just for the ability to compete on a level playing field. Our single greatest advantage, our single greatest competitive edge over chains and department stores is we are in our own shops. Is restricting our work week to 60 hours too much to ask?

I am here at the behest of labour. From the point of view of my employees, let me tell you that any proposed legislation protecting the rights of retail workers on Sunday is baloney. If Sunday shopping is allowed the economic reality is my store in Mapleview will be open and I will not hire anyone who cannot or will not work on Sundays. And if anyone wants to be in a senior position with my firm, he or she will have to be willing to work on Sundays. This is what I have to put up with. I get emotional about this one because you are putting me in the position of making myself not a very nice person.Okay, if you want to work for me, you are going to have to work Sundays.

There is another trend that is very difficult for independent retailers but it happens. It is to the benefit of chain stores and department stores: you replace full-time workers with part-timers. The people who are supposedly most served by Sunday shopping, working mothers, are the same people who are most harmed by Sunday shopping. Retail jobs have a tendency to be entry level, low paying and low skill, and unfortunately, to some extent, disproportionately occupied by women. If Sunday shopping is allowed, you will often force women to choose between their families and their work in the only time they have together.

After a great deal of consideration, I want to present you with an idea. The people who are asking you for Sunday shopping, by and large, from an economic point of view, are chain stores and department stores. Those are the very people who, I believe, are the people who do not need it. The few independent stores that want to choose to stay open, I have no problem with them. I do have a problem with restriction. I am a businessman. I do not need more red tape in my life.

If you are going to restrict Sunday shopping, one of the things you must restrict is shopping centres and people who employ more than three or four people. If somebody wants to have a mom-and-pop store, open their own independent business and be open, I have no problem with that. I tell you, this is not a black-and-white issue, it is a complicated one. I have no problem with somebody wanting to stay open to serve his customers. I think what you do, by allowing small stores to stay open on Sundays, is create more employment in our communities. But you decrease employment by having wide-open Sundays. Because you harm the people in smaller communities around our province who are the people who really are driving the engine of the economy.

Everyone is downsizing. And the only people who are creating jobs are small business. I have created, on a percentage basis, a lot more jobs than Stelco has since I started. And people like me. You are caught between a rock and a hard place.

Sunday shopping is onerous on small business. It is to the advantage of big business and chains. For those MPPs who are not from Toronto, I would suggest to you that it is more important to keep the guys on the streets open than it is to put money in the pockets of Dylex or Eaton's.

[Interruption]

1050

The Chair: That is certainly an unusual occurrence. Obviously an indication of how well --

Interjection: And out of order of course.

The Chair: Obviously a really strong response to your excellent presentation.

Mr Daigeler: I would like to ask the union representative: in your brief, you state quite forcefully that it is impossible for this province to pass any legislation to protect workers who do not wish to work Sundays. Workers who will refuse to work Sundays will simply see their hours reduced to a level that is unlivable and non-existent. At the same time, you are coming from an industry that has had Sunday working. What has been the experience there? Are the workers there being pushed around or discriminated against? How does it work there?

Mr Sutton: If you work in the steel industry, when you are hired, you are probably going to work Sundays. I personally have worked in the steel industry 25 years and have probably worked about 50 Sundays in those 25 years -- not even once a month, maybe once every two or three months. But I am more fortunate because of my trade. However, there are a lot of people who have had 25 years of working continually on Sundays. The first thing --

Mr Daigeler: Continually Sundays, you said? Every Sunday?

Mr Sutton: There are a lot of schedules where people work steady Tuesday, Wednesday off, Wednesday, Thursday, and that is it for 25 years. But their goal is when they get enough seniority to apply for a job posting that permits them to have weekends off. They jump at it. Even if they drop a buck or two an hour in order to do that.

Once they get to that Sunday, Monday off schedule or Saturday, Sunday off, we have tried to create rotating schedules. The senior people who finally get those weekends off say: "Hey, I don't want a rotating schedule. I've put in my dues. I have worked weekends for 25 years. I am not going to share and work one every six or one every seven weeks for this other guy. I've had my 25 years of working weekends." It is a big fight. Guys fight in the showers over the days off. I am not kidding. It is a serious situation.

That is why in my department we have had a piece about senior men having preferred schedules for only eight months now. We have 40 grievances sitting waiting to go to arbitration on the senior men being denied this preferred schedule. People do not want to work Sundays there, but they do not have the option.

When I say that we will not be able to legislate protection for workers, it is obvious. If you are a part-time worker and you refuse to work Sunday, the store has to be open anyway. They are going to put somebody else in on that Sunday. They are slowly going to give you less and less hours because most of the retail is part-time. Eventually, you are not going to be working there. They are only going to have hire people who will work Sundays, the same as they do at Stelco.

Mrs Cunningham: I want to tell both of you that you have made excellent presentations. It is rather refreshing, as a member of this committee, to hear people who are out there on the front lines talking about the real world and how it is. I think our responsibility is to stand up for what we believe in, as politicians and as government, and if you are going to support a common pause day, then do it. I am happy to see you saying that this legislation does not support a common pause day, because I believe you are right on that.

On the other hand, we are caught in the middle. We are hearing more and more people who are coming forth and saying, "Let the marketplace decide." It is that simple. Mr Caplan, I can see you are getting excited. Your presentation was absolutely excellent. I agree with everything you are saying, both of you. And the amendment you have suggested we put forth. This is my third round of public hearings on this, and I am telling you, and I want you to respond to this, that we are getting a different kind of presentation this time around. Something is taking over in this province. Maybe it is big business. Maybe it is people who do not care about the rights of individuals.

You are absolutely right in telling us that we have the responsibility to protect people who cannot protect themselves. I do not know why in Canada and in Ontario especially we do not stand up for our way of life, which has been a common pause day. I am very unpopular saying that, I will tell you that.

Mr Caplan: Popular with us.

Mrs Cunningham: No, I am very unpopular. It is not the trend these days to stand up for what you believe in in politics, because people might not vote for you. In my case I get to stay home and make dinner and play tennis and have lunch with my friends, so I am not very worried about it; but I will say that it is not the trend to stand up for what you two have stood up for today in these hearings. I am saying on behalf of the new members, it is a totally different presentation that we are hearing.

Mr Caplan: May I say something? If wide-open Sunday shopping comes back, what you are telling me, who tries to be a nice guy, is that I am going to be put in the position of telling people that they must work on Sundays against the law, because I have no choice. The economic reality is if Sunday shopping comes I am going to be open and my employees are going to have to work. You do not have to do that, you do not have to stand there with my employee if this happens. I have to do that, it is my guts that churn when I talk to people about the hours they have to work.

It seems to me that you have hit a nerve that I have been talking about in one of my other hats as the president of the social planning and research council. We have in fact been comparing ourselves to something obnoxious. We are looking at the liberty of the United States and we do not look at the lack of freedom, supposedly, in that country. We are looking at streets that are boarded up, we are looking at poverty, we are looking at a place where the roads are terrible. We are all whining and complaining about our taxes here. I tell you as a businessman, I do not enjoy paying taxes, but when I look at the alternative, I am happy to sign the cheque.

I sell expensive clothing. It costs more than buying in a chain store, but it is worth more. It costs more to be a Canadian, it costs more in taxes to live in the province of Ontario. I tell you as a businessman and as a citizen that it is worth it. One of the problems we have is exactly what you are talking about. We do not stand up and talk about the quality of life that we enjoy in this province; we do not stand up and brag about how wonderful it is here. The kinds of things that made Canada wonderful were social legislation. The kinds of things that we talked about that we were proud about in our community was taking care of each other. So yes, you can let the big guys win every time, and if they win on the strengths of being able to compete with the little guy in the marketplace, that is fine. All we are asking for as small business is a chance to compete on a level playing field. We are asking for a 60- or 70-hour work week. I do not think that is a lot to ask.

When Sunday shopping was allowed, nobody was open and business was done in the shopping centres and chains. So what happened was street stores did less business and chains and shopping centres did more. If you are worried about cross-border shopping, I will tell you that cross-border shopping is not an issue with street stores.

No one goes from Hamilton to shop at Peller and Muir, because Peller and Muir is closed. It is a better men's wear store in Buffalo. It is closed on Sunday. They do not go to a store that has texture to it, they go to a shopping centre, they go to a mall, a discount place. Discount stores are very happy to be open on Sundays, because they have very low levels of service, they pay very low wages. If you want to encourage $6-an-hour jobs as opposed to $12-an-hour jobs, if you feel that is the way to strengthen the economy, then Sunday shopping is a good deal. I mean, to me it does not make sense to trade $6 for $12, but that is what Sunday shopping does.

Mr Morrow: Thank you very much, fellow steelworker. I just have a couple of really quick questions. Actually it is really nice to see you here, Bob. How many steelworkers are there in Hamilton?

Mr Sutton: At Stelco there are just under 7,000 now. There were 13,500 in 1981.

Mr Morrow: But we do have an awful lot of smaller locals.

Mr Sutton: There are an awful lot of smaller locals. I think we are probably talking about 12,000 or 13,000 all told.

1100

Mr Morrow: I just want to make something perfectly clear from your brief. You have stated that steelworkers as a whole are opposed to the municipal option, it is for the birds and does not work.

Mr Sutton: That is the opinion of our political action committee, which was a five-member group that sat and debated this. The problem we saw was exactly what I had said with the Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday openings. As soon as one municipality goes for it, then the others feel they have to.

Mr Caplan: I might interject that 20% of the workforce, from what I am told, is either in or related to retailing. So that means that one out of every five voters is opposed to Sunday shopping because he or she does not want to work on Sunday.

Mr Morrow: So basically what we would need then is some sort of provincial control.

Mr Sutton: That is my opinion.

Mr Fletcher: First let me say I agree with everything you have said, that in Canada we are different from the United States, and I never want to go and be the same, because I think that is something that makes us distinctive as a country. People recognize that worldwide, that we do have the social programs in place and we are a benevolent country.

As far as what is going on with the municipalities is concerned, and we have been hearing this throughout the province, the municipalities are saying to us, people are saying to us, small retailers: "Don't give us the job; keep it in the province. We don't need this." I am just wondering, do you agree with the possibility of the government setting up a committee of the stakeholders -- the unions, the retailers and the different levels of government -- to set up the criteria that we can possibly have for a tourist designation. if that is the way it goes? This is only draft legislation, so it is open to change.

Mr Caplan: One of the points I would make is, if the president of Cadillac Fairview or Cambridge shopping centres or Dylex wants to phone the Premier or your offices, you are going to pick up the phone much more quickly than if you do not know who Marvin Caplan is, sitting in a store in Hamilton. One of the difficulties is that people with power have power. One of the reasons we have legislatures, one of the reasons we have rules to regulate the order of society, is to protect those who are weak. If you can assure me --

Mr Fletcher: Can I just come in on that? In the throne speech the Premier said we are going to give power to the people who have never had power in this Legislature before. So maybe when they do phone, I will not be picking it up that fast.

Mrs Cunningham: Then you are going to have to fix this legislation, Derek.

Mr Caplan: I would suggest to you that the issue is, how do you take a complicated issue and solve it so that no one gets hurt or the fewest number of people get hurt? The only solution that I can think of is to have provincial legislation that prohibits shopping centres, chain stores and department stores and people who employ more than four or five people being open. That is the only way I can think of, and I have been thinking about this issue for a great many years.

The Chair: I think after this morning's presentations, Mr Caplan, that most of us would probably prefer to listen to you, sir, and know that when we pick up the phone we will have a very stimulating dialogue. Thank you very much for your presentation.

Mr Sutton: I just want to say one thing on that. From what Derek was hinting at, you are talking about some kind of an appeal board or something to look at what tourist exemption areas are. That is not as desirable as not having it, but if you read my brief in its entirety, I do mention that, because there is no question that different municipalities are going to take a wide-open attitude, whether they meet the tourist criteria or not. It would be nice, assuming that this is what we end up with, to have some place to appeal to, because let's face it, there are areas that -- the beach in winter is not the place, to quote our friend from Glanbrook, who I do not think has any stores anyway.

Mr Fletcher: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I need something clarified. It was something that Mr Carr said earlier this morning. Since this is for the public record, I am just wondering if Mr Carr could clarify the point where he said the UFCW was calling this piece of legislation a joke. I was wondering if he could tell me where that was said and who said it.

Mr Carr: It was in a written presentation. Susan may have it. I am not sure which day it was. It was in answer to a question, so it would be in Hansard, if you look back. It was on our trip last week, in either Peterborough or Kingston.

Mr Daigeler: It was Kingston, I think.

Mr Carr: You remember?

Mr Daigeler: I think so; yes, it was in Kingston.

Mr Fletcher: It was UFCW who called it a joke?

Mrs Cunningham: Do you want it four times on Hansard or once?

Mr Fletcher: I am not sure if you said the union or UFCW.

Mr Carr: Susan, perhaps we could get the exact quote on that. It was in the written presentation too.

ONTARIO HOTEL AND MOTEL ASSOCIATION

The Chair: We now have a presentation from Mr John Mykytyshyn from the Ontario Hotel and Motel Association. Introduce your colleague as well.

Mr Mykytyshyn: This is Pat Sullivan, also with the Ontario Hotel and Motel Association, representing Hamilton and district.

The Chair: We have about half of an hour, if you could divide that time between your presentation and an opportunity for the committee members to pose questions.

Mr Mykytyshyn: I think the Ontario Hotel and Motel Association across the province has made a presentation to this committee. We are here just to reiterate our position, our feelings, as we represent the hospitality industry, on what opening Sundays means to us.

It is nice to listen to people who say that we should not have Sunday shopping because it should be a common day. If it should be a common day, then it should be a common day for everybody. Why should you have the privilege of going to a restaurant and having a meal prepared for you instead of cooking at home? If we are going to have a common day, then let's have a common day for everybody. Let's close all the restaurants on Sundays as well. Those are also people who have families, but we are saying that they must be open. If they must be open, then let's open it up to all the people.

At the Dundas council last Monday, it came forward that we should ask on our ballot in November whether people want Sunday shopping or whether they do not. We unanimously refused to put that on our ballot. We feel that the responsibility is with the province. We had an election and elected a government and we feel that the government must make a stand, as a provincial body, not a municipal body. I do not think Dundas should be open on Sundays and Ancaster should be closed. I do not think Hamilton should be open on Sundays and Burlington should be closed. If we are going to have legislation, we should have legislation for the province of Ontario, not for the municipalities. I think the responsibility is with the provincial government and that is where the legislation should come from, not the municipalities.

The hospitality industry feels that Sunday shopping means a lot for us to survive, for tourism. We are seeing hundreds of people go across the border. We heard the presentation before us about the small stores, but it is a fact, we see it, every weekend: hundreds and hundreds of cars crossing the border for Sunday shopping. We are losing a lot of business and our people are saying to us: "We need Sunday shopping. We need to be open, because we need to compete." So we cannot be selfish and say, "I do not need it because I am not close to the border." We have to speak on behalf of the members who are close to the border as well.

Do you want to add anything?

1110

Mr Sullivan: The only thing I would add -- and again, I am representing the Hamilton and district area, which takes in Burlington, Dundas, Ancaster, Mount Hope, Stoney Creek -- is that our industry has been open Sundays ever since time began. We look after the people who are off on Sundays for the family dinner, and people who do not have families. There are a lot of people who have nothing else to do on a Sunday but go to a restaurant or a bar where they meet; that is their social for the week. Sunday to us is mandatory. There is just no way around it. We are filling a gap for an awful lot of people who have nothing else to do. The feeling of our association is that we must be open on Sundays. If they want to regulate the hours, then that is fine. We have already done that. The bars must be closed by 11 o'clock. That has changed now too, has it not?

Mr Mykytyshyn: Yes, it is 1 o'clock.

Mr Sullivan: Again, our industry just survives on weekends, Saturdays, Sundays, and there is just no way we can survive without the bars open and restaurants open.

Mr Mykytyshyn: I would like to add that we agree that the employees should have the right of refusal to work Sundays. We are not saying that it should be mandatory that if we stay open Sundays they must work Sundays.

The Chair: You have concluded your presentation?

Mr Mykytyshyn: Yes.

Mr Daigeler: Thank you for appearing before us and making your views known. All across the province, different representatives of the tourism industry have strongly argued for letting businesses decide on their own whether they want to stay open. I want to pick up on the last comment you made with regard to letting the employees say whether they want to work on Sunday or not and that it should not be mandatory, that you agree with the right to refuse work on Sunday. How does that work in your industry, based on your own personal experience?

Mr Mykytyshyn: In our industry we have people who like working one or two days a week. Sunday is not as busy as Friday or Saturday, and if somebody wants a Sunday off, he or she is given that day off. We do not force anybody to work Sundays. We have never had any problem with filling the shift with people who want to work Sundays. There are people out there who are working, who have no family, who have no other obligations, and they appreciate that they can get a day's work in.

Mr Sullivan: In our industry a lot of the people who are working weekends are people who have full-time jobs during the week and are looking for that extra cash for the weekend. Not everybody has that choice. If I am running my business and I need a management person on staff on Sunday, then you do not have a choice. You are hired for that job, and you know that we are open seven days a week, that is all. It is like the steel industry. You do not go into the steel industry and say, "I'm not going to work Sundays." Find another job.

There are a certain number of people who must work Sundays if you are open, and it is just to do with the business; but then most of your part-time and staff like that have a choice, because there are enough part-time out there who wish to work weekends.

Mr Daigeler: This, I am sure, is going to be picked up from the other side of this committee. Still, it remains a little bit contradictory, I think, the testament that I am hearing here. Labour is very -- and probably rightfully so -- concerned that people will be forced to work on Sunday, despite the best protection possible. Quite frankly, I think what you are saying confirms, perhaps, those fears, that certainly if you are in a management position, from what you are saying, you do not have the option; you will have to work on Sundays. Is that not what you were saying?

Mr Sullivan: Yes, as the owner of my business I have to work Sunday too. I do not like it, but that is the way it is. Again, if you are looking after the masses, if I am running an operation I need one manager. That means there is one person who is forced to work that day. The other four or five have an option.

Mr Daigeler: Let me ask you a very different question. Is there any effort under way at all in the tourism industry, the restaurant business, to at least allow each restaurant a day to be closed?

Mr Sullivan: No, not really. With the economy the way it is --

Mr Daigeler: But you are saying yourself you would like Sunday off, but you feel obliged because of business reasons to be open seven days a week.

Mr Sullivan: Because of the economy and the tax structure and everything else, we are forced to be open. You have an obligation at the end of the month for all these bills to be paid, and the only way you can do it now, with the economy being the way it is, is to be open seven days a week to get that revenue in. It would be nice to be able to close down for one day, but the hydro bills, the taxes, all the rest of that carries on and it keeps going up, where your sales do not keep going up. So you need that extra time to crack the nut at the end of the month. That is pretty well what it is.

Mrs Cunningham: This has been an interesting presentation. My questions to the last delegation were basically because I was intrigued with the fact that they came on so strong as wanting somewhat of a balance in the province. My view was that they did not want wide-open Sunday shopping and that they were unhappy with this legislation because they thought that is what it represented.

I was surprised to hear you say that if there was a common pause day by, perhaps, some restrictivions on tourism, either by board or definition, that would allow some parts of the province to be closed if they did not meet this requirement, in that case there would be people who would not work on Sundays. Were you saying that you really thought the restaurants should be closed in those areas as well?

Mr Mykytyshyn: That is what I say. If you are going to have mandatory Sunday closure, why would you let the restaurants stay open? Do they not deserve a common rest day?

Mrs Cunningham: I just had never heard it before, so I wanted to clarify it. Basically, in Ontario for the last hundred years restaurants have been excluded from the holiday and Sunday legislation, because they were a service industry. I had never heard them come before us and say that they wanted to be closed, but would it not be true that they could close now if they wanted to? The law just says that you can be open by law, but you would have the choice now and for the last 100 years to close. Restaurants do close. I am just wondering how we can interpret what you want and put it in a viable manner to the government.

Mr Mykytyshyn: What we want is we would like to see Sunday shopping so that our people do not go across the border, because we lose a lot of our people. Instead of going to the plaza shopping and going to our local restaurants for dinner, they go to the border and they stay at the border. Not only do they do their grocery shopping across the border; they have their meals there as well, so we are losing a lot of trade.

1120

We are saying to you that if you are going to have a common day for the store owners you should have a common day for the restaurants as well. We have that privilege, but when we did not have liquor licences in all the restaurants, the liquor establishments were not allowed to open on Sundays. Then the government gave liquor licences to the restaurants and every greasy spoon got a liquor licence and was open on Sundays and the taverns were not allowed to stay open.

The taverns lost a lot of business because they were closed on Sundays. The people went to the greasy spoon on Sunday and they went there on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, for the rest of the week. We fought and fought and we finally got the legislation changed so that the taverns could stay open as long as they provided food. So now every tavern provides food and we are competitive with the restaurants now. We are saying the same thing to you here: that we want to be on a fair, competitive basis with our American neighbours.

Mrs Cunningham: I think the emphasis that you have put, in fairness, is on the cross-border shopping issue. Most of the delegations that have come before the committee have assured us that we should not try, in enacting this legislation, to relate the two. I would say at least 90% have said that. In reading the briefs in preparation for the two days I have been here certainly that is my understanding, but you work in the business and you are saying they go.

Perhaps when the taxes are collected at the border we may see people not going as frequently, because they assure us that they go to save money. When people have to take the extra money out of their pocket and pay it, maybe that will help a little bit. It will be interesting to see what kind of phenomenon we are facing later on, but in the meantime, I think it is our committee's responsibility to come up with a recommendation for improvement to the existing bill.

One of them would be, in my view, this tourist board that takes a look at the tourist areas, so that they can, in a very broad definition, remain open, because we are being told that we want to be competitive in Ontario. I am wondering if you have given any thought, as a restaurant association, to that as being helpful, meaning a provincial body, the responsibility being with the province, so that we can address the issue of fairness, which is one of the points you made early on, the fairness issue. I am wondering if you gave that any thought.

Mr Mykytyshyn: I will say to you what I said a second ago. If they say that St Catharines is a tourist area and you allow St Catharines to stay open, the people who have restaurants in Beamsville and Grimsby, if they are closed, are going to potentially lose a lot of their clientele, because if the people go into St Catharines for dinner on Sundays, because they are shopping there, there is the potential of losing that business through the week.

Mrs Cunningham: I see you are relating the shopping.

Mr Mykytyshyn: How do you close Hamilton down and allow Burlington to stay open?

Mr Sullivan: I think one of the other reasons we are here is that, as you said earlier, certain parts of our industry have been for 100 years open Sundays. Now it is almost wide open: all open on Sundays and allowed to operate on Sundays. Where are you heading? Are we going to be included in the Sunday shopping legislation? This was our concern: All of a sudden are we going to, if this government decides that Sunday is going to be closed, be under that same legislation? That is what we are concerned with.

Mrs Cunningham: Perhaps one of the government members could answer that question. I am tempted to, but I think it is your right to do that. So in the question, Mr Chairman, I think it would be more appropriate.

Mr O'Connor: I want to thank you for coming. You are right when you say that we have had numerous opportunities to hear from your association. We welcome that input. It has been stated in introductions that tourism does play an important part in our economy. In the development of tourism in the province, then, what does your industry do to promote it? When a previous presentation from your association was put together in North Bay a witness before us said that the mayor did not understand tourism. So perhaps you could share with us the things that do attract tourists here to begin with.

Mr Sullivan: First of all, the city itself attracts tourists, from the Copps Coliseum for different sporting events, the botanical gardens, the steel industries, people driving by to look at them. There are all kinds of things in the Hamilton area. When a person wakes up on Sunday morning and he is here on vacation, if the only thing he has to do is go around the corner to the local bar and that is it, he is not going to come here.

Mr O'Connor: Okay, thank you. Just to continue then: In British Columbia, where they do have wide-open Sunday shopping since January, I guess, the cross-border shopping has increased dramatically. Is there a cross-Canada hotel-motel association?

Mr Sullivan: Yes.

Mr O'Connor: Have you noticed, then, that because they are open seven days a week, that they have got better access? They have certainly got the attractions there. They have got the Canadian Rockies and Lake Louise. Is that the attraction or is Sunday shopping the attraction? I am really trying to draw it together. Would the opening of chain stores and malls at Lake Louise bring more people there, or would Lake Louise bring people there?

Mr Sullivan: I would have to say Lake Louise brings them there to start with, but what keeps them there?

Mr O'Connor: What keeps them there?

Mr Sullivan: Yes.

Mr O'Connor: The things to do.

Mr Sullivan: That is right.

Mr O'Connor: And chain stores would be the things to do, you think.

Mr Sullivan: Yes. You take the Toronto area, where the boutiques and all the rest of that stuff are, it was always crowded there. That is where the crowds went.

Mr O'Connor: Oh. So it is the unique shopping experience and not necessarily the same stores that they could shop at home in a different community?

Mr Sullivan: Yes, I would say that.

Mr O'Connor: So it is the unique experience.

Mr Sullivan: Yes.

Mr O'Connor: So that maybe shopping is important if it offers a real uniqueness to a visitor to an area.

Mr Sullivan: Yes, but then how can you legislate that this little wee guy can open --

Mr O'Connor: The square footage has been proposed to us. Do you think that maybe that may have a way of focusing on those specialty shops, in highlighting a special area that will interest tourists? Do you think that is a reasonable thing that we should be looking at -- the square footage size -- so that we do encourage the tourists?

Mr Sullivan: That definitely has merit, the specialty shops, stuff like that. But then I have to go back to the other side who say, Cadillac Fairview, they have invested a lot of money; they are big taxpayers.

Mr Lessard: Thank you for making your presentation. As you have said, we have heard on several occasions from the Ontario Hotel and Motel Association through our journeys. We have travelled throughout the province of Ontario. I am kind of thankful, really, that today is the last stop on the tour.

We have experienced a lot of different comments and opinions from various people, and we have also experienced a lot of different accommodations and a lot of different service on our travel. When you are talking about being competitive with the United States and keeping people from going across the border and attracting people from across the border to come into Ontario, I think you probably agree that given the quality of life we enjoy here in Canada and the economies of scale they have in the United States, trying to compete on price is going to be extremely difficult. Some of the things we do need to compete on are things like quality and service. That is just my opinion. I do not really think having a lot of stores that look just like American stores open on Sunday available for shoppers is really going to serve that purpose.

1130

Just to give you some outline of what my experience has been at a couple of places, last night I went out and ended up in a bar. I was there for about 40 minutes. I never was approached by a waitress the whole time I was there. You might wonder why I would be sitting there for 40 minutes and not go out and seek any service, but I did not want to go in the bar in the first place. I went there because I went to another restaurant and stood in line for 10 minutes to order a salad but was told there was not any salad, so I left that place.

This morning I was at breakfast with my colleague, who was there for half an hour waiting for his breakfast to show up. When he got it he did not get what he had ordered. Something I like to do as well when I am travelling is to run. I appreciate having maps in hotel rooms and being given instructions as to where I might be able to do that and enjoy some of the amenities outside the hotel. On some occasions I have gotten lost because I got maps that did not have all the streets on them. On other occasions there were not any maps available. Some places we have had food that has not been very good and it was not close to the border at all, and the prices were expensive on some occasions.

I really think there needs to be some more focus on the people who actually are going to come here and be attracted to stay in Ontario and enjoy what we have to offer here. It might even be a better idea just to make the areas that surround motels and restaurants look nicer by planting trees and gardens and things of that nature and concentrate on service and quality and the unique things we have in Ontario. I did not think this was going to lead to a question, and I guess I was right. I just want to render my opinion. You have given your opinion and I thought you might be interested in mine.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Lessard. Thank you very much, sir. Your very interesting presentation stimulated us. We also have a clarification from the parliamentary assistant in regard to the question you have brought up.

Mr Mills: I believe one or both of the gentlemen expressed some fear that the bill in some way would restrict your business. I would just like to tell you that the bill does not affect the current status of restaurants under the Retail Business Holidays Act. There is an exemption for goods or services sold and it says in connection with prepared meals and living accommodations. So your worries are unfounded.

Mr Sullivan: What about a bar that does not have meals, like a corner bar? Does that come under the same blanket?

Mr Mills: Just one moment and I will get a legal opinion on that. "The closing provisions of the bill do not apply in respect of the sale or offering for sale by retail of liquor under the authority of a licence or permit issued under the Liquor Control Act."

Mr Sullivan: That answers my question. Thank you.

HAMILTON AND DISTRICT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

The Chair: Next is the Hamilton and District Chamber of Commerce.

Mrs Drewitt: I am Kathy Drewitt, the director of policy for the Hamilton and District Chamber of Commerce.

The Hamilton and District Chamber of Commerce represents approximately 980 companies in the greater Hamilton area, and these companies employ roughly 50,000 people in the Hamilton-Wentworth region. Established in 1845, the chamber has the responsibility and obligation to be the primary voice of business in this area while assisting to promote our community and ensure that it is a good place to live, work and do business. Our membership encompasses both the small entrepreneur and the multinational corporation. It is because of this statement that the chamber is appearing before you this morning. We would like to take the opportunity to welcome you to Hamilton, and thank you for the opportunity to meet with you to discuss our views and the views of the business community of greater Hamilton on the Sunday shopping issue.

The greater Hamilton business community is facing one of the toughest business climates since World War II. Some of the contributing factors to that climate are the high value of the Canadian dollar, the high cost of money, the restructuring of our major manufacturing companies, the impact of the goods and services tax, the loss of some of our traditional markets and an increased competitive climate facing every country today.

The Sunday shopping issue in Ontario is, of course, far more complex today than it was perhaps four to five years ago when Ontario was enjoying a surge in business and economic growth that far exceeded anyone's predictions. Retailers have been particularly hard hit in this recession as individual spending patterns decline in the wake of uncertain times on the world stage.

The Sunday shopping question, for our members, remains a matter of personal choice. In the eight-month time frame in 1990, when the Retail Business Holidays Act was being challenged and stores were taking advantage of the lack of legislation to test their Sunday marketplace, we observed that retailers found their own level of participation in the Sunday opening question. Some opened and some did not. Clearly, for some the need was felt to open to attract more customers. For others who remained closed, mostly independent merchants, clearly it was a personal decision on their part to observe Sunday as a personal day of rest.

The Retail Business Holidays Act is clearly a no-win piece of legislation since the right to open, in the current proposals, is given to one group of retailers and not another. The Hamilton and District Chamber of Commerce believes that the individual should have the right to choose whether his or her store remains open on Sundays, and it should not be a matter for legislation. Their marketplace and customer base will determine that need. We have observed over the past years that shopping has become more of a leisure-time activity and has a direct correlation to the time frame people have for those leisure activities. Leisure time is entrenched in the evening and weekend hours, and therefore a heavier demand for shopping availability is placed on those limited hours.

We also question the fact that this sector of the business economy is the only one to have such a regulation attached to it. No other business sector we know of has a restriction to close its operation on Sunday. If a company wishes to operate seven days a week, it may do so with the proviso that it does not violate the Employment Standards Act, which sets minimum standards for overtime work.

1140

We also know that the standing committee has heard from other chambers of commerce on this question, and that a majority of chamber members support the ability of retailers to choose to open on Sundays. Some of the reasons cited for that position include: to be competitive with retail operations in the United States; to create new jobs; to service the tourist market that expects to be able to shop on Sunday; to eliminate the discrimination that currently exists against some categories of retailers who are currently not allowed to open under the tourism exemption criteria; and to provide the freedom of choice for all Ontarians to shop, open their business, work, worship or spend time at home or away doing whatever they wish to do on a Sunday. The Hamilton and District Chamber of Commerce believes there should be no regulation. Therefore, if regulations are enacted, they should be uniform across the province so that one community is not pitted against another vying for the consumer dollar. The proposed legislation, introduced in the Legislature in early June, has caused a great deal of concern to chambers of commerce in Ontario.

We, as a community chamber, cannot accept the responsibility of dealing with applications for exemption under subsection 4(3) of the act. Paragraph 3(1)4 of the regulations made under the Retail Business Holidays Act, tourism criteria, reads as follows:

"If there is a chamber of commerce, a convention and visitors bureau or a similar organization serving the area being considered, a letter indicating that the organization, or if there is more than one of them, one of those organizations, supports the opening of the retail business establishments in that area on a holiday."

To our knowledge, neither the Ontario Chamber of Commerce nor our local chambers of commerce were consulted as to our willingness or ability to participate in this manner. We would certainly have made it clear at that time that our chamber of commerce is not, nor do we want to be, a regulatory body. Moreover, we are not prepared or willing to accept the legal implications that could flow from making these kinds of decisions. We strongly oppose this delegation of authority, and ask that chambers of commerce be deleted from this section of the tourism criteria regulation.

Our chamber has long been a supporter of cost-effective, efficient government and we believe the process of application under municipal bylaw does not allow for this goal to be achieved. Too much time, effort and costs will be incurred by local municipalities to administer separate bylaws with the result that a wide range of interpretation for tourism exemptions will occur, creating disparaging closure legislation throughout the province. Standardized provincial criteria and approval will allow for uniform Sunday openings across the province, and should be supported if legislation is mandatory.

Consideration of exemptions for border communities needs to be closely studied, since merits of this proposal would essentially discriminate between communities. We recognize that the cross-border shopping issue is far more complex and intricately linked to the Sunday shopping issue. However, we cannot support favouring one community over another in terms of legislation. Greater Hamilton, a community of approximately 400,000 people located less than 40 miles from the American border, lost approximately 25% of retail sales to cross-border trips this year to date, according to a recent survey completed by a local MP. Who will take the responsibility of delineating one community exempt, while another next to it suffers as well?

Our members believe that employees are appropriately protected in current legislation in that they are permitted to refuse Sunday work that they consider unreasonable and refuse work that is in contravention of subsection 2(2) of the Retail Business Holidays Act, work on holidays. We do not believe the proposed amendments are necessary or appropriate.

In conclusion, the Hamilton and District Chamber of Commerce is opposed to the regulation that dictates Sunday openings or closings and feels the option should be left up to the retailer. The chamber recognizes that it is this government's intention to enact legislation on Sunday shopping, and therefore we support the need for tightened, uniform legislation across Ontario and urge that the provincial government take back control for its regulation and adoption. I welcome any questions at this time.

Mr Daigeler: Thank you for making your presentation, which I think is very straightforward and clear. At least we know where your chamber stands. In some of the other chambers the opinions seem to be a little more divided. Is the position you are putting forward strongly supported by the members of your chamber or is it more like other areas? Yesterday we were in London and the chamber there took the same position you took today. However, they acknowledged there was a change of opinion among their members. In fact, later on in the day a retail member of the chamber came and was very, very surprised -- in fact, I think he was angry -- at the position his chamber had taken, because he was on the opposite side of the spectrum. How shared is the view that you are putting forward, and also, has there been a change in that position?

Mrs Drewitt: I could tell you honestly that our membership is widely split on this issue as well. As I mentioned in the very beginning of our presentation, we have both the small retailer/entrepreneur and we also have large multinational companies that either are for or against the proposed legislation. I think that is why we have taken the position over the years that those individuals should have the right to dictate what they do within their own company. Therefore, it will allow for one member who might want to close on Sunday to do so, and allow another member to open if he wishes to.

Mr Daigeler: Would you have the feeling that this is a question that pits the retailers against the other members of the chamber? Or is there among the retailers a split opinion as well?

Mrs Drewitt: I am sorry, I do not understand the question.

Mr Daigeler: You indicated that you have different members in the chamber. Yesterday the retailer said they did not ask the retail sector.

Mrs Drewitt: I would say that the retail sector, even within its own framework, is evenly divided. I could mention small entrepreneurs who do not wish to open on Sunday, and are very vehement about that, and others who want to be open to try to compete with cross-border shopping. Because of downsizing in the economies, others are equally as vehement that they would like to remain open. So I would not say that it is a retail issue solely. Even within the retail constituency itself, it is evenly divided.

Mr Daigeler: And this position that you are putting forward today is the same that you put forward two years ago?

Mrs Drewitt: Yes, it is.

Mr Daigeler: That is interesting, because most chambers said that they changed their minds.

Mrs Drewitt: As I mentioned, we are not in favour of any regulation. Therefore it would allow for any opening or closings as the retailer wishes. That has stood the test of time over the past 10 years in terms of being able to deal with all levels of government.

Mr Daigeler: Earlier this morning we heard from Mr Caplan, I think, who said that during the time when the Sunday regulation was in limbo the small retailers stayed closed, but they lost a fair amount of business to the chain stores. Would that be your assessment as well? Is that what you heard from the retailers?

Mrs Drewitt: I cannot comment on that.

Mr Daigeler: You do not have any information on that.

Mr Carr: Thank you for your presentation. On page 3 you talked about pitting one community against the other for the consumer's dollars. I take it that is why on the last page you said you wanted uniform provincial government legislation? Is that the reason behind it?

Mrs Drewitt: Right.

Mr Carr: This morning we had Mayor Bell, who of course is also a councillor. She said she suspects there will be Sunday shopping in Hamilton-Wentworth. Again, that is a bit of a guess on her part, but as mayor and a councillor, presumably she would have a pretty good idea. I was just wondering what your thoughts are. Do you see Sunday shopping in your community?

Mrs Drewitt: If it were left to the individual municipalities?

Mr Carr: If the bill stays the same.

Mrs Drewitt: Yes, I do.

Mrs Cunningham: I am wondering if you would like to help me in answering your own question on page 4.

Mrs Drewitt: That is why I asked it -- I do not have the answers.

Mrs Cunningham: Maybe I can give you a suggestion that has been put forth today on behalf of two or three of the presenters, as well as an option the former government had and did not take advantage of. That is, that a provincial body be established to administer the definition of a tourist area, maybe cross-border-exemption kind of thing, a border town. Certainly there is room for thought on this. It is a model that seems to be working in New Brunswick. Has your group, given the responsibility you have, looked at that as being a solution that would in fact throw the responsibility back to the province? What other option do we have?

Mrs Drewitt: The provincial body -- however you set up a regulatory body it will have to come from the province -- is going to have to tread very carefully not to pit one community against another. As I mentioned, if Niagara Falls, for instance, opens up, then Hamilton will not be far behind. But who is to say whether Hamilton is a border community or not, and is suffering equally, if not more?

1150

Mrs Cunningham: Somebody has to accept the responsibility. Perhaps we as elected people ought to stand up for what we believe in. It is not an easy decision. But it is something we should be accepting the responsibility for. Otherwise, throw it open. If we throw it open, that is the responsibility of this government. But I think right now, to say that this legislation supports a common pause day is not fair. It is not true. That is what people have been saying as they come before the committee. I was wondering what your response to a provincial body would be. I am guessing that you think at least the responsibility has to be there.

Mrs Drewitt: It is going to have to be something.

Mr Fletcher: Thank you for your presentation. We have been going around the province. We have heard from a lot of small retailers who have come on their own. Some of them belong to their chambers and some do not. They have been saying that this legislation is a step in the right direction, that it is starting to reinforce the commitment of this government toward a common pause day, and that the problems they see with Sunday opening are not consistent with what chambers are saying. That is their right, and I agree with that. I think the chambers have organized well.

I remember in Peterborough, it was interesting because the Peterborough Chamber of Commerce really did deviate from the Ontario position. But that was because of their area. We have also been hearing a lot that municipalities do not want to have the responsibility, that chambers do not want to have the responsibility, and we just talked right now about a board.

I really want your opinion on this one. What about setting up a board or a committee of the stakeholders who are involved -- retail owners, unions, the local governments -- and trying to work out effective criteria to make the regulations as far as tourism is concerned a little more stringent, maybe a little tougher, so we do not have this patchwork? Is that something that we could work towards? Is that something that is viable?

Mrs Drewitt: I would not want to speak for those stakeholders who would either be prepared or not prepared -- I cannot speak for them. But as a member of the chamber of commerce movement, I would certainly welcome the opportunity to provide you with some in-depth analysis of how we see the criteria unfolding in terms of a tourism exemption or whatever else.

Mr Fletcher: Yes. If we ask for your input, you would be willing to assist.

Mrs Drewitt: Yes. I am sure the Ontario chamber would welcome that opportunity. But I cannot say I would see that as the regulatory body. I could see that they would provide input to some criteria but I cannot see that it would be the regulatory body.

Mr Fletcher: Right. Not as the regulatory body; to try to set up the criteria and everything else. It is something that we have said we would like to do.

Mr Kormos: You and I disagree. I think we disagree about common pause day and Sunday shopping.

Mrs Drewitt: That is fine.

Mr Kormos: And at the same time we have so much in common, because both of us have concerns about the legislation. I share your concern -- and the trade union movement and a whole lot of other people share your concern -- about this business of municipalities having the responsibility of applying the legislation. In my view, it is inappropriate, it is dangerous. We are going to be far more effective at creating a common pause day if indeed the provincial government establishes the body which applies exemptions, regulations, concerns. Mr Fletcher spoke of concerns about the tourism regulations, tourism definitions as they exist now. The images people have been creating -- everything from Mack trucks to 747s travelling through these guidelines. I am hoping that the government accepts or moves some of its own amendments in that regard.

But there is one thing about which I can be certain -- and it is not because the Premier and I have been spending special time together lately -- and that concerns the chambers of commerce being involved in the exemption process. You spoke about that on page 3, subsection 4(3). I am not telling stories out of school, but I am just telling you I will bet the farm that does not remain in the final legislation. I know that is not tantamount to the minister making an announcement in that regard, but trust me on that one. That will not see the final legislation. Thanks a lot for coming today.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for that fine presentation. You obviously will help us in drafting this legislation. We are now finished with the morning's proceedings.

Mrs Cunningham: My colleague over there is just flipping to hear what I have to say in support of what has been said. You know what really shocks me, Mr Chairman, as we take a look, as politicians, at draft legislation such as this? I would say this in opposition right now. I am not pointing fingers at the government. I find it shocking that a government could have been advised to include the chambers of commerce, first of all, without consulting with them -- and I am blaming the bureaucracy here; second, to show so blatantly how legislation and democracy should not work. That is, if you are elected you make decisions that are written into legislation. If you are not elected you may be an advisory body to the government. To write it in a law so that they have to take the legal responsibility of their decision is so inappropriate and so wrong. We as politicians are getting that kind of advice from high-qualified bureaucrats. It is absolutely frightening in this province -- and that's what I think it's all about.

Mr O'Connor: If I may just respond briefly for a matter of clarification. I just wanted to point out to you where that was. In fact, I agree with you. You even stated why the whole thing comes out for public hearings -- so we can have some input from the stakeholders. But that part was in the regulations. It was not in the law. I am glad that the regulation in this piece of legislation was put with the bill so that it could be discussed fully, because it does not happen very often. I am glad that it is open. That is why we are here with all these witnesses.

Mrs Cunningham: I think it happens too often. All of us are subjected to it as politicians.

Mr O'Connor: And the regulations should be --

Mrs Cunningham: We get blamed.

The Vice-Chair: Excuse me, folks. We can do this during clause-by-clause. We are now adjourned until one o'clock.

The committee recessed at 1158.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The committee resumed at 1307.

NATIONAL GROCERS CO LTD UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS

The Chair: I would like to call our meeting back to order. First off, I would like to apologize to the presenters for our slight delay.

We have before us a slight change on our agenda in that our first two presenters are presenting together: Mr Chuck Gyles and Ms Susan Shaw from National Grocers, and Brother Bryan Neath from the United Food and Commercial Workers. Instead of a half-hour per presentation, they have agreed to pool the time so that we would have a full hour to have their testimony and, of course, questions.

You have been with us for this morning and, I believe, part of yesterday as well, so you are familiar with the procedure.

Mr Neath: I will formally introduce myself, and then I will allow Mr Gyles to formally introduce his side of the family, if you wish, and I like to refer to it as a family. I believe yesterday the comment was made by a few parties of how it is great to see that the union and the companies are sitting and working together finally -- I even think I heard that word. Certainly, for our side in the union -- I am not going to speak for the company, but we work together on many things, not just this issue. Collective bargaining is working together to try to resolve the areas, and I think sometimes the public does not get that clear a message across.

My name is Bryan Neath. I am an international representative of the United Food and Commercial Workers. I am assigned to work in Canada and I am assigned to the service sector portion of our union. I have a fairly good background in terms of what is happening in the US and what is happening in Canada on this issue as well as many other issues. Prior to working for the national union, I was working in a local for eight years and, also probably more important to this issue, I was a full-time and part-time retail employee in a supermarket for 14 years. Again, I feel I have a fairly good background in experience to this.

What we plan to do here is, Mr Gyles and Ms Shaw, on behalf of National Grocers, will make a presentation, and then I will make a presentation, and we hope to give you a good half-hour so that you can throw the questions as you wish at us.

Mr Gyles: Thanks, Bryan. Just to set the record straight, there are some things that we do disagree on.

With me is Susan Shaw, who is director of industrial relations for National Grocers. My name is Chuck Gyles. I am vice president of human resources and industrial relations for National Grocers.

It is National Grocers' pleasure to be here once again today to make its presentation on Bill 115 to the standing committee on administration of justice. Some of the things I am going to say reiterate what Mr Faas had indicated to you yesterday. However, I think for the enlightenment of the people who were not there yesterday in London, and as well because of the seriousness of some of the comments that he made, I would like to repeat those. So I would ask for your indulgence in that.

National Grocers is the Ontario arm of Loblaws Cos Ltd, and is the parent company of several different companies that all operate within Ontario, namely Loblaws Supermarkets Ltd, Zehrmart Ltd, and we are franchisers of Hasty Market, Mr Grocer, Your Independent Grocer, Valu-mart, Freshmart, No Frills and Fortino's, well known in the area in Hamilton. We operate approximately 450 retail outlets, all located in Ontario within the cities, towns and villages. In Hamilton alone, we have 17 retail operations here.

Collectively, we employ in excess of 25,000 employees in the province, and we are the largest private sector employer of unionized employees in Ontario. All of our corporate stores and our nine 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 differing viewpoints with respect to this issue of Sunday openings. There is consensus on one thing, however, and that is that we must play on a level playing field. To ensure this level playing field, 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 a tourist exemption. In the event that there is a proliferation of competitive advantages, we would have no choice but to request wide-open Sunday shopping.

That, however, is a very extreme position and does not undermine our overall support for the 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 that is aimed at enshrining a common pause day in Ontario and detailing the restrictions on both Sunday shopping and Sunday work. While we recognize that the legislation marks positive progress in this regard, National Grocers and its subsidiaries have five main concerns with the proposed amendments to the act.

I believe most of you have documents in front of you. I am not going to read it verbatim in the interest of trying to have enough time at the end of this for questions, but I am going to skip through this document. Please accept the document as our position, and in no way am I slighting any parts that I skip over.

The five areas that we are concerned with mirror exactly the position taken by the United Food and Commercial Workers Union. National Grocers and its related companies have long had a history of open discourse and interaction with not only the United Food and Commercial Workers but with the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union and with 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 the retailers, our unions and our 25,000-plus employees.

I would like to explore the five main concerns in greater detail now. I do not want to get into the background, in the interest of time, but we have made mention of them in the document.

The first concern that we have is the intent of the Retail Business Holidays Act defining the common pause day. The proposed legislation recognizes the need for and the importance of a common pause day. Unfortunately, in our view, the legislation does not clearly specify the meaning of "common pause day." To that end, we would propose that Sundays and holidays remain as common pause days and be defined as days on which most businesses are not open, and days on which most people do not have to work.

The second major concern is on the municipal option and the criteria for exemptions. It is our view that the regulations and criteria for tourist exemption privileges are so overly broad as to effectively restrict no one. In response to this scenario, we would propose the following amendments to the legislation. First, we would request that a new set of viable tourist criteria be established. These criteria should be addressed and delineated by a committee of stakeholders in the tourism industry which would include representatives from retailers, from unions and from the government.

Even if legitimate and viable tourism criteria were negotiated in this manner, it is our belief that the application of criteria by municipal councils across the province will likely create problems of inconsistency among the different regions.

In order to address this concern, we would recommend that a provincial tourism exemption board be established to deal with appeals by interested parties regarding a municipal council's decision. This body would serve as a check on the municipalities to ensure that the tourism exemption criteria are uniformly interpreted and applied. The tourism exemption board would have the authority to make final and binding decisions on these matters.

We also believe that if a geographic area is designated a tourist area, there should be no size qualification with respect to Sunday or holiday openings. It is our position that if it is properly determined that an area must be open for shopping to service tourists, such shopping should not be limited to only small retail establishments. This position reflects our belief that if loopholes or exemptions are permitted in the legislation, wide-open Sunday shopping will be the only viable means of ensuring a level playing field among all retailers.

Our third issue has to do with drugstore openings. Currently, drugstores with a square footage of 7,500 square feet or less may open on Sundays or holidays. These drugstores must dispense drugs, and the principal business must be the sale of goods of a pharmaceutical or therapeutic nature for hygienic or cosmetic purposes. No other goods are allowed for sale with the exception of sundries. Unfortunately, sundries are not defined, and it is our belief that the vast majority of Sunday and holiday sales occurring in these drugstores is comprised of pop, potato chips, candies and other foodstuffs labelled "sundries." These sales occur in spite of the consumer's ability to purchase such non-pharmaceutical products at small convenience stores allowed to open on Sundays.

Moreover, it is our belief that in the absence of a restriction on the number of employees working on Sunday or holidays, these drugstores are scheduling extra employees on the holidays to facilitate or enhance the sales of non-pharmaceutical products.

Our recommendations with respect to this issue are twofold. We would suggest that the allowable square footage be reduced to 3,500 square feet from the 7,500 square feet. This size store will provide ample opportunity for the public to access needed medication or other prescription products. We believe that the number of employees serving the public in this way should not and need not exceed four, including the pharmacist, who must be present in the establishment during business hours.

The fourth issue is the enforcement of the legislation. The current legislation provides for a maximum fine of $50,000 upon conviction for illegal Sunday openings. Only two parties, the Attorney General of Ontario or the municipality, may apply for an injunction to close an establishment that is opening illegally. There are no minimum fines for breaking the law. Many offenders, and I have to confess that we have been one of them, have received fines of only $100 upon conviction.

It is our view that enforcement of the legislation must be greatly improved. The proposed fines of $500 and $2,000 in the RBHA will not satisfy this requirement. In fact, it is our belief that such fines will merely be seen as a cost of doing business -- and negligible at that, I might add -- by those establishments that intend to open on Sundays and holidays.

While we no longer support that approach to achieve adequate enforcement of legislation, it remains our position that the proposed enforcement mechanisms in the RBHA will not deter retailers from opening on Sundays. We therefore recommend the following changes: For first offences the minimum fine for conviction be increased to $10,000 and for subsequent offences the minimum fines be set at $20,000. Second, any affected party may apply to the Supreme Court of Ontario for an order requiring a retail business establishment to close on a Sunday or holiday to ensure compliance with the RBHA.

Our fifth and last major issue is the definition of a retail business. Under the proposed amendments, the government has not addressed the existing problem relating to the definition of a retail business. As a result, giant stores operating under the guise of membership clubs will continue to do business on Sundays. These club warehouses, such as the Price Club, sell food and other merchandise. The current exemption status of these clubs gives them an unfair competitive advantage over other large food and general merchandise retailers.

In order to ensure a level playing field among similarly sized and situated retailers, it is our recommendation that a change in the definition of a retail business be made to include 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. We also recommend that the definition of retail business establishment be amended to read "means the premises where a retail business is carried on. Any space or stall in markets, particularly in covered markets and `flea markets,' shall be considered to be a retail business."

Without such changes to the legislation, it is our view that any and all businesses should be free to open on Sundays to be able to properly compete with these retailers.

In conclusion, in 1988 we made a submission on behalf of Loblaws Supermarkets, and you have that in the documents in front of you. I ask that you refer to it. It is very similar -- in fact it is exact -- to what we are saying to you today. Since then we have had some experience on wide-open Sunday shopping. During the six months following June 1990, when wide-open Sunday shopping was allowed, hours available to employees to be worked did not increase. In fact, when our stores were open seven days a week, our policy was to spread the existing six days of available employment hours over the seven days. While the legislation prevented us from forcing employees to work on Sundays, the effect of the scheduling policy was such that many of our employees felt obligated to accept Sunday work to ensure they obtained sufficient hours during the week.

For six months in 1990 wide-open Sunday shopping was permitted. During that time, we initially saw an increase in sales. I put that to the novelty of the situation. Within a short period of time, however, we saw our sales level off while our cost of operation increased significantly. We attribute this increase to the premium labour rates required to be paid to prepare for and open on Sundays. It has always been our position that there is a limited pool of food shopping dollars that will be spent during the six normal days of retail food operation. Our experience has shown that by providing a seventh day of operation, the total food dollars spent by consumers does not increase but rather is spread out over an increased number of days. From a retailing perspective, this fact only points to the necessity for increased costs to serve a seven-day operation with no related increase in total sales.

I would now like to draw your attention to three specific issues I would like to further address with you.

The first is the tourist areas. We have many retail outlets that operate in cottage country. They are generally anywhere from 5,000 to 25,000 square feet. They would see incremental value in opening on Sundays but they would not build larger stores because it is very seasonable. They are very busy during the summer and everything flattens out during the off-season.

Second are Price Clubs, which is a major issue to us, the operations of the Price Clubs and cost co-ops selling to the public under a membership scheme. These operations have held themselves out to be servicing small business on a wholesale basis. It is our belief that a large percentage of their sales are made to individual members of the public whose purchases are for their own or their family's use. As such, they are directly competing with conventional retailers, such as food supermarkets or department stores. These clubs sell food and non-food products in large quantities at alleged volume discounts. Conventional supermarkets also sell food and non-food products under similar arrangements. I would like to bring to your attention our club packs in most of our stores.

In light of these similarities, it is our view that the membership clubs should be properly recognized as retail establishments and required to close on Sundays. Only uniform and consistent treatment of all retailers will ensure a level playing field among competitors.

Just as a note, the Solicitor General has ruled Price Clubs to be retail establishments under the act, yet still the enforcement of it is obviously a major problem. It is just another example of some of the frustrations we are dealing with at present.

The last issue I would like to emphasize with you is drugstores. You have all been handed some documents that are flyers put out by the drugstores. I would ask you to at least look at them. You will take note that they are very similar to some of our Loblaws and some of our retail competitors' brochures.

If the intent of the exemption is to allow the public to obtain necessary prescriptions, then there is no need to have 7,500 square feet of selling space. If the intent of the exemption re sundries is to allow the population access to chips and candy that is sold, convenience stores of 3,500 square feet could fit that bill perfectly. In looking at the drugstore advertisements I was alluding to, it is difficult to see any difference between their advertised products and those of conventional supermarkets.

I would like somebody to ask the drugstores what percentage of their sales on Sundays are prescription items. It is our understanding that the overwhelming percentage of Sunday sales are of non-pharmaceutical items, such as pop, chips, candy and food items. I would also like to ask drugstores which sales they are targeting with their flyers, such as the ones you have in front of you now. It is our belief they are positioning themselves as alternative supermarkets. If this is the case, drugstores and supermarkets should be treated in the same manner.

That concludes the National Grocers submissions.

1330

Mr Neath: As the committee knows, the United Food and Commercial Workers union has had a strong presence at these committee hearings all across the province. My particular position has been to quarterback the Sunday shopping position and this is your last chance for you to take, if you want, a shot at us or get a better understanding of our position.

First, though, before I talk about our recommended changes, I want to draw on four things. The first one is the question of cross-border shopping. You have been told, and I just want to make sure you get it from our side, that is a separate issue, a totally separate issue. As a matter of fact, United Food and Commercial Workers is sitting on a national task force, of which I am a committee member, that has been set up by the federal government to deal with that particular issue. That also maybe proves we are sometimes willing to deal with anybody in order to get to things that are needed.

The first thing I want to touch is in front of you. You received copies of our recommendations, but back behind them there are some newspaper clippings. Through these hearings, which we have been following, so often you heard about: "It's time to get into the 1990s. Let's be like the United States. We can hardly wait."

I want to draw your attention to the very first newspaper clipping that is in the back part of our brief. It is from the Chain Store Age Executive magazine of March 1991 and is titled "Unemployment, Store Closings on the Rise." This is a United States article, not a Canadian article. Down in the second paragraph it talks about how Sears, Roebuck has announced plans to cut 33,000 employees, including 13,000 full-time; Hills Department Stores is closing 28 of its 214 stores; in January several catalogue showroom chains, including Best Products and W. Bell, filed for protection for bankruptcies; and the Computer Factory plans to lay off more than 300 employees or 20% of its workforce. A little farther down it talks about how between September and the end of December, and this is 1990, there was a loss of about 150,000 jobs.

On the next page, out of a UFCW magazine of August 1991, under the title "Economic Overview," it says "The current recession has hit women sales and service workers hardest, a recent report from the Women's Research and Education Institute says." I take you to the very first part. "According to This Recession's Invisible Victims: Women Sales and Service Workers, the current recession is hurting the service sector as well as the goods-producing sector." This is quite different from the other recession, the recession of the 1980s where the service sector improved when the manufacturing sector went down.

It goes on to many other points in there that I am sure you would love to raise, but I am going to stop. The recession is hurting in the States as well as it is in Canada. That is what it is. It is a recession and that is what is hurting the jobs and that is what is hurting the sales in the stores, not the Sunday shopping issue.

The second point I want to deal with is the question of jobs, jobs, jobs. It almost sounds like it is a platform for one particular party that I heard a while ago. I did not want to get into party politics at all here because I do not think this is an issue of party politics. If the unions and the companies can sit in front of you and make these joint presentations, I would love to see you as a committee sit in front of us and come out with a joint proposal at the end of the committee hearings and be together for once. It would be a nice example for the rest of the world to follow.

With regard to the question of jobs, someone comes in and says, "When I opened Sunday, I hire five people; when I closed, I fired five people." I am not too sure if you understand what happens in the retail industry. The retail industry is simply a distribution of jobs. If you take a look at the next article, which is from the Business and Society Review of the winter of 1990, which, again, is a United States article, go to the second page and it is down on the right hand side, the last paragraph. It starts, "In Virginia." This is the Food Lion corporation and it says they built 150 stores but they closed at least that many stores in the areas that they opened. That is the other part of what happens when someone says, "I created this job," and it goes on to say this so clearly in this particular article. I will read it because it could not be said better.

"Food Lion can and has undercut its competition by compensating its employees with substantially lower wages and fewer benefits." That is what happens in retail food. Knob Hill Farms opened up in Cambridge last week. They so proudly announced that they created 350 jobs, but there are 350 people who lost their jobs, people who were at a higher level. Knob Hill Farms hired down here. They got brand-new people working in their place, hired down here. They have a competitive edge and they will until they get to this stage and the next competitor comes in. I guess I get upset when I keep hearing about jobs, jobs, jobs because there are no jobs and I think that is quite clear.

The last item I wanted to discuss is the question of shopping and tourism and how it goes hand in hand. I had the opportunity to be a tourist this summer. I went to Alberta. I stayed inside Canada; I did not go across the border. I am sure a lot of people will be happy. When I am on a cross-border shopping task force, I had trouble deciding to do that anyway.

I cut this article out of the Edmonton Journal, dated July 18, 1991. I wanted to make some point through here. It is a discussion with American tourists in Edmonton, Canada, and it talks about what happens when they cross the borders. The gas prices double, it says, and the owner of this particular tent and trailer park where this interview was done said he believes and agrees with what the Americans are saying: the reason Americans are not coming here is cost of gas. He states in here, "My business used to be 84.2% Americans. Now I'm surprised if they're 20%." This is in the wonderful wide-open Sunday shopping of Alberta.

This article goes on and talks about this American couple going shopping at the West Edmonton Mall, because from Florida, where they live, they had heard so much about it. While they did go there and agree that the West Edmonton Mall was wonderful, they left empty-handed, and again it was a question of cost. It makes no particular difference whether you open Sunday. I just wanted you all to read the last paragraph because it does present a nice view of Canada, and I think what we really are looking for here is a nice view of Canada.

I want for a minute to talk about some of our changes. I am not sure if this committee understands that from day one, back when the NDP was elected, if you wish, or the new government was elected, we presented the new government our recommended changes to the Retail Business Holidays Act because, I do not think it is a surprise to many of you, we were not happy with the old one. When we come to these committee hearings we have changed our position. In some cases we have changed our position drastically from where we were before. I want you to understand clearly that we did that through many a fight inside, because many of us did not agree with a lot of the changes.

1340

I want to talk about probably the most glaring change in our position, the question of the municipal option. We have always been saying it is the provincial legislation that must take place, not the municipal option. We told that to the old governments and we told the new government this time around when Bill 115 was introduced. A surprise to some people, maybe -- the unions did not get what they wanted. We ended up with the municipal option and we are not happy about that. We would like to go back to the provincial option.

I understand that with the provincial option, in order to do that, you must have a board of some sort that would take all of these exemptions to this board. I understand this board will be quite expensive. If the Liberals and the Conservatives agree with the provincial option, and so does the NDP, then we should have that and we should do that, but there is a cost; if they all agree, then they have to agree that we have to bear the cost no matter how bad the recession is.

If you do not agree with that, then you take the position we have taken. That is how we got to our particular position as well, and that is the municipal option. You have to have a place to go to argue that the municipalities are abusing the criteria.

There might be a cost to that as well. I repeat, we want the provincial option -- clear as can be. We were happy and we want the provincial option. If you stay with the municipal option you have to do two things: you have to make the criteria so hard that the municipalities will not bother to go because they are going to say, "We're going to lose anyway." But if they do take it on and it is a violation there has to be a good, strong board that can revise or reverse the decision made by them. That is our position and I hope that position has become fairly clear to all of you.

I was going to take some time and point out some of the bad things about the regulations, but I am not going to. I am not going to be the person from UFCW who says the regulations are a joke. No, we are not happy with the regulations; they could almost be called a joke, but they are not.

Chuck was so right when he said we do not agree on everything. They do not agree with us on the tourist option, you can see that if you take a look. They are saying if it is designated as a tourist area it is wide open. We say no, we say 4,000. We still believe in the 4,000-square-feet position. I just wanted to point out a couple of reasons. Maybe you have not heard this as clearly as possible.

First of all, if you agree on the intent of a common pause day, to get the fewest people working, and if you have a smaller square footage, as an example, of 4,000 feet, you do not need a large staff, instead of having it wide open. That way you maintain that principle.

The other thing, we keep saying that as far as we are concerned the tourist stores that are open should be specialized and not general stores. Any store with a small square footage -- again, using the 4,000 square footage area -- will have to be more specialized, as opposed to being a general store. We believe those stores now that cater to the tourist are already under 4,000 square feet.

The other thing we are more than willing to talk about is that if there is something bigger than 4,000 that would definitely fit the area of tourism, we believe it should be talked about and written into the regulations or into the law, "This particular spot in Wasaga Beach is bigger than 4,000 and it can be open because," but make sure we do not open loopholes so someone can develop or make a store the same thing, simply to get an exemption.

The last area I want to talk about -- I should say there are two of them. One is the drugstores. Again, you can see we are not in quite the same position as National Grocers. They are talking about a 3,500 square foot and we are talking about 2,400. Sometimes in negotiations you have to move and I certainly can speak on behalf of the UFCW. We will move on that issue. We will go to 3,500. Here we are negotiating again.

I wanted to point out that we do have under contract the Pharma Plus Drugmart, UFCW, so we have a good idea of what a drugstore is. We went out and did a snapshot look at the Pharma Plus. First of all we found out the standard-sized Pharma Plus drugstore is between 2,000 and 3,500. This was done before we realized their 3,500-square-feet position. Second, no matter what the size, if the store is 1,000 square feet or 20,000 square feet, 10% of the selling area is for pharmaceutical; 90% of the rest of the Pharma Plus stores are for non-food. So again, if you take a look at a 7,500-square-feet store that is selling 10% pharmaceutical, that leaves 6,750 square feet for all of the non-food items that Mr Gyles talked about. That is certainly a lot bigger than a 2,400 convenience store that you allow to open. I have a whole list of the reasons why they are permitted, but Chuck I think talked about them quite clearly.

The last point I want to make goes to the Price Clubs and the definition of retail business. I know when we finish talking Mr Mills is going to get up and say that the staff of the Solicitor General has researched and, yes, they are a club and, no, they cannot be open and --

Interjection: Attorney General.

Mr Neath: The Attorney General, I am sorry. It does not matter who did it, they did not do a very good job.

The problem we have is that they are open today. I understand and I believe -- I do not know -- but I believe they have not been charged and they are still open. If you change the definition you will make sure they are closed, because if you do not change the definition and say, "Well, we believe they should be," they will take you to court. We will be in another long legal battle. The second part of it that goes I think so well, if you accept our position that you have the right for the injunction, we would take them on if you are afraid to do it. So you need that. It is so important that those two things go hand in hand.

I think I will stop because I have the ability to ramble on, I have been told once or twice in my life. I thank the committee for allowing us, by the way, to jointly do this presentation and I hope we have done a good job for you. We are open now and we have a good 20 minutes for questions.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Neath, for determining that for me. We have approximately six minutes per caucus. Mr Daigeler and Mr Poirier.

Mr Daigeler: Thank you again for making a joint presentation. As you indicated, we had the experience yesterday in London and I welcomed it at that point. I say again that I certainly am pleased to see the employers and the employees work together closely on such an important question and I hope that can happen in other areas of our economy as well.

With regard to the brief presented by you, Mr Gyles, you are saying on page 4 that in your view -- and I share that view -- the regulations and criteria for tourism exemption are so broad as to effectively restrict no one. In fact, when I questioned the former Solicitor General on his definition of tourism I think he even broadened it further than what was there already and said basically anything that promotes tourism can fall under that exemption. I think he mentioned that to satisfy the tourism operators. So he was very flexible in that regard and that is certainly on public record.

On the other hand, you are saying at the bottom of page 2, "in introducing legislation aimed at enshrining a common pause day in Ontario and detailing restrictions on both Sunday shopping and Sunday work...the legislation marks positive progress." I fail to see, quite frankly, where you see the progress because the way I see it, there may be a difference between the words that are being used by the new government and by the old government, but what will actually happen -- and many presenters have confirmed that view -- is that we are going to have open Sundays. So I am wondering where you see the progress that is coming in with this particular legislation.

1350

Mr Gyles: As far as I am concerned, just by their declaring that Sunday will be a day of pause or a day of rest, I think that is the kickoff that we needed in order to take the position we have been taking. You have got to understand that over the years we have been very frustrated with no clear-cut position taken by the government, and I think we have seen an example of that now, rolling in the direction that we are going.

Mr Daigeler: But you are aware that under the old Liberal legislation Sunday was the day of common rest. However, it was possible to be exempted from it, so we also had established the idea that Sunday would be the normal day under which we would be closed, but if an area decided that is not what they wanted to do, they would have the option. So again, I do not really see the substantive difference between them and us on this point. I really feel that -- and some members, in fact, of the government caucus have argued -- it would be much more honest, if they really are interested in having this common pause day, to have very strict regulations and to close everybody down. Some members of the government caucus have argued that, but we will see whether they are going to be successful with their ministerial colleagues.

Mr Carr: Thank you very much for the presentation, Bryan and Chuck. I am glad you came. I think I was one of the ones who said originally that I hoped the companies would come, and I am glad you did. I think I can also appreciate where sometimes you do have to change your position, because you have a position then a new law comes in and you have to say, "Well, based on this, now what do we do?" So I can appreciate where this has changed.

The one area, though, where I see disagreement is on page 5 where you say "no geographic areas," and I do not think that is the position of your union, because they still want to keep it. Is there a disagreement over that portion of it?

Mr Gyles: Sorry, could you further clarify what it is you are asking?

Mr Carr: Yes. We believe if there is a geographic area designated, so if somebody comes in and says, "Tourist," the whole area is open. You say, "Let's not have the 7,500-square-feet restriction." I think that is because you will be caught in that, right? You will be above 7,500 and then you would have to go back. I was wondering if you and the union agree on that, because what happens is, it is very confusing if you have got the two positions if, in fact, everybody else is open. What you are saying is: "Let us be open, too. We do not want to be open, but there are competitive advantages." Is that what your union is saying as well? If an area is open because of tourism you would say, "Let us be open, too?"

Mr Neath: Are you asking if the union takes that position?

Mr Carr: Yes.

Mr Neath: No, we do not, right now. I do not think they were that far off, to be honest with you. Our problem with that position is -- the best example in the world is Wasaga Beach. In Wasaga Beach they happen to have a Zehrs store, which is part of National Grocers, that is over 7,500 square feet; it is probably 20,000 square feet. I think I can understand Wasaga Beach being a tourist area. If you say that is a tourist area and you open it wide open, Zehrs will be open. Six miles down the road is Collingwood and A&P in Collingwood says, "Wait a minute. Now we want to be open," so that is where the domino effect continues, and that is why we made the recommendation of the 4,000 square feet. I have not heard an argument yet to get me off that, but maybe Chuck will give it to us right now.

Mr Gyles: You heard it before. There is a very real danger of a domino effect when you have one municipality declaring they are a tourist area, but National Grocers feels that no matter where that happens, there are those people out there who are going to take advantage of that opportunity of it being open on a Sunday. If we do not have it wide open in that area, there are those opportunities for the smaller companies, the drugstores, to open; and when that happens we do not enjoy that level playing field.

I might want to add one other thing. We are very largely unionized, as I had indicated, and some of our major competitors in this marketplace in Ontario are non-union locations. We have been able to combat that competitive advantage that they have up to this point, but when they start having the ability to open on Sundays and open on holidays as well and we do not, then that disadvantage that we have becomes that much wider.

We have had discussions with the unions about it; it is a concern. I am not sure what their resolution to it is going to be, but we just have to take the position that if anybody is open in a tourist area, we should all be open, or have the right to be.

Mrs Cunningham: It is a pleasure to see some familiar faces, some consistency in these hearings over the years. I think we have a choice in Ontario of either saying we are going to recognize tourist areas as we have in the past, and then take a look at some of the restrictions within that -- I think you offered an interesting one with the 4,000 square feet -- or we have to say we are going to have wide open Sunday shopping. Certainly, from what I have heard, I do not think we have any other choices.

This bill is basically wide-open Sunday shopping, as I read it. I do not think it is very much different at all from the former Liberal legislation, so I am appreciative of some of the specific amendments.

I notice on page 3 of your brief that you are basically following the specific recommendation of the Ontario Federation of Labour on the defining of a common pause day, so there is some consistency there.

On page 4 where you talk about the set of viable tourist criteria being established, I appreciate the fact that you are prepared to stick your necks out and help us a little bit here, because the position of the former Liberal government was that you could not define it, and therefore they would not tackle it. Certainly the minister of the day, Joan Smith, said that many, many times, and they just would not tackle it.

Tourism Ontario was prepared to lead the way in helping the government with that definition, and I am wondering what kind of input we should be looking at with regard to that definition of a tourist area. And then the regulations within it: What kind of process should the government be looking at for that, because we are then into another whole discussion, I think. I would say to either of you, if you have any thoughts on process I would appreciate them.

Mr Neath: It is probably a repeat of what has been said, but I think the Metropolitan Toronto area went through that process. They went and got stakeholders together to discuss the whole aspect of a common pause day, tourist criteria, etc. They put these stakeholders in a room and they went back and forth and made all the arguments for and against and they came out with what they believed to be a set of tourist criteria. I think they went as far as to recognize what tourism is and what a tourist is.

I think the process is fine when you have all of the players, so when someone gets up -- and I heard this yesterday -- and says, "But it is the high wages," then the unions can stand up and say: "Maybe it isn't. Maybe it is this and this."

To me, the best example was the cross-border shopping at first, and many of the companies just would totally blame it on high wages in Canada. I made the point that the best example is the auto workers. They are between $5 and $7 less to build a car in Canada, based on the benefits. Most of those retailers did not understand that because they were not in the automobile industry, but when the stakeholders get together they have the ability to hammer each person out and come out with a deal, normally. I think that is the process, and that is the process that we both have recommended. I think we can get to a bottom line on that.

The Chair: Back to Mr Poirier.

Mrs Cunningham: Can I finish? Have we used up all our time?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr Poirier: You might take some from me if I have some left, Dianne.

Bryan, I want to say that I am sensitive to what you and other representatives of your union have come forward and said. All of us have been sitting here and I am glad you have been here most of the time also, because it shows you how difficult it is for us to sit down together and draw up something, knowing darned well that we cannot think of consensus because there is no consensus in all of Ontario pertaining to this.

I salute both of your groups for being together and working on a continuous basis, as you outlined. Being the oldest serving member here, I can also say that we have often worked together to try to find the best possible solutions.

When you made reference to the three political parties, that kind of surprised me, because when I sit here I do not think about it in those terms. I mean, there is an issue to resolve out there. We heard some very strong positions on both sides. There are no grey zones of opinion, but somewhere in the middle we will have to look at how to resolve this.

I tend to agree with you. I do not think there is much of a relationship between Sunday shopping/working and cross-border, though some people have claimed that in their particular case there was. I cannot waste the time to go and do a doctoral thesis on this to find out exactly what, but I tend to agree, after listening for several weeks, that there is not that much of a relationship.

We will do our best to see what we can do with that, but I want to say thank you, because your union and people like Gord Wilson this morning brought particular points -- and National Grocers also, and others -- about worker protection.

Sure, it is nice to say that you have a right to refuse, but I think the reality between the principles and the laws we set forward and the reality you people have to live with every day of what it is really like to say, "No, I will not work on a Sunday" -- Because of what your union has brought forward, I think I feel much more enlightened as to the difference between what the law will say and what the reality will be on the workforce.

I want to say thank you to you and your union for bringing forward these concerns. If you had not done so, obviously we would be a lot poorer in that particular knowledge. I wanted to make that point, Bryan.

Mr Neath: Thank you, and I will say to you, as I will say to everybody here and as I have said to many of our conventions and conferences, you can never give up the fight. When the NDP was elected, some people in our own union said, "That's it. We can just sit back and go home," and I told them, "No, you have to fight probably harder now than you did before." So, thank you.

Mr Fletcher: I am going to come back to a few things said today by members of the opposition, that it is about time governments, members of Parliament stood up for their beliefs, and Mr Daigeler saying that members of the governing party are objecting to this.

That is what we believe. Bryan, when we worked together in Guelph on the issue, you know where we were coming from. I was never in favour of the municipal option and still am not. Maybe we cannot convince the whole caucus, but at least we will try.

I think that is something that goes a long way from previous committees and previous governments, that we said, and the Premier said in the throne speech, we are going to go out; we are going to listen and consult; and that is what we will base it on. If the Premier said that, then I believe him. I think that is what this party wants to do. I think it is a change. Perhaps you can be smug and smile over there and say, "Yes, sure," but I believe that. Maybe I am a little bit naïve, but I do believe in that.

You already explained it quite well, Bryan, the stakeholders getting together. If the stakeholders get together, and we have the retailers, the unions and the other members of government set up some criteria for the tourist exemption areas, is that committee going to be so costly?

Mr Neath: No. I do not think the stakeholders committee will cost you more than the room, and you probably have room down in Queen's Park to fit us in. The cost I was referring to would be the cost of not having the municipal option, but the cost of setting up simply a provincial board to deal with the issue once the stakeholders set forth all of the regulations and set forth the criteria, etc.

You have to understand, I do not know all of that, but I understand that if you want to set up another board, the board will cost. If it is a labour board, it costs. If it is the Ontario Municipal Board, it costs. Another board will now cost, and that would be where the cost is, not the cost of setting the stakeholders up. There would be no costs. I would go free, Chuck would go free, we would all go free.

Mr Gyles: Bryan is exactly right. As far as we are concerned from the company point of view, there would not be any costs. We would like to have representatives. We would like to have this kind of session. With the frustrations we have gone through and the amount of money we have spent on this thing over the last number of years, it would be a welcome thing for us to attend, believe me.

Mr Fletcher: Chuck, as far as the 1988 submission is concerned you stand by that submission today as you did in 1988, because when I remember quoting from it in Toronto, Mr Sorbara informed me -- and it is unfortunate that he is not here -- that Loblaws did not stand by that position any more.

Mr Gyles: There has been some criticism of Loblaws that we have done a turnabout, if you will, but in fact that is not the case. We have always stood by that decision. There are a number of avenues that we felt we had to pursue. It is our survival in this thing and we were getting drastically hurt in our business by people who were finding the loopholes, etc.

So in some respects we threw up our hands in frustration and said, "The hell with this; we've got to do something." So we ended up opening and getting into the big battles in that regard. It is strictly through the frustration of the whole thing that we ended up appearing as though we had done a flip, but we really have not done one.

Mr Morrow: Yesterday afternoon I had to meet with the Minister of Education so I did not get to see your joint submission. So to me today this is really historic. We have business and labour basically saying that the legislation is not bad and let's work together and get something done. I am really proud of you for doing that.

Bryan, my first question goes to you. We have heard job gain, job gain, job gain on Sunday shopping. Is it not a fact that during wide-open Sunday shopping at A&P, we actually had a job loss of 200 to 300 jobs, I do believe, and that in most other places the hours per week were cut down by 3.14?

Mr Neath: That is absolutely true. Our records show that A&P lost 202 jobs over that particular period and our indication was that Loblaws went down 3.4 hours. You heard today from Loblaws saying exactly that.

What you had was a whole time frame where everybody went crazy and people said things they should not have said. People from Loblaws said things they maybe should not have said. I happened to be on Canada AM doing a show and someone from Loblaws was there, although not Chuck or more of the important people, saying, "No, we created jobs." It was part of an hysterical time and people went crazy. There just are not jobs that are being created.

There are two points I want to make here. When the people come here and say, "Oh, everybody wanted to work," who were they? They were the corporations. They were the big guys from Hudson's Bay, David Agnew, "Oh, we've got all kinds of people who want to work." I read down in Windsor that the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union that has the Bay under contract was just absolutely ecstatic when the law was struck down and the stores were closed. So David Agnew is not speaking for his people.

When they put together the 2,700 people they employed and all the money they made, those are people they have already in their employment and that is the money they already make, including the whole week. So let's not get confused. There are no jobs. There just is not a job. I stand by that.

Mr Morrow: Just one more quick comment before I turn the mike over to my colleague Mr Lessard. Chuck, this is for you. I have a really hard time --

The Chair: We are running out of time.

Mr Morrow: Let me ask my question and we will not run out of time.

I have a really hard time with businesses trying to sell us on the concept that we should be doing shopping on Sunday as a leisure activity. What are your comments on that?

1410

Mr Gyles: Certainly that is not our feeling. There are retailers out there who do believe that Sunday is good for their business. I am not in a position to speak for them. From National Grocers' point of view, that is not our position. We want the common pause day, obviously, and we just do not see any advantages in Sunday shopping.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Neath, Mr Gyles and Miss Shaw.

GRAHAM SCOTT

The Chair: We now have a presentation from the Appleby United Church, Dr Graham Scott. Welcome to our proceedings. You have about a quarter of an hour. I see you have a four-page submission. If it is possible, it would be nice for the committee members to pose questions to you at the end of your presentation.

Dr Scott: Chairperson, I have a way of reducing this to five minutes. I would like to emphasize that I am speaking simply on my own behalf in this brief; there has not been time to consult with large numbers of people. I believe, however, that my brief is consistent with the official United Church brief that went in in 1988.

I am really heartened by the comment of Allan Pilkey, Solicitor General, reported in the Toronto Star, that the principle of a common pause day is not up for negotiation.

I believe that Mr Pilkey has considerable, if not massive, support behind him in this comment, and I mention only three supports as briefly as I can. The religious traditions which have formed western civilization all stand for one common pause day in seven. Second, the courts have found the Ontario Retail Business Holidays Act to be constitutional. Finally, there was a poll that showed that 57% of the population was opposed to Sunday retailing. Other polls said other things. Those polls were, to my knowledge, often commissioned by interested parties but I have a feeling that the last election may have indicated that the 57% figure against Sunday retailing is rather close to the truth. So I believe that Mr Pilkey has a solid majority of Ontario voters behind him on this issue.

With regard to the precise amendments before us, I would say first that many of the amendments either contradict the principle of one common pause day or give it mere lipservice.

With regard to the amendments to the Retail Business Holidays Act, I can only see local option writ large. The amendment before us says, about municipal councils, in part, "The council's decision is final." That is local option with a vengeance. With local option there is the domino effect and with the domino effect the principle of a common pause day is simply contradicted.

The proposed criteria for tourist exemptions are so general that I would judge only garbage dumps and transfer stations to be ineligible for declaration by an interested local council as a tourist area. I give an example, but I will pass over that.

In brief, the criteria are so general that with local councils making the final decision most of Ontario would be a tourist area. I believe that, in fact, most of Ontario is a tourist area because you can find tourists everywhere in the province. I have been in many places in this province and I have seen tourists all over the place. But the regional municipality of Niagara, a tourist area if there ever was one, was informed in 1989 that only 1.8% of retail sales in the region came from tourists.

So I believe that all the concern about tourism is really smoke and mirrors for getting major retailers open to cater to the Ontario public. It is not for tourists; it is for the Ontario public. Against that plan, religion and law and I think the people of Ontario have spoken and it seems that the principle of the common pause day is speaking for itself, and so I argue that the tourist provisions of the amendment to the Retail Business Holidays Act are in effect contradictory to that principle of one common pause day in seven.

With regard to the amendments to the retail business establishments section of the Employment Standards Act, I judge them to be lipservice and ineffective. The amendment does little, if anything, to change the inherently vulnerable situation of the lone employee faced with the employer's expectation of working on Sundays and holidays.

The only sure way, in my opinion, to protect these individuals, most of whom are women, is to keep retailers closed on Sundays and holidays and that throughout the entire province. Failure to do that is to provide mere lipservice to the principle of one common pause day in seven.

I wonder if any of you know how many employment standards officers there are in Ontario and how the ordinary worker gets in touch with one of them. After great difficulty I found out that there are 120 and that the government is planning to hire 130 more. But in the greater Metropolitan Toronto area itself there are 2.1 million workers and quite a number of them are in the retail trade.

To summarize, I think that the amendments to which I have referred either contradict or merely pay lipservice to the principle of a common pause day and I would like to make some recommendations. First, scrap the tourist exemptions altogether. Second, amend the Retail Business Holidays Act so that only pharmacies of 1,000 square feet would be allowed to be open on Sundays and holidays, and, I would suggest, increase fines from $500 to $1,000 for the first offence and from $2,000 to anything between $5,000 and $20,000 maximum for subsequent offences.

I thank the committee for its patience and attention. I am open to questions.

The Acting Chair (Mr Kormos): Thank you, sir. Mr Daigeler, for four minutes, please.

Mr Daigeler: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. You always have the ability to get us right back on track with your forceful interventions.

The Acting Chair: I have taken that as a compliment.

Mr Daigeler: We will see what the end result is. We will judge by that.

I agree with you, Dr Scott, when you are saying that the amendments here that are being proposed give only lipservice to the avowed intention by the government to institute a common pause day. That is my main criticism, that they are really trumpeting their commitment to their promise in the election, but in reality the tourism exemptions are so wide that pretty well everything can be open.

You seem to be going very far with regard to eliminating tourism exemptions. In fact, you are saying eliminate it altogether. How serious are you about that? Even under the Tories we had tourism exemptions. I do not know when that was originally brought in, but certainly it has been there for a long time. Do you really think that people would accept that?

Dr Scott: In the sense that so little real retail business comes from the tourist, people will certainly accept that unless the poll that 57% of Ontario residents are against Sunday retailing is wrong. If that is wrong, maybe the population does want to have more, but I think the population would like something much clearer. The problem with the law is that when you get too many exemptions you simply get unfairness.

Mr Daigeler: And what would you say about the corner stores and flea markets, some of the flea markets that are held by churches on Sundays?

Dr Scott: I am not aware of any flea markets that are sponsored by churches on Sundays; certainly not mine. But I think that corner stores in the sense of family-operated stores are quite different from stores that employ large numbers of people, and chain stores. Quite frankly, my own personal position is that most of them could very well do with only six days of work a week.

1420

Mr Daigeler: You would basically close them as well. You were referring to family-owned corner stores. The presenters just before you are the owners of Hasty Markets. They consider themselves a corner store but certainly not -- if you consider Weston family-owned, I guess it could qualify under that criterion, but I do not think it would fill the objective you had in mind. You really would want to be very consistent with your own position and say pretty well everybody should be closed.

Dr Scott: That is right.

Mr Carr: I was interested in point 4 where you say Mr Pilkey has considerable, if not massive, support behind him in this comment of having a common pause day. I think you may be aware of what has transpired. I do not know whether the committee members know, but last night in Sarnia they voted to open the entire community as a tourism area. Since we have gone around, Collingwood has opened, Thunder Bay said it was going to do it and Kenora and Sault Ste Marie. Notwithstanding the statement made by the Solicitor General and in fact the Premier, and as outlined in the throne speech as well, many people are saying very clearly that unless there are changes like some of the ones you put in point 12 there, we are going to have Sunday shopping in the province. I take it that is what you see happening as well if there are no changes.

Dr Scott: I think it is a very distinct possibility, and the more exceptions you have, the more exceptions you are going to get. There will be a domino effect that way. That is clear evidence of precisely that.

Mr Carr: Your point 12(a) with regard to scrapping the tourism exemption: As you know, I suspect that was the biggest difficulty for the government when it formed it, and you may have heard some of the recommendations of some of the other groups that say, "What we need to do is sit down together and hammer those out." Are you saying to eliminate them because you do not feel they could be hammered out significantly for a tourist area, or is it because of some other reason?

Dr Scott: Since 1986 I have been seeing tourist exemption request after tourist exemption request, not the least of which was a request from the esteemed city of Welland before the Niagara regional council. It just seems to me that it is like Pandora's box, this particular exemption. It just seems to have more and more coming out of it. It seems to me the only way you are really going to get a handle on it is by closing it.

With regard to your little souvenir shops and things like that, I think that having a maximum number of square feet in the range of, say, 1,000 -- let's say this room is 2,000 -- it is still a big shop. I think you might get a handle on things. I do not know where the 7,500 square feet is coming from. I saw it in one of the minister's remarks. I do not see it in the legislation, but I may be blind.

Mr Carr: It is in the regulations.

Dr Scott: I see. I think that is very much opening everything wide.

Mr Carr: With regard to some of the other comments of some other workers, as you know, one of the reasons they said they wanted to bring in the common pause day was to protect people from having to work on Sundays. Do you think that can be brought in? And there is some talk of trying to bring it in for other workers now to help those workers who are not covered. Some of these measures that are being introduced would help protect some of the workers. Do you think that can be done in other sectors? Would you like to see something brought in so that other sectors, for example somebody at Stelco who might have to work, could opt out if they wanted because of religious reasons as well?

Dr Scott: Yes, I understand the question. I think it is quite complex. I would like to think very carefully before I gave an answer on that. It is sufficient, I think, to say that the Ontario Retail Business Holidays Act is a model but it is not the only way in which to ensure rights for workers. I think that unions -- and Stelco has a union -- are very effective in ensuring rights for workers. I think that is another way of doing it.

Mr Carr: Many of the groups have come in and said they wanted to have pharmacies open on an emergency basis. Maybe you heard the earlier presentation where they said a lot of them are not pharmacies, and I think we got some information distributed to show that. Outside of limiting to 1,000 square feet, is there any other way you see that we can do it, that we could have it for drugs that are needed that I think everybody says are essential, but without getting into this square footage?

Dr Scott: Oh, yes. At one time in Ontario I think pharmacies would take turns being open on a Sunday. I know when I lived in Strasbourg, France, every quartier had one pharmacy open on a Sunday. Everyone knew which one would be open and you simply went there. It worked very satisfactorily. We had a young baby who needed a lot of medicine and we were never in any trouble. I think that is one way of ensuring that.

The main point about the 1,000 square feet is that many pharmacies today are not really in the pharmacy business. They are competing with grocery stores and other shops.

Mr O'Connor: If you have been around here for a little bit and listened to some of the presentations, you realize we are in put in the position of trying to decide something that has a tremendous impact on very many people in the province. One thing that seems to be pointed out to us and that there is a real contradiction in is the tourism and the fact that tourism is an important industry to the province and how it can be enhanced. Would you agree with the fact that what we need to do perhaps is to look at sitting down with the stakeholders and looking at the tourist criteria to see if perhaps that is not an area that needs to be tightened up, as opposed to throwing it out completely and ignoring the retail portion of tourism?

Dr Scott: When I heard that and saw the union and National Grocers together, I thought that there was room here for some very constructive work.

Mr O'Connor: Perhaps we should get the stakeholders together and talk about the retailing aspect of tourism.

Dr Scott: I would think that would be an appropriate thing to do. Whether you would get an agreement I am not sure, but it is worth a try, do you not think?

Mr O'Connor: For sure. We have seen a broad range of opinions.

Mr Mills: Usually I do not get very much to say here because I am the parliamentary assistant to the minister and I sit back here and listen to all the negative things people say, make notes and hopefully talk to the minister about them later on down the road. However, I must tell you, and clear up a misconception. There are three principles here that are not open for discussion. You mentioned one. The position of the government is that we are not negotiating the common pause day here. That, in law, has been upheld by the Constitution that is in place. The second part that is not up for negotiation is the protection of retail workers, and the third part is that we are dedicated to enhancing the family perspective in Ontario, the opportunities to get together. I must say that, contrary to a lot of things you have heard here, I have great confidence in Bill 115 and its ability to address many of the issues that have been brought up here.

The Acting Chair: Dr Scott, do you want to respond or wrap up briefly?

Dr Scott: Could I simply ask a question? Are 250 employment standards officers capable of fulfilling that mandate?

Mr Mills: I am going to say that we must have some faith in business and that it is not out there to circumvent the law. I think we have to address that. Many businesses and companies are very reputable and respect the law. For people to think that the majority of businesses are not going to respect the law would be bad judgement, I think.

The Acting Chair: Notwithstanding that, your question, like the rest of your comments, Dr Scott, is well made and we all thank you very much for taking the time to come and talk to us this afternoon. Please take care.

1430

HAMILTON AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL

The Chair: Mr Adamcyzk from the Hamilton and District Labour Council. Good afternoon, Brother Adamcyzk. Could you introduce your colleague.

Mr Adamcyzk: This is Maureen McCarthy, who is the vice-president of the Hamilton and District Labour Council.

The Chair: You have about half an hour. Please take as much time as you wish, but I am sure the members will be eager to pose questions to you, sir.

Mr Adamcyzk: The Hamilton and District Labour Council is pleased to have an opportunity to appear before this committee to present its views on the proposed changes to the Retail Business Holidays Act regarding Sunday shopping. The Hamilton and District Labour Council is composed of 130 affiliated unions and represents over 30,000 workers in the Hamilton area. We are affiliated to the Ontario Federation of Labour and chartered by the Canadian Labour Congress. The Hamilton and District Labour Council has a long history of supporting and promoting the concept of a common pause day for workers.

It is interesting to note that in the 1870s, organized labour formed the first nine-hour league right here in Hamilton. Their goal was to reduce hours of work, thereby allowing workers the then unheard-of luxury of leisure time with their families. It is this principle that we wish to address today. We appreciate the government's efforts to bring forward legislation which will protect the rights of most workers in Ontario to a common pause day. In order to ensure this right, we would like to direct our comments to several key areas that we feel need to be clarified within the proposed legislation.

The municipal option: As with the legislation implemented by the previous Liberal government, decisions to allow stores to open on Sundays and holidays remain in the hands of municipalities. The amendments propose regulations and criteria with regard to tourist exemptions, yet these regulations and criteria are so broad that almost anyone could fit the guidelines for a tourist exemption. This could result in wide-open Sunday shopping and Sunday working across the province. We suggest that the needs of tourism in this province can be accommodated while at the same time ensuring a common pause day for most Ontario workers by making the following changes.

1. The council of a municipality may permit retail establishments to open on Sundays and holidays only where it is essential for the maintenance or development of a true tourist area. In addition, there should be a mechanism whereby interested parties can appeal a decision of a municipality. This would ensure that retailers cannot use the guise of a tourist area to get an exemption.

2. Stores that are allowed to open must be limited to no more than 4,000 square feet, and at no time should the number of persons working on Sundays and holidays exceed four.

3. The government should establish a committee of those affected stakeholders to provide input on a new set of guidelines regarding tourist criteria. These stakeholders must include representatives from all the affected groups, including labour.

Drugstores: When drugstores were first allowed to open on Sundays, it was to provide for the emergency pharmaceutical needs of the public. Since that time drugstores have expanded their operation to include large selections of products, including housewares and foodstuffs, to the point where in some cases only 20% of the store's sales are of a pharmaceutical nature. There is ample opportunity to purchase these types of sundry products in the many convenience stores that are allowed to open.

We feel this situation must be addressed in the new legislation, as this is what leads more retailers to claim they do not have a level playing field. We suggest that the total area used for the selling of products and services should be less than 2,400 square feet, and that no more than four workers shall be engaged in the service of the public. This includes the pharmacist who must be present during the business hours. This would ensure that the emergency needs for medication are provided, which is the real reason for drugstores remaining open on Sunday.

Enforcement: If a retailer is convicted of opening illegally, the proposed legislation provides a minimum fine of $500 on the first offence and $2,000 on the second. Although we support the principle of minimum fines, we do not believe this is enough of a deterrent. In some cases retailers may consider this a licence to operate. The Hamilton and District Labour Council would like to see a minimum fine of $10,000 for a first offence and $20,000 thereafter. Further to this, any affected or interested party should be allowed to make application to the Supreme Court for an injunction ordering a retail establishment to close or comply with this act. This would serve to deter retailers from opening illegally on Sundays and holidays, in addition to lowering the cost of enforcing the legislation.

What is a retail business? In many areas, giant retailers are calling themselves membership clubs in order to circumvent the Retail Business Holidays Act. These membership clubs must be included in the definition of a retail business and subject to the same law as other retailers.

Common pause day: In order to ensure that Sundays and holidays remain common pause days, we must ensure they remain (1) days on which most businesses are not open, and (2) days on which most persons do not have to work. The Hamilton and District Labour Council believes that the amendments we have proposed will recognize the right of workers to a common day of leisure which they can spend with their families and also fulfil the needs of and promote genuine tourism.

The Hamilton Spectator reported on Tuesday, August 6, 1991, that industry is no longer our city's top employer. Factories have been replaced by stores and shopping malls; 28% of Hamilton's workforce is now employed in the retail sector.

But when we examine these two areas of employment, they simply do not compare. Retail jobs by and large are non-union, low-paid and often of a part-time nature. Most of these jobs are filled by women who in these recessionary times have no choice but to work outside the home. Their income is necessary for survival, not for luxuries. Many people in retail find that full-time work is not available, so they hold two and sometimes three different jobs in order to make one full-time job. These people count on that one day where they know they will not be required to work. The only way to ensure this is if the majority of stores are closed on Sunday.

On November 12, 1991, when the electorate of the Hamilton-Wentworth region go to the polls, they will be asked, "Are you in favour of Sunday shopping, yes or no?" They will not be given the opportunity to choose whether they want to work on Sunday, just shop. Should this plebiscite come back in favour of Sunday shopping, does that mean Hamilton-Wentworth regional council is prepared to declare the region a tourist area? Some municipalities have already done so. We must prevent the tourist criteria from being used to circumvent the intent of the Retail Business Holidays Act.

In conclusion, the Hamilton and District Labour Council would like to thank the committee for allowing us the opportunity to express our concerns regarding the proposed legislation on Sunday shopping/working. We feel the proposed changes to the Retail Business Holidays Act are a step in the right direction, yet we urge this government to consider our recommendations in order to ensure that the right of retail workers and their families to a common pause day is protected.

If I could just make a couple of comments before we answer any questions, most of the activists in the labour movement, and I can speak for Hamilton, usually go seven days a week anyway. It is hard for us to get any quality time with our families. Besides being the president of the labour council, I am also a Steelworkers staff representative, which means that I keep pretty busy.

To me, spending a Sunday walking through a mall with my family is not what I call quality time.

Not only that, previous to being hired full-time by the Steelworkers, I worked at Stelco, and I knowingly hired on to work in a seven-day continuous operation. That meant that I worked more Sundays than I got off. When I was a bit younger, it was not too bad to work the Sunday. I think our premium at that time at Stelco was a dollar and a quarter an hour, which I guess comes out to about, what, $10 extra for working a Sunday. Even under the collective agreement, on a Monday, for a stat holiday, we would get paid double-time and a half, and that was not too bad in my younger days either.

But it got to the point after about 11 or 12 years at Stelco that, first, Sundays mean a lot to me as a family man. You miss the small things of watching your children grow up, and let's face it, baptisms normally do not happen on a Tuesday or a Wednesday morning; usually they are on Sunday. Family get-togethers do not happen on a Tuesday or Wednesday, normally it is on a Sunday, because society has been geared to life around the weekend. Everybody knows the term, "Thank God it's Friday," because here is the weekend, we have got time off.

1440

Even on double-time and a half -- let me talk about the premium -- it got to the point for me as an individual, and a lot of the people I worked with, the double-time-and-a-half day we would rather have off, because if a Monday was a stat holiday, we were either working or it was our regular day off and we got a premium for it, but a lot of people were prepared to have another lieu day off somewhere else down the line.

The common pause day is important to me as an individual and it is also important to a lot of the people I represent in the Steelworkers. I think the Sunday work and the weekend work for a lot of people causes strains on marriages. I think if you read in the papers nowadays you see everybody is talking about the breakdown of the nuclear family, and how it is so important that somehow we have got to get back to the old type of family relationships. While their parents are off working on a Saturday or a Sunday, our children are looking for guidance and companionship from either the father figure, and in a lot of cases nowadays, because of single-parent families, the father is not around, they are looking for their mother to be around.

Also I think that in the reference in our submission about where the jobs are being created, in this area anyway, they are not in the manufacturing sector, because Hamilton is being devastated by this recession. In the last four years as a Steelworkers staff representative I have negotiated four closure agreements, and it is not a happy thing to go through. The people, as we try to get them retrained and into other employment, are not going back to the workforce to the $12- and $13- and maybe $14-an-hour jobs that they previously held. As the submission says, a lot of the jobs being created are in the service sector, where we have a lot of women who are working in those sectors. Basically what we have in a lot of cases in this area is the working poor, which is I guess another issue.

Those are my opening comments and we will be prepared to take any questions from anybody.

Mr Poirier: Thank you for bringing us the perspective of what is happening in Hamilton. Like I told Bryan earlier, it is very difficult for us, because we hear very different opinions on this, and we will do our best with what we can. Obviously Hamilton has been quite affected by the recession, as you mentioned, and we will try to take into consideration the points you brought forward. You are quite correct about what is happening to the families and whatever. We all see that, and some of us here actually go through it, so we know very well what you are talking about.

Even though it was brought up this morning about the rotation and the seniority of members of the Steelworkers, for example, that is also a very difficult situation, whereas some of the longest-serving members do not want to work on a Sunday any more, and rightly so. That is what you have witnessed also with your work? Have you seen that in other sectors also?

Mr Adamczyk: Where the senior people do not want to work?

Mr Poirier: Yes.

Mr Adamczyk: I have not experienced that myself, no.

Mr Poirier: But apart from the Steelworkers and other unions, have you seen that?

Mr Adamczyk: Not unless Maureen can answer that.

Ms McCarthy: I believe you are referring to Bob Sutton's comments earlier this morning.

Mr Poirier: Correct.

Ms McCarthy: Just to state a bit of my background, I am on staff with the UFCW. I was hired in October of 1990. Before that I worked 13 years with one of the major retailers. I think preferred hours is something we see in the industry and I think it is something senior people would like to have. It is certainly something you see in retail. So I would imagine that in most industries you would see that for senior people. I do not know if is possible, but the desire is there.

Mr Poirier: Globally from the labour council, what have you seen about workers' attitude about Sunday? Those who do work on Sunday, they want to or they feel forced to, or what have you found?

Ms McCarthy: They do not want to.

Mr Adamczyk: Going back to my own experience at Stelco, it was a job, and like I say, I hired on, but if I had my druthers, if somebody said, "How would you like to work Monday to Friday?" I would take that. I do not think anybody really wants to work a Sunday.

Mrs Cunningham: I am looking more at the technicalities of one of your recommendations here, and I would also like to thank you for very much for appearing before the committee. I am trying to pursue the issue of the tourist criteria. You have taken the same stand as the Ontario Federation of Labour and others, and I certainly think it is a good beginning.

My first question would be, do you think the existing Bill 115 in fact does protect a common day of pause? Second, if we take your advice that we set up the tourist criteria, in your view that would then be a provincial responsibility with regard to a set of rules or laws or regulations, that at least we have some consistency across the province? Is that your intent? Is it the consistency, or is it that we then could in fact have a common day of pause?

Ms McCarthy: As far as the tourism criteria are concerned, we do believe that Bill 115 addresses the issue and actually defines the issue. What we would like is a stronger definition. As far as a body to regulate that is concerned, what we would like to see is an appeals procedure set out for interested parties to be able to appeal decisions.

It is still in the hands of the municipalities. I think it was stated in the brief that we have seen municipalities that have declared themselves tourist areas. In the Niagara Peninsula we had an experience where they wanted to declare a vacant lot a tourist area because somebody wanted to build a mall there.

What we want to see is a clear definition of what a tourist is, and when we are talking about businesses being open for the reason of tourism, we are talking about true tourist-type businesses where somebody goes in and buys a souvenir from Ontario. That is why we stayed at the 4,000-square-feet limit.

Mrs Cunningham: I think it is interesting. I think that in itself, the 4,000 feet, will be controversial, just as the size of the drugstores were in the last round. I suppose one of the problems of doing business in Ontario is that we have seen so many changes in the last three or four years. It is sort of hard to gear your industry to the rules. Let's hope that we come up with some solid resolutions. But given the position of your party two years ago where you were against the municipal option, I am just wondering why you seem to be in favour of it this time.

Ms McCarthy: Good question. I guess Bill 115 is something that is improving on what the Liberal legislation was, where municipalities had the right to just open it wide up or not. When we talk about a central body to appeal, we could be talking about the MBO. The logistics of that are something that certainly must be debated, and of course -- I think Bryan was talking about it earlier -- there is a certain cost attached to that. That is something that has to be considered when you are talking about the regulations. But I think the point remains that if you are going to allow exemptions for tourism, you must have some appeals procedure in place where interested parties can voice their views on what a municipality does.

Mrs Cunningham: I agree and I think that it has to be the provincial government's responsibility. The OMB was considered in the last round and ruled out. I think you meant the OMB, did you not?

Ms McCarthy: I did.

Mrs Cunningham: It is all right. I do not know how we keep up with all these titles.

Therefore, we do have some legislation in New Brunswick, where they actually have a separate board. It happens to be the liquor control board there, for the sake of not wanting to duplicate bureaucracy.

Just since you mentioned Bryan, I had a chat with him afterwards. The amount of money municipalities are paying just to put ads in newspapers and hire staff to listen to the numbers of presentations before special standing committees of the municipal governments -- we all pay for that. I think it would be much less expensive to have a single body that people really had to think about going before, because it will be costly, before they start using the appeal process. I just thought you might have gone a step further, that is all. Maybe you will as a result of these hearings, and I am sure we will have to consider it as well.

Ms McCarthy: That is certainly very important. Every municipality is different, and before any exemptions are allowed, public input has to be considered before that is done.

Mr Morrow: Thank you very much, Bryan and Maureen, for that fine presentation. Some 30,000 members in Hamilton and District Labour Council is a heck of a lot of people, so you are obviously here representing an awfully large group of people in this city.

I just wanted to clarify something that I have always believed in and I still believe in, and that Bob Sutton believed in this morning, that the municipal option is basically for the birds. Can I clarify that labour council also agrees with that stand?

Ms McCarthy: It was mentioned quite a few times today that we have all changed our position a great deal since as far back as two years ago. If the municipal option is something we have to live with, then I think we have to have a mechanism to deal with that.

Mr Morrow: If we had our druthers, though, we would probably not like to live with that.

Ms McCarthy: Probably not.

Mr Morrow: We know Hamilton is having a plebiscite on Sunday shopping. Do you really feel there should be another line in there? What do you feel about Sunday working?

Ms McCarthy: Certainly. I think that would give a true indication of how people feel on the issue. I think the results of this plebiscite will be interesting to see, though, considering the figure of 28% of people in Hamilton employed in the service sector.

Mr Morrow: You are right. Thanks very much.

Mr Fletcher: Thank you for your presentation. Maybe they should put down, "Will city council work on Sunday?" also and see how far that goes.

It is great. Today has been one of those days where the chamber of commerce came in and made a presentation, and when they were asked, "Would you like to see a committee set up to set the criteria?" they said, "Yes, we would." We had the United Food and Commercial Workers Union saying, "Yes, we would." The Ontario Federation of Labour, the Steelworkers, the labour council, Loblaws: "Yes, let's set something up. Let's get together and work on this." Appleby United Church, the same thing.

It is great to see there is this level of co-operation we can strive for, that we can hit. The problem now is to put it into action and try to get it going. I know that you are not going to let us stop here, that there is a lot of work to do and a lot of lobbying to do.

One thing, though. The chambers of commerce are coming at us across the province, saying: "Free enterprise. Let the marketplace dictate." Why not? Why does the labour council not agree with that position, or does it?

Ms McCarthy: I do not think the marketplace does dictate wide-open Sunday shopping, and there are several reasons for that. The people from Loblaws said they found that there was a novelty at the beginning and that people went in there just to check it out, but after being open for a while, business dropped off. I do not think the business is there.

The point was also made that people only have so much money to spend. Whether they spend it Monday to Saturday or seven days a week, they will not have any more money to spend. Our experience during the time that the stores were open -- and I was still employed with a retail food store at that point in time -- was they were ghost towns. People are just not in there, and the people who are in there are going in there to buy something like milk and bread that they can get at a convenience store.

Mr Adamczyk: Let me just respond to the free-enterprise issue. I guess in some ways the free-enterprise system is good. We are facing unemployment here now. I was going to say that it provides work for a lot of people, for most people, but still we are hurting, and I do not think the hurting is over yet.

But part of the free-enterprise system is also advertising and marketing. When a new product comes on the TV, they tell me, the consumer, that I need this brand of toothpaste. If I do not have it, I do not fit in or I have bad breath or whatever. The same with the Sunday shopping. People are telling me as a consumer that here are all the benefits of Sunday shopping, without taking into consideration my family life. To me, they are trying to make a decision for me. I think we have to get back to putting a little bit of emphasis on the family and that common pause day.

On the issue of talking, getting a group of people together from different sectors to talk about, walk through, maybe define what a tourism area is and what some of the regulations should be, so often we have been hearing as a labour council lately about empowerment back to the people, in the words of stakeholders over the years. I think that is one way of empowering people to have some decision based on, perhaps, the direction the municipality is going and how some of the laws are going to be changed.

Mr Fletcher: I think you are absolutely right. I think it is time to get some people back into the decision-making process.

CANADIAN LORD'S DAY ASSOCIATION BRANTFORD AND HAMILTON AUXILIARIES

The Chair: We now have a presentation from the Canadian Lord's Day Association: Jan Droogendyk, Fred Jonkman, Allan Brokking and Alvin Brunsveld.

Mr Jonkman: We would like to thank the standing committee, for the opportunity to come here and to speak to you. We represent the Canadian Lord's Day Association, Brantford and Hamilton auxiliaries.

My name is Fred Jonkman. With me are Mr Jan Droogendyk, Mr Alvin Brunsveld and Mr Allan Brokking.

The Canadian Lord's Day Association is a Canada-wide association of people who desire to uphold the sanctity of the Lord's Day, also called the Christian Sabbath or Sunday. Auxiliary branches are formed within the network of the association. These then work on a localized level under a central or national council. Our membership ranges across different denominations and scales diverse areas of Ontario and across Canada.

The aims of an auxiliary branch are, first of all, to uphold the sanctity of the Lord's Day upon the basis of the scriptural declaration that one day in seven was blessed and hallowed by God during man's innocence; that it became enshrined in the 10 commandments, is confirmed throughout the Old Testament, is now observed as the first day of the week to commemorate Christ's resurrection from the dead and since called the Lord's Day, with divine authority and of perpetual obligation.

Second, we aim to educate public opinion and organize Christian effort towards promoting the aforementioned purpose of preserving the sanctity of the Lord's Day and towards securing regular family attendance at the public worship of God throughout that holy day.

1500

Third, our aim is to promote and uphold the beliefs set forth in our basis of constitution; namely, belief in the triune God, the essential deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, His incarnation and virgin birth, the truthfulness of all His words, His atoning vicarious death upon Calvary for sin, His bodily resurrection, His ascension and His coming again, and belief in the whole Bible as the inspired word of God.

Responsibility and accountability to keep the Sabbath holy: As auxiliary branches, we endeavour to point out that all mankind is in duty bound to observe the sanctity of the Lord's Day, for violation of the observance of the Christian Sabbath is detrimental to the welfare of both soul and body, society and country, but above all, contrary to the first and great commandment, which is, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy mind and with all thy strength." It also brings no justice to the second, which reads, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." It is found in Matthew 22: 37-39.

With respect to the observance of the Sabbath particularly, we find in the fourth commandment: "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it." Exodus 20: 8-11.

The keeping of the Sabbath is valid for all mankind. The word "remember" points back to Creation when Adam, before his fall into sin, lived in accordance to the pattern of God, who rested on the seventh day from all His work, blessed and sanctified it. The word "remember" also points to the past, present and future rest purchased by Christ's death and resurrection. As we find in the Bible the sanctity of the Sabbath day, we also find the day being changed from the seventh day to the first day. The day has changed, but God's laws are unalterable.

In Revelations, the apostle John was "in the spirit on the Lord's Day," being the first day of the week, set aside to commemorate the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, which is the cornerstone of the Christian faith and an open door to a new Creation purchased by Christ's death and resurrection. He has the authority to do this, for He is God first of all and also Lord of the Sabbath.

It is not the intent of our committee to seek to rest the blame squarely on the shoulders of the politicians of today or the current government. We admit that the fault that so many desire business to conduct a full week of operation and that people wish to shop and not worship God is that we, as a nation and personally, have not kept the Sabbath holy as we should. We cannot call the changes that have occurred over the years with respect to the Sabbath day as advancement, but sadly must call it decline.

In light of all this, we would urge you as a committee to advise the government against the legislation of Bill 115 since it does not conform to the scriptural observance of the Lord's Day. Moreover, not only do those in authority have personal responsibility and accountability, but also as rulers have governmental authority in making decisions and passing legislation affecting all of society. The laws passed must be scriptural.

For a proper functioning of society, it is crucial that our leaders do not usurp authority beyond the boundaries and limits that are given by God and that the citizens obey all the laws that are in accordance with scripture. In Romans 13, we read: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God...For he is the minister of God to thee for good."

We ask that as a committee, you spell out to the government that it is necessary to view with concern the changing trends in regard to the sanctity of the Lord's Day and to do what is in their power to curb these alarming changes, channelling them in the stream of biblical conformity.

Mr Brokking: Effects of disregarding the sanctity of the Lord's Day: In today's pluralistic society, with so many conflicting views, it is necessary that Christian principles for both life and practice in commemorating the first day of the week be held high in our land.

To give more access to Sunday shopping would result in:

1. Bringing the judgement of God on us both personally and nationally.

2. Bringing a society forward in seeking only monetary gain, while leaving biblical morality and truth behind, "For what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?" Mark 8.

3. Bringing conflicts between employers and employees, municipalities, councils and legislators, to name just a few, which are harmful to society.

4. Much physical stress and hardship; our body is made to need one day in seven for rest.

5. Less communication between parents and children. Parents are busy with their businesses or shopping and children are sent to day care or relatives, lacking the parental guidance required to rear a child with proper values.

6. Less time for husband and wife to share their life and love for each other, each seeking job satisfaction instead, resulting in higher divorce.

7. Inability to cope with the excessive fast pace of life, having no true happiness, showing mental fatigue resulting in increased nervous breakdown, depression and suicide.

After all this, no more wares will be sold in a seven-day shopping week than in a six.

Benefits of keeping the Sabbath holy: It was an atheist who said, "If you would destroy Christianity, you must first kill Sunday." This is what is taking place in our land. Sunday is a Christian holy day. To deny this is to deny God's word, our country's Christian heritage, our history books, our former parliamentarians' beliefs, as well as our own conscience. Sunday shopping is a religious issue. To leave the guide of biblical absolutes results in degradation and chaos. The off-colour phrase, "Shop till you drop" does exactly that. It drops all biblical rule and deprives itself of the favour of God.

"If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on My holy day; and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honourable; and shalt honour Him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words: Then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it." Isaiah 58: 13-14.

How would we dare state in view of biblical truth that the Lord's Day, Sunday, is not a religious but is only a secular pause day? Is it not undeniable?

Mr Droogendyk: We would like to make some practical remarks about Bill 115 regarding the amendments to the Retail Business Holidays Act and to the Employment Standards Act.

Part 1, in regards to the Retail Business Holidays Act: Amended 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 holidays for the maintenance or development of tourism." In the first place, does this take all power away from section 2, as well as section 3? We wonder what logic there is in establishing a law and then defeating its purpose, especially in the same act. In the second place, we ask how far will this be stretched? When we start developing and promoting tourism we keep other people from their pause day.

Subsection 4(2) states, "The council in passing a bylaw under subsection (1) shall take into account...that holidays are common pause days and should be maintained as common pause days." We ask, how can a municipality permit retail business establishments to open on holidays and on the Lord's Day, and yet maintain that such a day should be a common pause day? We think that the common pause day which you are proposing will lose the common aspect in a very short time, especially when we take subsection 4(3) into account.

1510

Subsection 4(3) deals with the tourism criteria. We feel that the regulations made under this act are open to a wide interpretation. Any retail business could qualify, for each municipality has its own attractions, be it cultural or ethnic. Think of Hamilton with its large Italian population, or of Brantford with its Bell telephone and in the near future the opening of an interactive communications complex. There is also the possibility of Christmastime as a theme exemption.

Subsection 4(10) governs the regulations which can be made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. We are afraid that when the Lieutenant Governor in Council can make any other regulations despite the regulations set out in this act, it would be possible to have different regulations for each municipality.

Subsection 4(11) states that the Lieutenant Governor in Council "may classify retail business establishments and may prescribe different tourism criteria for the different classes of retail business establishments." This is an open ballpark. What are the criteria based upon? Are they patterns of travel or an historical base? Almost every place has historical or natural attractions. Does this make it a tourist area? It is obvious that it would create a snowball effect and all of Ontario would become a tourist area.

Clauses 4.2(a) to (f) deal with the contents of the bylaws and the regulations. These sections could prove to be very discriminatory. How could it be justified to allow, for example, one business to open up for business and not the next one? Bylaws could allow businesses to be open on Sunday, the Lord's Day, and not on other holidays. So, again, what will happen to the idea of a common pause day?

Subsection 7(3.1) states, "The minimum fine for an offence under this act, other than for a contravention of subsection 2(2), is $500 for a first offence and $2,000 for any subsequent offence." This is definitely not a deterrent for businesses to break the law. As a matter of fact, the meagre fine encourages them to do so. Business profits will easily offset these fines.

Mr Brunsveld: The Employment Standards Act: Subsection 39e(2) states there are certain exemptions. We, as the Canadian Lord's Day Association, feel all businesses should be closed on the Lord's Day. In a reference to section 39eb we believe every employee should have the right to refuse any type of work on that day for religious reasons, with the exception of works of necessity and of mercy.

Section 39ec states that employers cannot take any disciplinary action against employees who refuse to work on the Lord's Day. We support this section of the Employment Standards Act, but we think that it will be very difficult to enforce. Some employers can just reduce the number of hours for workers, especially part-timers who refuse to work on Sundays, or they could even fire employees without giving a reason.

Section 39f deals with what can be done when an employer contravenes section 39ea or section 39ec. It will be a difficult and very subjective decision to be made by the employment standards officer, especially since the law is full of loopholes and has no teeth. Furthermore, another employment standards officer could come to a totally different conclusion as the law is not specific.

According to a recent article in the Brantford Expositor, a shoe store employee was fired for refusing to work Sundays. Julie Manuel lost her job as assistant manager at a Kinney shoe store in London last July. She has now been ordered reinstated with back pay and interest, according to the Ontario Ministry of Labour. Manuel filed a complaint to the ministry, and George Adams, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, was appointed referee. He held hearings in April and May of this year before ruling in June in Manuel's favour.

Adams ordered her reinstated partly because the employer fired her without first taking the dispute to the employment standards branch, as required under the Employment Standards Act. In addition, the Ontario Human Rights Code prohibits discrimination on the basis of creed. The company should have made every effort to accommodate Manuel's request not to work on Sundays, the ruling said.

It will be a difficult decision for Manuel whether to take her job back or to accept a severance package. Do you not think that the unity between employer and employee will be gone?

We, as the Canadian Lord's Day Association, feel that Bill 115 would do more harm than good. We believe there should not be any exemptions for businesses to open on the Lord's Day. There should be one such law which requires all businesses to remain closed. Such a law would be much easier to enforce. We think this bill would not stand up in court since there are too many open areas which could easily lead to discrimination.

Our auxiliary branches of the Canadian Lord's Day Association would strongly advise our governing officials to produce legislation which conforms to the infallible holy word of God, for He alone can bless and prosper this rich province.

We would like to thank you for the opportunity to present our views on the behalf of the Wentworth-Brant auxiliaries of the Canadian Lord's Day Association, and we welcome any further questions.

Mr Daigeler: I am just wondering what the Canadian Lord's Day Association is involved with other than the relatively rare occasions to make a presentation to a committee such as ours. Do you have any other objectives? What does the association work for?

Mr Jonkman: The association in itself is a young association. We started in 1986, and the first few years have been basically trying to get organized and trying to gather members. Canada being a big country, we are working Canada-wide, but here in Ontario, of course, we have auxiliary branches. The idea is to continue to keep abreast with the government policies on Lord's Day and the changes that are being made but also to educate the public, so we are presently printing pamphlets, little books, and that sort of stuff to instruct people on our biblical viewpoint on the Lord's Day.

1520

Mr Carr: The question I have relates a little bit along the same lines of what your association is doing. There are many people who say that once Sunday shopping comes in you can never go back, and that was the same argument when movie theatres opened and ballparks and so on. I was just wondering how successful you have been in places like British Columbia, to go into the people to have Sunday as Lord's Day and not have Sunday shopping. Are you meeting with much success out in some of the other provinces? Where are you at with that?

Mr Jonkman: I would say that is a difficult question to answer in one sentence because as a council that began with members here in Ontario, Canada-wide we are trying to establish contacts with other people throughout Canada in organizing in this way. We do have a group out in British Columbia which at the same time we hope remains adhering to our constitution. At the same time, we leave them to work on their own within their own provinces because of the fact that every province has different laws, different regulations, different standards, and so forth.

For us here in Ontario, we are concentrating on Ontario. That is why we are here. To say exactly what they are doing in BC, we do not really know. In the other provinces, we are still trying to get contacts.

Mr O'Connor: I want to thank you for coming here and making your presentation. If you have been here for a while you realize that the task before us is quite onerous. I noticed on page 6, number 3, you mention that we are going to bring "conflicts between employers and employees, municipalities, councils and legislators." I just want to point out that the purpose of the standing committee touring through the province and trying to get some input from people is not to promote more conflicts but to try to come up with a comprehensive piece of legislation that we all have some very strong feelings on, and the feelings that have been brought forward will all be part of that. So we try to develop it and do it with as little conflict as possible, and you have helped us by bringing and making your presentation, as so many presenters have as well. I wanted to thank you for coming, and I just try to wrest some of those fears aside.

The Chair: Thank you very much, gentlemen, for your very studied and carefully prepared presentation.

Mr Jonkman: If I could just make one closing remark, we as an association, of course, in coming here noticed right away people with a button saying, "Say No to Sunday Shopping." I think that is in a brief way what we would like to see, that the province be very clear in closing down Sunday shopping so that there is no conflict, so that people do have that one day set aside for worship. We are not forcing anybody to go to worship but we think everybody should have that opportunity. I think it is just creating a bad position for the province and for its people in that regard.

DRUMMOND HOME HARDWARE

The Chair: Our next presenter is Mr Ray Matthews from Drummond Home Hardware, Drummond Road, Niagara Falls. I spoke with Mr Matthews briefly. He has a little placard with some pictures on it. With the indulgence of the committee, I would like to allow him to circulate it.

Mr Kormos: You are darned right.

Mr Matthews: We all know we are here for one reason, concerning Sundays.

The Chair: I cannot think of anything that better exemplifies the common pause day than Mr Matthews with his grandchildren.

Mr Matthews: That is my car in the basement.

Mr Poirier: I just knew it.

Mr Matthews: They would not let me park it out in the front. I tried to bribe him, but I still could not get it out in the front.

Mr Carr: You tried to bribe him? You cannot do that.

Mr Matthews: They have been around for two years. Mrs Cunningham is not here now but she looked at that picture two years ago at another committee meeting we had.

The Chair: You have been with us for a good part of the day, Mr Matthews, so you are certainly aware of the procedure. You have approximately a quarter-hour. Please go ahead.

Mr Matthews: I realize it is late. It is 20 after three. It has been a long day and it looks like the committee probably needs a seventh-inning stretch.

I, Ray Matthews, and my wife are the proud owners of Drummond Home Hardware for the past 19 years in Niagara Falls. We employ five full-time, local, married employees. We hopefully will do $1 million in sales this year. We are the little guys, but we are still the large majority.

I represent and speak for well over 80 Home Hardware dealers in Ontario. I represent over 700 of their employees along with over 7,000 signatures consisting of the general public in our region of Niagara, and this is all in your office.

We strenuously object to Sunday retail shopping and are 100% opposed to any further exemptions as of last March 1991.

This is approximately the 10th public meeting that I have spoken to and attended against Sunday retail shopping. Most of these were at our Niagara regional council. I find it ironic and kind of unfair that at each meeting I am told I have only 10 to 15 minutes to speak; 15 minutes to save all of my future Sundays. I do not know how it can be done when our regional government can take all the time it needs. Who could know more about retail shopping, the retail businessman or someone not in business? But I will certainly try my best.

Apparently I have been very naïve in the past for believing that Sunday in our society would always remain a sacred and family leisure day. I still believe it, because every report, every survey and every group I speak to believes that Sunday shopping should remain this way. We do have one group called Committee for Fair Shopping that would like Sunday shopping for their convenience, but I never seem to see them at any of these meetings. I have yet to talk to anyone who can show me that there is any gain in Sunday retail shopping, yet there are few who do say it is for our convenience. It is certainly not convenient to any of the store owners or their families and employees.

Sunday is a very valuable and special day to our group and to myself and to the large majority of small and large businesses. It is a day to break away, a day of your choice, not someone else's. Most, if not all of us, have friends and family, a wife, children and grandchildren. Can it be wrong to spend Sunday with them?

I would like to thank the NDP for its support in believing in a pause day and for Bill 115, which I will discuss later on. I would like to pass out to this committee just a few of the many letterheads that I have received in full support of keeping Sunday a pause day. Among them are the ones that you have in your report there from Bob Rae, our Premier; our present mayor, Mr Smeaton; the mayor of Toronto; Margaret Harrington, MPP; and the Canadian Retail Hardware Association. One of them is dated way back to October 1985 from Les Kingdon, who is the executive director of People for Sunday Association; I understand he is at the meeting tonight. I am a member of his organization, which comprises 70,000 members who are against Sunday retail shopping.

The views have not changed during all these years. Sunday retail shopping is not a must; Sunday retail shopping is not wanted nor is it needed. If you prefer not to listen to me here today, then at least listen to all the others, the large majority who simply say no to Sunday retail shopping. Once our Sundays are gone, they are gone for ever, and for ever is a long time.

You will also hear many excuses in your travels -- and I am sure you have and you have travelled a lot and I understand this -- across Ontario of why a minority thinks Sunday shopping is wanted. You will hear that it will stop USA border shopping and yet that the consumer will stay home and shop on Sunday. Well, our regional council exempted the border town of Fort Erie just two years back, which is right on the border of Buffalo.

I would like at this present time to pass out another picture. My wife and I took the opportunity to go to Fort Erie to see what a tourist-exempt town looked like. That was on July 28 of this year. You can go next Sunday or the Sunday after and you will see the same thing. I would appreciate if everyone would take the time to look at these pictures of Fort Erie of this past July 28, 1991, which is when we took them. The pictures clearly speak for themselves.

We have just recently had nine months of wide-open Sunday retail shopping in Ontario, but all during this time, USA traffic at the border points still increased dramatically. Please read my personal article on the facts of the trial period of Sunday openings from June 1990 to March 1991. Price dictates USA shopping.

You will hear rumours that Sunday shopping will create employment, but employment did not increase during the nine months of Sunday openings. Wide-open Sunday shopping will do just the opposite. It will create more unemployment as many small businesses will just give up and close their doors if we must work seven days a week. A seven-day shopping week means slavery to almost all small retail businesses.

1530

You will hear the story that firemen, policemen, hospital nurses and all emergencies work on Sundays. Talking to them, they will tell you that yes they tolerate it, but certainly do not enjoy it. Is Sunday retail shopping an emergency? Further discussion will tell you that these employees who work Sundays and long days eventually get two to four days off after this long period of time. They get a reward. This system cannot work in the retail business. For us the retailer it is seven days a week, 52 weeks a year. Sound fair to you?

A minority of others will tell you that they have no time to shop throughout a six-day workweek. Stop and realize the majority of retail businesses are open from 8 am until 10 pm, six days a week; some even go 24 hours a day for six days. This can only be fiction.

At long last we have a bill, called Bill 115, for some protection. I would like to thank our NDP government again for this start, but Bill 115 needs many changes. It does not provide adequate attention or protection to the employee and little or no protection to us, the majority of retail businesses, the employer. Let me set you some perfect true examples. There are 821 municipalities in Ontario and many regional departments. The decision in Bill 115 to allow each region to decide tourist areas and exemptions has already started to rape our society of a common pause day.

Windsor council has just recently exempted all of Windsor. Our own local regional council has just exempted a piece of open land that was discussed a few minutes ago here. This is 22 acres of open land, an exemption that a fellow applied for. Yes, you heard me right: It is open land; there are no buildings on it. There is only a future possible date of somebody opening in 1993. It was put to the regional council, "No Sunday shopping, you get no mall," so our regional council exempted them.

This proposed mall not only has the right to open up on each and every Sunday but it also now has the right to open up on each and every statutory holiday. I believe this to be the bottom of the pit. Does this sound legal, fair or right?

In the past our regional councils have exempted all wineries to open on Sundays. They have exempted the whole of the town of Port Dalhousie. They have exempted two miles of Lundy's Lane. This allowed one Mr Grocer to open, one Zellers, one shoe store, one electronic shop and, of all things, one local brewery to open on Sundays. Rape is the only word to be used here; they have not yet heard of the word "no."

Most other regional municipalities will follow this pattern unless we plug the many loopholes in Bill 115. They also just recently exempted Herbie's Drug Warehouse in St Catharines although it is well over the limit of 7,500 square feet for drugstores to open. The better and truer name for this drugstore is a full-scale supermarket when you see the size of it and the products it stocks. To me, this means that if I put souvenirs in my hardware store I should be able to get a Sunday exemption, or if I hire a pharmacist and sell prescription drugs, I should also get an exemption for Sundays.

You will be overrun with exemptions of all sorts should you not define, refine and rewrite Bill 115. The latest report: Vanity Fair outlet, which is approximately 12 miles out of Niagara Falls at highways 20 and 50, has also just applied to the region. Their reason? They say they are in the centre of the peninsula, they are on a well-travelled route and they are near camping and they are near fruit stands.

It cannot and will not end. The list of excuses, not reasons, remains endless. We, the large majority, need and want your protection. We must preserve our only day, Sunday, and keep it a pause and a family day. We have before us at the present time a hornet's nest, a snowball effect that can only get completely out of control, but we also have one very simple ultimatum at the present time. We must go back temporarily and stay with the status quo as of June 6, 1991. This simply means no more exemptions would be granted after this date. No employee could then be intimidated by refusing to work on Sunday and no committee would be needed to get the employee's job back if he got fired.

We, the majority of retailers, want to work with this committee and we also need your deep concern, your support and your help. No law will ever satisfy everyone, but in our great democratic society, decisions have always been made the fair way, the democratic way and by the majority. This committee was elected by the majority. I am sure we all feel this system is fair.

Mr Matthews: In closing, I must ask, would you enjoy working seven days a week, 364 days a year? I think Christmas Day is still protected. We say six days are enough. Consider us as human beings looking for strength and love to spend Sundays with our fellow men, women and children. We need protection and we need it today. Respectfully yours, Ray and Ann Matthews and all our staff.

Mr Daigeler: Thank you very much for coming before us. I understand you have made presentations before to this committee, not the same composition but the committee as such. I am not clear, though, as to what solution you are proposing. Are you also arguing that there should be no tourism exemptions at all?

Mr Matthews: I am using Niagara Falls here as a good example. We already have a tourist-exempt area which we have had for years. There may be a few who disagree with it, but it has been that way for years. It is spreading out so that it is going to become, of course, just widespread.

Mr Daigeler: So who should that someone be who could make the decision as to what areas would be tourism-exempt under this bill?

Mr Matthews: Our city council did that years ago.

Mr Daigeler: You agree with that.

Mr Matthews: The Niagara Parks Commission was of course one that is totally exempt. I do not think anybody in Niagara Falls would exclude them. That is souvenir shops. They have a three-month time period to operate and make a profit in their business.

Mr Daigeler: So you agree that a municipal council should have the privilege or the right to decide which areas could be tourism-exempt. Do you agree with that?

Mr Matthews: To a point I think they have already done it and they have reached the limit in Niagara Falls. Just let me correct you there a little bit. I believe if you check -- and I did not bring one here, but I can get one for you. I believe if you check the area that is tourist-exempt in Niagara Falls, it is more than adequate to cover any tourist who has ever happened to be in Niagara Falls, at the present time, anyway.

Mr Daigeler: I guess under this legislation they would have to make a new application, because right now we do not have any tourism exemption.

Mr Carr: Thank you for a fine presentation, and particularly for the pictures. If given the opportunity I would like to find out later a little bit more about that fish you got there. I know what I would like to be doing Sundays, too.

Mr Matthews: You will not be able to if we are all working Sundays. You will be working with us.

Mr Carr: I was interested in the one letter that was from the Premier. He says: "As you are already aware, our government's position on this issue is very clear. We support a common pause day for the Ontario workers and their families." You were here most of the day and you may not have heard, but not only your particular area but other large, significant portions of this province are doing the same thing they are doing in Niagara Falls. As late as last night Sarnia is now entirely open under a tourism exemption.

Mr Matthews: I am aware of that, yes.

Mr Carr: So notwithstanding that statement, the fact is in this province we are going to have Sunday shopping, and not just in some parts but a significant portion. I have listed some of them before that you probably heard.

As a result of that, I was interested in your comments where you said it was a good first step, but it seems to me it is not a good first step from your perspective if in fact the vast majority, including your own area, are open. I was just wondering why you see it as a good first step when in fact all we have done is open up the province, significant portions of the province, to Sunday shopping.

1540

Mr Matthews: Let me correct you: It is not the vast majority of Niagara Falls that is open; it actually is a minority that is open, considering the size of Niagara Falls and the parks commission and one travelled route, Lundy's Lane.

Mr Carr: But when they open Windsor and when they are talking about opening entire cities and towns like Thunder Bay, Kenora, Collingwood and so on, we are talking about a significant portion of the retail operations in this province that are going to be open. That is why I am a little bit concerned that you would say it is a good law when in fact we have heard in town after town after town where there will be Sunday shopping that it is not a good law --

Mr Matthews: Where did you pick up that I said it would be a good law?

Mr Carr: In your presentation where you said you commended them for this bill as a first step. It is not a good first step.

Mr Matthews: It is a first step, okay? We did not have a bill before Bill 115, so this is what I am referring to as the first step. It is a step. I did not even say, I think, if you read my letter, that it was in the right direction.

Mr Carr: Okay.

Mr Kormos: First, let me say hello on behalf of Marg Harrington. She apologizes for not being here today. She knew that Niagara Falls people were coming up and she did ask me to say hello to you.

Second, I want to tell these folks you people have been a little bit modest, overly modest. I have been in your store. I have to confess I do most of my hardware shopping down at George's Hardware down on the south end of King Street. You knew Pat and Vince Evans. Vince is dead now, but Pat Noonan runs that same Home Hardware and he has been running the Home Hardware the same way Pat and Vince Evans ran it and the same way George ran it before him and the same way you have run your store for the last two decades.

You know your clientele; you know your product. You sell good product at the best possible prices, and you service your customers. You do not have to be open Sundays to compete. You are entrepreneurs in the finest sense. You work hard enough as it is six days a week and, by God, when you look at those photos, nothing could more eloquently state why it is that we in this province have an obligation as a government to create and ensure a common pause day. That is a day for family, for restoring and addressing our spiritual needs and our family needs and our social needs. All I say to you is thank you, because you have done a far better job than any politician ever could by saying what you have, not only here today, but by saying what you have over the past years and by being the kind of business people you are. I do not have to wish you good luck because your hard work and your talents will make you successful.

Mr Matthews: Thank you very much. I might also add that even though we are half a mile from the border and border crossing is a big problem, with the service you just mentioned that we give, at the present time it is not a problem to us because of the many reasons we are fighting for.

Mr Kormos: Darned right.

Mr Matthews: One of them is not to work Sunday to try to compete with them. I can compete with them on six days a week.

Mr Kormos: Thank you, folks.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Kormos. Thank you, Mr and Mrs Matthews. It was a very interesting presentation and it is certainly one which has enlivened us.

Mrs Cunningham: And consistent.

COUNCIL OF CHRISTIAN REFORMED CHURCHES IN CANADA

The Chair: We now have a presentation from the Council of Christian Reformed Churches in Canada, Rev Arie Van Eek. Rev Van Eek, you have approximately half an hour. Please use that time as you wish, typically divided between your presentation and some questions from the committee.

Mr Van Eek: Thank you, Mr Chairman. We should be able to do it in less. After hearing the last several presentations, I feel like saying clergyman-style, "Hallelujah," but maybe your Hebrew is rusty. I feel it is a little dull about now and I will not be enlivening the situation a great deal, because the meaning implied in the word is about where I am.

From retailers and from employees and from religious folk, we all get the same sort of emphasis, and it should seem to me that your task has been made relatively easy. If I may be permitted a partisan remark, we have been in front of three successive government panels; now we have an all-party panel and somehow I like to think that something of what has been said so often will be carried forward to our government. As the Honourable Bob Rae said: "I've got four or five years, at most, to do something good. I'm intent on doing it." We are here to help him do it.

Just by way of background, so you know where we come from, because partisan we are also in other than political ways, the council by which I am employed represents a constituency of some 50,000 people gathered in 12,000 family units and assembled in about 120 congregations throughout our beautiful province. Its membership includes a high proportion of persons earning their livelihood in retail businesses as proprietors or as employees.

What has bound our people together includes such values as these: the high value that we place on family, friendship and community; the deeply held conviction that recreation, culture and religion are essential elements of a healthy society; the basic belief that the Creator of the universe provided for the development of all these life-sustaining means when he established as a norm for all human activity, including the economic, the perpetual rhythm of six days for work alternating with one day for rest, left undefined for the moment.

What holds us together too is the experience-honed perception that no progress in any field of human endeavour has made less compelling the continuing need for regular spiritual and social renewal. The tradition of limiting work on holidays and Sundays to the maintenance of essential services and works of compassion still characterizes the way we go about it. Living strictly up to its practice of avoiding unnecessary work on Sundays and holidays is a criterion applied too in the discipline applied to the membership in the churches.

Our members have found ample ways and means to prosper economically. We note with thankful hearts that our Creator and Provider has attached to His command to observe Sabbath, rest day, the promise that He will bless those who keep the day as separate and distinct.

Jewish and Muslim believers observe the same rhythm in our country and indeed throughout the world. In the tradition of this creation order, European societies -- prosperous ones, I may say -- limit retail and other commercial activities to six, and in at least one country I know well, the country of my birth, to five and a half days. Conversely, in the United States, and one might add British Columbia and Alberta, with wide-open shopping the same overall volume of retail business is spread over seven days and several nights with a resultant major shift away from shopping on Mondays and Tuesdays. Another harmful consequence to this shift in pattern is that more people are working part-time and receive less social insurance and other social benefits.

Against this background in beliefs and experiences, we address the specifics of Bill 115. Let's put it up front that we thank you, the committee, and the regional members of the provincial Parliament attending these sessions here and there, for this opportunity to present our responses to the bill. We hope that you will still be able to absorb another intervention after having heard scores of them in the course of this month. I counted 180 before coming. I hope you have lost count.

We want to say to you that the Ontario government is to be commended for enunciating an effort for upholding the principle that holidays should be maintained as common pause days. But this exhortation -- the word "should" was slipped in there -- cannot be enforced, as no appeal or enforcement mechanism is provided for in the bill. In practical terms then, the good words, not unlike many sermons, become meaningless.

Furthermore, a definition would have to be furnished for all the province to know the meaning of a common pause day. The government would need to promote this stated intent in advertising the personal benefits obtained from using the day for the purposes laid out in its provision.

To the municipal option: The bill provides for province-wide application of the same criteria to all municipalities, so it appears to be an improvement on the old municipal option so widely abused. However, this limited municipal option allowed under subsections 4(1) through 4(11) deserves some comment.

1550

First of all, the criteria are too vague to be interpreted in a uniform way by the adjoining municipalities -- disparity. Adjoining municipalities may permit the opening of different competing businesses upon provincial licence granted on the basis of any two criteria other than those applied in a neighbouring municipality. Criteria 1 and 3 may be used to open a competing business in one municipality, where in another municipality that competing business cannot be open. And so these businesses in adjoining towns will experience that competitive edge that earlier caused the flouting of the laws in our province.

The criteria do rest on the erroneous assumption that even on a level intermunicipal playing field more business can be generated by opening retail establishments for more hours. That assumption is erroneous. It has not been proven, and several interventions I have heard or have obtained copies of in the retail business are in fact negating this assumption on the basis of experience in a time when they opened their food stores in violation of the law.

The tourist exemption criteria are, furthermore, not contained in the law but only in regulations that may be altered at the whim of the government in power. This is a further cause for erosion of common standards, for common standards take a great number of years to become known, established, accepted and fairly enforced. The criteria first describe all too vaguely the characteristics of a tourist area and, I must say, subject to the interpretation each of Ontario's municipalities may give. We have before us a beautiful picture, in the criteria, of one beautiful patchwork of attractions. I like Ontario even better after reading these criteria. But let the Minister of Tourism and Recreation tell every potential traveller just how beautiful Ontario is. It is theirs to discover, I recall reading.

When we apply these exemptions, we erroneously assume that opening retail businesses other than those that service automobiles and provide essential health needs attracts and generates business. That emphasis has in one fell swoop shifted 180 degrees, from wanting to serve tourists to wanting to entice tourists. The Minister of Tourism and Recreation has not said it once but again and again, and he said it to me last week yet, that the law is meant to provide opportunities for municipalities or areas that do not particularly draw tourists to go all out and draw them and do that by means of opening up retail businesses serving the population generally.

In paragraph 3(1)4, there is an attempt to obtain wider approbation or support for a businessman's application for an exemption. That effort is seriously flawed. You remember it talks about a chamber of commerce or like organization backing up or supporting an application. Especially in smaller towns, you all know the very applicants may well be the members of the chamber of commerce or like organization and are therefore in conflict of interest when they deal with an application, or cannot be said to be fair judges when an employer or competing businessmen apply for such an exemption. Retail businesses marketing a whole range of consumer goods will attract business away from other stores if some are allowed to open and others are not, and the proverbial playing field gets very bumpy from here on in.

Once more about the criteria: By extending these shopping hours, the very people needing protection from exploitation are the ones most likely to have to supplement low income by taking time from the recreation that binds family, and these in turn especially will be single parents. Our society and government can ill afford the financial cost of the breakdown of the very basic unit on which society is built, the family. For that matter, and even worse, our government may not knowingly contribute to those stresses that contribute to family breakdown.

The Employment Standards Act: It has the appearance of justice within the words that they cannot regulate the most frequent violation in the workplace: peer pressure against those who prefer not to work. To refuse to work on a day that others prefer not to work is a very demeaning thing and will break that esprit de corps, that colleagueality that is necessary for people to bear up under dull work for a long day, day upon day. Then there is also that chance that the boss will quietly pass over for a promotion an otherwise deserving employee because he is not very co-operative about working on Sunday.

Drugstores: The most frequent violators in this decade have been supermarkets, so-called, operating under the guise of drugstores. Again, the fair competition or level playing field was eroded, and submissions like the one of Loblaws, for example, make clear reference to that, in the face of its own experience of having attempted to recover what it lost to unfair competition. The act should be amended with a clear definition of drugstore, sales clubs and the like.

In line with the expressed intent to serve the needs of tourists, the law should also limit the size of stores to such space as is required to serve tourists, and we are submitting fairly arbitrarily that 2,400 square feet may well cover that. Companion deterrent fines also should be legislated and enforced and these fines should, I submit, be not less than the gross receipts of the day on which the store was open in violation of the law for each violation.

The maintenance and enhancement of family values belongs to the task of that broader jurisdiction, that larger community which makes up the families. It is the whole province and its government that is involved here, and so we petition the government of Ontario to contribute signally to the strengthening of an orderly society and dynamic communities by withdrawing the proposed tourist exemptions, enacting uniform closing laws and providing clear definitions as outlined earlier, in order that, to quote from the Christian scriptures, "It may go well with us in the land which the Lord our God has given to us." Thank you for your attention and for the opportunity to make our voice heard.

Mr Daigeler: On the first page of your brief you make reference to what you think would be a universal phenomenon, the need and also the fact of some form of common day of rest in most cultures and religions. I guess that would be your assumption. Quite frankly, it was mine as well until I asked that question of a Chinese Canadian businessman in Toronto. He said that from his knowledge and experience, even though he has lived in mainland China and then Hong Kong, there is no such tradition. I was surprised at that. He said that inasmuch as that tradition is there, it is the influence of the Christian west. I am just wondering whether you have any knowledge about the spiritual traditions or cultural traditions in the Far East that could give us a better reading of that situation. In fact, I want to look it up myself.

1600

Mr Van Eek: Mr Daigeler, you are aware that it is Chinese, not predominantly Jewish, Muslim or Christian. He does the Christians quite an honour in suggesting that the small minority that has been Christian in China has persuaded others who did not experience or practise any such rhythm in life to begin to do that, so that today in China it is widely observed. Although there is a very long and strong Christian tradition in the Soviet Union, with the coming of the revolution before the very last one it sought to do away with it and was very unsuccessful. The point being made is that these three major religions have got on to something, by ways that I try to identify, that is good for human beings.

At this point in our history, with the erosion of the common pause day it is the task of government to make a judgement on its own, not simply giving in to the pressure of business, certainly not to the greed motive that drives a lot of business, especially foreign capital brought into our country, to say what is good, what makes a healthy community and society in Ontario as well as in other places. I have witness from friends in BC who have lived both under the common pause day sort of provision and latterly under the open Sunday, and they can tell you the difference.

From personal experience, if I may be permitted -- a father of five children, four married, grandchildren -- the only day I can be sure that I might get together with those who are closest to me is that one day that until now has been protected from unnecessary work for all of us. It is becoming more and more difficult in this complex society of shift work and university, all kinds of different occupations, to find one another at the same place at the same time. And the Christian scriptures and human experience teach us that it is good and wholesome to reserve a time, the same, for as many people as possible to engage in wholesome things. We are not so naïve as to say that you must protect Christians for an opportunity to go to church. We are talking about a whole lot more of which we know that it is recreative, it is wholesome, it is good for community-building and strengthens family and other relationships.

Mrs Cunningham: I am not going to ask you the question of whether you think this bill supports a common day of pause, because I think that would be an insult to your presentation today, but it is normally our first question. On page 8, your concerns with regard to promoting tourism, I am curious --

Mr Van Eek: Sorry? With respect, I have four pages.

Mrs Cunningham: I was reading the former one. I think I will ask you the same question anyway. In looking at it, I think it is one you would probably be just as concerned about and I am interested in your view on it: the promoting of tourism with regard to tourist exemptions. My view is that this will be something the government will have to deal with. I know in the context of your presentation today that you probably would not want to see exemptions, but in the realistic world we live in there will be areas of the province that will be open for tourist activities.

Given what you have heard today, this afternoon, I am wondering whether you have anything you want to offer to the committee with regard to what we as a government can take around those tourist exemptions. I think that is a reality because it has been going on now for about 40 years.

Mr Van Eek: Who are we to argue that there are natural attractions that are beautiful, historical events, blah, blah, blah; that is what I tried to say. The exemptions identify tourist attractions, but the big jump is from tourist attraction to the assumption that retail business, retail opportunities, more widely offered in all kinds of things will induce tourism.

I live very near Burlington and work in Burlington. We have a little heritage village, so-called, and they tried very hard to open that thing up. Well, it has not been allowed. But the result in other places where it was allowed -- like in Waterdown where we have all the antique shops and where I live -- is that there is an awful lot of voyeurism, if I may, window-shopping and the like, but no appreciable amount of business, not even in those artefacts.

Now we are talking about something about which I would arguably agree is the kind of thing you look for on Sunday or any day in exotic places and so on. But that is the exception that proves the rule. We do not need another grocery store, we do not need another hardware store, we do not need another store of any variety in order to attract tourists -- except those that provide emergency drug service, which most hospitals do in any event.

There is a fly in the ointment of the argument that says, "Open more stores and you will get more people coming to your town." It is just not proven. Those who have been in violation of the law can say to you, as they have: "We've been there. We have tried to open up. We tried to get an advantage. But as soon as that level playing field was open, we found no appreciable difference between how they meet the needs of the ordinary citizen and the so-called tourist."

I do want to say something about the summer resident areas. The word "tourist" too easily has been taken to include those who live for a couple of months up north or even steadily go up north week upon week. So a furniture business in Toronto is in competition with another furniture business up in the Muskokas because residents in Toronto now go to Muskoka to do some of their furniture shopping. That makes no sense to me. I find it eminently unfair. It is the wedge through which legitimate business eventually crawls in order to regain that level playing field.

Mrs Cunningham: Thank you for expanding on that.

Mr Fletcher: I am looking at your presentation. It is a very good presentation. The comment you made -- and I have heard it today and I have heard it in other centres -- it that it is a good first step; not, as was being said before to the previous witness, that it is bad, bad, bad, but it is a good first step. You have also outlined many things that have to be done. I really want to get to what you said about using retail as an enticement to tourism. There are areas -- and this is not a flip-flop or anything else -- where retail shopping is an enticement to tourists in Ontario, are there not?

Mr Van Eek: I would like to know what you would want to open up that is not now possible under the narrower interpretation of the Retail Business Holidays Act: Food service, obviously; prepared food, obviously; the drugstore properly defined, the gas station, souvenir-type things and so on. Yes, yes. But these stores would have to really engage in that kind of business and no other. The wedge has been that, under the guise of one establishment defined generally in law, other things have also come in. When I can get a whole grocery basket full of groceries from the so-called drugstore, I say, in deference to my local grocer, "You do have cause for complaint, and I have a hard time telling you to shut the place up."

Mr Fletcher: The reason I asked that question was because I wanted to get to the primary question. That is, do you think we should have a committee of stakeholders -- retail people, union people, local government -- sit down together and determine exactly what the criteria should be as far as tourism is concerned, so it is a uniform piece of regulation -- I will not say legislation -- throughout the province?

1610

Mr Van Eek: You are giving me, hypothetically, a poor second option. The first option is no tourist exemptions à la this. Let's sell the people on the beauty of the province. I have my rural preferences and you want to go up in the tower -- that's fine. But do not have all this ancillary retail business, because it is not truly serving any member of the public, including the tourist. We know what tourist trade --

Mr Fletcher: Now, as you say, I am giving you the second option.

Mr Van Eek: But now that poor second option: We should then minimally indeed have a province-wide stakeholders' committee that can see to it, because what the present suggested legislation says is that the local municipality's ruling is final. That is precisely where every domino, you know --

Mr Fletcher: This stakeholder committee does not come out and say, "Shut it all down."

Mr Van Eek: It would be hard to enforce. Conflict of interest for many of them, too.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for that fine presentation.

DOWNTOWN HAMILTON BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA

The Vice-Chair: Next up is the downtown Hamilton business improvement area. I want to welcome you to the standing committee on administration of justice. You have 30 minutes. You can divide that time up any way you want, but I am sure the fine people up here would probably like to ask you a few questions. You can begin when you are ready.

Mr Mongeon: My name is Marcel Mongeon. I am the president of the Royal Connaught Hotel, another hotel located here in downtown Hamilton, and also the chairman of the economic development committee of the Hamilton downtown business improvement area. Our Hamilton city-centre BIA, as we like to style it, consists of more than 250 members immediately to the east of where you are sitting. We operate businesses essentially surrounding Gore Park and to the boundaries of what is also known as the International Village BIA.

There is certainly a high level of interest among our memberships in the legislation you are now discussing. A large part of this interest is no doubt a direct result of the fact that there are a large proportion of owner-operated businesses which are members of our BIA. To those people, because of the owner-operated nature of their businesses, Sunday shopping at times suggests that to different extents they are going to be working longer hours.

Although there are a large number of issues you are dealing with which are all tied up into the subject of Sunday shopping, I would like to deal in depth with only two separate issues. The first of these is the whole issue of local option. The second is the entire crux of the matter from a business point of view, and that is, will Sunday shopping increase total revenues in the province of Ontario?

Dealing first with the local option issue, the legislation, as I understand it, proposes to let individual municipalities decide whether there are sufficient tourism-related activities in their area to constitute a tourism zone, which would then permit them to allow shopping. Certainly I have no problems, and I know the province has traditionally never had problems, in allowing different parts of the province to be treated differently by provincial legislation.

Although there is generally an understanding that the province, or the Legislature of the province, will try and legislate for the province equally across the board, there have been different treatments accorded to different parts of the province. One example is the concentration tax which applies in Metropolitan Toronto. Another is singling out the northern part of the province for special development incentives, that sort of thing.

However, when we examine the history of legislation in Ontario, very few pieces of legislation have in fact considered allowing municipalities to have a local option. Two different historical issues do come to my mind, because I have had personal experience with both of them. One is the exemption with respect to liquor laws, allowing taverns to be licensed in particular municipalities, which is no longer a part of our liquor licensing. The second one was an obscure one under the Theatres Act and the Sunday observance legislation, which dealt with movie theatres opening or not on Sundays.

Part of the reason, I believe, that there have been so few pieces of legislation which have dealt with local option is because it creates battles between municipalities. My personal involvement with theatre legislation came with a drive-in theatre located just outside of the city of Chatham. It was actually located in the township of Harwich, a small rural community which, until I believe the late 1960s or early 1970s, did not allow theatres to be open on Sundays. Accordingly, the drive-in theatre I was involved with was put at a disadvantage to all of the theatres located in downtown Chatham, a much more open-minded, open-thinking municipality which allowed movies to be shown on Sunday. Of course, the drive-in theatre would go to extraordinary lengths to get around the problem such as not starting the movie on a holiday Sunday until 12:01 am. The whole thing was certainly a sham, but these are the same sort of things that you are having to deal with in terms of super drugstores and that type of thing.

When we deal with local initiatives, we also start pitting municipality against bordering municipality. The best example I have locally to show how that occurs was when the city of Burlington -- I believe it was three and a half or four years ago -- repealed its store-closing hours bylaw, which had the effect of allowing stores to stay open until 9 pm. After just three short months with everybody rushing to Burlington, Hamilton also had to make similar changes to its bylaws to allow store openings until 9 pm.

Now that we have stores opening Monday through Friday until 9 pm in both Burlington and Hamilton, it is easy. The shops in both Burlington and Hamilton are equally empty. There was, of course, the initial flurry in Burlington when the novelty attracted people from both Burlington and Hamilton. But if you go into any mall after 6 pm which has store hours open until 9 pm, you will realize there is no business there. Particularly now in the summer months, particularly in these difficult economic times.

The legislation before you is establishing a tourism area as being subject of an exemption to allow store hours. Certainly the encouragement of tourism areas in our province is a laudable goal. I say that working in the industry, being the president of a hotel. The taxation policies of the federal government have given us a lot of catch-up to play in this province and this country, trying to encourage tourism in any which way we can. I am not by any means disputing that it is a reasonable goal of the Legislature to be dealing with tourism areas and encouraging the development of them.

However, why does it have to be the municipality that decides where the tourist areas in Ontario should be? Why can the Legislature of the province not make the same tough decisions that the Legislature has to make time and time again when it decides that northern development is a laudable goal and supports extra subsidies in northern parts of this province to encourage development there? Certainly the Legislature is prepared to make those tough decisions. Why can the Legislature in fact not make the decisions in this piece of legislation? You go out, you make your own rules, and you decide which parts of the province are in fact suitably entitled to be called tourist areas.

Now, I may be called a heretic here in Hamilton, but let's face it, Hamilton is not by any means a tourist area. We certainly have tourism attractions. We certainly do have businesses, such as hotels and restaurants and other members of the hospitality industry, which derive parts of their revenue from tourism. But I really cannot see how our downtown BIA is a tourist area. I am not going to give you the whole spiel about how beautiful it is and how much we have to offer. The fact is, we are not a tourist area, and I am sure the Legislature would probably agree with me on that point.

However, if you leave the municipal option here, then certainly, once Welland, once St Catharines, once Caledonia have declared themselves tourist areas, the municipal government of the city of Hamilton will really have no other choice but to try and even up the playing field itself by making the necessary arrangements and contorting the regulations sufficiently to draw themselves into whatever definition you establish in the regulations as a tourist area. But I really think it is up to the Legislature to make that decision of who will be entitled to the tourist exemption and who will not. That is the best way I know in absolutely encouraging the development of tourism where it needs to be encouraged in this province.

1620

Now I move to the second issue: Will allowing Sunday shopping actually increase revenues? In this area of the province, many people point to the seemingly recent advent of cross-border shopping as in part being caused by the fact that we do not open on Sundays here while they do in New York. This to me is an absolute red herring. I suggest the reasons for cross-border shopping are in fact far more fundamental and in a lot of areas more within federal government control rather than provincial government control; to cite three examples, the extremely high exchange rate that we have to deal with, the free trade agreement and the lessening of duties year after year, and the incredible retail tax load that goods now have to bear here. I suggest to you that those are the real issues in cross-border shopping and that Sunday closing has in fact very little to do with people going across the border to shop.

They go across the border to shop because it is cheaper, because of the taxes and duties we are no longer imposing, because of the high exchange rate, which helps support that. As a perfect example of that, if you go back five years when the exchange rate was 75% and we did not have a GST, whoever heard of cross-border shopping? It was not economically feasible. Sure, once in a while somebody would be across for a dinner or something like that and they would pick up an extra case of beer, but you were not getting the thousands and tens of thousands of people lining up at Lewiston and the Peace Bridge.

The real issue is, will Sunday shopping increase the revenues? My answer to that is, in a tourist area, maybe. In a lot of tourist areas the tourists from outside the area are there only for the day. A perfect example is a day-tripper who, say, is on a bus tour and the bus tour happens to stop in Kingston. If you do not catch him on that one day he was there and that day happened to be a Sunday, nothing happens.

The reason I say maybe is I look at the European tradition, I look at traditions around the world. You go to Paris, London, Bangkok and Thailand, try and get something on Sunday -- they are all closed. Nobody is buying anything there and people do not expect to buy anything there. When you go travelling through Europe they even give you a double whammy. Not only are they all closed on Sunday but they also have something called an early closing day in a lot of municipalities. The whole city just closes down at 12 o'clock on a particular day and you have to play --

Mr O'Connor: In the middle of the day?

Mr Mongeon: Yes, exactly. You have to play roulette as to which one it is. If you use particular tourist guides, they try and establish which day it is so you can plan your itinerary around it. But it is interesting to note that there is a great portion of what our culture and our habits are derived from, and they do not find the need to open on Sundays to encourage their tourists.

I realize that Paris, France, is probably a little more of a tourist attraction than Hamilton, Ontario, but the basic principle is there. Let's take Niagara Falls, for example. Does somebody truly go as a tourist to Niagara Falls to buy computers? Do they go there to buy automobiles? Do they go there to buy fax machines? Do they go there to buy household utensils? Of course not. They buy what I call tourist garbage -- you know, the little mug or ashtray or something that has "Niagara Falls" written on it.

Mr Lessard: From Taiwan.

Mr Mongeon: Exactly. I am not even going to get into that one. You are absolutely right, but the fact is that those stores have traditionally been allowed to be open anyway. They are either part of a hotel or a restaurant that caters to the tourist trade. That is what tourists want to buy, little knick-knacks like that. This legislation would not affect the tourist stuff we are trying to sell. Do we really believe the tourists are looking to buy the items I have enumerated? That is what this legislation would have you believe, that by declaring a place a tourist area, tourists are interested in buying automobiles and that sort of thing. They may be interested in buying fashion garments and things like that, which might otherwise have to close, but as a whole percentage of what you are talking about, I would suggest it is not significant for you to pass such dramatic legislation as you are being asked to do.

When it comes to Sunday shopping increasing revenues in other than a tourist area, I sincerely doubt it is going to increase revenues at all. Each one of us in this room has either made up a budget, or the budget is imposed on us by our paycheque and general savings and whatever we can convince the credit cards to let us go over on. We have only so much money to spend in either six days a week or seven days a week. Saying we are going to be open on that seventh day does not increase the amount of money in our economy.

There are some who argue we are going to be developing some employment opportunities, and they always direct this to the students, that we are going to develop lots of student employment opportunities. The reason we are always talking about students for these employment opportunities is that students work for the minimum wage. Let us not delude ourselves with the type of employment opportunities Sunday shopping would create. They would, in fact, be minimum wage; they would be, as much as the retailers can help it, student minimum wage, and that has traditionally been somewhat lower than the regular minimum wage because they do not want to pay the money to stay open that amount of time.

We also have to look at what extra costs we are talking about, staying open that seventh day. When I was walking over here I took a look at a bus and I said, "Gee, if we were open on Sundays we would have to put on a lot more buses in this city." What are the environmental costs of running a whole city's bus service an extra day? What are the environmental costs of turning on all the lights, of air-conditioning the place for that extra day, of heating the place for that extra day?

On one hand, the Legislature is encouraging us through Ontario Hydro for the conservation of energy. When you get right down to it, one of Ontario Hydro's programs could easily be related to, "We should go to shorter store hours and plan our day more properly so we use less energy out there." But now we are saying, "Let's stay open."

To conclude, I have addressed two issues: the local option issue, which I put to you should not be left to the local municipalities to decide. It is you, the Legislature of Ontario, who should make the decision as to where stores are allowed to open and where they are not. If you decide, I suggest it is a reasonable goal to encourage tourism with respect to the issue of whether Sunday shopping will increase revenues. As I indicated, in the tourist areas, maybe; anywhere else, absolutely not. Thank you. I am available for questions.

Mr Daigeler: Thank you for your presentation, although I must say you have totally confused me. Until now I had put down the tourism and hotel/motel operators as strongly in favour of Sunday openings. At least up to now, all those related to this business had been very forcefully arguing for that. You are coming now and arguing the opposite and, quite frankly, quite eloquently and with good arguments, taking the opposite position. So I am really very confused as to the message I am getting from the tourist hotel/motel operators.

Also, I am struck by the reaction I am getting particularly in Hamilton, not just from you, but others as well, who are saying, "Let the province decide for us which is a tourism area and which is not." I come from Nepean, yhe Ottawa area, and, quite frankly, to say that for us Toronto should decide what would be a tourism area in the Ottawa area or in eastern Ontario is like raising a red flag, and I think you would almost get a revolt there.

I am very curious as to why Hamiltonians are so willing to let the province decide on that. Perhaps they do not have that almost gut antipathy towards what is perceived as Toronto, so I am struck by that. I am also struck by the difference between your presentation and the presentation from the Hamilton and District Chamber of Commerce this morning. I had asked the presenter whether her presentation was the one that has been the traditional one and she assured me, yes, and really it was the opposite from what you are saying. You will understand, therefore, that I am really quite confused and I had expected you to argue in favour of it rather than the opposite.

1630

Mr Mongeon: As to your first area of confusion, why somebody who operates a hotel is coming out here speaking against Sunday shopping, my family is fortunate enough to be involved in a number of different enterprises. We have a manufacturing facility down in Welland that manufactures apparel. We see the people in our plant running across the border to buy their groceries, and try to explain to them how this is seriously affecting their jobs directly in Welland. We have a retail shop located in Burlington, and the reason I am so familiar with the Burlington regulations is that I went to their city council and argued against it.

Even though I am the president of the Royal Connaught Hotel -- and when somebody asks how to get to be president, I say, "It is simple; you get your mother to buy the place." Even though I hold the lofty title of president, sometimes my wife gets worried about who I married, her or the hotel, because I am an owner-operator. I am not a high, lofty, corporate executive. If our hotel does not do well, I do not get paid.

When it comes to the encouragement of tourism in Hamilton and why, perhaps, people are so ready to have Toronto decide for us, it is because we do know what has happened up to now when it has been local option. We do not want to do it here, but if Burlington wants to do it we will end up having to do it. We take some solace in the fact that if we leave it up to the people in Toronto -- I can certainly appreciate that being from Ottawa and Nepean you would not be too interested in letting Toronto do it for you -- but being so close yet so far from Toronto, we are ready to accept the fact that Toronto will make the level-headed decisions on where stores should be allowed to open to encourage tourism and where it is just an entire sham.

Let's face it, if downtown Caledonia wants to declare itself a tourism area and somehow works it through the regulations, is it really a tourism area? Are they really getting lots of tourists just because it is beautiful downtown Caledonia? That is, perhaps, a suggestion.

Finally, as to the issue of why my views are so divergent from the chamber of commerce, it is funny, because Kathy Drewitt of the chamber and I worked very closely on some other issues related to my business, and she and I are usually speaking on the same side of things at meetings very similar to this. The chamber of commerce's base issue is that there should be as little legislation as possible in all things.

Generally I tend to support that argument. If in fact you are ready to repeal the act here altogether, I could probably live with that and everything that falls out from that. If you are starting to repeal legislation, I have a list of about another 200 acts and regulations you might want to consider at the same time.

Mr Poirier: We will give you an extra five minutes.

Mrs Cunningham: I thought you were extremely eloquent and very straightforward and I appreciate it very much. I thought you simplified the whole thing for us and I share your views.

I am interested in the strong sense you presented us with that perhaps part of the criteria the province should choose -- and I am saying "province," and I agree with you there -- are words such as "tourism attractions" as opposed to "tourism areas." I think that is a very straightforward suggestion, and I am wondering if you want to expand on it just a little bit so I can understand what you really mean. It may solve the problem of a whole municipality declaring itself a tourism area.

Mr Mongeon: The Ministry of Transportation of Ontario already does it. They declare what is a tourism attraction suitable for separate signing on one of the major highways. For example, when you were driving into Hamilton from Toronto you saw a big sign there for the African Lion Safari. If you go down the peninsula, you would see something there for Prudhomme's Wet and Wild.

As much as we would like, when you do not see a big sign that says, "The Royal Connaught Hotel This Way," the reason is that the Ministry of Transportation has established certain criteria. As I understand it, they actually send people out into parking lots to pick off licence plate numbers at these attractions to establish that they are receiving X hundred thousand people of whom X per cent are from outside the province and something that is certainly worthy of designation. I would suggest to you, regulation very similar to that could be used to establish what is a tourist attraction for the purposes of the Sunday closing legislation.

Mrs Cunningham: The other point I would like to underline and perhaps have you speak to is this idea of total revenue increases. There will be those of my colleagues who will say they have been influenced by persons coming before the committee who had assured us that revenues have indeed increased over the short period of time the stores were allowed to be open on Sunday. I, for one, in looking at them have not at all been influenced by that, having sat on this committee in the past when we have seen the short-term revenue increases. I have not been convinced that this is a long-term thing and I do not know whether that is what you were saying or whether you have looked at data that would prove that. You say, maybe for tourist areas and not so for other parts of a municipality. But I would like you to talk a little bit more about what you may have seen that would have influenced you with regard to lack of revenue increases.

Mr Mongeon: The perfect example of that is in fact our retail outlet in Burlington. My mother owns a ladies fashion store in Burlington. Burlington changed its legislation to allow stores to open until midnight. We took a look at it, looked at the business district we were in, which is right downtown on the water in Burlington, and decided, no, not worth it; we are going to be open, maybe, Thursdays until 9 o'clock. We tried it for a couple of weeks. Guess what? Our sales did not drop by 2% at all. They did not drop at all. In fact, all we had to do was put at the bottom, "We'll be open any time you want to make an appointment with us."

In fact, through the hotel we also advertise we will be open if you want to make an appointment with us. In the last two years that policy has been in force there have been absolutely no requests to open the store after hours. Being open longer does not mean you are going to do any more in sales.

Another thing that you have to distinguish clearly is, just because people are looking for something to do on Sunday and happen to go down to a shopping mall in Niagara Falls, New York, to have something to do, which is among the evidence that you have been presented up to now -- sure, a lot of people go into Jackson Square, Lime Ridge Mall for something to do. They walk around and everything. There are a lot of people in the mall, but do you see anybody carrying any bags that they have actually done something with.

My problem is, I do not have time to go shopping; I go buying. I know exactly what I want when I go into the place. I go there. I say: "Fine, what've you got? What are your prices?" I check the price somewhere else, put down my money or cash. I am in and out in 20 minutes. I do not go shopping. I do not have the time for it. All we are trying to do with this is open our amusement parks an extra day.

Mrs Cunningham: The reason you are here is because you probably sense, as some of the rest of us do, I think, a serious change in the lifestyles of the next generation of young people coming along based on what they do in their leisure time with or without their families. And I certainly probably am somewhat, for want of better words, old-fashioned in the way I like to think that we can spend our leisure time.

But I, too, have been to Europe and have found lots to do on Sundays where everything is closed, and it has probably been the biggest influence I have had in taking the strong stand I take -- by the way, probably not always in line with my party. And there are other members here who are not in line with their government. But I think that has been the great strength of this committee, and I thank you for appearing before us.

1640

Mr Lessard: Thank you very much for your excellent presentation. You have really tried to take a couple of complicated issues in this group of complicated issues and simplify them for us, and I appreciate that. I just want to comment on your approach to shopping. I really like that as well. I have a similar approach. Something I would like to see retained is the quality of retailers in Ontario so that when I go someplace I can depend on somebody's advice when I want to buy something. They can say, "Here it is; take it home with you," rather than having people who may not be very qualified and causing a lot of work to do shopping, because I do not find a lot of time either.

You are the first person who has mentioned environmental factors as well, and I appreciate that. You asked, what do tourists look for when they go to Niagara Falls? Yesterday somebody told us they go there looking for Oneida silverware, so that is one of the arguments that we have been given on Sundays. I do not know whether that is a fact or not. I guess the most important thing you mentioned, for me, was the part about the tough decisions and the municipal option and who should make those decisions. And I do not think that, as a provincial government, we are really reluctant to make those tough decisions, but I guess something we are concerned about is the sheer proportion of the exercise.

We heard that there are about 800 municipalities in Ontario; that does not include unorganized territories. So we would be talking about a pretty immense undertaking. And we have been told as well, in my community in Windsor, that they do not want any provincial intervention. They think they are the best people to determine what should be done in their own municipality. So I guess I am asking you for some advice as to how you think we might be able to undertake that task if we, as a provincial government, decide we do want to do it that way.

Mr Mongeon: People in Windsor, Ottawa, Nepean, Kingston, Toronto and Niagara Falls have a pretty easy job in front of your committee as they will be designated tourist areas. They have to be. They are, it would seem to me certainly, crossing points into the United States. They will most likely fit whatever criteria you establish for a tourism area because they attract a large concentration of foreigners into the country. So it is easy for them to say, "We don't want anybody to decide this for us," because they already know that no matter what they do, they are going to win. The problem I have is not with the Windsors, not with the Kingstons, not even with Toronto or Niagara Falls. My problem is with Burlington, my problem is with Caledonia, maybe Welland, those areas that border my community here that may not have people who shoot as much from the hip as I do, but try and get something through the regulations that should not be.

I tend to be considered, here in Hamilton in our tourism circles, as a little bit of a nut because I try to tell people: "Forget it; you are not going to encourage tourism to Hamilton. The only way you are going to get tourists in Hamilton is when Niagara Falls is sold out and Toronto is sold out." In fact, with all the problems the hotels in Niagara Falls and Toronto have been suffering over the last two years, guess what? We have not seen any tourists here in Hamilton, despite the fact that the regional municipality is spending a fortune to try to attract tourists. What they should be doing is concentrating on our tourist attractions. But opening up the city to wide open Sunday shopping is not going to attract any tourists that we did not already have in this province.

Compare the province of Quebec: Another example is downtown Montreal. It is closed on Sundays, period. They do not even have little shops that open in downtown Montreal. I know; I lived there for eight years when I was going to school. Probably one of the biggest tourist centres in all of Canada, the old city in Quebec City, does not even have any retail. They have a few little tourist shops here and there, but you do not have a big mall like here. And even those little tourist shops tend to all be closed down on a Sunday when you go up for Carnaval or in the middle of the summertime. And you know what? The Americans love it: "Wow, isn't this nice and European? Isn't this quaint? Nobody speaks our language." You want to encourage tourism in Ontario? Maybe we should all start speaking French.

Mr Poirier: Can I get five minutes on that?

M. Mongeon: Certainement, Monsieur Poirier, aucun problème.

The Chair: Mr Kormos, one brief comment or question?

Mr Kormos: I am going to be brief as usual. You mentioned Montreal, but in Montreal you can buy wine at the dépanneur. You talk about this phenomenon that has happened in the recent past and that is: shopping plaza as tourist attraction, department store as recreational activity. It is a strange thing that is happening and you have experienced it here in Hamilton. Tourism ranks with mom, the Disney characters and apple pie as something that has acquired a sacrosanct quality. If it looks for the briefest of times that somehow you do not quite agree with the tourist proponents, why, you are not just godless, but you have political beliefs that are alien to North America.

What is happening? Where is this coming from? Who has been developing tourism? Do we really need more $4.50-an-hour jobs? Nobody has ever supported a family on the wages they have earned in the bulk -- not all of it; I am being very careful -- of the tourist area. Who has ever supported their family on the wages they earn there? Where does this stuff come from?

Mr Mongeon: Just to talk about that $4.50 an hour, one of the most difficult things I had to do last week was that somebody -- he is a male, he is married, his wife works and he has some kids -- had to come to me for a loan because what I am paying him is not enough to buy furniture for the kids, and he asked me for an employee advance. It troubles me that is what he gets paid, but I take some solace in the fact that he would do the same job anywhere else in the city and get the same wage.

As to the encouragement of tourism, one of the biggest problems is that municipal economic development departments love tourism. To be terribly blunt about it, one of the reasons they like it is that they get to take trips to all sorts of neat places. Sorry, but when I look at a list of the travels of our local visitors and convention bureau, I see Tokyo; I see Munich; I see London, England; I see Paris, France.

"Wow, I would like to go to those places too. How do I get there?" "Well, you get a job with the visitors and convention bureau." I said, "But wait a minute, where is your call list for Syracuse, New York; Rochester, New York; Cleveland, Ohio; Detroit, Michigan, because those are the addresses on my registration cards at the hotel? That is where my business is coming from." "Oh, well, we send one of the junior staff members down to make those calls."

Like hell we do. I send my top sales people down into those communities, because that is where our tourism business, if any, is. Actually, it tends to be more corporate travellers, but the thing is that tourism is a great catch-all. "Oh, wow, if we had a tourist industry here in our little banana republic," and when you look at the history of the Caribbean and of developing nations, they all get caught up in this tourism nonsense. You know, "Wow, let's build a casino." Another issue that you are going to have to deal with sometime in the next five years is legalized casinos.

Mr Kormos: The hell they will.

Mr Mongeon: I am sorry, but it is coming. It will have to come, and you are going to be told that it is an incentive to economic growth and all this sort of thing.

Let's take a look at the development of tourist facilities in Niagara. We have been pouring in money like crazy to develop hotels. The federal government has been making these great tax breaks. What is happening to Niagara Falls? You have about every second hotel downtown and every hotel out on Lundy's Lane all for sale. You look in the Globe and Mail; every morning there is another one that is up for sale.

Up in Ottawa the Roxborough is up for sale. In Toronto you had the Skyline Triumph just close down; closed. There is not enough business for all these hotels. Touch wood, here in Hamilton we are not doing too badly for hotel rooms. I mean, this year to date, none of the major hotels has been running much above 50% occupancy. What would a company be like that did not use half of its physical plant? That is what is happening here in Ontario.

Why does it happen? I do not know. It may be as facetious a comment as, you know, tourism is great and it is a sexy thing to get into and you get to travel to different places and that sort of thing. But when you get right down to it, if there is not some major attraction to attract those tourists, if you do not have a totally different ambience, you really cannot create something out of nothing. Trust me, shopping on Sundays ain't going to create it for you if Monday through Saturday is not doing it for you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Mongeon, very stimulating and certainly at this point in the afternoon --

Mr Mongeon: Yes, 4:30.

Mr Mills: -- it brought us back to life.

Mrs Cunningham: Speak for yourself, Mr Mills.

Mr Poirier: Your mother would be proud of you.

1650

ST CATHARINES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

The Chair: We now have a presentation from the St Catharines Chamber of Commerce, Ceri Hugill and Noel Buckley.

Mr Hugill: Thank you very much. Mr Chairman and ladies and gentlemen, my name is Ceri Hugill. I am the first vice-president of the chamber of commerce in St Catharines. We very much appreciate the opportunity of appearing before this committee and addressing a few remarks to you today. Noel Buckley, beside me, is our general manager and he may be able to assist with some of the questions later, depending on how lacking in information and detail you may find my answers.

The material that we have provided to your committee consists of an earlier submission, a letter of today's date which refers to that, and our most recent comments which you have not had before today.

I should start off, perhaps, by giving a little background into our city, for those of you who may not be familiar --

The Chair: If I could just interrupt for a moment, that material is with the clerk. It has not been photocopied, but it will be available for our committee tomorrow. Please go ahead.

Mr Hugill: St Catharines is a city of some 125,000. It is on the south shore of Lake Ontario. It is not 40 miles distant from this place. It is a city that has large industry, lesser-sized industries, manufacturing, professional, retail, commercial and industrial services.

Our chamber of commerce consists of approximately 720 businesses, large and small, representing all sectors of the areas of commerce I have mentioned. The one thing you should note, and you may have heard this from other chambers, is that not unlike other chambers, we do not have all of the retail, commercial and industrial trade as members.

Membership in our association is voluntary. It does require a fee and we think those most aggressive and dynamic members of our business community are those who will seek to join our chamber. Participation in our effort and in our work is key, and we want those people who are committed.

We do not, in fact, represent all of the many industries and commercial enterprises in our city. There are probably a few thousand and we are only 720 in number by members. Now some of those members include General Motors, so when you lump that in as one member that is a fairly large constituent. But of course we also have the corner grocer and other similar enterprises which number one or two employees.

Our professional staff is essentially devoted to administering and operating our chamber for the benefit of its members. It does not serve the community as a whole, except collaterally as its interests for its members may spin off and have some good effect.

So our initial position, which was filed in an earlier presentation to the committee, adopted the position that we felt it unnecessary and inappropriate for a chamber of commerce to be delegated some power, some authority, some administrative effort or involvement in dealing with the ramifications of the legislation of the bill, namely, that we would have to pass judgement, review an application, decide whether or not a given enterprise open or close on a Sunday or at any other material time.

We are not set up to do that. We would feel very compromised by that, because we do not speak for everybody in the community. We do not represent everybody in the community and, effectively, our administrative resources would not be suitable for that. That is our initial position that we have presented to your committee.

As far as our chamber policy is concerned on the issue of Sunday shopping, this has been a thorny issue, as you might expect, from Niagara, where cross-border shopping is a major issue at the moment. Our policy has been vetted several times over the past three or four years and it has been difficult to arrive at a policy, but we did recently do so.

It is our policy, and you will see this in the material when you do happen to get it, that we advocate the freedom of choice as dictated by the marketplace, so that each business will respond to consumer demands and its own particular business needs or objectives. It is not unlike what many of us stand for in the chamber of commerce, free enterprise and the right of the business individual to carry on his or her enterprise as he or she thinks fits. We think that is how Sunday shopping should essentially be decided.

That would by implication suggest to you that you have to have legislation that will permit free enterprise to do that. Free enterprise is not necessarily going to have that choice if you limit it or qualify it by a tourist or commercial or heritage building or such other criteria you might adopt, because some enterprise outside that jurisdiction or which does not meet those criteria may be the perfect Sunday shopping spot but by virtue of geographical position is not going to make it. Yet somebody else within the geographical area will not want to open, and that is not going to solve the problem or serve the people who are there for the purpose. So, again, we come back to free marketplace and let everyone decide as they will.

The more recent thoughts of our chamber of commerce have to do with the draft regulations of the bill itself which specifically provide certain criteria, and if I may take a few moments I will just comment on some of the high points that appear in the material we have filed with you today.

We have reiterated our position as a chamber of commerce that you have already noted. We have looked at the legislation to consider whether at the discretion of a council, an exemption may or may not be granted even if criteria are met. The question is, should not the applicant have some assurance that if the criteria are met, whatever they may be within the legislation, he has a right to the exemption? Should it not then be beyond the discretion of the council to determine the issue? If the criteria are met, is not that enough? Is not that all there should be? If you then interpose the council's jurisdiction or decision-making authority, it may abuse, if you will, the objective of the legislation. I say "abuse" with respect, but there may be certain cases where council would turn down an application that otherwise satisfied the criteria.

What is the remedy for that? Are you going to have court actions proliferating because somebody wants a mandamus or some court order that permission be granted because council had an applicant before it that seemingly met all the criteria? I mean, what is really the objective here? Whose interests are we trying to serve? Is it the tourist? Is it the shopper? Is it the retailer? Is it whatever? But if you interpose that decision-making capacity on council over and above your own criteria, then there is another element, there is another instance where abuse may arise.

With respect to subsection 1(2) of the regulations, we feel with respect that the wording is rather vague. We also wonder who determines the applicability of the wording. How does one define or what are the boundaries of definition to each criterion that is set forth in that section? For instance, I think it is not unknown that some communities have heritage associations that proclaim historical buildings and heritage buildings and so on, but some places do not. Yet those places that do not have such a committee or designating authority have historical buildings or natural attractions. But who decides whether these criteria are in fact satisfied? We find that rather vague and unsatisfactory.

We have probably a lot of places in St Catharines that would be "historical" or "natural" to some people's definitions, but would not quite meet the objective criteria if you looked at it appropriately.

Again, "cultural" or "ethnic": Whose definitions and whose criteria do you use on cultural or ethnic attractions? Concentration of hospitality services: How do you measure the concentration? Do you have to have a mix, or are they all motels on Lundy's Lane in Niagara Falls? Is that a sufficient concentration? Does it have to be a good mix, a good solid mix, to provide many areas of endeavour and interest for those people who visit the municipality? How does the word "predominantly" get interpreted in connection with shopping activities? "Featuring a unified concept": What is the unified concept? Is it your measure? Is it a subjective standard? Is it an objective standard? Who sets the pattern? Access, fairs and festivals -- these are all things that concern us in the wording of the legislation as not being sufficiently defined. We think they are a little vague.

1700

From the comments I overheard of the last person to address the committee, the issue of tourists came up, and of course there is a piece of wording in the legislation, phraseology, that refers to "primarily for tourists." Again, what parameters do we look to to satisfy that interpretation?

It is our concern now, having previously set forth our position about the administrative concerns with the legislation in so far as the chambers of commerce were concerned, that it is too vague and too ambiguous and too subject to abuse, and you are relying very much on the subjective interpretations of the people who would be making the decisions. Frankly, we doubt that is appropriate.

Those, in summary, are my comments with respect to the different positions of our chamber and our policy and our submission to you today. If you have any questions, obviously we will do our best to field them, including those of Mr Kormos.

Mr Daigeler: Just a quick question, and thank you for coming and taking the trip over here. I guess it is not too far, but --

Mr Hugill: It is a comfortable drive.

Mr Daigeler: Is the position you are putting forward on behalf of the chamber with regard to the general question of Sunday shopping supported by the majority of the retail members of your chamber?

Mr Hugill: I have to beg off a tad on that one. Only to this extent, I think, that there is in St Catharines a downtown business association that is essentially composed of retailers in the downtown core. A number of them are also members of the chamber, but not all of them, and not all of our members are retailers. So we have that mix, we have that blessed mix of industrialists, commercial, manufacturing, professional, retail and so on.

That has been our problem in coming to a policy, because the issue has been discussed in prior years. I was chairman of the civic affairs committee two or three years ago. The issue was canvassed then. Just eight people sitting round a table on a Tuesday morning could not come to a consensus sufficiently broad to put a recommendation to our board to adopt a policy. It is only this year that we have been able to do that.

So I cannot say that the policy we have adopted reflects the retailers in our community or even all the retailers within our own chamber of commerce. But of those who have discussed and vetted the issue, they have finally come to a decision which then came to a board of some 23 people and was approved as policy of our chamber.

So it is fair to say that the input of probably 40 or 50 members of some 720 was directly on this issue that led to the policy.

Mr Daigeler: I can certainly appreciate that it is difficult for you to give too much of a breakdown, because other chambers are in the same boat. But I am asking that question because yesterday in London a retail member of the London chamber took issue with his chamber and said, "Well, they certainly didn't ask the retailers," or at least he felt they did not ask the retailers, and he thought that if they had asked the retail members of the chamber the position of the chamber would have been different.

So I am trying to get a feel of how divided the opinion is in St Catharines among the retailers, because they would be the ones who would be most affected by this.

Mr Hugill: I agree that is true, with the exception of some of the members who provide tourist service and other things like that. I will try and help you out on that again: We did have a retail committee within our chamber of commerce. Regrettably, that fell into inactivity within the last three or four years primarily because of the impact on membership of the downtown association. That is one of the weaknesses, I guess, in having the two associations that represent different people, so we were not able necessarily to get a good cross-section of the retail community.

Mr Daigeler: If I could just break in there, what is the position of the downtown business improvement area?

Mr Hugill: I am sorry, I do not know. Noel, do you?

Mr Buckley: The downtown association, the local BIA, currently does not have a position. The feeling of the BIA right now is roughly a 50-50 split in terms of their membership on Sunday shopping. That is in the city of St Catharines.

Mr Hugill: To assist you a little further, that 50-50 split may be as much an indication of pause day concept or wishing to be retailing on Sunday as much as it is a function of the geographical location of those retailers. For instance, if you are a retailer in Port Dalhousie where there are a number of tours and visitors, especially in the summer months a very heavy concentration, you would want to be open 24 hours of the day if you could make the necessary arrangements and all regulations would permit it, but if you are in another area of the city it would not warrant your being open. So our policy reflects the varied geography, the varied economic factors that impact upon our retailers in our community, because there are certain areas of the city people would not bother to go to on a Sunday.

Mrs Cunningham: Thank you for being here today and giving us even more information to think about. I think you were at the committee last time. As a matter of fact, I think we met. Mr Buckley, is it?

Mr Buckley: Yes.

Mrs Cunningham: At that time I know we considered the thoughts --

Mr Daigeler: See what an impression you made?

Mrs Cunningham: He did make a good impression. I can remember him from two years ago. You were here for the former presentation so I am going to ask you a question about that. It was the first time I heard somebody so vocal about distinguishing between tourism attractions and tourist areas and you have just given me an example within your own community where you possibly could come up with tourist attractions as opposed to a whole tourism area.

By the way, I represent London so you can imagine my dilemma yesterday as the city council said, "We're not in favour of Sunday shopping," and then the chamber of commerce came and said -- they took your position, actually, so I am sure there will be a few discussions today back home, because one was wondering who had which mandate to say what they did.

Speaking as a member of the opposition, I cannot imagine this government, given the position it has taken of common pause day, saying, "We're going to let the marketplace take its toll," so to speak, "on stores being closed or open on Sundays." Given what we have had, they are probably going to take a very serious look at this local option, otherwise the responsibility is in the municipality. They may in fact go to where I think is their responsibility, and that is a provincial body that makes some designation. I am wondering if you could live with that, given the tourist attraction versus area in your own municipality. Would it be a compromise position for you, or do you have a compromise position?

Mr Hugill: I think we would like to respond by saying the criteria I have already commented on do not appear to be fair and equitable across the marketplace, at least as we would see it applied in our municipality.

Mrs Cunningham: I agree.

Mr Hugill: That is a real problem, so if we have to back off from the free marketplace and the supply and demand of the normal impacts that prevail as a result of that, then I think we would say, let's make it fair and equitable to all enterprises and let's be very leery of imposing any criteria that could or would be arbitrary, either in definition or in application.

1710

Mrs Cunningham: I certainly share your view on it. It is inappropriate for an non-elected body to have to pass judgement. I was shocked to see that as part of the regulations. But if they very carefully think through what they really want to exempt from Sunday closures in the area of tourism, they could come up with a very narrow definition of what tourism really means in Ontario. If that is the route they want to go I guess we will be having some more hearings somewhere.

Mr Hugill: And I may have to make another presentation?

Mrs Cunningham: Mr Buckley is certainly becoming experienced, so perhaps --

Mr Buckley: I would just stay here.

Mrs Cunningham: I think the good thing about living in Ontario right now, given our history, is that people get fed up with making presentations before committees if committees do not listen. I see a very big difference in the presentations this round as opposed to two years ago, because I think there was a very strong opinion on behalf of the public of Ontario that they supported a common pause day and that the legislation the Liberals enacted did not support that. We are hearing a different story right now; we are hearing more of a compromise position. But we are also hearing that there is not a lot of support for this legislation and there will have to be major changes. We have even heard from you today two specific changes I personally will take forward during the clause-by-clause, in the form of two amendments based on what you have said.

Mr Kormos: Let's talk about the legislation, because you did and you talked about it in the most hyperpolite, indeed kind, language lawyers are inclined to use. I get the impression that in the privacy of your office your assessment of this legislation was perhaps not only more spontaneous but maybe to the point of eliciting a scatological comment. When I read between the lines, as I am sometimes inclined to do, am I getting the feeling? Because a few other people who are lawyers have been in here and commented similarly on the legislation. We are not just talking about one or two areas or one or two clauses that warrant attention, we are talking about a bill with its regulations which, according to the people who have made representations, has some real problems inherent in it, and notwithstanding what Mrs Cunningham says about her intention to bring one or two, perhaps more; I do not want to predict what she --

Mrs Cunningham: You're right on one or two.

Mr Kormos: Is this a piece of legislation that is going to be problem city if it is not addressed and readdressed in a more overall perspective? Do you anticipate real problems here?

Mr Hugill: I certainly meant to imply that the application of the criteria as they are defined or set out in the draft regulation would be very difficult to apply. From a chamber point of view, if we had to exercise our authority, supposedly delegated through the legislation to us, it would be on a very subjective level and one would always be looking over one's shoulder at the people who might feel wronged by which decisions had been made in relation to their application. We do not feel particularly well suited to that and I am not at all satisfied that a subjective test is appropriate. So if anybody has to enforce a regulation, I am sure everybody wants it to be well defined and clearly set out and not capable of too much discretion, because to delegate the discretion is perhaps just going to lead to a complex, confused number of applications in different geographical areas of the province. Then you run into inconsistency and it just becomes unworkable. That is a real concern and I think that should be tightened up.

As far as your scatological comments, Mr Kormos, the person who reviewed the legislation preferred not to come today and he sent me.

Mr Kormos: People have spoken about the inappropriateness of an elected political body, city council -- and you know I was on city council for one three-year term -- performing this quasi-judicial or tribunal sort of function. I think it is very hard for politicians who are there to make political decisions. In the context of this legislation it seems they will have to make, I guess judges would say, findings of fact. They would have to interpret the law and then apply the law. That to me smacks of a judicial or tribunal function. How appropriate is it for elected bodies, city councils, to do this, especially when -- people have talked about the problems and principles of natural justice. Let's say one of the applicants has spoken to a city councillor about the matter, separate and apart from the presentations to council and the impact that might have. Do you see problems in that area? I am not particularly enthusiastic about the municipal option, but I am interested in what you have to say, I guess as a lawyer as much as anything else.

Mr Hugill: My view on the council situation is that, in essence, in applying the regulations to an application it would not be in much of a different position than the chamber of commerce executive or administrative group. I would think they might be a bit more sensitive to certain ramifications of their decisions because they do have to run for re-election at some subsequent point. The chamber of commerce would feel even more constrained because really we are a limited organization, a limited interest group with limited philosophies and objectives and our own criteria. We do not purport to represent the municipality as a whole, we represent those who belong. I think it would be extremely difficult for a council to do it. I do not know, Mr Kormos. My problem with dealing with the political impact of the issues you have raised is that I am not noted in my area, as you probably know, as any kind of politician, either supporting politics or political parties or being involved directly in politics. I am not the kind of person I think you should look to for a political response. I do not tune very well to that melody.

Mr Kormos: I was interested in a more lawyerly response about the capacity of municipal councils and the problems that attach to it when they are called upon to interpret and apply legislation. We can either leave it at that, or that may elicit further comment from you.

Mr Hugill: My problem with giving a legal opinion is that I have never worked in a municipal setting and I really feel at odds with that. I think the Attorney General's ministry and other sundry lawyers in government service would be far better qualified to comment. I am sorry, I do not wish to get involved in that.

Mr Kormos: Fair enough. I was not looking for a freebie.

Mr Hugill: A freebie is only worth what you pay for it anyway.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Hugill, Mr Buckley, for an excellent presentation.

Before we adjourn I would like to call upon the Vice-Chair.

Mr Morrow: Thank you, Mr Chair. I really appreciate you allowing me to do this this evening in my home town of Hamilton. I would like to take just a moment to thank Hamilton-Wentworth for having us here. It has been a mighty fine day and I am sure we have all learned a lot. Again, thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Morrow. I would also like to make a short mention of Mr Dick Van Duzer, a high school history teacher and part-time political science professor, who has sat through our hearings all day. Thank you.

We are adjourned until 9 o'clock tomorrow morning, committee room 1 in Toronto. The subcommittee will be meeting at 8:45. We are adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1720.